Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What I don't understand is why these HDs get the support from the most unlikely sources, like trade unions who would benefit from knocking down some of these decrepit structures(like the one pictured in this thread) and building new structures. Why would treehuggers support these districts when new buildings are so much more energy efficient; and local governments that would get more tax revenue from improved properties. I guess all these lefties are hypocrites.
It is funny you bring this up. I just watched a video online it was about an hour titled "state of sustainability in metro phoenix". It was a lot of left leaning people (which BTW I usually get along with) talking about how to make phoenix better with the enviroment. But they went on a lot about preservation. But these no so bright people can not see that solar is very restrictive in HDs. Many times it can not be hidden. Energy doors and window? No way.
Living in a desert most of the people in these historic districts live with grass and tons of plants that need lots of water. It was amazing to hear these people talk. No details of course because if there were they would see they are countering each other. You have to understand. It really is not about preservation...it is about control of your property.
If you really want to go historic, tear it down and put the trees (or whatever was there before) back. Otherwise it's just about one group imposing it's will on another.
This thread shows the socialist mindset at work.
Your property can be taken over for some perceived good if a group of bureaucrats decides it so.
You are surely right and it will get worse as we see more local governments join with ICLEI and pushing what they call sustainability. Well they don't use that term any more because people don't like it so they call it some kind of growth that people will accept.
If you really want to go historic, tear it down and put the trees (or whatever was there before) back. Otherwise it's just about one group imposing it's will on another.
You are right up to a point. If we attempted to return most of Kansas to what it was, historically, we would have to tear down every building and return the whole place to the buffalo. I don't think the Indian tribes would like that though because few, if any, of them would be able to survive. Just for the fun of it let me insert that exactly what I said is what the UN and its Ageenda 21 wants to do. Ship out the people and let the animals have it back.
What I don't understand is why these HDs get the support from the most unlikely sources, like trade unions who would benefit from knocking down some of these decrepit structures(like the one pictured in this thread) and building new structures. Why would treehuggers support these districts when new buildings are so much more energy efficient; and local governments that would get more tax revenue from improved properties. I guess all these lefties are hypocrites.
Showing your ignorance again?
The "decrepit" structure is anything but.
It is a home built in the poteaux sue solle method, which is French, and very rare.
There are only a handful left, the town where the home is located, Sainte Genevieve, MO, has more of them than any other town in North America.
They are historical treasures.
What you are suggesting is just stupid, kind of akin to knocking down the White House and putting in a prefab.
One can only suppose that your knowledge of anything of historic value and architectural importance is worse than nil.
Showing your ignorance again?
The "decrepit" structure is anything but.
It is a home built in the poteaux sue solle method, which is French, and very rare.
There are only a handful left, the town where the home is located, Sainte Genevieve, MO, has more of them than any other town in North America.
They are historical treasures.
What you are suggesting is just stupid, kind of akin to knocking down the White House and putting in a prefab.
One can only suppose that your knowledge of anything of historic value and architectural importance is worse than nil.
Thankfully though we have people such as yourself who are smarter then everyone else to tell us what we can and can not do with property we bought and paid for.
Thankfully though we have people such as yourself who are smarter then everyone else to tell us what we can and can not do with property we bought and paid for.
Thankfully we have folks smarter and wiser than yourself that prevent ignorant people that know nothing of truly historic structures to keep the idiots from yanking them down and putting a parking lot on the site instead.
Thankfully we have folks smarter and wiser than yourself that prevent ignorant people that know nothing of truly historic structures to keep the idiots from yanking them down and putting a parking lot on the site instead.
Well it seems that there is going to be pushback as seen in my State where over 65% of voters voted for prop 207. I think the true "ignorant" people are the ones who try to control property that does not belong to them.
Well it seems that there is going to be pushback as seen in my State where over 65% of voters voted for prop 207. I think the true "ignorant" people are the ones who try to control property that does not belong to them.
• The SHPO notifies affected property owners and local governments and solicits public comment. If the owner (or a majority of owners for a district nomination) objects, the property cannot be listed but may be forwarded to the National Park Service for a Determination of Eligibility (DOE).
• National Register listing places no obligations on private property owners. There are no restrictions on the use, treatment, transfer, or disposition of private property.
• A property will not be listed if, for individual properties, the owner objects, or for districts, a majority of property owners object.
• The SHPO notifies affected property owners and local governments and solicits public comment. If the owner (or a majority of owners for a district nomination) objects, the property cannot be listed but may be forwarded to the National Park Service for a Determination of Eligibility (DOE).
• National Register listing places no obligations on private property owners. There are no restrictions on the use, treatment, transfer, or disposition of private property.
• A property will not be listed if, for individual properties, the owner objects, or for districts, a majority of property owners object.
The only historic designation that have teeth are the ones at the local level...I have read quite a bit about this. So before you go around calling people "ignorant" you should take a look in the mirror. I am also not saying every historic property should be torn down. You mentioned that there were a handfull of a specific type of house left in the whole country. Would I be for protection of a property that rare? Of course.
But what we are seeing are historic districts made that cover thousands of houses. It seems more and more clear that the "butterfly" example in my original post is true.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
