[Info-vax] Completely OT: Frank Lloyd Wright

[Dirk Munk]

David Froble wrote:
> Dirk Munk wrote:
>> Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> "legallized" theft.  So, the car you own will one day be an antique and
>>> of considerable value.  Does that mean you are only a "cusdtodian" and
>>> others can tell you what you have to do to keep it around until that
>>> time
>>> arrives?  What about a book?  What about a piece of furniture?
>>>
>> Almost every country has laws that prohibit you from selling valuable
>> objects like antiques, paintings etc. abroad if those objects are
>> considered valuable for history and culture of that country.
>>
>> Last night I saw a beautiful program about vintage Rolls-Royce cars in
>> India. Before the independence of India Rolls-Royce sold about 850
>> cars to the Maharajahs. After India became a republic, many of those
>> cars were not used any more, and foreign collectors bought them for
>> little money. But then the government made it illegal to sell them
>> abroad.
>>
>
> Hmmm .....
>
> Bill makes a very good and valid argument, and so you change the
> subject.  The subject was real estate property.  Buildings.

I explained to Bill that owning a building does not mean that you have 
absolute control over it. Then *he* asked if this also might apply to 
other goods like a car, a book or furniture. So I explained to him that 
indeed this also applies to other objects as well, and I used the 
example of the vintage Rolls-Royce cars in India.

Getting back to the subject of real estate, you can never do as you 
please with a building. It depends on the situation of course, but I 
know streets with normal family houses that were build in the 1920's and 
1930's, and those houses were recently restored and improved to modern 
standards. Before the restoration these houses were rental 
accommodations, but afterwards they were sold. The outside of these 
houses were brought back to the original design, including the colours 
of the window frames etc. And the new owners are not allowed to change 
those colours. When you think about it, that preserves the value of your 
property. If owners would paint their doors and window frames in any 
colour they like, it would ruin the original concept of the architects, 
and the street would look cheap and run down. Now these houses have a 
certain grandeur and that improves the value.


>
> I have no objection to some things worth being preserved, being
> preserved.  As for what's worth being preserved, good question, huh?
>
> What I'd object to is someone who has put his own money into something
> losing that investment.  If someone who has bought some property isn't
> allowed to do what he intended, that's exactly what happens, he loses
> his money.
>
> So, if some entity wants to declare some property as special and to be
> controlled, that entity should be prepared to put their money where
> their mouth is.  Even if their declaration raised the property value,
> they should have to come up with the current property value, and
> compensate the owner for any inconvenience.
>
> Sure, go ahead, do it, but be prepared to "pay the price" for your
> actions.  This is something too many people try to avoid.