'Slum Houses' Complaints

I can understand someone not wanting to maintain that old building. Maintain it for what? It's an old frame shack at Church St. and Lawyers Rd. between the post office and an old church building... not exactly a prime residence worth salvaging. The Town ought to allow that lot to be redeveloped. Instead, they waste our tax dollars on a legal defense to let it continue beyond its time. Suggesting we need home owner association type regulations to FORCE the owner to maintain a dead house at that busy commercial location is insult to injury.

So is the desire to rezone the lot commercial? So the owner is letting the property deteriorate by not even undertaking basic upkeep? Is that the intent of the lawsuit?

The intent of the lawsuit is to make sure that Maud and her cronies obey the basics of the U.S. Constitution. At this time they are abusing basic property rights.

Nothing requiring a building permit can be done to that house without approvals from a historic review board. That review board has no rules or guidelines - leaving citizens in limbo as to what will be approved or not. Have you ever tried to appear before a government review board to win approval at the same time knowing they have no rules? Vienna has made the process subjective, nothing is objective. Your anger is directed at the wrong parties. Why not direct it at Maud and her cronies?

Or were you only interested in the issue to the extent you could make a quick post, sound 'smart' and walk away when you were corrected?

Pierce's point is valid. What does the lawsuit have to do with keeping your property decent. Do you need a bldg. permit to pick up the trash/junk and replace broken windows in that place? By the way, we all love the renters that blast music and hang out drinking on the porch. It seems that the color of the house and the lack of upkeep are ways to rub the towns nose in your whole "no rules" crusade, right?

The lawsuit moves forward and in due time, as the Town delay tactics fade, it will be resolved. In the mean time, we continue to learn all about the Town's leaders...Cole and Bukont's incestuous money exchange, the Mayor hanging out at her son's racist blog and Queen Maud, who has held her self out as some peasant farmer devoid of money for 50 years...turns out she is loaded $. Pierce's supporter...solve the historic district abuses before you go blaming residents for wrongdoing.

In terms of what is permitted and or not permitted...no one really knows. It is a moving target. We tried asking before...and here is an example of the responses we received. I bet you are going to tell us that he was 'provoked' into acting like an abusive fool?

You write in to complain about a property in the Town that is in the middle of litigation over basic property rights? Not once do you even acknowledge those abuses? You write in with your subjective view about that property demanding aesthetic fixes all the while the Town has violated the owner's rights? The only person in the Town arrogant enough to make these demands? Maud. Or one of Maud's cronies after drinking a gallon of Kool-Aid.

I agree with Pierce and his supporter. In fact since this house is in the Historic District there should have been some guidelines to preserve the house. But since this is not the case, the house has fallen by the way of the majority of Historic Structures in Vienna. It will either be torn down or re-made into something that does come close to its original structure. As for the purple house I can remember its previous owners having motorcycles and trucks on the lawn. Again had there been some guidelines and some actual caring of historical properties this could and would not happen. As it is today this is a Historic District in name and Club only.

But the House was bought in 2003? It was in the Historic District then. Hard to be sympathetic to the arguement that anyone's rights are being violated when they bought with their eyes open.

You must be joking? Eyes wide open to what? That Vienna runs a scam to abuse property rights? FYI, this property went through the Town process to be removed from the District and was denied.

At the end of the day, this is about petty jealousies. There are several weenies in this Town not happy about their lot in life (Two Examples: 1 and 2). These people would have you believe that just because someone else has more perceived wealth than them, those same people should have fewer rights under the Constitution. Brilliant logic isn't? Several of the people who contribute to this web site are proud to have made millions. Those millions are the result of hard work and elbow grease - not whining. If you are unhappy that you don't have all that you want, then work harder. However, be careful when you start trampling other's rights to show your unhappiness, you might just get hit in the lip by your own misguided boomerang.

Huh???? Petty jealousies?? I have only seen "wealth" raised as an issue against Maud and some town builders, and not vice versa. This may be about alot of things, but find it hard to fathom that petty jealousies is the one thing this is all about. And by the way, I don't disagree the historic district is a bad idea. It is elitist and pretentious and reflects very little historic context. Do I like the walk on the Hill, sure! Do I think condos or oversized McMansions are inappropriate in a residetial neighborhood? Sure. But why should that neighborhood have any more protection than my neighorhood of 1950's ranches? Do I like seeing neglected and possibly hazardous property in the town? No. Rents are being collected on that property. SHAME on the owners for not at putting some of that towards basic upkeep.

Yes, this is about petty jealousies on one level. There are minutes in the official Town record from elected leaders and other Town residents about how, and I paraphrase, "that we must keep a fraud of a historic district in place, because someone might get rich." Do your homework. I will grant you that it is a bizarre and seemingly stupid response, but it is a very real stance for some of the power brokers in Vienna.

In terms of shame - shame on you for allowing a government to violate people's rights forcing a court case on an issue that they themselves acknowledge is broken. You should worry about that SHAME first Mr. Pierce.

Aren't you avoiding the issue regarding basic upkeep of your properties - that's what this post is about. Other posts can rail on about abuses and property rights, and the Constitution (which article mentions fence color?) but they have nothing to do with fixing your windows and maintaining your property and the structures on it to at least a respectable level (how bout usin' some of that elbow grease). Of course, you shouldn't dare disagree or have a different opinion than the contributors/owner of this site cuz' you're immediately redirected to another topic or mislabeled (as a crony, Maud supporter, racist, etc.).

Seriously, someone is complaining about the house on Lawyers being in disrepair?! Would you like me to do a pictorial of the hundreds of houses in Vienna that look just like that? Face it, you are mad about the house on Lawyers because someone on Town Council told you to be mad about it.

"Face it, you are mad about the house on Lawyers because someone on Town Council told you to be mad about it."

Uhhhh... don't know anyone on the council.... and not mad.

So much for rational and reasonable discourse...

Anybody else notice the lovely purple and green (that I've come to like very much) is now getting covered up with light brown?

There were painters out this morning (25 April '07). By this afternoon, they had the post office side covered and much of the first floor front under the porch.