Is it wrong for great art works to be hoarded by the rich?

[Hermit]

One man's history is another man's eyesore, and the attitude that something privately owned is a "cultural historical artifact" that the government ought to protect is the same attitude that leads governments to infringe on private property rights when it comes to "historic preservation" ordinances in re structures.

Both are heinous examples of government and public arrogance and disdain for private property and the right of the individual to do what he or she wants with his or her property, including destroying it.

The Queen Victoria Building takes up an entire block right in the middle of Sydney's central business district. Today, it is surrounded by glass and steel high-rise offices. Completed in 1898, it had fallen into a state of dilapidation to the extent that its owners proposed to knock it down and turn it into a carpark in the 1950s. The government refused the development application. After several changes of ownership, a Malaysian firm, Ipoh Garden Berhard finished up with the lot and restored it. Instead of a carpark, we finished up with this, and Ipoh Gardens makes more profit per square metre out of this property than any other it owns in Australia. All I can say, is: Thank fuck for heinous government and public arrogance and disdain for private property and the right of the individual to do what he or she wants with his or her property, including destroying it.

[Seth]

One man's history is another man's eyesore, and the attitude that something privately owned is a "cultural historical artifact" that the government ought to protect is the same attitude that leads governments to infringe on private property rights when it comes to "historic preservation" ordinances in re structures.

Both are heinous examples of government and public arrogance and disdain for private property and the right of the individual to do what he or she wants with his or her property, including destroying it.

The Queen Victoria Building takes up an entire block right in the middle of Sydney's central business district. Today, it is surrounded by glass and steel high-rise offices. Completed in 1898, it had fallen into a state of dilapidation to the extent that its owners proposed to knock it down and turn it into a carpark in the 1950s. The government refused the development application. After several changes of ownership, a Malaysian firm, Ipoh Garden Berhard finished up with the lot and restored it. Instead of a carpark, we finished up with this, and Ipoh Gardens makes more profit per square metre out of this property than any other it owns in Australia. All I can say, is: Thank fuck for heinous government and public arrogance and disdain for private property and the right of the individual to do what he or she wants with his or her property, including destroying it.

So, in other words, the building falls into disrepair over a century and rather than buy it, the government rejects the owner's application to demolish the dilapidated building that the government (the public) didn't bother to invest a dime in for more than 100 years because now all of a sudden the government (the public) think it's worthy of preservation but they are still too fucking cheap and parsimonious to dip into THEIR OWN pockets by way of tax money to buy the building and make it public property, burdening the current owners with the cost of owning a structure that was, as I would guess, unsafe and uninhabitable, and denying them the right to use the underlying land to generate a profit providing parking for the selfish pricks in Sydney to use. I'm betting that the owner who applied for the demolition permit lost his ass on the property and had to unload it on the cheap because rather than participating in the restoration, the nosy, cheap fuckers of Sidney just regulated away his rights rather than respecting them and offering to buy the property.

That's EXACTLY the sort of arrogant, fucked-up, selfish, cheap-assed regulatory abuse that I'm talking about. That is absolutely what would be classified as a "regulatory taking" here because the denial of the redevelopment permit rendered the property worthless to its owner.

If you liked it so fucking much, WHY DIDN'T YOU BUY IT WHEN YOU HAD THE CHANCE?

Cheap bastards.

[JimC]

One man's history is another man's eyesore, and the attitude that something privately owned is a "cultural historical artifact" that the government ought to protect is the same attitude that leads governments to infringe on private property rights when it comes to "historic preservation" ordinances in re structures.

Both are heinous examples of government and public arrogance and disdain for private property and the right of the individual to do what he or she wants with his or her property, including destroying it.

The Queen Victoria Building takes up an entire block right in the middle of Sydney's central business district. Today, it is surrounded by glass and steel high-rise offices. Completed in 1898, it had fallen into a state of dilapidation to the extent that its owners proposed to knock it down and turn it into a carpark in the 1950s. The government refused the development application. After several changes of ownership, a Malaysian firm, Ipoh Garden Berhard finished up with the lot and restored it. Instead of a carpark, we finished up with this, and Ipoh Gardens makes more profit per square metre out of this property than any other it owns in Australia. All I can say, is: Thank fuck for heinous government and public arrogance and disdain for private property and the right of the individual to do what he or she wants with his or her property, including destroying it.

So, in other words, the building falls into disrepair over a century and rather than buy it, the government rejects the owner's application to demolish the dilapidated building that the government (the public) didn't bother to invest a dime in for more than 100 years because now all of a sudden the government (the public) think it's worthy of preservation but they are still too fucking cheap and parsimonious to dip into THEIR OWN pockets by way of tax money to buy the building and make it public property, burdening the current owners with the cost of owning a structure that was, as I would guess, unsafe and uninhabitable, and denying them the right to use the underlying land to generate a profit providing parking for the selfish pricks in Sydney to use. I'm betting that the owner who applied for the demolition permit lost his ass on the property and had to unload it on the cheap because rather than participating in the restoration, the nosy, cheap fuckers of Sidney just regulated away his rights rather than respecting them and offering to buy the property.

That's EXACTLY the sort of arrogant, fucked-up, selfish, cheap-assed regulatory abuse that I'm talking about. That is absolutely what would be classified as a "regulatory taking" here because the denial of the redevelopment permit rendered the property worthless to its owner.

If you liked it so fucking much, WHY DIDN'T YOU BUY IT WHEN YOU HAD THE CHANCE?

Cheap bastards.

Classical Sethian hyperbole!

But I think you have missed Seraph's main point...

Private enterprise came to the rescue in the end, and made some good money out of (which is fair enough) and preserved something for future generations of Sydneysiders to enjoy...

All down to a far-sighted planning decision by a state government, who steered the result to a win-win situation, without committing the heinous crime of a government buying something, and fumbling around trying to make it work, but in the end wasting tax payer's money...

[Hermit]

So, in other words, the building falls into disrepair over a century and rather than buy it, the government rejects the owner's application to demolish the dilapidated building that the government (the public) didn't bother to invest a dime in for more than 100 years because now all of a sudden the government (the public) think it's worthy of preservation but they are still too fucking cheap and parsimonious to dip into THEIR OWN pockets by way of tax money to buy the building and make it public property, burdening the current owners with the cost of owning a structure that was, as I would guess, unsafe and uninhabitable, and denying them the right to use the underlying land to generate a profit providing parking for the selfish pricks in Sydney to use. I'm betting that the owner who applied for the demolition permit lost his ass on the property and had to unload it on the cheap because rather than participating in the restoration, the nosy, cheap fuckers of Sidney just regulated away his rights rather than respecting them and offering to buy the property.

Yes. Exactly. And, as JimC pointed out, the developer, the public and the government came out ahead in the saga. The previous owners were just too stupid to see the golden opportunity they had. Also, it's not as though the government added the building to the ones that are subject to the Heritage Protection Act after the owners who wanted to bulldoze the building bought it. They bought it, and then tried to have the QVB removed from the protected building list. Sucks to be an incompetent capitalist who can't read the lie of the land, doesn't it?

If you don't like it, you're really, really going to hate South Australia in general, and Adelaide in particular. It is absolutely chock-full of heritage protected buildings like the one pictured below, and anyone who buys one of them knows that he/she has two chances of being allowed to knock them down: Buckley's and none.

[devogue]

http://www.dictionaryofsydney.org/files ... 7e0b0772e8

That's an astonishing building - the images in the link Seraph provided are truly amazing. I'm surprised Sydney doesn't promote it more as a tourist attraction.

Ani's point about the extent of property rights is interesting.

[Callan]

http://www.dictionaryofsydney.org/files ... 7e0b0772e8

That's an astonishing building - the images in the link Seraph provided are truly amazing. I'm surprised Sydney doesn't promote it more as a tourist attraction.

The inside is a joy too!
/tourist.

[Seth]

One man's history is another man's eyesore, and the attitude that something privately owned is a "cultural historical artifact" that the government ought to protect is the same attitude that leads governments to infringe on private property rights when it comes to "historic preservation" ordinances in re structures.

Both are heinous examples of government and public arrogance and disdain for private property and the right of the individual to do what he or she wants with his or her property, including destroying it.

The Queen Victoria Building takes up an entire block right in the middle of Sydney's central business district. Today, it is surrounded by glass and steel high-rise offices. Completed in 1898, it had fallen into a state of dilapidation to the extent that its owners proposed to knock it down and turn it into a carpark in the 1950s. The government refused the development application. After several changes of ownership, a Malaysian firm, Ipoh Garden Berhard finished up with the lot and restored it. Instead of a carpark, we finished up with this, and Ipoh Gardens makes more profit per square metre out of this property than any other it owns in Australia. All I can say, is: Thank fuck for heinous government and public arrogance and disdain for private property and the right of the individual to do what he or she wants with his or her property, including destroying it.

So, in other words, the building falls into disrepair over a century and rather than buy it, the government rejects the owner's application to demolish the dilapidated building that the government (the public) didn't bother to invest a dime in for more than 100 years because now all of a sudden the government (the public) think it's worthy of preservation but they are still too fucking cheap and parsimonious to dip into THEIR OWN pockets by way of tax money to buy the building and make it public property, burdening the current owners with the cost of owning a structure that was, as I would guess, unsafe and uninhabitable, and denying them the right to use the underlying land to generate a profit providing parking for the selfish pricks in Sydney to use. I'm betting that the owner who applied for the demolition permit lost his ass on the property and had to unload it on the cheap because rather than participating in the restoration, the nosy, cheap fuckers of Sidney just regulated away his rights rather than respecting them and offering to buy the property.

That's EXACTLY the sort of arrogant, fucked-up, selfish, cheap-assed regulatory abuse that I'm talking about. That is absolutely what would be classified as a "regulatory taking" here because the denial of the redevelopment permit rendered the property worthless to its owner.

If you liked it so fucking much, WHY DIDN'T YOU BUY IT WHEN YOU HAD THE CHANCE?

Cheap bastards.

Classical Sethian hyperbole!

But I think you have missed Seraph's main point...

Private enterprise came to the rescue in the end, and made some good money out of (which is fair enough) and preserved something for future generations of Sydneysiders to enjoy...

All down to a far-sighted planning decision by a state government, who steered the result to a win-win situation, without committing the heinous crime of a government buying something, and fumbling around trying to make it work, but in the end wasting tax payer's money...

And in the process, according to Seraph, the building changed hands several times, which means that several owners were denied their private property rights (one essential component thereof is the right to make a profit) while the citizens of Sidney didn't have to pony up and pay. That's wrong. That's using private property to satisfy some need or desire on the part of the public to use and enjoy private property that was not caused by the owner of the property. It's not his doing that the public, after a hundred years of neglect and ignoring the structure, suddenly decided when it was about to be demolished that now they wanted to preserve it.

If the public wants to preserve some historic structure, then the public should be willing to pay for that privilege. Otherwise it should butt out and leave the owner to do with his property as he desires.

Coercing several rounds of private owners into spending 25 million dollars to restore the building by refusing to let them do anything else with it is just shifting the burden of preserving what the public values to the private landowner just as much as forcing him to spend 25 million to build a park for the public to use and enjoy is.

That the ultimate result is a lovely restored building is entirely beside the point. Government should not "steer" the use of private property in such a manner, it should simply purchase the property and redevelop it itself, or purchase the property at fair market value and then SELL IT to someone who is willing to restore it. What the government did is to exercise eminent domain to forbid all reasonable economic use of the property without having to provide just compensation for that intrusion on the rights of the owner.

[Hermit]

If the public wants to preserve some historic structure, then the public should be willing to pay for that privilege.

The public is paying for the privilege. Ipoh Gardens charges rent on the space it owns. The owners of the shops pass those costs on to their customers, the public. Isn't capitalism wonderful?

the building changed hands several times, which means that several owners were denied their private property rights

Actually, the owners bought the joint while fully aware of any encumbrances attached to it. In Australia you cannot knock any building down without government approval. All of the owners were aware of that fact before they decided to buy the QVB, and the ones who applied to turn the site into a car park were also aware that the property was heritage listed before they decided to buy it. They just thought they could somehow bulldoze (teehee) through the law preventing them from destroying the building. Capitalists can make serious mistakes, you know. And Ipoh Gardens demonstrated that capitalists can make some very good decisions. Good for the public and good for their own bottom line. They certainly would not have spent 38 million dollars on the recent refurbishment if they did not see a good return for themselves. So fuck the car park vandals who took a risk thinking they could somehow bypass existing law and, luckily for us, lost.

[Seth]

If the public wants to preserve some historic structure, then the public should be willing to pay for that privilege.

The public is paying for the privilege. Ipoh Gardens charges rent on the space it owns. The owners of the shops pass those costs on to their customers, the public. Isn't capitalism wonderful?

No, Ipoh Gardens CUSTOMERS are paying for the restoration, not the public. The public, through its government, interfered with the original owner's economic plans and substituted their desire for preservation for his economic rights. Nor is there any guarantee that the current owner will recoup the costs of restoration. If the public stops shopping there, he will be stuck with the 25 million dollar bill for restoration. That's a risk he took, but it's a risk that was created by the public's interference with the rights of the original owner, who felt that a car park was the best economic use of HIS property.

the building changed hands several times, which means that several owners were denied their private property rights

Actually, the owners bought the joint while fully aware of any encumbrances attached to it. In Australia you cannot knock any building down without government approval.

And therein lies the inequity of Australian law and the cupidity and selfish nosiness of the Australian people, who refuse to acknowledge the rights of property owners do use and enjoy their property without the undue interference of the government. It's one thing to require a demolition permit, which serves to ensure that the demolition will be done properly and safely and that the property will not become a public nuisance, but it's entirely another thing to be subjected to the discretionary review of the government before deciding to demolish and replace something YOU OWN with something new.

All of the owners were aware of that fact before they decided to buy the QVB, and the ones who applied to turn the site into a car park were also aware that the property was heritage listed before they decided to buy it.

So what? That's what the law says, but the law is an ass.

They just thought they could somehow bulldoze (teehee) through the law preventing them from destroying the building. Capitalists can make serious mistakes, you know. And Ipoh Gardens demonstrated that capitalists can make some very good decisions. Good for the public and good for their own bottom line. They certainly would not have spent 38 million dollars on the recent refurbishment if they did not see a good return for themselves.

Thirty eight? Sorry, I thought I saw it was 25 million. Either way it's a huge financial risk that may yet backfire, and all because a bunch of selfish, arrogant Sidneyites were too parsimonious and greedy to put their money where their mouths were. Is the government going to GUARANTEE that the owners show a profit by any chance? No? I thought not.

So fuck the car park vandals who took a risk thinking they could somehow bypass existing law and, luckily for us, lost.

They should have bulldozed the place first and asked for permission later. Or secretly poured acid on the structural elements and let it collapse of its own weight, just to make a point to the selfish preservationists.

Had I not sold my ranch, I was fully intending to bulldoze my house just prior to it turning 50 years old, specifically to prevent it from being subject to historic preservation ordinances.

That's the problem with such time-stopping laws, they don't preserve history, they cause it to be destroyed prematurely. Remember that today's modern architecture is tomorrow's historic building. When you pass laws that burden landowners with the threat of historic preservation laws, you simply ensure that no building will last long enough to reach the requisite age. They will be torn down and replaced in order to avoid being taken for public use without just compensation.

[devogue]

And therein lies the inequity of Australian law and the cupidity and selfish nosiness of the Australian people, who refuse to acknowledge the rights of property owners do use and enjoy their property without the undue interference of the government. It's one thing to require a demolition permit, which serves to ensure that the demolition will be done properly and safely and that the property will not become a public nuisance, but it's entirely another thing to be subjected to the discretionary review of the government before deciding to demolish and replace something YOU OWN with something new.

The Duke of Marlborough owns Blenheim Palace in England. It is the only privately owned World Heritage Site and one of the glories of English architectural history:



Just to clarify your position, if the Duke woke up tomorrow morning and decided that he wanted to demolish the palace and build a green and purple ice rink in its place, you would have no problem with that?

[mistermack]

I don't think Seth understands property rights as they ARE, only as he would like them to be.
Well, the world thinks differently, and they make the laws.
And rights only exist as a result of laws.
Basically, property rights are only what the democratic system has arrived at. Nothing more or less.
Buildings are treated differently to paintings, because nobody is forced to live with a painting, in the way that the public have to live with a building.
So you are free to shred your painting, but not your building.
.

[HomerJay]

Had I not sold my ranch, I was fully intending to bulldoze my house just prior to it turning 50 years old, specifically to prevent it from being subject to historic preservation ordinances.

But where will they put the 'Seth Lived here' plaque now?

[Gallstones]

Ani,
I have more for you.

Willem de Kooning


Kandinsky

[mistermack]

Had I not sold my ranch, I was fully intending to bulldoze my house just prior to it turning 50 years old, specifically to prevent it from being subject to historic preservation ordinances.

Fuckin hell, 50 years is historic?
Funny they don't attach the same importance to preserving 50 year old people.
.

[JimC]

Seth, I think you have missed 2 important points about the Sydney example.

1. The company that bought the building was fully aware of its heritage listing, which means that they would have to apply for a special permit to knock it down, a permit which was unlikely in the political climate of the day. In a different circumstance, where a developer purchased a building, intending to replace it, and a government retrospectively legislated to forbid this, I would agree that this would be unfair; in that case, there would be legal redress and compensation.

2. The laws that are the baseis for heritage listing were enacted a long time ago by a democratically elected government. Governments of various persuasions have come and gone, but the laws remain; they have strong public support. Developers need to do their homework, and only step in where it is clear they will be able to proceed. Also, there are many older buildings, third-rate examples of their architectural style, which are quite sensibly not listed, so there is still plenty of opportunity for new developments.