the downside to being "historic"

Aside from the outrageous costs of refurbishing and maintaining a historic home, I have noticed some serious wallet pains from home owners in my quaint little town...mostly having to do with historical requirements. Where poured concrete might suffice in your typical suburban neighborhood in the outlying areas of a large metropolis, we are required to use hand-cut limestone. Pricey, indeed! Colors have to be approved, as well as building materials, and if you have an enemy on the historic commission, you're possibly in for a world of trouble when submitting your approval request.

One of the latest squabbles in town involves a new resolution concerning "demolition by neglect", and is basically fines a homeowner and restricts them from rebuilding on said property should they allow a home to disintegrate. I can understand this approach, as it is all too easy for some to buy a dilapidated old home and allow it to fall apart, knowing full well that the underlying lot is worth so much more if newer structure could be built in its place. However, I can see the other side of the argument. Imagine the costs of repairing a moisture-laden rotting foundation, or one in which termites have made it their home for the last eighty years. This is why the idea of purchasing a home in the historic district is even more financially prohibitive than the already inflated sales price.

Does it make me wish for a more urban and contemporary environment? No, sorry. I don't miss the traffic and the noise or the glass and steel buildings. Although it can be a headache, I'll stick to my charming and dilapidated hometown for now.