Quote:
Originally Posted by gasman
I can't believe people are taking the city's side on this, this is completely crazy to me. Do you think because someone has commercial property they have an endless amount of cash or credit to just "realize the opportunity".
It is their property, the zoning hasn't changed, why should they have to accept anything.
They owned a property, the zoning allows the building, the owners have insurance. The insurance will replace the building - same as before not something different, not something bigger. And you guys are ok with the city just coming in and saying, "actually we changed our mind, you can't rebuild the same building, you need to come up with a few extra million and see this as an opportunity to invest." People should be outraged - this is private property, not public property.
If the city wants to change their mind, they need to make the owners completely whole, buying the lot at full fair market value as if the building were still there in the same shape.
|
But even private property has limitations - you simply can't build whatever you want on private property. A lot has changed in the decades since this building was built, and it is foolish to think that the exact same type of development fits in the present day. And especially in the future with the Green Line.
I absolutely sympathize with the owners. They are also "...being treated terribly by their insurance company" according to Corbella, without giving us any further information. But based on the way that the article is structured, Corbella had just one villain in mind. I won't go as far as to defend Druh Farrell for everything, but I do think that the city needs to be forward-thinking with new developments.
All I am saying is that what worked decades ago doesn't necessarily work in the future. Remember that a columnist that has made a career of painting this as black and white as possible has done just that, leaving a giant area of grey being complete ignored. What has the insurance been willing or unwilling to do? What has the city been willing or unwilling to do? Has there been any attempt at a compromise between the three parties? Could the insurance company compensate for the lost building? Could the city compromise with drive through access from the side street (it is on a corner)?
But what we got was: "1960s-style development rejected in 2021. Druh bad."
And, for what its worth, I'd be fine with the city buying them out. I would hope that the insurance company would come through and compensate for their loss as well, while allowing a modern development there.