Liz,
Thanks for your posts. They've really clarified the issues for me.
Maggie
On Feb 23, 2008, at 1:22 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tony,
Your off list post and this on list post are bull.
I found offensive and sarcastic and loaded with misinformation.
I feel certain others read your post as sarcasm and as an attack on
me.
I received several off lists posts that described it as such.
The 40th Street property is zoned RESIDENTIAL.
The "new" (if you can call a few years of continued neglect "new")
knew, or should have known this, very easily established fact, when
they made their purchase.
The 40th Street property has preexisting restrictions as regards to
height and Historic Preservation.
The "new" owners, knew, or should have known, this very easily
established fact when they made their purchase.
There is a "bad guy" here.
It is the person (or legal entity)that made the purchase and
proceeded to act try to sneak through an HC appeal for demolition.
Failing that, this same "bad guy" tried to circumvent the
neighborhood's right of Public Notice.
Failing that, they won an HC appeal using in part a false claim
that they had held the required public hearings.
Lying is bad!
Profiteering is bad!
Asking the neighbors to waive our RIGHTS, just because the Buyer
paid too much, is not 'good'.
Keeping rational or residential use, by folks with smaller purses,
out of the equation is greedy.
Cries of hardship (in light of billion dollar endowments) stretch
credibility and should not be allowed to establish precedent.
It is
Anthony West wrote:
Liz,
I don't see where my sarcasm lies. I didn't say anything nasty about
either Frank or you, did I? Chill, please.
My point is simply that government cannot assume in advance either one
side or another is presumptively guilty or presumptively entitled in a
hearing context. There are clearly situations in which a variance
seeker
can be right and community opponents wrong. There are clearly cases in
which a variance seeker can be wrong and community opponents right.
That's why the government holds hearings: to sift wrong from right and
arrive at a determination.
There is a presumption of property right: I can do what I want with my
property, barring specific exceptions. There is a presumption of
zoning
right: my neighbors can assume I will not do anything with my property
that affects the context of their property. There is a presumption of
variance right: I can demonstrate a reason to make an exception to
zoning in a particular case. All these are rights. There is nothing
wrong with exercising any of them.
There is no bad guy in this process. It is all equally lawful.
-- Tony West
_____________________________________________________________
A Trip To New York City Sweepstakes
Enter for your chance to WIN a trip to New York City with Total Beauty
