The Heights Historic Districts

[SilverJK]

what about scale with the non contributing structures?  If a non contributing structure wants to remodel don't they have to satisfy the HAHC as well, are they just given a free pass for being non contributing?

 

I'm sure that the Heights will be some of the first districts done. 

[briekelman]

good question - sorry, I don't know the answer! I'm also not 100% sure if they are measuring only the contributing structures or all structures...I was just guessing. Sorry, I should not post if I'm guessing. Someone could ask the Preservation Staff if they wanted to know for certain. If I hear anything more concrete, I will post.

 

 

what about scale with the non contributing structures?  If a non contributing structure wants to remodel don't they have to satisfy the HAHC as well, are they just given a free pass for being non contributing?

 

I'm sure that the Heights will be some of the first districts done. 

 

 

[s3mh]

It's time to face up to it. The problem with the ordinance is that it's forcing very ugly restorations upon the neighborhood.  The ordinance and HAHC are ruining the Heights. There are lots of larger new homes in the Heights that fit in nicely with our look and feel.  Some new homes aren't craftsman and they look good too. After all, the Heights has evolved to be diverse in many respects. I would much rather see some of these obsolete dilapidated bungalows torn down and replaced by nice new two story homes instead of having new construction being forced into ugly camelbacks.  I despise the camelback design.

 

No one is actually doing a camel back design anymore.  The camel back design can work if you do a telescoping roof line.  One in my HD is @2900 sq ft.  You cannot tell that it has a second floor from the sidewalk until you look around the side of the building.  What they are doing now is just building a second house with the original house being used as an entryway.  That allows them to just cut and paste designs out of the faux creole design book from new construction instead of actually having to design the renovation from scratch.  And the whole reason the ordinance is there is because the new construction looked terrible and was ruining the historic character of the neighborhood. 

[heights]

 And the whole reason the ordinance is there is because the new construction looked terrible and was ruining the historic character of the neighborhood. 

 

 

In your opinion.

[RedScare]

The reason for the ordinance was originally an effort to limit the increasing property values due to new construction in the neighborhood. Once that reason went over like a lead balloon, the campaign was retooled, and the reason stated was to save the old bungalows. The claim was made (but never believed) that historic districts increase property values.

 

The only thing for sure when listening to a historic district proponent explaining historic districts is that their reasons will be complete fabrications. Since the previous poster did not even live in the Heights during all of this time, you can bet that his reasons are made up.

[briekelman]

(tone clarification here: I'm not arguing) Can you send the address of the 2900 sqft house you are referencing? I would like to see it, to make sure I understand what you mean by telescoping roof lines. I think most would consider my rennovation/addition as a camel back (right?), which would not have been my first choice by any stretch of the imagination. The attached photo is my favorite house in the Heights @ 16th and Harvard. Our house could/would never have looked exactly like this, but it would have been nice to use some of the design elements from it (p.s. Creole did this remodel years ago, and it's on the National Register).  Creole was my designer, and trust me, our house WAS designed from scratch through MANY, MANY brainstorming sessions with both us and the Preservation Staff. They are not cranking them out from a design book.

 

No one is actually doing a camel back design anymore.  The camel back design can work if you do a telescoping roof line.  One in my HD is @2900 sq ft.  You cannot tell that it has a second floor from the sidewalk until you look around the side of the building.  What they are doing now is just building a second house with the original house being used as an entryway.  That allows them to just cut and paste designs out of the faux creole design book from new construction instead of actually having to design the renovation from scratch.  And the whole reason the ordinance is there is because the new construction looked terrible and was ruining the historic character of the neighborhood. 

 

 

[briekelman]

I went to see progress on my house over lunch, and guess who I ironically ran into on the 1600 block of Harvard!? The surveyors! I stopped to ask them a few quick questions.

1. They are only measuring Contributing Structures. I forgot to ask the logic why, but my guess is that this is because new construction is supposed to be in character with the existing contributing structures. I have not seen any alterations to non-contributing structures (other than siding) in the 7 months I've been watching this, so I'm not sure how the HAHC and staff looks at those projects. I'm not sure if there just aren't very many alterations to non-contributing structures or if they just get passed on the Consent Agenda??
2. They started first measuring German Town b/c they were in the process of creating Design Guidelines and then moved to HH East, starting first on Harvard Street.
3. Someone from the City staff is with 2 interns, for a total of 3 people. This made me feel better b/c I assume that someone with more experience will know what they are donig and be able to lead the interns. (to be clear, I like intern learning experiences, since I was one for 2 summers, but think it's important that they have some supervision to ensure accurate data).

good question - sorry, I don't know the answer! I'm also not 100% sure if they are measuring only the contributing structures or all structures...I was just guessing. Sorry, I should not post if I'm guessing. Someone could ask the Preservation Staff if they wanted to know for certain. If I hear anything more concrete, I will post.

 

 

[OutfieldDan]

No one is actually doing a camel back design anymore.  The camel back design can work if you do a telescoping roof line.  One in my HD is @2900 sq ft.  You cannot tell that it has a second floor from the sidewalk until you look around the side of the building.  What they are doing now is just building a second house with the original house being used as an entryway.  That allows them to just cut and paste designs out of the faux creole design book from new construction instead of actually having to design the renovation from scratch.  And the whole reason the ordinance is there is because the new construction looked terrible and was ruining the historic character of the neighborhood. 

 

A big addition behind an "entryway" that's the original small house is precisely a camelback.  Camelbacks are disfigured with disproportioned large lurking rear ends.  A well designed symmetrical two-story is vastly superior.  Camelbacks in the Heights were rare until this stupid ordinance.

[Angostura]

No one is actually doing a camel back design anymore.  The camel back design can work if you do a telescoping roof line.  One in my HD is @2900 sq ft.  You cannot tell that it has a second floor from the sidewalk until you look around the side of the building.  What they are doing now is just building a second house with the original house being used as an entryway.  That allows them to just cut and paste designs out of the faux creole design book from new construction instead of actually having to design the renovation from scratch.  And the whole reason the ordinance is there is because the new construction looked terrible and was ruining the historic character of the neighborhood. 

 

[Emphasis added above]

 

 

Building a "2nd house with the original house used as an entryway" is exactly what the ordinance encourages people to do given the requirement that any addition be removable so as to allow the original to be restored in the future.  (I'd be curious to see if there was EVER an example of someone actually doing this: buying a 3200 s.f. camelback and restoring it to a 1300 s.f. bungalow.)

 

I recall a number of people at the time the ordinance was being debated criticizing this language exactly because it encourages the kind of ugly additions that have become the norm.

 

In much the same way that our setback and parking requirements encourage development of ugly strip malls along major thoroughfares, this ordinance encourages ugly additions inside HDs.  Law of Unintended (but entirely predictable) Consequences.

[RedScare]

Not only did many of us predict these hideous additions in this very thread, s3mh blithely assured us that this would not happen. Here he is now acting as if construction has morphed into this phase, and that it is a good thing!

Edited July 19, 2013 by RedScare

[TGFTH]

By measuring the width & eave heights of the contributing structures in the district the HAHC & staff are building a case to turn down new construction projects. They have been pushing to lower the overall eave heights below 22' which will make it impossible to have ceiling heights over 9' for the first floor & 8' for the second and by limiting the width of the home they can control the square footage of the homes. Those two combined will pretty much shut down new construction in the neighborhood. They barely passed 2 new construction homes (without staff recommendation) with eave heights of 24' but I was told that most likely you will not see anymore passed above 22'. The HAHC is out of control with their interpretation of this ordinance & the staff is completely lost.

[TGFTH]

Oh, and they won't differentiate between the width of a small bungalow or a two story contributing structure when they are applying it to a new construction or for that matter a renovation. Also, I'm sure they won't account for how much these contributing structures have sunk over the years when they measure the eaves heights. Their end goal is very clear.

[fwki]

.........Their end goal is very clear.

 

No kidding, Gafrick has been very clear about it in four or five public statements made formally in session at both the HAHC and PC.  I posted a you tube video about one of the big lies she spewed, the one nullifying the Heights Design Guidelines.  But there hasn't been a big outcry from Heights homeowners.  Maybe we're seeing ghosts TGFTH, but they sure look real to me.

[Angostura]

By measuring the width & eave heights of the contributing structures in the district the HAHC & staff are building a case to turn down new construction projects. They have been pushing to lower the overall eave heights below 22' which will make it impossible to have ceiling heights over 9' for the first floor & 8' for the second and by limiting the width of the home they can control the square footage of the homes. Those two combined will pretty much shut down new construction in the neighborhood. They barely passed 2 new construction homes (without staff recommendation) with eave heights of 24' but I was told that most likely you will not see anymore passed above 22'. The HAHC is out of control with their interpretation of this ordinance & the staff is completely lost.

 

 

The ordinance pretty much requires them to do this. The ordinance requires that new-builds have setbacks, proportions (width and roofline), and eave height consistent with those of existing contributing structures. So far, the HAHC has largely ignored this.

 

Last month, HAHC approved (unanimously) two new-builds on Ashland near 13th that are nearly 4000 s.f., much larger than anything else on that block. Any reasonable reading of the ordinance would indicate that new-builds in this district would be limited to about 2500 s.f. at the most, and probably single story.

 

The developer has two more lots to get CoA's for, so they'd be wise to hurry up.

[s3mh]

I enjoy how s3mh has no problem calling out Brie and putting her on the clock for a response but goes silent when asked to respond to some things, especially when he is so blatantly incorrect. Maybe he thought it was a rhetorical question? It wasn't. So, I'd like to know how someone like me can be anti-ordinance but absolutely for preservation??? Just curious. Silence will be deemed to be in agreement.

I have already responded to that. Read my posts and keep up with the conversation.

It is simply idiotic to claim to be a preservationist just because you put money into your own house but see no problem with 200+ historic homes getting demoed every year and getting replaced with a cacophony of architectural styles from cheap fake creole boxes to suburban transplants to mission and all the way out to modern minimalism. If you were anywhere else in the US and told people that you were a preservationist but had no problem seeing the wholesale destruction of the historic housing stock, people would laugh in your face. Historic preservation isn't like preserving a 57 Ford Thunderbird. You can't put your house on a flatbed and take it to a big house show in Auburn, Indiana to get an idea of what it would look like in the proper context. Historic residential architecture is dependent on the preservation of the neighborhood, not just a single example in a sea of creole wanna be boxes and other oddities. It is akin to saying that you are for preserving Rhinos because you spend a lot of money traveling to different zoos to see them, but don't think that any government should do anything to stop people from hunting them into extinction in the wild.

[s3mh]

I enjoy how s3mh has no problem calling out Brie and putting her on the clock for a response but goes silent when asked to respond to some things, especially when he is so blatantly incorrect. Maybe he thought it was a rhetorical question? It wasn't. So, I'd like to know how someone like me can be anti-ordinance but absolutely for preservation??? Just curious. Silence will be deemed to be in agreement.

I have already responded to that. Read my posts and keep up with the conversation.

It is simply idiotic to claim to be a preservationist just because you put money into your own house but see no problem with 200+ historic homes getting demoed every year and getting replaced with a cacophony of architectural styles from cheap fake creole boxes to suburban transplants to mission and all the way out to modern minimalism. If you were anywhere else in the US and told people that you were a preservationist but had no problem seeing the wholesale destruction of the historic housing stock, people would laugh in your face. Historic preservation isn't like preserving a 57 Ford Thunderbird. You can't put your house on a flatbed and take it to a big house show in Auburn, Indiana to get an idea of what it would look like in the proper context. Historic residential architecture is dependent on the preservation of the neighborhood, not just a single example in a sea of creole wanna be boxes and other oddities. It is akin to saying that you are for preserving Rhinos because you spend a lot of money traveling to different zoos to see them, but don't think that any government should do anything to stop people from hunting them into extinction in the wild.

[RedScare]

It is equally idiotic for anyone to care whether they meet s3mh's definition of "preservationist". 

[SilverJK]

If I owned a 57 thunderbird... I would modify it with modern technology to make it more powerful, energy efficient, safe, reliable, and comfortable.  I'd be really angry if the Civic owners club put a rule in place that prevented me from doing these things...

Edited July 27, 2013 by SilverJK

[TGM]

Historic residential architecture is dependent on the preservation of the neighborhood, not just a single example in a sea of creole wanna be boxes and other oddities.

The Chrysler Building and Empire State Building are surrounded by examples older and newer construction. These Art Deco-era buildings did not hurt their predecessors and nor did the newer, more modern buildings that surrounds them hurt their architectural symbolism.

What you are wanting is exactly what most preservationists look down their noses at: uniform conformity, made up of homes of one particular era. Cities and residential areas are like the shelves of a library, you have books of different colors, thicknesses, heights,etc. Fortunately librarians don't require authors submit their book plans, binding type, jacket color, and size before being allowed on the shelves.

In geometry terms, history is a ray, not a line. What is deemed historical, is dependent on how far down the tradjectory you are. At one point everything will be historical, and some day everything will be condemned and bulldozed.

The reoccurring theme of every one of your posts is control, control, and more control. Do you really believe its normal and healthy to go around telling people what they can and cannot do? Is it normal to request more governmental intrusion into our private lives and choices?

What is funny is that the Victorian age was an era of rapid industrialization, a renewed focus on privacy, and the rise of the middle class. Modern Victorians want modernization, privacy, and affordable housing. Your tyrannical, controlling beliefs about what people should be allowed to do in their personal matters and decisions are more Dark Ages than Victorian.

Edited July 28, 2013 by TGM

[s3mh]

It is equally idiotic for anyone to care whether they meet s3mh's definition of "preservationist". 

 

It is also really idiotic to continually rely on ad hominem attacks instead of trying to contribute intelligently to what could be an interesting discussion.  I am here and am not going anywhere.  If you do not like it that someone has an opposing view point to you, that is very childish.  Man up and contribute to the discussion instead of always saying "that guy is dumb, just ignore him".

[s3mh]

If I owned a 57 thunderbird... I would modify it with modern technology to make it more powerful, energy efficient, safe, reliable, and comfortable.  I'd be really angry if the Civic owners club put a rule in place that prevented me from doing these things...

 

Funny thing is that the vast majority of people who collect 57 thunderbirds spend huge sums to try to make their cars as close to the original condition as humanly possible and will pay a huge premium to find someone who can restore parts of the vehicle that cannot be replaced with spare parts to as close to the original condition as possible.  There are some people who put hybrid/electric engines in old cars to try to be green, but they are definitely outliers.

[s3mh]

The Chrysler Building and Empire State Building are surrounded by examples older and newer construction. These Art Deco-era buildings did not hurt their predecessors and nor did the newer, more modern buildings that surrounds them hurt their architectural symbolism.

What you are wanting is exactly what most preservationists look down their noses at: uniform conformity, made up of homes of one particular era. Cities and residential areas are like the shelves of a library, you have books of different colors, thicknesses, heights,etc. Fortunately librarians don't require authors submit their book plans, binding type, jacket color, and size before being allowed on the shelves.

In geometry terms, history is a ray, not a line. What is deemed historical, is dependent on how far down the tradjectory you are. At one point everything will be historical, and some day everything will be condemned and bulldozed.

The reoccurring theme of every one of your posts is control, control, and more control. Do you really believe its normal and healthy to go around telling people what they can and cannot do? Is it normal to request more governmental intrusion into our private lives and choices?

What is funny is that the Victorian age was an era of rapid industrialization, a renewed focus on privacy, and the rise of the middle class. Modern Victorians want modernization, privacy, and affordable housing. Your tyrannical, controlling beliefs about what people should be allowed to do in their personal matters and decisions are more Dark Ages than Victorian.

 

Actually, the majority of the buildings around the Empire State building and Chrysler building are protected landmarks.  And there is very scant newer construction around either building.  Manhattan has some of the tightest historic preservation rules in the US.  There is new construction, but it is the exception, not the norm.  The tight preservation rules have enable Manhattan to preserve not just a few treasures, but to preserve entire streetscapes and neighborhoods.  And without those, the Chrysler and Empire State buildings would not be such great icons of the NY skyline.  So, you have ironically cited the rule on historic preservation as evidence of your argument against preservation.  But, you have probably never actually set foot in NY and just saw a few odd new buildings on google maps. 

 

And it is fun how the argument against preservation always goes so quickly from the legitimate debate about what should be protected and to what extent to extreme hyperbole comparing preservation to some great affront to human liberty.  Dark ages?  Oh please.  It is like the conservative attempts to claim that environmentalism began with the Nazis.  Just pathetic.

[RedScare]

It is also really idiotic to continually rely on ad hominem attacks instead of trying to contribute intelligently to what could be an interesting discussion.  I am here and am not going anywhere.  If you do not like it that someone has an opposing view point to you, that is very childish.  Man up and contribute to the discussion instead of always saying "that guy is dumb, just ignore him".

 

Heh heh. I was responding to one of your quotes. If mine is ad hominem, then yours was as well. 

 

There is nothing more to debate here. You think it is perfectly acceptable to have government commandeer people's homes in order to force us to renovate them in a style and manner of your choosing. I find that level of government intrusion to be absolutely unacceptable, and further, will actively seek to limit that government intrusion. Whatever internet labeling meme you wish to call it, doesn't change my...and most Heights residents'...view of this ordinance and your opinions on it. You made your opinions clear. They are unacceptable to supporters of a free society. No more debate is necessary to ferret out your overly restrictive and hypocritical views.

[RedScare]

It is simply idiotic to claim to be a preservationist just because you put money into your own house but see no problem with 200+ historic homes getting demoed every year and getting replaced with a cacophony of architectural styles from cheap fake creole boxes to suburban transplants to mission and all the way out to modern minimalism.

 

For those wondering what my quote referred to, here it is in all of its run-on glory.

[SilverJK]

Funny thing is that the vast majority of people who collect 57 thunderbirds spend huge sums to try to make their cars as close to the original condition as humanly possible and will pay a huge premium to find someone who can restore parts of the vehicle that cannot be replaced with spare parts to as close to the original condition as possible.  There are some people who put hybrid/electric engines in old cars to try to be green, but they are definitely outliers.

 

Oh now you know all about classic cars too?   You are flat out wrong regarding this.  The vast majority of people who own 57 thunderbirds do not spend huge sums of money to keep them original.  This is a complete fabrication.  Yes there are collectors that pay big money for original 57 thunderbirds... but they are just that... collectors.  They rarely drive the vehicles and collect them as more of an art piece than a viable means of transportation.  They pay a lot because there aren't that many completely original 57 thunderbirds around... because THE VAST MAJORITY has changed them from original...

 

A majority would just swap in a 302/c4 combo (or similar) and drive it like a hotrod. 

 

 

What would I know... I was only a car scene magazine journalist (for fords in particular actually) in my previous life...

 

 

I am in the market for a mid fifty's ford custom 2 door post (or 48-56 F1)  project though if you have a line on one.

Edited July 30, 2013 by SilverJK

[samagon]

It is also really idiotic to continually rely on ad hominem attacks instead of trying to contribute intelligently to what could be an interesting discussion.  I am here and am not going anywhere.  If you do not like it that someone has an opposing view point to you, that is very childish.  Man up and contribute to the discussion instead of always saying "that guy is dumb, just ignore him".

 

You should really stop telling others to stop using logical fallacies when you base the entirety of your argument on them.

[s3mh]

Oh now you know all about classic cars too?   You are flat out wrong regarding this.  The vast majority of people who own 57 thunderbirds do not spend huge sums of money to keep them original.  This is a complete fabrication.  Yes there are collectors that pay big money for original 57 thunderbirds... but they are just that... collectors.  They rarely drive the vehicles and collect them as more of an art piece than a viable means of transportation.  They pay a lot because there aren't that many completely original 57 thunderbirds around... because THE VAST MAJORITY has changed them from original...

 

A majority would just swap in a 302/c4 combo (or similar) and drive it like a hotrod. 

 

 

What would I know... I was only a car scene magazine journalist (for fords in particular actually) in my previous life...

 

 

I am in the market for a mid fifty's ford custom 2 door post (or 48-56 F1)  project though if you have a line on one.

 

I have someone in my family who has restored 57 thunderbirds for over 30 years.  I could care less about those cars, but have heard endless stories about the cars and the 57 thunderbird community for years and years and years.  I am not an expert, but my relative is.  He makes a good living at it and has piles of awards from his work.  57 thunderbirds are one of the most collectable vehicles on the road.  The vast majority of the 57s on the market are restored to as close to original condition as possible.  If you swap out an engine, you would be cutting the value in half (a new stereo or AC is about all you can get away with in terms of aftermarket upgrades).  Some redneck might do that, but the VAST MAJORITY do not.  I wish I didn't know this stuff as I end up getting several hours of talk about 57s from my family at every family event.  But I do and I am right.  You are just making up stuff about 57s.  Just look at the listings for 57s on the internet.  Original engines are a must and details about how the vehicles were rebuilt are hugely important.

[TGM]

And it is fun how the argument against preservation always goes so quickly from the legitimate debate about what should be protected and to what extent to extreme hyperbole comparing preservation to some great affront to human liberty. Dark ages? Oh please. It is like the conservative attempts to claim that environmentalism began with the Nazis. Just pathetic.

Property rights, property ownership are fundamental to a free society. Where is the hyperbole in that?

I'll avoid your "Nazi" hyperbole, and simply say that your very Statist view is that one's private property is actually "community property". You believe that something is owed to a neighborhood when someone purchases a home. You believe that non-owners of a property should have a greater say than the person that bore the financial cost to purchase it. You believe that this collection of neighbors has a greater right over the individual because they know what is best for him. It is the community view you find to be legitimate, not the "ignorant beliefs" of the individual, the human, the actual property owner.

I love this rhetorical argument of what is or is not "responsible development" as Statists (in this case s3mh the Statist-Preservationist) cannot really answer it in the affirmative or negative without contradicting themselves in the process. This is because in doing so it highlights the great contradiction of all Statists beliefs regarding human nature.

The Statist belief is that humans are inherently too ignorant or unenlightened to be left to their own devices. Based on this view they believe individuals need the State(substitute HAHC, RUDH,etc in this case) to think for them, thus saving the individual (and all other "idiots" like them) from themselves.

So despite being of the same species as their fellow men, they should somehow be given power through committees such as the HAHC over their fellow men? Do these Statists/Preservationists that back such things as the HAHC honestly believe that only virtuous humans are allowed to hold the reigns of HAHC power? (as if these same humans are somehow magically transformed into the devine by merely wielding the power of the position)

Yet somehow they still believe that these ignorant denizens, the ones too idiotic to govern their own affairs, are yet somehow capable of voting for others to govern for them. Small minded, yet able to somehow earn wages to buy the home, but still so ignorant of what's best for it that it requires the help of boards and committees. And yet the committee comprised of humans

All of these, and more are really just shades of the same contradictions in Statists/Preservationists rhetoric. "All humans are idiots, except for us."

Edited July 31, 2013 by TGM

[samagon]

 

I have someone in my family who has restored 57 thunderbirds for over 30 years.  I could care less about those cars, but have heard endless stories about the cars and the 57 thunderbird community for years and years and years.  I am not an expert, but my relative is.  He makes a good living at it and has piles of awards from his work.  57 thunderbirds are one of the most collectable vehicles on the road.  The vast majority of the 57s on the market are restored to as close to original condition as possible.  If you swap out an engine, you would be cutting the value in half (a new stereo or AC is about all you can get away with in terms of aftermarket upgrades).  Some redneck might do that, but the VAST MAJORITY do not.  I wish I didn't know this stuff as I end up getting several hours of talk about 57s from my family at every family event.  But I do and I am right.  You are just making up stuff about 57s.  Just look at the listings for 57s on the internet.  Original engines are a must and details about how the vehicles were rebuilt are hugely important.

57 Thunderbird is a horrible example to use in an analogy for bungalows.

Maybe a 67 vw bug is more comparison.

Maybe the 57 t bird is analogous to something a bit more rare than bungalows.

[s3mh]

Property rights, property ownership are fundamental to a free society. Where is the hyperbole in that?

I'll avoid your "Nazi" hyperbole, and simply say that your very Statist view is that one's private property is actually "community property". You believe that something is owed to a neighborhood when someone purchases a home. You believe that non-owners of a property should have a greater say than the person that bore the financial cost to purchase it. You believe that this collection of neighbors has a greater right over the individual because they know what is best for him. It is the community view you find to be legitimate, not the "ignorant beliefs" of the individual, the human, the actual property owner.

I love this rhetorical argument of what is or is not "responsible development" as Statists (in this case s3mh the Statist-Preservationist) cannot really answer it in the affirmative or negative without contradicting themselves in the process. This is because in doing so it highlights the great contradiction of all Statists beliefs regarding human nature.

The Statist belief is that humans are inherently too ignorant or unenlightened to be left to their own devices. Based on this view they believe individuals need the State(substitute HAHC, RUDH,etc in this case) to think for them, thus saving the individual (and all other "idiots" like them) from themselves.

So despite being of the same species as their fellow men, they should somehow be given power through committees such as the HAHC over their fellow men? Do these Statists/Preservationists that back such things as the HAHC honestly believe that only virtuous humans are allowed to hold the reigns of HAHC power? (as if these same humans are somehow magically transformed into the devine by merely wielding the power of the position)

Yet somehow they still believe that these ignorant denizens, the ones too idiotic to govern their own affairs, are yet somehow capable of voting for others to govern for them. Small minded, yet able to somehow earn wages to buy the home, but still so ignorant of what's best for it that it requires the help of boards and committees. And yet the committee comprised of humans

All of these, and more are really just shades of the same contradictions in Statists/Preservationists rhetoric. "All humans are idiots, except for us."

You will need to leave the United States if you want to find a place where your extremist libertarian views are shared by others. It has long been decided in this country that the police powers of the state to preserve the welfare, safety, health and morals of the public. We have long since rejected Locke's flawed theory of property rights. Locke believed that property rights were obtained not by taking a bag of money earned from other endeavors and buying land, but by combining one's labor with the land to take the land from a state of nature to a state to be used for a dwelling, crops and other purposes. What Locke did not recognize was that ownership of land intrinsically affected the rights of the community. Thus, in the earliest recognition of real property law in England that is the basis for our system, you immediately see the recognition of a superior right of the community to an easement across a freehold estate in order to access another parcel of land or to be able to travel on established roads. Thus from the very beginnings of real property law it was recognized that the right to exclude was subject to a greater right of the welfare of the community.

Your hyperbole about people the tyrrany of the majority knowing better than the poor little land owner is always the rhetorical tool used to try to make a very reasonable and beneficial restriction on property rights seem more ownerous than it really is. Historic preservation laws are ubiquitous in the United States. Just about every municipality from New York to Waxahachie has laws protecting historic architecture that restrict property rights. These laws recognize the value that has been created by the community by preserving historic buildings and protects that value from the momentary whims of the guy with a big bag of money. That is because it has never been the case in our real property jurisprudence that real property ownership granted an exemption from the democratically established rights of the community. Your claim of the tyrrany of the majority is really a call for a society where rights are a commodity reserved to the highest bidder. You believe that your rights are superior to over 200 years of constitutional democracy and 500 years of common law just because you had one dollar more to bid for a piece of land. That is truly arbitrary and a concept that has never existed in civilized society outside the musings of message boards and Ron Paul newsletters.