Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

vpi6 t1_jbupoyv wrote

Reply to comment by dew22 in Developers who destroyed historic Lancashire pub ordered to rebuild it by Mighty_L_LORT

Don’t be absurd. That building is completely worthless as an historical place. My county’s own planning board denied the application. Had it gone through, it would have imposed significant and costly restrictions on the unwilling owners and been a net negative for the surrounding community. Turns out preserving debatably pretty looking building don’t help people.

It’s absolutely sickening people valued that building over housing people of my generation. I do not trust the values or basic morals of anyone who thinks that.

2

dew22 t1_jbuthbb wrote

This isn’t even a debate about the plot being used for housing, it’s about the hideous paint job the new tenants put on the building. Just because the planning board denies it being put on a registry doesn’t mean it’s not worth saving.

1

vpi6 t1_jbuw5qr wrote

100% wrong. The vote last month was about whether to add the dry cleaner building to the historic register - a process that was already in the works when the new tenants did the paint job. The county took no action about the paint job because it legally could do nothing about it. The family that owned the site and a restaurant next door were hoping to develop the site into something that very likely would have been housing. Something that would have been impossible with the completely unwarranted historical designation forced onto them by stupid people who think it’s their inalienable right to look at old buildings no matter the cost.

If you’re in love with the dry cleaner so much then BUY IT. Don’t use the to coercive powers of the government to maintain it at someone else’s expense. That’s morally reprehensible.

2