I used to live near an old historic town with buildings standing since the 1850s. New people and businesses are moving in all the time and stuff needs to be built. The town uses color codes and other design elements to preserve both the older buildings as well as making newer buildings match the historic tone. This is explicitly done to promote and keep tourism flowing into the town, which is a HUGE part of their income.
If an industry or contractor balks at these ideas (and they do every now and again) there are several other larger modern cities a few miles away with access to the Interstate and train yards. These don't share the "historic preservation" codes of this little town.
If the town allowed a free-for-all on design it would wreck it's main source of income and likely cause decay over the years as tourism dropped off.
The town itself is less than 3,000 people. Tourism is it's major industry, and without it the town would disappear.
> Why don't "tourism people" just pay people constructing buildings to use the colour "tourism people" want?
That implies they could ignore that rule at any time. Reimbursement programs are an increase in paperwork, which many would simply ignore for convenience. This would give the town the "Tragedy of the Commons" problem, erasing it's historic sense (and primary revenue source), and it would become another run-down town like many others in the region.
Is that fair to those who invested heavily in keeping their businesses and homes in that area? Their answer is a resounding "No"
If somebody balks, just like this, there are other more modern and relaxed cities within a few miles that can accomodate their building ideas. These cities even have more access to freeways and trains, so economically it makes sense to put their businesses inside those cities.
Instead, the primary draw towards this town IS it's historical authenticity, and thus the people living there keep it maintained through it's building codes. There is no other reason why a business or homeowner would live in that area, so it makes sense to keep with it's character. If that's too onerous, then perhaps your motivations for building should be reexamined.
Some people love teal and pink. Having to look at or try to sell a house next to a monstrosity can be pretty horrible (or the neighbors with junker cars all over the lawn). Having been in a couple of regulated areas, I'm not much of a fan of the micromanagement that happens. However, having had my value/quality of living majorly degraded by an industrial operation moving in next door in unregulated BFE, the risk of living somewhere without rules is higher than the cost of compliance, at least for me.
The regulation on brick color mentioned above is at the city level, not federal or state. You have districts that enforce ascetic rules typically to preserve the look of a neighborhood.
