[Info-vax] Completely OT: Frank Lloyd Wright

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <k67r12$g5$1 at speranza.aioe.org>,
	glen herrmannsfeldt <gah at ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
> David Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> 
> (snip)
> 
>> Bill makes a very good and valid argument, and so you change the 
>> subject.  The subject was real estate property.  Buildings.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I agree, except ...
> 
>> 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.
> 
> That is the problem. Well, consider the emminent domain case, which
> is similar but not exactly the same. In that case, there is an 
> official process for coming up with a fair value. Usually higher than
> the value might have been before, but you can't arbitrarily raise
> the price. 

Fair?  Why does anyone other than the owner get to set the price?
How can anyone, other thant he owner, know what the real value is
to the owner?  Legislated theft is still theft.

> 
> Say the government was building a freeway and had made deals for
> all the houses except yours. It would be a huge expense, reselling
> some already bought properties, and make a funny curve in the
> freeway to go around one house. Doing that might cost 10 or
> 100 times the value your house would otherwise have, but it
> really isn't fair to ask that.

Why?  It is my property and no one but me can set the "fair" value.
Suppose I raised my whole family in that house and have a strong
sentimental attachment?

Beliseve it or not, I have seen eminent domain in use for exactly that
kind of project.  Influential people (like a lawyer named Marianelli)
got 3 - 4 times the value of his house.  Others got 50% of the appraised
value.  And even more had the highway built over their houses (yes, 
they put up bridges and left the houses below them!) and received no
compensation even though it basicly made their property totally un-
marketable.  See my signature!!

> 
>> Sure, go ahead, do it, but be prepared to "pay the price" for your 
>> actions.  This is something too many people try to avoid.
> 
> Say that someone knows that there is interest in a historical
> house, but that hasn't been made public. He then buys the house,
> hoping to make a huge profit when the deal goes through.

The people with the interest in the property have the same opportunity.
Of course, he could lose all of it on the whim of the Landmark Commission,
too.

> 
> To me, that is pretty much the same as insider trading
> in stocks. Using information that one shouldn't otherwise
> have, and hoping to profit on that information.

Possibly, but then maybe they should have protected the information
or handled the whole thing differently.  In any event, it changes
nothing.  The owner of the property is the only one who can set a value.
Or are you saying that if I can get a dozen people to vote on it I can
force the local Porsche dealer to sell me a 911 for $100?

> 
> Fair price, but not extortion.
 
No one uses extortion as effectively as the government.  Fair price for
my property can only be set by me.  Not by an outsider.

bill


-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>