Strong disagree. If something has value, then the community should decide to preserve it as a group or the state should preserve it for us. I suspect that most of these schemes are some form of tax avoidance for wealthier people. The idea that some politically connected and likely wealthy group of people need some sort of help "preserving" historic buildings seems... dubious.

Then they should be owned by governments outright. Provided that the community consent to it and are aware of the cost.

Government provides crucial services that increases land value, offsetting any losses in tax revenue through public utility. Perhaps the same thing can happen with historical buildings.

However, let us note that cities are for living in. It is not a museum.

Ultimately, only the public can determine the balance of concerns to be struck.

None of the covered properties in Berkeley are legitimate landmarks of genuine architectural merit or historical importance. Every one of them was established by flim-flam for the purpose of claiming the tax abatement. Over the years this lovely property claimed more tax breaks than any other. Judge for yourself whether the public interest was served.

https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8567746,-122.2550107,3a,60y,...