Another One Bites the Dust?

Dittoburg. I don't see much character here. It's an old wood framed victorian with horrible siding one block from a huge NYCHA development, one block from a huge obsolete industrial district, and is surrounded by shacks. Practically any city in the northeast has far superior wood framed houses. Go to Waterbury, New Haven, Newburgh, or a host of other places and you can get the same kind of house cheap.

Obviously, no one thought the building was worth anything.

Posted by: Polemicist at December 5, 2008 11:24 AM

It didn't seem to be YOUR conclusion. If you agree the building is worthless, then what was your point?

Posted by: Polemicist at December 5, 2008 12:20 PM

dittoburg:

Little girls everywhere value ponies, yet one very rarely appears under a Christmas tree. I'm truly sorry the world does not provide endless sunshine and free ice cream. I'm also truly sorry for assuming the context of this discussion is inherently limited by the laws and customs of our nation.

What you're really saying is the house would be highly desired by the "financially disempowered" if they somehow stripped the ownership of the property from a private citizen against his will and somehow find a way to get other people to renovate it by either enslaving them or paying them with plunder.

If you don't respect freedom and property rights, why don't you just leave the country? Most of the world follows your creed. Why stay here?

Posted by: Polemicist at December 5, 2008 2:34 PM

Dittoburg:

For some reason, I seem to recall you previously could formulate a rational argument. Perhaps today you're hung over, or drunk or whatever. So, I'll give you a pass.

I really fail to see how zoning is at all relevant to the "financially disempowered" and their personal valuation of this property. And for the record, I have said on a number of occasions that I only have problems with zoning laws that benefit the few at the expense of the many. And no, in most of the world property rights as we understand them don't exist. That's why the vast majority of the people on this earth live in housing even a Roman from 2,000 years ago would consider a slum. You need to travel more.

Posted by: Polemicist at December 5, 2008 2:55 PM

Babs,

Within the context of the law, the only person whose opinion matters here is the property owner. You can obviously dream sweet dreams all night long if you so choose.

This is not a philosophical discussion of aesthetic value, it IS a financial discussion. Renovating a wreck like this, if it is even possible, requires a variety of products and a lot of labor. How do YOU propose the work gets done?

Posted by: Polemicist at December 5, 2008 3:35 PM

Listen, I really don't have time to discuss how or why property rights are a major, if not the major, reason why some countries are successful and most are not. I also don't have the time to discuss basic supply and demand economics.

My point is the owner of this property had the thing on the market for quite a while and it ultimately sold for what amounts to land value.

Typically dittoburg, I dismiss marxist rhetoric such as your own. To me, it is either banal chatter or if the mob is roused, a call to arms. You seem to think it was either in the best interest of society as a whole, or a specific subset, to renovate this home rather than demolish it. If this is merely a commiseration, where people bemoan the fact the house is no longer habitable, so be it. My participation is done. If however things could have been done differently, let's hear your plan.

Posted by: Polemicist at December 5, 2008 4:41 PM