Posted Feb 25, 2007, 7:19 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 374
|
|
Where do private property rights factor into this? If the owner of the house wants to tear it down, why should he be forced to go through the exercise of showing that rehabilitation will not be economically viable? As long as his proposed use fits within the zoning (or he can get new zoning approved), I don't see any reason why he should be forced to retain an old house simply because it's old. There's nothing historic or architecturally unique about it. It's not in a place where saving it makes sense. It's simply not worth the effort.
|
Threaded Mode