Liz,
Sorry but you missed my point, which was about the process of zoning
law, not the particulars in this case. My point is that public zoning
decision-makers must be expected to offer all sides in a case some sort
of neutral consideration. Their role is not solely to protect one side
or to promote another.
If improprieties such as you allege do occur in this case, then one
would look for neutral consideration to determine that.
End of point.
-- Tony West
[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
<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2122/fc/JKFkuJi7JOIohaAFagRdOvJYYevXUcoxP43uBkecaoGehMNze0Xnah/>
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
