> 2: Such locations may not always be torn down because of a monument protection status. A tried and true tactic to get around this without actually restoring the place is to simply let time and the elements do their work until the place can no longer even be restored. This is a long term investment plan.

Protection laws that don't pay for the protection have this unintended side effect. Another example in the US is the Endangered Species Act: if you know your property might have such species you have the incentive to prevent anyone from surveying it, and to bulldoze it before anyone does.

The solution is to respect property rights and, if something needs preserving, pay for it. We see this with conservation easements and land preservation charities. But that would eliminate the free ride society experiences with current laws and would limit the amount of preservation actually done, even if subjecting preservation to market discipline is probably a good thing overall. Is preserving building X or species Y really worth the cost?

I will not be surprised if the current US Supreme Court rules things like historic building preservation laws to be unconstitutional takings without required compensation.