Hypatia wrote: My goal is to write about legal topics that would interest the public at large, and also be of interest to attorneys who specialize in other fields. If I don’t hear from you, I’ll assume neither of the above does.
I am wondering how we balance the rights of developers with the rights of community in preserving heritage? I am not sure if that could be shoehorned into zoning but if so that topic is now on my radar.
See ya’ll on the other side na
ST UnWoked & UnVaxxed! 
Godspeed, we are all praying for you
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I am wondering how we balance the rights of developers with the rights of community in preserving heritage?”
Is it really possible to do this? I only know about this topic in the most general sense, but in New England, where history and heritage is a real thing and a source of income, it’s an issue. On one hand, I am inclined to be against too much zoning: zoning has made affordable housing almost non existent in California, and it isn’t just a problem in California: everywhere, it’s a way for limousine liberals to live in their beautiful world and never have to deal with the consequences of their policies.
On the other hand, I grew up in a single family house on a street where all the houses were single family except for one two family.: the two family was owned by one of our neighbors, and it was rented almost exclusively to his family members for decades. No problem. Then he sold it, and the guy who bought it is a slumlord. Ever since he took over that property, it’s been a revolving door of riff raff. lol 🙂 He doesn’t keep the place up, and it drags down the property values of every other home on the street. I am torn on this issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Check your local ZO: could this guy be said to be operating a business (transient rental) in a residential,district?
Before this virus, single family zoning was on its way to being eliminated in our country. Oregon had already banned it statewide. They didn’t mandate tearing down single family detached dwellings, but they made it illegal for municipalities to have districts set up,exclusively for that use , so, as those houses aged they will be demolished and apartments and multi-family dwellings , more profitable, constructed.
But hey! “Density” in residential arrangements isn’t lookin’ so good NOW, is it? I hope maybe sump’n good : the reversal of this trend—may issue from this plague!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Balancing rights of developers—and owners-with rights of the community to preserve heritage is not a new or radical idea. Municipalities in my state have long done it by enacting “Historical District Overlays”. If you are a building owner, heaven preserve you from such a fate: it means that in addition to compliance with all other zoning, building and environmental restrictions, you will have to satisfy a body called Historical Preservation Board or sump’n, before you can like, put on a new roof, add an addition.
I get it, but—as a landowner, I’m not a fan. Shit, a person’s home or business locale is not a museum (as the Pres of France said about Paris when they put that big honkin’ crystal pyramid in the courtyard of the Louvre..)
Anyway: I am working on my next article: neither of the above—it’ll be about Pa’s statute criminalizing fortune telling, and other magickal practices, if performed “for lucre”..
(this is one of the shy word “lucre”s rare public appearances without its constant companion, “filthy”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have a lawyer friend who specializes in this area. I get that it is not new but it seems to be out of balance in favor of ‘community’ and not the owner.
What about preserving antiquities such as city walls that are crumbling and must be maintained at significant public expense? Why should the 99.999% of the taxpayers pay to maintain something they will never see and couldn’t care less about?
In Germany, if you own an old half timber type of home you are practically forced by the state to maintain it forever, come what may.
LikeLike
On Nantucket, they call it the Hysterical Commition 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people