First, thanks to everyone out there for the advice I’ve received over the last several months. Good stuff. Much appreciated
Now, for tonights discussion:
I live in the close-in suburbs of Washington DC. My neighborhood, as you might expect, is quite politically active, and is hell bent on saving every structure ever built prior to 1910. I have some problems with that on the surface, but we’ll let them be for now…..
The historical review board (self-appointed) volunteers carry little legal weight in my locally governed suburb, but a lot of “community gossip” weight – which can be very hurtful to those who disagree wiwth them.
There are three particular residences where virtually everyone agrees that they deserve to be restored. In each case, the properties sit on large tracts of land (in an area where lots of 10,000 s.f. (1/4 acre) are selling for $500,000 each). The owners are not fixing them up or offering them for sale. The common main street opinion is that the owners are eccentrics who are simply waiting for the City Council to loosen the zoning restrictions – at which point they will subdivide and cash in.
It has recently been suggested to me that there is another angle at play. It is theorized that the owners are intenionally foregoing any exterior maintenance in the hope that they can have the properties condemmed, at which point they can demolish and do as they wish.
Do those of you who follow or have experienced such isssues out there in your communities see this as a bonafide strategy?