|
Author
|
Topic: JUST OLD BUILDINGS.
|
firecaptain
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9305
|
posted 27 August 2005 08:50 PM
There was a convent built by nuns many years ago in Windsor. The name of the convent was Glengarda. I am not sure, but I believe it was also a school for a period of time. The point is that a few years back a developer wanted to buy the property which was for sale by the nuns. The nuns wanted to sell the property in order to acquire some funds. Well since the structure was built many years earlier, there were some Windsor citizens who objected to the sale of the property claiming the architecture was from an era which should be preserved and tried to stop the sale of the property. My problem with these citizens objecting with the sale of the property is that it was none of their business what was done with this property. They wanted to have the property declared a historical site, effectively preventing the nuns from being able to sell it or do anything with it for that matter. So here you have a group of nuns who built and owned a piece of property and by virtue of the fact that it was built many years ago they were being denied to sell their own property. Now these very vocal citizens who tried to stop the sale NEVER offered to compensate the nuns at fair market value for their property, but instead complained to City council that they would be denied the ability to view the old structure as they drove past it. And according to them the people of Windsor would all be losing a very important piece of history and that as a result the sale should not be allowed. As far as I am concerned these citizen's had absolutetly NO right to try and stop the legal sale of this property. Why should these nuns have to suffer financially simply because they built this building many years ago. If this property was so important to these citizen's, then they should have compensated the nuns out of their own pockets the fair market value of the property. I bring this particular case up only as an illustration of a previous event which I found to be wrong and which continues to happen to other legal owners of old properties to this day in all parts of Canada. You all know my feelings on this issue and I was wondering what other people think and feel on this issue?
From: southwestern Ontario | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chubbybear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10025
|
posted 27 August 2005 10:15 PM
WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING IN THE THREAD TITLE!!! HUH!!!
quote:
Originally posted by firecaptain:
There was a convent built by nuns many years ago in Windsor....Well since the structure was built many years earlier, there were some Windsor citizens who objected to the sale of the property claiming the architecture was from an era which should be preserved and tried to stop the sale of the property....My problem with these citizens objecting with the sale of the property is that it was none of their business
Sorry, had to get that out. Anyway, you seem to be hedging a little bit here. How old is "many years ago"? Twenty, Two Hundered? What is the architectural style some nameless citizens (presumably some group? - perhaps an historical society which may have some reason for their assertion?) wish to preserve? And no, a building is more than simply a private plaything for the owner, it is also a public entity, and must conform to certain standards, bylaws etc., and in the case of uniquely historic structures, adds value to the municipality as a whole. I'm sorry, but you won't get unconditional support from me, at least until you are a little more forthcoming with the facts. No news coverage, no links? No submissions to City Hall? Anyone chaining themselves to the door?
From: nowhere | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
firecaptain
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9305
|
posted 28 August 2005 12:00 AM
Chubbybear I wasn't asking for your support only stating my opinion and asking what other people's opinions were on the matter. As far as the age of the building, I am not sure but I beleive it was old enough for this group of people to start a campaign to try and prevent to sale of the building. They claimed it represented old architecture that should be preserved. It is not important the specifics of this particular incident. What is important in my opinion is this group of people or any group of people whether they are part of some society or not is their trying to stop the sale of a property by the owner, especially when the owner is the original owner. This building I might add was a private building and as such is not a public entity. Let us not discuss the specifics of this particular case since I was trying to illustrate a point. When a property is built and paid for by private citizens or organizations and they remain the owners, when and if they decide to sell the property they should not be prevented by some historical society because they deem it of historical value. If these groups want to preserve this property, then they should have to pay the market value of the property to the owner. Why should the owner be penalized simply because they retained ownership of a building that was not of any historical value when it was built. When it was built, it was built in the style of the times. Had this property been deemed of historical value, then the owners would have been unable to sell or modify the property in any way. Their property would have been rendered worthless as far as they would be concerned and in fact they probably would have had to spend money to maintain it. Now how fair is that? Like I said previously if these groups want to deem a property historical, then they should ante up and pay the owners the fair market value of the property and in this way they get to keep the property and the owner receives the compensation they deserve. WHAT DO YOU THINK?
From: southwestern Ontario | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 28 August 2005 01:57 AM
some points to consider:
- The RCC isn't famous for its financial support of minor monastic groups - or parishes, for that matter.
- Abuses committed by one member of a religion ought not to affect our judgement of another member of that religion, let alone an entire order against which there have been no accusations of wrongdoing.
- Generally, nuns don't get 'a free ride'; they teach, nurse, take care of old people... do a lot of things that government ought to be doing and isn't. They don't pay taxes, because they don't get wages - this works out a lot cheaper for government than providing the service.But the original question was not about these particular nuns, whatever their moral failures or credits might be. Legally, they own the building. Legally, they should be allowed to dispose of it any way they want to.
If a historical society, or any group of citizens, takes a fancy to it and wants to preserve it, that group is free buy it.
If the historical society had taken an interest before somebody else made an offer, they could have had it for a lower price. If the city had wanted it for a day-care center or other worthy purpose, the city could have bought it at any time in the past 30 years.
Fact is, they did not take an interest.
Too bad.
The building may be pretty, but far too expensive to renovate, so neither the city nor the historical society is prepared to ante up. The developer will demolish it. Sad, but that's what happens to most old buildings. If somebody took a fancy to my house and was willing to buy it at a fair price, fine. Once i'd sold it, it would be none of my business whether they renovated ot razed it.
They certainly have no right to force me to live in a house i can't afford to maintain, just because it's old.
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
firecaptain
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9305
|
posted 28 August 2005 09:06 PM
QUOTE] anne cameron wrote - I think "fair market value" would have to include the fact that the nuns probably never paid taxes...so if they are going to sell this building the unpaid taxes should come due and that would allow the city to give them some money for their building but not have to pay through the nose for it. I'm sure the nuns, with their vow of poverty, chastity, and obedience, didn't pay for the building themselves, didn't build it with their own hands, basically got it for next best thing to free and shouldn't expect a huge profit after years of free loading.
Some buildings probably should be preserved... a city owned historic building would make a great place for a non-profit daycare centre...or emergency housing for the homeless... I admit I'm biases. I figure the RC church has ripped it off in strips for centuries...and the RC church has too much to answer for with regard to abuse of residential school kids for any RC group to walk off with a large profit... and I'd feel that way if it was Anglican, United or Salvation Army [/QUOTE] Actually I agree with you on the fact that the nuns probably paid little or nothing for the building and even if they did pay for the property they might have paid no taxes or possibly very little taxes. The point I was trying to make was the preventing of a person who owns a property to sell it. I think it is wrong for any group to prevent the legal owner of any property from selling or altering a property because this group considers the property of some historical value. If this group of people are concerned, then they should buy it themselves and not interfere with an owners right to dispose of their property any way they see fit. If they choose not to pay the owner the fair market value of the property they have no right to interfere with the sale. Why should the owner suffer finacial loss simply because he or she owns an old building, which probably does not meet code anyway.
From: southwestern Ontario | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402
|
posted 28 August 2005 11:18 PM
quote:
Monetary compensation for preservation of an historical building can be worked out later,
Maybe. Maybe not. Who is paying for maintenance, heating, security, etc. while it's being "worked out"? Where is the owner supposed to live in the meantime? And on what?I know of a case where the owner of a house was prevented for several years from remodelling or updating, because of historical value. The house was lovely to look at, but uncomfortable to live in, far too big, and expensive to maintain. The family couldn't afford to move without selling first, but could find no buyer willing to abide by the restrictrions.
Finally, such a buyer turned up. In order to finance the extensive period-authentic renovations, they cut down and sold a collection of rare, valuable trees on the property. These were not protected by history. In the end, i believe this is the greater loss.
If anyone here owns a building that might possibly be of historical significance, unload that sucker asap!
From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
chubbybear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10025
|
posted 29 August 2005 12:33 AM
quote:
Originally posted by firecaptain:
AN OWNER WAS NOT ALLOWED TO SELL THEIR PROPERTY BECAUSE IT WAS DEEMED HISTORICAL... someone has been denied the right to sell their property because a group of people deemed it of historical value... the owner has the right to sell or modify their property... the historical society can trump the rights of a legal owner of property
Oh, cap'n, my cap'n. I like you more by the minute. So thoughtful. Just in case we did not understand the point of your first post, you repeated the basic premise over and over, and even emphasised it WITH THE GENEROUS USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS, WHICH IS USUALLY FROWNED ON IN ONLINE CONVERSATION BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE SOMEONE IS SHOUTING. But I know you wouldn't do that. You're just not that kind of guy. Now what was your point again? You say someone "owns a building" and some kind of "historical" society doesn't want them to tear it down like they want to? Is that it? So what I'm hearing is, someone wants to tear down a building. A building that they own. They own the building. How am I doing so far? At one point, I think I heard you say they were the original owners, hm? So I'm wonderin, gee, how historical can this so-called building, which exists in some uncited hypothetical space, be? Unless of course the owner is unusually elderly. Gosh, I'm a little confused. I don't know why someone wants to tear it down, and I don't know why someone wants to preserve it, so I'm going to answer, "yes"!
From: nowhere | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
firecaptain
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9305
|
posted 29 August 2005 12:53 AM
quote:
chubbybear wrote - Oh, cap'n, my cap'n. I like you more by the minute. So thoughtful. Just in case we did not understand the point of your first post, you repeated the basic premise over and over, and even emphasised it WITH THE GENEROUS USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS, WHICH IS USUALLY FROWNED ON IN ONLINE CONVERSATION BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE SOMEONE IS SHOUTING. But I know you wouldn't do that. You're just not that kind of guy. Now what was your point again? You say someone "owns a building" and some kind of "historical" society doesn't want them to tear it down like they want to? Is that it? So what I'm hearing is, someone wants to tear down a building. A building that they own. They own the building. How am I doing so far? At one point, I think I heard you say they were the original owners, hm? So I'm wonderin, gee, how historical can this so-called building, which exists in some uncited hypothetical space, be? Unless of course the owner is unusually elderly. Gosh, I'm a little confused. I don't know why someone wants to tear it down, and I don't know why someone wants to preserve it, so I'm going to answer, "yes"!
First of all it was Cougyr who was asking over and over the same thing and I thought if I shouted I could get his attention and he would understand. Obviously you are easily confused.
From: southwestern Ontario | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477
|
posted 29 August 2005 01:39 AM
firecaptain, you are asking people to judge a case based only on your incomplete and biased reporting. What place, when, and where is the link to more information about it?You see, when Cougyr asks you for more details, what he really means is that he wants more details. For example, if you googled "Glengarda" and "convent" pages from Canada you might have found this discussion of the issue in the Ontario Legislature: Link here. which mentions [more than half way down] the loss of Glengarda, which was demolished and replaced by condominiums. So it was considered important enough to be mentioned and still mourned. Check out this Heritage Resources Centre One page includes this report on the loss of heritage buildings in Ontario, 2002
on this list, with photos of Glengarda being demolished on the title page. [ 29 August 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
