ACtivist trying to force restaurant to not sell

[ecofarm]

Hilarious that the "historical preservationists" aren't heard from as long as the "proper" things are being torn down or put out of sight.

The preservation of historical buildings by various organizations is not new. Didn't you see the TV show 'How I Met your Mother'? How about 'Dharma and Greg'? No, you never heard of preserving historical buildings? Strange.


Let's face it. Let's reveal the elephant in the room. The thread is about false equivalence. It's apology for Confederate monuments. That's all it is. There's no legitimate complaint. That's a stage.

 

[Lutherf]

Pains toy as? That's an interesting turn of phrase.

Well, my autocorrect occasionally feels the need to take certain liberties with the words I type. It should have read "paints you".

 

[ecofarm]

That about sum it up, ecofarm?

Tim-

See post #26. You were merely the first to openly stumble into the OP's intention - false equivalence. The false victim claim is merely a stage for the false equivalence.

 

[ecofarm]

That's crap. According to the article, no petition for designation as a historical property was pursued until the developer filed for their certificate of non-historical status. The designation as a historical property would ultimately diminish the owner's equity in the property and should have either been disclosed at the time he made the purchase or he should receive FMV compensation from the city should they approve the designation.

The false victim claim (which is stupid on its face) is merely a stage for the false equivalence that the thread is really about.

 

[Renae]

Well, my autocorrect occasionally feels the need to take certain liberties with the words I type. It should have read "paints you".

Ahh, well if standing up for a property owners rights makes me those things, so be it! Auto Correct be damned! (I thought maybe Pains toy as was some new fangled meme see.)

 

[ecofarm]

Ahh, well if standing up for a property owners rights makes me those things, so be it!

That's premature.

 

[veritas1]

The preservation of historical buildings by various organizations is not new. Didn't you see the TV show 'How I Met your Mother'? How about 'Dharma and Greg'? No, you never heard of preserving historical buildings? Strange.

I've heard of preserving historical buildings. I've also heard of preserving historical monuments, artwork, etc. This diner may or may not be worth preserving. Seems like people suddenly got interested when they saw how much money the guy was getting. People should not be allowed to designate a property as a historic landmark only after they get wind of development plans. If this building is so historically significant, they could have sought the designation anytime over the last 20 years.

 

[ecofarm]

I've heard of preserving historical buildings. I've also heard of preserving historical monuments, artwork, etc. This diner may or may not be worth preserving. Seems like people suddenly got interested when they saw how much money the guy was getting. People should not be allowed to designate a property as a historic landmark only after they get wind of development plans. If this building is so historically significant, they could have sought the designation anytime over the last 20 years.

People did get suddenly interested. When they figured it's a way to create a monument thread and deny it.

 

[snakestretcher]

That's why it's here and not in a breaking news higher up. My problem with this is that the property owner, is being denied the right to his property, he's being robbed. LT can believe the city will "give fair market value" all he wants, we'll see if that pans out, something tells me he'll get about a 1/10th of that at best.

Probably like the poor bastards Trump will force to sell their land for his vanity wall project.

 

[Renae]

That's premature.

What are you on about? No one is saying there isn't historical preservation, however, the owner of the "historical" establishment should have the final say. If he wants to sell his property... why shouldn't he? He built the business, he made an investment in time, effort and money and he's going to be denied? That's, wrong.

 

[Renae]

Probably like the poor bastards Trump will force to sell their land for his vanity wall project.

Trump lives rent free in your brainpan.

 

[ecofarm]

What are you on about?

You employed your hedge too soon. Way too soon.

 

[jimbo]

I would expect the city would have to buy him out at fair market values in order to prevent him from selling to a developer


I know the city can not issue development permits for the place, but if sold the new owner does not need to keep it open, nor maintain it to a high standard, turning it into an eyesore in few years, that i would doubt Denver would want.

If the neighbors want to keep the current restaurant in place, offer 4.9 and run it themselves. Otherwise it should be marketed to its highest and best use.

Denver's rezoning master plan apparently rezoned to mixed use. This future use apparently coincides with the rezoning plan. The idea that a 25 or 30 million dollar project can be held up because someone can't be bothered finding a new place to buy coffee is silly, but it happens. I've worked a few. What typically happens is the city if it refuses a legitimate plan, it gets sued and loses. Then pays a huge settlement and the project goes forward.

 

[snakestretcher]

Trump lives rent free in your brainpan.

Wow, did you hurt yourself having to think that one up? Nosebleed from the strain?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

That's crap. According to the article, no petition for designation as a historical property was pursued until the developer filed for their certificate of non-historical status. The designation as a historical property would ultimately diminish the owner's equity in the property and should have either been disclosed at the time he made the purchase or he should receive FMV compensation from the city should they approve the designation.

Denver preservation planners review all permit applications for total demolition, including those for structures not considered historic. This requirement helps preserve Denver’s history by giving the community an opportunity to protect buildings that prove to have historic, architectural and geographical significance. Properties that prove not to be historic are cleared to seek a total demolition permit. If a review reveals that a property may qualify for historic designation, total demolition may not be allowed.

Demolition & CNHS Review

These same activists note that a 2008/2009 survey marked Tom's Diner as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, and the Historic Denver Guidebook includes an entry on the building.

Neighborhood Activists Would Rather Preserve Tom’s Diner Than Let Its Owner Retire in Peace – Reason.com


It certainly looks like that site had some historical significance to Denver considering it was part of the Historic Denver Guidebook.

It also seems like this issue is common enough in Denver that they have a system in place to designate a building as having non historic status.

 

[veritas1]

People did get suddenly interested. When they figured it's a way to create a monument thread and deny it.

Huh? What has that got to do with what I said? This is in the news. That makes it ripe for discussion.

 

[veritas1]

Probably like the poor bastards Trump will force to sell their land for his vanity wall project.

Hey, look on the bright side. You'll be able to whine about Boris Johnson after the next election. Heck, you may as well start now.

 

[snakestretcher]

Hey, look on the bright side. You'll be able to whine about Boris Johnson after the next election.:lamo

He's just as incompetent as the cretin you elected; and we, the people, didn't elect him, the conservative party membership did.

 

[Lutherf]

Demolition & CNHS Review

Neighborhood Activists Would Rather Preserve Tom’s Diner Than Let Its Owner Retire in Peace – Reason.com


It certainly looks like that site had some historical significance to Denver considering it was part of the Historic Denver Guidebook.

It also seems like this issue is common enough in Denver that they have a system in place to designate a building as having non historic status.

And if the city chooses to designate a building as being historical and no longer eligible for demolition they need to compensate the owner at FMV for the resulting decrease in equity. The effect is no different than exercising Eminent Domain.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

And if the city chooses to designate a building as being historical and no longer eligible for demolition they need to compensate the owner at FMV for the resulting decrease in equity. The effect is no different than exercising Eminent Domain.

Which is something I have mentioned previously in this thread

 

[veritas1]

He's just as incompetent as the cretin you elected; and we, the people, didn't elect him, the conservative party membership did.

What are you going to do when he gets re-elected? Heck, how about Nigel Farage? That would probably give you an aneurysm.:lol:

 

[jimbo]

I would expect the city would have to buy him out at fair market values in order to prevent him from selling to a developer


I know the city can not issue development permits for the place, but if sold the new owner does not need to keep it open, nor maintain it to a high standard, turning it into an eyesore in few years, that i would doubt Denver would want.

The city wants the development. That's why the master plan and rezoning.

The new owner is not going to pay millions for a property for the purpose of keeping it vacant.

601 E Colfax is an eyesore. Last time I drove by there were more hookers and dealers than honest citizens. There are also plenty of places to get a cup of coffee. The city wants to clean it up.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

The city wants the development. That's why the master plan and rezoning.

The new owner is not going to pay millions for a property for the purpose of keeping it vacant.

601 E Colfax is an eyesore. Last time I drove by there were more hookers and dealers than honest citizens. There are also plenty of places to get a cup of coffee. The city wants to clean it up.

Then the city does not have to designate it a historic site. It will likely take a year or two, depending on potential lawsuits of course

 

[jimbo]

Then the city does not have to designate it a historic site. It will likely take a year or two, depending on potential lawsuits of course

That's what the fuss is about. As of now it's not, but it's on the potential list.

The actual fuss is about Colfax, a continuous commercial road starting in Golden and extending roughly to the old Stapleton Airport. About 40 miles. As usual the historical society wants it preserved, but not with their money.

 

[snakestretcher]

What are you going to do when he gets re-elected? Heck, how about Nigel Farage? That would probably give you an aneurysm.:lol:

Johnson will be lucky to get through a term (and he wasn't elected but got in on a technicality. Nobody in Britain other than the Conservative Party membership voted for him); if he deals with the Brexit issue as incompetently as both his predecessors Cameron and May did, he's in for a tough time. Farage is a political nobody, doesn't have a seat in Parliament, has little support in Britain and is the least of anyone's concerns, frankly; another one who shouts a lot but has little of substance to offer.