Currently any building over 50 years old can be submitted as an "historic" structure (yes, I know some buildings less than 50 can also). My point is that we need to move that benchmark to at least 100 years. One reason is that we spec buildings for a 50 year lifespan, so, in theory, we should almost be writing them up as historical as they are built. Secondly, a lot of stick built buildings of the last 30-40 years were horribly built, and the cost of maintaining them is already exhorbitant, maintaining them as historic buildings will be astronomical. Since the 50 year age is already an arbitrary age, I am simply suggesting we should seek out a more *reasonable* arbitrary age -- something that balances truly historic resources with reasonable costs to the taxpayer.
Idea No. 910