That’s pretty much my question gents.
You get questionable lifetime sweetheart deals from the city. The new administration wants to take a second look. You go on the record saying the ballpark doesn’t have much of a life left.
Well then, what happens next with the park since it’s been designated a national historic building. You can’t use the place for anything else I believe. That just kills the land value, right?
Where will you go? Will you move to dehistoricalize Fenway Park?
Just wondering here. Because that’s me, Mr. Curious.
Please share widely!
JimC says
… is my guess. Current ownership probably has 20 or 30 years left (though John Henry has kids, right? So maybe one of them will inherit his piece.).
This whole story is a great example of why, no matter how good his intentions, it’s problematic for the owner of the Red Sox to own the newspaper of record in this town.
Christopher says
I don’t believe it keeps it from being restored in a way that is faithful to its architecture or from being used for its original purpose.
stomv says
In general, nothing stops a tear down of a building that is on the National Historic Register. The money quote is “a property owner can do whatever they want with their property as long as there are no Federal monies attached to the property.” I don’t know if Mass or Boston has further restrictions; this article suggests not, although not strongly.
That’s my understanding. Anybody got evidence to the contrary?
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
there is a financial benefit for them but they do lose some control. I could be wrong. But hey, me wrong? C’mon.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
there are limits on what can be done to the place thus lessening its value. Money needed to build a new park. Because guess what, the taxpayers aren’t contributing a dime to a new baseball stadium.
Good luck with that when Larry and John sell the thing