Erik

Comments by Erik

We Could End Up Looking Like Phoenix

"City Heights on the other hand, with its many craftsman homes has none and there is less than a handful in Logan." If you have a property there you would like to have designated, I will support you all I can. My guess is you have no interest in having this done. "Once a property is historical it can never be undesignated or moved from its original site." This is an absolutly uniformed bit of nonsense. Please refrain from talking about things you know nothing about. We have (unfortunately) demolished or moved many designated properties. Even ones on the National Register. Ever been to Heritage Park in Old Town? "If organizations such as SOHO or other preservationist want to force private properties to look like something out of the 20’s, they should be offering to pay for it out of their organization’s checkbooks." It will happen. "And they should look into low income areas to help first." How do you know what SOHO looks into? Do you read their board minutes. Or is it just because you don't read about it in the La Jolla-owned U-T? The huge majority of historic designations are done with no preliminary input from SOHO. "What ever happened to the property rights this country was formed on? If you don’t like this country’s capitalistic principles, I suggest you move to Cuba" You need to get your story straight. Are you against poor people or rich ones? You are coming from both directions at once. Its beyond your primitive understanding that there are both poor and rich people in town that are preservationists. I'm guessing you have some sort of job that you vaguely think historic preservation will harm, because of your inability to adapt to the lack of open land to build on, and you are spinning in circles trying to appeal to both Ayn Rand and Bario Logan at the same time.
— April 18, 2008 9:17 a.m.

We Could End Up Looking Like Phoenix

"New developments in construction, energy, utilization of space and safety will undoubtedly require the removal and construction of better and smatter (sic) properties." A "green" building takes 65 years on average to mitigate the energy spent in the original construction of the building and the demo debris. And we know how you feel about 65 year old buildings. "Private properties need to be larger than the old 900 square feet cottages being designated as historical." Make up your mind, is it 900 sq.ft. cottages or the mansions of the rich that are being designated? "Communities today shouldn’t have to move to the suburbs to raise a family" What does this mean? You can't raise a family in, say Mission Hills? "Preserving the historical facades of private properties has no merit in the true economic and social values of our future." Just because you don't value it does not make it so. You could also make the argument that picking up litter is not use. "People should realize that properties as young as 35 years are being considered historical" Please name one here in town. I can hardly wait. "most historically registered properties are in affluent areas" That's because it costs 4 or 5K to have a report written and printed up. Poor poeple have other things to do, like work to eat. Besides (as if you didn't know this) poor people here tend to live in rental properties owned by wealthier people. Perhaps the city should subsidize historical reports.
— April 18, 2008 9:14 a.m.