Quote:
Originally Posted by Coastal Elitist
You bring up a great point! It may very well be the case that that building provides a positive externality. With that in mind, the economically efficient action to take would be to tax the demolition of the building such that the developer bears the full costs of the action they're taking. It wouldn't be to make the demolition illegal altogether.
|
I do actually think you make a good point.
I and many others on this forum believe that our current piecemeal rezoning process for developments should be replaced by widespread upzoning similar to the TOD ordinance. Along the same lines, I don't think fighting each individual demolition is really a winning strategy, compared to proactively pursuing some sort of landmarking, fines or incentives to promote historic preservation.
However, it's still a shame we're losing some very nice historic buildings to a barely larger replacement. I think many people would feel different if it was 10+ stories.