NBC News Story on Beverly Hills

[John in Covina]

I suppose it all comes down to a belief that some things are more important than certain individual 'rights' - as George Costanza would say: "WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY!"

True but both Nazi Germany and the Communist regiemes were supposedly all about "The People's" and Socialism where governmen t controlled society for it's own good and not much about the individual. Society is like a big ship, if it's headed in the wrong direction it often takes a long time to turn around.

 

[The D.A.]

The issue of personal property rights vs. community interest is one that will probably never be resolved. If people responsibly and conscientiously used their property, then there would be no need for regulation. I personally detest the concept of eminent domain, and believe that it should be used only in the rarest of circumstances. I'm also distrustful of committees and organizations that try to tell people what to do on their property. That said, I think that historical buildings, houses, and neighborhoods often do need some protection. Americans have, perhaps like no other people, a propensity to wipe-out the past, to build "bigger" and "better" and "newer." Developers sweep in, buy-up property, bulldoze everything, throw-up some buildings, then move-on, leaving the community a poorer place for it (this is, of course, a generalization).

I admit that I dislike the destruction of old houses and buildings for purely personal and selfish reasons. I would not want to live in the Golden Era as I have no illusions about life in that time and I would not want to give-up modern medicine, technology, and conveniences. That said, I would dearly love to be able to visit that era, to pop-in from time-to-time and experience things that I can't experience now. For me, that's what old buildings and neighborhoods do--they serve as personal time machines. I'll never be able to see a zeppelin fly over, or cross the Atlantic on a grand ocean liner, or dance with a gorgeous woman at a club while Artie Shaw and his Orchestra play. I can, however, get a glimpse into that time by going to the surviving places, even the ones that have become somewhat shabby. Each day, though, people who lived in that time period die, and buildings from that time period are demolished, and the door to the Golden Era seems to close a little more. I think that's a pity. Times change, progress is made, and nothing can stay the same, but I find it incredibly frustrating and sad when bits of the past are lost forever.

 

[jamespowers]

True but both Nazi Germany and the Communist regiemes were supposedly all about "The People's" and Socialism where governmen t controlled society for it's own good and not much about the individual. Society is like a big ship, if it's headed in the wrong direction it often takes a long time to turn around.

If it can be turned around before it hits an iceberg and sinks like a rock.

Regards,

J

 

[jamespowers]

I don't intend to tear my house down - not that it's listed anyway - so it's not going to happen to me

Actually it can happen to you if you are the one insisting that your next door neighbor "preserve" his house. Drug dealers next door anyone?

I suppose it all comes down to a belief that some things are more important than certain individual 'rights' - as George Costanza would say: "WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY!"

Nothing is more important than individual rights. These are given by God not government. We might live in a society (actually we live in a Democratic Republic) but I don't want it to be totalitarian society where I have to get approval for every move I make. What's the big deal if I want to change the front door, window or porch that has dry rot?

Regards,

J

 

[Haversack]

Several concepts are wrapped up in the historic preservation debate. Leaving aside the the distinction that ownership of real property has certain responsibilities inherent which ownership of simple personal property does not, there are competing views of what buildings and land are for. For some, they are soley a means of creating wealth. Consider the case of the Blacker House in Pasadena. For others, architecture is much art as is painting and should remain inviolate. Most fall between these views balancing aesthetics with use. Where the balance point is however, the question. I am reminded of the scene in the _The Magic Christian_ where Peter Sellers, having just bought a Rembrandt at Sotheby's, proceeds to cut out the nose from the painting as that was really all that he wanted, much to shock and horror of the other attendees. Personal property, after all.

Haversack

 

[Salv]

The issue of personal property rights vs. community interest is one that will probably never be resolved.
...snip...
Times change, progress is made, and nothing can stay the same, but I find it incredibly frustrating and sad when bits of the past are lost forever.

Excellent post D.A.

Nothing is more important than individual rights. These are given by God not government.

As an atheist I'm going to have to agree to disagree about that, but I have to ask - if these rights are god-given why did it take government legislation to afford many of these rights to African-Americans as late as the 1960s?

We might live in a society (actually we live in a Democratic Republic) but I don't want it to be totalitarian society where I have to get approval for every move I make. What's the big deal if I want to change the front door, window or porch that has dry rot?

Regards,

J

I think you're overreacting a bit - I'm talking about the total demolition of a historically important building, not the replacement of certain features of that building.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

You can't expect that when you restrict private property rights that it will happen in a vacuum and they will just go away or sell the property without some type of reprisal.

Here's an example that supports Jamespowers's point. In Chile, when a building is designated a national architectural or historical monument, NOTHING can be done to alter its historical exterior or interior. In other words, walls cannot be added, ceilings can't be lowered, extra bathrooms can't be put in, etc. There are cases of folks buying an old building; and soon after they've bought it, that structure is hurriedly declared (by a closed "national heritage" committee -- no public meetings here!) a national monument. End result? The new owners can't convert their (almost always dilapidated) old building into an office, a hotel, lofts, or practically anything else that would generate income.

So the owners find themselves with a weight around their necks. They can't sell the building, because no one else (not even the State, in most cases) will want to buy it now. They can't do much of anything with it without violating its monument status and paying huge fines. Meanwhile, they have to pay property taxes on it.

So what happens? The owners leave their buildings vacant and do absolutely nothing with them. Windows get broken, the homeless move in and out, rains and flooding come and go, ceilings collapse, fires get started ... and the next thing you know, that once proud, historically important building is a heap of smouldering ashes. The owner is finally free to sell the property, and Chile loses another piece of its history.

.

 

[jamespowers]

Excellent post D.A.


As an atheist I'm going to have to agree to disagree about that, but I have to ask - if these rights are god-given why did it take government legislation to afford many of these rights to African-Americans as late as the 1960s?

I sort of figured that but the process has never been perfect and that really supports my point. It was government that backed up the repression of these people in the first place. If laws were not passed to support and defend slavery there would have been no such thing in the US.
You can then say that nature gives us individual rights if you like. We are born to be free of ridiculous legislation that would take away our right to do what we want with what we own. Don't like it? Buy it from the person to save it.
Total demolition, changing features it is just the camel's nose under the tent. You start at demolition and end up with a complete ban on changing anything as Marc mentioned. There is nothing more inexorable than government interference when it is given a chance.

Regards to all,

J

 

[Twitch]

In every average neighborhood people are razing houses and erecting huge-assed 2 story eyesores beside 50s bungalows and ranch houses and they look totally out of place. There's one monstrosity on the next block from ne that was then stuccoed the color of baby poop. Well I guess that's earth tone!

 

[jamespowers]

In every average neighborhood people are razing houses and erecting huge-assed 2 story eyesores beside 50s bungalows and ranch houses and they look totally out of place. There's one monstrosity on the next block from ne that was then stuccoed the color of baby poop. Well I guess that's earth tone!

Hahhahaahh! Yeah well I have a Pumpkin Orange 1920s craftsman next to me so don't feel too bad. The idiots even painted the trim gray to "go" with it. :eusa_doh: If ever I need to wake up really fast and joltingly in the morning I just look out the window. Hello! Better than coffee. lol
I just laugh at it. I am not going to change his mind so what do I care? I'll just plant some grapevines along that side of the house.
The worst neighbors in my opinion aren't the monster houses but those on either side of you that let trees and bushes grow over on your side of the fence so they can drop leaves and clog your gutters. :rage: Now that is a direct impact.

Regards,

J

Regards,

J

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Well praise the Lord, Lafayette Indiana has an historic neighbourhood association that controls what you can do with historically interesting (50s need not apply) buildings. All those old victorian mansions are being bought up and renovated. There are restrictions on what you can do to the outside ... but you're pretty much free to do what you will with the insides. A good compromise.

I think some of us are talking apples and oranges here. There is something of a difference between a Tudor house (that's Tudor, not mock - soccer players need not apply) and someone's porch that was built less than 100 years ago, likely of prefabricated materials.

Should we preserve historical artefacts at all? Surely it is correct for the British to have romped around Greece knocking the penises off all those statues (thousands of years old, mark you). We owned them at the time, after all.

I'm all for keeping people's rights restricted - so long as those rights are sexual, moral, and lifestyle based (why, exactly, should gay marriage or suicide be illegal?). But don't you dare challenge the rights that allow me do what i want to do.

bk

 

[J. M. Stovall]

It's just all a part of modern America, the clothes and the buildings are getting uglier together.

 

[Lincsong]

Yes, it does affect other property owners by way of possibly reducing property values in a neighborhood that used to have high property value before Mr. Smith tore down his Victorian and raised a mini Taj Mahal. I know I would not want to look at the Taj Mahal out of my kitchen window everyday.

I would like to see a bigger house reduce property values of surrounding homes. If anything it increases the property values of the cheap, skinflints who refuse to do anything with their 900 square foot California bungalow. I have a neighbor who wanted to add onto his 1100 square foot house and some jerk who had a rental next door tried to stir up the pot on the street. I told him; "you and your father have rented your house for 40 years and look at it; no lawn, the garage hasn't had a door in years and the house hasn't been painted since it was built in 1923." The addition raised the value of all the homes on that street. It's the pigs who don't do squat to their homes that bring down the property values.
And whose business is it of anyone's if someone builds a bigger house within an area of ranch homes etc? People would be more friendly if there weren't so many busy-body old nags complaining about what others do to their homes. They are spending their own money! Why is it ok for a guy in a beard to walk around the street in drag but all hell breaks loose if a two story addition is built?

 

[Lincsong]

I'm all for keeping people's rights restricted - so long as those rights are sexual, moral, and lifestyle based (why, exactly, should gay marriage or suicide be illegal?). But don't you dare challenge the rights that allow me do what i want to do.

What if he wants to commit suicide by not wearing a bicycle helmet or seat belt?

 

[Baron Kurtz]

lol You're on the ball ... I'll give you that.

The post was in jest, as i think you realise ...

We have quite a number of nascent anarchists (zero regulation) in the house. Interesting.

bk

 

[Bebop]

I would like to see a bigger house reduce property values of surrounding homes. If anything it increases the property values of the cheap, skinflints who refuse to do anything with their 900 square foot California bungalow. I have a neighbor who wanted to add onto his 1100 square foot house and some jerk who had a rental next door tried to stir up the pot on the street. I told him; "you and your father have rented your house for 40 years and look at it; no lawn, the garage hasn't had a door in years and the house hasn't been painted since it was built in 1923." The addtion raised the value of all the homes on that street. It's the pigs who don't do squat to their homes that bring down the property values.
And whose business is it of anyone's if someone builds a bigger house within an area of ranch homes etc? People would be more friendly if there weren't so many busy-body old nags complaining about what others do to their homes. They are spending their own money! Why is it ok for a guy in a beard to walk around the street in drag but all hell breaks loose if a two story addition is built?

I never mentioned "a bigger house" or dirty individuals that can't maintain their homes. I said gaudy, clownish homes. If you want a bigger home, build it. What is wrong with 900 square foot bungalows? Not everyone wants 3500 sq. foot homes to deal with. Don't you want to live in a neighborhood that has homes that have at least some kind of style that jives? Would you wear cowboy boots with shorts?lol By the way, I don't think it's ok for a guy in a beard dressed in drag to walk around my street and no one mentioned two story additions. I think we all agree larger homes are not the problem. Read the first post.

 

[Bebop]

Actually it can happen to you if you are the one insisting that your next door neighbor "preserve" his house. Drug dealers next door anyone?



Nothing is more important than individual rights. These are given by God not government. We might live in a society (actually we live in a Democratic Republic) but I don't want it to be totalitarian society where I have to get approval for every move I make. What's the big deal if I want to change the front door, window or porch that has dry rot?

Regards,

J

I hate to burst any bubbles but any individual rights that you may have are given by the government, not any God.

 

[jamespowers]

What if he wants to commit suicide by not wearing a bicycle helmet or seat belt?

Or what if he wants to just ride his motorcycle without a helmet? Oooohhhh! Or if they let their 8 year old ride in the car without a child's seat ooohhh!
This subject really is all about who owns something. We move from some saying that we don't own private property by restricting its use to we don't own ourselves because we can't kill ourselves, drink, smoke in public, ride around without a helmet, seatbelt or even think for ourselves. If I don't own me who does? If I am not responsible for me who is? If it isn't my property whose is it?
I can concede the point that you ought to keep your property up but what color it is or what it looks like is your business.

Regards to all,

J

 

[jamespowers]

I hate to burst any bubbles but any individual rights that you may have are given by the government, not any God.

Uh no actually. We are born with these rights. Government only either acknowledges this fact or they repress the people. Government gives nothing it just takes.

Regards to all,

J

 

[John in Covina]

What if he wants to commit suicide by not wearing a bicycle helmet or seat belt?

*****************
Sign a waiver saying the rider will not hold any one responsible ofr keeping them alive, or they pay more for insurance. If they don't pay more for insurance and are found without helmet of seat beat, the traffic officer is instructed to execute them on the spot. And sell their children into indensured servitude until 18. ANd feel lucky I am being charitable.