View single post by indy19th
 Posted: Fri Jun 16th, 2006 01:35 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
indy19th
$user_title
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

javal1 wrote: Indy and Steve -

Not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but there's no way such a regulation or law would pass. Many, if not the majority of such structures are in the hands of private individuals. Such a thing would be seen as unreasonable intrusion into private matters. In addition, think of the level of oversight that would be needed, resulting in extra financial burdens for local, state and federal gov't. Not disagreeing with the sentiment at all, but looking at it realistically, I don't see it as feasable. Just my opinion....

 

Well, no one thought that the Supreme Court would rule in favor of broad terms for eminent domain either. ;) Perhaps we could do a "reverse" of how they ruled and show that a house, such as the Jenkins House, could be used to drum up more tourism dollars. (Since their ruling basically stated that property could be taken if the property could be used for greater financial gain.) Hence, the house would HAVE to be saved.

 Close Window