• OK ... EPineJr, you are right on ... I'll 'jump all over this'. This whole thing is definitely an "ursurpation of property rights by the city government!" There is absolutely no way it can be considered anything else! Would the city council members like to pay the property taxes on these properties they want to control? Any council member who wants to preserve a particular property is more than welcome to go to the owner, make them an offer, and if accepted, start the presentation process as they see fit.

    I admire the efforts and the results of Victoria Preservation but they are doing it with their OWN money because that is what they care about. I say more power to them. I resent, very much, the government sticking their nose into people's private business.

    Note: that another item on the agenda tonight deals with the city's "right" to 'upgrade' a business driveway to what 'they' want it to be, (at city expense). Any driveway the city choses, that has been perfectly serviceable for 50+ years now is 'unsafe' and the city can make it what ever they want ..... even if the property owner is perfectly happy with it and does not want it changed!

    City council ... messing with the property owner is not your job. Please do your job ... Concentrate on fixing the streets and reducing the tax burden.

    April 20, 2010 at 5:58 p.m.
  • I find it interesting that small government supporters have not jumped all over this usurpation of property rights by the city. A 60 day moratorium on tearing down a building held by a private property owner can be seen by those on the right as undue government intervention. Ask Denise Rangel if you can tear down a historic structure if you need to build a water treatment plant on the spot where it stands.

    April 20, 2010 at 11:02 a.m.