[Info-vax] Completely OT: Frank Lloyd Wright

[Dirk Munk]

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <aa5b83e9-4945-451d-9add-a6dcfd23dcdd at w2g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> 	AEF <spamsink2001 at yahoo.com> writes:
>> 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.
>
> In a development there are often covenants that require one to take proper care
> of their property with what is "proper" being decided by the homeowners association.
> If you do not wish to abide by the covenants attached to the deed then you should
> not buy the property.  They are considered, legally, part of the purchase contract
> and thus contract law.
>
>>>
>>>> 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
>
> I don;t think they have any right to do so after the fact.  If you bought the property
> knowing it was thus controlled, then you agreed to it.  If they declare it afterwards,
> then they are wrong.  if they want to do something with the property other than what
> I want to do with it then they should buy it from me, at what I consider a fair price,
> or just go away.

This is de facto not possible. There is a moment in time that a 
Landmarks Preservation Committee will come to the conclusion that a 
building is worth preserving, and that moment is not before the building 
is used for the very first time. So there will always be an owner who in 
many cases doesn't like that his building is being listed. In your point 
of view that would mean the building can not be listed or the Committee 
should buy the place. And what if the owner doesn't want to sell?

The idea that ownership doesn't always mean that you have absolute 
control over a building is more common on this side of the big pond I'm 
sure. When it is an old building you are more temporally in custody of 
the building. In 2112 you will be forgotten, but the building will still 
be there with some luck.



>
>>            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?
>
> Ordinances against things like derelict cars are like zoning.  They are intended to
> protect people and their investment intheir property.  Just like certain areas being
> zoned residential so someone can't come in and build a slaughterhouse in next to
> peoples houses.  Lamndmarks committees are not doing anything to protect other
> people's lives, properties or investments.  They are about preserving something
> that a small group may consider of value and getting some one else to foot the bill.
> If I live in an 1850's house and want to put vinyl siding on it there is no decrease
> in the value of my neighbors properties so why should I be prevented from doing it?
> In my opinion it would impreove the value of my property.  If other disagree and want
> the house preserved, convince me to sell it and move and then you can do whatever you
> want with it.  But I see no way anyone else has the right to tell me what I can or
> can not do with my property as long as it does not harm my neighbors, their property
> or their investment.
>
> bill
>
>