Completely OT: Frank Lloyd Wright

[Dirk Munk]

Yesterday there was a news item on Dutch TV news (all day long!) that a
project developer in Phoenix wants to demolish a house designed and
build by Frank Lloyd Wright. He built this house in 1952 for his son
David. As you will know (I hope) Frank Lloyd Wright was one of the
gratest architects that ever lived, not only in the U.S., but anywhere.
I'm a very big fan of his work, and it is incomprehensible to me that it
would be allowed to demolish any building designed by him, let alone
this house that is regarded to be one of his ten best designs. In Europe
this would be a listed building and you couldn't even point your finger
at it without permission. Will you please help to stop this act of
cultural barbarism and sign the petition on this website?

http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-phoenix-save-the-david-and-gladys-wright-house

[JF Mezei]

On 12-10-06 18:58, Dirk Munk wrote:

> http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-phoenix-save-the-david-and-gladys-wright-house


If we setup an on-line petiton to get HP to save VMS, how many
signatures could we get ? 30 ? 50 ? 100 ?

(how's that to bring an OT back on topic ?) :-)

[brad]

Cultural barbarism or no, this is not the first of his houses in the US be
destroyed, by a long shot. I join you in your admiration of his work, but
some of his houses suffered from flaws in design and construction. Others
have been destroyed, because the folks who bought the house/property didn't
like the building, and wanted to have their own vision in place.

I guess that here in the US, property ownership trumps all.

I wonder - if he had VMS to help him design his buildings, perhaps they might
still be standing today.

Back OT. : - )

[VAXman-]

I don't think an on-line petition is worth the paper it's written upon. ;)

As a PA boy, I've been to Falling Water several times. There's also a FLW
home about a mile (maybe 2) from my home. I have several FLW architecture
books in my collection too. I think it would be a shame to destroy one of
his homes but I don't think any on-line petition will help.

--
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.

[Richard B. Gilbert]

If you really want to preserve this house, buy it and the land it stands on!

If you look deeply enough, you just might find that there are good
reasons for wanting to demolish the house!

[JF Mezei]

On 12-10-06 21:43, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:

> As a PA boy, I've been to Falling Water several times.

We really don't need to know what sort of piercings you have :-) :-) :-) :-)

> There's also a FLW
> home about a mile (maybe 2) from my home.

is that at Millstone ?

I went to Wikipedia
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Frank_Lloyd_Wright_works_by_location

and was surprised at the number of buildings he has designed. (and yes,
one in Baff Canada was destroyed in 1939, sorry !)

> books in my collection too. I think it would be a shame to destroy one of
> his homes but I don't think any on-line petition will help.

Politicians have learned to respect social network's power, and on-line
petitions are part of the arsenal of social networks. A major internet
policy in canada was overturned in part due to such an on-line petition.

[Dirk Munk]

Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> On 10/6/2012 6:58 PM, Dirk Munk wrote:
>> Yesterday there was a news item on Dutch TV news (all day long!) that a
>> project developer in Phoenix wants to demolish a house designed and
>> build by Frank Lloyd Wright. He built this house in 1952 for his son
>> David. As you will know (I hope) Frank Lloyd Wright was one of the
>> gratest architects that ever lived, not only in the U.S., but anywhere.
>> I'm a very big fan of his work, and it is incomprehensible to me that it
>> would be allowed to demolish any building designed by him, let alone
>> this house that is regarded to be one of his ten best designs. In Europe
>> this would be a listed building and you couldn't even point your finger
>> at it without permission. Will you please help to stop this act of
>> cultural barbarism and sign the petition on this website?
>>
>> http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-phoenix-save-the-david-and-gladys-wright-house
>>
>>
>>
>
> If you really want to preserve this house, buy it and the land it stands
> on!

On this side of the big pond we have laws to protect important monuments.

>
> If you look deeply enough, you just might find that there are good
> reasons for wanting to demolish the house!
>

Like what please?

[VAXman-]

In article <50711576$0$45194$c3e8da3$b280...@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> writes:
>On 12-10-06 21:43, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>
>> As a PA boy, I've been to Falling Water several times.
>
>We really don't need to know what sort of piercings you have :-) :-) :-) :-)

???

There's no *visible* metal in my body unless you own an X-ray machine. In
the latter case, there's a scrap heap.

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <50711576$0$45194$c3e8da3$b280...@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> writes:

First, most online petitions are worthless and usually a sign of
slactivism ( http://www.snopes.com/info/glossary.asp#slack ). See below
for an article on internet petitions from snopes.com (I can't find a
direct link to it now). (This is not to say that no online petition
ever did any good, but most positive examples of that involve not the
petition per se, but someone who actually had the power to do something
learning about the issue, in which case he probably could have learned
about it through a more efficient means than an internet petition.)

(An exception are parliamentary positions, where parliament is forced to
debate the topic if a certain number of signatures are obtained, and
some parliaments have an online version of this.)

> Politicians have learned to respect social network's power, and on-line
> petitions are part of the arsenal of social networks. A major internet
> policy in canada was overturned in part due to such an on-line petition.

Apart from what I personally think about this law (which I know nothing
about), which doesn't matter anyway, unless a majority of Canadians were
in favour of overturning the policy, then this is a VERY BAD development
for democracy. Division of labour and hence representative democracy is
a good thing. I don't want to live in a society where the rules are
determined by people who have nothing better to do than organize online
positions, sign them (and perhaps fake signatures). (To be sure,
plebiscites are sometimes necessary if the opinion of the population is
vastly different than that in parliament, but that needs to be an
official plebiscite, not just this hour's online petition.)

---------8<--------------------------------------------------------------------

Internet Petitions

Claim: Signing and circulating online petitions is an effective way of
remedying important issues.

Status: False.

Origins: The 2000s have seen the birth of an Internet phenomenon: the e-
petition. It offers instant comfort to those outraged by the latest ills
of the world through its implicit assurance that affixing their names to
a statement decrying a situation and demanding change will make a
difference. That assurance is a severely flawed one for a multitude of
reasons.

Often petitions contain no information about whom they are ultimately
intended for and instead are no more than outpourings of outrage.
Expressions of outrage are fine and good, but if they don't reach
someone who can have impact on the core problem, they're wasted. Thus, a
petition that doesn't clearly identify the intended recipient may have
some small value as a way for its signers to work off angst, but as an
instrument of social change it fails miserably.

Even those that clearly identify the intended recipient don't come with
a guarantee that the person slated to receive the document is in any
position to influence matters. A misdirected petition is of no more use
than an undirected one --- though the voices it contains may be shouting,
they won't be heard.

Even well-addressed, well-thought-out petitions have their problems,
chief among them the lack of a guarantee that anyone is collecting and
collating the signatures or will deliver the completed documents to the
right parties. The mere existence of a petition doesn't warrant that
anyone will do anything with it once it is completed.

Moreover, petitions aren't the instruments of social change we'd so
dearly love to believe they are. Yes, a petition festooned with a
zillion signatures can have some influence, but only as a tangible proof
of a subset of public opinion, and only upon those whose welfare is
dependent upon public opinion (eg. politicians). Those signatures aren't
votes, and they aren't treated as such by the governing bodies that have
to decide on the tough questions of our times. At best, they're seen as
an indication of the public's will, no more.

Petitions calling for the erection of a firefighters memorial or to have
next Thursday designated national performing arts day have some small
hope of success, but all bets are off when the question becomes more
complex ("Let's solve the problem of poverty in the USA") or when acts
taking place on foreign soil are the subject of the angst ("Let's end
child rape in South Africa"). Difficult problems don't suddenly yield up
simple solutions just because a great many fervently hope they would,
nor do foreign governments feel impelled to change conditions in their
countries just because folks in other lands are upset by them.

All of the above applies to hand-signed and cyber petitions alike. E-
petitions, however, have one further shortcoming inherent to them that
entirely undercut any value the same documents might have had in paper-
and-ink form.

Paper-and-ink petitions are signed in a variety of handwriting styles,
each unique to its signer. Consequently, signatures on a paper-and-ink
petition cannot easily be faked else certain glaring similarities would
show up in one entry after another.

E-petitions, however, come with no such assurance --- the same person
could have generated all of the signatures. Moreover, it takes little by
way of programming skills to create a sequence of code that will
randomly generate fake names, e-mail addresses, and cities (or whatever
combination of same the e-petition calls for). Once written, such a
program can be executed with a keystroke, resulting in the effortless
generation of thousands upon thousands of "signatures."

Those in a position to influence anything know this and thus accord e-
petitions only slightly more respect than they would a blank sheet of
paper. Thus, even the best written, properly addressed, and lovingly
delivered e-petitions whose every signature was scrupulously vetted by
the petition's creator fall into the same vortex of disbelief at the
receiving end that less carefully shepherded missives find themselves
relegated to.

Okay, so the average e-petition isn't ultimately worth the pixels it
took to create it --- why are they so popular?

In a world beset by complex problems, the solutions of which will take
enormous amounts of time, money, and commitment, such simplification as
the e-petition provides a welcome relief. Imagine having the power to
solve those problems! Moreover, imagine having it merely at the click of
a mouse!

Such is the appeal. A sense of powerlessness and lack of control over
events played out on the grand scale becomes replaced by the certainty
that real change can be brought about at the cost of no more effort than
it takes to type a few characters on a keyboard, just enough to display
one's name on a growing list of equally committed cyber activists.
Through the magic of the e-petition, those left feeling like bystanders
to important events are transformed into powerful agents for social
change. It's heady stuff.

It's also illusion.

E-petitions are the latest manifestation of slacktivism, the search for
the ultimate feel-good that derives from having come to society's rescue
without having had to actually get one's hands dirty or open one's
wallet. It's slacktivism that prompts us to forward appeals for business
cards on behalf of a dying child intent upon having his name recorded in
the Guinness World Book of Records or exhortations to others to continue
circulating a particular e-mail because some big company has supposedly
promised that every forward will generate monies for the care of a
particular dying child. Likewise, it's slacktivism that prompts us to
want to join a boycott of designated gas companies or eschew buying
gasoline on a particular day rather than reduce our personal consumption
of fossil fuels by driving less and taking the bus more often.
Slacktivism comes in many forms (and there are many other illustrations
of it on this web site; our goal was merely to offer a few examples
rather than provide a definitive list), but its key defining
characteristic is its central theme of doing good with little or no
effort on the part of person inspired to participate in the forwarding,
exhorting, collecting, or e-signing.

For many, e-petitions satisfy the need to feel they are doing good and
thus somewhat quell that nagging feeling they should be doing more to
make the world a better place. As such, they serve a purpose as an
outlet for those who "sign" such missives experience a personal sense of
accomplishment in tandem with the warming sensation of having come to
society's aid. Good feels like it has been done in two directions for
the signature helping a worthy cause, and the act of signing helping the
person who was moved to add his name to the petition. E-petitions are
sexy even when they don't have a hope in hell of helping to accomplish
their stated goals because they afford us an opportunity to bestow upon
ourselves a pat on the back rather than continue to feel guilty about
not doing our part. That nothing is really getting accomplished is
almost beside the point; we believe we've been part of something
worthwhile and so feel better about ourselves.

Because e-petitions are as popular as they are, a number of web sites
have sprung up to service the interest in them. That these web sites
exist doesn't impart to the lowly cyber petition any more credibility
than it previously had, nor does it imbue it with any more power to
effect change. The presence of web sites devoted to them (even well-
constructed authoritative-looking ones) changes nothing about e-
petitions' inherent shortcomings. Those tempted to confuse the
appearance of legitimacy with legitimacy itself should keep in mind that
many a mark has been conned out of his life's savings by a smooth talker
who had a fancy, seemingly well-staffed office and impressive letterhead.
Looks ain't everything.

We're not going to offer an opinion on whether one site or another is
legitimate (i.e. the petitions it houses are actually delivered to those
they were intended for and all the "signatures" visitors provide are
actually appended to them). Those questions are far better directed by
interested readers to the sites themselves. Rather, we're going to
acquaint our readers with one further point they might not otherwise be
taking into consideration.

Many of these sites display banner ads that generate revenues for the
sites' operators. That means every time someone visits to view or sign a
petition, the site's owners earn revenue. This happens whether or not
there are any real petitions, whether or not any petitions are delivered
to their stated recipients, whether or not the "signatures" collected
are appended to them, whether or not only the "signatures" collected are
appended (versus the site's owners adding to the list names they have
generated). An entirely bogus petition site will make money for its
owners just as well as a real one would because revenue is dependent on
how many visit the site, not upon how many petitions are completed and
delivered to the named recipients, nor upon how useful cyber petitions
are.

Granted, a great many sites (e-petition and otherwise, such as this one)
carry advertising banners, and granted, the revenues gained through that
are often the only thing that keeps those sites operating. The presence
of ads doesn't indicate anything about the quality or integrity of a
site that bears them, but that those ads are there should be taken into
consideration when musing "Does this site exist for the purpose I would
otherwise think it does?"

No matter what else can be said against cyber petitions (and so far
we've said a great deal), they do serve one actual valuable purpose:
They can sometimes be useful tools with which to acquaint folks with
situations they might otherwise have little, if any, knowledge of. For
instance, in those days prior to the September 11 attacks and the
subsequent war on the Taliban, a cyber petition decrying the condition
of women in Afghanistan worked to enlighten many as to what was going on
half a world away. That the premise of the petition was horribly flawed
("If only the Taliban knew they were doing a bad thing, they'd stop")
doesn't change that it worked to bring information to people.

Of course, that same valid purpose could be better served by essays
circulated on the Internet. Essays, at least, don't foster this growing
climate of slacktivism, of participation at no cost, of lasting social
change achieved through no effort.

Those truly committed to righting the wrongs of the world are encouraged
to take pen in hand and craft actual letters to their congressmen or to
whomever they deem are the appropriate people to contact about
particular issues. Real letters (the kind that are written in a person's
own words and sent through the regular mail) are accorded far more
respect than form letters (let alone petitions), and that should be kept
in mind by those intent upon being heard. Yes, the effort it takes is
far larger. But so is the potential for making an actual difference.

[JF Mezei]

On 12-10-07 03:59, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply wrote:

> (An exception are parliamentary positions, where parliament is forced to
> debate the topic if a certain number of signatures are obtained, and
> some parliaments have an online version of this.)

In the case of the UBB issue in Canada, it was a combination of an
on-line petition which grew very fast to 500,000 "signatures", the
media's attention to this movement and a formal challenge sent to
cabinet (done by me !) to overturn the CRTC decision which caused the
government to heed the public's pressure and ask the CRTC to overturn
its decision.

On-line petitions cannot be formally presented to parliament. There are
written guidelines and on-line petitions don't fit those. However, just
because a petition cannot be deposited in parliament, it doesn't mean
that politicians cannot discuss the issue and point to how many
canadians have asked government to look into the issue.

In the above case, the organisation which ran the on-line petition has
good relations with the media and did many interview and gacve them
daily numbers showing how fast the movement was growing and this forced
the government to take the issue seriously when the formal petition was
filed.

It was a perfect storm in that I filed the formal appeal (called
"petition to governor in council") on the deadline as per the telecom
act at the same time as the public petition had started to peak.
(petition to governor in council is not something people sign, it is a
formal request to have a CRTC decision overturned)

In terms of those generic internet petitions (such as the one on FLW
building), it all depends on whether it gains momentum and more
importantly what the organisers do with it. The petition itself won't
get anything fixed. But it may allow organisers to at least get a
meeting with the mayor or the governor of the state if it has enough
"signatures".

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <50713fdf$0$996$c3e8da3$e074...@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei

<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> writes:

> > (An exception are parliamentary positions, where parliament is forced to
> > debate the topic if a certain number of signatures are obtained, and
> > some parliaments have an online version of this.)
>
> In the case of the UBB issue in Canada, it was a combination of an
> on-line petition which grew very fast to 500,000 "signatures", the
> media's attention to this movement and a formal challenge sent to
> cabinet (done by me !) to overturn the CRTC decision which caused the
> government to heed the public's pressure and ask the CRTC to overturn
> its decision.

OK. The main point is that someone in power decided to overturn the
decision. This is a bit different from "we have x signatures, so the
government must concede to our demands".

Still, 500,000 is much less than half the population of Canada. I
sincerely hope that it is not SUFFICIENT to collect 500,000 signatures
to get a law changed.

> On-line petitions cannot be formally presented to parliament. There are
> written guidelines and on-line petitions don't fit those. However, just
> because a petition cannot be deposited in parliament, it doesn't mean
> that politicians cannot discuss the issue and point to how many
> canadians have asked government to look into the issue.

Of course. However, writing directly to representatives probably
creates a better impression.

In some countries, there have long been parliamentary petitions, i.e. a
certain number of signatures requires the parliament to debate it. Some
parliaments now have an online version of these.

> In the above case, the organisation which ran the on-line petition has
> good relations with the media and did many interview and gacve them
> daily numbers showing how fast the movement was growing and this forced
> the government to take the issue seriously when the formal petition was
> filed.

OK. However, do we WANT policy to be made by organizations which have
good connections to the media? Even if it came out like you want in
this case, you have to ask yourself with what justification you could
oppose a similarly initiated change which you DON'T want.

[MG]

On 7-10-2012 9:11, Dirk Munk wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>> On 10/6/2012 6:58 PM, Dirk Munk wrote:
>>> Yesterday there was a news item on Dutch TV news (all day long!)

Aren't there more pressing matters at the moment for the Dutch
TV news' attention to go to, I wonder?

> On this side of the big pond we have laws to protect important
> monuments.

Where is the original house of Rembrandt, in the city of Leiden,
where he was born and raised in? Now that structure truly _was_
worth preserving.

>> If you look deeply enough, you just might find that there are
>> good reasons for wanting to demolish the house!
>>
> Like what please?

Perhaps because it's deemed a pretentious, grotesque, monstrosity?
I guess it could pass for modern art, maybe it can be preserved
via that route? They might be able to put it next to an urinal
or some other, comparable, artistic masterpiece.

- MG

[Paul Sture]

In article <00AC87C4...@SendSpamHere.ORG>,

VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:

> In article <50711576$0$45194$c3e8da3$b280...@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei
> <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> writes:
> >On 12-10-06 21:43, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> >
> >> As a PA boy, I've been to Falling Water several times.
> >
> >We really don't need to know what sort of piercings you have :-) :-) :-) :-)
>
> ???
>
> There's no *visible* metal in my body unless you own an X-ray machine. In
> the latter case, there's a scrap heap.

If I thought more people would get the joke, I would have printed a
T-shirt with "Titanium Inside" in a certain familiar font.

--
Paul Sture

[David Froble]

Any decent Architect works for a living, doing many assignments,
possibly more than one at a time. I haven't bothered to research the
specifics, but I can guess that FLW designed many structures. It's also
a good guess that not all were of the caliber that earned him his
recognition. Some could even be rather sub-standard. To now declare
every design he did an important work of art is rather ridiculous.

On the other hand, to a developer money isn't everything, it's the only
thing.

[Dirk Munk]

Yes he did, from industrially produced kit houses to factories, houses
for the very rich and the Guggenheim museum.

> It's also
> a good guess that not all were of the caliber that earned him his
> recognition. Some could even be rather sub-standard.

No, not to my knowledge. He did not like to make compromises in his
designs. All of his work has been documented, so you can check for yourself.

> To now declare
> every design he did an important work of art is rather ridiculous.
>

Only if you assume he made designs that are sub-standard or can not be
distinguished from those from other architects.

> On the other hand, to a developer money isn't everything, it's the only
> thing.

Indeed. Restoring this house to its former glory, making sympathetic
improvements to modernize it, and you might have a house that is very
attractive to buyers with a sense for architecture and culture, and who
are willing to pay a bonus for that.

[JF Mezei]

On 12-10-07 14:43, Dirk Munk wrote:

> Indeed. Restoring this house to its former glory, making sympathetic
> improvements to modernize it, and you might have a house that is very
> attractive to buyers with a sense for architecture and culture, and who
> are willing to pay a bonus for that.

Say 75% of an arhitect's work was fantastic but the remainder was really
dismal.

Should you glorify that architect by preserving only the fantastic work
and hiding/destroying the bad work ?

If an architect's work has become world renowed, shouldn't one be
preserving all of his work ? For instance, you could show progression in
his styles , and also so that he was not perfect.

[VAXman-]

ROTFLMFAO! That'd be great!

[Paul Sture]

In article <cc3b1$5071cd6d$5ed43c14$31...@cache1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>,
Dirk Munk <mu...@home.nl> wrote:

> David Froble wrote:
> >
> > Any decent Architect works for a living, doing many assignments,
> > possibly more than one at a time. I haven't bothered to research the
> > specifics, but I can guess that FLW designed many structures.
>
> Yes he did, from industrially produced kit houses to factories, houses
> for the very rich and the Guggenheim museum.
>
> > It's also
> > a good guess that not all were of the caliber that earned him his
> > recognition. Some could even be rather sub-standard.
>
> No, not to my knowledge. He did not like to make compromises in his
> designs. All of his work has been documented, so you can check for yourself.

But the buildings do suffer from what the Fallingwater web site refers
to as "the effects of weather and time." There comes a point when it
may not be economically feasible to save a site.

I note that the Fallingwater supporters' current fund raising drive is
for new windows. When I looked at the site several years ago they were
addressing structural flaws in the cantilevered parts, and IIRC it was
closed to the public while this work was carried out.

http://www.fallingwater.org/113/window-legacy-fund

And yes, I am a keen fan of FLW's work and have been since we were
introduced to it in an optional architecture course at school.

> > To now declare
> > every design he did an important work of art is rather ridiculous.
> >
>
> Only if you assume he made designs that are sub-standard or can not be
> distinguished from those from other architects.
>
> > On the other hand, to a developer money isn't everything, it's the only
> > thing.
>
> Indeed. Restoring this house to its former glory, making sympathetic
> improvements to modernize it, and you might have a house that is very
> attractive to buyers with a sense for architecture and culture, and who
> are willing to pay a bonus for that.

My father was an architect and they do make mistakes, especially where
the use of new and untested materials is involved. My theory is that
architects sometimes get carried away and tend to look at the big
picture.

I am still wary of flat roof construction in countries with a high
rainfall as I saw the pain my father had had with one he put on his own
house :-)

--
Paul Sture

[David Froble]

I have a slightly different sense for architecture.

My dream house would be a steel building, maybe 100 ft by 50 ft, 20-25
ft in height, a loft in maybe 1/2 of the building, with money spent on
the interior, not the exterior, room for my shop and toys, and a huge
bifold door at one end, with my favorite aircraft sitting right in front
of the door, and a taxiway to a runway outside.

Now that is hard to beat.

Well, if there was a duplicate in the Southern hemisphere and a jet
included among the aircraft, that might beat it ....

[Dirk Munk]

Paul Sture wrote:
> In article <cc3b1$5071cd6d$5ed43c14$31...@cache1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>,
> Dirk Munk <mu...@home.nl> wrote:
>
>> David Froble wrote:
>>>
>>> Any decent Architect works for a living, doing many assignments,
>>> possibly more than one at a time. I haven't bothered to research the
>>> specifics, but I can guess that FLW designed many structures.
>>
>> Yes he did, from industrially produced kit houses to factories, houses
>> for the very rich and the Guggenheim museum.
>>
>>> It's also
>>> a good guess that not all were of the caliber that earned him his
>>> recognition. Some could even be rather sub-standard.
>>
>> No, not to my knowledge. He did not like to make compromises in his
>> designs. All of his work has been documented, so you can check for yourself.
>
> But the buildings do suffer from what the Fallingwater web site refers
> to as "the effects of weather and time." There comes a point when it
> may not be economically feasible to save a site.

Economic feasibility is one of the less important arguments when you're
dealing with monumental buildings. The number one priority is to
preserve the building and restore it if necessary. Let me give you an
example. There is a British TV series about people building or restoring
houses. In one episode we saw a man who had bought the ruin of a manor
house. And when I say ruin, I mean ruin. There was nothing left of the
building than crumbling outside and inside walls. No roof, no ceilings,
no windows or doors, just a one meter thick layer of rubble in the
interior. But never the less, it was a listed building. Was it
economically feasible to restore it? Absolutely not. From an economic
point of view the bulldozer would have been the right solution. But he
did restore the building. All his plans needed approval from British
heritage. He spent a fortune on stone masons, enormous oak beams etc.
For the roof construction he used steel beams. That may sound strange,
but in modern restoration it is allowed to show where parts of the
building were completely replaced because they were missing. In the end
this man was the proud owner of a beautifully restored manor house.

>
> I note that the Fallingwater supporters' current fund raising drive is
> for new windows. When I looked at the site several years ago they were
> addressing structural flaws in the cantilevered parts, and IIRC it was
> closed to the public while this work was carried out.
>
> http://www.fallingwater.org/113/window-legacy-fund
>
> And yes, I am a keen fan of FLW's work and have been since we were
> introduced to it in an optional architecture course at school.
>
>>> To now declare
>>> every design he did an important work of art is rather ridiculous.
>>>
>>
>> Only if you assume he made designs that are sub-standard or can not be
>> distinguished from those from other architects.
>>
>>> On the other hand, to a developer money isn't everything, it's the only
>>> thing.
>>
>> Indeed. Restoring this house to its former glory, making sympathetic
>> improvements to modernize it, and you might have a house that is very
>> attractive to buyers with a sense for architecture and culture, and who
>> are willing to pay a bonus for that.
>
> My father was an architect and they do make mistakes, especially where
> the use of new and untested materials is involved. My theory is that
> architects sometimes get carried away and tend to look at the big
> picture.

That is absolutely true. Throughout the ages many architects
experimented with new materials and new building techniques. In the
middle ages many cathedrals collapsed during construction. It is always
left to later generations to deal with the technical problems. The
cathedral in Cologne for instance was built between 1248 and 1880(!!).
It has a permanent workshop with stone masons so they can replace
crumbling stonework because they used soft limestone for the
construction. Modern European architects like Corbusier also built
houses with technical flaws. It doesn't stop us from preserving those
buildings.

[Bob Koehler]

In article <slrnk71gc...@coyote.home.earwicker>, brad <br...@coyote.home.earwicker> writes:
>
> I guess that here in the US, property ownership trumps all.

Not all, but a lot. A historically significant building can be
protected, but it first has to be recognized as historically
significant.

And folks will disagree. I like the looks of Falling Water, but I
wouldn't want to live with the problems running a stream through a
foundation could create.

[Bob Koehler]

In article <nospam-D0A1AA....@news.chingola.ch>, Paul Sture <nos...@sture.ch> writes:
>
> My father was an architect and they do make mistakes, especially where
> the use of new and untested materials is involved. My theory is that
> architects sometimes get carried away and tend to look at the big
> picture.

I've seen the youtube tour of the David Wright house, and it does not
appear to be a "mistake". Just a case of a developer who thinks he can
make more money without it.

And Arizona laws are weak on this. A preservation move might only
protect it for three years unless someone who wants it buys it.

[Paul Sture]

In article <eda81$50728506$5ed43c14$20...@cache1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>,
Dirk Munk <mu...@home.nl> wrote:

> Paul Sture wrote:
> >
> > But the buildings do suffer from what the Fallingwater web site refers
> > to as "the effects of weather and time." There comes a point when it
> > may not be economically feasible to save a site.
>
> Economic feasibility is one of the less important arguments when you're
> dealing with monumental buildings. The number one priority is to
> preserve the building and restore it if necessary. Let me give you an
> example. There is a British TV series about people building or restoring
> houses.

That sounds like Grand Designs, an excellent programme.

> In one episode we saw a man who had bought the ruin of a manor
> house. And when I say ruin, I mean ruin. There was nothing left of the
> building than crumbling outside and inside walls. No roof, no ceilings,
> no windows or doors, just a one meter thick layer of rubble in the
> interior. But never the less, it was a listed building.

I saw the follow up where the programme's presenter revisits a project
several years later to see how it turned out.

> Was it
> economically feasible to restore it? Absolutely not. From an economic
> point of view the bulldozer would have been the right solution. But he
> did restore the building. All his plans needed approval from British
> heritage. He spent a fortune on stone masons, enormous oak beams etc.
> For the roof construction he used steel beams. That may sound strange,
> but in modern restoration it is allowed to show where parts of the
> building were completely replaced because they were missing. In the end
> this man was the proud owner of a beautifully restored manor house.

IIRC he got very close to losing the lot to the bank. Listed buildings
can be a curse because the authorities will insist on expensive surveys
and other costly work. What surprised me was that when part of it
collapsed British Heritage insisted on reviewing the property as a whole
from scratch, and he couldn't do any further work until that was
complete.

Naturally he ended up with a much larger mortgage than anticipated, and
turned several rooms into bed and breakfast accommodation to cope with
that. IIRC he also used a ground heat pump which was necessary to dry
the stonework out after so many years of exposure to the elements; the
cost of conventional heating would have been prohibitive. I must say it
was a testament to one couple's vision and tenacity, but it could have
easily ended up as a financial disaster.

In his second visit, the programme's presenter stayed in one of those
rooms. They had turned the place into something really quite special.

> > My father was an architect and they do make mistakes, especially where
> > the use of new and untested materials is involved. My theory is that
> > architects sometimes get carried away and tend to look at the big
> > picture.
>
> That is absolutely true. Throughout the ages many architects
> experimented with new materials and new building techniques. In the
> middle ages many cathedrals collapsed during construction. It is always
> left to later generations to deal with the technical problems. The
> cathedral in Cologne for instance was built between 1248 and 1880(!!).
> It has a permanent workshop with stone masons so they can replace
> crumbling stonework because they used soft limestone for the
> construction. Modern European architects like Corbusier also built
> houses with technical flaws. It doesn't stop us from preserving those
> buildings.

I recall an English cathedral (Ely?) which was built on marshy ground,
and they started out with a base of wood. Needless to say that didn't
last forever, but later generations did manage to put new foundations in
to save the building.

--
Paul Sture

[brad]

On 2012-10-08, Bob Koehler <koe...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org> wrote:
> In article <slrnk71gc...@coyote.home.earwicker>,
brad <br...@coyote.home.earwicker> writes:
>>
>> I guess that here in the US, property ownership trumps all.
>
> Not all, but a lot. A historically significant building can be
> protected, but it first has to be recognized as historically
> significant.

I live in a neighborhood listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
It looks as though I could qualify for tax incentives, to help preserve my
building.

>
> And folks will disagree. I like the looks of Falling Water, but I
> wouldn't want to live with the problems running a stream through a
> foundation could create.

Fallingwater has had a number of structural problems over its lifetime. If
it wasn't protected, I can see why a homeowner without resources would be
tempted to destroy and build. Recent renovations to fix structural
integrity problems ran north of USD $10 million.

[Michael Moroney]

Paul Sture <nos...@sture.ch> writes:

>> That is absolutely true. Throughout the ages many architects
>> experimented with new materials and new building techniques. In the
>> middle ages many cathedrals collapsed during construction. It is always
>> left to later generations to deal with the technical problems. The
>> cathedral in Cologne for instance was built between 1248 and 1880(!!).
>> It has a permanent workshop with stone masons so they can replace
>> crumbling stonework because they used soft limestone for the
>> construction. Modern European architects like Corbusier also built
>> houses with technical flaws. It doesn't stop us from preserving those
>> buildings.

>I recall an English cathedral (Ely?) which was built on marshy ground,
>and they started out with a base of wood. Needless to say that didn't
>last forever, but later generations did manage to put new foundations in
>to save the building.

At least one of Wright's buildings failed because it was built in a very
poor spot. The Banff National Park Pavilion was subject to flooding and
frost heaving. It was completed in 1914, was damaged by flooding in 1920
and 1933, and demolished in 1939. By 1965 all traces had "sunk into the
bog".

Another, the headquarters for a company in Buffalo, was apparently so
specific to its use that the company, when it started to fail couldn't
sell it, and the City of Buffalo, which acquired the property for back
taxes couldn't sell it either until a buyer wanted to demolish it for a
truck stop. It was demolished in 1950.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <w7MSdl$fa...@eisner.encompasserve.org>,

If you think it should be protected, buy it and protect it.
But don't expect others to share your tastes or to foot the bill for
your pleasures.

bill


--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>

[Richard B. Gilbert]

Termites? The site is flood prone?

Do you want to buy the site and the house, maintain it, live in it, and
pay the property taxes? ? ? ? Endure the neighbors?

I thought not!

But you think nothing of requiring some one else to do so.

I'm glad that I live in a development where several houses were built
from the same set plans. There were several models available. None of
the dwellings are or were the home of anyone famous! Nor were the
architects anyone famous. I'm sure that saved me several thousand dollars!

The house, in spite of its plebeian origins, keeps me warm in the
winter, cool in the summer, keeps the rain and snow off my body, and
performs all the other usual and customary functions of a dwelling place.

[Bob Koehler]

In article <k4v18h$rgu$1...@pcls6.std.com>, mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) writes:
>
> Another, the headquarters for a company in Buffalo, was apparently so
> specific to its use that the company, when it started to fail couldn't
> sell it, and the City of Buffalo, which acquired the property for back
> taxes couldn't sell it either until a buyer wanted to demolish it for a
> truck stop. It was demolished in 1950.

The Bromo-seltzer clock tower in Baltimore was so specific to the
company that the 12 characters B R O M O S E L T Z E R are still
on the face of the clock instead of numbers. As a tall (for it's
time), skiny building, its hard to find occupants.

Yet somehow, the city could never get around to scrapping it, and has
kept the clock running. Last I heard, a private art museum was
renting the first couple of floors.

[Doug Phillips]

On 10/7/2012 2:11 AM, Dirk Munk wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>> On 10/6/2012 6:58 PM, Dirk Munk wrote:
>>> Yesterday there was a news item on Dutch TV news (all day long!) that a
>>> project developer in Phoenix wants to demolish a house designed and
>>> build by Frank Lloyd Wright. He built this house in 1952 for his son
>>> David. As you will know (I hope) Frank Lloyd Wright was one of the
>>> gratest architects that ever lived, not only in the U.S., but anywhere.
>>> I'm a very big fan of his work, and it is incomprehensible to me that it
>>> would be allowed to demolish any building designed by him, let alone
>>> this house that is regarded to be one of his ten best designs. In Europe
>>> this would be a listed building and you couldn't even point your finger
>>> at it without permission. Will you please help to stop this act of
>>> cultural barbarism and sign the petition on this website?
>>>
>>> http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-phoenix-save-the-david-and-gladys-wright-house
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If you really want to preserve this house, buy it and the land it stands
>> on!
>
> On this side of the big pond we have laws to protect important monuments.
>

As do we here on this side of the pond, but first a building must be
declared as an historic monument. Or, someone (person or group) with a
lot of money must care enough to preserve it. There is also a difference
between nationally and locally historic buildings and buildings of
personal historic interest.

If you search for "David and Gladys Wright home" you can find news about
the history and current status of this property. It's being spared for now.

If you really care about preserving his works, then you should spend
some time here to learn what that involves:
http://www.taliesinpreservation.org/

>>
>> If you look deeply enough, you just might find that there are good
>> reasons for wanting to demolish the house!
>>
> Like what please?
>

I am a huge FLW fan and hate to see his work lost, but some just can't
be saved. I'm fortunate to live within driving distance to Taliesin,
Spring Green, Wisconsin and have made many visits to that beautiful area
and have toured Taliesin many times; both the school and his home. Many
other Wright designed buildings are close enough for a day-trip and I've
been to most of them. I've never been to Taliesin West but I'd love to
go there some day.

FLW experimented with his designs before putting them into another
project, especially at Taliesin. He would try something to see how it
worked and then try to polish up for another building. At the Phoenix
home he was playing with some features he designed into the Guggenheim.

At the Taliesin home and campus structures you find many early
experiments that he used for other buildings. Many of those were crude
compared to the finished project. One such is his attempts to make
glass-to-glass corners. Taliesin is a maintenance nightmare.

Taliesin itself is in constant need of repair and without the support of
private donations it wouldn't survive. It takes money, lots and lots of
money to restore and preserve old buildings.

[AEF]

On Oct 8, 2:36 pm, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> In article <w7MSdl$fa...@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
>         koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:

>
> > In article <nospam-D0A1AA.01163908102...@news.chingola.ch>, Paul Sture <nos...@sture.ch> writes:
>
> >> My father was an architect and they do make mistakes, especially where
> >> the use of new and untested materials is involved.  My theory is that
> >> architects sometimes get carried away and tend to look at the big
> >> picture.
>
> >    I've seen the youtube tour of the David Wright house, and it does not
> >    appear to be a "mistake".  Just a case of a developer who thinks he can
> >    make more money without it.
>
> >    And Arizona laws are weak on this.  A preservation move might only
> >    protect it for three years unless someone who wants it buys it.
>
> If you think it should be protected, buy it and protect it.
> But don't expect others to share your tastes or to foot the bill for
> your pleasures.
>
> bill
>
> --
> Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves

> billg...@cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

> University of Scranton   |
> Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>

The opposing view:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/about/mission.shtml

I'm not saying it's good or bad. Just posting to be "fair and
balanced".

AEF

[AEF]

On Oct 6, 7:06 pm, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 12-10-06 18:58, Dirk Munk wrote:
>
> >http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-phoenix-save-the-david-and-gl...
>
> If we setup an on-line petiton to get HP to save VMS, how many
> signatures could we get ? 30 ? 50 ? 100  ?
>
> (how's that to bring an OT back on topic ?) :-)

Pretty good.

AEF

[AEF]

On Oct 7, 12:54 pm, Paul Sture <nos...@sture.ch> wrote:
> In article <00AC87C4.55234...@SendSpamHere.ORG>,
>  VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>
> > In article <50711576$0$45194$c3e8da3$b280b...@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei

> > <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> writes:
> > >On 12-10-06 21:43, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>
> > >> As a PA boy, I've been to Falling Water several times.
>
> > >We really don't need to know what sort of piercings you have :-) :-) :-) :-)
>
> > ???
>
> > There's no *visible* metal in my body unless you own an X-ray machine.  In
> > the latter case, there's a scrap heap.
>
> If I thought more people would get the joke, I would have printed a
> T-shirt with "Titanium Inside" in a certain familiar font.
>
> --
> Paul Sture

Pretty good.

AEF

[Richard B. Gilbert]

Your "votes" don't count! Your $$$$ do!

[Dirk Munk]

Interesting, this a quote from that link:

"The agency consists of eleven Commissioners and about fifty full-time
staff members, including architects, architectural historians,
restoration specialists, planners, and archaeologists, as well as
administrative, legal, and clerical personnel. Although it is one of the
smallest New York City agencies, the Commission is the largest municipal
preservation agency in the United States."

In total the agency has 61 people, in my home town (pop. 180,000) there
are 29 people doing the same kind of work.

[AEF]

On Oct 19, 10:17 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net>
wrote:

What votes? I didn't vote. I commented. Please explain.

AEF

[AEF]

On Oct 6, 11:42 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> On 10/6/2012 6:58 PM, Dirk Munk wrote:
>
> > Yesterday there was a news item on Dutch TV news (all day long!) that a
> > project developer in Phoenix wants to demolish a house designed and
> > build by Frank Lloyd Wright. He built this house in 1952 for his son
> > David. As you will know (I hope) Frank Lloyd Wright was one of the
> > gratest architects that ever lived, not only in the U.S., but anywhere.
> > I'm a very big fan of his work, and it is incomprehensible to me that it
> > would be allowed to demolish any building designed by him, let alone
> > this house that is regarded to be one of his ten best designs. In Europe
> > this would be a listed building and you couldn't even point your finger
> > at it without permission. Will you please help to stop this act of
> > cultural barbarism and sign the petition on this website?
>

> >http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-phoenix-save-the-david-and-gl...

>
> If you really want to preserve this house, buy it and the land it stands on!
>

> If you look deeply enough, you just might find that there are good
> reasons for wanting to demolish the house!

Question:

How do you feel when neighbors gang up on you to clean up your yard by
getting the local gov't to give you a ultimatum? I lived in a house
with others. One of them had some ugly car parts or something like
that on the driveway. We got a nasty note threatening a summons or the
like if they weren't put out of sight. Where I live now, my neighbors
were given a stern warning to water their lawns. I was just wondering
what you and Bill Gunshannon thought things like this.

Also, how do you (and Bill) feel about eminent domain?

Just curious.

AEF

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <feb0ce6e-90a1-4699...@d3g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,

AEF <spamsi...@yahoo.com> writes:
> On Oct 6, 11:42�pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>> On 10/6/2012 6:58 PM, Dirk Munk wrote:
>>
>> > Yesterday there was a news item on Dutch TV news (all day long!) that a
>> > project developer in Phoenix wants to demolish a house designed and
>> > build by Frank Lloyd Wright. He built this house in 1952 for his son
>> > David. As you will know (I hope) Frank Lloyd Wright was one of the
>> > gratest architects that ever lived, not only in the U.S., but anywhere.
>> > I'm a very big fan of his work, and it is incomprehensible to me that it
>> > would be allowed to demolish any building designed by him, let alone
>> > this house that is regarded to be one of his ten best designs. In Europe
>> > this would be a listed building and you couldn't even point your finger
>> > at it without permission. Will you please help to stop this act of
>> > cultural barbarism and sign the petition on this website?
>>
>> >http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-phoenix-save-the-david-and-gl...
>>
>> If you really want to preserve this house, buy it and the land it stands on!
>>
>> If you look deeply enough, you just might find that there are good
>> reasons for wanting to demolish the house!
> Question:
> How do you feel when neighbors gang up on you to clean up your yard by
> getting the local gov't to give you a ultimatum?

Gang up on you? Seems to me that you are in violation of some ordinance.
Otherwise, they would have no way of giving you an ultimatum. If you
chose to live there, then you agreed to abide by the ordinances. Thus the
reason my house in GA is in an un-incorporated area.

> I lived in a house
> with others. One of them had some ugly car parts or something like
> that on the driveway. We got a nasty note threatening a summons or the
> like if they weren't put out of sight.

Most municipalities I know of have ordinances against derelict cars (or parts)
sitting in driveways. heck, I have heard of places where you are allowed
to work on your car in your own garage or even leave your garage door opened.
But some people agree to live under these conditions.

> Where I live now, my neighbors
> were given a stern warning to water their lawns.

By who? Homeowners association? Is it a development with restrictions that
you agreed to abide by when you moved in? Strictly a contract matter.

> I was just wondering
> what you and Bill Gunshannon thought things like this.

If you agree to certain conditions for living in a location (and failure
to learn about them prior to buying a house does not excuse you) then
you are bound to abide by them. I am a ham radio operator. You can bet
I made sure there were no restrictions on antennas or towers before I
bought that house in GA.

> Also, how do you (and Bill) feel about eminent domain?

Theft is theft. Doesn't matter who does it.

> Just curious.

Did I answer your question? :-)

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves

bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

[Paul Sture]

In article <aeia77...@mid.individual.net>,

bill...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:

> If you agree to certain conditions for living in a location (and failure
> to learn about them prior to buying a house does not excuse you) then
> you are bound to abide by them. I am a ham radio operator. You can bet
> I made sure there were no restrictions on antennas or towers before I
> bought that house in GA.

My first house was a new build and had at least 2 conditions written
into the deeds.

a) I couldn't erect a permanent wall or fence at the front, to
preserve the open plan aspect of the road.

b) I couldn't run a business from the house.

a) was a problem for one neighbour who was worried about his small
children running out onto the street, so he erected a "temporary" fence;
the rest of understood his concerns and kept our mouths shut

b) had me slightly concerned so I asked for advice and was told that
this was intended to prevent someone starting a car repair business or
the like, or have streams of customers visiting. A desk and filing
cabinet should not cause any problem, but installing a noisy computer
and air conditioning might (this was in 1979).

--
Paul Sture

[Richard B. Gilbert]

Sorry! I thought it was obvious. A few lines above, there is a
reference to a petition directed to H-P. A million signatures, votes or
or other "Wind" will get you nowhere! OTOH, a few thousand licenses
sold for OpenVMS and "Layered Products" would make a big difference.

It would not be easy! H-P is barely aware of VMS and associated Layered
Products. Ink and toner is where the money is! You would
have real problems just finding someone at H-P who could sell you
licenses for the O/S and "layered products".

[AEF]

On Oct 21, 9:04 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> In article <feb0ce6e-90a1-4699-9854-1b0e0aaba...@d3g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
>         AEF <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> writes:
[...]

> > On Oct 6, 11:42 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >> On 10/6/2012 6:58 PM, Dirk Munk wrote:
>
> >> > Yesterday there was a news item on Dutch TV news (all day long!) that a
> >> > project developer in Phoenix wants to demolish a house designed and
> >> > build by Frank Lloyd Wright. He built this house in 1952 for his son
> >> > David. As you will know (I hope) Frank Lloyd Wright was one of the
> >> > gratest architects that ever lived, not only in the U.S., but anywhere.
> >> > I'm a very big fan of his work, and it is incomprehensible to me that it
> >> > would be allowed to demolish any building designed by him, let alone
> >> > this house that is regarded to be one of his ten best designs. In Europe
> >> > this would be a listed building and you couldn't even point your finger
> >> > at it without permission. Will you please help to stop this act of
> >> > cultural barbarism and sign the petition on this website?
>
> >> >http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-phoenix-save-the-david-and-gl...
>
> >> If you really want to preserve this house, buy it and the land it stands on!
>
> >> If you look deeply enough, you just might find that there are good
> >> reasons for wanting to demolish the house!
> > Question:
> > How do you feel when neighbors gang up on you to clean up your yard by
> > getting the local gov't to give you a ultimatum?
>
> Gang up on you?  Seems to me that you are in violation of some ordinance.

Yes, and yes. And that's "were". We're talking c. 1990.

> Otherwise, they would have no way of giving you an ultimatum.  If you
> chose to live there, then you agreed to abide by the ordinances.  Thus the
> reason my house in GA is in an un-incorporated area.
>
> >                                                   I lived in a house
> > with others. One of them had some ugly car parts or something like
> > that on the driveway. We got a nasty note threatening a summons or the
> > like if they weren't put out of sight.
>
> Most municipalities I know of have ordinances against derelict cars (or parts)
> sitting in driveways.  heck, I have heard of places where you are allowed
> to work on your car in your own garage or even leave your garage door opened.
> But some people agree to live under these conditions.
>
> >                                         Where I live now, my neighbors
> > were given a stern warning to water their lawns.
>
> By who?  Homeowners association?  Is it a development with restrictions that
> you agreed to abide by when you moved in?  Strictly a contract matter.

Well, first of all, it's other people's lawns. Second, I don't know if
it's a contract matter, though I suspect it is. OK, fair enough, if
so.

>
> >                                                   I was just wondering
> > what you and Bill Gunshannon thought things like this.
>
> If you agree to certain conditions for living in a location (and failure
> to learn about them prior to buying a house does not excuse you) then
> you are bound to abide by them.  I am a ham radio operator.  You can bet
> I made sure there were no restrictions on antennas or towers before I
> bought that house in GA.
>
> > Also, how do you (and Bill) feel about eminent domain?
>
> Theft is theft.  Doesn't matter who does it.
>
> > Just curious.
>
> Did I answer your question?  :-)

Mostly, but I have some follow up questions.

>
> bill
>
> --
> Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves

> billg...@cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

> University of Scranton   |
> Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>

How do you feel about the Landmarks Preservation Committee telling
owners of buildings what they can and cannot do with their land and
buildings and do you think it's any different from ordinances against
having derelict cars in one's own driveway. Both have the law behind
them. Or are you, perhaps, against ordinances allowing a Landmarks
committee or city telling property owners what they can and cannot do
with their property?

Just curious.

AEF

[Richard B. Gilbert]

ISTR that courts have ruled that the Federal Government (FCC) has
jurisdiction over radio and television antennas. The community in which
I live doesn't have visible roof top antennas. My (unused)
television antenna is in the attic over the garage and so, is invisible.

We have broadband cable which I use only for internet access.

[AEF]

On Oct 21, 1:01 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> On 10/21/2012 12:17 AM, AEF wrote:

[...]

> > On Oct 19, 10:17 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >> On 10/19/2012 7:11 PM, AEF wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 6, 7:06 pm, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spam...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> >>>> On 12-10-06 18:58, Dirk Munk wrote:
>
> >>>>>http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-phoenix-save-the-david-and-gl...
>
> >>>> If we setup an on-line petiton to get HP to save VMS, how many
> >>>> signatures could we get ? 30 ? 50 ? 100  ?
>
> >>>> (how's that to bring an OT back on topic ?) :-)
>
> >>> Pretty good.
>
> >>> AEF
>
> >> Your "votes" don't count!  Your $$$$ do!
>
> > What votes? I didn't vote. I commented. Please explain.
>
> > AEF
>
> Sorry!  I thought it was obvious.  A few lines above, there is a
> reference to a petition directed to H-P.  A million signatures, votes or
> or other "Wind" will get you nowhere!  OTOH, a few thousand licenses
> sold for OpenVMS and "Layered Products" would make a big difference.

Your quote level indicates you were responding to me, not the few
lines above. Moreover, I don't consider signatures on a petition to be
votes.

[...]

AEF

[David Froble]

It's total bullshit, someone telling someone else what they can / have
to do with property. All this without being willing to put up their own
money, time, and such. I can see them saying that "this is a landmark
and you cannot change that. Either leave it as is, or, sell it to us or
someone who will preserve it." That's fine, in special cases. But if
the "landmark committee" isn't willing to pay the price, then they
should not have any say about other people's property.

As for existing rules, standards, and such, a buyer or builder should
understand about pre-existing conditions, and if he doesn't agree, move on.

It's a common problem with airports. The airport exists. People find
"cheap land" (because of the airport), and later attempt to close down
the airport. A true flaw in "democracy, the terrorism of the majority".

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <aa5b83e9-4945-451d...@w2g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,

In a development there are often covenants that require one to take proper care
of their property with what is "proper" being decided by the homeowners association.
If you do not wish to abide by the covenants attached to the deed then you should
not buy the property. They are considered, legally, part of the purchase contract
and thus contract law.

>>
>> > I was just wondering
>> > what you and Bill Gunshannon thought things like this.
>>
>> If you agree to certain conditions for living in a location (and failure
>> to learn about them prior to buying a house does not excuse you) then
>> you are bound to abide by them. �I am a ham radio operator. �You can bet
>> I made sure there were no restrictions on antennas or towers before I
>> bought that house in GA.
>>
>> > Also, how do you (and Bill) feel about eminent domain?
>>
>> Theft is theft. �Doesn't matter who does it.
>>
>> > Just curious.
>>
>> Did I answer your question? �:-)
> Mostly, but I have some follow up questions.
>>
>> bill
>>
>> --
>> Bill Gunshannon � � � � �| �de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. �Three wolves
>> billg...@cs.scranton.edu | �and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
>> University of Scranton � |
>> Scranton, Pennsylvania � | � � � � #include <std.disclaimer.h>
> How do you feel about the Landmarks Preservation Committee telling
> owners of buildings what they can and cannot do with their land and
> buildings

I don;t think they have any right to do so after the fact. If you bought the property
knowing it was thus controlled, then you agreed to it. If they declare it afterwards,
then they are wrong. if they want to do something with the property other than what
I want to do with it then they should buy it from me, at what I consider a fair price,
or just go away.

> and do you think it's any different from ordinances against
> having derelict cars in one's own driveway. Both have the law behind
> them. Or are you, perhaps, against ordinances allowing a Landmarks
> committee or city telling property owners what they can and cannot do
> with their property?

Ordinances against things like derelict cars are like zoning. They are intended to
protect people and their investment intheir property. Just like certain areas being
zoned residential so someone can't come in and build a slaughterhouse in next to
peoples houses. Lamndmarks committees are not doing anything to protect other
people's lives, properties or investments. They are about preserving something
that a small group may consider of value and getting some one else to foot the bill.
If I live in an 1850's house and want to put vinyl siding on it there is no decrease
in the value of my neighbors properties so why should I be prevented from doing it?
In my opinion it would impreove the value of my property. If other disagree and want
the house preserved, convince me to sell it and move and then you can do whatever you
want with it. But I see no way anyone else has the right to tell me what I can or
can not do with my property as long as it does not harm my neighbors, their property
or their investment.

bill


--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves

bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <yPadnZDLguVvrRnN...@giganews.com>,

In most cases, they do. But covenants are contract matters and while
you can not have a covenant that weakens a law, you can require stricter
limits. I know of places that not only don't allow visible antennas
but also ban invisible ones.

> The community in which
> I live doesn't have visible roof top antennas. My (unused)
> television antenna is in the attic over the garage and so, is invisible.
>
> We have broadband cable which I use only for internet access.

[Bob Koehler]

In article <k61bs2$iuq$1...@dont-email.me>, David Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>
> It's a common problem with airports. The airport exists. People find
> "cheap land" (because of the airport), and later attempt to close down
> the airport. A true flaw in "democracy, the terrorism of the majority".

A common enough problem. In our county, there is a "county"
airport. When it was built the area around it was zoned for light
industry and such only, so there would be no housing containing
foilks affected by, and complaining about, airport noise.

Enter developer, who gets nearby land rezoned. I had a coworker who
lived in an apartment next to the airport.

By which flaw in democracy did that developer achieve the rezoning?
Campain contributions? We don't know. Doesn't sound democratic
(in the general sense) to me, but it reminds me of how Sonmhy Bono
got his zoning problem fixed: he ran for mayor, and won.

[George Cornelius]

Bill Gunshannon wrote:

> In article <yPadnZDLguVvrRnN...@giganews.com>,
> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilb...@comcast.net> writes:

[...]

>> ISTR that courts have ruled that the Federal Government (FCC) has
>> jurisdiction over radio and television antennas.
>
> In most cases, they do. But covenants are contract matters and while
> you can not have a covenant that weakens a law, you can require stricter
> limits. I know of places that not only don't allow visible antennas
> but also ban invisible ones.


>> The community in which
>> I live doesn't have visible roof top antennas. My (unused)
>> television antenna is in the attic over the garage and so, is invisible.
>>
>> We have broadband cable which I use only for internet access.
>
> bill

The text below is from:

www.hindmansanchez.com/resources/article/fcc-otard-rule-concerning-satellite-dishes-and-antennas-questions-and-answers

Q: Briefly explain the FCC Rule pertaining to satellite dishes and antennas.

A: On August 6, 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted its
Rule implementing Section 207 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Rule has
been amended three times since its original adoption. The Rule preempts community
association restrictions on certain antennas used to receive video programming
services. Specifically covered are antennas for over-the-air reception of direct
broadcast satellite (DBS) service, multi-channel, multipoint distribution service
(MMDS), fixed wireless signals, and television broadcast service, and the masts
supporting these antennas. Not all antennas are protected by the FCC Rule. The
Rule applies to DBS antennas of less than one meter in diameter, including those
used to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals, MMDS antennas (?wireless
cable?) less than one meter in size, including those used to receive or transmit
fixed wireless signals, and standard TV antennas. Community associations can still
enforce restrictive covenants on other antennas (even if enforcing the covenant
impairs access to the signal).

The Rule states that associations may no longer enforce restrictions which prevent,
unreasonably delay or unreasonably increase the cost of antenna installation,
maintenance, or use, or preclude acceptable signal reception.

Restrictions that do not impair a viewer?s ability to receive video programming
services remain enforceable [...]

[Dirk Munk]

This is de facto not possible. There is a moment in time that a
Landmarks Preservation Committee will come to the conclusion that a
building is worth preserving, and that moment is not before the building
is used for the very first time. So there will always be an owner who in
many cases doesn't like that his building is being listed. In your point
of view that would mean the building can not be listed or the Committee
should buy the place. And what if the owner doesn't want to sell?

The idea that ownership doesn't always mean that you have absolute
control over a building is more common on this side of the big pond I'm
sure. When it is an old building you are more temporally in custody of
the building. In 2112 you will be forgotten, but the building will still
be there with some luck.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <5966e$5086b342$5ed43c14$29...@cache1.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>,

Is his property, what right does anyone else have as regards this property?
As for sell, everything is for sale, the only thing unknown is the price.
But noone but the owner of the property has the right to set that price.

>
> The idea that ownership doesn't always mean that you have absolute
> control over a building is more common on this side of the big pond I'm
> sure. When it is an old building you are more temporally in custody of
> the building. In 2112 you will be forgotten, but the building will still
> be there with some luck.

"legallized" theft. So, the car you own will one day be an antique and
of considerable value. Does that mean you are only a "cusdtodian" and
others can tell you what you have to do to keep it around until that time
arrives? What about a book? What about a piece of furniture?

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves

bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

[Dirk Munk]

Almost every country has laws that prohibit you from selling valuable
objects like antiques, paintings etc. abroad if those objects are
considered valuable for history and culture of that country.

Last night I saw a beautiful program about vintage Rolls-Royce cars in
India. Before the independence of India Rolls-Royce sold about 850 cars
to the Maharajahs. After India became a republic, many of those cars
were not used any more, and foreign collectors bought them for little
money. But then the government made it illegal to sell them abroad.

[David Froble]

Dirk Munk wrote:

> Bill Gunshannon wrote:

>>> The idea that ownership doesn't always mean that you have absolute
>>> control over a building is more common on this side of the big pond I'm
>>> sure. When it is an old building you are more temporally in custody of
>>> the building. In 2112 you will be forgotten, but the building will still
>>> be there with some luck.
>>
>> "legallized" theft. So, the car you own will one day be an antique and
>> of considerable value. Does that mean you are only a "cusdtodian" and
>> others can tell you what you have to do to keep it around until that time
>> arrives? What about a book? What about a piece of furniture?
>>
> Almost every country has laws that prohibit you from selling valuable
> objects like antiques, paintings etc. abroad if those objects are
> considered valuable for history and culture of that country.
>
> Last night I saw a beautiful program about vintage Rolls-Royce cars in
> India. Before the independence of India Rolls-Royce sold about 850 cars
> to the Maharajahs. After India became a republic, many of those cars
> were not used any more, and foreign collectors bought them for little
> money. But then the government made it illegal to sell them abroad.
>

Hmmm .....

Bill makes a very good and valid argument, and so you change the
subject. The subject was real estate property. Buildings.

I have no objection to some things worth being preserved, being
preserved. As for what's worth being preserved, good question, huh?

What I'd object to is someone who has put his own money into something
losing that investment. If someone who has bought some property isn't
allowed to do what he intended, that's exactly what happens, he loses
his money.

So, if some entity wants to declare some property as special and to be
controlled, that entity should be prepared to put their money where
their mouth is. Even if their declaration raised the property value,
they should have to come up with the current property value, and
compensate the owner for any inconvenience.

Sure, go ahead, do it, but be prepared to "pay the price" for your
actions. This is something too many people try to avoid.

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

David Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:

(snip)

> Bill makes a very good and valid argument, and so you change the
> subject. The subject was real estate property. Buildings.

> I have no objection to some things worth being preserved, being
> preserved. As for what's worth being preserved, good question, huh?

> What I'd object to is someone who has put his own money into something
> losing that investment. If someone who has bought some property isn't
> allowed to do what he intended, that's exactly what happens, he loses
> his money.

I agree, except ...

> So, if some entity wants to declare some property as special and to be
> controlled, that entity should be prepared to put their money where
> their mouth is. Even if their declaration raised the property value,
> they should have to come up with the current property value, and
> compensate the owner for any inconvenience.

That is the problem. Well, consider the emminent domain case, which
is similar but not exactly the same. In that case, there is an
official process for coming up with a fair value. Usually higher than
the value might have been before, but you can't arbitrarily raise
the price.

Say the government was building a freeway and had made deals for
all the houses except yours. It would be a huge expense, reselling
some already bought properties, and make a funny curve in the
freeway to go around one house. Doing that might cost 10 or
100 times the value your house would otherwise have, but it
really isn't fair to ask that.

> Sure, go ahead, do it, but be prepared to "pay the price" for your
> actions. This is something too many people try to avoid.

Say that someone knows that there is interest in a historical
house, but that hasn't been made public. He then buys the house,
hoping to make a huge profit when the deal goes through.

To me, that is pretty much the same as insider trading
in stocks. Using information that one shouldn't otherwise
have, and hoping to profit on that information.

Fair price, but not extortion.

-- glen

[Dirk Munk]

I explained to Bill that owning a building does not mean that you have
absolute control over it. Then *he* asked if this also might apply to
other goods like a car, a book or furniture. So I explained to him that
indeed this also applies to other objects as well, and I used the
example of the vintage Rolls-Royce cars in India.

Getting back to the subject of real estate, you can never do as you
please with a building. It depends on the situation of course, but I
know streets with normal family houses that were build in the 1920's and
1930's, and those houses were recently restored and improved to modern
standards. Before the restoration these houses were rental
accommodations, but afterwards they were sold. The outside of these
houses were brought back to the original design, including the colours
of the window frames etc. And the new owners are not allowed to change
those colours. When you think about it, that preserves the value of your
property. If owners would paint their doors and window frames in any
colour they like, it would ruin the original concept of the architects,
and the street would look cheap and run down. Now these houses have a
certain grandeur and that improves the value.

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Dirk Munk <mu...@home.nl> wrote:

(snip)

> Getting back to the subject of real estate, you can never do as you
> please with a building. It depends on the situation of course, but I
> know streets with normal family houses that were build in the 1920's and
> 1930's, and those houses were recently restored and improved to modern
> standards. Before the restoration these houses were rental
> accommodations, but afterwards they were sold. The outside of these
> houses were brought back to the original design, including the colours
> of the window frames etc. And the new owners are not allowed to change
> those colours. When you think about it, that preserves the value of your
> property. If owners would paint their doors and window frames in any
> colour they like, it would ruin the original concept of the architects,
> and the street would look cheap and run down. Now these houses have a
> certain grandeur and that improves the value.

There are many communities that have restrictions on what owners
can do with their property. That is especially true for
condominiums.

I just noticed your NL address. Likely this is different in different
countries, but it is specifically allowed in US law.

-- glen

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <k67r12$g5$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
> David Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> Bill makes a very good and valid argument, and so you change the
>> subject. The subject was real estate property. Buildings.
>
>> I have no objection to some things worth being preserved, being
>> preserved. As for what's worth being preserved, good question, huh?
>
>> What I'd object to is someone who has put his own money into something
>> losing that investment. If someone who has bought some property isn't
>> allowed to do what he intended, that's exactly what happens, he loses
>> his money.
>
> I agree, except ...
>
>> So, if some entity wants to declare some property as special and to be
>> controlled, that entity should be prepared to put their money where
>> their mouth is. Even if their declaration raised the property value,
>> they should have to come up with the current property value, and
>> compensate the owner for any inconvenience.
>
> That is the problem. Well, consider the emminent domain case, which
> is similar but not exactly the same. In that case, there is an
> official process for coming up with a fair value. Usually higher than
> the value might have been before, but you can't arbitrarily raise
> the price.

Fair? Why does anyone other than the owner get to set the price?
How can anyone, other thant he owner, know what the real value is
to the owner? Legislated theft is still theft.

>
> Say the government was building a freeway and had made deals for
> all the houses except yours. It would be a huge expense, reselling
> some already bought properties, and make a funny curve in the
> freeway to go around one house. Doing that might cost 10 or
> 100 times the value your house would otherwise have, but it
> really isn't fair to ask that.

Why? It is my property and no one but me can set the "fair" value.
Suppose I raised my whole family in that house and have a strong
sentimental attachment?

Beliseve it or not, I have seen eminent domain in use for exactly that
kind of project. Influential people (like a lawyer named Marianelli)
got 3 - 4 times the value of his house. Others got 50% of the appraised
value. And even more had the highway built over their houses (yes,
they put up bridges and left the houses below them!) and received no
compensation even though it basicly made their property totally un-
marketable. See my signature!!

>
>> Sure, go ahead, do it, but be prepared to "pay the price" for your
>> actions. This is something too many people try to avoid.
>
> Say that someone knows that there is interest in a historical
> house, but that hasn't been made public. He then buys the house,
> hoping to make a huge profit when the deal goes through.

The people with the interest in the property have the same opportunity.
Of course, he could lose all of it on the whim of the Landmark Commission,
too.

>
> To me, that is pretty much the same as insider trading
> in stocks. Using information that one shouldn't otherwise
> have, and hoping to profit on that information.

Possibly, but then maybe they should have protected the information
or handled the whole thing differently. In any event, it changes
nothing. The owner of the property is the only one who can set a value.
Or are you saying that if I can get a dozen people to vote on it I can
force the local Porsche dealer to sell me a 911 for $100?

>
> Fair price, but not extortion.

No one uses extortion as effectively as the government. Fair price for
my property can only be set by me. Not by an outsider.

bill


--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves

bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <2a100$5087a06a$5ed43c14$17...@cache90.multikabel.net>,

Actually, what you said is that many countries have legislated theft.
India claiming control over those cars does no mean they ever really
owned them. In this country you can go to jail for receiving stolen
property even if you weren't the one to steal it. Taking away the
owners right to do with his property as he wishes is theft, plain
and simple. and arguing that the law supports the government, is
called rationalzation. The government could legislate anything.
It doesn't make it right, only another immoral law.

>
> Getting back to the subject of real estate, you can never do as you
> please with a building. It depends on the situation of course, but I
> know streets with normal family houses that were build in the 1920's and
> 1930's, and those houses were recently restored and improved to modern
> standards. Before the restoration these houses were rental
> accommodations, but afterwards they were sold. The outside of these
> houses were brought back to the original design, including the colours
> of the window frames etc. And the new owners are not allowed to change
> those colours. When you think about it, that preserves the value of your
> property. If owners would paint their doors and window frames in any
> colour they like, it would ruin the original concept of the architects,
> and the street would look cheap and run down. Now these houses have a
> certain grandeur and that improves the value.

All a matter of opinion. We have houses (and at least one church) with
things like yellow and purple trim on the windows and doors. I think
they look like crap. But I have been told this is "Victorian" and an
acceptable style. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As far as
not allowing changes, if the houses are sold like that and the requirement
is part of the sale contract, then so be it. The buyer knows what he
is getting into. BUt imposing such restrictions after the fact is what
I have said is wrong.

>
>
>>
>> I have no objection to some things worth being preserved, being
>> preserved. As for what's worth being preserved, good question, huh?
>>
>> What I'd object to is someone who has put his own money into something
>> losing that investment. If someone who has bought some property isn't
>> allowed to do what he intended, that's exactly what happens, he loses
>> his money.
>>
>> So, if some entity wants to declare some property as special and to be
>> controlled, that entity should be prepared to put their money where
>> their mouth is. Even if their declaration raised the property value,
>> they should have to come up with the current property value, and
>> compensate the owner for any inconvenience.
>>
>> Sure, go ahead, do it, but be prepared to "pay the price" for your
>> actions. This is something too many people try to avoid.
>

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves

bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <k689dl$9n$1...@speranza.aioe.org>,

glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
> Dirk Munk <mu...@home.nl> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> Getting back to the subject of real estate, you can never do as you
>> please with a building. It depends on the situation of course, but I
>> know streets with normal family houses that were build in the 1920's and
>> 1930's, and those houses were recently restored and improved to modern
>> standards. Before the restoration these houses were rental
>> accommodations, but afterwards they were sold. The outside of these
>> houses were brought back to the original design, including the colours
>> of the window frames etc. And the new owners are not allowed to change
>> those colours. When you think about it, that preserves the value of your
>> property. If owners would paint their doors and window frames in any
>> colour they like, it would ruin the original concept of the architects,
>> and the street would look cheap and run down. Now these houses have a
>> certain grandeur and that improves the value.
>
> There are many communities that have restrictions on what owners
> can do with their property. That is especially true for
> condominiums.

True. And, especially in the case of condominiums, it is in the sale
contract and is thus a contract matter. And the buyer knows about it
before he buys or he is just an idiot. You did read your entire sale
contract and all addendum, covenants and codicils before you signed
it, right?

>
> I just noticed your NL address. Likely this is different in different
> countries, but it is specifically allowed in US law.

Anything not in direct violation of an existing law can be imposed in
a covenant in the US. If the covenants are too restirictive the property
will not sell. Some people, like me, prefer to buy our property in
what are called unincorporated areas because we do not want any of these
arbitrary restrictions. To each his own.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves

bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

[Bob Koehler]

In article <k67bku$rgk$1...@dont-email.me>, David Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>
> What I'd object to is someone who has put his own money into something
> losing that investment. If someone who has bought some property isn't
> allowed to do what he intended, that's exactly what happens, he loses
> his money.

Investments carry risks.

Anyone making a serious investment in real estate should be aware
that the state has eminent domain, and that states authorize local
governments to take actions based on the state's domain. And in
joining the union, the state has provided some authority to the
federal government to take actions based on the state's domain.

If you don't want to expose yourself to tht risk, invest your
money elsewhere.

What actions can be taken under eminent domain may not match what
actions you think should be taken, but a lawyer can advise an
investor to what the laws says before the investment happens.

The argument that denying an investor the ability to reap profits
is a "taking" of property is often used when the government acts
to protect the general public from problems caused by a landowner's
plans. It's a lot of bull, protecting the public is what
governements do, outside of authoritatian regimes. Domain and
government didn't get invented after the investment.

[David Froble]

And Bill, and I, do not agree with that claim.

> Then *he* asked if this also might apply to
> other goods like a car, a book or furniture. So I explained to him that
> indeed this also applies to other objects as well, and I used the
> example of the vintage Rolls-Royce cars in India.
>
> Getting back to the subject of real estate, you can never do as you
> please with a building. It depends on the situation of course, but I
> know streets with normal family houses that were build in the 1920's and
> 1930's, and those houses were recently restored and improved to modern
> standards. Before the restoration these houses were rental
> accommodations, but afterwards they were sold. The outside of these
> houses were brought back to the original design, including the colours
> of the window frames etc. And the new owners are not allowed to change
> those colours. When you think about it, that preserves the value of your
> property. If owners would paint their doors and window frames in any
> colour they like, it would ruin the original concept of the architects,
> and the street would look cheap and run down. Now these houses have a
> certain grandeur and that improves the value.

This is different, and I think that everyone has agreed that if you know
the terms going into something, then you're obligated to adhere to what
you agreed to do.

Most likely people buying such places are doing it to some extent
because of the restoration to original, and wouldn't want any changes.

[David Froble]

Bob Koehler wrote:
> In article <k67bku$rgk$1...@dont-email.me>, David Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>> What I'd object to is someone who has put his own money into something
>> losing that investment. If someone who has bought some property isn't
>> allowed to do what he intended, that's exactly what happens, he loses
>> his money.
>
> Investments carry risks.

I don't disagree with you in general, but, maybe investment was a poor
choice of words above. What I meant was say, perhaps, I bought a
property because of the view, or perhaps (knowing myself) a tract of
land suitable for airport operations.

For someone else to decide that they want the property, and use
political help to acquire it, is definitely theft. However, if a
highway needs the property, that is a different matter. A highway will
benefit the community, and cannot be built in pieces, it needs to be whole.

I remember some city deciding they wanted a particular business, or
whatever, and used eminent domain to take the land off the current
owners. That in my opinion was improper use of eminent domain. That
was theft.

There is the chance of misuse of eminent domain, which is why some
people are very suspicious of it.

Another thing that is tough is "fair market value". Say for example I
have a 3000 ft turf runway. The land is perfectly flat and smooth, and
the grass is well developed. To me there is significant value to this
land over and above just acreage. However, someone else might just look
at it as acreage, and value it as such. Would it be fair to me for all
my investment into grading, planting, and such to be ignored?

True story. My daughter and her husband were looking at refinancing
their house. The bank sent out an assessor to set a value on the
property. Now, the house is maybe 800 ft from the road. Some people
value their privacy. This particular assessor set a lower value because
of the distance to the road. To this day I have not found one other
person, including other assessors, to agree with that logic. So, things
that can be subjective can be very unfair. (When it was challenged,
even the bank disagreed with the assessor.)

[Bob Koehler]

In article <k69064$3rp$1...@dont-email.me>, David Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:

> Dirk Munk wrote:
>> I explained to Bill that owning a building does not mean that you have
>> absolute control over it.
>
> And Bill, and I, do not agree with that claim.

But the law does agree with that claim.

[Bob Koehler]

In article <k691f5$c23$1...@dont-email.me>, David Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>
> I don't disagree with you in general, but, maybe investment was a poor
> choice of words above. What I meant was say, perhaps, I bought a
> property because of the view, or perhaps (knowing myself) a tract of
> land suitable for airport operations.

I thought through that one a long time ago. Some friends of mine
bought a property with (they knew) a temporarily great view. They
knew they would loose their view when other properties on the hill
were built on.

My first reaction was, if I wanted a property with a great view, I'd
have to buy the whole hill, and the other side of the valley. Then
I remembered the state taking some property from my grandfather to
have an electric line built, and realized that owning the property
did not guarrantee protecting the view.

> For someone else to decide that they want the property, and use
> political help to acquire it, is definitely theft. However, if a
> highway needs the property, that is a different matter. A highway will
> benefit the community, and cannot be built in pieces, it needs to be whole.
>
> I remember some city deciding they wanted a particular business, or
> whatever, and used eminent domain to take the land off the current
> owners. That in my opinion was improper use of eminent domain. That
> was theft.

I recall two similar cases. A city took a commercial property
running a popular establishment and exchanged it for a nearby
commercial location. The justification was that the factory being
built on the original property benefitted the community and needed
what were at that time several adjacent small properties to make up
the space they needed. The decision was upheld by the courts.

In another case, a city took low value homes so that a developer could
put in high price housing. Again the argument was that it benefitted
the community. That one went to the US Supreme Court. It was
specifically allowed by the state constitution and SCOTUS ruled that
the federal government had nothing in place to prevent it.

Were these abuses? Is thier less abuse if the property is
commercial, than if it is a home, or is a $400,000 worth of real
estate just $400,000 worth of real estate?

> There is the chance of misuse of eminent domain, which is why some
> people are very suspicious of it.
>
> Another thing that is tough is "fair market value". Say for example I
> have a 3000 ft turf runway. The land is perfectly flat and smooth, and
> the grass is well developed. To me there is significant value to this
> land over and above just acreage. However, someone else might just look
> at it as acreage, and value it as such. Would it be fair to me for all
> my investment into grading, planting, and such to be ignored?

What if the community needed a highway right there? Can you actually
find a buyer for the property as runway willing to pay the extra
value? Just because you value it more doesn't prove it has value to
the rest of the world.

We could compare the value of real estate to the value of art. This
really meets the fan in the Wright case. What some people value
as expenisve art, I wouldn't give a red penny for. In other cases
I wouldn't risk the generally held value of the piece on the
chance I could flip it.

> True story. My daughter and her husband were looking at refinancing
> their house. The bank sent out an assessor to set a value on the
> property. Now, the house is maybe 800 ft from the road. Some people
> value their privacy. This particular assessor set a lower value because
> of the distance to the road. To this day I have not found one other
> person, including other assessors, to agree with that logic. So, things
> that can be subjective can be very unfair. (When it was challenged,
> even the bank disagreed with the assessor.)

I'd set a lower value, too. More expense to maintain the driveway,
perhaps including removing snow. Easier for a break in to go
undetected. Definitely something that would reduce my bid if I
was interested in buying it.

And yes, I like my privacy. That's why I close my drapes at night.
If I could be successfull at a lower bid, I might not mind plowing that
snow, but I would make sure I could remove any sight barrier between
the road and the house. And I would bid lower because of the cost.

[David Froble]

But usually only in special circumstances, and I think most will agree
that there can be special circumstances. Even then, fair compensation
should apply.

Laws were concocted, and can also be changed and done away with. Way
too little of that occurs.

[David Froble]

Bob Koehler wrote:
> In article <k691f5$c23$1...@dont-email.me>, David Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>> I don't disagree with you in general, but, maybe investment was a poor
>> choice of words above. What I meant was say, perhaps, I bought a
>> property because of the view, or perhaps (knowing myself) a tract of
>> land suitable for airport operations.
>
> I thought through that one a long time ago. Some friends of mine
> bought a property with (they knew) a temporarily great view. They
> knew they would loose their view when other properties on the hill
> were built on.
>
> My first reaction was, if I wanted a property with a great view, I'd
> have to buy the whole hill, and the other side of the valley. Then
> I remembered the state taking some property from my grandfather to
> have an electric line built, and realized that owning the property
> did not guarrantee protecting the view.

Yeah, shit happens.

>> For someone else to decide that they want the property, and use
>> political help to acquire it, is definitely theft. However, if a
>> highway needs the property, that is a different matter. A highway will
>> benefit the community, and cannot be built in pieces, it needs to be whole.
>>
>> I remember some city deciding they wanted a particular business, or
>> whatever, and used eminent domain to take the land off the current
>> owners. That in my opinion was improper use of eminent domain. That
>> was theft.
>
> I recall two similar cases. A city took a commercial property
> running a popular establishment and exchanged it for a nearby
> commercial location. The justification was that the factory being
> built on the original property benefitted the community and needed
> what were at that time several adjacent small properties to make up
> the space they needed. The decision was upheld by the courts.

And perhaps the factory people were making larger campaign
contributions. Yeah, that happens.

> In another case, a city took low value homes so that a developer could
> put in high price housing. Again the argument was that it benefitted
> the community. That one went to the US Supreme Court. It was
> specifically allowed by the state constitution and SCOTUS ruled that
> the federal government had nothing in place to prevent it.

Translated, the "right side of the tracks" people wanted rid of the
"wrong side of the tracks" people.

> Were these abuses? Is thier less abuse if the property is
> commercial, than if it is a home, or is a $400,000 worth of real
> estate just $400,000 worth of real estate?
>
>> There is the chance of misuse of eminent domain, which is why some
>> people are very suspicious of it.
>>
>> Another thing that is tough is "fair market value". Say for example I
>> have a 3000 ft turf runway. The land is perfectly flat and smooth, and
>> the grass is well developed. To me there is significant value to this
>> land over and above just acreage. However, someone else might just look
>> at it as acreage, and value it as such. Would it be fair to me for all
>> my investment into grading, planting, and such to be ignored?
>
> What if the community needed a highway right there? Can you actually
> find a buyer for the property as runway willing to pay the extra
> value? Just because you value it more doesn't prove it has value to
> the rest of the world.

I think I've already stated that highways are important, and eminent
domain, with fair compensation, is applicable.

As for improvements I've made, they should be part of the fair
compensation. I'm going to have to go elsewhere, and do the grading and
planting and such all over again. Should that burden fall only on me?
I think not. If the improvement was a building, most would feel that it
should be part of the compensation. But then, that's why the attorneys
make the big bucks.

> We could compare the value of real estate to the value of art. This
> really meets the fan in the Wright case. What some people value
> as expenisve art, I wouldn't give a red penny for. In other cases
> I wouldn't risk the generally held value of the piece on the
> chance I could flip it.
>
>> True story. My daughter and her husband were looking at refinancing
>> their house. The bank sent out an assessor to set a value on the
>> property. Now, the house is maybe 800 ft from the road. Some people
>> value their privacy. This particular assessor set a lower value because
>> of the distance to the road. To this day I have not found one other
>> person, including other assessors, to agree with that logic. So, things
>> that can be subjective can be very unfair. (When it was challenged,
>> even the bank disagreed with the assessor.)
>
> I'd set a lower value, too. More expense to maintain the driveway,
> perhaps including removing snow. Easier for a break in to go
> undetected. Definitely something that would reduce my bid if I
> was interested in buying it.
>
> And yes, I like my privacy. That's why I close my drapes at night.
> If I could be successfull at a lower bid, I might not mind plowing that
> snow, but I would make sure I could remove any sight barrier between
> the road and the house. And I would bid lower because of the cost.
>

That all just shows that you're a "city boy" and don't appreciate
country living. Find me any estates built by well to do people with the
house right up against the road. The public road, not the private drive
they build. And yes, there is a nice 800 ft driveway. And a tractor
for grass cutting and snow removal, and a snowblower, and a Mastiff that
can look burglars in the eye, and more ....

Statistics around here show that remote places are less prone to
burglary than houses along the roads ..

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

David Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> Bob Koehler wrote:
>> In article <k69064$3rp$1...@dont-email.me>, David Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>>> Dirk Munk wrote:
>>>> I explained to Bill that owning a building does not mean that you have
>>>> absolute control over it.

>>> And Bill, and I, do not agree with that claim.

I am pretty sure that anywhere in the US, and likely most other
countries, you can't start building nuclear weapons on your
property. So, there is at least one thing you don't control.

>> But the law does agree with that claim.

> But usually only in special circumstances, and I think most will agree
> that there can be special circumstances. Even then, fair compensation
> should apply.

Two examples that I know about. In one, a hospital wanted to expand,
and the easiest place was into a condominium development. They got
together with the homeowners association and agreed to buy all the
units for something like twice, maybe more, market value. There are
enough comparable properties that it isn't hard to figure out what
market value is. It would have been much more complicated to buy
each one separately, and very inconvenient to have bought all but
one.

In another case, a shopping complex was being built, and so bought
out the houses in the block, except for one. The last owner, an old
lady with no heirs to inherit, wouldn't sell, even for $1 million.
She knew she wouldn't live much longer, and didn't care about
the money. They built the center around the house.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Macefield

In the end, she willed the house to the developer.

-- glen

[David Froble]

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> David Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>> Bob Koehler wrote:
>>> In article <k69064$3rp$1...@dont-email.me>, David Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>>>> Dirk Munk wrote:
>>>>> I explained to Bill that owning a building does not mean that you have
>>>>> absolute control over it.
>
>>>> And Bill, and I, do not agree with that claim.
>
> I am pretty sure that anywhere in the US, and likely most other
> countries, you can't start building nuclear weapons on your
> property. So, there is at least one thing you don't control.

I doubt that is a property issue :-)

>>> But the law does agree with that claim.
>
>> But usually only in special circumstances, and I think most will agree
>> that there can be special circumstances. Even then, fair compensation
>> should apply.
>
> Two examples that I know about. In one, a hospital wanted to expand,
> and the easiest place was into a condominium development. They got
> together with the homeowners association and agreed to buy all the
> units for something like twice, maybe more, market value. There are
> enough comparable properties that it isn't hard to figure out what
> market value is. It would have been much more complicated to buy
> each one separately, and very inconvenient to have bought all but
> one.

I had some private corespondence about this and one issue was about the
person that learns a road is going through and demands 10 x the property
value. I think my response to that was one solution:

--------------------

> The point about the one landowner who finds out about a road being built
> and decides that his lot is worth 10+ times what it was a month before he
> found out is a real problem, though.

Did I ever tell you that I'm a problem solver?

Plan the road, and set up purchase agreements, but don't purchase
anything until all agreements are in place. If someone wants too much,
then cancel the road, but report all demands to the county assessment
board. Let the property owner(s) pay taxes on what they think their
land is worth.

:-)

Build the road a year or 2 down the road.

:-)

--------------------

[Paul Sture]

In article <2a100$5087a06a$5ed43c14$17...@cache90.multikabel.net>,

Dirk Munk <mu...@home.nl> wrote:

> Getting back to the subject of real estate, you can never do as you
> please with a building. It depends on the situation of course, but I
> know streets with normal family houses that were build in the 1920's and
> 1930's, and those houses were recently restored and improved to modern
> standards. Before the restoration these houses were rental
> accommodations, but afterwards they were sold. The outside of these
> houses were brought back to the original design, including the colours
> of the window frames etc. And the new owners are not allowed to change
> those colours. When you think about it, that preserves the value of your
> property. If owners would paint their doors and window frames in any
> colour they like, it would ruin the original concept of the architects,
> and the street would look cheap and run down. Now these houses have a
> certain grandeur and that improves the value.

One example is the village of Saltaire in the north of the UK. This was
originally built by a textile mill's owner for his workers, at least in
part because he found that workers didn't like commuting. He didn't
stop at housing, and built a church, library, hospital etc.

This was good quality housing built in the 1800s, and even during the
1950s/60s when it was nigh impossible to get a decent mortgage on a
pre-WWII house, you could apparently get a mortgage on these.

During the 1980s these came under a protection order, with rules on the
type of doors, windows and even the gate on the back yard. I am not
sure how this was enforced for existing owners, but anyone buying was
obliged to replace non-conforming windows and doors with approved ones.

This paid off, and in 2001 it was designated as a World Heritage Site by
UNESCO:

http://www.saltairevillage.info

--
Paul Sture

[Paul Sture]

In article <eA+hf9...@eisner.encompasserve.org>,

koe...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote:

> I recall two similar cases. A city took a commercial property
> running a popular establishment and exchanged it for a nearby
> commercial location. The justification was that the factory being
> built on the original property benefitted the community and needed
> what were at that time several adjacent small properties to make up
> the space they needed. The decision was upheld by the courts.
>
> In another case, a city took low value homes so that a developer could
> put in high price housing. Again the argument was that it benefitted
> the community. That one went to the US Supreme Court. It was
> specifically allowed by the state constitution and SCOTUS ruled that
> the federal government had nothing in place to prevent it.
>
> Were these abuses? Is thier less abuse if the property is
> commercial, than if it is a home, or is a $400,000 worth of real
> estate just $400,000 worth of real estate?

There was a lot of abuse in the UK in the 60s and 70s, any maybe later.

The town planners and developers were hell bent on ripping down old
building and replacing them with concrete monstrosities, and this took
two forms:

a) City centre redevelopment. Victorian architecture wasn't respected
the way it is today and a lot of fine buildings were demolished. A lot
of their replacements have been replaced already, or are in the process
of being replaced. In contrast what I have seen in Europe is that with
a worthy enough piece of architecture the outer shell is left intact
(and yes, in some cases that means just the front facade), and a new
building is constructed within.

b) Private housing. A lot of people were forced out of their homes by
compulsory purchase and move to tower blocks. Many of these became
modern slums and have now been demolished. Those compulsory purchase
prices were daylight robbery, and many folks went from home ownership
without enough money to buy again to renting.

There were various scandals about this and some folks went to jail, but
they probably represented the tip of the iceberg. Demolition
contractors for example were not only paid generously for their work,
but got to keep a lot of very fine stone and other materials they could
sell.

> David Froble wrote:
> > True story. My daughter and her husband were looking at refinancing
> > their house. The bank sent out an assessor to set a value on the
> > property. Now, the house is maybe 800 ft from the road. Some people
> > value their privacy. This particular assessor set a lower value because
> > of the distance to the road. To this day I have not found one other
> > person, including other assessors, to agree with that logic. So, things
> > that can be subjective can be very unfair. (When it was challenged,
> > even the bank disagreed with the assessor.)
>
> I'd set a lower value, too. More expense to maintain the driveway,
> perhaps including removing snow. Easier for a break in to go
> undetected. Definitely something that would reduce my bid if I
> was interested in buying it.
>
> And yes, I like my privacy. That's why I close my drapes at night.
> If I could be successfull at a lower bid, I might not mind plowing that
> snow, but I would make sure I could remove any sight barrier between
> the road and the house. And I would bid lower because of the cost.

Fashions change too. The house I bought in 1987 was out in the sticks,
and I had managed to nip in just before everyone else got the same idea.
At that time many folks in the UK had company cars, often with free fuel
too, so living out in the sticks was a lot more affordable than it had
been, and house prices reflected that.

In contrast, the previous owners of that house had bought it in 1967,
and had been under intense pressure from friends and relatives to buy a
new house on a housing estate. To buy that new house would have cost
several thousand pounds, requiring a mortgage, but the old place out in
the sticks cost them the princely sum of �450, which with a parental
loan meant they could pay cash. By 1987 the price of that old house had
easily outstripped what that new house would have been worth.

I'll also mention the corruption that exists in the property business.
It is quite possible that the assessor Dave quotes had an eye on the
property for a friend and wanted the sale to fall through.

--
Paul Sture

[Bob Koehler]

In article <k69jnq$89i$1...@dont-email.me>, David Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:

> That all just shows that you're a "city boy" and don't appreciate
> country living.

Now you're hopelessly lost. I was raised on a farm. We had a clear
view of the road, and drivers had a clear view of our farmhouse.
We had a setback of about 80 feet. And we plowed the snow.

[Paul Sture]

In article <z2kgZH$Ti...@eisner.encompasserve.org>,

Is it because you remember clearing all that snow that you don't like a
long drive then? Or the lack of privacy?

In my early teens we moved into a house with large picture windows and
had to get used to folks staring in. We got good at out-staring them
but it wasn't until the hedge matured that we could get any privacy.

--
Paul Sture

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <nospam-09AF6C....@news.chingola.ch>,

Interesting how that seems to work out. I currently own two houses.
One in PA and one in GA.

My wife was born and raised in the country. The PA house was her choice
and is in the city. I have been unhappy living her for the past 25 years.

I was born a city boy, a mere 8 blocks from where this house stands.

The GA house was my choice. It is in the country, set back from the road
and view from or to the neighbors is blocked by foliage. Oh yeah, and I
don't have to plow the driveway in the winter!! :-)

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves

bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

[Bob Koehler]

In article <nospam-09AF6C....@news.chingola.ch>, Paul Sture <nos...@sture.ch> writes:
>
> Is it because you remember clearing all that snow that you don't like a
> long drive then? Or the lack of privacy?

"privacy" is a great thing to have when you're breaking into somone
else's property.

Not on mine, thanks.

It's not that I don't like a long drive, but I consider it a cost
to be offset if I'm bidding on the house.

>
> In my early teens we moved into a house with large picture windows and
> had to get used to folks staring in. We got good at out-staring them
> but it wasn't until the hedge matured that we could get any privacy.

Why didn't you close the drapes?

To reduce crime, folks need to be able to see the house, not see
into the house.

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <Wregn2...@eisner.encompasserve.org>,

Everybody can see everybody else's house here in the city where I currently
live. Hasn't prevented breakins. In fact, they are on the rise. Biggest
difference in that respect between my current two houses is I can't use a
gun here.

bill

--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves

bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

[Dirk Munk]

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <Wregn2...@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
> koe...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
>> In article <nospam-09AF6C....@news.chingola.ch>, Paul Sture <nos...@sture.ch> writes:
>>>
>>> Is it because you remember clearing all that snow that you don't like a
>>> long drive then? Or the lack of privacy?
>>
>> "privacy" is a great thing to have when you're breaking into somone
>> else's property.
>>
>> Not on mine, thanks.
>>
>> It's not that I don't like a long drive, but I consider it a cost
>> to be offset if I'm bidding on the house.
>>
>>>
>>> In my early teens we moved into a house with large picture windows and
>>> had to get used to folks staring in. We got good at out-staring them
>>> but it wasn't until the hedge matured that we could get any privacy.
>>
>> Why didn't you close the drapes?
>>
>> To reduce crime, folks need to be able to see the house, not see
>> into the house.
>>
>
> Everybody can see everybody else's house here in the city where I currently
> live. Hasn't prevented breakins. In fact, they are on the rise. Biggest
> difference in that respect between my current two houses is I can't use a
> gun here.
>

That's good. Just think of the guy who shot his 15yr old son a couple of
weeks ago, because he thought the boy was a burglar. Life must be hell
for him now, waking up every morning in the knowledge that he killed his
own son.

> bill
>

[David Froble]

Dirk Munk wrote:

> That's good. Just think of the guy who shot his 15yr old son a couple of
> weeks ago, because he thought the boy was a burglar. Life must be hell
> for him now, waking up every morning in the knowledge that he killed his
> own son.

We've been here before. You believe what you want to believe, and
nothing can convince you of anything else.

Yes, that probably is a terrible tragedy. But let's look at it for a bit.

1) The guy shot someone he could not identify? Wrong!

2) The guy resorted to shoot first and ask questions afterwards? Wrong!

3) The guy shot to kill, and not to just discourage? Wrong!

You may think guns are terrible, but in the three items above, in which
of them did the gun do something wrong? None of them. It was the nut
holding onto the gun. Most likely an untrained nut.

You don't shoot someone unless you know who and why you're shooting. If
someone is standing in your house, and you have a gun, you should call
the police, not shoot him. Now, if he's bearing down on you with a
large knife, then you need to take action. Maybe shoot him in the leg
and he won't be so able to chase you.

Got a wife? Maybe a daughter? How bad would you feel if they were
being hurt, or worse, and you could do nothing to help them? That door
swings in both directions.

But, with your attitude, even if you had a gun, you probably would not
get training, and would probably hit your wife and daughter instead of
the bad guy. Yeah, for you, no guns ....

[Dirk Munk]

There is a big house in the centre of my city. Some 20 years ago it was
restored, and the builders were amazed when they noticed that the walls
were about one meter thick. They were even more surprised when they
found lope-holes in the walls. It turned out that this house had
belonged to an important family in the middle ages, and it was build as
a fortified house with the entrance on the second floor. In those days
it made sense, but we have left the middle ages behind us. The notion
that you need a stockpile of deadly weapons at home to defend yourself
against criminals is rather alien to us, as it should be in a remotely
civilised society.

If you check the statistics, you will find that the side effect of
having guns at home many innocent people then are killed who otherwise
would not have been killed. But those victims are collateral damage
caused by stupid idiots who don't know how to handle a gun, so they
don't count as much as the victims of crime.

Suppose you have a disease, and the medicine you are taking for that
disease is far more likely to kill you than the disease itself, would
you take it? I wouldn't, but it seems you would.

[JF Mezei]

On 12-10-25 21:58, David Froble wrote:

> You may think guns are terrible, but in the three items above, in which
> of them did the gun do something wrong? None of them. It was the nut
> holding onto the gun. Most likely an untrained nut.

By that logic, every american should have a nuclear bomb in their
basement to protect themselves in case canada or mexico invades. It
isn't the bomb who will destroy the city, it will be the nutcase that
detonates it from his basement when his wife gets mad at him for not
taking out the garbage and he wants revenge so he presses the big red
irrestible button.

When you make it easy to kill someone, it takes far less to trigger a
man's decision to kill.

Just like credit cards allow women to buy shoes on impulse, guns make it
very easy for men to shoot someone on impulse. Just as not every women
will succomb to the temptation to buy shoes, not every men will be
tempted to kill on impulse. But there are enough men who do get
tempted that it is a serious problem when you make it so easy to kill
with a clean, cheap, efficient, easy to use gun easily purchased at
local corner stores.

I bet there are more warnings on ladders than on guns. If ladder
companies can get sued if someone misuses a ladder and falls to the
ground, how come gun manufacturers never get sued when their equipment
is misused and kills ?

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <733ad$5089cd9c$5ed43c14$22...@cache60.multikabel.net>,

Except for the fact that he was a burglar.

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

So what? Not particual easy to regret a fired bullet.
I guess he'd preferd that he had taken his car, or something...

[Paul Sture]

In article <Wregn2...@eisner.encompasserve.org>,

koe...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) wrote:

> In article <nospam-09AF6C....@news.chingola.ch>, Paul Sture
> <nos...@sture.ch> writes:
> >
> > Is it because you remember clearing all that snow that you don't like a
> > long drive then? Or the lack of privacy?
>
> "privacy" is a great thing to have when you're breaking into somone
> else's property.
>
> Not on mine, thanks.

Good point. Many years ago I met a guy who lived somewhere remote and he
was increasingly fortifying his house as the result of successive
burglaries. There's not a lot you can do when the thieves bring back
hoes.

> It's not that I don't like a long drive, but I consider it a cost
> to be offset if I'm bidding on the house.

A former colleague had a long drive in need of repair. He managed to
get some suitable material for free (chopped up asphalt from a dug up
road), but the cost of transportation and having it laid was still a
shock.

> >
> > In my early teens we moved into a house with large picture windows and
> > had to get used to folks staring in. We got good at out-staring them
> > but it wasn't until the hedge matured that we could get any privacy.
>
> Why didn't you close the drapes?

During the daytime? As it happens, this house is bang on topic for the
thread. Designed by an architect for himself, it was a testament to the
free samples of building materials he got. It was built by the group
effort of several folks building their own houses; he did the plans for
everyone, a solicitor did the legal bits for everyone and so on.
Unfortunately his was the last to be built and once everyone else was in
their own houses they rather lost interest in finishing his.

And woosh back to covenants. This house was built on 2 of 3 strips of
former orchard behind a set of 3 houses, the middle one of which he had
previously owned. He had created so much noise in renovating that house
that the owner at one side refused to sell him their orchard, and had it
written into their house deeds that he could never own or rent that land.

As a result the house got built at 90� to its originally planned
orientation, which detracted greatly from its looks when seen from the
road.

It didn't stop there, as the house built on the third plot of land was
further up the hill and overlooked ours. When they extended their
kitchen their plans showed a window looking directly into our living
room. My father tried to fight this extension because it contravened
"right to light" planning regulations, but because the extension was
less than x square feet, normal rules didn't apply. However the builder
did advise next door's owners not to put that extra window in...

Incidentally, the planning laws in existence then meant that if an
office block or supermarket went up next door, my father wouldn't have
had the same "right to light" as if a domestic building was concerned.

The next round was that the couple next door were nosy as ever. My
father extended the living room, shifting the main window by 90� to get
some privacy back.

See how it escalates?

> To reduce crime, folks need to be able to see the house, not see
> into the house.

There's an odd thing. When I spent a couple of months away at client
site I gave my boss a key to my house and asked him to check it was OK
and collect the post at regular intervals. Every single time he visited
he was challenged by one of my neighbours*. Yet I was burgled in broad
daylight a few months later.

* One of the advantages of living in a small community is that everyone
knows you and will challenge folks they don't know.

--
Paul Sture

[Paul Sture]

In article <aet9k2...@mid.individual.net>,

I grew up in a semi-rural area with good views over a valley but in my
early teens we moved closer to town. This was great for accessibility -
good public transport meant I could go out with friends in the evening
or stay late after school to participate in extra-curricular activities,
but I never liked the traffic noise. Fortunately there was a public
park at the side of the house which extended to woods and countryside,
but that traffic noise still got to me.

I always hankered getting backed to a rural or semi-rural location, and
those good views of course.

Clearing the snow was a job we kids did. And enjoyed :-)

--
Paul Sture

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <k6dr9i$47k$1...@news.albasani.net>,

??? He wasn't after a car. He was attempting to break into a neighbor's
house. A neightbor who happened to be a relative. He was armed and there
is no reason to believe (based on what we read in the daily newspapers)
that he would have hesitated to use his gun. And the neighbor (his aunt)
was home at the time and is the one who called the father to come to her
aid.

Criminals are criminals. If the police were willing to pull the trigger
more often there would be a lot less of them. And individual citizens
would find it much less necessary to do the job themselves.

Maybe what the father really needs to be asking himself is why his kid
was an armed robber in the first place.

[Dirk Munk]

Very simple. Ladders are not made with the intention that you will fall
to the ground and brake your neck. Guns are not made for target
practice, but to kill (with the exception of some real sport guns). So
if you kill some one with a gun, the gun did what is was designed for,
there is no misuse. If you use the gun as a hammer and it goes off, then
you were misusing it. So you are right, there should be a sticker on the
gun "do not use as a hammer" :-) .

[Dirk Munk]

Perhaps because people like you and his father think it is normal to own
a gun. Then the idea that you can use it to protect yourself when you
are burgling is the next logical step. He is protecting himself just as
you are protecting yourself. Why do you expect more common sense from
him than you are displaying yourself?

[David Froble]

I'd get training on how to use the medicine in a safe and effective
manner ...

[David Froble]

JF Mezei wrote:
> On 12-10-25 21:58, David Froble wrote:
>
>> You may think guns are terrible, but in the three items above, in which
>> of them did the gun do something wrong? None of them. It was the nut
>> holding onto the gun. Most likely an untrained nut.
>
> By that logic, every american should have a nuclear bomb in their
> basement to protect themselves in case canada or mexico invades.

What have you been smoking? How dare you use the word "logic" in such a
stupid statement.

If Mexico invades, I'll set up some margaritas and we'll sit around
enjoying them and becoming friends. If Canada invades I guess I'll have
to ask which drink they prefer.

I guess you've been so far out for so long that you cannot recognize an
idiotic statement.

> It
> isn't the bomb who will destroy the city, it will be the nutcase that
> detonates it from his basement when his wife gets mad at him for not
> taking out the garbage and he wants revenge so he presses the big red
> irrestible button.
>
> When you make it easy to kill someone, it takes far less to trigger a
> man's decision to kill.

I can agree to this, which is why I believe police should resort to
tasers instead of guns, and face criminal charges if they cannot justify
the use of a gun.

> Just like credit cards allow women to buy shoes on impulse, guns make it
> very easy for men to shoot someone on impulse. Just as not every women
> will succomb to the temptation to buy shoes, not every men will be
> tempted to kill on impulse. But there are enough men who do get
> tempted that it is a serious problem when you make it so easy to kill
> with a clean, cheap, efficient, easy to use gun easily purchased at
> local corner stores.

Same with fertilizer and diesel fuel. Guess we should outlaw the farmers.

> I bet there are more warnings on ladders than on guns. If ladder
> companies can get sued if someone misuses a ladder and falls to the
> ground, how come gun manufacturers never get sued when their equipment
> is misused and kills ?

You got a reference for ladder companies getting sued ??

[David Froble]

Dirk Munk wrote:

> Very simple. Ladders are not made with the intention that you will fall
> to the ground and brake your neck. Guns are not made for target
> practice, but to kill (with the exception of some real sport guns). So
> if you kill some one with a gun, the gun did what is was designed for,
> there is no misuse. If you use the gun as a hammer and it goes off, then
> you were misusing it. So you are right, there should be a sticker on the
> gun "do not use as a hammer" :-) .
>

A ladder allows you to climb high enough so that if you fall you can be
injured. If the ladder didn't exist, then you could not get hurt, so
the ladder manufacturer was negligent in providing you the means to be
injured.

Well, you and JF would be Ok if you fell on your heads. Hard to hurt a
vacuum.

[David Froble]

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> If the police were willing to pull the trigger
> more often there would be a lot less of them.

I hope you don't really mean this. Who do you think you are, Judge Dread?

[Richard B. Gilbert]

On 10/25/2012 4:00 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <Wregn2...@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
> koe...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob Koehler) writes:
>> In article <nospam-09AF6C....@news.chingola.ch>, Paul Sture <nos...@sture.ch> writes:
>>>
>>> Is it because you remember clearing all that snow that you don't like a
>>> long drive then? Or the lack of privacy?
>>
>> "privacy" is a great thing to have when you're breaking into somone
>> else's property.
>>
>> Not on mine, thanks.
>>
>> It's not that I don't like a long drive, but I consider it a cost
>> to be offset if I'm bidding on the house.
>>
>>>
>>> In my early teens we moved into a house with large picture windows and
>>> had to get used to folks staring in. We got good at out-staring them
>>> but it wasn't until the hedge matured that we could get any privacy.
>>
>> Why didn't you close the drapes?
>>
>> To reduce crime, folks need to be able to see the house, not see
>> into the house.
>>
>
> Everybody can see everybody else's house here in the city where I currently
> live. Hasn't prevented breakins. In fact, they are on the rise. Biggest
> difference in that respect between my current two houses is I can't use a
> gun here.

Which home forces you to abandon arms for self defense? I thought NJ
was an asshole sort of a place but you seem to have found someplace worse!

[AEF]

On Oct 22, 10:00 am, koeh...@eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
Koehler) wrote:
> In article <k61bs2$iu...@dont-email.me>, David Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>
> > It's a common problem with airports.  The airport exists.  People find
> > "cheap land" (because of the airport), and later attempt to close down
> > the airport.  A true flaw in "democracy, the terrorism of the majority".
>
>    A common enough problem.  In our county, there is a "county"
>    airport.  When it was built the area around it was zoned for light
>    industry and such only, so there would be no housing containing
>    foilks affected by, and complaining about, airport noise.
>
>    Enter developer, who gets nearby land rezoned.  I had a coworker who
>    lived in an apartment next to the airport.
>
>    By which flaw in democracy did that developer achieve the rezoning?
>    Campain contributions?  We don't know.  Doesn't sound democratic
>    (in the general sense) to me, but it reminds me of how Sonmhy Bono
>    got his zoning problem fixed:  he ran for mayor, and won.

It's better than that. Sonny Bono kept asking for permission to put up
a sign on his restaurant. And some official kept repeatedly stopping
him. So Sonny said to the guy, "I'm going to be mayor and fire you,"
or something along those lines. He ran for mayor, won, and fired the
guy! OK, I'm not absolutely sure about this. I heard this many years
ago.

AEF

[Richard B. Gilbert]

Perhaps it's just as well; the kid had half his father's genes!

Know your target!!!!!!!!

And if you think you are correct in pointing that weapon at the ground
just remember that you have two feet down there. To be REALLY correct,
multiply the number of persons present by two to calculate the number
of feet at risk!

[Richard B. Gilbert]

Do you want to bring an action against the maker? The seller? I say
that the man who took the gun in hand and squeezed the trigger must be
held responsible!. We have laws in most states that regulate the sales
of guns and ammunition. The Federal Government also exercises some
control on the sale of fire arms and ammunition.

ISTR that the Greenwich, Connecticut YMCA taught the handling and
shooting of a .22 caliber rifle at paper targets with emphasis on
proper and safe handling of arms and ammunition. I looked forward
to this all year.

[AEF]

On Oct 24, 4:40 pm, David Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> Bob Koehler wrote:
> > In article <k691f5$c2...@dont-email.me>, David Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
> >> I don't disagree with you in general, but, maybe investment was a poor
> >> choice of words above.  What I meant was say, perhaps, I bought a
> >> property because of the view, or perhaps (knowing myself) a tract of
> >> land suitable for airport operations.
>
> >    I thought through that one a long time ago.  Some friends of mine
> >    bought a property with (they knew) a temporarily great view.   They
> >    knew they would loose their view when other properties on the hill
> >    were built on.
>
> >    My first reaction was, if I wanted a property with a great view, I'd
> >    have to buy the whole hill, and the other side of the valley.  Then
> >    I remembered the state taking some property from my grandfather to
> >    have an electric line built, and realized that owning the property
> >    did not guarrantee protecting the view.
>
> Yeah, shit happens.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> For someone else to decide that they want the property, and use
> >> political help to acquire it, is definitely theft.  However, if a
> >> highway needs the property, that is a different matter.  A highway will
> >> benefit the community, and cannot be built in pieces, it needs to be whole.
>
> >> I remember some city deciding they wanted a particular business, or
> >> whatever, and used eminent domain to take the land off the current
> >> owners.  That in my opinion was improper use of eminent domain.  That
> >> was theft.

>
> >    I recall two similar cases.  A city took a commercial property
> >    running a popular establishment and exchanged it for a nearby
> >    commercial location.  The justification was that the factory being
> >    built on the original property benefitted the community and needed
> >    what were at that time several adjacent small properties to make up
> >    the space they needed.  The decision was upheld by the courts.
>

> And perhaps the factory people were making larger campaign
> contributions.  Yeah, that happens.

>
> >    In another case, a city took low value homes so that a developer could
> >    put in high price housing.  Again the argument was that it benefitted
> >    the community.  That one went to the US Supreme Court.  It was
> >    specifically allowed by the state constitution and SCOTUS ruled that
> >    the federal government had nothing in place to prevent it.
>

> Translated, the "right side of the tracks" people wanted rid of the
> "wrong side of the tracks" people.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >    Were these abuses?  Is thier less abuse if the property is
> >    commercial, than if it is a home, or is a $400,000 worth of real
> >    estate just $400,000 worth of real estate?
>

> >> There is the chance of misuse of eminent domain, which is why some
> >> people are very suspicious of it.
>
> >> Another thing that is tough is "fair market value".  Say for example I
> >> have a 3000 ft turf runway.  The land is perfectly flat and smooth, and
> >> the grass is well developed.  To me there is significant value to this
> >> land over and above just acreage.  However, someone else might just look
> >> at it as acreage, and value it as such.  Would it be fair to me for all
> >> my investment into grading, planting, and such to be ignored?
>
> >    What if the community needed a highway right there?  Can you actually
> >    find a buyer for the property as runway willing to pay the extra
> >    value?   Just because you value it more doesn't prove it has value to
> >    the rest of the world.
>
> I think I've already stated that highways are important, and eminent
> domain, with fair compensation, is applicable.
>
> As for improvements I've made, they should be part of the fair
> compensation.  I'm going to have to go elsewhere, and do the grading and
> planting and such all over again.  Should that burden fall only on me?
> I think not.  If the improvement was a building, most would feel that it
> should be part of the compensation.  But then, that's why the attorneys
> make the big bucks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >    We could compare the value of real estate to the value of art.  This
> >    really meets the fan in the Wright case.  What some people value
> >    as expenisve art, I wouldn't give a red penny for.  In other cases
> >    I wouldn't risk the generally held value of the piece on the
> >    chance I could flip it.

>
> >> True story.  My daughter and her husband were looking at refinancing
> >> their house.  The bank sent out an assessor to set a value on the
> >> property.  Now, the house is maybe 800 ft from the road.  Some people
> >> value their privacy.  This particular assessor set a lower value because
> >> of the distance to the road.  To this day I have not found one other
> >> person, including other assessors, to agree with that logic.  So, things
> >> that can be subjective can be very unfair.  (When it was challenged,
> >> even the bank disagreed with the assessor.)
>
> >    I'd set a lower value, too.  More expense to maintain the driveway,
> >    perhaps including removing snow.  Easier for a break in to go
> >    undetected.  Definitely something that would reduce my bid if I
> >    was interested in buying it.
>
> >    And yes, I like my privacy.  That's why I close my drapes at night.
> >    If I could be successfull at a lower bid, I might not mind plowing that
> >    snow, but I would make sure I could remove any sight barrier between
> >    the road and the house.  And I would bid lower because of the cost.
>

> That all just shows that you're a "city boy" and don't appreciate

> country living.  Find me any estates built by well to do people with the
> house right up against the road.  The public road, not the private drive
> they build.  And yes, there is a nice 800 ft driveway.  And a tractor
> for grass cutting and snow removal, and a snowblower, and a Mastiff that
> can look burglars in the eye, and more ....
>
> Statistics around here show that remote places are less prone to
> burglary than houses along the roads ..

It seems to me that "fair market value" is whatever the owner can get
for the place. It doesn't matter that the owner thinks it's worth more
than that.

Consider this: If you thought a place was worth x, and the market
value was much less than x, which would you pay?

One man's garbage may be another's gem, but fair market value is what
the owner can get. If someone offers x, and no one else will offer
more, the fair market value is x, regardless.

AEF

[AEF]

On Oct 24, 9:06 pm, David Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:

> glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> > David Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> >> Bob Koehler wrote:

> >>> In article <k69064$3r...@dont-email.me>, David Froble <da...@tsoft-inc.com> writes:
> >>>> Dirk Munk wrote:
> >>>>> I explained to Bill that owning a building does not mean that you have
> >>>>> absolute control over it.
>
> >>>> And Bill, and I, do not agree with that claim.
>
> > I am pretty sure that anywhere in the US, and likely most other
> > countries, you can't start building nuclear weapons on your
> > property. So, there is at least one thing you don't control.
>
> I doubt that is a property issue  :-)
>
> >>>    But the law does agree with that claim.
>
> >> But usually only in special circumstances, and I think most will agree
> >> that there can be special circumstances.  Even then, fair compensation
> >> should apply.
>
> > Two examples that I know about. In one, a hospital wanted to expand,
> > and the easiest place was into a condominium development. They got
> > together with the homeowners association and agreed to buy all the
> > units for something like twice, maybe more, market value. There are
> > enough comparable properties that it isn't hard to figure out what
> > market value is. It would have been much more complicated to buy
> > each one separately, and very inconvenient to have bought all but
> > one.
>
> I had some private corespondence about this and one issue was about the
> person that learns a road is going through and demands 10 x the property
> value.  I think my response to that was one solution:
>
> --------------------
>
>  > The point about the one landowner who finds out about a road being built
>  > and decides that his lot is worth 10+ times what it was a month before he
>  > found out is a real problem, though.
>
> Did I ever tell you that I'm a problem solver?
>
> Plan the road, and set up purchase agreements, but don't purchase
> anything until all agreements are in place.  If someone wants too much,
> then cancel the road, but report all demands to the county assessment
> board.  Let the property owner(s) pay taxes on what they think their
> land is worth.
>
> :-)
>
> Build the road a year or 2 down the road.
>
> :-)
>
> --------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In another case, a shopping complex was being built, and so bought
> > out the houses in the block, except for one. The last owner, an old
> > lady with no heirs to inherit, wouldn't sell, even for $1 million.
> > She knew she wouldn't live much longer, and didn't care about
> > the money. They built the center around the house.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Macefield
>
> > In the end, she willed the house to the developer.
>
> > -- glen

This reminds me of how Disney acquired land in FL for Disneyworld.
They steathily bought the land need for the future park in pieces
before anyone knew their motive. They were able to purchase the land
for far less than if the landowners knew the true purpose. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disneyworld#History.

AEF

[AEF]

On Oct 26, 8:14 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
> In article <k6dr9i$47...@news.albasani.net>,

>         Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderh...@telia.com> writes:
>
> > Bill Gunshannon wrote 2012-10-26 12:40:
> >> In article <733ad$5089cd9c$5ed43c14$22...@cache60.multikabel.net>,

> >>        Dirk Munk <m...@home.nl> writes:
[...]

> >>> That's good. Just think of the guy who shot his 15yr old son a couple of
> >>> weeks ago, because he thought the boy was a burglar. Life must be hell
> >>> for him now, waking up every morning in the knowledge that he killed his
> >>> own son.
>
> >> Except for the fact that he was a burglar.
>
> >> bill
>
> > So what? Not particual easy to regret a fired bullet.
> > I guess he'd preferd that he had taken his car, or something...
>
> ???  He wasn't after a car.  He was attempting to break into a neighbor's
> house.  A neightbor who happened to be a relative.  He was armed and there
> is no reason to believe (based on what we read in the daily newspapers)
> that he would have hesitated to use his gun.  And the neighbor (his aunt)
> was home at the time and is the one who called the father to come to her
> aid.
>
> Criminals are criminals.  If the police were willing to pull the trigger
> more often there would be a lot less of them. And individual citizens
> would find it much less necessary to do the job themselves.

I suppose we should cut off burglar's hands if the gunshots don't kill
them. Hey, why not torture them, too?!

In the 1990's and 2000's, the crime rate in New York City was greatly
reduced without "pulling the trigger more often". Moreover, IIRC, NYC
police fire their weapons less often than police in most other U.S.
cities.

> Maybe what the father really needs to be asking himself is why his kid
> was an armed robber in the first place.

The son was robbing his own father's house? Fascinating. Didn't the
parents ever go on vacation? Need more details here.

>
> bill

AEF

>
> --
> Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves

> billg...@cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

> University of Scranton   |
> Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>

Wouldn't two wolves be enough?

[AEF]

So does this mean if you fire a gun and you miss, or your victim
lives, you can sue the gun manufacturer because the gun failed to
achieve it's intended purpose? :-)

> If you use the gun as a hammer and it goes off, then
> you were misusing it. So you are right, there should be a sticker on the
> gun "do not use as a hammer" :-) .

AEF

[AEF]

On Oct 27, 1:06 pm, AEF <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 8:18 am, Dirk Munk <m...@home.nl> wrote:

[...]

>
> So does this mean if you fire a gun and you miss, or your victim
> lives, you can sue the gun manufacturer because the gun failed to
> achieve it's intended purpose? :-)

Oh crap. Another punctuation error due to apostrophe disease! And I
thought I was cured. Make that "its intended purpose".

>
> > If you use the gun as a hammer and it goes off, then
> > you were misusing it. So you are right, there should be a sticker on the
> > gun "do not use as a hammer" :-) .
>
> AEF

AEF

[AEF]

On Oct 27, 1:00 pm, AEF <spamsink2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 8:14 am, billg...@cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:

[...]

>
> > Criminals are criminals.  If the police were willing to pull the trigger
> > more often there would be a lot less of them. And individual citizens
> > would find it much less necessary to do the job themselves.

Aside from other problems, there would probably be a lot more innocent
bystanders hurt or killed as a result.

[...]

[Richard B. Gilbert]

Would two wolves constitute a quorum? I think that three wolves would
be required to constitute a quorum.

[Simon Clubley]

Only two wolves required. The sheep gets a vote, but it doesn't matter.

Unless of course you believe the sheep should not even be allowed to
cast a vote ? :-)

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world