Ted Alexander of Preservation North Carolina phoned Thursday to report that two historic houses in Dilworth had been sold to an owner who'll preserve them.
Ted left a voice mail and he's now out of the country, so I don't have publication-worthy confirmation on the buyer's name. He said the closing was Wednesday. The houses,
As I wrote in a column last year, the zoning was 22 units an acre, and it was likely the two lots could have been packaged, the houses demolished, and apartments or condos built.
As I reported last year, other cities such as Raleigh, protect their historic districts better, by not allowing large-sized additions to small houses if they're out of keeping with the scale of the neighborhood. Charlotte, you'll not be surprised to learn, does not. The fabric of Dilworth, a local historic district, is being changed by steroid-sized expansions. At least these two modest houses will survive to convey to future generations what the neighborhood used to be like: a place for people of high, middle and lower incomes.
Posts
8 comments:
See, now THIS is how it's supposed to work: If you're concerned that someone is going to develop a property in a way that you don't like, offer to buy it from them at a price they can accept. Once you own it, you can make up whatever rules you want for it and sell it to someone who's OK with those rules. This is the same strategy used by organizations such as the Nature Conservancy, which protects land from development simply by buying it and then holding on to it.
Running and crying to the local government to take away a property's owners rights, on the other hand, is not the correct thing to do.
^ What about asking our elected officials to help support this practice by helping these groups?
It's easy to put up a strawman argument against draconian legislation, but most preservationists in the city simply want this sort of thing to become a priority in our community. It's rare to come across someone who simply wants to "take away a property owner's rights" by force. But every time it's suggested that something more moderate and creative be done, the neo-cons come out of the woodwork to shout it down. So what we end up with is hardly any preservation, and what little we have is often done at the tremendous sacrifice of a few individuals.
Historic preservation should be a community wide priority and NOT depend on having a white-knight philanthropist to carry the entire city's burden.
When you throw out a loaded word like "neo-cons", your argument loses much of its credibility. This has nothing to do with "neo-cons". It has to do with private property rights, which should be the concern of ALL Americans.
If you want to try to make this sort of thing a "priority", then knock yourself out. But "priority" does not equal "law". And you can't strip property owners of THEIR rights to satisfy YOUR desire for a neighborhood to be a certain way. If it means lining up more white knights, or just trying to appeal to peoples' sense of neighborhood, then that's what you do.
Start making rules that inhibit my ability to use property that I own, and then that's when I lose patience with you.
The house on East Worthington sold to Michael and his Peruvian born wife Lucia Griffith Née Zapata. Lucia owns an architecture firm, Metro Landmarks.
If you want to try to make this sort of thing a "priority", then knock yourself out. But "priority" does not equal "law". And you can't strip property owners of THEIR rights to satisfy YOUR desire for a neighborhood to be a certain way. If it means lining up more white knights, or just trying to appeal to peoples' sense of neighborhood, then that's what you do.
This is a perfect illustration of what 12:48 was complaining about -- in the process of trying to prove him wrong you proved him right.
He specifically said that preservationists generally want not to strip property owners of their rights, but to find creative ways to encourage them to preserve the cultural heritage of the city. I'd consider that a "moderate" approach to the issue, but you characterize it as an assault on natural rights... which falls right into place with the "neo-con" comment that you found so offensive.
Instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to a political buzzword, perhaps you could consider the possibility that preservation incentives can exist without infringing on property rights.
Too bad for you that I am not a neo-con. Thanks to you for proving my point that throwing out buzzwords like that is not wise, because you truly have no idea what I believe beyond what I say here.
^ Nevertheless, once we get past your objection to a buzzword there is still the core problem: conservatives frequently reject preservation efforts out-of-hand as contrary to property rights, without acknowledging that most preservationists prefer incentive-based legislation which have nothing to do with revoking anyone's rights.
Which was my original point, way back up at the top of this thread.
Sheesh.
Post a Comment