I read in last week’s Letters to the Editor the response of the former owner of the Baxter house. Mr. Sam Hall Kaplan added additional background and history. It also raised to me the question of whether a property’s future status of being a landmark should be disclosed prior to the sale of a house.
While I respect Mr. Kaplan being “mindful of its historical significance,” I would be curious to learn if this was communicated to his buyer. I would also like to know if Mr. Kaplan tried to get landmark status for the benefit of his children and grandchildren before he sold his house. I am totally in favor of preserving landmarks. The question I raise is: what happens if the landmark status, for whatever reason, is forced upon the owner of a non-landmarked property? From what I have read, the new owner opposed it and lost. This, I believe, may have contributed to the demise of the property. I wonder if a better outcome would have occurred if Mr. Kaplan initiated the landmark status of his beloved Baxter house before he sold it.
—Aren Tung
