Quote:
Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam
For me, with this case, it's not about them wanting to preserve the housing. I mean, if the medical groups wants to tear those homes down in favor for exact carbon copy of the current medical building across the street, i'd completely be in favor of keeping the buildings up.
My problem is the fact that they come in and just tell the owner they're going to make it a historic building meaning he can't do with it what he wants.
If it's not a historic building and the owner doesn't request that it be made one then they have NO right to just put a stamp of historical value on the property and screw the owner.
|
Actually, they (and by "they", it really means "we") do have that right. And the exercise of that right is why places like King William, Monte Vista, Lavaca, and many buildings in the center city and other historic neighborhoods still exist.
These owners aren't getting "screwed", and it doesn't mean they can't redevelop the property. But property ownership doesn't mean unlimited freedom - it comes with many obligations. And in places where historic fabric is preserved (usually creating higher property values for owners), those obligations are not insignificant.
Typically, the property owners who complain the loudest are those who allow their properties to degrade (and degrade the rest of the neighborhood with it).