[Info-vax] Completely OT: Frank Lloyd Wright

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <2a100$5087a06a$5ed43c14$17170 at cache90.multikabel.net>,
	Dirk Munk <munk at home.nl> writes:
> 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.

Actually, what you said is that many countries have legislated theft.
India claiming control over those cars does no mean they ever really
owned them.  In this country you can go to jail for receiving stolen
property even if you weren't the one to steal it.  Taking away the
owners right to do with his property as he wishes is theft, plain
and simple.  and arguing that the law supports the government, is
called rationalzation.  The government could legislate anything.
It doesn't make it right, only another immoral law.

> 
> 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.

All a matter of opinion.  We have houses (and at least one church) with
things like yellow and purple trim on the windows and doors.  I think
they look like crap.  But I have been told this is "Victorian" and an
acceptable style.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  As far as
not allowing changes, if the houses are sold like that and the requirement
is part of the sale contract, then so be it.  The buyer knows what he
is getting into.  BUt imposing such restrictions after the fact is what
I have said is wrong.

> 
> 
>>
>> 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.
> 

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>