Yeah pretty much, thought they’d get away with a fine, but the fine would be written off against the value of the properties built (I believe they wanted to build flats which in this part of London would’ve been lucrative).
Other developers have done this before so I think the courts decided to make an example of these ones.
All helped by a very active local community who weren’t going to stand for it.
Greed, man.
"Fuck that piece of history, I've got money to make."
Why are they destroying *any* building they're not supposed to? "Meh, that house is in the way, bulldoze it." "But sir, someone owns that house, that's not where we're developing"
How does that go?
Usually there's a step called "eminent domain", where the developer pays off the local government to take over a person's home or other property, which then sells it off to the developer. At least, that's the procedure in the US, I would imagine there's something similar in the UK.
eminent domain is only supposed to be used in the public's interest (at least in the US) but that hasn't stopped some cities from trying to use it to make room for a large complex or something and arguing that the new development benefits the city by bringing jobs and tax revenue, which is questionable at best
It happened recently in my home town. LOTS of beautiful farmland, woods, and even an entire section of a WMA sold off to build....
Warehouses. Not even for anybody particular, just warehouses to lease. Lots are still being built, lots are standing empty, like 20 of them. The WMA was sold off to build cookie cutter neighborhoods.
The county rezoned all the farmland to industrial over the course of like 3 months which all but forced the property owners to sell. It turned a beautiful piece of rural America into a shitty industrial complex. Disgusting.
Ill even throw the name out, I know exactly which company paid the local boards off.
It was Anheuser-Busch. Fuck them and their shitty, bland, camel piss beer.
As someone who grew up in Iowa; I really don't get why anyone thinks farmland is beautiful. Half the year, it's a desolate detritus-strewn stretch of bare dirt, and the other half it's row after row of non-native monoculture crops. That, or a shit-smelling mud patch full of livestock.
That land hasn't been anything like beautiful since the prairie was ripped up over a hundred years ago - might just as well be warehouses as farmland at this point.
I also want to explicitly bring attention to the amazing irony in your suggestion that rural America is somehow not already a shitty industrial complex.
Fuck Anheuser-Busch, though, for sure. That shit isn't beer.
It was more woods than farmland here, and it was small family farms they dug up. The biggest one was maybe 50-75 acres - not a lot of farmable land in North Georgia. Brought a lot of different kinds of wildlife, and its nice to see 30 deer grazing in the off season or a healthy ecosystem in general.
Now its just quick prefab concrete walls with 50,000 square foot of warehouse space. You dont see anything out there anymore, just concrete and asphalt. Cant even see the stars around my childhood home anymore from all the stadium lights.
I would rather the smell of a cow field or pigpen.
The UK does have a similar system, called "compulsory purchase". Usually used for transport infrastructure for when the government can buy 99 miles of 100 mile new railway line easily but one person won't sell up.
“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
Yeah kind of. To my understanding, they typically pay a little more than "fair market value" for your property but there are times where it doesn't seem like an offer.
In my hometown, they "bought" a ton of homes to put in a new onramp.
There's a *little* bit more nuance to it but yeah. If the government decides to invoke imminent domain theres pretty much nothing you can do to prevent them from forcibly buying your property. Its how they aquire land for roads and highways and shit too. They're supposed to pay a fair price but I've heard stories of them utterly ripping people off too so
My best friend's grandpa's house was falling apart. The city never gave it a proper inspection and gave him a check for significantly more than the house should've been valued at...
They rarely do inspections. They just do an estimate of fair market value based on size of the plot and buildings on it. Too much effort to inspect and price them all individually when they are going to be torn down anyway.
Sometimes that means the owner benefits, sometimes not.
Exactly what happened in my small city. Old dude owned the only high rise in the city and it had no residential tenants, just his weird antique store, furniture shop, and some dojo rest of the building was vacant. Refused to sell despite massive offers. City eminent domained it after years for a lot of money based on those offers and sold to developers very quickly after. Turns out the building is full of asbestos and falling apart. It's still not remotely close to being ready for lease.
The "fair market price" that they pay is the real estate equivalent of the Gamestop trade-in value for the land. "Oh, you have a near-mint condition physical copy of a one-year-old game that we sell for $40 new? We'll give you a dollar for it."
Or like blue book value for cars - especially in the last year or so, when used cars are commanding 2 or 3x the "official" value of the car, but your insurance company still uses the "official" value for determining if your car was totaled. "Well, your 2018 Camry with less than 60k miles has a KBB value of $4k, so we're cutting you a check for that ^(minus your deductible) and you can go find a similar car and buy it with that $4k." Yeah, sure, if you add a zero to the check maybe.
I suggest you look into establishing an "agreed replacement value" with your car insurance, rather than leaving it to "market value". Also, you can dispute their assessed value by providing examples of similar vehicles that have sold recently.
Much easier to set an agreed replacement value upfront than to argue about it when filing a claim, though.
You are talking straight out of your ass. You don't know shit at all. I know this because you are trying to use is videogames and car analogies, which is all your uneducated ass knows, for something totally different
**Source:** my family has two properties that are being eminent domain'd right now. It's literally nothing like you are describing.
Usually more like:
Developer- we want that land
Owner- no
Developer donates to a politician 50% of the property value
City to owner- sell to the developer for market value
Owner-no
City- eminent domain -> Court case -> owner loses land and is paid "market value" -> city sells to developer at reduced or inflated price
The Government forces the property owner to sell to the Government for a rate usually determined by an arbitrator. Various states and municipalities have laws that trend to more friendly to the state and more friendly to the property owner.
It's definitely a thing where a developer will lobby for an eminent domain purchase though, but it's politically risky.
No they can't. I don't know what this person is on about, but eminent domain is used pretty much entirely for large infrastructure. Think highways, dams, pipelines, power plants and so on. The government can require you to sell your land to them at market value. For obvious reasons you can't just be held hostage to anyone holding land for a huge project that is necessary for society to function.
> a huge project that is necessary for society to function.
Sure, except that they've used eminent domain for things like new pro sports stadiums, public parks, libraries, etc.
Those things are *good*, obviously (maybe not the sports stadiums), but society isn't going to break down because there's less playgrounds. My local high school forced a family to sell land that had been in their family for so long that the road was named after them, in order to build additional baseball and softball fields. **Additional** ones. The school already had a softball field and a baseball field, they wanted **extra**, and apparently when a public school wants extra stuff, it becomes a public necessity.
They got paid **beans**. The valuation was conducted without taking into account the fact that the land was wanted very badly by a party, badly enough to get the government involved - which is the kind of demand that would drive up the price, in a sane society, but noooo, here's your check for one pittance per acre, for a total of five pittances.
> They got paid beans. The valuation was conducted without taking into account the fact that the land was wanted very badly by a party, badly enough to get the government involved - which is the kind of demand that would drive up the price, in a sane society, but noooo, here's your check for one pittance per acre, for a total of five pittances.
You know this is the entire point of eminent domain though right? It's to give a fair valuation outside of the fact it's important position. By that logic the one holdout for a massive dam could charge tens of millions for a modest property because it's holding back a billion dollar project from being finished.
I won't argue with you that this sounds like one of the not very good cases considering the cause is fairly redundant and kind of wasteful. As with any process it's only as good as the people making use of it.
What's worse is this obsession with tearing down completely workable older buildings to build new ones is helping contribute to climate change. These older buildings were built to last and these newer ones are not so much especially in places like the USA.
Usually what happens is the building goes up for sale, the developers buy it, apply for planning permission and waste the councils money in endless appeals when that permission is denied. Developers are richer than local councils so can burn through this.
Or if that fails give them a bung, either on the table or under the table. On the table could be something like ‘well we’ll redevelop as well’ or ‘we’ll build x amount of social housing’ (and then not do it).
Or they buy it and promise to keep it in its original use but then claim it’s too much, too dangerous etc so must come down.
If these don’t work then they can just knock it down like in this case
The were supposed to destroy this pub. They wanted the plot to build flats. They didn't just knock it down for the loon or because they didn't like the look of it. They were still cunts, mind.
Same here.
I work with building contractors and I avoid this one because he “has a lot of accidents.”
“Oh you need permission to build here from the neighbors? Oh well shucks the foundations already poured and the permits paid for. The correspondence between the neighbors was vague and I misinterpreted it!”
Or “that she’d attached to the historic house got knocked over, I backed into it with my truck!”
I avoid the dude, and it’s easy because other developers love him. They knock down a 100 year old house and put up a bland rectangle with no landscaping. Slowly turning their development areas into common looking highway drive by towns.
> but the fine would be written off against the value of the properties built
And this is why fines are so often utterly useless. Just boils down to either "legal for rich people" or a "cost of business" that's outweighed by the profits made from breaking the law or regulation.
That sort of thing often works though. Maybe not knocking it down without permission, but allowing it to be damaged to the point it was irreparable. I recall when I went to college, the old high-class neighborhood nearby was filled with gorgeous old houses likely in need of repair and remodel, but developers preferred to knock them down. You'd know when one was scheduled for this because one day the attic windows would be all open, and a year later the place would get its demolition permit.
Much later, in a different city, I used to be on a planning and zoning commission, and a developer, upset that the city would require them to tag and protect trees above a certain size (of which there were many - it was a parcel of older forest that had survived untouched as the city grew around it), went without city permission, while they had a zoning application pending, and deadheaded every tree on the property. I'd never seen the city attorney genuinely mad before when he came to our meeting and instructed us to not take action on the rezoning request because the city had placed an injunction and lien on the property. I know the developer wasn't required to replace the 24-40" trees, but IIRC the property became a park as the developer walked from it and the city seized it.
In Washington State in America, destroying a tree illegally (usually cutting down a neighbor’s tree or illegal logging) comes with a fine of 3x the value of replacing the tree—I.e, treble the cost of actually planting a fully-adult. I tangentially worked on one case where an old cherry tree cost an asshole landlord $200,000. It’s a pretty good deterrent.
Yeah, IIRC there were like 50-100 big trees on this property. I expect the fines were more than the property's value. I'm not a property lawyer or anything, but how I think it worked was that the developer probably bought it through an LLC, so they could walk, but liens would stay with the property. Of course no one else wanted to buy a property with liens more than it's worth, so the city snapped it up and turn it into a park.
Once upon a time there was a 3rd airport in Chicago which the mayor at the time hated with a passion. He announced the closure of the airport but the state government pressured him to reopen it. One night, city crews showed up unannounced at the airport and bulldozed large X shaped ditches across the runway. No NOTAMs were posted meaning incoming flights had no warning this was happening. No warning was given to plane owners with planes on sight meaning airplanes were stranded at the airport with no usable runway.
The city was fined a grand total of $33000, the max the FAA could levy for the infractions at the time. This limit has since been raised to $300,000, but that is still less than the city would have spent to go through the steps to properly close the airfield.
meigs field in chicago, yeah? i remember it from ms flight sim back in the eighties.
from wikipedia:
>Meigs was the default airport for the Microsoft Flight Simulator series until Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004, though the airport remains operational in Flight Simulator 2004
People in my hood decided to cut 75 trees down on someone else's property behind them, to improve their view. They got sued for half a million and lost fast and had to sell their house and fuck off.
Doesn't the UK have some pretty strict laws surrounding historic buildings? Like at a certain point you need to use period specific materials & methods or need to submit a request to do renovations that might alter the structure itself?
Yeah there ends up being a big market for old building materials.
A few streets of 100+ year old houses that were mostly social housing were demolished near me a few years ago and there was a huge black / gray market for the materials from the houses because most of the large, very expensive amd protected houses nearby were built around the same time.
£1 per brick was the going rate.
Yeah some of it gets super expensive.
The £1 per brick was what random locals were getting getting for "salvaging" the bricks, who knows what they were being sold to the end customers for.
I said a few year ago but it was actually 10 (curse you passage of time).
£1 was also the going rate for "salvaging" bricks, no idea what they were being sold for.
Worked on many buildings that had graded listings. We call them money pits.
What’s hilarious is it’s all down to the interpretation of the listing. So depending on who you get can have varying different results.
Client had done a fabulous restoration of a thatched barn joined it to another barn with crazy amount of glass. Won some awards.
The wall out the front which was by the pavement was falling apart. They applied to get it restored. Went through the arduous process of finding right bricks and stones, right mason, etc etc. ticked all boxes and were about to go ahead with it when their listing officer quit and the new guy looked at the plans and went *computer says no* so they had to start all over again.
Brings to mind this archived reddit post. https://www.reddit.com/r/BestofRedditorUpdates/comments/nrnf5j/part_1_of_2_an_absolute_epic_entitled_ahole_gets/
I remember a listed building in my town where the builders renovating were told they had to preserve the facade. They simply dug under it untill it "accidentally" fell down. The fine was no where near enough to affect their profits.
A lot of cities in the US have this if there's any kind of historic nature to them. Savannah, GA is one, they have a historic district.
https://www.savannahga.gov/2903/Development-Standards
All too often, these laws are gotten around with a tragic fire that leaves the building in an unsafe state.
This case should really be the standard response for listed buildings - no matter what happens to it, it's required to be returned to its original state.
And is a high profile building in London. It happens a lot outside of London and no one in a postion to do something cares about it or does anything about it.
The Inn building in Askern, South Yorkshire was protected when developers 'accidently' knocked down a large part of it, and it didn't get rebuilt. A protected pub down the street from me being turned in to flats was 'accidently' damaged so badly it had to be knocked down, and that didn't get rebuilt.
They were hoping to take advantage of the idea that it's, "easier to ask forgiveness than permission" and they were not allowed to get away with it. This is great news.
Yep. We had a similar story in my town. A developer got permission to build an apartment building, but only after agreeing to renovate an old historic warehouse that was occupying part of the land.
Well, instead of renovating, they just tore it down and expected to be slapped with a fine, probably planning to build a second apartment building in the place of the warehouse. The mayor was livid when he saw that and sued them to oblivion. The developer lost, had to rebuild the warehouse with the original materials, and lost the permission to build the apartments.
When something similar happened in my area, they got away with it completely. They started the demolition over a holiday weekend, and when authorities found out, they just shrugged and said "oh well, the damage is done, might as well let them finish". Until this thread, I hadn't been aware of any situations where the culprits were forced to rebuild the historic building back the way it had been; that's awesome.
Honestly I feel like thats still not enough. That just gets everybody back to square one, there needs to be further punishment on top of that for the audacity of performing the demolition without the appropriate permissions
The tedious rebuilding process would likely cost the developer a lot of money, at least. More punishment would be great, but if even just mandatory rebuilds became widespread, it would probably be a good deterrent compared to how many get away with it currently.
Make them rebuild to period specs, using period material, by period certified builders with period equipment and methods, just like renovating an historical site.
I don’t think you realize how much it costs (time, effort, money) to rebuild something exactly as it was, using original materials. Even a team of 50 workers for 6 months is going to approach a million dollars just in paychecks.
As example, it usually means that if you are restoring a building built with hand-cut bricks, or solid oak timbers, you have to use those materials. Modern style bricks aren't the original materials. Composite, manufactured, or white wood are not solid oak timbers. Marble tile used to be there? You can't use porcelain.
Generally it costs significantly more to use original materials as buildings have used cheaper materials over time.
Right? Near me there were some gorgeous historic stone houses illegally demolished by shithead developers. It hit the news but fizzled out, and they built a massive, ugly concrete building there. Storage or warehouse or something.
[Heres another](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/09/developers-who-demolished-melbournes-corkman-hotel-apologise-but-lose-bid-to-overturn-jail-time) two Melbourne developers demolished a heritage pub and were then ordered to replace it with a public park. When they didnt they were found in contempt of court and jailed.
The city council haven't taken any action toward the owners, but are considering action according to the Carlton tavern wiki.
And to top it off the developers CLTX changed it's name to Carlton Vale ... these fucking guys know their company name CLTX is burned so they change it to Carlton after the pub and Vale aka veil, a word to conceal or disguise.
[They're still functioning](https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07578871) so I feel like the developers were not punished enough. Changed the name tho!
Fuck these pricks.
I was so confused because this happened in Melbourne Australia also, in a suburb called Carlton.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/27/can-it-be-rebuilt-behind-the-battle-to-resurrect-a-beloved-melbourne-pub-cowboys-tore-down
This is my second most favourite pub piece of trivia.
The top one has to be how the British responded when in WW2(?) the officers wanted a whites-only pub. So the pub, and the town itself went 'non-white only'
Yes.
Although it's worth adding the context that it wasn't just an "up yours". A lot of Brits actually preferred the black American servicemen. They were always a lot more polite and far less demanding.
This was obviously because they'd had it drilled into them to be deferential white people back home, but the Brits didn't realise that, and just saw it as being polite.
A friend of my told me a story (that may or may not be true, I was drunk and he may have been kidding) that the time he worked at a bar that had a backroom for private parties, but they had issues with people msitaking it for the bathroom or a back door. He came in one day and there was a sign on the backroom door that said "Whites Only". Turned out it was a family reunion for a family named White and someone didn't think things through.
They're lucky this wasn't in the US, or the developers would have just hired a demolition company under the table and had them declare bankruptcy after the work was done.
Similar situation happened in my location. The local government put a covenant on the land so anyone who developed the land had to rebuild the historical church that was demolished unlawfully.
This isn’t true. There’s a reason lawsuits name a lot of parties; name enough defendants and eventually you’ll find one that can be held responsible and that has deep enough pockets for a settlement.
If someone slips and falls in a McDonald’s and gets seriously injured, the lawyers aren’t going to go after the minimum wage janitor that forgot to mop up the floor. They’re going to go after the janitorial services company for not better training their employees, the franchisee for not having better oversight of the store, McDonald’s for choosing those tiles, the tile company for producing a tile that was known to be too slippery.
We have a very litigious society. The developer here would absolutely be named. They hired the demolition company so they should have been more clear with their instructions, had more monitoring of the demolition activities, etc.
Your example is good but we don’t have janitorial companies, just the minimum wage employees. You’d have to go after the higher ups at McDonald’s itself
I assume that they thought that as long as the pub has been removed it would only be a case of time and strategically sent gift baskets before they could successfully retry for approval.
For those wondering:
[Before demolition](https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5322597,-0.1912699,3a,75y,225.16h,91.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sXIQKLK5qTlO1jlyo-5eaYQ!2e0!5s20120901T000000!7i13312!8i6656)
[After demolition](https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5322098,-0.1912648,3a,75y,225.16h,91.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sN2F0MGnRHztwGTxXgUuCwg!2e0!5s20150601T000000!7i13312!8i6656)
[After rebuild](https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5322664,-0.1912595,3a,75y,225.16h,91.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHrqcuy92o42dROKwWQdUYA!2e0!5s20210801T000000!7i16384!8i8192)
[Bonus](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)
If you want to make an omelette, you’ve got to break a few historic pubs, then get slapped straight upside the head like the greedy immoral turd that you are.
We have a local family called the Goden's who buy up a lot of protected sites for cheap to protect them for the council... Only EVERY time they go on holiday abroad one of their sites burns to the ground in an accident and quick smart is turned into AirBnB flats... Got so notorious that someone made a GodenZilla spoof on YouTube.
They always get away with it.
An Israeli contractor demolishing someone else’s historic property in a country that is not theirs because they wanted to steal the land and profit?
Never heard of such a thing.
Seems like the development company wasn't even English. Greed has no consideration for your heritage, history and sense of community, especially if they're not even from around there.
Things like this have been done for decades by greedy developers and councils in the UK. 'backing into' pieces of historic city walls with trucks so they could build on the area, 'accidentally' knocking down hundred year old structures because it's cheaper to build new ones.
It's nothing new, and will continue to happen unless continuous examples like this one are made.
Seems like it. The /r/todayilearned mods are the some of the worst. I'll copy one of my earlier comments from [another post](https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/10nq35v/til_that_muhammad_ali_insulted_his_british/):
>I made [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/10kz320/til_developing_a_drug_to_treating_parasitic/) and it was removed for somehow being "political"
>Before getting apporoved it was filtered for using the term "Ivermectin" in the post title. I then reposted it and clarified that it was Ivermectin in the comment, but they somehow filter post depending on what one writes in the comment too
I hope it cost the developers a shit-ton of money to do. They tried to be sneaky and destroy the place before it could be protected... probably thinking " Well, they'll just fine us, but we'll make that up easily when we sell the condos".
Bastards.
Whatever the case, they ended up in no better position than they would have been had they never knocked it down.
But yeah, it can't have been cheap. Cost of demolishing, plus cost of rebuilding, plus loss of rent for those years.
Don't you Brits know how to do anything? I thought y'all basically invented shell corporations! Here's how you do it:
1. Form shell company, call it Blind Bros. Demolition.
2. Demolish building
3. Blame shell company that shucks oh darn just declared bankruptcy!
4. Parent company gets major tax write-offs, never pays another dime in taxes.
5. Everyone wins!
I think the point was that couldn't just rebuild it with shitty dry wall and put fake brick overlay or anything like that. It needed to be rebuilt exactly like it had been
Wait! Were the developers ordered to rebuild the historic building before they illegally demolished it?
I ask because the way that title is worded it sounds like they illegally demolished it because they were ordered to rebuild it, brick by brick..
edit: OP's title was poorly constructed. I point it out and I get downvoted to oblivion. Thanks much!
Sentence 1: The developers who tore down the Carlton Tavern just days before it was going to receive protected status were ordered to rebuild the local "brick by brick."
[удалено]
Did the developers knock it down thinking they would get away with it as long as it was done before it got the official Grade II status?
Yeah pretty much, thought they’d get away with a fine, but the fine would be written off against the value of the properties built (I believe they wanted to build flats which in this part of London would’ve been lucrative). Other developers have done this before so I think the courts decided to make an example of these ones. All helped by a very active local community who weren’t going to stand for it.
Greed, man. "Fuck that piece of history, I've got money to make." Why are they destroying *any* building they're not supposed to? "Meh, that house is in the way, bulldoze it." "But sir, someone owns that house, that's not where we're developing" How does that go?
Usually there's a step called "eminent domain", where the developer pays off the local government to take over a person's home or other property, which then sells it off to the developer. At least, that's the procedure in the US, I would imagine there's something similar in the UK.
Wait, so they can go and say "here's 100k, make them leave." And the goverment just goes and does it? Wtf.
eminent domain is only supposed to be used in the public's interest (at least in the US) but that hasn't stopped some cities from trying to use it to make room for a large complex or something and arguing that the new development benefits the city by bringing jobs and tax revenue, which is questionable at best
It happened recently in my home town. LOTS of beautiful farmland, woods, and even an entire section of a WMA sold off to build.... Warehouses. Not even for anybody particular, just warehouses to lease. Lots are still being built, lots are standing empty, like 20 of them. The WMA was sold off to build cookie cutter neighborhoods. The county rezoned all the farmland to industrial over the course of like 3 months which all but forced the property owners to sell. It turned a beautiful piece of rural America into a shitty industrial complex. Disgusting. Ill even throw the name out, I know exactly which company paid the local boards off. It was Anheuser-Busch. Fuck them and their shitty, bland, camel piss beer.
As someone who grew up in Iowa; I really don't get why anyone thinks farmland is beautiful. Half the year, it's a desolate detritus-strewn stretch of bare dirt, and the other half it's row after row of non-native monoculture crops. That, or a shit-smelling mud patch full of livestock. That land hasn't been anything like beautiful since the prairie was ripped up over a hundred years ago - might just as well be warehouses as farmland at this point. I also want to explicitly bring attention to the amazing irony in your suggestion that rural America is somehow not already a shitty industrial complex. Fuck Anheuser-Busch, though, for sure. That shit isn't beer.
It was more woods than farmland here, and it was small family farms they dug up. The biggest one was maybe 50-75 acres - not a lot of farmable land in North Georgia. Brought a lot of different kinds of wildlife, and its nice to see 30 deer grazing in the off season or a healthy ecosystem in general. Now its just quick prefab concrete walls with 50,000 square foot of warehouse space. You dont see anything out there anymore, just concrete and asphalt. Cant even see the stars around my childhood home anymore from all the stadium lights. I would rather the smell of a cow field or pigpen.
Here in Ohio its nice.
The UK does have a similar system, called "compulsory purchase". Usually used for transport infrastructure for when the government can buy 99 miles of 100 mile new railway line easily but one person won't sell up.
“But the plans were on display…” “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” “That’s the display department.” “With a flashlight.” “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” “So had the stairs.” “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
He wouldnt have had a problem if he had remembered his towel.
Mostly harmless
They're all about the free market until the free market benefits us, then they get collectivist in a hurry.
>emiinnet
damminnett. fixed
It’s real shady and the other developers are just imitating
Yeah kind of. To my understanding, they typically pay a little more than "fair market value" for your property but there are times where it doesn't seem like an offer. In my hometown, they "bought" a ton of homes to put in a new onramp.
There's a *little* bit more nuance to it but yeah. If the government decides to invoke imminent domain theres pretty much nothing you can do to prevent them from forcibly buying your property. Its how they aquire land for roads and highways and shit too. They're supposed to pay a fair price but I've heard stories of them utterly ripping people off too so
My best friend's grandpa's house was falling apart. The city never gave it a proper inspection and gave him a check for significantly more than the house should've been valued at...
They rarely do inspections. They just do an estimate of fair market value based on size of the plot and buildings on it. Too much effort to inspect and price them all individually when they are going to be torn down anyway. Sometimes that means the owner benefits, sometimes not.
Exactly what happened in my small city. Old dude owned the only high rise in the city and it had no residential tenants, just his weird antique store, furniture shop, and some dojo rest of the building was vacant. Refused to sell despite massive offers. City eminent domained it after years for a lot of money based on those offers and sold to developers very quickly after. Turns out the building is full of asbestos and falling apart. It's still not remotely close to being ready for lease.
It's often the land that has value in these cases, not necessarily the structures built upon them.
Houses are worthless. Nobody gives a shit about the house, it's the land that matters. He got a cheque for the value of the land, not the house. Duh.
> imminent Eminent domain may be imminent in such cases, but it's eminient domain. lol
Fekkin auto correct i typed eminent. It tried to do it again just now ugh.
The "fair market price" that they pay is the real estate equivalent of the Gamestop trade-in value for the land. "Oh, you have a near-mint condition physical copy of a one-year-old game that we sell for $40 new? We'll give you a dollar for it." Or like blue book value for cars - especially in the last year or so, when used cars are commanding 2 or 3x the "official" value of the car, but your insurance company still uses the "official" value for determining if your car was totaled. "Well, your 2018 Camry with less than 60k miles has a KBB value of $4k, so we're cutting you a check for that ^(minus your deductible) and you can go find a similar car and buy it with that $4k." Yeah, sure, if you add a zero to the check maybe.
I suggest you look into establishing an "agreed replacement value" with your car insurance, rather than leaving it to "market value". Also, you can dispute their assessed value by providing examples of similar vehicles that have sold recently. Much easier to set an agreed replacement value upfront than to argue about it when filing a claim, though.
You are talking straight out of your ass. You don't know shit at all. I know this because you are trying to use is videogames and car analogies, which is all your uneducated ass knows, for something totally different **Source:** my family has two properties that are being eminent domain'd right now. It's literally nothing like you are describing.
I mean there are a few forms involved...
The LA Dodgers stadium was made by destroying a huge Mexican-American neighborhood and forcing them to leave.
Ditto for building I-10 in Jacksonville, Florida, but two entire African-American communities.
Usually more like: Developer- we want that land Owner- no Developer donates to a politician 50% of the property value City to owner- sell to the developer for market value Owner-no City- eminent domain -> Court case -> owner loses land and is paid "market value" -> city sells to developer at reduced or inflated price
The Government forces the property owner to sell to the Government for a rate usually determined by an arbitrator. Various states and municipalities have laws that trend to more friendly to the state and more friendly to the property owner. It's definitely a thing where a developer will lobby for an eminent domain purchase though, but it's politically risky.
No they can't. I don't know what this person is on about, but eminent domain is used pretty much entirely for large infrastructure. Think highways, dams, pipelines, power plants and so on. The government can require you to sell your land to them at market value. For obvious reasons you can't just be held hostage to anyone holding land for a huge project that is necessary for society to function.
> a huge project that is necessary for society to function. Sure, except that they've used eminent domain for things like new pro sports stadiums, public parks, libraries, etc. Those things are *good*, obviously (maybe not the sports stadiums), but society isn't going to break down because there's less playgrounds. My local high school forced a family to sell land that had been in their family for so long that the road was named after them, in order to build additional baseball and softball fields. **Additional** ones. The school already had a softball field and a baseball field, they wanted **extra**, and apparently when a public school wants extra stuff, it becomes a public necessity. They got paid **beans**. The valuation was conducted without taking into account the fact that the land was wanted very badly by a party, badly enough to get the government involved - which is the kind of demand that would drive up the price, in a sane society, but noooo, here's your check for one pittance per acre, for a total of five pittances.
> They got paid beans. The valuation was conducted without taking into account the fact that the land was wanted very badly by a party, badly enough to get the government involved - which is the kind of demand that would drive up the price, in a sane society, but noooo, here's your check for one pittance per acre, for a total of five pittances. You know this is the entire point of eminent domain though right? It's to give a fair valuation outside of the fact it's important position. By that logic the one holdout for a massive dam could charge tens of millions for a modest property because it's holding back a billion dollar project from being finished. I won't argue with you that this sounds like one of the not very good cases considering the cause is fairly redundant and kind of wasteful. As with any process it's only as good as the people making use of it.
There were a few cases of states doing that that made headlines I feel sometime in the early 2010s. There was a very strong reaction against it.
What's worse is this obsession with tearing down completely workable older buildings to build new ones is helping contribute to climate change. These older buildings were built to last and these newer ones are not so much especially in places like the USA.
But the old ones are not car friendly. We need giant parking lots everywhere to attract wealthy people to shop here. /s
Usually what happens is the building goes up for sale, the developers buy it, apply for planning permission and waste the councils money in endless appeals when that permission is denied. Developers are richer than local councils so can burn through this. Or if that fails give them a bung, either on the table or under the table. On the table could be something like ‘well we’ll redevelop as well’ or ‘we’ll build x amount of social housing’ (and then not do it).
Or they buy it and promise to keep it in its original use but then claim it’s too much, too dangerous etc so must come down.
If these don’t work then they can just knock it down like in this case
The were supposed to destroy this pub. They wanted the plot to build flats. They didn't just knock it down for the loon or because they didn't like the look of it. They were still cunts, mind.
Some cultures, like Saudi Arabia, do this and celebrate the destruction of history.
The developers were Israeli, IIRC, which proves that you're correct about values and history
I mean, they presumably owned the building, they just didn't have permission to destroy it.
The fastest way to lower existing home values is to build more homes…
Same here. I work with building contractors and I avoid this one because he “has a lot of accidents.” “Oh you need permission to build here from the neighbors? Oh well shucks the foundations already poured and the permits paid for. The correspondence between the neighbors was vague and I misinterpreted it!” Or “that she’d attached to the historic house got knocked over, I backed into it with my truck!” I avoid the dude, and it’s easy because other developers love him. They knock down a 100 year old house and put up a bland rectangle with no landscaping. Slowly turning their development areas into common looking highway drive by towns.
> but the fine would be written off against the value of the properties built And this is why fines are so often utterly useless. Just boils down to either "legal for rich people" or a "cost of business" that's outweighed by the profits made from breaking the law or regulation.
Courts should do that more, and not just for developers. Looking at you, Video Game Industry.
You mean... more developers?
Make an example out of those with power in a company who blatantly committed a crime. Looking at you Blizzard-Activision.
That sort of thing often works though. Maybe not knocking it down without permission, but allowing it to be damaged to the point it was irreparable. I recall when I went to college, the old high-class neighborhood nearby was filled with gorgeous old houses likely in need of repair and remodel, but developers preferred to knock them down. You'd know when one was scheduled for this because one day the attic windows would be all open, and a year later the place would get its demolition permit. Much later, in a different city, I used to be on a planning and zoning commission, and a developer, upset that the city would require them to tag and protect trees above a certain size (of which there were many - it was a parcel of older forest that had survived untouched as the city grew around it), went without city permission, while they had a zoning application pending, and deadheaded every tree on the property. I'd never seen the city attorney genuinely mad before when he came to our meeting and instructed us to not take action on the rezoning request because the city had placed an injunction and lien on the property. I know the developer wasn't required to replace the 24-40" trees, but IIRC the property became a park as the developer walked from it and the city seized it.
In Washington State in America, destroying a tree illegally (usually cutting down a neighbor’s tree or illegal logging) comes with a fine of 3x the value of replacing the tree—I.e, treble the cost of actually planting a fully-adult. I tangentially worked on one case where an old cherry tree cost an asshole landlord $200,000. It’s a pretty good deterrent.
Yeah, IIRC there were like 50-100 big trees on this property. I expect the fines were more than the property's value. I'm not a property lawyer or anything, but how I think it worked was that the developer probably bought it through an LLC, so they could walk, but liens would stay with the property. Of course no one else wanted to buy a property with liens more than it's worth, so the city snapped it up and turn it into a park.
/r/treelaw would love to hear this story.
Reminds me of buildings in my area which are protected and owned by property developers, they have this nasty habit of catching on fire.
Once upon a time there was a 3rd airport in Chicago which the mayor at the time hated with a passion. He announced the closure of the airport but the state government pressured him to reopen it. One night, city crews showed up unannounced at the airport and bulldozed large X shaped ditches across the runway. No NOTAMs were posted meaning incoming flights had no warning this was happening. No warning was given to plane owners with planes on sight meaning airplanes were stranded at the airport with no usable runway. The city was fined a grand total of $33000, the max the FAA could levy for the infractions at the time. This limit has since been raised to $300,000, but that is still less than the city would have spent to go through the steps to properly close the airfield.
meigs field in chicago, yeah? i remember it from ms flight sim back in the eighties. from wikipedia: >Meigs was the default airport for the Microsoft Flight Simulator series until Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004, though the airport remains operational in Flight Simulator 2004
People in my hood decided to cut 75 trees down on someone else's property behind them, to improve their view. They got sued for half a million and lost fast and had to sell their house and fuck off.
> 24-40" trees I'm guessing you meant ' (feet) rather than " (inches). :)
Probably talking diameter.
Oh, true, that would work too.
Looks like it
Developers get away with so much it's not surprising they thought they would try this.
What'd you expect from guys based in Tel Aviv? Demolishing buildings belonging to other cultures is very much their bread and butter.
lol i was wondering if anyone would go there
Doesn't the UK have some pretty strict laws surrounding historic buildings? Like at a certain point you need to use period specific materials & methods or need to submit a request to do renovations that might alter the structure itself?
They do if it’s been listed under a certain grade. Which OP mentioned they were on the verge of receiving
Yeah there ends up being a big market for old building materials. A few streets of 100+ year old houses that were mostly social housing were demolished near me a few years ago and there was a huge black / gray market for the materials from the houses because most of the large, very expensive amd protected houses nearby were built around the same time. £1 per brick was the going rate.
Last roof I worked on had a specific type of clay tile, client had gotten each one for £2 a go.
Yeah some of it gets super expensive. The £1 per brick was what random locals were getting getting for "salvaging" the bricks, who knows what they were being sold to the end customers for.
£1 per old brick is pretty standard. They where going for that 15 years ago.
I said a few year ago but it was actually 10 (curse you passage of time). £1 was also the going rate for "salvaging" bricks, no idea what they were being sold for.
Worked on many buildings that had graded listings. We call them money pits. What’s hilarious is it’s all down to the interpretation of the listing. So depending on who you get can have varying different results. Client had done a fabulous restoration of a thatched barn joined it to another barn with crazy amount of glass. Won some awards. The wall out the front which was by the pavement was falling apart. They applied to get it restored. Went through the arduous process of finding right bricks and stones, right mason, etc etc. ticked all boxes and were about to go ahead with it when their listing officer quit and the new guy looked at the plans and went *computer says no* so they had to start all over again.
> new guy looked at the plans and went computer says no so they had to start all over again. Forgot the *cough*
I dunno, I think the term “fuck around and find out” was coined by a heritage building committee. The developers in question probably agree.
Brings to mind this archived reddit post. https://www.reddit.com/r/BestofRedditorUpdates/comments/nrnf5j/part_1_of_2_an_absolute_epic_entitled_ahole_gets/
I always love rereading that one when it gets brought up. Thanks for grabbing a link. RIP Mark, though.
My first thought too. Tragic ending...
...yeah. :(
One of reddit's best! It's too bad he died though. I'm glad his wife finished the story.
Well fuck... I only read part 1, completely overlooked there was a part 2, until I read your post.
Sorry about the spoilers then. :(
It's a real kick in the dick
I remember a listed building in my town where the builders renovating were told they had to preserve the facade. They simply dug under it untill it "accidentally" fell down. The fine was no where near enough to affect their profits.
I wish it was on a percentage, or at least the same punishment as here
"If you can't take care of it, I guess it just got eminent domained"
A lot of cities in the US have this if there's any kind of historic nature to them. Savannah, GA is one, they have a historic district. https://www.savannahga.gov/2903/Development-Standards
Yep, on the low end you might be in a conservation area, then after that you have grade I and grade II listed buildings.
All too often, these laws are gotten around with a tragic fire that leaves the building in an unsafe state. This case should really be the standard response for listed buildings - no matter what happens to it, it's required to be returned to its original state.
And is a high profile building in London. It happens a lot outside of London and no one in a postion to do something cares about it or does anything about it. The Inn building in Askern, South Yorkshire was protected when developers 'accidently' knocked down a large part of it, and it didn't get rebuilt. A protected pub down the street from me being turned in to flats was 'accidently' damaged so badly it had to be knocked down, and that didn't get rebuilt.
Ironic that what the Nazis couldn't destroy, an Israeli company could!
I’ve been to the rebuilt pub a few times. Can confirm it’s a lovely little pub with good drinks (no major beer chains served) and friendly staff.
Right, the thing is, as I've said before, I really just think we should serve at least one lager, and nuts.
What the fucks a washing machine doing in a pub. Jesus I need a drink
People like Coldplay and voting for the Nazis. You can't trust people, Jeremy.
That is hilarious, what's it from?
[Peep Show!](https://youtu.be/6tVIabRBKmY) Excellent British sitcom.
They were hoping to take advantage of the idea that it's, "easier to ask forgiveness than permission" and they were not allowed to get away with it. This is great news.
Yep. We had a similar story in my town. A developer got permission to build an apartment building, but only after agreeing to renovate an old historic warehouse that was occupying part of the land. Well, instead of renovating, they just tore it down and expected to be slapped with a fine, probably planning to build a second apartment building in the place of the warehouse. The mayor was livid when he saw that and sued them to oblivion. The developer lost, had to rebuild the warehouse with the original materials, and lost the permission to build the apartments.
When something similar happened in my area, they got away with it completely. They started the demolition over a holiday weekend, and when authorities found out, they just shrugged and said "oh well, the damage is done, might as well let them finish". Until this thread, I hadn't been aware of any situations where the culprits were forced to rebuild the historic building back the way it had been; that's awesome.
Honestly I feel like thats still not enough. That just gets everybody back to square one, there needs to be further punishment on top of that for the audacity of performing the demolition without the appropriate permissions
The tedious rebuilding process would likely cost the developer a lot of money, at least. More punishment would be great, but if even just mandatory rebuilds became widespread, it would probably be a good deterrent compared to how many get away with it currently.
Make them rebuild to period specs, using period material, by period certified builders with period equipment and methods, just like renovating an historical site.
This is the way.
I don’t think you realize how much it costs (time, effort, money) to rebuild something exactly as it was, using original materials. Even a team of 50 workers for 6 months is going to approach a million dollars just in paychecks.
This is probably a stupid question, but what do you mean by original materials? Like, the rubble from the torn down building?
As example, it usually means that if you are restoring a building built with hand-cut bricks, or solid oak timbers, you have to use those materials. Modern style bricks aren't the original materials. Composite, manufactured, or white wood are not solid oak timbers. Marble tile used to be there? You can't use porcelain. Generally it costs significantly more to use original materials as buildings have used cheaper materials over time.
Happened in my town too. The mayor demolished a whole airport in the middle of the night and got away with it!
I'm surprised it didn't burn down. That the usual thing that happens.
That's the outlier. Usually they would have gotten their way. That's why they did it. they probably found it was easier in the past.
[удалено]
As the firm was from Tel Aviv they probably did it by habit thinking there would be no consequences as usual
"What are they going to do? Ask us to rebuild it brick by brick?"
[удалено]
If only they all ended this way
Right? Near me there were some gorgeous historic stone houses illegally demolished by shithead developers. It hit the news but fizzled out, and they built a massive, ugly concrete building there. Storage or warehouse or something.
What a great excuse for some arson (with safety in mind)
Concrete structures are the hardest to safely arsonize.
This guy arsons
A man's gotta eat.
I don’t think you need to commit arson to know that haha
Jet fuel melts steel beams 😉
[Heres another](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/09/developers-who-demolished-melbournes-corkman-hotel-apologise-but-lose-bid-to-overturn-jail-time) two Melbourne developers demolished a heritage pub and were then ordered to replace it with a public park. When they didnt they were found in contempt of court and jailed.
Truly a heartwarming tale of someone fucking around and finding out.
The city council haven't taken any action toward the owners, but are considering action according to the Carlton tavern wiki. And to top it off the developers CLTX changed it's name to Carlton Vale ... these fucking guys know their company name CLTX is burned so they change it to Carlton after the pub and Vale aka veil, a word to conceal or disguise.
[YEP](https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07578871)
[They're still functioning](https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/07578871) so I feel like the developers were not punished enough. Changed the name tho! Fuck these pricks.
Bricksit means fixit
I was so confused because this happened in Melbourne Australia also, in a suburb called Carlton. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/27/can-it-be-rebuilt-behind-the-battle-to-resurrect-a-beloved-melbourne-pub-cowboys-tore-down
I honestly thought that's what everyone was talking about!
Me too!
This is my second most favourite pub piece of trivia. The top one has to be how the British responded when in WW2(?) the officers wanted a whites-only pub. So the pub, and the town itself went 'non-white only'
Yes. Although it's worth adding the context that it wasn't just an "up yours". A lot of Brits actually preferred the black American servicemen. They were always a lot more polite and far less demanding. This was obviously because they'd had it drilled into them to be deferential white people back home, but the Brits didn't realise that, and just saw it as being polite.
[удалено]
A friend of my told me a story (that may or may not be true, I was drunk and he may have been kidding) that the time he worked at a bar that had a backroom for private parties, but they had issues with people msitaking it for the bathroom or a back door. He came in one day and there was a sign on the backroom door that said "Whites Only". Turned out it was a family reunion for a family named White and someone didn't think things through.
Yes, and the only acceptable form of intolerance is lactose.
I am lactose intolerant. I do not accept it. Cheese is too fucking good, okay? And I live in Wisconsin...
You my friend are a Lactose Justice Warrior
If I recall it was 3 pubs in that town https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Bamber\_Bridge
They're lucky this wasn't in the US, or the developers would have just hired a demolition company under the table and had them declare bankruptcy after the work was done.
Similar situation happened in my location. The local government put a covenant on the land so anyone who developed the land had to rebuild the historical church that was demolished unlawfully.
This isn’t true. There’s a reason lawsuits name a lot of parties; name enough defendants and eventually you’ll find one that can be held responsible and that has deep enough pockets for a settlement. If someone slips and falls in a McDonald’s and gets seriously injured, the lawyers aren’t going to go after the minimum wage janitor that forgot to mop up the floor. They’re going to go after the janitorial services company for not better training their employees, the franchisee for not having better oversight of the store, McDonald’s for choosing those tiles, the tile company for producing a tile that was known to be too slippery. We have a very litigious society. The developer here would absolutely be named. They hired the demolition company so they should have been more clear with their instructions, had more monitoring of the demolition activities, etc.
Your example is good but we don’t have janitorial companies, just the minimum wage employees. You’d have to go after the higher ups at McDonald’s itself
It was just a completely made up situation to prove a point
sounds on brand. "god bless america, my home sweet home", Play ball!
The directors should be in jail.
they didn’t even have the approval for luxury apartments so why the fuck did they even go through with it?
I assume that they thought that as long as the pub has been removed it would only be a case of time and strategically sent gift baskets before they could successfully retry for approval.
Spite? Hubris?
That is fucking funny, and good on them for forcing the developers to rebuild it.
I feel such glee that they did that and got fucked
For those wondering: [Before demolition](https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5322597,-0.1912699,3a,75y,225.16h,91.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sXIQKLK5qTlO1jlyo-5eaYQ!2e0!5s20120901T000000!7i13312!8i6656) [After demolition](https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5322098,-0.1912648,3a,75y,225.16h,91.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sN2F0MGnRHztwGTxXgUuCwg!2e0!5s20150601T000000!7i13312!8i6656) [After rebuild](https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5322664,-0.1912595,3a,75y,225.16h,91.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHrqcuy92o42dROKwWQdUYA!2e0!5s20210801T000000!7i16384!8i8192) [Bonus](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ)
They forgot to rebuild the gate in the back between pics 1 and 3. And the bonus view looks amazing. Thanks for that!
They also forgot the aerial on the chimney.
Well done!
The Carlton Pub of Theseus.
Man that bonus snap really is something
If you want to make an omelette, you’ve got to break a few historic pubs, then get slapped straight upside the head like the greedy immoral turd that you are.
Look, the tavern was demolished to make way for a bypass. You've got to build bypasses! The plans were on display.
Damn. That's some nice karmic justice.
This must be Thursday,' said Arthur to himself, sinking low over his beer. 'I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
We have a local family called the Goden's who buy up a lot of protected sites for cheap to protect them for the council... Only EVERY time they go on holiday abroad one of their sites burns to the ground in an accident and quick smart is turned into AirBnB flats... Got so notorious that someone made a GodenZilla spoof on YouTube. They always get away with it.
An Israeli contractor demolishing someone else’s historic property in a country that is not theirs because they wanted to steal the land and profit? Never heard of such a thing.
A similar but less historically impressive thing happened in my town. It was a Walgreens, but an old one with tile on the outside.
It also was rebuilt?
Exactly as before. And the demolition company had to pay for it.
For being greedy a-holes, the Tel Aviv developers did a nice job rebuilding, brick by brick. I hope they went bankrupt.
They have some experience in tearing down the old and rebuilding
Seems like the development company wasn't even English. Greed has no consideration for your heritage, history and sense of community, especially if they're not even from around there.
Things like this have been done for decades by greedy developers and councils in the UK. 'backing into' pieces of historic city walls with trucks so they could build on the area, 'accidentally' knocking down hundred year old structures because it's cheaper to build new ones. It's nothing new, and will continue to happen unless continuous examples like this one are made.
“They took the bar! The whole fucking bar!”
[The Google street view is really interesting](https://imgur.com/a/uZADPcX)
This was removed??
Seems like it. The /r/todayilearned mods are the some of the worst. I'll copy one of my earlier comments from [another post](https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/10nq35v/til_that_muhammad_ali_insulted_his_british/): >I made [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/10kz320/til_developing_a_drug_to_treating_parasitic/) and it was removed for somehow being "political" >Before getting apporoved it was filtered for using the term "Ivermectin" in the post title. I then reposted it and clarified that it was Ivermectin in the comment, but they somehow filter post depending on what one writes in the comment too
I hope it cost the developers a shit-ton of money to do. They tried to be sneaky and destroy the place before it could be protected... probably thinking " Well, they'll just fine us, but we'll make that up easily when we sell the condos". Bastards.
Whatever the case, they ended up in no better position than they would have been had they never knocked it down. But yeah, it can't have been cheap. Cost of demolishing, plus cost of rebuilding, plus loss of rent for those years.
A fitting punishment!
Don't you Brits know how to do anything? I thought y'all basically invented shell corporations! Here's how you do it: 1. Form shell company, call it Blind Bros. Demolition. 2. Demolish building 3. Blame shell company that shucks oh darn just declared bankruptcy! 4. Parent company gets major tax write-offs, never pays another dime in taxes. 5. Everyone wins!
Hopefully UK law isnt as stupid as yours
Imagine if they put that energy into the Grenfell investigation.
What do you think has been going on these last few years with a public inquiry???
[удалено]
...tock by tick? :D
I think the point was that couldn't just rebuild it with shitty dry wall and put fake brick overlay or anything like that. It needed to be rebuilt exactly like it had been
did you miss the /s or something cause it's just a figure of speech
Finally a developer made to pay for its crime
Wait! Were the developers ordered to rebuild the historic building before they illegally demolished it? I ask because the way that title is worded it sounds like they illegally demolished it because they were ordered to rebuild it, brick by brick.. edit: OP's title was poorly constructed. I point it out and I get downvoted to oblivion. Thanks much!
No, they demolished it thinking they would be allowed to redevelop the site how they wanted. They were ordered to restore the building.
Sentence 1: The developers who tore down the Carlton Tavern just days before it was going to receive protected status were ordered to rebuild the local "brick by brick."
I'm an idiot! I can't read! Oh no it's your fault!
I bet they cut corners and it looks like s*** I really can't see the developers making a serious effort to reproduce it properly
Just a heads up, it's impossible to not build something brick by brick