The Heights Historic Districts

[RedScare]

It is equally idiotic for anyone to care whether they meet s3mh's definition of "preservationist". 

[poyea]

It is equally idiotic for anyone to care whether they meet s3mh's definition of "preservationist".

Excellent point.

[SilverJK]

If I owned a 57 thunderbird... I would modify it with modern technology to make it more powerful, energy efficient, safe, reliable, and comfortable.  I'd be really angry if the Civic owners club put a rule in place that prevented me from doing these things...

Edited July 27, 2013 by SilverJK

[TGM]

Historic residential architecture is dependent on the preservation of the neighborhood, not just a single example in a sea of creole wanna be boxes and other oddities.

The Chrysler Building and Empire State Building are surrounded by examples older and newer construction. These Art Deco-era buildings did not hurt their predecessors and nor did the newer, more modern buildings that surrounds them hurt their architectural symbolism.

What you are wanting is exactly what most preservationists look down their noses at: uniform conformity, made up of homes of one particular era. Cities and residential areas are like the shelves of a library, you have books of different colors, thicknesses, heights,etc. Fortunately librarians don't require authors submit their book plans, binding type, jacket color, and size before being allowed on the shelves.

In geometry terms, history is a ray, not a line. What is deemed historical, is dependent on how far down the tradjectory you are. At one point everything will be historical, and some day everything will be condemned and bulldozed.

The reoccurring theme of every one of your posts is control, control, and more control. Do you really believe its normal and healthy to go around telling people what they can and cannot do? Is it normal to request more governmental intrusion into our private lives and choices?

What is funny is that the Victorian age was an era of rapid industrialization, a renewed focus on privacy, and the rise of the middle class. Modern Victorians want modernization, privacy, and affordable housing. Your tyrannical, controlling beliefs about what people should be allowed to do in their personal matters and decisions are more Dark Ages than Victorian.

Edited July 28, 2013 by TGM

[s3mh]

It is equally idiotic for anyone to care whether they meet s3mh's definition of "preservationist". 

 

It is also really idiotic to continually rely on ad hominem attacks instead of trying to contribute intelligently to what could be an interesting discussion.  I am here and am not going anywhere.  If you do not like it that someone has an opposing view point to you, that is very childish.  Man up and contribute to the discussion instead of always saying "that guy is dumb, just ignore him".

[s3mh]

If I owned a 57 thunderbird... I would modify it with modern technology to make it more powerful, energy efficient, safe, reliable, and comfortable.  I'd be really angry if the Civic owners club put a rule in place that prevented me from doing these things...

 

Funny thing is that the vast majority of people who collect 57 thunderbirds spend huge sums to try to make their cars as close to the original condition as humanly possible and will pay a huge premium to find someone who can restore parts of the vehicle that cannot be replaced with spare parts to as close to the original condition as possible.  There are some people who put hybrid/electric engines in old cars to try to be green, but they are definitely outliers.

[s3mh]

The Chrysler Building and Empire State Building are surrounded by examples older and newer construction. These Art Deco-era buildings did not hurt their predecessors and nor did the newer, more modern buildings that surrounds them hurt their architectural symbolism.

What you are wanting is exactly what most preservationists look down their noses at: uniform conformity, made up of homes of one particular era. Cities and residential areas are like the shelves of a library, you have books of different colors, thicknesses, heights,etc. Fortunately librarians don't require authors submit their book plans, binding type, jacket color, and size before being allowed on the shelves.

In geometry terms, history is a ray, not a line. What is deemed historical, is dependent on how far down the tradjectory you are. At one point everything will be historical, and some day everything will be condemned and bulldozed.

The reoccurring theme of every one of your posts is control, control, and more control. Do you really believe its normal and healthy to go around telling people what they can and cannot do? Is it normal to request more governmental intrusion into our private lives and choices?

What is funny is that the Victorian age was an era of rapid industrialization, a renewed focus on privacy, and the rise of the middle class. Modern Victorians want modernization, privacy, and affordable housing. Your tyrannical, controlling beliefs about what people should be allowed to do in their personal matters and decisions are more Dark Ages than Victorian.

 

Actually, the majority of the buildings around the Empire State building and Chrysler building are protected landmarks.  And there is very scant newer construction around either building.  Manhattan has some of the tightest historic preservation rules in the US.  There is new construction, but it is the exception, not the norm.  The tight preservation rules have enable Manhattan to preserve not just a few treasures, but to preserve entire streetscapes and neighborhoods.  And without those, the Chrysler and Empire State buildings would not be such great icons of the NY skyline.  So, you have ironically cited the rule on historic preservation as evidence of your argument against preservation.  But, you have probably never actually set foot in NY and just saw a few odd new buildings on google maps. 

 

And it is fun how the argument against preservation always goes so quickly from the legitimate debate about what should be protected and to what extent to extreme hyperbole comparing preservation to some great affront to human liberty.  Dark ages?  Oh please.  It is like the conservative attempts to claim that environmentalism began with the Nazis.  Just pathetic.

[RedScare]

It is also really idiotic to continually rely on ad hominem attacks instead of trying to contribute intelligently to what could be an interesting discussion.  I am here and am not going anywhere.  If you do not like it that someone has an opposing view point to you, that is very childish.  Man up and contribute to the discussion instead of always saying "that guy is dumb, just ignore him".

 

Heh heh. I was responding to one of your quotes. If mine is ad hominem, then yours was as well. 

 

There is nothing more to debate here. You think it is perfectly acceptable to have government commandeer people's homes in order to force us to renovate them in a style and manner of your choosing. I find that level of government intrusion to be absolutely unacceptable, and further, will actively seek to limit that government intrusion. Whatever internet labeling meme you wish to call it, doesn't change my...and most Heights residents'...view of this ordinance and your opinions on it. You made your opinions clear. They are unacceptable to supporters of a free society. No more debate is necessary to ferret out your overly restrictive and hypocritical views.

[RedScare]

It is simply idiotic to claim to be a preservationist just because you put money into your own house but see no problem with 200+ historic homes getting demoed every year and getting replaced with a cacophony of architectural styles from cheap fake creole boxes to suburban transplants to mission and all the way out to modern minimalism.

 

For those wondering what my quote referred to, here it is in all of its run-on glory.

[SilverJK]

Funny thing is that the vast majority of people who collect 57 thunderbirds spend huge sums to try to make their cars as close to the original condition as humanly possible and will pay a huge premium to find someone who can restore parts of the vehicle that cannot be replaced with spare parts to as close to the original condition as possible.  There are some people who put hybrid/electric engines in old cars to try to be green, but they are definitely outliers.

 

Oh now you know all about classic cars too?   You are flat out wrong regarding this.  The vast majority of people who own 57 thunderbirds do not spend huge sums of money to keep them original.  This is a complete fabrication.  Yes there are collectors that pay big money for original 57 thunderbirds... but they are just that... collectors.  They rarely drive the vehicles and collect them as more of an art piece than a viable means of transportation.  They pay a lot because there aren't that many completely original 57 thunderbirds around... because THE VAST MAJORITY has changed them from original...

 

A majority would just swap in a 302/c4 combo (or similar) and drive it like a hotrod. 

 

 

What would I know... I was only a car scene magazine journalist (for fords in particular actually) in my previous life...

 

 

I am in the market for a mid fifty's ford custom 2 door post (or 48-56 F1)  project though if you have a line on one.

Edited July 30, 2013 by SilverJK

[samagon]

It is also really idiotic to continually rely on ad hominem attacks instead of trying to contribute intelligently to what could be an interesting discussion.  I am here and am not going anywhere.  If you do not like it that someone has an opposing view point to you, that is very childish.  Man up and contribute to the discussion instead of always saying "that guy is dumb, just ignore him".

 

You should really stop telling others to stop using logical fallacies when you base the entirety of your argument on them.

[s3mh]

Oh now you know all about classic cars too?   You are flat out wrong regarding this.  The vast majority of people who own 57 thunderbirds do not spend huge sums of money to keep them original.  This is a complete fabrication.  Yes there are collectors that pay big money for original 57 thunderbirds... but they are just that... collectors.  They rarely drive the vehicles and collect them as more of an art piece than a viable means of transportation.  They pay a lot because there aren't that many completely original 57 thunderbirds around... because THE VAST MAJORITY has changed them from original...

 

A majority would just swap in a 302/c4 combo (or similar) and drive it like a hotrod. 

 

 

What would I know... I was only a car scene magazine journalist (for fords in particular actually) in my previous life...

 

 

I am in the market for a mid fifty's ford custom 2 door post (or 48-56 F1)  project though if you have a line on one.

 

I have someone in my family who has restored 57 thunderbirds for over 30 years.  I could care less about those cars, but have heard endless stories about the cars and the 57 thunderbird community for years and years and years.  I am not an expert, but my relative is.  He makes a good living at it and has piles of awards from his work.  57 thunderbirds are one of the most collectable vehicles on the road.  The vast majority of the 57s on the market are restored to as close to original condition as possible.  If you swap out an engine, you would be cutting the value in half (a new stereo or AC is about all you can get away with in terms of aftermarket upgrades).  Some redneck might do that, but the VAST MAJORITY do not.  I wish I didn't know this stuff as I end up getting several hours of talk about 57s from my family at every family event.  But I do and I am right.  You are just making up stuff about 57s.  Just look at the listings for 57s on the internet.  Original engines are a must and details about how the vehicles were rebuilt are hugely important.

[TGM]

And it is fun how the argument against preservation always goes so quickly from the legitimate debate about what should be protected and to what extent to extreme hyperbole comparing preservation to some great affront to human liberty. Dark ages? Oh please. It is like the conservative attempts to claim that environmentalism began with the Nazis. Just pathetic.

Property rights, property ownership are fundamental to a free society. Where is the hyperbole in that?

I'll avoid your "Nazi" hyperbole, and simply say that your very Statist view is that one's private property is actually "community property". You believe that something is owed to a neighborhood when someone purchases a home. You believe that non-owners of a property should have a greater say than the person that bore the financial cost to purchase it. You believe that this collection of neighbors has a greater right over the individual because they know what is best for him. It is the community view you find to be legitimate, not the "ignorant beliefs" of the individual, the human, the actual property owner.

I love this rhetorical argument of what is or is not "responsible development" as Statists (in this case s3mh the Statist-Preservationist) cannot really answer it in the affirmative or negative without contradicting themselves in the process. This is because in doing so it highlights the great contradiction of all Statists beliefs regarding human nature.

The Statist belief is that humans are inherently too ignorant or unenlightened to be left to their own devices. Based on this view they believe individuals need the State(substitute HAHC, RUDH,etc in this case) to think for them, thus saving the individual (and all other "idiots" like them) from themselves.

So despite being of the same species as their fellow men, they should somehow be given power through committees such as the HAHC over their fellow men? Do these Statists/Preservationists that back such things as the HAHC honestly believe that only virtuous humans are allowed to hold the reigns of HAHC power? (as if these same humans are somehow magically transformed into the devine by merely wielding the power of the position)

Yet somehow they still believe that these ignorant denizens, the ones too idiotic to govern their own affairs, are yet somehow capable of voting for others to govern for them. Small minded, yet able to somehow earn wages to buy the home, but still so ignorant of what's best for it that it requires the help of boards and committees. And yet the committee comprised of humans

All of these, and more are really just shades of the same contradictions in Statists/Preservationists rhetoric. "All humans are idiots, except for us."

Edited July 31, 2013 by TGM

[samagon]

 

I have someone in my family who has restored 57 thunderbirds for over 30 years.  I could care less about those cars, but have heard endless stories about the cars and the 57 thunderbird community for years and years and years.  I am not an expert, but my relative is.  He makes a good living at it and has piles of awards from his work.  57 thunderbirds are one of the most collectable vehicles on the road.  The vast majority of the 57s on the market are restored to as close to original condition as possible.  If you swap out an engine, you would be cutting the value in half (a new stereo or AC is about all you can get away with in terms of aftermarket upgrades).  Some redneck might do that, but the VAST MAJORITY do not.  I wish I didn't know this stuff as I end up getting several hours of talk about 57s from my family at every family event.  But I do and I am right.  You are just making up stuff about 57s.  Just look at the listings for 57s on the internet.  Original engines are a must and details about how the vehicles were rebuilt are hugely important.

57 Thunderbird is a horrible example to use in an analogy for bungalows.

Maybe a 67 vw bug is more comparison.

Maybe the 57 t bird is analogous to something a bit more rare than bungalows.

[s3mh]

Property rights, property ownership are fundamental to a free society. Where is the hyperbole in that?

I'll avoid your "Nazi" hyperbole, and simply say that your very Statist view is that one's private property is actually "community property". You believe that something is owed to a neighborhood when someone purchases a home. You believe that non-owners of a property should have a greater say than the person that bore the financial cost to purchase it. You believe that this collection of neighbors has a greater right over the individual because they know what is best for him. It is the community view you find to be legitimate, not the "ignorant beliefs" of the individual, the human, the actual property owner.

I love this rhetorical argument of what is or is not "responsible development" as Statists (in this case s3mh the Statist-Preservationist) cannot really answer it in the affirmative or negative without contradicting themselves in the process. This is because in doing so it highlights the great contradiction of all Statists beliefs regarding human nature.

The Statist belief is that humans are inherently too ignorant or unenlightened to be left to their own devices. Based on this view they believe individuals need the State(substitute HAHC, RUDH,etc in this case) to think for them, thus saving the individual (and all other "idiots" like them) from themselves.

So despite being of the same species as their fellow men, they should somehow be given power through committees such as the HAHC over their fellow men? Do these Statists/Preservationists that back such things as the HAHC honestly believe that only virtuous humans are allowed to hold the reigns of HAHC power? (as if these same humans are somehow magically transformed into the devine by merely wielding the power of the position)

Yet somehow they still believe that these ignorant denizens, the ones too idiotic to govern their own affairs, are yet somehow capable of voting for others to govern for them. Small minded, yet able to somehow earn wages to buy the home, but still so ignorant of what's best for it that it requires the help of boards and committees. And yet the committee comprised of humans

All of these, and more are really just shades of the same contradictions in Statists/Preservationists rhetoric. "All humans are idiots, except for us."

You will need to leave the United States if you want to find a place where your extremist libertarian views are shared by others. It has long been decided in this country that the police powers of the state to preserve the welfare, safety, health and morals of the public. We have long since rejected Locke's flawed theory of property rights. Locke believed that property rights were obtained not by taking a bag of money earned from other endeavors and buying land, but by combining one's labor with the land to take the land from a state of nature to a state to be used for a dwelling, crops and other purposes. What Locke did not recognize was that ownership of land intrinsically affected the rights of the community. Thus, in the earliest recognition of real property law in England that is the basis for our system, you immediately see the recognition of a superior right of the community to an easement across a freehold estate in order to access another parcel of land or to be able to travel on established roads. Thus from the very beginnings of real property law it was recognized that the right to exclude was subject to a greater right of the welfare of the community.

Your hyperbole about people the tyrrany of the majority knowing better than the poor little land owner is always the rhetorical tool used to try to make a very reasonable and beneficial restriction on property rights seem more ownerous than it really is. Historic preservation laws are ubiquitous in the United States. Just about every municipality from New York to Waxahachie has laws protecting historic architecture that restrict property rights. These laws recognize the value that has been created by the community by preserving historic buildings and protects that value from the momentary whims of the guy with a big bag of money. That is because it has never been the case in our real property jurisprudence that real property ownership granted an exemption from the democratically established rights of the community. Your claim of the tyrrany of the majority is really a call for a society where rights are a commodity reserved to the highest bidder. You believe that your rights are superior to over 200 years of constitutional democracy and 500 years of common law just because you had one dollar more to bid for a piece of land. That is truly arbitrary and a concept that has never existed in civilized society outside the musings of message boards and Ron Paul newsletters.

[TGM]

We have long since rejected Locke's flawed theory of property rights. Locke believed that property rights were obtained not by taking a bag of money earned from other endeavors and buying land, but by combining one's labor with the land to take the land from a state of nature to a state to be used for a dwelling, crops and other purposes. What Locke did not recognize was that ownership of land intrinsically affected the rights of the community. Thus, in the earliest recognition of real property law in England that is the basis for our system, you immediately see the recognition of a superior right of the community to an easement across a freehold estate in order to access another parcel of land or to be able to travel on established roads. Thus from the very beginnings of real property law it was recognized that the right to exclude was subject to a greater right of the welfare of the community.

So according to you if my committee viewed your surrounding area as deficient in any particular amenity that would be beneficial to the welfare of the community, say for instance cheap groceries, diapers, etc, I could exclaim that the communities needs and access to these goods and services trump your right to remain whole and undisturbed on your property. Got it. So based on this "greater good" philosophy, and strengthened by Kelo v. City of New London I could seize your property through eminent domain on the behalf of say...Walmart, so that the less fortunate in your "food desert" can benefit. Right... But you would be okay with that because you hold an enlightened, rather than an "extremist libertarian" view.

If the needs of the community are paramount over the individual right to property please tell me again why you are opposed to Walmart? You should be happy if they opened in the neighborhood, and even more ecstatic if they seized your property to do so.

Edited July 31, 2013 by TGM

[s3mh]

So according to you if my committee viewed your surrounding area as deficient in any particular amenity that would be beneficial to the welfare of the community, say for instance cheap groceries, diapers, etc, I could exclaim that the communities needs and access to these goods and services trump your right to remain whole and undisturbed on your property. Got it. So based on this "greater good" philosophy, and strengthened by Kelo v. City of New London I could seize your property through eminent domain on the behalf of say...Walmart, so that the less fortunate in your "food desert" can benefit. Right... But you would be okay with that because you hold an enlightened, rather than an "extremist libertarian" view.

If the needs of the community are paramount over the individual right to property please tell me again why you are opposed to Walmart? You should be happy if they opened in the neighborhood, and even more ecstatic if they seized your property to do so.

 

 

No one needed a Walmart in the Heights.  There were already two within a short drive of the Heights. 

 

Kelo is interesting because it shows how constitutional democracy can work so much better than fictional libertarian utopias.  I agree with the supreme court that the constitution does not restrict the eminent domain rights of government to only public use.  That has actually been the rule long before Kelo.  Eminent domain has been a hugely valuable tool in breaking down barriers to development due to land owners who refuse to sell in blighted areas.  The issue in Kelo was to what extent the government has to show public benefit.  The court basically left that to the political process, but J. Kennedy's concurrence leaves open the possibility of an analysis of whether the benefit is primarily to the private entity with only a marginal benefit to the public. 

 

But, here is the part that smashes your paranoid "committee" ramblings.  We have a system of government that has a messy, but ultimately effective system to deal with these issues.  Many states enacted legislation in response to Kelo.  Most states have limited takings to instances where eminent domain is needed to clear blighted property.  Texas is pretty strict about the public use requirement, so much so that pipe line companies are going nuts trying to figure out how to get past the courts on the common carrier public use exception (the biggest irony is that Koch Industries has been a party to lawsuits seeking to make use of the common carrier exception--serious hypocrisy from the poster children of libertarianism).  So, adults can deal with these issues and work them out in a free democratic country without having to put on a tin foil hat and rant about how gubment gonna git yuh propity. 

 

Of course, I would oppose takings for purely private use.  But I would not want to take away all eminent domain rights and make landowners micro-monarchs in society. 

[RedScare]

No one needed a Walmart in the Heights.  

 

Not your decision to make.

[SilverJK]

I have someone in my family who has restored 57 thunderbirds for over 30 years.  I could care less about those cars, but have heard endless stories about the cars and the 57 thunderbird community for years and years and years.  I am not an expert, but my relative is.  He makes a good living at it and has piles of awards from his work.  57 thunderbirds are one of the most collectable vehicles on the road.  The vast majority of the 57s on the market are restored to as close to original condition as possible.  If you swap out an engine, you would be cutting the value in half (a new stereo or AC is about all you can get away with in terms of aftermarket upgrades).  Some redneck might do that, but the VAST MAJORITY do not.  I wish I didn't know this stuff as I end up getting several hours of talk about 57s from my family at every family event.  But I do and I am right.  You are just making up stuff about 57s.  Just look at the listings for 57s on the internet.  Original engines are a must and details about how the vehicles were rebuilt are hugely important.

 

All that you say is for collectors.  A original 57 in great condition is worth around 35-45 thousand (which is not very expensive for a collector car), but a ratted out project car would be worth less than 5k.  I would say a vast majority of 57 thunderbirds don't even run.   I know a guy who has like 15 first gen thunderbirds and most of them dont run.  (he does have one with a 427 swap that most definitely runs). 

 

Your probably thinking the 57 thunderbirds with stock paxton supercharger and etc.  Those are rare and very collectable (these are the ones you see going at auctions for big bucks) but they are rare... the majority of them were just the stock 312 y-block and most people don't car about keeping them original... they just want a cool 50s cruiser.

 

 

Again you take your niche knowledge about 5% of an industry and try to pass it off as the majority. 

 

57 thunderbirds are not even close to what any collector would consider most collectable on the road... not even top 50.  There were a good bunch of them made, making them available if you want one.  I mean a 57 vette would go for at least 5 times as much.  I would never own either.

[barracuda]

No one needed a Walmart in the Heights.  There were already two within a short drive of the Heights. 

 

The only problem with that line of argument is that it can be applied across pretty much any establishment. The Heights is in the middle of a large city filled with redundant businesses. No one needs more retailers or restaurants, but many people will be happy to have them close by. 

[august948]

You will need to leave the United States if you want to find a place where your extremist libertarian views are shared by others. It has long been decided in this country that the police powers of the state to preserve the welfare, safety, health and morals of the public. We have long since rejected Locke's flawed theory of property rights. Locke believed that property rights were obtained not by taking a bag of money earned from other endeavors and buying land, but by combining one's labor with the land to take the land from a state of nature to a state to be used for a dwelling, crops and other purposes. What Locke did not recognize was that ownership of land intrinsically affected the rights of the community. Thus, in the earliest recognition of real property law in England that is the basis for our system, you immediately see the recognition of a superior right of the community to an easement across a freehold estate in order to access another parcel of land or to be able to travel on established roads. Thus from the very beginnings of real property law it was recognized that the right to exclude was subject to a greater right of the welfare of the community.

Your hyperbole about people the tyrrany of the majority knowing better than the poor little land owner is always the rhetorical tool used to try to make a very reasonable and beneficial restriction on property rights seem more ownerous than it really is. Historic preservation laws are ubiquitous in the United States. Just about every municipality from New York to Waxahachie has laws protecting historic architecture that restrict property rights. These laws recognize the value that has been created by the community by preserving historic buildings and protects that value from the momentary whims of the guy with a big bag of money. That is because it has never been the case in our real property jurisprudence that real property ownership granted an exemption from the democratically established rights of the community. Your claim of the tyrrany of the majority is really a call for a society where rights are a commodity reserved to the highest bidder. You believe that your rights are superior to over 200 years of constitutional democracy and 500 years of common law just because you had one dollar more to bid for a piece of land. That is truly arbitrary and a concept that has never existed in civilized society outside the musings of message boards and Ron Paul newsletters.

It's a bit of a stretch to equate right-of-way easements with preservation laws. We have a long and well established method for including easements via property deed. I'm sure if you look at deeds to property in the Heights you will find such easements existing. Did the historic ordinance change the deeds of any of the contributing properties?

[TGM]

But, here is the part that smashes your paranoid "committee" ramblings.

I suggest you walk a few miles in the shoes of those that have gone before the HAHC seeking their approval to improve their property. Kafka comes to mind.

adults can deal with these issues and work them out in a free democratic country without having to put on a tin foil hat and rant about how gubment gonna git yuh propity.

I agree, let's put the HAHC to an honest vote.

Of course, I would oppose takings for purely private use. But I would not want to take away all eminent domain rights and make landowners micro-monarchs in society.

The only micro-monarchs are those that sit on the HAHC.

[RedScare]

I agree, let's put the HAHC to an honest vote.

 

 

He will NEVER agree to that. He will mumble something about already having a fair chance, but ignores that the mayor intentionally left out an opt out mechanism. If there were an ounce of integrity to his words, he'd agree and support an opt out provision.

 

Watch him squirm.

[samagon]

 

All that you say is for collectors.  A original 57 in great condition is worth around 35-45 thousand (which is not very expensive for a collector car), but a ratted out project car would be worth less than 5k.  I would say a vast majority of 57 thunderbirds don't even run.   I know a guy who has like 15 first gen thunderbirds and most of them dont run.  (he does have one with a 427 swap that most definitely runs). 

 

Your probably thinking the 57 thunderbirds with stock paxton supercharger and etc.  Those are rare and very collectable (these are the ones you see going at auctions for big bucks) but they are rare... the majority of them were just the stock 312 y-block and most people don't car about keeping them original... they just want a cool 50s cruiser.

 

 

Again you take your niche knowledge about 5% of an industry and try to pass it off as the majority. 

 

57 thunderbirds are not even close to what any collector would consider most collectable on the road... not even top 50.  There were a good bunch of them made, making them available if you want one.  I mean a 57 vette would go for at least 5 times as much.  I would never own either.

Well, someone would have to pass a law that said if you own a tbird, if you want to do anything with it, you have to take your design to the tbird restoration organization and get it approved.

[TGM]

Again you take your niche knowledge about 5% of an industry and try to pass it off as the majority.

I'm sure his knowledge of the Lada, GAZ, ZIL, and the Trabby vehicles borders on the encyclopedic.

A life was lost obtaining the video below. In it RUDH is frantically preparing for the next evil capitalist builder protest.

Edited August 1, 2013 by TGM

[s3mh]

It's a bit of a stretch to equate right-of-way easements with preservation laws. We have a long and well established method for including easements via property deed. I'm sure if you look at deeds to property in the Heights you will find such easements existing. Did the historic ordinance change the deeds of any of the contributing properties?

 

Common law access easements have existed for hundreds of years and are not voluntary.  They are imposed by law to prevent a property owner from unreasonably blocking access to another property by refusing to allow the adjoining property owner to cross their land.  The entire bundle of property rights is summed up as the right to exclude.  My point is that the ultra libertarian idea that all government regulation of land use is nothing more than an illegitimate "committee" foisting their ideas onto a landowner is completely foreign to the most basic and fundamental concepts of property rights.  From the very beginning of English property law, landowners were required to concede sticks from the bundle for the greater good of the community. 

[s3mh]

All that you say is for collectors.  A original 57 in great condition is worth around 35-45 thousand (which is not very expensive for a collector car), but a ratted out project car would be worth less than 5k.  I would say a vast majority of 57 thunderbirds don't even run.   I know a guy who has like 15 first gen thunderbirds and most of them dont run.  (he does have one with a 427 swap that most definitely runs). 

 

Your probably thinking the 57 thunderbirds with stock paxton supercharger and etc.  Those are rare and very collectable (these are the ones you see going at auctions for big bucks) but they are rare... the majority of them were just the stock 312 y-block and most people don't car about keeping them original... they just want a cool 50s cruiser.

 

 

Again you take your niche knowledge about 5% of an industry and try to pass it off as the majority. 

 

57 thunderbirds are not even close to what any collector would consider most collectable on the road... not even top 50.  There were a good bunch of them made, making them available if you want one.  I mean a 57 vette would go for at least 5 times as much.  I would never own either.

 

I never said that 57s were the most collectible cars on the road.  That is you just trying to change the subject after you looked foolish claiming that everyone rips out the engine and turns 57s into hot rods.  That may be what you thought when you read hot rod magazines when you were a kid, but 57s are valued for being restored to as close to original condition as possible.  Put anything aftermarket in them and the value plummets.  That info comes from someone who has restored over a hundred t-birds, goes to t-bird shows, is in t-bird clubs and bores their relatives with talk about t-birds at every family function. 

[SilverJK]

57 thunderbirds are one of the most collectable vehicles on the road. 

 

 

Uhm,  you said precisely that.  I didn't claim you said they were the most collectable vehicle ever... I said you claimed they were one of the most collectable vehicles on the road.  I guess I read too much into your post which stated that EXACT thing.

 

 

Again you've shown that think you know everything about a subject and only know a small niche of second hand information.

 

Lots of people swap in the 302/351/390...   these are people who actually drive the cars and enjoy them for what they are.  There are also whole kits designed for IRS conversions of the first gen thunderbirds... thats not very original now is it... yet there is demand enough to necessitate a KIT to convert them. 

 

 

A friend of mine owned a Tucker... now that is a collectable car.  (he sold it to a museum)

 

 

Maybe you should buy a Model T, so even your car looks historically appropriate for your house.  Then you can tell us all about the color options you would have had when it was new.

[august948]

Common law access easements have existed for hundreds of years and are not voluntary. They are imposed by law to prevent a property owner from unreasonably blocking access to another property by refusing to allow the adjoining property owner to cross their land. The entire bundle of property rights is summed up as the right to exclude. My point is that the ultra libertarian idea that all government regulation of land use is nothing more than an illegitimate "committee" foisting their ideas onto a landowner is completely foreign to the most basic and fundamental concepts of property rights. From the very beginning of English property law, landowners were required to concede sticks from the bundle for the greater good of the community.

Easements of this sort have existed and stood the test of time (and court cases) for hundreds of years because they provide for fair use of property that might not otherwise be usable by the owner. Fair use of one's own property is a fundamental concept in property law. A preservation ordinance does not provide for fair use of one's property, it restricts it. As such, it's completely legitimate to resist it via the political process by which it was imposed. You are reverting to a straw man argument when you attempt to equate the removal of the preservation ordinance with an "ultra libertarian" stance on removal of all restrictions on property use.

[s3mh]

Easements of this sort have existed and stood the test of time (and court cases) for hundreds of years because they provide for fair use of property that might not otherwise be usable by the owner. Fair use of one's own property is a fundamental concept in property law. A preservation ordinance does not provide for fair use of one's property, it restricts it. As such, it's completely legitimate to resist it via the political process by which it was imposed. You are reverting to a straw man argument when you attempt to equate the removal of the preservation ordinance with an "ultra libertarian" stance on removal of all restrictions on property use.

 

I am responding to TGM.  Blame him for having crazed libertarian views.  But, it is interesting to apply commonly held arguments against historic district to the right of access easement.  For example, a popular one is "if you want to save a house, buy it with your own money".  Same argument could go for implied easements.  If you wanted to have access to the road, you should have also bought the property that is in the way.  Why should government be able to force me to allow someone to put a road across my property when they knew there was no access when they bought the property? 

 

And the idea that the ordinance does not allow for "fair use" (that is not a legal concept) of your property is silly.  If the ordinance was really such an imposition, you would see property values plummet.  The exact opposite has happened.  That is because the restrictions are minimal and manageable.  And there are real benefits that come with the restrictions that many people desire (just ask the folks who live near Morrison Heights if they would pay more to be in a HD).