Not Smart

I read what I guess was an unfortunate article yesterday evening. It concerned a restaurant near me which may soon receive a historic designation from the city, or whichever government entity is concerned with such things. This restaurant may also lose its lease with the building owner soon. Now, the basis of the historic designation would mainly be the building's design, which I understand is of the 'Googie' movement.

The owner is said to be livid over the possibility of the designation. I guess I can kind of see his point of view. He may see the possibility of renovations and re-development being impaired in future. This certainly could impact his bottom line if he hopes to yield more money from the present tenant or from another after making some form of improvements, and as I said I can appreciate that concern, although I don't exactly share it.

Actually, the thing I really don't get is that the owner would force out his tenant even after a historic designation prohibits him from making any serious changes to the property. It really would be cutting off his nose to spite his face, when you think about it. The tenant's business is called 'Henry's Tacos'. The reason for the designation is partly the huge sign saying 'Henry's Taco's', and the owner presumably would not be able to change that.

I think that he would then be hard-pressed to find a new tenant. He would either have to get another one also called 'Henry's Tacos', or else simply mount another sign in such a way that the designation is not impinged on. That would be terribly confusing (although perhaps not as confusing as the nearby intersection at which two different restaurants called "Hugo's"occupy opposite corners). I do hope that cooler head prevail, although ultimately we are talking about the possible loss of a Mexican restaurant in a city that doesn't want for them.