So it appears to me that he was just trying to get his property properly zoned. I don’t pretend to know the total story, but to condemn him (as some on this thread have done..not you) is very disrespectful to say the least. If the property around him was already partially zoned commercial I suspect there was much more to this story than meets the eye. Perhaps a councilman or commissioner, or their agent, wanting to pick up a piece of property at a bargain and resell at a profit, a not unheard of ploy.
As far has it being his home I personally believe the zoning that keeps business owners from living in the same quarters as their business has contributed to the rot of the inner cities and the death of “downtown” as a shopping mecca. I have said for years that if you want a viable downtown you’ll have to let people live there! Seems my line of reasoning is finally being given a bit of credence as many cities are converting former offices etc to lofts. But now they cry that there are no grocery stores and other necessary support businesses, of course they are still refusing to allow the owner’s to live above the businesses. If this were to change I think you’d see a rapid revival of our city centers.
I hadn’t read that fact when I expressed surprise that he had any votes. This fact would indicate that the "nay" votes may have been unfair. The poor man may have won in court.
As far has it being his home I personally believe the zoning that keeps business owners from living in the same quarters as their business has contributed to the rot of the inner cities and the death of “downtown” as a shopping mecca. I have said for years that if you want a viable downtown you’ll have to let people live there
Agreed. Living above the grocery store, pizza parlor, or law office, definitely should be allowed in downtowns. It’s an American institution but has sadly been outlawed in many places.