Buildings: Judge’s Ruling on Razing of Old Home Raises Some Questions

This is in response to the Dec. 19 article “Judge Rules Razing of Old Home Was Illegal” regarding the city of Glendora razing an old house for a parking lot. I agree with City Manager Art Cook that the judge changed her mind for political reasons. At least she had the good judgment not to require the city to rebuild the house. It seems that any “cause” can get courts to rule in their favor by pursuing an issue long enough to persuade a judge or to appeal enough times to find some judge that will give them a favorable ruling. It also appears that once that happens it is virtually impossible to get it reversed.

Why must every old building have some historical significance? This particular building sounded like it should have been razed, and I am quite sure there are other buildings of the same circa and architectural design in the residential areas of Glendora and would not be in the way of progress. But then I guess the poor property owner would have to deal with the “cause” if he wanted to do something to his property. It’s too bad that these causes can’t be made to purchase these properties and be responsible for their upkeep.

Why does the Glendora Preservation Foundation think the city should be responsible for their legal fees? If the city won the case I think the city should be able to collect their legal fees from the foundation. If this type of thing were possible it would certainly stop a lot of frivolous lawsuits.

CLARENCE E. MARKER

Pasadena