I fully support landmarking buildings -- it's in the public interest, for future generations, and I still lament the loss of the old Penn Station.
And many times (usually?) it's uncontested -- current owners find value in its historical authenticity, and any future buyer is well aware they can't change it.
BUT -- in the case of a functioning business that has no need for the status and finds it harmful for business reasons, it does seem unfair and unconstitutional.
The remedy seems clear: if the city wants to preserve it for future generations (good), then the city should pay the Strand for whatever additional expenses or lost revenue a neutral arbiter judges is fair. It won't be perfect, but it would be due process to make it constitutional.
Like you I support landmarking buildings but after reading about the "Doc Webb House" in this week's WSJ[1] I absolutely agree with you that the current process lacks any sort of balance between the owners' interests and the public's interest. Even worse, it seems some people are starting to use the landmark designation as a way to manipulate the value of property they want to buy. And, much like the building occupied by the Strand, I don't really see the architectural significance[2] and I'm not sure I would consider a building historic simply because it had a notable occupant at some point.
Using your proposal basis, it also sets up a big loophole for businesses to strong arm the government and taxpayers using historical preservation to pad their business.
For example, if I were the Strand owner and I thought of building a 100 story condo complex on top of the existing Strand bookstore, then I tell NYC, “Either you need to pay me a few hundred million or I will build this complex on the landmark.”
Wouldn’t that just incentivize wealthy owners to buy up landmarks to hold them for ransom against the city, which seems contrary to the function of landmarks?
That people bring out building more housing in NYC as their goto example of something awful that must not be allowed to happen is the most depressing thing I saw today.
The point of the grandparent poster is that turning down plans is a taking which could be remedied by compensation, the point of the parent poster was that this fix creates an extortion vector.
I don’t get it. The owner tries to do something non-historic, the city/historical society tells them to pound sand. There is no extortion because the property owner has no leverage.
That is fine, as long as the city compensates them at an agreed-upon price for the lost future utility at the time that the historic designation is applied.
Conservation easements work this way, and both preservationists and land owners reach amicable agreements.
It isn't hard to argue that this is a taking in the 5th amendment sense. Similar arguments have been made (and sometimes won) about ecological designations - a taking doesn't need to deprive you of _all_ use of property to be a taking.
The equal protections clause of 14th amendment prohibits unequal application of the law. The business next door can do anything they please with their building lawfully, but the protected landmark building is prohibited by law from doing the same things. There's literally a set of separate set of much more restrictive laws the owner of a protected landmark has to follow that a business not similarly affected does not.
Obviously much less is at stake here than having a separate set of laws for whites vs blacks, but it's the same principal.
The Fifth Amendment prohibits taking property for government use without just compensation. Property is a bundle of rights—taking away rights from the bundle (like building a high rise) should result in compensation. Landmark designations, however, don’t typically compensate property owners for the lost value of their property.
And many times (usually?) it's uncontested -- current owners find value in its historical authenticity, and any future buyer is well aware they can't change it.
BUT -- in the case of a functioning business that has no need for the status and finds it harmful for business reasons, it does seem unfair and unconstitutional.
The remedy seems clear: if the city wants to preserve it for future generations (good), then the city should pay the Strand for whatever additional expenses or lost revenue a neutral arbiter judges is fair. It won't be perfect, but it would be due process to make it constitutional.