[Info-vax] Completely OT: Frank Lloyd Wright

[David Froble]

AEF wrote:
> On Oct 21, 9:04 am, billg... at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>> In article <feb0ce6e-90a1-4699-9854-1b0e0aaba... at d3g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
>>         AEF <spamsink2... at yahoo.com> writes:
> [...]
>>> On Oct 6, 11:42 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber... at comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 10/6/2012 6:58 PM, Dirk Munk wrote:
>>>>> Yesterday there was a news item on Dutch TV news (all day long!) that a
>>>>> project developer in Phoenix wants to demolish a house designed and
>>>>> build by Frank Lloyd Wright. He built this house in 1952 for his son
>>>>> David. As you will know (I hope) Frank Lloyd Wright was one of the
>>>>> gratest architects that ever lived, not only in the U.S., but anywhere.
>>>>> I'm a very big fan of his work, and it is incomprehensible to me that it
>>>>> would be allowed to demolish any building designed by him, let alone
>>>>> this house that is regarded to be one of his ten best designs. In Europe
>>>>> this would be a listed building and you couldn't even point your finger
>>>>> at it without permission. Will you please help to stop this act of
>>>>> cultural barbarism and sign the petition on this website?
>>>>> http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-phoenix-save-the-david-and-gl...
>>>> If you really want to preserve this house, buy it and the land it stands on!
>>>> If you look deeply enough, you just might find that there are good
>>>> reasons for wanting to demolish the house!
>>> Question:
>>> How do you feel when neighbors gang up on you to clean up your yard by
>>> getting the local gov't to give you a ultimatum?
>> Gang up on you?  Seems to me that you are in violation of some ordinance.
> 
> Yes, and yes. And that's "were". We're talking c. 1990.
> 
>> Otherwise, they would have no way of giving you an ultimatum.  If you
>> chose to live there, then you agreed to abide by the ordinances.  Thus the
>> reason my house in GA is in an un-incorporated area.
>>
>>>                                                   I lived in a house
>>> with others. One of them had some ugly car parts or something like
>>> that on the driveway. We got a nasty note threatening a summons or the
>>> like if they weren't put out of sight.
>> Most municipalities I know of have ordinances against derelict cars (or parts)
>> sitting in driveways.  heck, I have heard of places where you are allowed
>> to work on your car in your own garage or even leave your garage door opened.
>> But some people agree to live under these conditions.
>>
>>>                                         Where I live now, my neighbors
>>> were given a stern warning to water their lawns.
>> By who?  Homeowners association?  Is it a development with restrictions that
>> you agreed to abide by when you moved in?  Strictly a contract matter.
> 
> Well, first of all, it's other people's lawns. Second, I don't know if
> it's a contract matter, though I suspect it is. OK, fair enough, if
> so.
> 
>>>                                                   I was just wondering
>>> what you and Bill Gunshannon thought things like this.
>> If you agree to certain conditions for living in a location (and failure
>> to learn about them prior to buying a house does not excuse you) then
>> you are bound to abide by them.  I am a ham radio operator.  You can bet
>> I made sure there were no restrictions on antennas or towers before I
>> bought that house in GA.
>>
>>> Also, how do you (and Bill) feel about eminent domain?
>> Theft is theft.  Doesn't matter who does it.
>>
>>> Just curious.
>> Did I answer your question?  :-)
> 
> Mostly, but I have some follow up questions.
> 
>> bill
>>
>> --
>> Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
>> billg... at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
>> University of Scranton   |
>> Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>
> 
> How do you feel about the Landmarks Preservation Committee telling
> owners of buildings what they can and cannot do with their land and
> buildings and do you think it's any different from ordinances against
> having derelict cars in one's own driveway. Both have the law behind
> them. Or are you, perhaps, against ordinances allowing a Landmarks
> committee or city telling property owners what they can and cannot do
> with their property?
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> AEF

It's total bullshit, someone telling someone else what they can / have 
to do with property.  All this without being willing to put up their own 
money, time, and such.  I can see them saying that "this is a landmark 
and you cannot change that.  Either leave it as is, or, sell it to us or 
someone who will preserve it."  That's fine, in special cases.  But if 
the "landmark committee" isn't willing to pay the price, then they 
should not have any say about other people's property.

As for existing rules, standards, and such, a buyer or builder should 
understand about pre-existing conditions, and if he doesn't agree, move on.

It's a common problem with airports.  The airport exists.  People find 
"cheap land" (because of the airport), and later attempt to close down 
the airport.  A true flaw in "democracy, the terrorism of the majority".