Voting in California is hard. There are about 12 statewide propositions to vote on, and quite a few local ones, too.
Consider the Berkeley ballot measure LL, which changes the city law governing landmark preservation. Both proponents and opponents of the bill argue that
their way will preserve historic buildings better. I, on the other hand, think that sucks. I don't derive any benefit from historic buildings, and I'd gladly vote for the option that makes it easier to bulldoze them. I'm in favor of having pretty buildings, but in general keeping around crappy old buildings because someone famous once lived there is just silly. From a computer science perspective, the old buildings are like crufty old legacy code, and having to deal with unmodifiable buildings scattered through the area is an obstacle to redevelopment. You can argue that development is a bad thing, but you have to recognize that through the world, major cities are built on the ruins of older cities, and they wouldn't be what they are now if people hadn't knocked down the rickety old structures. San Francisco's skyline wouldn't be so majestic if the old saloons where gold miners once shot each other still cluttered the downtown.
Now, I'm not entirely heartless, and I think it's worth having a few old buildings around. But in general, I think historical status is too easy to get, and there are some very questionable things taking up otherwise useful space.
Or am I alone in this? Do you get anything from historic buildings?