Denny’s as Historical Landmark | Newsweek National News

Is Googie Good?

Newsweek Web Exclusive

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

« Prev Page

I think the pertinent questions one must ask are the following:
1. Who owns the property?
2. Does the owner have the right to do as they wish with their property or do other people who do NOT own the property have the right to dictate to the owners what they can or cannot do?
The answer to each of these questions is obvious. One can understand the desire to preserve certain locations but the city and/or community activists had the opportunity to do something about it before the land was sold but they chose not to. If a compromise can be come to between the activists and the developer then great but make no mistake, the developer/owner has no onbligation to agree to the demands of those who do not own the property. This isn't a left-wing/right-wing debate...it is simply what is right and what is right is that someone who owns property should have the freedom to develop the property as they see fit. If there were not previous restrictions/covenants in effect when the land was purchased then the developer should be free to do as they please without the threat of legal blackmail for that what this, in effect, is.

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: GregHere @ 03/03/2008 6:04:50 PM

y
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: GregHere @ 03/03/2008 6:02:31 PM

y
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: joeschmoe @ 03/01/2008 12:54:23 AM

I think the pertinent questions one must ask are the following:
1. Who owns the property?
2. Does the owner have the right to do as they wish with their property or do other people who do NOT own the property have the right to dictate to the owners what they can or cannot do?
The answer to each of these questions is obvious. One can understand the desire to preserve certain locations but the city and/or community activists had the opportunity to do something about it before the land was sold but they chose not to. If a compromise can be come to between the activists and the developer then great but make no mistake, the developer/owner has no onbligation to agree to the demands of those who do not own the property. This isn't a left-wing/right-wing debate...it is simply what is right and what is right is that someone who owns property should have the freedom to develop the property as they see fit. If there were not previous restrictions/covenants in effect when the land was purchased then the developer should be free to do as they please without the threat of legal blackmail for that what this, in effect, is.