Heritage is big business in the UK, especially for fine examples of historic architectural styles. A nice day out it go off into the countryside and visit a National Trust or English Heritage property. These are large state backed organisations that preserve fine properties and run them as a visitor attractions and it accounts for a lot of internal tourism. These large organisations have the resources to care for listed buildings and make them accessible to the public. Tax changes earlier in the twentieth century made many big houses a huge burden to their aristocratic owners (they did very well in the 19th century). Rather than let them fall down and go to ruin families could bequest them in their wills to these state backed heritage organisations. Private individuals can also own listed buildings for their own enjoyment, if they have deep pockets and don’t ruin them.
I have a fine listed building near where I live. It is owned by a wealthy banker. I think it is his pride and joy. Some years it is in the Open House scheme and he lets the public in to look around for a day or two. He get a bit exasperated with English Heritage, who can be very particular about the authenticity of paint, plaster and how repairs are done. But I think he shares the intention to conserve architectural heritage. Ownership of such old houses are, I think, rather like owning a classic car. It is a passion that comes at a price.
Some listed buildings are quite remarkable and are national treasures. Preserving the fine buildings that survived wartime bombings is a shared concern. A lot of post war building was modernist grey concrete blocks that seem so ugly compared to older styles. Near where I live there is a grand Victorian house. In its garden there is a row of attractive 1930s mock tudor small family houses, then next to that a 1970s home with a peculiar angular style. None are listed. Nearby are recently built small apartment blocks that seem to be been very cheaply done. This procession of styles shows how styles have changed and not necessarily for the better. Few modern developers seem to be much concerned with aesthetics of the buildings they erect. I expect building cheap means there are fewer options. All the more reason to ensure developers don’t go around pulling down fine old buildings just to make some easy money. They don’t get much sympathy and the local conservation societies keep a close eye on planning notices and voice objections from time to time. Nothing exercises property owners more than what some developer is up to in the neighbourhood.
Many HOA rules are not so clearly spelled out; they are couched in terms such as “tasteful.” What one HOA board member thinks is tasteful isn’t necessarily what the rest of that same board views with approval, much less a different board in a different year.
Also, HOA rules are subject to change: the charter document spells out the terms under which the rules can be changed, but often enough a relatively small number of active members can vote in new rules that affect established homeowners. “Yes, you’ve been able to put up red and green lights for years and years, but we have a new rule and we don’t allow that anymore” isn’t impossible, or even necessarily rare.
But that’s the thing - if you buy a listed building, you know you’re buying a building that will be subject to planning restrictions for changes. Unlike a HOA, it’s not possible to know every single one of those rules in advance because each listed building is different, but you know there are going to be restrictions, and you have a general idea of what those might be. Most listed buildings, except grade 1, are in areas where the are other similar buildings, so you could speak to your future neighbours about what changes they were allowed or not allowed.
Most people don’t encounter major problems - you’ll only remember the ones that do.
Like I said, I live in a house that’s in a conservation area. There are a number of things that can’t be done to my house, but that also means they can’t be done to my neighbours’ houses. I love it. It means living with fewer building works, without my access to daylight being damaged, without the already high population density being increased beyond what health services and transport can cope with, and living on a street that mostly looks the same, externally, as it did in the 1830s - even the streetlights. Other streets very nearby look different, with buildings from all periods, so you can walk around and see history with every step.
Before I’ve bought places I’ve lived, I’ve commissioned termite inspections, building reports and audits of strata body corporate [the Australian version of multi-owner apartment committees] records, among other things. It’s normal due diligence for the biggest investment most of us make in our lives. Professionally I’ve been asked lots of times to provide advice to would-be purchasers of heritage properties as to what the implications of purchasing a historic property, how it will allow or constrain their future plans, and what restrictions or obligations they might have.
I can have lots of sympathy for someone who inherits such a property, but a normal buyer is looking at sinking in about AU$500,000 as the base price and often lots more. They have no right to whinge about constraints if they do not do their due diligence to identify all the risks before they spend their money.
The joke about faculty politics also applies to HOA’s - the politics are so vicious because the stakes are so small. most complaints I’ve read about HOA’s seem to revolve around a small group of petty individuals who get themselves elected due to general apathy of the overall majority and then proceed to make life difficult for those they don’t like.
The other difficulty with HOA’s from what I’ve read is that unlike municipal councils they are not restrained by constitutional limits on what a government can do, since technically they are “associations” of homeowners, not governments - even though they have the force of law effectively in most configurations.
There are many many “authentic reminders of World War II” still around in the UK. Coventry Cathedral is a 14th C Cathedral bombed by the Luftwaffe in 1940 for example.
In these small islands, it sometimes seems that you can’t put a spade into the ground without revealing some legacy of a former occupier. There are any number of fortifications dating from pre-Roman to WW2. There are Buildings, some quite ordinary, like the Wake Green Prefabs in Birmingham, and some extraordinary, like the 400,000 listed on the Historic England Website.
I agree that there are lots and they are often concrete and don’t go away without a struggle. But the point is that they are a finite resource. While stuff is ubiquitous we tend to ignore it and not stop it being developed away and the population diminished, so there is a period during which it gets rarer and rarer, then usually we only realise it is at risk at the point where any decisions made to preserve it sensibly, ie choosing the best example, or the one which has the best conservation capacity, are no longer available. Like the Luftwaffe bombing cathedrals, we should take the opportunity for good strategic targeting while we have the chance, not try to make tactical action work for us later when all is lost [still working on that analogy but I’m sure it will be gold].
Sovereign immunity is the concept that the state, as the provider of the laws, can’t be sued without its own consent. So unless they agree to be sued, you’re SOL. It derives from English common law, so I’d guess that Canada has the concept as well.
I’m just saying that in a lot of cases, most US cities and states would just not agree to be sued, and tell you to go pound sand in a situation like this. But yeah, in pretty much every case the permitting is more “shall-issue” than “may-issue”, in that they are supposed to issue the permit if you meet the criteria, without any judgment component.
This Sovereign Immunity thing sounds a little like the ‘Crown immunity’ that was used in the UK.
In practice however it does not operate like this, Crown premises and officers of the crown such as those having responsibility for safety of a site can be pursued through the courts - I have seen Prison Governors held accountable for failings in dealing with deaths in custody in Coronors hearings which have gone on to successful Civil claims by the bereaved.
There are areas where further reform is needed but things such as enforcement agencies like the police can and are regularly sued - suing customs and excise is possible but its a lot more difficult in practice.
The agencies of the crown can all be sued, and with the advent of corporate manslaughter in the UK those at the very top of public agencies can also face criminal proceedings - but I am not aware of such a case.
While you’re likely correct on sovereign immunity from being sued for damages, most states have an administrative review law that allows appeals to the courts from government decisions, including local government decisions on zoning, building, and land use.
Sure, but **GMANCANADA **was talking about suing for damages and expenses incurred because the local government didn’t make a decision that the homeowner considered timely and damage happened to the building as a result.
In that case, I’m pretty sure the city/state/county would just tell them to go pound sand, unless there had been some kind of irregularity or anomalous procedure- say… the average permit takes 2 weeks and this one took 2 months or something. But if the procedure is that it generally takes 2 months, and two weeks in, it rains and the building gets damaged, the government is going to tell you to piss off if you come trying to sue for damages.
A weirdly convergent instance in Australia - the Corkman Pub, which used to be known as the Carlton Inn [!!! - spooky] - was illegally demolished. In this case the scumbag developers were sentenced to jail, but an earlier suggestion to re-erect it in its earlier form was rejected as being effectively unenforcable.
Here is a situation where a noted historic building was at the centre of developer greed.
Victoria Tower - near to Huddersfield - sits on top of a goodly hill and a landmark for miles and miles around. Originally there was a Victorian hotel/inn nearby which had catered for tourists but it fell into disrepair - it was bought up by two chancers claiming to restore the old hotel, but they completely demolished it instead - with the intention of erecting another structure, they were quickly stopped due to unauthorised changes to planning permission and the adverse effect of the illegally proposed new plans on the Victoria Tower environment.
In other words a protected status does not just apply to the building itself, but also the impact upon the area - imagine a medieval street with a modern monstrosity in the middle.
The row still rumbles on, nobody is happy but some agencies would prefer the demolished structure not to be rebuilt or any form of replacement - its not easy to know who is winning.