Garrett wrote:Yet another project for the 10th Street Corridor eh? That area must be getting close to some form of critical mass.
Lots of other opportune properties left. This area offers the connivence of downtown living without the nightlife noise and commotion. I expect a lot of people will "graduate" from their downtown apartments to a small house or row home in this area south of downtown in the coming years.
That's kinda what I was alluding to. The more developments that happen in this area, the more developers will be interested in developing it, like the growth we're seeing in Midtown now.
Row homes is one thing I would like to see us embrace more as a city. It is really cool to walk around the neighborhoods around Union Park in Chicago and seeing newly constructed row homes next to century old buildings. Even a more reasonably sized peer like Des Moines has been much better at row home infill projects than we have.
On another note I kind of also want to see the area become a place for modern architecture too. We have a good start with CO2 and Blue Barn.
I grew up in this neighborhood and I think its great that there's a movement to revitalize the neighborhood. I might be a target customer. I do hope that the developers keep the integrity and history of the neighborhood intact. I am concerned that the Son's of Italy next door to the funeral home might become a victim of progress. It is located next door to the development. If the new development takes off, its only natural someone will make the SOI an offer. There goes the history and the Italian presence. The Omaha leaders need to make sure that does not happen.
If the new buyer is willing to sell, the protesters should raise the money to purchase the property and renovate it or whatever themselves.
We can't let preservation trump the free market for every piece of property deemed historic in the city.
Plus, I doubt that most people had even heard of this house until the news broke about its purchase and plans for redevelopment. Suddenly it's a historic landmark.
I am all for preserving those properties that are able to be preserved and whose use after preservation is the "highest and best use" for the property. Unfortunately in this case I think the fact that it was formerly a mortuary makes it a difficult property to renovate and lease. If a developer could make the property work as is (and generate the necessary returns to drive investment) I really believe they would have. I think the "creepy feeling" that may come about based on its former use would make it a hard property to convert. I mean how many people really want to live in what used to be a mortuary/funeral home. I think that the proposal that Clarity has put forth is a good use of this piece of property. How many historic buildings are sitting vacant or basically vacant, rotting and deteriorating and not contributing anything to their respective neighborhood? Preserve when possible/feasible and redevelop when necessary.
Unfortunately, preservationists rarely have deep pockets. That's really the only fair way these things can be saved, unless the city were to buy it, but don't count on that happening.
This house didn't suddenly become "historic."....it just became newsworthy because they're going to destroy it.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings" ...and then they were gone.
realestate_zach wrote:I am all for preserving those properties that are able to be preserved and whose use after preservation is the "highest and best use" for the property. Unfortunately in this case I think the fact that it was formerly a mortuary makes it a difficult property to renovate and lease. If a developer could make the property work as is (and generate the necessary returns to drive investment) I really believe they would have. I think the "creepy feeling" that may come about based on its former use would make it a hard property to convert. I mean how many people really want to live in what used to be a mortuary/funeral home. I think that the proposal that Clarity has put forth is a good use of this piece of property. How many historic buildings are sitting vacant or basically vacant, rotting and deteriorating and not contributing anything to their respective neighborhood? Preserve when possible/feasible and redevelop when necessary.
I agree. Save for someone ... eccentric ... I don't see this being bought by anyone due to its former use. It's beautiful on the inside, but what good would it do to let it rot? Like I said before, I'd rather let buildings be torn down in dignity then languish and rot.
When fortune smiles on something as violent and ugly as revenge, it seems proof like no other that not only does God exist, you're doing his will.
realestate_zach wrote:I am all for preserving those properties that are able to be preserved and whose use after preservation is the "highest and best use" for the property. Unfortunately in this case I think the fact that it was formerly a mortuary makes it a difficult property to renovate and lease. If a developer could make the property work as is (and generate the necessary returns to drive investment) I really believe they would have. I think the "creepy feeling" that may come about based on its former use would make it a hard property to convert. I mean how many people really want to live in what used to be a mortuary/funeral home. I think that the proposal that Clarity has put forth is a good use of this piece of property. How many historic buildings are sitting vacant or basically vacant, rotting and deteriorating and not contributing anything to their respective neighborhood? Preserve when possible/feasible and redevelop when necessary.
I agree. Save for someone ... eccentric ... I don't see this being bought by anyone due to its former use. It's beautiful on the inside, but what good would it do to let it rot? Like I said before, I'd rather let buildings be torn down in dignity then languish and rot.
I agree too. It might have helped if they would have changed it back to its pre-mortuary condition before trying to sell it. It would still have that stigma attached though. I think the owner was hoping someone would buy it to continue use as a mortuary or not mind the cost of converting it. The asking price was pretty high, even with the fantastic interiors.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings" ...and then they were gone.
I think it is more than fair to say that NIMBYs are a far greater threat to the free market than preservationists are. The idea that any city operates in a free market is idealist at best anyways. Tons of factors in play.
As for this property I am supportive of the new project. It represents a better use of the land and adds more to the tax rolls. The difference between this and the. C-P opposition from me is that was torn down with the mind of attracting a future development. A waste of resources and the loss of a piece of our city's identity with no prospects for replacement.
The past use wouldn't bother me in the least. I think it's strange that as our culture has become more and more secular, irrational superstition and phobias still persist.
I don't think it would take much work to restore. The exterior needs quite a bit of work to remove the hideous residing and restore the original, but from the photos, it looked largely intact inside from it's residential era, and it appeared that a lot of the stuff removed for the mortuary conversion (doors, millwork, etc) was saved and kept onsite. I think the biggest barrier to restoration is there are few wealthy people today who prefer to display their riches in residential architecture as they did a century ago. In the 1880s, in-person meetings and formal dinner parties were a much larger part of the social circle than today, so grand houses we a central part of how people displayed their wealth. Today, millionaires typically prefer either penthouse condos are secluded McMansions in the exurbs with tens of thousands of square feet of space, but little real architecture behind the brick veneer drywall (e.g. Rod Kush). With relatively few viable commercial uses, we end up with the wrecking ball again.
As much as I'd love to own, restore, and live in a house like this, it's just not possible as a member of the slowly-dying middle class. It wouldn't have been in 1885 either, but it's still sad to see such a beautiful piece of art destroyed.
I think there is someone out there who could see the value and would be willing to put the money into it, however that person did not come forward and who knows how long it would have taken to find them. I started saving up for it but I’m still about $499,000 short (plus the renovation cost of course).
I won’t say this will be a devastating historic loss to the community, but it reinforces the fact that Omaha has no policies protecting its architectural history. The new Nebraska Historic Tax Credit is a positive step forward, but more steps need to be taken.
There is no petition or protest that will save this building, but objecting sends the message that people care about preservation. Hopefully those people band together to create change.
Why is everyone so afraid of a former mortuary? A little death never hurt anyone… wait…
Thinking there's not a whole lot to say anymore now that people listen & she has to make sense.
Lillian Bean wrote:I think there is someone out there who could see the value and would be willing to put the money into it, however that person did not come forward and who knows how long it would have taken to find them. I started saving up for it but I’m still about $499,000 short (plus the renovation cost of course).
I won’t say this will be a devastating historic loss to the community, but it reinforces the fact that Omaha has no policies protecting its architectural history. The new Nebraska Historic Tax Credit is a positive step forward, but more steps need to be taken.
There is no petition or protest that will save this building, but objecting sends the message that people care about preservation. Hopefully those people band together to create change.
Why is everyone so afraid of a former mortuary? A little death never hurt anyone… wait…
As someone who works around death, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem living in a mortuary. I probably wouldn't make the area where they embalmed the bodies an area to sleep in or spend time alone in, but I would be okay. I would be more concerned that weirdos would try to come in and hold seances and talk to the dead, and unwittingly open a portal a l'enfer.
When fortune smiles on something as violent and ugly as revenge, it seems proof like no other that not only does God exist, you're doing his will.
The house will be open this Saturday from 2-4 pm. I toured this house with Restoration Exchange recently and it is truly amazing. Omaha is losing a work of art that can never be gotten back. The horse barn in the back of the house still has bunks built directly into the walls for the servants to sleep. The third floor has a fireplace so big you can walk into it. The entire house has an early form of air conditioning where cool air was pushed in between walls - it is really amazing.
While I agree that Omaha has been lousy and continues to disappoint when it comes to preservation, I disagree that we do not have laws in place to protect historic places. If a building is designated as an Omaha Landmark, it requires several hearings before it can be torn down. If people in Omaha valued historic properties, this is all the protection these buildings would need. People do not value preservation here, therefore their elected representatives do not value preservation, and as a result these places get torn down. In the not too distant future, we will be taking trips to Des Moines to look at the beautiful historic architecture because ours will be gone.
This building was not landmarked, and although the Clarinda was landmarked and still torn down, the parties were different. In that case, preservationists and neighborhood leaders were matched up against Mutual. The playing field was not even. If this house had been landmarked, I think preservationists would have had a good chance of saving it.
Really, it comes down to the values of the people who live in this city. Are we a city that values historic places and beautiful architecture? Do we want our city to have an identity unique from others? I think Omaha's track record in the last few months speaks for itself. Will the action of bulldozing this house be viewed as a good move by the people living here in 50 years? - I seriously doubt it.
lowplainsdrifter wrote:The house will be open this Saturday from 2-4 pm. I toured this house with Restoration Exchange recently and it is truly amazing. Omaha is losing a work of art that can never be gotten back. The horse barn in the back of the house still has bunks built directly into the walls for the servants to sleep. The third floor has a fireplace so big you can walk into it. The entire house has an early form of air conditioning where cool air was pushed in between walls - it is really amazing.
While I agree that Omaha has been lousy and continues to disappoint when it comes to preservation, I disagree that we do not have laws in place to protect historic places. If a building is designated as an Omaha Landmark, it requires several hearings before it can be torn down. If people in Omaha valued historic properties, this is all the protection these buildings would need. People do not value preservation here, therefore their elected representatives do not value preservation, and as a result these places get torn down. In the not too distant future, we will be taking trips to Des Moines to look at the beautiful historic architecture because ours will be gone.
This building was not landmarked, and although the Clarinda was landmarked and still torn down, the parties were different. In that case, preservationists and neighborhood leaders were matched up against Mutual. The playing field was not even. If this house had been landmarked, I think preservationists would have had a good chance of saving it.
Really, it comes down to the values of the people who live in this city. Are we a city that values historic places and beautiful architecture? Do we want our city to have an identity unique from others? I think Omaha's track record in the last few months speaks for itself. Will the action of bulldozing this house be viewed as a good move by the people living here in 50 years? - I seriously doubt it.
What would you propose be done with the building if it weren't to be torn down and the property redeveloped? I hear a lot of people talking about saving these beautiful old structures, but for what purpose? I don't hear a lot of suggestions as to what the building could be used for other than a mortuary. I agree that it is a really cool building, however I think that in 50 years people would rather have a redeveloped property than a vacant/delapidated old house. Without a viable use for the property it will sit vacant and after a few years of that it will cease to contribute the beauty to the neighborhood that it once did.
There is something to be said for valuing historic places and beautiful places, however I think that the new use will be valuable to the neighborhood and to the city. I think that the contribution that the new development brings to the neighborhood - a rowhouse development with a focus on creating opportunity for community - will be a huge benefit for the area and will help to encourage more revitalization in the neighborhood.
The only thing I can think of would be to make it a museum similar to the Dodge House in CB. They could restore the house to include period details and furnishings. If this was just an old house, it may not be worth saving, but because it was built for one of Omaha's first businessmen and founder of First National Bank (which is the largest privately held bank in the country) I know it sounds crazy, but maybe First National could put a few bucks into it to make it happen.
lowplainsdrifter wrote:The house will be open this Saturday from 2-4 pm. I toured this house with Restoration Exchange recently and it is truly amazing. Omaha is losing a work of art that can never be gotten back. The horse barn in the back of the house still has bunks built directly into the walls for the servants to sleep. The third floor has a fireplace so big you can walk into it. The entire house has an early form of air conditioning where cool air was pushed in between walls - it is really amazing.
While I agree that Omaha has been lousy and continues to disappoint when it comes to preservation, I disagree that we do not have laws in place to protect historic places. If a building is designated as an Omaha Landmark, it requires several hearings before it can be torn down. If people in Omaha valued historic properties, this is all the protection these buildings would need. People do not value preservation here, therefore their elected representatives do not value preservation, and as a result these places get torn down. In the not too distant future, we will be taking trips to Des Moines to look at the beautiful historic architecture because ours will be gone.
This building was not landmarked, and although the Clarinda was landmarked and still torn down, the parties were different. In that case, preservationists and neighborhood leaders were matched up against Mutual. The playing field was not even. If this house had been landmarked, I think preservationists would have had a good chance of saving it.
Really, it comes down to the values of the people who live in this city. Are we a city that values historic places and beautiful architecture? Do we want our city to have an identity unique from others? I think Omaha's track record in the last few months speaks for itself. Will the action of bulldozing this house be viewed as a good move by the people living here in 50 years? - I seriously doubt it.
What would you propose be done with the building if it weren't to be torn down and the property redeveloped? I hear a lot of people talking about saving these beautiful old structures, but for what purpose? I don't hear a lot of suggestions as to what the building could be used for other than a mortuary. I agree that it is a really cool building, however I think that in 50 years people would rather have a redeveloped property than a vacant/delapidated old house. Without a viable use for the property it will sit vacant and after a few years of that it will cease to contribute the beauty to the neighborhood that it once did.
There is something to be said for valuing historic places and beautiful places, however I think that the new use will be valuable to the neighborhood and to the city. I think that the contribution that the new development brings to the neighborhood - a rowhouse development with a focus on creating opportunity for community - will be a huge benefit for the area and will help to encourage more revitalization in the neighborhood.
Agreed. People like "LowPlainsDrifter" want to condemn the "values" of this community? This property had the opportunity to be purchased and did not sell - likely because it was a former mortuary. Purchasing something in order to let it just rot into nothingness should not be a priority for this city. If it was so incredibly important to keep this property, then people like LowPlainsDrifter should put forth the dough to rehab it instead of chastise the city.
I love old architecture and restoration as much as most people on this site...but this is an instance where this was a goner unless another mortuary purchased it. Restoration is great but there is still a commercial aspect to it. You want to save everything? Do it on your dime.
If that was the case, the Old Market wouldn't exist, the Durham would have been torn down, the Burlington gone, the old library building destroyed, the Omaha National Bank building leveled, the Paxton completely gone. Preservation is all about the sentiments that buildings and events have left on an area. If we were to forget about everything that has sentiment, we would have no historical base at all.
There's things with sentiment that can be saved and re-used, and there's things with sentiment that can't be re-used. Hoarding with buildings isn't very productive and produces a lot of rotting buildings that are falling apart and creating eyesores. Appreciate it for what it was, what it is, and what will happen for the future.
When fortune smiles on something as violent and ugly as revenge, it seems proof like no other that not only does God exist, you're doing his will.
If that was the case, the Old Market wouldn't exist, the Durham would have been torn down, the Burlington gone, the old library building destroyed, the Omaha National Bank building leveled, the Paxton completely gone. Preservation is all about the sentiments that buildings and events have left on an area. If we were to forget about everything that has sentiment, we would have no historical base at all.
I think it is a mistake to believe that those things still exist soley because of sentimentality. Those things, namely the Paxton & Old Market exist in their current state because, in addition to being historic, they had a use that was profitable.
RNcyanide wrote:There's things with sentiment that can be saved and re-used, and there's things with sentiment that can't be re-used. Hoarding with buildings isn't very productive and produces a lot of rotting buildings that are falling apart and creating eyesores. Appreciate it for what it was, what it is, and what will happen for the future.
I agree that not every building needs to be saved, but this house is one of Omaha's first mansions that was built for the founder of one of its first businesses. Overall, the house sounds like it is in really good shape structurally. I could see if structurally it needed a lot work or wasn't feasible, but outside of removing some lead paint and asbestos, it could be an amazing museum to the craftsmanship of the millwork that was given to elite homes of the time.
If that was the case, the Old Market wouldn't exist, the Durham would have been torn down, the Burlington gone, the old library building destroyed, the Omaha National Bank building leveled, the Paxton completely gone. Preservation is all about the sentiments that buildings and events have left on an area. If we were to forget about everything that has sentiment, we would have no historical base at all.
I think it is a mistake to believe that those things still exist soley because of sentimentality. Those things, namely the Paxton & Old Market exist in their current state because, in addition to being historic, they had a use that was profitable.
Yes, but at one time, they were all thought to be useless and faced being demolished before their potential was realized. Every one of those structures wouldn't be there today if not for the foresight and vision of a few.
As far as profitable uses, just because it might not be a good fit for apartments or commercial offices, doesn’t mean there aren’t any. In my mind, this structure is similar to Joslyn Castle (but smaller). Joslyn was once OPS headquarters and now is a wonderful space for private events and they rent out some small office spaces. Or a bed and breakfast? You might say, who would want to stay at a former mortuary? There are many famous hotels that market themselves to people specifically wanting to experience places like this, including potential “supernatural” experiences.
Say there is a profitable use for this building if it remained… The bottom line is it’s MORE profitable to tear it down and build new housing. And money wins.
Thinking there's not a whole lot to say anymore now that people listen & she has to make sense.
Lillian Bean wrote:As far as profitable uses, just because it might not be a good fit for apartments or commercial offices, doesn’t mean there aren’t any. In my mind, this structure is similar to Joslyn Castle (but smaller). Joslyn was once OPS headquarters and now is a wonderful space for private events and they rent out some small office spaces. Or a bed and breakfast? You might say, who would want to stay at a former mortuary? There are many famous hotels that market themselves to people specifically wanting to experience places like this, including potential “supernatural” experiences.
Say there is a profitable use for this building if it remained… The bottom line is it’s MORE profitable to tear it down and build new housing. And money wins.
Cities on the east coast and Europe show us what can be done with old buildings - the options are endless. There is an ordinance in Savannah, GA that you cannot tear buildings down in the downtown area. The result is increased tourism dollars. They have managed to find uses for those buildings. I am not necessarily "condemning" the values of the people who commented above, obviously reasonable minds can differ in taste. What I am saying is that people in Omaha do not value historic preservation to the extent of people in other communities. Love the discussion above, I think it is important that Omaha have these discussions because of the impact redevelopment is having in Midtown and Downtown Omaha. That being said, to suggest that I personally buy every property that should be saved is ridiculous. That is the same as me saying that you should buy the Wall Street Tower site and build a skyscraper if you have a problem with the decision making that has gone into that situation. It is an absurd position to take.
lowplainsdrifter wrote: Love the discussion above, I think it is important that Omaha have these discussions because of the impact redevelopment is having in Midtown and Downtown Omaha.
There are some good discussions going on here. I appreciate reading all of the different view points. A few more random thoughts...
If enough voters agree, maybe the city (or state) should consider passing some new laws or offer some new incentives to encourage more historic preservation, such as a permanent property tax discount or exemption for properties listed on the National Register. That designation would control what is considered "historic", since it would have to be more significant than just being old. There are already credits for re-habbing historical properties.
Another thing that would help soften the blow when we lose historic buildings is that we need to have higher standards on what can be built as a replacement. The aesthetic and physical quality of the replacement needs to equal or exceed what was there before. Aesthetics can be very subjective, but quality is universal. It starts getting touchy when neighbors can control the aesthetics of their neighborhood...not sure we should go there, although it happens all the time with covenants in new neighborhood developments.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings" ...and then they were gone.
lowplainsdrifter wrote:Cities on the east coast and Europe show us what can be done with old buildings - the options are endless. There is an ordinance in Savannah, GA that you cannot tear buildings down in the downtown area. The result is increased tourism dollars. They have managed to find uses for those buildings. I am not necessarily "condemning" the values of the people who commented above, obviously reasonable minds can differ in taste. What I am saying is that people in Omaha do not value historic preservation to the extent of people in other communities. Love the discussion above, I think it is important that Omaha have these discussions because of the impact redevelopment is having in Midtown and Downtown Omaha. That being said, to suggest that I personally buy every property that should be saved is ridiculous. That is the same as me saying that you should buy the Wall Street Tower site and build a skyscraper if you have a problem with the decision making that has gone into that situation. It is an absurd position to take.
Agree 100% with this entire post. Interesting policy in Savannah. Do you or anyone else know of other cities which have ordinances which support preservation? I'm just curious what is out there. Is it appropriate to create a thread about preservation? I'm not sure how this site works exactly...
Thinking there's not a whole lot to say anymore now that people listen & she has to make sense.
GetUrban wrote:There are some good discussions going on here. I appreciate reading all of the different view points. A few more random thoughts...
If enough voters agree, maybe the city (or state) should consider passing some new laws or offer some new incentives to encourage more historic preservation, such as a permanent property tax discount or exemption for properties listed on the National Register. That designation would control what is considered "historic", since it would have to be more significant than just being old. There are already credits for re-habbing historical properties.
Another thing that would help soften the blow when we lose historic buildings is that we need to have higher standards on what can be built as a replacement. The aesthetic and physical quality of the replacement needs to equal or exceed what was there before. Aesthetics can be very subjective, but quality is universal. It starts getting touchy when neighbors can control the aesthetics of their neighborhood...not sure we should go there, although it happens all the time with covenants in new neighborhood developments.
The state is providing $15 million in tax credits each year from 2015-2018 for historic designated buildings rehab/restoration.
GetUrban wrote:
Another thing that would help soften the blow when we lose historic buildings is that we need to have higher standards on what can be built as a replacement. The aesthetic and physical quality of the replacement needs to equal or exceed what was there before.
As evidenced by:
Last edited by RNcyanide on Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
When fortune smiles on something as violent and ugly as revenge, it seems proof like no other that not only does God exist, you're doing his will.
MTO wrote:Efficiency and density should be our top priorities not novelty.
Sounds like Moscow in the 20th century. ...or Pruitt Igoe in 1960's St. Louis.
"Novelty" is not really a good description of what people want to preserve with historic preservation. Heritage, Culture would be more accurate descriptors.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings" ...and then they were gone.
As long as it's efficient and dense as the original its illogical to replace. It's not as esoteric as you all are making it. Culture, well culture is a manifest of many things and one of them is change.
The definition of culture as it relates to historic preservation is this:
"The arts, beliefs, customs, institutions, and other products of human work and thought considered as a unit, especially with regard to a particular time or social group."
If the utility and purpose of the original structure, as a large single-family residence for a wealthy individual was still in demand in that location today, it would most likely be saved. ...if that's what you're getting at. It had that mortuary thing working against it though.
He said "They are some big, ugly red brick buildings" ...and then they were gone.
lowplainsdrifter wrote:to suggest that I personally buy every property that should be saved is ridiculous. That is the same as me saying that you should buy the Wall Street Tower site and build a skyscraper if you have a problem with the decision making that has gone into that situation.
Actually both statements sound about right to me . . . But then that's just me. Government can have a role but ultimately the marketplace will decide.
My old signature got too old. So old it was getting almost as old me as me. Yeah, it was up there in years.
lowplainsdrifter wrote:to suggest that I personally buy every property that should be saved is ridiculous. That is the same as me saying that you should buy the Wall Street Tower site and build a skyscraper if you have a problem with the decision making that has gone into that situation.
You're doing the exact same thing with respect to the taxpayers of Omaha.
"Any old building that I personally deem to be worth saving should be saved even if an investor isn't found."
The idea that the taxpayers are simply a source of infinite money for whatever we want is the critical failure point for all statist philosophies.
The building has staggering woodwork. It is across the street from the oldest church in Omaha. It also has no yard and is in a commercial district. Most people with the money to do this, want different things. The building couldn't sell in that market. That's sad. If the people who want to preserve it can raise the bucks, good for them. Otherwise this is a private matter.
Now, hopefully the people who design the townhomes will look up and down the street, at the huge church across the street, the stone masonry on the other church down the street, and build to fit the area rather than build some crapshack that looks out of place. Do we need zoning laws to prevent that? The recent Eco building would be a strong argument in favor. Those builders should have a hard time getting approval for a new project after that eyesore.
The role of govt is to be the referee, not the coach or player. To enforce code, not to force others to fund stuff that others who have more ability to scream louder force down their throats.
lowplainsdrifter wrote:to suggest that I personally buy every property that should be saved is ridiculous. That is the same as me saying that you should buy the Wall Street Tower site and build a skyscraper if you have a problem with the decision making that has gone into that situation.
You're doing the exact same thing with respect to the taxpayers of Omaha.
"Any old building that I personally deem to be worth saving should be saved even if an investor isn't found."
I apologize for the confusion; perhaps my writing was inadequate. The quote above is not from me and does not represent my position. I would never intend to suggest that the government enact a regulatory taking because I think a building should be saved. I don't even think that I would be qualified to judge which buildings should and should not be saved.
I do believe in reasonable restrictions on private property owners and that would include restrictions on the owners of historic properties, assuming that they purchased the property subject to the historic designation and restrictions - in other words that the purchaser came to the purchase fully aware of the restrictions. The United States Supreme Court agrees with me. The Mortuary did not have a historic designation when it was purchased by Clarity Development - thus, preservationists do not have a legal means of saving the building (I pointed this out above). In my personal opinion, the new development will not be an improvement for the city in the long term. By holding such an opinion, I do not mean to suggest that the taxpayers should be forced to purchase the building. I also do not think that by holding such an opinion I should be reduced to either (a) buying the building myself or (b) not expressing my opinion in public.
