Many of you may have read 3rd ward Alderman Don Bachtard's latest letter in the local rags the past few weeks. We're putting it here for our own abject amusement.
Letter to the Editor:
I wrote this to let your readers know how I will vote regarding Special Use for PADS at St. Paul, and to render my reasoning for that vote. I will vote "yes" to require special use. The primary reason is that the bulk of the constituents (at this point about 70% of more than 300 people) I have spoken with support special use.
I must say that I don't believe myself that government should be involved in this, that essentially it should be decided by the parish at St. Paul and the nearby neighbors of St. Paul. I am troubled by the fact that the city seems to be at odds with itself over this. Since I am an engineer by trade, and not a legal expert, I can only render my opinion of what is or is not constitutional or legal based on my own research and conversations with attorneys, including the city attorney.
With that in mind, there is some basis in law to support the Special Use requirement. If you read the Wikipedia article about the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment, you will see that the exact phrasing of the clause is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). The most commonly held interpretation of the clause is the Jeffersonian interpretation which defines the clause as "a wall of separation of church and state".
The city is not part of Congress. Since the clause is directed specifically at Congress, it may not apply. We are not legislating to prevent the free exercise of religion. We have codified the Special Use process for the safety of our citizens, including the occupants of the PADS shelter. Under this interpretation, what we are asking is perfectly legal and constitutional.
Also, several state and federal court judges have ruled favoring municipalities and state governments in cases like this, as you can see in the Wikipedia article referenced. Fire safety, food safety and other risks associated with overnight stays are, according to the opinions I have read, "compelling reasons for a municipality to request special use". We, as the citizens of Park Ridge are liable if some one is injured there and we have not enforced our local safety codes as preventative measures to that injury.
Also to be considered is that statement in several of these opinions that "a homeless shelter is not directly connected to the free exercise of worship". In other words, these judges have ruled that requiring special use does no interfere with the church's worship or mission in any way.Finally, I would say what I have said to several of the ministers in the PRMA. Going through Special Use is an advantage, not a hindrance, to the shelter and the PRMA. It shows that the churches are good neighbors and do not consider themselves to be above the law, and that they are not only concerned about the safety of their PADS clients and St. Paul's neighborhood, but are aware of the liabilities that the city and they themselves face by noncompliance with the city's codes and process.
I ask the ministers to consider also that if the church were to go through the process and meet all of the requirements that according to the opinion of several municipal attorneys I have spoken with, there would be no basis in our own local law that would provide an avenue to deny the permit. As a matter of my profession, I have been denied Special Use by several cities here in this region for placement of cellular transmitters. The denials were based on things that were exclusive of their Special Use permissions and governed by federal or state law. In every one of these cases, lawsuits that were filed were ruled on or settled quite expeditiously in our favor.I ask for you all to encourage your minister to comply with our request for Special Use, should the council vote that way. I am voting the way my constituents have asked me to, in spite of the fact that I personally disagree with them. This is not the first time that has happened, and I doubt that it will be the last, but that is what I promised to do.
Donald Bach, 3rd Ward Alderman, Park Ridge
The PRU Crew couldn't believe what we were reading... And we think we understand how he got to that dark and distant corner in his head... And we thought about deconstructing the thing... But we're pretty sure even the Gonella Bakery doesn't have enough bread crumbs to get this man home again.
69 comments:
PRU - Bear with me here. I'm not sure I understand the umbrage to Alderman Bach's letter.
He seems to say that he isn't in favor of requiring a special use permit but will vote for it because the residents of his ward want it.
That seems OK with me.
What else am I missing?
Again, bear with me... I read it but I will admit to not being much good at reading between the lines.
"I must say that I don't believe myself that government should be involved in this, that essentially it should be decided by the parish at St. Paul and the nearby neighbors of St. Paul."?
Huh?
So what happens when St. Paul says "up yours" to those very same neighbors?
Dear Alderman Bach,
I strongly suggest that you invite a member of the village board/city council from a town that currently hosts one of these shelters, to the next city council meeting here. Ask them what the effect has been on their town. Has the need for more police around these facilities cost the city money? (duh) How do they feel about the homeless bathing in the bathrooms of the library in Arlington Heights? Sleeping in the parks in Arlington Heights? Urinating in the ashtrays outside the library in LaGrange? Sleepin in the train stations in many of these towns?
Ask them to come and speak for all of us to hear. Pay attention, look at their towns. Learn from it.
Not in My Back Yard? You're damn right. Not in My Front Yard either.
Thank you PRU! When I opened your website I burst into laughter at the picture of Don Bach. This is one of your best. I love it.
whose ward is this location in?
FIRST WARD?????
That would be the Fifth Ward, ably(?), feebly(?), barely(?) represented by Bob "Foamy" Ryan, the same guy who screwed his constituents over the Executive Plaza development and the Napleton deal, and tried but failed to screw them on PADS and Cumberland. Now he is trying to screw them on redeveloping the old Napleton site. He literally has dumped a big turd on every corner of his ward. But at least he sounds classy.
Anonymous at 11:35......
"Ald. Ryan literally has dumped a big turd on every corner of his ward"
Now that's breaking news.
I can do without the accompanying video footage or pictures though.
Happy Friday!
If Bach is going to cast his votes by simply asking a small fraction of his constituents and then going with what the majority wants, he's just a weathervane. And if that's all he is, then he should be proposing a PADS shelter advisory referendum for November so that we can count more noses.
But he won't do that because his own private surveys are self-serving b.s. that lets him have it both ways - he can curry favor with his personal views but still avoid accountability by just doing what his people are telling him to do, while sounding kind of like a Populist in the process.
He's the nimrod who told Napleton "no more Caddys from you" before giving him $2.4 Million in City money because 30 of his constituents thought giving Napleton the money was a good idea.
To anon at 1:40AM,
Not sure if anyone else agrees, but my objection to Alderman Bach's letter is that he is using Wikipedia as a legal reference. He should either find a real source, or just give us his opinion. He shouldn't use Wikipedia as the definitive legal guide.
Hmmmm...... I understand your frustration with his letter. But ultimately is he not supposed to represent those in his ward? If what you want is the permit process, you got it. If there are other things related to PADS, for example the idea of a city wide vote, let him know. If you feel your views are not being heard in his "surveys" of the ward then let him know.
If this letter bothers you and/or you are not happy with his views or performance, then back someone else and get them elected.
I think the idea of an alderman representing the view of his ward is a good thing. His logic represented in the letter was a bit goofy. But didn't the majority of the people in his ward get the vote they wanted?
Are you saying that his vote did not represent the majority opinion in his ward. It seems a bit odd to applaud the courage of a 7-0 vote in the direction the majority of the blog wanted and then bitch about a guy saying he wants his votes to represent the majority of his ward.
So if a majority in Bach's ward wanted to hold slave auctions he'd have to go along with that?
He basically says he thinks his constituents and the courts are wrong because he doesn't think government should have anything to do with this. But he's willing to go along with doing the wrong thing because enough people have told him to do it even if he thinks it's wrong. That's stupid.
Then he says it should be decided by the church and the church's neighbors. But he doesn't say who represents the neighbors if they don't agree with the church or if the church and the neighbors can't reach some agreement. He doesn't seem to know that it would be, um, THE GOVERNMENT that has to step in to resolve disputes like this.
He also says that the Establishment Clause says "Congress" so, um, that Constitutional principle doesn't look like it applies to local governments. Any other Constitutional principles Bach thinks only apply to the Congress and not the rest of the country's governments? That's pure stupid.
He's an idiot. Plain and simple.
Holy extreme analogy Batman!! If you think he is an idiot then don't vote for him. Better yet, find a candidate and back him and get the idiot out of office. I am not here to defend his logic.
I will say that this is an isse on which there seems to be varying opinions. I am not a lawyer and I would certainly prefer that PR vs. SPC or PR vs. PADS do not become another piece of case law for folks to use in the future. Of course I already know the answer, you are right and they are wrong.
Talk about a no win situation. He votes the way you want and is honest about his logic and you are pissed. I can only imagine what the posts would be if he would have said "This is what I think and I don't care that the majority of my ward feels differently. Screw them!"
To 2:26,
By your thinking my analogy works perfect, even if you think it is extreme. So change out "slave auction" for parking in handicap zones or something. The analogy still works.
He's not "honest about his logic", he's a pandering coward. I can't think of a single time when every person is happy with the way a representative voted. I can think of times when I still had respect for a representative who didn't vote the way I wanted. I can't respect somebody who votes the way I want but does it based on such garbage that I'm embarrassed by it for him. He's an embarrassment to the thinking citizens of the third ward.
Bach's garbage is nothing but pandering to both sides of the controversey and trying to have his cake and eat it too, and the idiot doesn't even understand what he's talking about.
I didn't vote for him. And the next election I won't either. I can only hope that somebody with two brain cells, which is two more than Bach has got, runs for the third ward.
Bach is an idiot.
Well, I guess I should be pleased that he voted to send St. Paul for a special use permit and I am. Congratulations and thank you Alderman Bach.
If I stop here I can go on and have a nice weekend believing that Alderman Bach has seen the light. But that is not the case at all. The sole reason for Alderman Bach not going along with the Mayor on this and voting against the special use permit is because of the many factors in town, including Park Ridge Underground, which have turned the lights on so bright that the Alderman are feeling the pressure. In the old days Alderman Bach would never have voted this way because no one would have even realized what had happened until the homeless folks came wondering out of St. Paul’s that first Monday morning.
Whether you agree with me or not on my first point it is my second point which truly scares the crap out of me. His argument to support the shelter is odd, but his discussion regarding the First Amendment to the Constitution is bizarre. Does he really believe that the First Amendment is directed specifically at Congress, and it may not apply to the City? So with this logic the Park Ridge police can stop any public assembly of which they are not comfortable. Park Ridge government can shut down The Herald Advocate because Mayor Frimark is unhappy about the coverage he is receiving. All this would be fine because the First Amendment only applies to Congress. What “lawyers” is this guy talking to?
This goes far beyond the PADS issue. This guy just gave us a deep look into his mind and the leadership of this community.
With all due apologies to Winston Churchill, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average ALDERMAN."
And, significantly more apologies due to Mark Twain, who is eminently more quotable, "Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were an ALDERMAN. But I repeat myself."
New Rule: Anyone engaged in a discussion of a matter of local politics who justifies his/her opinion by citing to the First Amendment will be pelted and pummeled by a fusillade of elementary school level history / civics books - the kind that explain government and law using cartoons. I've been to the library's book sale. I've got the books to throw. I'll go back to get more. Repeat after me, better yet, repeat after the alderman, "The city is not part of Congress. Since the clause is directed specifically at Congress, it DOES NOT apply."
[Churchill, Twain and the alderman, the first last and only time you'll see those three in a single list, all had their quotes modified by the word inserted in all caps.]
While the alderman grudgingly concedes that perhaps "there is some basis in law to support the Special Use requirement" perhaps we would all, including the alderman, be better served to follow the guidance of the "several state and federal court judges" who without his equivocation “some” have “ruled favoring municipalities and state governments in cases like this."
Why? Because, as the judges point out, “a homeless shelter is not directly connected to the free exercise of worship.” This is settled law. A church is one thing. A shelter is something else. And because a shelter is “not directly connected to the free exercise of worship” the alderman’s contention that this is a matter that “should be decided by the parish at St. Paul” is wrong, factually and legally.
The church isn't being asked to go through the Special Use process - because it doesn't have the option to say No. His constituents understand this even if he doesn’t. No doubt they read one or more of those history / civics books and, perhaps if they are willing to loan him one (or if need be, I can throw one at him) or if he asks one of the “several municipal attorneys” he has spoke to, he’ll finally understand that point.
To:Anonymous 1:33
"But ultimately is he not supposed to represent those in his ward?" So does that mean do what they say no matter how dumb?
I bet you are one of the dopes who put up a purple ribbon too? Look where that got us.
we need to keep going to the meetings, both City Council and committees. Get in their faces. We are watching. They need to be held accountable, listen to those they represent...or GET OUT!
anon 1:33:
I never said do what they say. I said he does or rather did what you say or rather said.
By the way, what the hell is a pruple ribbon???
Hey anonymous on 7-25 at 7:58 AM,
SPC has one neighbor and a condo - it must be the most unresidential R-2 in Park Ridge. So whom are they going to decide with?
Essentially city government must be involved because this shelter project is not self sufficient, it needs the City of Park Ridge Uptown as a before/after staging area, and Police and Fire Departments to provide monitoring, control, and transportation. City government needs some control of any project that has the potential to drain service and compromise city function. And don’t forget SPC is a tax-exempt property that is essentially increasing workload and demanding services for free. To say “up yours” would be most inappropriate, SPC should graciously ask for our support.
I believe the Archdiocise and their attorneys have already said "up yours" to Park Ridge.
Anonymous 7:22,
"I" never stated a position. You however did state that "the idea of an alderman representing the view of his ward is a good thing."
That appears to be all that matters to you. The right thing to do is not relevant. I'm not saying PADS is right or wrong. I am saying that wetting your finger and sticking it up in the air every time you need to make a decision is irresponsible.
Purple ribbons you ask? Ask around. It was this town’s version of an absolute display of lemmings.
Ha ha, the old purple ribbons. I remember that was the CURB group that started that. What Mayor appointment powers over the council had to do with zoning I'll never know.
This weeks news papers said even this council insisted on the councils giving advice AND consent to the Mayor's appointments, which is what Frimark was screaming about way back that got the purple ribbon lemmings going. Even Frimark's handcrafted council isn't willing to hand over total control of the council to him. What does that tell you?
CURRB Put up purple ribbons to support Howard. Howard backs Robert Ryan and turns his back on CURRB. What do they say, screw me once shame on you, screw me twice shame on me?
Charles, very well stated...
Anonymous at July 25, 2008 10:01 PM, I had the exact same thought about this Council's actions on the appointment process...my oh my...interesting turn of fortune, indeed...! I wonder what happens when a Council doesn't give its "consent"...? ;)
As for CURRB and the purple ribbon campaign they staged...they surely got "pimped", which makes PRU's purple pimp suit pic of Howard all the more perfect...!
And with that, I believe I've exhausted my alliteration allotment for the day!!
I looked at the City's website for the agenda of the Planning & Zoning committee that meets on Monday, just in case they planned to "slide" the issue of PADS onto it. They aren't. Next time, I guess.
But I read a VERY INTERESTING proposal about splitting those three lots at Courtland/Crescent into six lots, 50 feet wide. REALLY? Is that what we need? More lot line to lot line contstruction in a heavily populated area of mostly historical homes?
Ms. Manchester:
Don't you know that we NEED more and bigger houses - for the extra tax revenue, of course. And we NEED more condos and townhouses - for the extra tax revenue, of course. So we NEED to expand the R-5 designation so that we can build more condos - for the extra tax revenue, of course.
So with all this extra tax revenue rolling in, how come taxes for the rest of us continue to go up? Could it be all the money our politicians keep spendin?
so historic preservation is overridden with greed...
hmmm...I am trying to picture those three lots. I know there is the blue one at the corner that has the demolition sine on the porch. I think thee is a white one next door. Is that going down to? Guess I will have to look more closely on my next walk.
My guess is this is one of those matter of opinion things. If the blue one is going down then a new one is going up. My guess it will not fit some peoples idea of "historical character". But doesn't that apply to any new construction?
I walk around the area and there is a new big one on vine that looks very nice but people probably don't think fits in.
Hopefully those to who this is an issue will take the opportunity to show at at the meeting.
Just an observation here:
Today , we drove up around the north shore to check out the estate sales..and what did we find - the old Barat College standing alone with broken windows and weeds!
Why - because the archdiocese had to close it because they had to pay off all of the law suits from the illegal activity being conducted by the criminals once called priests.
This is how the church thinks and we know that we can't change that.
Thanks.
Isn't Father Carl moving to the north shore? Maybe he and the PADS homeless can move in and fix-up Barat College - problem solved!
-- or any of the other shuttered archdiocesan properties.
I've been trying to come up with words to describe this blog and the people who post here.
Sick, narrow, spiteful, petty, small-minded, vindictive, obnoxious, craven come to mind.
Can anyone think of anything else?
That blue house is going to be knocked down, along with the white one next door to it. In their place, SIX homes are going to be built. Maybe townhomes?
I do agree that those two homes are not repairable and are teardowns. But SIX?
Greed, that is all it is.
The aldermonkeys on the zoning committee should be ashamed.
Anonymous July 27, 2008 7:51 AM...
Yeah, I can think of something else: engaged, public-spirited, thoughtful, concerned, decisive, demanding and motivated.
You must be one of those half-empty types.
Ms. Manchester:
I don't know what the white one is like inside but I love the design and the property. Anyway, I guess whether 6 are significantly worse then two very large new ones is a matter of personal opinion.
By the way, going from memory, I have no idea how the hell they would fit 6 unless it were a town home set-up.
Lastly, regarding the two different posts about words to describe this blog. I think often you are both right.
To: Anonymous July 27, 2008 7:51 AM
Now that you have opened your dictionary and thrown some words around, would you care to describe specifically how they apply?
I do believe that there will be one sigle family home on the first three lots in from Cresent. One.
I don't think they can build 5 homes on the balance.
I was mistaken. I drove past there today. It's THREE homes they want to tear down, including that lovely white one on the big lot--316 S. Courtland. The other two are the blue one on the corner (300 S. Courtland) and the white one with all the overgrown bushes & trees.
Sorry that I misled you.
It's STILL SAD and unacceptable.
We don't need more housing. There are many many newly built homes sitting empty, many for sale, many in foreclosure. Stop already!
here is the link to the city's website where I found the information. read "staff memo for 300-316 S. Courtland Ave"
http://www.parkridge.us/events/event.asp?EVENT_ID=1062&
It's all about greed....
And it's all about risk too. If a private property owner/developer is willing to take the risk on a deal, that a newly built McMansion will sit empty and that he will have to endure the carrying costs on his own without asking for handouts from taxpayers, then that is his right. And if that same private property owner/developer is operating within the laws of the zoning code, then it is also his right to subdivide large lots and build on them.
Now we have to ask, what's the problem?
I hate seeing the old homes knocked down. The charm of the town gets lost when you put up the cookie-cutter mansions. BUT...I agree that two of those three homes are an eyesore and should be teardowns. But WHY build two in its place?
Also, when a house sits empty, the builder/owner goes under, it's the city of PR that ends up cutting the grass, etc.
I am unable to understand why homes need to be built on top of each other, looking out your window into your neighbor's. The only thing that comes to mind is greed.
Isn't the Appearance Commission supposed to help maintain the "charm" of an area? Are you saying they aren't doing their job?
A private property owner has the right to knockdown an old home. There is no law against it. We're pretty sure there shouldn't be either, unless that law can be crafted in a way that doesn't interfere with private property rights.
Why build two in its place? To make more money and because that is what the zoning ordinance allows. Should the zoning ordinance be changed?
When you say homes are being built "on top of each other", are you saying the required setbacks are inadequate?
As for City enforcement of its property maintenance code, and "cutting the grass, etc.", we have to laugh. That's just not happening.
Bob Trizna for MAYOR
I think I hit a nerve...
Thanks for your responses PRU.
Thank you for the opening, ms. manchester.
About those three homes, I found some information - they are 300, 308 and 316 Courtland. I measured the frontage and it is 306' for all 3, so I guess they could divide the lots into 6 and have a 51’ frontage on each. The sad thing is the first house was built 1889 and it has a lot of detailing on the front facade, the second and third were built in 1904, and have fantastic details and the third one is a very fine example of a classic American foursquare one of the most livable family homes ever designed.
An easy way to pull up photos of these charming homes is to go to http://www.gisconsortium.org (pull down at left, “Select Member”, choose Park Ridge, zoom in to property of interest and press “get info” which will link you into the county assessor info) great tool.
These homes should be preserved and it is a matter of finding an investor. They are all zoned R-2 and we CANNOT allow that to change! Does one person own all three properties?? Do we have a Historic Preservation Comm.?
that is a very interesting website.
thank you!
Hey PRU, it would be great if you could give a summary of your political views.
Democrat or Republican?
Taxation? Ethics? Welfare? Government Censorship? Free Trade? Social Security?
Please answer so we know where you are coming from!
Ha ...the three properties are all owned by the same person, at least they were at the time of the 2007 assessment notice.
Hey Anon@11:35PM --
It would be great if you weren't some lazy slug asking for the Cliff's Notes.
Please refrain from idiotic questions so you don't waste everybody's time.
it feels like a different person is moderating the blog in the past few days.
This election ( May 09') should be a good one. From what we see and hear - most will come forward and vote with their heads and not their emotions
like wee see in the national and local press.
I think Mayor Howard will flame out just like Bush - has aleardy.
" Blue flammer "
Thank you.
I agree with PRU on this one. I understand that some will not like what ever new homes are built (lot, size and breakdown, appearance etc). But if they are within the various and codes that is their right.
Again, it seems to me that anytime an older home is torn and a new one build there will be objections about historical significance.
PRU, I am a big fan of your Photoshop skills -an artform unto itself.
What is with so many older homes being knocked down for newer ones these days?
Mike,
it's G-R-E-E-D
Plain and simple.
I think those 3 homes on Courtland will be torn down and replaced with a 5 story condo - isn't R5 zoning allowed adjacent to the Business District?
I think I would rather have townhouses there over condos.
Unless you're being ironic, amusement can't be abject.
But nice vitriolic photoshop!
Maybe we can use the new development on Courtland for the PADS homeless. Ever since all this mess started I see homeless everywhere. We're definately going to need more space than just St. Paul for all these people who are being bused in.
So glad to see the "We support the Homeless" signs going up in the supporters' windows. This makes it so much easier for the Homeless to know where to go when they need a place to eat and sleep.
Let's just knock everything down, since it's all old. We need to erase the character of Park Ridge, so we can look like Schaumburg. Face it, those who supposedly have money have no taste. Those "NorthShore" characteristics that Park Ridge once inhabited are erased forever......
he's an engineer by trade? HOW 'BOUT UNEMPLOYED, DRIVING AROUND PARK RIDGE ON HIS MOTORCYCLE...... NOT WORKING!!!!!!!
As Michael Douglas once stated in a film" greed is good", "greed works".
The younger folks believe this film crap. They are stuck in a vacuum
just like the leadership - here.
We can help change this - as long as we come together as one - and I believe that the actions as well as inaction by Howie and his crew - have been given notice.
Thank you.
I still don't get it.
It maybe greed for knocking down older homes, especially really nice homes because of greed but it still doesn't explain why it's such a common thing today.
It's only been since at least the 90's as I recall that it's become so common and before that I don't recall seeing any of it.
There's got to be more to it than greed though I certainly don't rule it out.
I can personally say that, in my opinion, Alderman Bachtard is a complete and total schmuck. You have some idea from his schizophrenic comment what a hypocrite this guy is.
If you've ever seen him at the helm of the public works committee meeting, you'll witness a red faced man get on his high horse and flail in his arrogance, a petty fool shining in all his worthless glory.
This guy revels in the little power he has. He seems to support big government and screws the people who actually pay the bills. He thinks nothing of spending $80K on some glorified air filter in that temple that is the public works building. That building that is a statement on the encroachment of big government. Time to fight back people. Yes, folks, these are your tax dollars at work. Are palms being greased?
He's achieved the Peter Principle like most American politicians. I wonder who is behind these people. It's hard to believe that they can achieve their position on their own power. These kind of politicians need to be tossed. As well as the people who back them.
It’s nice to see a lot of people here are smart enough to realize what a loser and pretender this Bach guy is. I think he’s the only one impressed at his stab at logic and reasoning behind the law. The people who voted for him (unless the election was rigged) deserve his brand of stupidity.
Elections are a waste of time when you have to decide between these idiots. Bob “Foamy” Ryan sucks too. Isn’t there anyone halfway decent out there or is America intellectually and morally bankrupt? I have to admit that nice people usually don’t go into scummy politics, so maybe it’s time for a new system to encourage better quality people to get involved instead of these rejects.
To Charles 7-25-08 5:21pm, who said that democracy stinks after talking to the average Alderman. I think any system stinks when it’s filled with garbage. We should ask, why does politics attract the biggest lowlifes? And is democracy, in its present form, really tenable? The only good thing that you can say about people like Bach is that they initiate change. When people of his caliber get into power, real change is just around the corner. It has to be, right?
To Anon at 7-29-08 10pm. Maybe that's why his face seems so red! LOL. Maybe we should audit his bank accounts and see how he can afford this stuff.
Thank you for letting me say how much I hate these guys, which the Advocate (that joke of a “paper”) would never let me do. This behavior by these politicians doesn’t surprise me so much though, since these are your typical garden-variety idiots that have always peppered the complacent populace of Action Ridge. Present company excluded.
I have only lived in PR for 5 years so I cannot comment on whether this knocking down of homes is a recent thing. I know it has been happening since I have been here.
There have been several comments about greed as the motivating factor. Well to quote Michael Douglas from Wall Street, greed is good (a joke)!
I do not know if I would call it greed. I do think some people are cashing in. I don't know the exact history of the blue one on the corner of the three lots in question. It is possible that someone has owned the property for a long time and decided it was too much house, or did not want to put the money into necessary repairs. It is possible they new they could sell it for significantly more then they paid. I don't look at this as greedy. I congratulate them on their good investment.
As to historical significance, I will have to defer to the experts on that but I fail to see how any of the three properties are historically significant. They are all nice. I especially like the white one at the end but I would say that about $100,000 ++ in exterior work and landscaping are in order. But historically significant - NOT!
I am not sure what criteria you are using but it would seem as if any older house would qualify.
I've walked down Coutland south of Cresent were the 3 or 4 vacant homes are and I'm probably not all that worried about them in particular since they're pretty run down.
I would rather they knock them down than allow them to run down more or even risk vandalism.
Years ago I the site of Brickton Park there was a school there were closed in 1982 due to low enrollment.
Something was supposed to go in there but didn't and the building stood there for 3 years and and even heard it was oftenbroken into.
I have a major problem with the fact that he's using Wikipeda, and the fact that he doesn't know this is NOT a reliable resource.
Post a Comment