
SF to developer who tore down landmark house: Rebuild it exactly as it was - realdlee
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/City-requires-property-owner-who-demolished-13467909.php
======
malcolmgreaves
What terrible, one-sided reporting this is. There's not even an attempt to
present anything other than the voice of conservative preservationists.

~~~
jdubz79
thats because there is no other valid opinion on this. the dude violated the
terms of his permit, plain and simple.

~~~
TomMarius
There of course are _many_ valid opinions ranging from fully totalitarian to
fully free/anarchist. Laws have absolutely _nothing_ to do with validity of
opinions. Remember slavery?

~~~
gumby
I think the point of jdubz79's comment was that _regardless_ of what you might
think of conservation and zoning policies, it is unambiguous that the
developer voluntarily entered into an agreement and then grossly and
deliberately violated it.

And even you consider architectural planning some sort of civil rights issue
and this some sort of deliberate protest, his violation is unambiguous.

~~~
TomMarius
I understood that. However: We are definitely not going to change that ruling
- thus talking about the ruling itself or this isolated case is pointless. We
can only talk about opinions.

------
dang
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18695241](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18695241)

------
kayfox
I got prompted 4 times for stuff before I could read the article.

