[MassHistPres] Demolition by neglect

[slater at alum.rpi.edu]

>Like many (most?) other communities, Medfield has
>had its share of properties that are slowly decaying due to neglect -
sometimes
>benign, sometimes malicious. A demolition delay ordinance can sometimes
be of
>use, but only if the property owner has a true interest in saving an
historic
>property.

I'd be curious to know others experience with something along these
lines.

If a property owner in a LHD simply doesn't want the building on his
property, but wants to keep the land (perhaps because the land is more
valuable to him in another way, such as an empty lot or parking lot),
have local historic commissions successfully made the case that an owner
can't claim hardship based on economic viability of the property without
trying to sell it?

For example, let's say the owner is into a property for $50k, he claims
that repair to the structure will be $500k and its market value is
$300k. Although the owner is claiming that it would be hardship to make
him spend $500k on the property, if he offered it on the market for
$100k he might find a buyer who is willing to either put in sweat equity
or to take the financial hit in hopes of a return later on.

So in other words, can a commission say "you haven't tried to sell it,
so you can't prove hardship" when it disagrees with an owner's
assessment of a property?

There was a case in Longmeadow -- not in a district -- where the owner
of a property razed a grand mansion to divide up the property into a
number of building lots. The property was not run down, he simply could
make more from the lot sale than he could by selling the house.

Ralph Slate
Springfield, MA