![]() |
|
|
|||
|
Tell your friend/neighbors in Queen village to write to DiCicco. Tell them if they don't fight this legislation their neighbors will be determining what they can and cannot do to the exterior of their homes.....like living in a suburban development. The pro-NCD side likes to say that it will ONLY be triggered by a work permit or for new construction, but should you choose to repair the facade of your house, add or change a door/window....it kicks in and they can tell you what to do. As I see it this is just the first step and I don't want to let them get a foot in my door so to speak.
Imagine this scenario....you live in a brick house built in 1950. The brick facade is in really bad shape. The mason you hire tells you that he cannot repoint the brick because it is in such bad shape. You have two options....replace the entire brick facade and spend in excess of $10,000 or spend 1/3rd of that and get a "nice" stucco job. Guess what, the NCD can require you to put a whole new brick facade on your house. How about this one....you buy a nice lot in QV. You want to build a beautiful new contemporary home on YOUR PROPERTY. You want to use new, modern materials and windows. You can hire a world renowned architect to design it but guess what....the NCD will REQUIRE you to build a brick faux colonial house. |
|
||||
|
I've already walked to italian market, procurred my blood, and I'm currently jumping around my house with warpaint, loincloth, and spear chanting "FREEEEEDOOOOOOMMMMMM" while my dog is howling.
__________________
Peter Cetera: Sometimes I just forget Say things I might regret It breaks my heart to see you crying |
|
||||
|
I think I've changed my mind from "against" to "open minded neutral."
I understand the arguments against. But I also don't want blocks of garage front streets that evolve into the equivalent of back alleys, stucco replacing brick as the material of choice due to cost, the cheapest steel door anyone can lay hands on, etc. . . . A city needs room to grow, but maybe it also needs to keep tabs on lowest common denominator or maximum developer profit at the expense of existing residents. Private property rights are non-negotiable, sure. But that goes for all. We are all packed so tighly together in a city that what somebody wants to do with their private property will necessarily have an impact on everyone around them. Some things should fall into the "tough luck" pile but not everything. For those so completely opposed to this, is there any common ground?
__________________
"It is my earnest hope - indeed the hope of all mankind - that from this solemn occasion a better world shall emerge out of the blood and carnage of the past, a world found upon faith and understanding, a world dedicated to the dignity of man and the fulfillment of his most cherished wish for freedom, tolerance and justice." - General Douglas Macarthur Supreme Allied Commander of South-West Pacific (1945)
|
|
||||
|
Quote:
So, to answer your question, I wouldn't oppose a simple regulation of garage-fronts. But as long as there are any provisions that go beyond that, I'm opposed.
__________________
---Shosh |
|
||||
|
My neighbors could make their place a crack den which would bring values down.
My neighbors could become absentee landlords and rent to loud partying drunks which would bring values down. My neighbors could stifle commercial growth making modern conveniences unavailable, which would bring values down. My neighbors could become so uncultured and devoid of reality that they think its completely acceptable to use a kid's playground and tennis court as a toilet, which would bring values down. Oh wait, all of that stuff has been going on for years and property values only went up. Why? Not because of some craptastic tyvek and plywood homes that are surfaced with brick tiles-instead it was due to the investments of many landowners who either retained their historic homes or took one of the many plots of empty land and converted it into a decent modern house. Additionally, what do you think is going to happen when someone goes to make a window or door repair and is then confronted by QVNA watchdogs and certified letters from the planning commission? I know what I'd do...I'd say f*ck it and keep patching until it became so degraded that it absolutely needed replaced. The process is already long enough, and there's no way I'm going to L&I then QVNA then the planning commission then back to qvna then back to the planning commission just to eventually get a letter from a f&ckin' amateurish nimby who finally decides its ok for me to switch from an anderson to a pella door. The compromise? QVNA has already controlled facades and their composition everytime building plans come up for review. Basically they say "either you use a red brick facade or were not approving the project". This stance has already caused parcels to go unpurchased, and other parts to go unrehabilitated. Having a formal law worsening this environment is only going to have negative effects. Quote:
__________________
Peter Cetera: Sometimes I just forget Say things I might regret It breaks my heart to see you crying |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|