It's a meaningless distinction if the market doesn't give a hoot about history. Playing this word game is extremely cynical when the housing shortage and homelessness are such problems, especially in a country like the US that doesn't have much history.

If it's worth preserving, then it's worth paying for out of your own pocket. Leaving it to the government just lets biased people decide what's worth preserving instead of letting the market work. Claiming market failure requires strong evidence beyond "a thing I don't like".

Huh? You seem to think the author, or maybe I, have some strong stance in favor of the status quo on conservationism, which is not the case. The article is just about trying to understand why the movement has been so successful, and what would have to change to get past it.

It's not "word games" because they're two different movements, with two different sets of causes and therefore two different sets of needs to be addressed.