Again, from Flimsies is this former carbarn in Seattle. Does anyone have more info on it? Has anyone from our community stepped forward to help this woman? With all the trolley information that seems to be available, it would seem that someone should be able to provide more history, possibly forestalling demolition by the greedy owner.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134556785_streetcar17m.html
ryarger@rypn.org

> Again, from Flimsies is this former carbarn
> in Seattle. Does anyone have more info on
> it? Has anyone from our community stepped
> forward to help this woman? With all the
> trolley information that seems to be
> available, it would seem that someone should
> be able to provide more history, possibly
> forestalling demolition by the greedy owner.
Dear Bob, you communist, the building is structurally unsound. The person that wants to save it isn't sure if it really is a carbarn or not. "It might have been one." The GREEDY OWNER" has been paying taxes on the parcel for some time, and in fact OWNS it. If you want to save it, put up your money and BUY IT. But don't go around seizing private property because you like it. The GREEDY OWNER has some rights too, like being justly and fairly compensated for the taking of his property. Thank you!


nwstaybolt@reachone.com

> Dear Bob, you communist, the building is
> structurally unsound. The person that wants
> to save it isn't sure if it really is a
> carbarn or not. "It might have been
> one." The GREEDY OWNER" has been
> paying taxes on the parcel for some time,
> and in fact OWNS it. If you want to save it,
> put up your money and BUY IT. But don't go
> around seizing private property because you
> like it. The GREEDY OWNER has some rights
> too, like being justly and fairly
> compensated for the taking of his property.
> Thank you!

Yep, I'll have to chime in with Nathan on this one. Private property rights must take precedence over historic significance. If it is truly historic, try to make your case and raise the money for buying and restoring it. If that can't be done, move on. The article said there were two carbarns left, perhaps the other might be more feasible to save.

I don't think both the terms "greedy owner" and "communist" are appropriate on the list though.

http://www.todengine.org
jrowlands@neo.rr.com

To jump into a hot frying pan here, I'd like to say that it isn't always appropriate for private propperty rights to supercede historic significance. Neither is the reverse always the case. In a structure where the significance is very great, say Pennsylvania Station to pick a case close to all our hearts, then perhaps it is innapropriate to let an "absentee landlord" decide the fate of the structure purely on his own fiscal desires. Now, if the sturcture had been saved through eminant domain, or some other poliucy, then you would be ethically (and legally) obligated to give him fair compensation. The question that this case raises is which interest is the more important. The public interest in historic preservation, or the private interest in greater fiscal compensation. And this is by no means claer to me. This is why we have a court system, to judge this sort of dispute, and if it works, all the factors will be considered.

On the other hand, I do not see any way in which it is innapropriate to aid whicheve side you might happen to favor in research, or argument. Evidence is eveidence, and if it's there, it should be seen. If Mr. Yarger can gather informatoin that supports preservation on this site, isn't he doing exactly what this site is here to support?

Sincerely,
David Ackerman



david_ackerman@yahoo.com

Now, if the sturcture had been saved through eminant domain, or some other poliucy, then you would be ethically (and legally) obligated to give him fair compensation

The kicker is that you will then go to court to determine the difference between "YOUR" appraisal and "THEIR" appraisal. Public entities are in most cases limited to "fair market price". Very expensive years of litigation will result. This is why eminent domain is very rarely used.

lamontdc@adelphia.net