They are attributing it to a pattern of claims and declarations regarding one's own beliefs and desires that so-called progressives in places like SF and Berkeley make, which directly contradict their behaviors.
"Robert Reich, a left-wing professor at the University of California Berkeley who served as labor secretary during the Clinton administration, is very concerned about income inequality. He urged Wall Street executives to “invest” in cities by funding low-income housing projects. He also praised a “promising initiative” to promote the construction of affordable housing units in San Francisco.
Reich is not so keen, however, on a proposal to tear down a dilapidated building in his Berkeley neighborhood and replace it with a 10-unit development that would include low-income housing.
Reich and some of his wealthy neighbors are imploring the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission to designate the dilapidated structure, known as the Payson House, as a Berkeley landmark in order to stop the proposed development. In a letter to the commission, Reich said the proposed housing units would destroy the “charm of an older era of Berkeley” and likened the developers’ actions to “the illegal practices and corrupt politics of the late nineteenth century.”
“Dilapidated building” is a loaded description. The house is the oldest in the neighborhood, from 1889, and the neighbors claim it is of both architectural and local-historical significance. (I don’t have enough local knowledge to weigh in.) Here is the neighbors’ landmark application: https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_D...
Insisting that they are just saying that as an excuse because they don’t like town houses seems uncharitable at best. Considering the sources pushing this story I’d call it more like a bad-faith political hit job vs. Prof. Reich. E.g. your link is from a far-right “think tank” in North Carolina full of climate denialists, funded by Art Pope, GOP megadonor and close friend of the Koch brothers. Not exactly the people I would trust to fairly evaluate Berkeley’s decisions on which buildings should be landmarks.
In any case, the city council decided that the house isn’t important enough to qualify as a landmark, and the project is going through; the building will be torn down.
> the neighbors claim it is of both architectural and local-historical significance.
The neighbors will say whatever they can to stop the building without regard for truth or basic decorum. Their class interests are extremely conflicted, and such duplicitous bad-faith use of law is endemic in wealthy white neighborhoods like this.
Every neighbor who signs the petition to make a local building a landmark isn’t always and inevitably acting in bad faith.
Developers will also often happily tear down irreplaceable historical landmarks if they can profit, but that doesn’t mean that they are necessarily acting in bad faith.
Which is why there is a city process involved. (In this case, deciding in favor of the developer.)
Neighbors don't determine historical significance, they determine their financial and aesthetic best interests.
Not really sure what "developers" have to do with this. I thought it was about history? Or is any sort of justification ok if it stops housing that's more affordable than the rest of the multi-million dollar homes of the neighborhood?
If you have decided a priori that all historical preservation is just bad-faith NIMBYism, that’s kind of the end of the conversation.
Personally I think it is fine to leave to some kind of city process to decide which 19th century buildings to tear down, case by case, rather than just tearing them all down. In this case, the historical preservationists made their petition, but the city decided that their case wasn’t strong enough. Seems fine.
But if the process is working poorly in some places, then people in the city should press for fixes. (And if city officials are violating the law, they should be sued or prosecuted, as appropriate.)
Finding Bob Reich’s signature on a historical preservation petition for a 19th century building in his already mixed neighborhood (from what I can tell 2/4 corners at this intersection already have large multi-unit buildings) seems like an especially flimsy reason to write a screed attacking him for hypocrisy.
Historical status is not determined by financially conflicted neighbors, it's determined by historical societies.
My "pre determination" is that neighbors lie all the time another whatever they can to stop housing. This is a base fact.
If it's historical, there are professionals who determine that based on facts, not people who want to build financial walls around their house.
Still wondering why you brought up developers unless you're admitting that the historical status isn't actually about history but instead about stopping housing.
I would say historical status is determined by formal city process, not any independent organization.
But the person leading this petition was apparently historian Daniella Thompson of the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association: http://berkeleyheritage.com
> ... According to BAHA’s records, the Payson House is the oldest residence standing in its neighborhood and is one of the oldest shingle houses remaining extant in Berkeley.... It is BAHA’s view that the Payson House qualifies as a structure of merit pursuant to the City’s Landmarks Ordinance...
What are your criteria for who counts as a valid historical society? As far as I can tell the BAHA is the most relevant/appropriate organization in Berkeley in this context.
(Note: historical societies are made up of local residents, and historians can be paid for their work; local historians weighing in on specific buildings are probably generally financially conflicted, as well as generally biased towards preservation.)
> Commissioners also used the contentious meeting as an opportunity to tell residents that if they took issue with the way landmarking typically unfolds, they should ask the city to conduct a historical survey for landmarking, instead of relying on applications that happen to come in when development is proposed at certain locations.
I support rent control, but I don't think it either drags down property values, or prevents this sort of behavior a ton.
A lot of NIMBY behavior is about financial interests, but there are a lot more motivations too: basic conservatism, fear of change, fear of different types of people, and the incredible human bias against the unknown.
> oldest in the neighborhood, from 1889, and the neighbors claim it is of both architectural and local-historical significance
The building is architecturally mundane and inefficiently built (SFH) .
It is around 150 years old, which is quite new as far as 'old' buildings go.
It also doesn't look that nice (subjective personal opinion)
Usually, 'historic significance' is a thinly veiled attempt to grasp at straws for blocking any densification.
"historic significance" doesn't have a formal definition as far as I can tell. We really need one that is stricter than people feel it should be.
Historical buildings should be protected, but I don't know how to formally define that. The best I can come up with is the market: if you actually cared about it you would put your money where you mouth is and buy it out (perhaps with a group of like minded to create a foundation), and protect it as you see fit for as long as people continue to protect it. Of course this mostly eliminates the poor, but for the most part I'm not sure it matters as anything that is historic probably has at least one rich person who cares.
Here's a great example: https://www.johnlocke.org/good-for-thee-not-for-me-robert-re...
"Robert Reich, a left-wing professor at the University of California Berkeley who served as labor secretary during the Clinton administration, is very concerned about income inequality. He urged Wall Street executives to “invest” in cities by funding low-income housing projects. He also praised a “promising initiative” to promote the construction of affordable housing units in San Francisco.
Reich is not so keen, however, on a proposal to tear down a dilapidated building in his Berkeley neighborhood and replace it with a 10-unit development that would include low-income housing.
Reich and some of his wealthy neighbors are imploring the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission to designate the dilapidated structure, known as the Payson House, as a Berkeley landmark in order to stop the proposed development. In a letter to the commission, Reich said the proposed housing units would destroy the “charm of an older era of Berkeley” and likened the developers’ actions to “the illegal practices and corrupt politics of the late nineteenth century.”