Posted on 01/26/2020 6:35:07 PM PST by karpov
I live in a historic neighborhood in the heart of Washington, D.C. It’s not historic in the sense that anything especially important happened here — certainly not in the modest rowhouses that make up the bulk of the neighborhood. What “historic” means, here and in cities across the country, is that this is a neighborhood where buildings are not supposed to change.
The law says window frames on Capitol Hill must be wooden, or something that looks very much like wood. If a front door has two parts and opens down the middle, it cannot be replaced by a single door that swings open from the side. If the house was built two stories tall, it must remain two stories tall — unless the addition can’t be seen from the street.
Humans don’t like change, so it’s not surprising that historic preservation laws have become quite popular. There are now more than 2,300 local historic districts across the United States, and I know many people who would like to have their own neighborhood frozen in time.
But historic preservation comes at a cost: It obstructs change for the better. And while that price is generally invisible, it is now on public display because of the city’s efforts to prevent Washington homeowners in historic neighborhoods from installing visible rooftop solar panels.
As you may have heard, Earth is getting hotter because we’re burning too much carbon, and one small way people can reduce their use of carbon is to tap the sun for electricity.
I haven’t taken a poll, but I’m prepared to wager most residents of Washington’s historic districts agree that climate change is caused by humans and that we really ought to do something about it.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I hope, probably in vain, that Mr. Appelbaum and other members of the NYT editorial board will recognize importance of property rights, respect for which would enable some homeowners to install solar panels and others to change the style of their doors.
For the tiny amount of electricity it will produce, why wreck a historical building?
As the previous poster said, it's the owner's business - if it's worth preserving, it's worth voluntarily funding an association to buy it.
Too many people want to put others' money where their own mouths are.
Plank #1 of the Communist Manifesto: Abolition of private property rights.
http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/TenPlanks.html
The idiot author managed to throw climate change (aka global warming) into the story.
If this moron believes that playing the global warming BS card is going to help enable him to get permission to mount government subsidized solar panels all over his historic neighborhood; he is probably mistaken.
Do the owners get any kind of tax break for making their home “historic?” Some places they do. There are periods throughout the year when they are expected to open their homes for tourism.
The expense of installing solar panels is not worth it.
I dispute the truth of this claim.
Left-leaning "scientists" are "correcting" the real measured temperatures to falsely claim warming. If the "corrections" are removed there is no warming.
Are they free to turn down the historic designation and the tax break? If not, it's still socialism.
"All over"? Where is the evidence he wants to put solar panels on any property other than his?
I wouldn’t install solar panels on my 25 year old house. You can spend less money replacing windows, HVAC upgrades and re- insulating. I did all of the above a couple of years ago and reduced my electric bill by about 25%.
Or, the simpleminded fascist c---s---er could mind his own business regarding preservation and what others do with their own property.
That is what architects DO.
Yah, because everyone wants to see the solar eye-sores atop EVERY building! /s
They threw that crap onto the roof of the very historic town bank so that they could add a two-car charging station on the public street.
Really did ruin the look of the old two-block long “Down Town” that dates to the mid-1800’s.
“Free” power for wealthy Tesla owners, and now tracking our yearly miles for a new tax to be enacted next session.
No.
What this story is: “Dude bought house, didn’t read restrictions on deed/neighborhood/area, can’t do renovation he wants, wants public pressure to change the rules he agreed to when he bought the property.”
You might have a point if he had purchased the property and the restriction was put in place later - but this restriction was there decades back.
Well, that one house could be the tipping point for the imminent existential threat to life on earth. /s
Seems to me you really need to study what the ramifications are, when you contemplate purchasing a ‘historic’ building.
There are all sorts of restrictions, concerning things you can and cannot do.
Writing an editorial as a pressure valve after the fact only reveals you to be a person who didn’t think the process through.
If this guy has owned the property and it changed classification, that would be a different story, something he couldn’t have 100% prevented.
I’ve talked to people who ran into problems with historic properties. It can be very frustrating.
You might have a point if decades back the owners of those properties were given a choice. I'll bet they weren't.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.