Your posts: Forum excerpts

Tearing down old houses is about legal rights, not capitalism

Admittedly, I was a little surprised to see my house (until a week or so ago, at least) used as the poster child for the Anderson Drive scrape and upgrade. Setting aside the circumstances which caused us to put the house on the market, the house was as leaveme-be described -- an older, worn-out structure that had outlived its useful life. This was in spite of our Realtor's initial efforts to market the property as a "charming Cape Cod ... inside the beltline" (note to SH -- it wasn't, and hasn't been for a very long time). The level of effort, expense, and energy that would have been required to update and upgrade the existing structure -- given what it was, a small two-bedroom Cape Cod -- would not have been justified. Many of the older homes on and off Anderson Drive west of Hazelwood fit this description. These homes may make a neighborhood pleasant to drive through, but they don't really offer residences comfortable to live in.

This really isn't "capitalism at work," although some of that is in play and it is easy to overemphasize it. It is a lot about property rights which is, perhaps, the governing legal issue.

The memories held in that house, now gone, are retained by us and the two families that preceded us in the residence. The next family that will occupy the new house will build their own. That is what a home is, and should be. That, to me, is what it is all about -- and that would not have been possible with the existing structure. As long as the builder conforms to zoning requirements, and he does, all will be good.

The maple tree in the front yard, planted in 1941 or 1942 by the original owners, will remain. The large black oak tree that shades that backyard and predates any of the construction in the neighborhood will continue to perform its annual gutter-filling drop of leaves. The new owners will retain the shed I built eight years ago. The playground I built for my daughter has been recycled and moved to another house for another child to enjoy.

And I hope the new owners when they move in will enjoy the property as much as we did in our early years there.

-- Thaddeus J. Bara,

Raleigh

Living downtown reduces pollution

Let's look at the bigger picture. If people are willing to move to downtown neighborhoods, and they work in downtown, then they are reducing pollution and fossil fuel consumption. Additionally, these people are reusing land that has already been developed, rather then clearing new forest land. I would rather that the character of a quaint neighborhood be changed slightly than have a forest be cleared for a new housing development. Many cities with run-down city neighborhoods, such as Phoenix, would love to see this trend happen.

Environmentally conscious home builders could donate the existing houses to Nancy Murray (see article, Putting hope into housing, page 1B, June 10, N&O, City & State) of Builders of Hope rather then tear them down.

Revitalization and reuse of city neighborhoods is a great thing!

-- Amy E. Dean,

Cary

Razing houses, raising land values aren't sins

If these homes hold no historical significance, then I'm all for tearing them down. I see nothing wrong with improving properties and raising land values and, quite frankly, it's the property owner's right to do so in my opinion. If I had bought some land in that neighborhood, I would do the same thing. Raleigh is a progressing city, so the reality is these things are going to happen, as they have and continue to happen in many other cities across the country.

-- Kris Guimond,

Raleigh