
New York's Strand bookstore fights back over landmark status - allthebest
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/oct/11/new-york-the-strand-bookstore-landmark-status-sue
======
red-indian
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.

~~~
cm2012
Clearly you from the future with an encoded message in the book.

~~~
gimmeThaBeet
If red-indian gets a sports almanac, how about a couple trifectas for the HN
folks?

------
crazygringo
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.

~~~
protonfish
Unconstitutional? I am not aware of any part of the constitution that
prohibits landmarks.

~~~
nwallin
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.

~~~
rtkwe
That's a real stretch and applied universally any kind of location based rules
like zoning would be in violation...

------
danielfoster
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.

------
ghaff
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.

~~~
crimsonalucard
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.

~~~
ghaff
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.

~~~
yostrovs
Is the New York City subway a landmark that's preserved? There haven't been
renovations in most stations for decades.

------
jzwinck
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?

~~~
kevindkeogh
Sure, but New York is not only for the property owners. I think it's good that
we have a say in how our community develops.

Think of it this way, without New Yorkers, this building would be worthless.

~~~
rayiner
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.

~~~
selimthegrim
How constitutional are air rights such as in NY or transfer of development
rights such as proposed for Calcutta in this article

[https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jul/02/calcutta-
arch...](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jul/02/calcutta-architecture-
heritage-destruction-city-campaign-amit-chaudhuri)

~~~
rayiner
The Supreme Court thinks New York’s landmark designation laws are
constitutional, and the air rights system is less invasive than that:
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/438/104](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/438/104).

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.

~~~
selimthegrim
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...

------
sharkmerry
They provided one possible example. Exterior signage.

The owner described it as: "it would “destroy” the popular store." "I call it
a bureaucratic noose that’s been put on my throat now."

Strong words, has she actually had an issue yet? What changes are needed to
keep them competitive?

------
Overtonwindow
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.

------
ceejayoz
> 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.

~~~
fluidcruft
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.

~~~
sjwright
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.

~~~
rayiner
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).

~~~
sjwright
Regular zoning and heritage are very different though.

------
alexkiritz
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.

------
FussyZeus
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.

~~~
mykowebhn
_The requisite posting of the Cobra effect whenever something like this comes
up_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect)

~~~
FussyZeus
Didn’t know it had a name, thanks!

~~~
chimi
You might also be interested then in Reactance.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_(psychology)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_\(psychology\))
Another example is where a product is banned like phosphate containing
detergents which causes the market to go out and buy it all up.

------
Causality1
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.

~~~
beerandt
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.

~~~
big_chungus
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.

~~~
beerandt
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.)

------
pmoriarty
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).

~~~
gen220
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.

~~~
pmoriarty
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.

~~~
gen220
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. :)

~~~
cat199
> 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.

