[MassHistPres] demolition delay bylaw question

[Sullivan, Charles M.]

The premise behind the simple two-year delay is that it (a) requires only an administrative action and not a civil proceeding to enforce and (b) is more effective and possibly more costly than any conceivable fine, because the contractor must stand down and the owner must carry both out-of-pocket and lost opportunity costs, which mount up quickly.

________________________________
Charles M. Sullivan, Executive Director
Cambridge Historical Commission
831 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, Mass.  02139
617 349-4684 voice, 349-3116 fax


-----Original Message-----
From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu
[mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu]On Behalf Of
RobynBFernald at aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:38 PM
To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
Subject: [MassHistPres] demolition delay bylaw question


Hi
 
The Abington Historical Commission has considered a two-prong enforcement  
clause for non-compliance to its proposed demolition delay  bylaw.  Our 
consideration includes imposing a penalty of a 2-year  moratorium of construction and 
a monetary penalty fine of $300 per  violation.  We are seeking some feedback 
from communities that have adopted  the Demolition delay by law to which a 
monetary penalty has been  applied. 
 
thank-you!
 
Robyn B Fernald
Chair of the AHC
500 Gliniewicz Way
Abington, MA
781-982-0059
******************************
For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly.  PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE WHOLE LIST.  
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
********************************