So because the owner of the property, which appeared to be a national property owning corporation for the fraternity’s local chapters, couldn’t, or more likely, didn’t want to see the cultural and architectural significance of the Nichols’ House, and merely wanted to unload the property as quick as possible, their property rights trump all other citizens of Valdosta in regards to our historical/cultural history and what we may wish to preserve? Do private entities, which may not even live here, have carte blanche to run roughshod and do whatever they please in our city irregardless of the interests of the citizens that do?
If you think I have a “lack of true understanding of all pertinent facts of this case,” you are more than free to share with me what those are. Yes, it may have been a “tricky thing” to prevent the owner from turning the property over to a developer to build yet more apartments near VSU, but there was a very real cultural reason for not doing that. If the city played it right, they could have made that a plus for the city. It just seemed to me the CC didn’t see that angle, with the exception of councilman Yost, who unfortunately, IMO, didn’t see the importance of the property in the design of the house.
I do understand that my arguments are more artistic and cultural in nature, much less so financial and economic. I just believe that it is these artistic and cultural that make our city desirable to live in, above the immediate financial and economic arguments. which act in detriment of our long term economic interests. I could easily have seen the Nichols House, preserved and turned into a VSU medical clinic for students living out in that direction from campus.