Every year around a certain date, the meaning of which is opaque to me, I receive a package sent from the Strand bookstore containing a very nice expensive book. First couple years I called to ask who the sender was, they read back my name to me. I asked them to describe the purchaser, it took a bit of doing but indeed someone remember them and described what I look like. I've never been to New York or the Strand, but thanks whoever you are, who is impersonating me to send me expensive gifts, all of which were really cool books that I enjoyed.
Unfortunately, names and addresses are out there and easy to get. You can easily find my home address because the FCC requires me to keep it up to date in order to maintain my amateur radio license.
The main effect of this is that I get ads for car insurance in morse code.
So far they have all been "coffee table books", large books with photos and some text. The theme has always been indigenous issues throughout the world.
I assume that my mysterious benefactor is someone who used to read a blog I used to keep and then shut down. When I had the blog my address and name were obtainable from my site's whois records. There's also a possibility it's some old friend who is just being anonymous for some reason. I doubt it's something else but it could be I suppose.
On a separate but topically related issue I also receive packages from amazon of fairly obscure things which are usually relevant to me. Imagine that I had dinner with a friend of a friend who turned out to be a former Chinese Circus Bear Trainer. A week later from amazon I receive a starter kit for Circus Bear Training. And I pass it on to my acquaintance who finds it interesting I got it. It's not that but a similar thing. I wonder if it's random shipments as part of some scam I can't imagine to comprehend. I think that it was a Bear kit after meeting with a Bear person is actually a coincidence and I'm reading too much into it since no interpretations other than weird scam make sense. I don't worry about any of these anymore and instead get excited when I receive a new bizarre shipment on an erratic irregular schedule, and show off the package to my friends and family who find the whole thing fairly hilarious. And some of them report to me that they too get random mis-shipments from amazon. While acknowledging that the Bear Kit takes the cake. So maybe Amazon's system is just messed up somehow.
Thank you. I've received some of those too, a small package of pencils for example shipped from China, and I agree those are probably that scam. The key is that the product is of incredibly low value.
This doesn't match though the higher value items, costing dozens to low hundreds of dollars, which I've inexplicably received, and which seem to be related to random things I've done recently that are unique. Those shipments I feel reasonably are bizarre and unusual and otherwise reasonable explanations of scams just don't explain them.
Obviously, your twin brother (of whom you are not aware, but who is aware of you and your whereabouts) is sending you a reminder for something (parent's anniversary? the day of his or your adoption?)
I fully support landmarking buildings -- it's in the public interest, for future generations, and I still lament the loss of the old Penn Station.
And many times (usually?) it's uncontested -- current owners find value in its historical authenticity, and any future buyer is well aware they can't change it.
BUT -- in the case of a functioning business that has no need for the status and finds it harmful for business reasons, it does seem unfair and unconstitutional.
The remedy seems clear: if the city wants to preserve it for future generations (good), then the city should pay the Strand for whatever additional expenses or lost revenue a neutral arbiter judges is fair. It won't be perfect, but it would be due process to make it constitutional.
Like you I support landmarking buildings but after reading about the "Doc Webb House" in this week's WSJ[1] I absolutely agree with you that the current process lacks any sort of balance between the owners' interests and the public's interest. Even worse, it seems some people are starting to use the landmark designation as a way to manipulate the value of property they want to buy. And, much like the building occupied by the Strand, I don't really see the architectural significance[2] and I'm not sure I would consider a building historic simply because it had a notable occupant at some point.
Using your proposal basis, it also sets up a big loophole for businesses to strong arm the government and taxpayers using historical preservation to pad their business.
For example, if I were the Strand owner and I thought of building a 100 story condo complex on top of the existing Strand bookstore, then I tell NYC, “Either you need to pay me a few hundred million or I will build this complex on the landmark.”
Wouldn’t that just incentivize wealthy owners to buy up landmarks to hold them for ransom against the city, which seems contrary to the function of landmarks?
That people bring out building more housing in NYC as their goto example of something awful that must not be allowed to happen is the most depressing thing I saw today.
The point of the grandparent poster is that turning down plans is a taking which could be remedied by compensation, the point of the parent poster was that this fix creates an extortion vector.
I don’t get it. The owner tries to do something non-historic, the city/historical society tells them to pound sand. There is no extortion because the property owner has no leverage.
That is fine, as long as the city compensates them at an agreed-upon price for the lost future utility at the time that the historic designation is applied.
Conservation easements work this way, and both preservationists and land owners reach amicable agreements.
It isn't hard to argue that this is a taking in the 5th amendment sense. Similar arguments have been made (and sometimes won) about ecological designations - a taking doesn't need to deprive you of _all_ use of property to be a taking.
The equal protections clause of 14th amendment prohibits unequal application of the law. The business next door can do anything they please with their building lawfully, but the protected landmark building is prohibited by law from doing the same things. There's literally a set of separate set of much more restrictive laws the owner of a protected landmark has to follow that a business not similarly affected does not.
Obviously much less is at stake here than having a separate set of laws for whites vs blacks, but it's the same principal.
The Fifth Amendment prohibits taking property for government use without just compensation. Property is a bundle of rights—taking away rights from the bundle (like building a high rise) should result in compensation. Landmark designations, however, don’t typically compensate property owners for the lost value of their property.
Given the political leanings of the Strand's audience and the leanings of the books they showcase, I would assume the owners are likely left leaning as well. And it's weird to think that they may very well have supported landmark laws in general... until it applied to their building.
The real issue here is corrupt politics in NYC. Why should owners of the Strand and other old buildings have to pay (through decreased property values and development opportunities) to keep the "character of the neighborhood" when others are allowed to build high rises?
My understanding is that this new historic zone was created partially to get other large developments approved.
The problem with this sort of thing is that it, in theory, adds value to "the commons." (We preserve historically interesting architecture which is, presumably, mostly good.) But we impose costs on owners/sellers who have less flexibility to change things. Which may make continued use of the property non-viable.
Penn Station gets a lot of attention in this regard. But, at the time, no one was volunteering to step in and pay for renovating Penn Station and operating it given a bankrupt Penn Central railroad.
These types of commons have no utility. How about upgrading the subway or building a high speed rail. Actual contributions to the common good rather then nostalgic addictions to preserving the obsolete.
You're probably best off moving to a city that hews more to that philosophy. There's definitely a tension. But personally I prefer cities that respect their history to a degree. Obviously individual cases can be controversial--as in this case.
But then I'm mostly not much for very sterile modern cities.
Isn't the real story here that this family bought the building in 1996 and would stand to profit perhaps a hundred million dollars if they sold it today? The landmark status might cut that value dramatically, maybe by more than half.
Isn't this a more likely reason for the lawsuit than "We won't be able to do exterior renovations as easily"? Wouldn't you be upset if the city devalued your property by fifty million bucks?
You can have a say over someone’s property by purchasing it. Taking away valuable uses of someone’s property (where the use doesn’t harm anyone else’s property) without compensation is stealing.
I think Penn Central was a fantastically wrong decision (Rehnquist and Stevens dissented in that case). Obviously, the fact that a regulation diminishes the value of property is not sufficient to amount to a taking. The government can ban diesel cars and if that renders existing diesel cars worthless, so be it. Height limits (and the concept of air rights trading) can be justified on a similar principle, but they’re closer to the borderline. But historical landmark laws are not laws of general effect that happen to impact property values. They are targeted takings of private property without compensation.
The landmark laws have had essentially reverse blockbusting/gentrifying effects in poor neighborhoods in New Orleans like Tremé. It’s not uncommon for speculators to call in violations like broken stoops or split porch railings and then the same speculator leaves flyers in the mailbox of the “violator” offering to buy for a knockdown price...
Landmarking this building removes the choice from future New Yorkers to redevelop this bookstore-building into housing, offices, or even a park.
If you want to have a say in how the community develops, maybe don't limit your options for developing your community? If future New Yorkers decide they don't want this building turned into a modern skyscraper, they can reject the required applications for building permits at that time.
Or is it more about "old" New Yorkers trying to make sure new New Yorkers don't have a say?
New Yorkers already do have their say in how the community develops - why do you think something like 40% of the buildings in Manhattan couldn’t be built today under existing zoning?
New Yorkers have made it illegal to build the very same buildings and neighborhoods they claim to love - while also demanding that existing neighborhoods be preserved because they’re so “unique.”
It’s almost like there’s some other agenda at play...
I am more intrigued by the political angle of all of this. If the wife of the United States senator cannot get her way in New York City, I’m curious if that says anything about the political dynamics.
> He will argue that the city’s actions are unconstitutional under the fifth amendment, which states “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”, and the 14th amendment, which says “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.
I have a strong suspicion that's been tried unsuccessfully before.
Is The Strand being compensated? It would be one thing if the the public were purchasing the building or paying for it's use. It doesn't seem like eminent domain or the like where the government compensates for seizure.
But it is eminent domain or seizure in its own way. Their autonomy has been stolen. I think the bookstore could make a compelling constitutional case out of it—if they can find a spare million or two behind the sofa.
The Supreme Court long ago gutted the Fifth Amendment to enable, among other things, zoning laws (which were conceived as a response to racially discriminatory covenants being held illegal).
I still think the most notable thing about this story is that the owner of a New York City bookstore is married to a US Senator from Oregon. The last time this came up people said she's usually in the store when they visit.
Is it weird that my first thought reading this article was the episode of Freakanomics where they talked about how putting animals on the endangered species list caused the price for their hides/mounted heads to go through the roof, and indirectly increase the demand and likelihood of poaching?
It's very sad that so many ways we go about trying to preserve history end up promoting it's destruction.
The only mentioned cost is that they can't change the sign without review.
If a business is going to go bust because they couldn't change their sign on a dime, the business probably wasn't viable in the first place.
This reads like a conservative business owner being annoyed that a government body is existing and doing its job well, which I suppose is a common sentiment.
Also, the LPC has nothing to do with 'progressives'. Its been around since the 60s.
Changing the signage is an example of how deep the restrictions run. “The restrictions are so great they even include signage,” is how I read the paragraph. I did not read the paragraph as “the restrictions are minor for example a trivial restriction on signage.“
> Changing the signage is an example of how deep the restrictions run.
Not a very good example—this kind of regulation is usually focused on preserving the distinctive exterior look of a building, so including the signage in the regulation is not even close to being an overreach, and it doesn't give much indication about whether the regulations do go too far.
Except they're enforced even after the regulations put the original store out of business. The surge of small town historical districts in the US in the 80s-90s froze whatever signage was there at the time.
Now many of these towns have blocks of buildings with expensive and beautiful signs; none match the name of the actual business inside.
How is it that the government can change the legal status of something it doesn't own? That's like walking into my great-aunt's house and declaring that because she's the last human being on earth with shag carpeting she isn't allowed to put in wood flooring. I'd burn the place to the ground before surrendering my rights.
We gave up that right when building permits became a thing.
They were meant only to prevent city-wide fires. As with everything government, once the process was established, the purpose for using it could be stretched and expanded easily.
A store has to get a permit for an awning and also renew that permit any time they want to make changes to it or make any repairs that alter the appearance of that awning.
The cheapest awning permit is $6000 in NYC.
Even worse, frequently there are codes that change and businesses have to stay on top of the law changes but the DCA only publishes guides to stay current with the law every decade or two. In the meantime they just fine anyone in violation. They have all kinds of things they commonly fine for like not displaying your business license prominently in two places in your business, not putting your license number at the top of your receipt in a certain place, etc.
A city-wide fire is a negative externality created by irresponsible management. I'd rather such issues be resolved by courts, but can absolutely see the case.
A historical building is effectively a positive externality provided by the owner. The state cannot ethically force you to provide such a thing, nor can it do so without just compensation (Constitution.) The takings clause is very clear on this; you are preserving a building for public benfit, so the only Constitutional way to do it is by acquisition at fair market rates.
I personally agree with you, but the courts typically don't. I'm merely explaining the legal mechanism which began the restrictive creep. Over reaction to the fires of 100+ years ago, plus some insurance industry lobbying.
Some courts have ruled the way you describe, but more have ruled that it's not a legal taking, since no real-property rights are actually lost via conveyance (in the legal, non-moveable property sense). The value of those rights might be reduced, but the right is still yours; it wasn't a legal taking. They view it as being not much different than a bad neighbor bringing down property values.
Personally, I don't think they should even be able to do it via the takings clause. If implemented at all, it should be strictly opt-in, similar to how zoning is initially adopted in new or annexed jurisdiction.
(Also it's not "public benefit", it's "public use". It's often interpreted by courts as public benefit now, but that's something else I disagree with.)
The Strand used to be fantastic when it was just a gigantic used book store, but ever since it started focusing more on new books its become a shadow of its former self. So I can't say I'd miss it nearly as much now as I would have 20 years ago.
That said, it's a sad day when any bookstore goes out of business, especially one with a rich history like The Strand (despite most of that history being behind it now).
I'm a relatively new New Yorker (I've shopped at the Strand for 6 years). Can you expound on this a little bit more?
I've found that while the inventory on a given day might not be super stellar, the sheer volume of books that flow through their hands is the true value they provide to the ecosystem. I see them as more of a used book broker than a museum for used books.
As an example to explain what I mean, 2 years ago I added to my wishlist some obscure book, last printed in the 80s by a small midwestern university publisher. Two weeks ago, I received an email saying that they had just put it on the shelf! That evening, I walked in, found it more or less immediately, and wandered about looking for particular fiction authors, before finding a marvelously-illustrated classic in two volumes, that was printed in the 1940s. I left maybe $40 poorer. This story repeats itself every month or two.
While you might be able to find such things on Amazon, I find that the Strand both beckons you to search and rewards you for that search. I don't think anything in New York competes with them, pound for pound.
While, I agree that their branding and marketing focus has shifted a lot towards "trendy", newer material (i.e. where the real money is), I'm skeptical of the notion that the quality or range of their used goods have declined proportionally, if at all.
It's not just their branding and marketing that focuses on new books. They have devoted a significant amount of shelf space in the store to new books. Virtually all that shelf space used to be taken up by used books, so the selection of used books available there was both much broader and much deeper.
That fantastic selection of books did not make The Strand a used book museum but rather a world class used bookstore -- a position they've suffered a self-inflicted fall from, though they're still relatively good, but only because so many other used bookstores have either gone out of business or closed their brick and mortar shops and transitioned to selling completely online.
So kudos to them for surviving as a brick and mortar shop, but we should recognize the price they and we have had to pay for that survival.
Genuinely curious because I only know the last few years, but virtually all of the "shelf" space is still occupied with used books, and the only new books are on the islands.
Are you saying there were fewer islands and more stacks in the past? I can definitely empathize if that's the case; it seems like a solid 1/3 of the floor space is islands nowadays.
That being said, as you alluded to, I think it's a smart trade-off that's allowed them to stay afloat, seeing as the bulk of their revenue must come from new publications and the publisher events. However, I think I still hold on to my assertion that their selection remains deep and broad, but I willingly capitulate that it's been stretched over a wider span of time. The misplaced gems inevitably seem to surface there, given enough time.
I think that, as long as us good New Yorkers continue to sell our books to the Strand instead of Amazon, we'll be in decent shape. :)
> Are you saying there were fewer islands and more stacks in the past?
was never a newyorker but did briefly visit the strand in ~2002, and from my fuzzy recollection (wasn't in the market for a book at the time) it was pretty much entirely all giant stacks.
