Comments on: The Doctrine of Estoppel

By: Ben McD

Ben McD — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:41:52 +0000

Is it possible that Freudenheim’s actions over the last 20 years were the most logical concerning the building?

By: mike

mike — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 01:34:04 +0000

They should of just used the building what it was intended for a stable. The smell would of be great payback, then they could of offered horse driven cab rides.

By: Eric P.

Eric P. — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:32:22 +0000

They could’ve used the entire first floor as parking area(s) and developed the 2 upper floors. Also, 400k asking price tells me they weren’t too serious about selling it. A “For Sale” sign and an absurd asking price don’t, in my mind, constitute “having the property on the market”. I know it was not listed in the MLS.

In my opinion, the folks who owned it are (allegedly) shitheads. This is an interesting building that they let deteriorate. If it ultimately gets demo’d, I certainly hope they have to foot the bill.

By: Ike

Ike — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:46:05 +0000

Good old buffalo, nothing beats that!

Also, most of the neighbors are probably not the same people as they were 20 years ago, so obviously estoppel doesn’t apply. No Res Judicata for you, suckas!

By: Snarky Snarkmore McSnarkamaphone

Snarky Snarkmore McSnarkamaphone — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:16:45 +0000

Did you post this just to use the word “estoppel?” Thanks!

I’m pretty sure you’re smart enough to realize that the ‘certain degree’ to which you refer is: not much.

Nothing that occurred–or didn’t occur–20 years ago, or 1, abrogates the owner’s responsibility to maintain the building according to law. Period. All this information adds is the possibility that the ~~douche~~ owner is spiteful and petty.

By: steve

steve — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:45:39 +0000

steel wrote: “The building was not built as or zoned as a residential structure so the owner had no right to expect the right to use it in that way.”

If that’s true, that would seem to dramatically reduce the options for re-use of this structure, unless there is a resurgence in the need to keep horses in the city.

That written, an apparent dispute over its use dating back two decades would seem to be a poor argument for its continuing decay.

Anyone have an update on its status right now?

By: Bill Altreuter

Bill Altreuter — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:35:58 +0000

My source is one of the former neighbors (although I have a dim personal recollection as well). I think that it is perfectly valid to point out that turnover in the neighborhood has certainly taken place in the intervening years, and that the property is almost certainly more valuable as a development project today than it was back then. How valuable? We are given to understand that the property’s asking price has been $400k, and there have been no takers, so we can assume that it is worth something less than that amount.

By: Tbone

Tbone — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:15:28 +0000

Steel…
Totally agree with your point about labeling the allegations as such. As far as the zoning, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t Buffalo use pyramid zoning? Thereby always making residential use an option for a property?

By: STEEL

STEEL — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:25:10 +0000

I think the important term “allegedly” was left out of the story

Freudenheims allegedly planned…

Neighbors allegedly objected..

Parking was allegedly the reason…

The city Allegedly put the kibosh…
Also perhaps you should note sources for these Allegations?

Regardless of the neighbors actions isn’t the owner required to maintain the structure in safe condition? The building was not built as or zoned as a residential structure so the owner had no right to expect the right to use it in that way. Does that mean no maintenance should be done once a requested variance is rejected? Are those neighbors of 20 years ago the same as the neighbors of today? Perhaps 20 years ago there was no market for housing in this neighborhood?

Did neighbors put the kibosh on plans by this owner for that building in Allentown that was also demoed for the same reason a few months ago?

By: reflip

reflip — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:07:21 +0000

I would hate to be a neighbor who moved in more recently and had nothing to do with the kibosh-placing that went on 20 years ago.

This new information actually says more to me about Fruedenheim’s motive for letting his building decompose – spite for the neighborhood. That explanation actually makes sense. Ah, the noble pursuit of property!