[Info-vax] Completely OT: Frank Lloyd Wright

[Paul Sture]

In article <eA+hf9EgJE02 at eisner.encompasserve.org>,
 koehler at eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote:

>    I recall two similar cases.  A city took a commercial property
>    running a popular establishment and exchanged it for a nearby
>    commercial location.  The justification was that the factory being
>    built on the original property benefitted the community and needed
>    what were at that time several adjacent small properties to make up
>    the space they needed.  The decision was upheld by the courts.
> 
>    In another case, a city took low value homes so that a developer could 
>    put in high price housing.  Again the argument was that it benefitted
>    the community.  That one went to the US Supreme Court.  It was
>    specifically allowed by the state constitution and SCOTUS ruled that
>    the federal government had nothing in place to prevent it.
> 
>    Were these abuses?  Is thier less abuse if the property is
>    commercial, than if it is a home, or is a $400,000 worth of real
>    estate just $400,000 worth of real estate?

There was a lot of abuse in the UK in the 60s and 70s, any maybe later.

The town planners and developers were hell bent on ripping down old 
building and replacing them with concrete monstrosities, and this took 
two forms:

a) City centre redevelopment.  Victorian architecture wasn't respected 
the way it is today and a lot of fine buildings were demolished.  A lot 
of their replacements have been replaced already, or are in the process 
of being replaced.  In contrast what I have seen in Europe is that with 
a worthy enough piece of architecture the outer shell is left intact 
(and yes, in some cases that means just the front facade), and a new 
building is constructed within.

b) Private housing.  A lot of people were forced out of their homes by 
compulsory purchase and move to tower blocks.  Many of these became 
modern slums and have now been demolished.  Those compulsory purchase 
prices were daylight robbery, and many folks went from home ownership 
without enough money to buy again to renting.

There were various scandals about this and some folks went to jail, but 
they probably represented the tip of the iceberg.  Demolition 
contractors for example were not only paid generously for their work, 
but got to keep a lot of very fine stone and other materials they could 
sell.

> David Froble wrote:
> > True story.  My daughter and her husband were looking at refinancing 
> > their house.  The bank sent out an assessor to set a value on the 
> > property.  Now, the house is maybe 800 ft from the road.  Some people 
> > value their privacy.  This particular assessor set a lower value because 
> > of the distance to the road.  To this day I have not found one other 
> > person, including other assessors, to agree with that logic.  So, things 
> > that can be subjective can be very unfair.  (When it was challenged, 
> > even the bank disagreed with the assessor.)
> 
>    I'd set a lower value, too.  More expense to maintain the driveway,
>    perhaps including removing snow.  Easier for a break in to go
>    undetected.  Definitely something that would reduce my bid if I
>    was interested in buying it.
> 
>    And yes, I like my privacy.  That's why I close my drapes at night.
>    If I could be successfull at a lower bid, I might not mind plowing that 
>    snow, but I would make sure I could remove any sight barrier between 
>    the road and the house.  And I would bid lower because of the cost.

Fashions change too.  The house I bought in 1987 was out in the sticks, 
and I had managed to nip in just before everyone else got the same idea.  
At that time many folks in the UK had company cars, often with free fuel 
too, so living out in the sticks was a lot more affordable than it had 
been, and house prices reflected that.

In contrast, the previous owners of that house had bought it in 1967, 
and had been under intense pressure from friends and relatives to buy a 
new house on a housing estate.  To buy that new house would have cost 
several thousand pounds, requiring a mortgage, but the old place out in 
the sticks cost them the princely sum of £450, which with a parental 
loan meant they could pay cash.  By 1987 the price of that old house had 
easily outstripped what that new house would have been worth.

I'll also mention the corruption that exists in the property business. 
It is quite possible that the assessor Dave quotes had an eye on the 
property for a friend and wanted the sale to fall through.

-- 
Paul Sture