Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

dew22 t1_jbrsyvf wrote

Reply to comment by vpi6 in Developers who destroyed historic Lancashire pub ordered to rebuild it by Mighty_L_LORT

Some people care about their history and buildings associated with it. This isn’t the first time this has happened in the UK and if you allow one property owner to neglect their property into becoming a hazard, it opens the door for others. This is a problem in some areas of the US, property owners buy properties and let them rot into nothing.

23

vpi6 t1_jbrub18 wrote

“Some people”

I don’t give a flying fucking shit about preserving buildings that have outlived their usefulness. The government cared so much then they should’ve bought the building and restored it. But they didn’t because that costs too much and nobody actually cares enough to pay it. So they just imposed the will of a limited number of people on a property and never allowed the land to be used for people who are actually living there.

You should see the abuse of historical preservation lists. Half of it back door NIMBYism that is driving my rents up and pushing me out of there place I grew up. But sure “history”‘is SO much more important.

−47

dew22 t1_jbs0gdu wrote

Last I checked, some people isn’t all inclusive so I was never implying it was you.

Just because you fail to see the value in historical buildings doesn’t mean there is not value there, but ultimately that’s not what this case was about. This was about setting a precedent about building owners neglecting their buildings to get around historical designations and demoing buildings without permits and permission.

18

RainbowDissent t1_jbs7b5l wrote

Luckily our councils don't give a flying fuck about the opinion of some random yank about the preservation of our historic buildings older than your entire country ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

15

nolo_me t1_jbs65as wrote

Great. Nobody gives a flying fucking shit about your ignorant attitude to historical preservation either.

If you cared so much about living in the place you grew up in you should have paid the rent there.

> allow the land to be used for people who are actually living there

What we do over here, because we have more history than a Happy Meal, is preserve significant historic buildings so future generations get the chance to experience them. That's how we go on having more history than a Happy Meal.

13

vpi6 t1_jbsxuy1 wrote

> If you cared so much about living in the place you grew up in you should have paid the rent there.

That’s a fucked up thing to say to someone.

−3

nolo_me t1_jbsyg8j wrote

> The government cared so much then they should’ve bought the building and restored it

Just turning things you said around on you. If you don't like your own words, maybe you shouldn't have said them in the first place?

0

vpi6 t1_jbt3cfp wrote

That’s not as clever as you think it is.

In one useless building is demolished.

In the other, a person, a living human being, is forced out of his hometown.

Do you really think my statement comes anywhere close to being as offensive and callous as yours? Explain it to me slowly.

0

nolo_me t1_jbt56ja wrote

You weren't forced out. You could have just plucked money from the same magic money tree you were expecting the government to use.

Were you forced into some sort of warzone, natural disaster or humanitarian crisis, or did you just have to move to a different town?

3

TheManB1992 t1_jbt6i30 wrote

Nah, Your not getting it mate. They're saying that history matters, just not yours.

1