RivermasterNC

I guess they could start by changing the transit area plan to match what they are going to do. The current plan has just been rendered meaningless.

Agreed. Guess I did not make my point that I also believe the occupancy (20 people??) of the Arlington is not as dire as implied.

Sounds to me like a good argument to prevent constructing more if the demand for the current is as low as you imply. -Scott

Andy: This is not how I'm reading their concerns. I see two inter-related concerns here. To the Arlington owners, possible devaluation of their property as a result of the view being negatively impacted by a development which they were lead to believe could not/would not happen; a basis for their choosing to invest at a premium there. I do not believe anyone is claiming they were given a guarantee, but the view was/is certainly a factor in the property value. This is further evidenced by the pricing disparity from the north facing units to the south facing units on the same floor with the same square footage as cited earlier in this thread. If it were your money, you would likely not be pleased either. I would guess the possibility of a large structure inside the inner belt, large enough to block the entire view of uptown could be a possibility, buy the risk of that happening is extremely low. They also were lead by a plan to believe the risk of a tower in the next lot was extremely low for the forseeable future. To the community of Charlotte and potential new investors to the area, what steadfastness can you expect from your planning commission when a plan is written? Is the plan worth the paper it is written on? If you need to change the plan, change the plan. Charlotte is holding her own in a period of real estate development weakness. A few random acts of inconsistency with established and published plans by the planning commission can have investors looking elsewhere to invest their monies. I believe Charlotte is already starting to see her development boom soften. How can the planners minimize their feeding of the decline? ChiefJoJo - Yes, that building is an exception to the point that the plan was created after the fact in response to the building of the Arlington as an effort to prevent it from happening again. I understand the animosity toward the Arlington building and it's developer. I do not understand the animosity toward the Arlington residents or their pets. I'm not clear what the dog has to do with any of this. If it were a Jim Gross proposal, would it be getting the same support?? Probably not. At the end of the day, it is hard to speculate if the Simpson Lighting property development will help or hurt the Arlington's net value. The inconsistency of the Char-Meck planning commission will have a negative impact on investors' decision making. Respectfully, Scott Former 30-year resident of Metro Charlotte

I did not try to level what the views were. The stated comment was that purchasing for a view is a "waste of money", hence the Arlington resident was foolish. My point is, there are alot of foolish people "wasting money" if that is the case.

Huh? You're kidding, right? In our area, many properties are purchased and developed for this very reason. The North Carolina General Assembly has had to pass laws to protect the views. Example: http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/wq/lpn/statutes/n...eprotection.htm