And a lot of times, it is the busybodies who believe a whole section of town is “their’s” because they CAN control that section of town. Which, unfortunately, can contain YOUR property. Which, unfortunately, the Laconia “Heritage Commission” busybodies do believe it is their right to tell you what you can’t do to your property. They did it a few years ago to an old Victorian building on on Union Ave that had become an eyesore and refused to let the owner tear it down after being empty for a number of years.
Now, they’re at it again. A house in the Weir’s (the resort area in Laconia right on Lake Winnepesaukee where Weir’s Beach is the attraction) has also now been vacant for a few years and the owners have no immediate use for it. In my opinion, as long as they have paid for the property (either outright or with a mortgage), kept it up, and paid the taxes et al, they should be able to do with it as they wish – sell it, move it, or just tear it down.
But here come those busybodies who have NO stake in the property, NO ownership in the property, and haven’t USED the property – but they have taken effective control of someone else’s property. Like here – sad story when owners are reduced to just a “stakeholder” (reformatted, emphasis mine):
Panel unanimously turns thumbs down on Weirs house demolition
LACONIA — The city’s Heritage Commission has turned thumbs down on a request to demolish an historic house in Weirs Beach, meaning at the very least the building will not be torn down anytime soon. The commission voted 5-0 against a request by the owners of a 150-year-old house at 76 Lakeside Ave., who want to tear down the structure. Members of the commission said demolishing the structure, which is close to several other late 19th century buildings which overlook Lake Winnipesaukee, was unnecessary, short-sighted, and would erode the historic character of the area.
“The house opens up the historical character of The Weirs,” commission member Jane Whitehead said, during the hour-long public hearing Wednesday. “It would lose a chunk of its charm” if the building was demolished, she added.
The building’s owners want to tear down the two-story, gingerbread house because it has been vacant for the past three years and, they argue, a single-family residence is not the highest and best use of the land, which is in the Commercial-Resort zone.
In the meantime, these chuckleheads have no skin in the game but have no concerns about how much their decision will cost the owners. Ongoing utility bills, heating, electric, mortgage payments, and taxes. Nor any ongoing maintenance expenses either.
But they have complete control over the property. This is what we’ve come to.
The commission now has 10 days to schedule another meeting with the owners to discuss any alternatives to demolishing the structure, Planning Director Dean Trefethen explained Thursday.
“If at that meeting no agreement is reached the commission has 10 days to decide whether to allow the demolition to proceed, or to petition the City Council for a 60-day extension during which time the commission would attempt to raise funds to save the building or remove it from its present location,” Trefethen said. The City Council has the option to grant or deny that request, Trefethen said. While the commission can delay the demolition of a building that is more than 50 years old, it has no authority to forbid a demolition from taking place.
But in the mean time, they can be complete pains in the butts. More regulation that makes it harder for landlords to manage their business. And the same if you owned that building and you were living in it – the could decide, just because it is old and in a given neighborhood, you effectively has been stripped of being able to do what you want with what you have paid for.
You know what? These people are selfish. If they really thought the building was worth saving, let them buy it themselves. One or another or the whole flock of them – pool their money and put that money where their legal mouths are. But no – they won’t because they are SPECIAL! They are above the fray, they only have the Common Good in mind!
It’s always that good intentions bit that leads to a lessening of the Individual (seems to be a constant theme lately).
In the end, I’m betting they won’t do it on their own. In a more “just world” (yeah , that Leftist phrase that they pull out when THEY want something but ignore it’s implications when THEY are are “unjusting” someone they have judged to be lacking in Common Good behavior.
And a couple of other folks say that the property should be left “as is” simply because THEY just can’t think of a better use for that land than for the purpose it is already set for:
…Robert Ames, who owns property and several businesses in Weirs Beach, spoke against the demolition plan. He said development in that part of the city is difficult because of the short tourist season. He noted commercial buildings which have been torn down in recent years have not been replaced with new businesses, but instead have been paved over for parking. Ames said that the fact that the owners have no specific plans for the property once the building is demolished is particularly worrisome.
Who CARES how long it would take redevelop that lot? Why should HE care – once again, it’s not his. And if the owners want to make parking lots instead of new buildings, isn’t that their decision to make? Yet this bozo believes it his right, too, to not allow the property owners to manage their property themselves.
“If there was a proposal to put something there, then we could make an evaluation if the new use would be an addition to the area,” he said. State Rep. Charlie St. Clair was also concerned by the lack of plans for a new use of the property. “My worry is that it will be a parking lot and will stay that way for a long time,” he said.
There’s a bit more at the link below. So not only are these people saying that the demolition won’t happen, they are already making the call that whatever the “new use” would be, even if it is allowed by the current zoning (Commercial / Resort), THEY have a say in what can be done with that property. Because they are stakeholders in any eventual outcome.
Stakeholder – a term I have come to loathe and anyone who values the Right to Private Property should as well. If we continue down this stakeholder, this “Woke Capitalism”, I can guarantee that the outcome will be just the same if all private property will end up being owned by everyone.
Which, to say, is that there is no Private Property. That Right will have been whittled away, one slice at a time.
Scary times because a lot of slippery slides are popping up all over.
(H/T: Laconia Daily Sun)
