Some rules are meant to preserve history, but they don’t always account for practicality.

What would you do if you owned a property that was deemed a landmark so you couldn’t demolish it, even though it was falling apart?

Would you comply with endless red tape?

Or would you find a creative way to get what you want?

In today’s story, one homeowner finds himself in this very predicament.

Here’s what he did.

Couldn’t demolish; could renovate.

There was a house in my town that was vacant and in really bad shape.

The planning department considered it a landmark, and therefore, they wouldn’t allow demolition, only interior renovation.

So, the owner began renovation by removing all interior walls and all upper-story windows.

They couldn’t knock it down, but Mother Nature could.

Then, they mysteriously had some cash flow problems, and work stopped.

Eventually, we had a bad storm, and the entire structure came down.

No permits are needed to clean up storm damage.

Problem solved.

Vacant land is now usable.

That’s one way to work around their rules.

Let’s see what Reddit readers have to say about his decision.

This is interesting.

Property values in California are crazy in most places.

Great point.

Here’s another example of people leaving one wall to cut costs.

Those laws backfired completely.

Instead of preserving the landmark, they paved the way for its total destruction.

If you liked that post, check out this post about a woman who tracked down a contractor who tried to vanish without a trace.