Milwaukee amtrak station is hideous!

[Ken Rose]

Well, it does impose a burden that may be unfair, but it's not ex
post facto if it only regulates what you do after the law is passed.
Fighting it as a taking of private property for public use may be
more productive.

Using that argument, someone could make the same claim that building
an airport or a freeway nearby is an illegal taking of private
property by lowering your property value.

Yeah, they probably will. And probably have. I have less trouble with
that than with people who buy a house off the end of a runway, and then
want something done about all the airplanes flying over. Or to put it
back in a railroad context, buy a house next to the tracks, and then
complain about the horns.

[LHW]

I don't think we need the NRA for that. I had bare arms just today. It's hot
down here in the south, and I wore short sleeves.

Lew

I always thought the right to bare arms guys in the NRA would be getting
their guns and defending the rights of US citzens by now but I guess that
was just their bullcrap too

[John Obert]

I was at the Cubs game today and saw a lot of bareing too.and it was very
very nice .

Post by LHW
I don't think we need the NRA for that. I had bare arms just today. It's hot
down here in the south, and I wore short sleeves.
Lew

I always thought the right to bare arms guys in the NRA would be getting
their guns and defending the rights of US citzens by now but I guess that
was just their bullcrap too

[david parsons]

I still am waiting for a preservationist to explain why
historic districts insist on keeping original wood siding
(which is expensive to maintain) and not allow replacement
identical appearing vinyl siding.

You mean aside from (a) it's not expensive to maintain and (b) there
is no such thing as identical appearing vinyl siding (unless you're
comparing against expensive looks-like-vinyl wood siding.)

____
david parsons \bi/ I suppose there's some appeal in the instant-ruin
\/ look of some of the cheaper new construction out
there.

[PF]

A problem with historic district and designations is that they
are imposed on a property owner _after_ the fact. They are
also imposed selectively and unfairly.

I don't know about what they do where YOU live, but that method is NOT a
good law! In NYC, they hava a PROCEDURE for landmarking a building.... File
notice, hear objections, allow appeals & exceptions, offer incentives...
finalize & approve.
CASE in point, the 800 (+/-) ft Woolworth Building.. was landmarked in the
'70's, after the Woolworth Co. said they needed to "improve" it... so the
City laid back while the "Restoration" was done with certain limits imposed
(actually, renovation). The result... the Gargoyles that were Famous
features were removed and "replaced" with cantilevered subsstitutes...
butfor good reason. They were becoming unsound features attached to the
facade at 500+ ft above the street. After the terracotta was cleaned and
patched, the landmark went through... with LESS maintenance required for
future owners.

Historic preservation, esp after the fact, imposes an unfair
economic burden on the property owner.

Also NOT SO! The Federal landmark law offers tax reduction or exemption for
landmarks on it's books. Also, see above.

I still am waiting for a preservationist to explain why
historic districts insist on keeping original wood siding
(which is expensive to maintain) and not allow replacement
identical appearing vinyl siding.

Can you find "Identical" vinyl siding for antique clapboard? the dimensions
(width) are different and that has a GREAT visual difference. Also, they
all have dull colors... find me an Iron-oxide red in vinyl... NOT AVAILABLE!
Other than that... most communuities with SUCCESSFUL landmark laws allow for
materials substitutions.

As for MY town... hte Bozo's learned a bit, too! Seems they had a "plan"
for uniform appearance in the "downtown" area... and then tried to impose
that spec on a property just 40 feet away, across one street, on the
adjacent corner. They backed down after 5 months... and I was about to write
the new owner to challenge the "specs" as unenforceable, since so many
people openly ignore the codes that apply to them (outside that district)
without consequence.

[Philip Nasadowski]

In article

Post by PF
I don't know about what they do where YOU live, but that method is NOT a
good law! In NYC, they hava a PROCEDURE for landmarking a building.... File
notice, hear objections, allow appeals & exceptions, offer incentives...
finalize & approve.

In NYC, a high profile address getting landmark status can be a big
plus. People are weird about stuff like that - some NYC firms wish to
keep their 212 area code because of what it means to people, and the new
area code doesn't have that prestige factor. Saying you have a
headquaters in Manhattan tends to give a firm 'weight' in people's
minds. Add that it's a landmark building....

Not to mention a lot of landmarks are utterly beautiful. The 3 second
clip of Rockafeller Center you see on the NBC Nightly News intro doesn't
even begin to show the beauty of that area...