In my observations,in a vast majority of saving "old" buildings for posterity results in another burden for the taxpayer. If the owner of a "historic" building wants it preserved , let him pay for it !!
Holly1, Since,as you write,an owner is limited to what can be done with a structure once it is listed as a historic building,are there any advantages to being on this list? Can you get your building "unlisted"? I know very little of this issue is why I am asking. I do hate to see old buildings wit character demolished and a "McBuillding" put in it's place.Patrick T. Barnes
""The 60-day moratorium will give us time to evaluate a structure and see whether or not it should be saved," Dunnam said"
Who is the "US" in the above statment. The City? if so who or VPI Oh my God
For the second time I again ask the advocate to put the ordance online for all to see
SO ... If you tear down your own house, on your own property, What happens to you? Fine? How much? Public service? What? Jail time?
We must preserve our historic building and wannabe politico's rap sheets.
1 final thing. Once listed as a historic building an owner is very limited in how he can use his property and must follow very strict guide lines on what materials and colors can be used in any restoring work done on his building. It must conform to period and style including types of materials and construction methods. Historic buildings can not be remodeled they must be restored to keep the historic value of the building.
Here we go again the gov't telling us what we can do with our own property!!!! What gives them the right to do this??? what if I want to tear down a building that they want to save??? Will they buy it for the price that it would be worth with a new modern building on it??? IMO the gov't is violating the rights of the owner to do what he wants to do with HIS OWN PROPERTY. What will be next will they start forcing owners to RESTORE the building using methods of construction used when it was built??? (lathe and plaster, ornate woodwork, wall paper or other things) These things COST way more than modern methods. The same job remodeling a old building to meet modern codes can also be costly. Sometimes it is way cheaper to demolish a building and build a new building than it is to restore an old one.
Another thing to consider is the health risks posed by some of the materials used to build the old buildings ( lead paint, asbestos, mercury, and a host of other toxic and harmful materials that have been banned from use.) Abatement of these materials to remove the health risks is very expensive.
So I say NO to the govt having this kind of control over what a person can do with private properties. This power could be abused by petty officials with a grudge or one that believes all old buildings should be saved.
"The 60-day moratorium will give us time to evaluate a structure and see whether or not it should be saved," Dunnam said."
And if it is worthy of saving, and the owner is not able to financially invest, then what?
If the ordinance is not designed to prevent demolition, then it sounds like it is a couple of folks, or maybe just Gary Dunnam, giving an opinion.
So, I ask again, then what?
I'd like to know what the ordinance says when there is conflict between the owner and the evaluator.
And how can the second reading also serve as the third reading?