Jump to content

Marksmu

Full Member
  • Posts

    1,191
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by Marksmu

  1. s3mh repeats things she hears over and over again until she believes them herself...is astounding. I watched several Tricon homes being built in 06/07 and none had a single pre-fab cabinet in them. They may have prefab now, I don't know - but none did then. Also, some of the absolute best, most expensive cabinets you can buy are pre-fabricated...or at least fabricated off site. There are multiple cabinet companies just here in Houston that do precise measurements of the home, then build the cabinets off site with CNC machines, that are orders of magnitude nicer than any carpenter could ever build on site. I've seen $10,000,000 custom homes with these off site built cabinets in them...heck, I bought some after seeing how much nicer they are. You can get them built off site, to precise dimensions, with oven cured paint that is 25x more durable than anything that could ever be done on site. With the oven cured paint, you can scrub it, knick it, wash it, basically anything short of abuse it, and it wont come off, unlike site painted cabinets, that will get knicks just from your fingernails missing a pull.
  2. It may shock you, but in 2006, 2007 Tricon did not have any pre-fab cabinets in their stand alone units....They were all site built from oak or poplar, and they all had a good deal of detailed molding work in them. I looked at several and all were being built on site with lots of milled features. Also in 2006, 2007 when they were really building the stand alone homes (non-garage front facing), everything was granite & travertine in all builds, half the models had a small sunroom off the breakfast room...nobody was using marble or white subway tiles...marble & subway tiles did not get popular again until about 2011 or so, when the kitchen trends all switched from stained or painted wood back to white & marble, etc... In fact, with the exception of the farmhouse sink - everything that Tricon did that you say sucks, is EXACTLY what was popular in 2006/2007....I dont know what they are building now, but they built exactly what everyone (even full blown custom homes) were building at the time. I think you are just so biased against builders as you can not acknowledge what they were really doing. My point is, everything you call "Faux" or "Mc" (fill in derogatory word) is what they were building...The floor plans, the outside look (minus real wood siding) all were nearly identical. Just shows that you really cant pleased with anything new, unless it has a name that you dont associate with mass production.
  3. I see very little difference between this house and any of the 2000-2007 Tricon standalone houses (before they started building the garage to the street town home style stand alones)....The built in's, the floor plan, the finishes, it all looks nearly identical. The only real differences that I can see are the exterior materials...real wood siding instead of hardi plank....and the marble b/c marble was not really in style during that time....Oh, ya and the price. The Tricon ones are about $300K less expensive....well they were...Now I think they are getting close to $700K for the 4400sq ft lots, and in excess of $850K on the 6600sqft lots. I guess in hind sight Tricon was not too bad huh S3MH?
  4. I was not insulting you - I clearly stated that maybe you do not recall the process that was used to create the Heights districts, many people have short memories...if you did not, I was telling you how it was done, if you did and you still thought it was fair, then you were being dishonest...which is not an insult - its an observation. There are lots of people who are willfully ignorant on this subject, and it has a direct effect on those who do care, on both sides of the argument. I can't imagine the pro-historic crowd is proud of how low they had to stoop to win....victory at all cost is no victory at all. You said you had personal knowledge of two districts that had well over 50% - You did not state which, so I was forced to reply with the districts to which this thread is devoted...you know the HEIGHTS...Last I checked you were reading & responding to a thread about historic districts found entirely housed inside of Houston Neighborhoods -- The Heights forum -- forgive me for assuming you were talking about the HEIGHTS. The Heights only has 3 districts in it, and 2 were part of the most fraudulent formation ever. I do acknowledge others viewpoints regularly - I was basing my comments off of your comments above on the assumption you were talking about the Heights. I have no knowledge of the areas which did not effect me - so I can't offer any insight at all into how they were formed. In my opinion, the Heights districts were formed in such a manner that it amounted to outright fraud - They should be dismantled and put to a true vote - Yes or No - where not voting means nothing. If the pro-historic people can gather 67% of the votes of all home owners, including people with more than one property then they win, and there is not much to argue about...but it needs to be legit - 67% of all homes, not including city property, not just 67% of returned ballots. I am very reasonable - I just want it to be legit.
  5. You may not recall, or you may and you are just intellectually dishonest - the only way they got to 67% was by 1) utilzing city owned property in the vote, 2) preventing landowners with more than one property in the area from voting twice...Thus creating the scenario where a person could own an entire city block of rental properties save the exception of three invidivduals and the three individiduals could bind that owner as a "majority" of the votes supported restrictions. The process was dishonest....so many people who supported the HHA which got the signature for the peititons, wanted to withdraw their support after the restrictions were announced, and there was no way to do so....you say the ballot allowed that, right? Well - the ballot was an unmarked envelope from the city, mailed over Christmas, due around new Years, where you had to OPT OUT...YES, OUT....Not mailing the ballot meant you supported the historic district.....Its the only "Vote" in hisotry, where not voting, meant you supported something. Can you imagine what would happen if not voting meant you actually voted FOR something.....I could pass anything I could ever think of...Heck I could get half this city to vote for giving me their houses for free if not mailing in the ballot was a honest means of voting for something. I support everyones right to organize and if there really was overwhelming support for this, I would back down, but there is not. This was a dishonest bait/switch, and the city and the organizers knew it, and resorted to lieing, cheating, and eventually stealing to win. It was dishonest. Period. There is no debate about that point.
  6. Inventory of lots in the Heights was non-existent even before the HAHC. It became nearly impossible to buy lots in 2009, when just about every possible property south of 20th and north of 6th became gold. Property values are increasing inspite of the HAHC, not because of them. And for the record, I support minimum lot size designations reasonable setbacks, and other common sense restrictions on the lots that ensure the nice residential nature of the area is protected. I do not support requiring approval to build/remodel a house. I certainly do not support requirements that period details be preserved, or required either. I do not personally like the 3000sqft houses on the 2800 sqft lots any more than the bungalow owners...we just have completely opposite views on how to control those things. The problem could have been resolved easily with minimal disruption0, and the city chose to use a sledge hammer to force their views on everyone. And there was never even a majoirty of support for the districts. EVER. That is an outright lie that is well documented. The city and the HHA used the most dishonest process ever to achieve their results. They, at most, had 40% support at any time, FAR less than a super majority.
  7. You dont have to agree with me....The pro historic people overwhelmingly want to limit the increases in their property values. The new homes were driving that cost up so fast that they needed to assemble to stop it. The HHA assembled to stop the demolitions so they could slow/stop the drastic increase in property values that has occurred. They can't come right out and say that or they would have no method to achieve their goal of controlling development. Their only option was usign the city to impose a historic ordinance b/c the majority of property owners were against them when they tried to go lot by lot block by block to get their deed restrictions imposed...most owners said no, so they had to use the city and then lie to property owners to get their ordinance passed. Whether you agree with me or not, does not change the facts. There are people who legitamtely love the history of their own homes, unfortunately they make up the vast minority of people. Most just want to prevent an $800,000-$1,000,000 house from making their little bungalow economically obsolete and reducing their bungalow to a lot value tear down.
  8. This is so true, but the pro-historic people, dont actually care about the historic nature at all, they are against all new development - they are just trying to not get priced out of their houses...every new deveopment increases their value and their taxes. Yes, they think their bungalows are cute, but this entire ordinance is more about people trying to find ways to control development, and control cost so they dont have to sell their houses. The house are cute, but there really is nothing "historic" about them at all.
  9. See, there you go again, making up things that cant be proven or dis-proven. What we all know to be an absolute fact is that the ballot did not look like a ballot. It came during Christmas, had to be returned within 15 days...it arrived unmarked, in an every day envelope in the mail, on the same day that an identical envelope came from the mayor's office telling people not to return the envelope...It was not called a ballot, it was called a survey, and only the informed took it seriously....By not returning the ballot you were voting in favor of keeping the ordinance...we have hashed this out...its not even remotely fair. How not voting for something is supporting it is absurd on every level. If its a fair process, lets take a vote again, I will even fund the printing and the mailing and hire a 3rd party to count the ballots.... - Ill even wager the entire greater heights area... We will send a "survey" out December 19th requiring return by January 4th. If you can get 50% of homeowners, excluding city owned property and parks, to opt into the historic districts, we will certify everything between Shephard and Studemont, I-10 and 610 as historic. If they dont vote to keep the ordinance, then its ALL repealed and gone. I will sleep well knowing you can't get 50% of anyone to do anything, especially if its done by US mail....Its ridiculous that you think the process was fair, regardless of whether or not you support the ordinance, the process of instituting was wrought with fraud and BS....only a true idiot, I mean a complete and total $%^&*(^$ moron, would think that process is a fair one.
  10. yes, just some tiny election code violations, lets just sweep that itsy bitsty insignificant elephant under the rug - translation - you mean the outright fraud that was committed to pass something that did not have the support that they purported to have...that counted votes of public and city land, that did not allow landowners with multiple properties, multiple votes, unless of course it was the city.....I wont comment on whether or not its timely b/c frankly I dont know and have not researched it - but the election code violations are, in my opinion, the most egregious and dishonest of all of the things that took place. But, of course, it does not matter, what I think - it will all come to a trial that will determine the legality anyway.
  11. Its broken....The Leader did its JOB, that is to report news in an unbiased way. If their facts are wrong, people are going to have the chance to rebut. That is what news is, that is what it is supposed to be. Unfortunately, some people, usually those who are very left leaning and support government intrusion in their daily life, think so emotionally on every topic that they are unable to ascertain the difference between reporting, and disagreeing with their personal belief...thus anytime someone disagrees with them, its clearly biased, or political. For once a news organization did its job! I for one say good job leader!
  12. While off topic, I cant allow it to go without response - the "Not in the labor force" number are people who ARE employable but have quit looking for a job. That number is driving the unemployment number down. After the 99 weeks of unemployment ran out they are no longer considered to be in the labor force, regardless of age....I do not trust any statistic that removes people who otherwise can and should be working from their roles because they have been without a job too long. The number of people not in the labor force is up 3% or more than 10,000,000 people since 2008. Some of those retired because they could, others cant find a job b/c they are older, demand more money, and are competing against a younger healthier work force. Most are not retired by choice, and the number of idle rich is statistically so low as to be insignificant....10,000,000 people is not an insignificant, irrelevant number. To tie it back to the topic - The number of people who are applying and getting to do what they want to do to THEIR house is not 90%....the 90% number reflects people who also just compromised whether they wanted to or not because they needed to get something done and did not have the energy or the desire or the money to fight the HAHC
  13. Its only 90% because the homeowners have been forced to compromise over and over and over again PRIOR to the actual hearing day. They meet with people at the HAHC to TRY to get everything lined up for approval prior to the actual hearing....Its also 90% because many people are withdrawing their applications because they won't be permitted to do what they want. Do not confuse statistics with a job well done. The government tells us this month that we are down to only 7% unemployment!!! That is great, except that 23-25% of the country is not working because they have now been on unemployment so long that they are not considered unemployed any longer....My point is that the 90% statistic is as pointless as the unemployment statistic.
  14. I like the old houses - I think they are nice to look at. I would never want to live in one. I need more space than the older homes have. Even after extensive remodels, room sizes can still be significantly too small for my lifestyle. So while I do like the old houses, I do not want one, and I do not think that anyone should be able to force me to keep one if I owned one. You believe the new builds are crappy. Some are - most are not. Most are very nice, and their price tags reflect that. There are however significantly more crappy old houses than new ones...so I am still ok with demolishing the old ones if a person wants to do so, or keeping it if they want to do that too...I just don't think anyone else should get to tell me what to do to my house.
  15. Woah - I did not vote for Parker. I am politically very conservative, more libertarian than conservative....I merely stated that the Heights as a whole is very liberal, and a single issue like the Historic Ordinance that effects so few people in a city of our size, did not carry any political weight at all.
  16. The Heights as a whole tends to be very liberal. Do you really think that a liberal is going to vote against Parker, an openly gay woman mayor of Houston? The ordinance had absolutely zero effect on the mayorial election - heck it was not even an issue for her opponents...it impacts such a negligble number of people in this city that to devote time to it would be Your takeaway is reading way too much into something that is not there.
  17. When I became active over the historic ordinance, I both lived in the Heights, and owned a rental property there. I bought the rental b/c I fully intended to build a new house there once my kids got a little bit older. The historic ordinance came along after I bought my rental...I moved for schools...as my kids got older, it was clear to me that the schools in the Heights are still completely unacceptable...Could they get an education there? Sure, but its far from what I deem acceptable, I will even say substantially below acceptable - outright bad. I sold the house I was living in and moved for better schools. Rather than sell the rental, which has been a very good rental, I changed my plans to keep it and hopefully tear it to the ground 15-18 years from now once my kids are gone again and I don't need as much house as I do now. To say that I, an owner vested in the prosperity of the neighborhood, with friends peppered all throughout the heights, am an "investor" is absurd. I care about the neighborhood and what is best for it. The ordinance is terrible and needs to be repealed. I fight the ordinance b/c it is terrible....It does not have a huge effect on my rental, I have a non-contributing structure so I will get the right to tear it down....I am not worried about that...I fight it b/c its a terrible abuse of the governments power, its not good for the neighborhood's prosperity and growth, its downright bad for young families, and its the perfect example of why power should never be ceded to others who will abuse it. I make no qualms or apologies for my disdain for the ordinance, I do not pretend I want to fix it or improve it. My only goal is outright repeal and the return of property rights to the owners. Also, Mr. Morrison, you may want to read up on the definition of Libel - I have not read, or written any statements about a single individual that are not true. Truth is an absolute defense to libel....When a person interjects themselves into the public sphere they open themselves up for critique.
  18. I lived in the heights up until a couple months ago (when i moved for better schools to memorial) and I still own a home in the west historic district. My opinion on the HD ordinance affects me directly. I owned the property I have on Ashland long before the ordinance was even written. At least the ordinance has a direct affect on me, something mr marsh and his new construction can't claim.
  19. I am not trying to backpedal anywhere...there are 47 pages of history on this thread....you do not get to create your own history. My current belief is that a majority of the people who STILL support the ordinance are doing so for tax reasons or outright greed. Original supporters were quite simply tricked by lying community organizers. I have been active on this topic since BEFORE the ordinance was law. The original support for this thing is long gone. The supporters got their signatures dishonestly by telling everyone it would stop townhomes and subdividing of lots....there was never any real support for what was passed...it was just say one thing do another. Now that the support is DEAD the only people still supporting it fall in one of four categories. 1) Suppress property values for tax reasons 2) Crazy utopian nutjobs who want to control their neighbors 3) People with a life who have not been affected yet, 4) Idiots who do not know better.
  20. Ya, I dont actually think that every supporter is merely trying to suppress property values. There are some true preservationists with unreasonable utopian beliefs mixed into the group. However, the ultra majority of people who signed the petitions were just plain tricked. They wanted to stop the lots from being subdivided, stop the townhomes, and preserve the feel of the neighborhood. Responsible developers like Sullivan, Bastion, Whitestone were already doing a great job and I believe the ultra majority of support was through nothing more than say one thing and do another. Its apparently perfectly acceptable for neighborhood organizers to promise one thing, do another, and then lie when caught. I can think of several examples in national headlines just right now. Status quo for these folks though. If you cant pass your position with the truth, lie, and then say it would have worked if it were not for the opposition! Truth is that many wanted to suppress property values, some actually care about small houses, some are just nosy power hungry neighbors - but most were just plain tricked.
  21. 1. If you go out of your way to make a stranger and a neighbor's life both more difficult and more expensive, then you darn sure better be ready to take what you have coming. The person who put themselves out there is Mr. Marsh - The Zucker's just want to be left alone to build their house, something Mr. Marsh took the liberty (unrequested) to interject his opinion into - as if ANYONE cares what the hell he says. 2. I have no way of knowing what existed on the lot his built his brand new non-historic home upon. If he does, he is welcome to share that information. I am certain he is in a much better place to have that knowledge than I am. His silence will do nothing other than deepen my belief that he removed a house. 3. Mr. Marsh is a hypocrite b/c he is offended and deeply troubled by the removal and additions onto houses that remove the "historic" nature of the neighborhood. He claims to have built a house that was intended to mesh with the neighborhood, but he used none of the historic materials he now requires others to use. He used new windows, not reclaimed ones, he used (I believe) Hardi-Plank and not real wood, he used (I believe) fiberglass columns, not real wood, and he did none of the extensive trim work that is seen on the exterior of the older homes. So - he is a hypocrite, not b/c his house does not comply with an ordinance that did not exist when it was built, but because he built a house that was supposed to look historic, but used none of the materials he now requires others to use. He had his choice to add historic elements to the home he built, and he did not, and what I see looks exactly the same as what Tricon was building up until 2006...which you and your ilk call McVics. 4. A law that is impossible to comply with should be void. A variance is used when the intent of the law is not met by the strict adherence to the words written. A variance is a useful tool b/c there will always be exceptions to every rule that require a special circumstance....In the case of the ordinance, the law is so bad that its literally impossible to comply with it b/c what is required changes daily based on the mood of the HAHC, and the builder/architect selected. Its a members only club, where the members are just know it all busy bodies who should not be in any position to have any power over others. You cant comply with a moving target, and that is what has been established. Finally - I doubt you are able to speak on the record for Bungalow Revival, unless you are an employee of them - but the owners facebook post from Nov 2 copied below seems to refute what you have written. This message does not seem like support to me. It seems to me that even the most historic preservation minded people have now seen that the pro-ordinance people are really just after power and control...this is long past differing reasonable opinions. "Incredibly Frustrated with the lack of consistency and guidelines we are getting from the Houston Archeological and Historic Commission!!! As owner and designer of Bungalow Revival, I have been a proponent of Historic Districts way before we had them in Houston. I was a founding member of "Save The Bungalows" a Houston based grass-root group formed to promote renovation and strongly oppose demolitions in our historic neighborhoods. I was also one of the founding members of the " Historic Districts Coalition" another group formed to unite Houston's historic neighborhoods to support the passing of the Historic Districts Ordinance. I have been "walking-the-talk" since 1996 when we purchased our first home, a rundown bungalow on the West side of the Houston Heights. In 2003 I started Bungalow Revival. Our very first project was moving and restoring an Historic Victorian Cottage that was scheduled for demolition to make room for new construction. The bungalow I currently live in, we moved to the Heights from Montrose to prevent its demolition... In total we have moved seven houses to protect them from the wrecking ball and renovated and remodeled dozens of historic homes. When we as a community went through the painstaking ordeal to pass the Protected Historic Districts Ordinance we did it in a united front as preservationist. Webster defines Historic Preservation as an endeavor that seeks to preserve, conserve, and protect buildings. That is what we fought for and that is what we propose on doing for every single one of our projects. The HAHC has taken this ordinance and our efforts in a totally different direction from what was presented to the Historic Neighborhoods Community. Our Historic Ordinance is being morphed by the HAHC into a "puritanical" ordinance. Purist is defined as one who has very strong PERSONAL ideas of what is correct or acceptable and who usually opposes changes. Many rules are being changed and/or added continuously. As a builder who practices and promotes preservation within and outside of the Historic Districts I strongly resent the direction the HAHC has been high jacking the ordinance that we as a community of preservationists not purists put in place. Many of the projects being denied by this group (many of these individuals don't even live in Historic Homes nor in Historic Neighborhoods) honor our neighborhoods past and future. Please excuse my rant, but something has to change or this Ordinance just simply and sadly needs to go away!!!"
  22. I do not think he should not be able to make his statements, I support free speech - rather I think if he is going to make them, and make someone else's life suck as a result of them, his life should have to suck just as much. Its like Obamacare, good enough for me, but not for congress. What a crock of crap. I maintain that Mr. Marsh is a hypocrite. His house looks no different at all than any of the Tricon, Sullivan, Whitestone, Ansari, or Allegra homes that have been built. Its not historic, it does not look historic, it looks like a new modern victorian, or as the snots say - a McVic. And until you can prove to me that he did not remove a bungalow from that lot, I will assume that he did. The heights was built out primarily from bungalows, so the burden of proof lies with him, not me...odds are on my side. For all new construction, something must be removed. I am seriously doubtful that the lot he purchased was completely vacant, more likely there was a bungalow there that was either too small or was in disrepair - and rather than comply with history and remodel a dilapidated shack or rebuild another tiny bungalow, he built a nice new big house because that was what he wanted for himself...others should not have that opportunity...nope, he is special So special in fact he created a commission with no authority to make himself feel more special. A google street view of Mr. Marsh's house sure makes that look like Hardi-siding on it....those columns sure look like a builders standard fiberglass column...and those windows are almost certainly double paned insulated glass...None of that is historic in any way and all of those things are dictated by the ordinance. He does not comply with the ordinance, b/c it doesnt apply to him but by god, it should apply to other people....that is the definition of a hypocrite. At least some of the supporters of this monstrosity of an ordinance actually live in these old houses. As to builders demoing old houses, oh well....Builders build what people want. If they did not, they would not be in business. The market is currently screaming at the top of its lungs for nice modern homes in the Heights. People want bigger houses, not crappy glued together houses that make 1 person happy b/c there is an infinitesimally small remote chance that sometime in the year 2110 they may remove the addition and return the 2400 square foot hosue back into a 1100sq ft closet, just like old days. Heck one day they may look out their wiindow west and see pastures and native prairie again...it could happen. The fact that the ordinance is subjective is reason enough to throw it out. A law must be objective to be enforceable, or it is open for abuse. This law is being abused and should be done away with. Even your beloved Bungalow Revival is sick of it...There is no fixing this mess. It must be thrown out....you do not compromise or try to paste together fixes for something this dysfunctional. Toss it.
  23. Well since Mr. Marsh has injected himself into the public spotlight by attending these meetings and allowing himself to be broadcast on the internet by the council and in these "historic" meetings we should know a little bit more about him. If he has a right to have an opinion about other people and their property, we should have a right to know about him and let other people know whether or not he is legitimate and practices what he preaches or if he is just a hypocrite. All information here is 100% publicly available through the city links to you tube, through a google search of Mr. Marsh, or through HCAD. I have done nothing but compile it in a convenient location, so there is no chance of any invasion of privacy here. He spoke up, he put himself out there, and the law is clear here - one who puts himself into the spotlight must accept both the positives and the negatives of his actions. Mr. Marsh claimed to have lived in the Heights historic area for 37 years in the youtube video at city council which can be seen here: (statement at about the 3 hr and 7 min) He is concerned about the lack of input the neighbors have on other peoples property and the fact that they are tearing down homes to build new ones. Well where does Mr. Marsh live. HCAD tells me that he lives at 15XX Arlington St. What is funny about 15XX Arlington is that it is NEW CONSTRUCTION. The same type of new construction which he wishes to prevent. HCAD informs us that the house this pro-preservation anti-new construction, anti-remodel champion lives in was built in 1996 and is 2725 square feet (much larger than the remodels he opposes) So the champion of historic shacks, is also too good to live in them. That makes him a hypocrite in my book. But a google search provides more information. A person by the name of Jean Steinhardt does home portraits. She did a home portrait for Mr. Marsh along with a little bio - in this bio she states why it is that Mr Marsh moved from a bungalow into a brand new home: "they (Mr. Marsh) lived in their Heights bungalow on Oxford Street for several years. The house began to seem too small, but adding on was not feasible" http://www.jeansteinhardt.com/marsh.htm So a bungalow is good enough for you and your family with growing kids, but not good enough for just him and his wife. He needed more space, you, well you dont need it or deserve it! He deserves new construction with modern amenities, but YOU do not. You must keep your old windows and doors, your old wood siding, your old shutters, etc, etc, etc. He gets the new, you are stuck with the old. There is a word for this: HYPOCRITE! Its appalling....I am offended that someone who does not practice what he preaches would dare to go out and tell others that they can not do EXACTLY what he is doing. His life must really be pathetic if he has the time and the energy to go out and try to ensure that others can not do exactly what he has already done. It sickening. I feel very sorry for the Zucker's they have been denied the RIGHT to use their property in a way that they deem best, by a group of snobs, who do not practice what they preach at all. Mr. Marsh, you sir are a hypocrite who truly needs to find something better to do than harass your neighbors.
  24. The historic ordinance would do absolutely nothing to prevent that ugliness until the person tried to fix or remodel that ugly house. The ordinance does not prevent hording, rebuilding old junkers in your front or back yard, or anything else. It applies only to the structure itself. The only thing that will get rid of something like that would be deed restrictions, and the Heights, except for some small pocket areas, are not deed restricted. Its clear as day on your title search - it says unrestricted...that means, you can have a house, a townhome, an apartment, a manufacturing facility, a hospital, or a small vegetable farm next door. You really dont know, and you really do not have any say. While, I personally hate the historic ordinance, a case could be made for a very limited set of deed restrictions (which I also hate) The problem there being that the second you open the door to deed restrictions at all, you will have the crazy historic nuts thinking that they need to limit everything, and they would try. Its for that reason I do not support deed restrictions too....while they could be beneficial to prevent blight - they would be abused by nuts and end up being another hoop you have to jump through. The appreciation in our area is rapid enough that homes like that are becoming less and less common. Just keep waiting, when the property there gets high enough those people see dollar signs and they will pick up and move.
  25. I AM YELLING AT THE TOP OF MY LUNGS: HE SHOULD HAVE NO SAY IN WHAT HAPPENS TO A HOUSE HE DOES NOT OWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What another person does to their PRIVATE PROPERTY is not a democratic process. We should call out every single socialist who think they should get to control other people's property. Call each and every one out by name over and over again...print their names in the newspaper...rent billboards, we should shame each and every one of them into submission...if I have learned nothing from watching politics its that the more an issue gets a light and a magnifying glass, the more clear it is that the issue should never have been undertaken by government in the first place.
×
×
  • Create New...