onamission

Comments by onamission

We Could End Up Looking Like Phoenix

“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.” Its small minded to think of only the economic impacts of green building without looking into the impact of future generations. That’s right preservationist can see past 1920. And like everything on this article, you and the writer can’t do simple arithmetic. “Make up your mind, is it 900 sq.ft. cottages or the mansions of the rich that are being designated?” I don’t mind designating a home if the owners choose to accept this designation. However no property, whatever size, should be subsides by not paying taxes. Get rid of the Mills Act, I’m sure your organization and its wealthy donors can afford to pay for property improvements. “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.” Just because a few prefer a select type of architectural styles, doesn’t mean they should have the right to impose others to build or keep it. If you like an architectural design, build it yourself on your own dime. “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.” I’ve paid for these reports and they don’t cost half of what you mentioned. I suggest you go back to high school and learn math. You might learn to spell at the same time. “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.” If elitist white people like yourself weren’t scared of walking in these neighborhoods, you could ask someone if they would like $80,000 to fix their property. You might have some takers. I suggest you do your walk at night. You’ll find more folks home from work. “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.” Unlike you, I have no special interest in this whatsoever. I’m not completely against anything or anyone unless it is immoral or physically harmful. You on the other hand, hate progress. If you tried to be more tolerant of different tastes, cultures and lifestyles, you might be mature enough to see different points of view.
— April 19, 2008 6:50 p.m.

We Could End Up Looking Like Phoenix

Preservationist thinkers are an extremist few who base their philosophy on the emotional rhetoric of days gone by. The concept of providing private owners with a monetary incentive to preserve the original integrity of their property is borderline insane. As soon as you improve any property is starts to deteriorate. There is no way to keep anything unchanged. We should be mature enough to accept these changes for the better. Nor should we try to stop or hold back technological or social improvements. New developments in construction, energy, utilization of space and safety will undoubtedly require the removal and construction of better and smatter properties. Private properties need to be larger than the old 900 square feet cottages being designated as historical. Communities today shouldn’t have to move to the suburbs to raise a family. We can plan and zone better to ensure development is not detrimental to our economic or social growth. Redevelopment can be great if it is done in phases based on the current and future needs of our society. Preserving the historical facades of private properties has no merit in the true economic and social values of our future. People should realize that properties as young as 35 years are being considered historical. Don’t be fooled, this article is a slanderous attack against the city’s attempt to improve its tax revenues at the cost of our most affluent citizens, who have found a loophole like the mills act to avoid paying property taxes. If this was a fair and equitable designation process we would have less affluent areas with the same amount of designated historical properties. In fact, most historically registered properties are in affluent areas. Mission Hills and Hillcrest have over 35 registered craftsman homes as historically designated, in addition to other types of designated properties. City Heights on the other hand, with its many craftsman homes has none and there is less than a handful in Logan. This article also fails to state that the city’s historical board could force private properties into permanent historical designation, rendering it un-approvable for mayor renovations. Once a property is historical it can never be undesignated or moved from its original site. The city has finally realized that its designation process is flawed and the old guard is trying to use this media to keep their job by influencing you. 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. And they should look into low income areas to help first. 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, there’s no problem with preserving history there. You could even drive around in a classic car.
— April 17, 2008 11:43 p.m.

We Could End Up Looking Like Phoenix

Preservationist thinkers are an extremist few who base their philosophy on the emotional rhetoric of days gone by. The concept of proving private owners with a monetary incentive to preserve the original integrity of their property is borderline insane. As soon as you improve any property is starts to deteriorate. There is no way to keep anything unchanged. We should be mature enough to accept these changes for the better. Nor should we try to stop or hold back technological or social improvements. New developments in construction, energy, utilization of space and safety will undoubtedly require the removal and construction of better and smatter properties. Private properties need to be larger than the old 900 square feet cottages being designated as historical. Communities today shouldn’t have to move to the suburbs to raise a family. We can plan and zone better to ensure development is not detrimental to our economic or social growth. Redevelopment can be great if it is done in phases based on the current and future needs of our society. Preserving the historical facades of private properties has no merit in the true economic and social values of our future. People should realize that properties as young as 35 years are being considered historical. Don’t be fooled, this article is a slanderous attack against the city’s attempt to improve its tax revenues at the cost of our most affluent citizens, who have found a loophole like the mills act to avoid paying property taxes. If this was a fair and equitable designation process we would have less affluent areas with the same amount of designated historical properties. In fact, most historically registered properties are in affluent areas. Mission Hills and Hillcrest have over 35 registered craftsman homes as historically designated, in addition to other types of designated properties. City Heights on the other hand, with its many craftsman homes has none and there is less than a handful in Logan. This article also fails to state that the city’s historical board could force private properties into permanent historical designation, rendering it un-approvable for mayor renovations. Once a property is historical it can never be undesignated or moved from its original site. The city has finally realized that its designation process is flawed and the old guard is trying to use this media to keep their job by influencing you. 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. And they should look into low income areas to help first. 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, there’s no problem with preserving history there. You could even drive around in a classic car.
— April 17, 2008 11:40 p.m.

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close