Talk:National Register of Historic Places

message: The article states "The shortcomings of the NHPA are obvious when historic properties are destroyed....".   I don't think that a demolition or two proves any such thing.  The NRHP program does not absolutely protect properties, it just provides a framework for Federal tax incentives, for Federal and other monitoring and scrutiny, and for local and state zoning and other regulation.  As I added to the article, Colorado is a state which explicitly does not protect NRHPs and emphasizes owners can demolish them.  In the case of the example given, the Jobbers Canyon Historic District in downtown Omaha, Nebraska that was demolished in 1987, there is evidence to me that the program was working, in fact.  As noted, the NRHP designation caused there to be a big to-do when the corporation announced its plans, so the NRHP program served its purpose by making it a public issue.  There were big dollars and big public issues at stake that were debated, and an outcome happened that didn't please everyone.  Outcomes where demolitions are prevented also hurt some property owners and other parties, too.  At least this case was debated, and local governments had an opportunity to come up with funding or creative ideas to save the district, perhaps unlike if the area was not listed as an NRHP.
It could be that those buildings were indeed ugly and crummy and ought to have been demolished to let something else happen there.  No one could seriously advocate that there never-ever should be a demolition of an NRHP.  A more heavy-handed regulation program would have serious drawbacks.  Most likely, a program with stricter protections would never be allowed to attain the broad reach that NRHP has.  A Canadian program described in national landmark article, for example, never really got off the ground, perhaps due to the extent of protection proposed for one of the first sites it included.
The other stated criticisms given are from old articles, and it seems unfair to state them here.  It does seem likely that early NRHP and NHL designations were more political and less balanced.  But the NRHP program has run broad theme studies and multiple property submission studies since the 1980s, expressly to provide balance, and the old articles don't address that.  The quote restated in a side-box is especially critical and seems to me unjustified.  Also, where is the National Park Service or other response to the criticism?  This just seems like a one-sided, unfair criticism.
I'd prefer to see the entire Criticism section dropped, unless it can be radically rewritten with new sources and some "fair and balanced" perspective.  Right now it is not encyclopedic in tone. doncram (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to reword this. The article has passed through three separate review processes and no one raised any issue with the article's neutrality or tone. Perhaps you are letting personal bias sneak in? I am as much a supporter of the NRHP as anyone but the fact of the matter is there exists significant criticism of the program and its criteria, to not include that would be non-neutral. I would invite you to help collaborate to improve the wording and title of the section but I think dropping the information altogether would violate WP:NPOV IvoShandor (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of criticisms, one post office in New York City has been getting a lot of bad yelp reviews. In spite of this, I wanted to get more photos of the place during my recent vacation to NYC, but I missed the chance. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  00:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drop the criticisms? 

message: I have reverted the addition of NIMBY in the see also section as not relevant.MB 17:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The article that I inserted a wikilink to has context on this, should I add an annotation next to the link to clarify the relevance? See here: NIMBY#Claimed rationale. Thanks! ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 16:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , that list of claimed rationale appears to be mostly WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. People often don't want prisons or garbage dumps near their homes, but NRHP listing often means there is pride in a property and it is well maintained. That list implies an objection to historic listing because a property is "preserved" and therefore not updated. If this has actually happened somewhere, it is probably quite rare and not particularly relevant to mention in NRHP. MB 17:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe within the context of a simple "See also" listing, even some of the more rare instances may be covered here. I updated in good faith, with contextual wording if you want to take a look. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 17:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this claim in the NIMBY article is unsourced and could be deleted as such at any time. We should not link to it. Please gain consensus to add this link. MB 17:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  NIMBY in See also