Owner of land where Confederate monument sits wants it gone

[JacksinPA]

https://www.apnews.com/0e8feaa1af554f87b0abee5799be55e1

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. (AP) — The owner of the land where a recently vandalized Confederate statue in North Carolina sits has joined the voices calling for the monument’s removal.

The city of Winston-Salem has told monument owner United Daughters of the Confederacy to remove the statue by Jan. 31 or face a possible lawsuit. The land beneath the monument is owned by Winston Courthouse LLC, which operates apartments in an old courthouse building.
==========================================
As the land owner, he has every right to control how it is used. But this could become the focus of more demonstrations.

 

[OlNate]

https://www.apnews.com/0e8feaa1af554f87b0abee5799be55e1

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. (AP) — The owner of the land where a recently vandalized Confederate statue in North Carolina sits has joined the voices calling for the monument’s removal.

The city of Winston-Salem has told monument owner United Daughters of the Confederacy to remove the statue by Jan. 31 or face a possible lawsuit. The land beneath the monument is owned by Winston Courthouse LLC, which operates apartments in an old courthouse building.
==========================================
As the land owner, he has every right to control how it is used. But this could become the focus of more demonstrations.

If he owns the land, he ought to not make a huge deal about it, and do with it what he wants. I assume it was there when he bought it, not sure why he expects anyone else to remove it. Take the thing down and sell it... :shrug: I'm sure there's a market out there for it.

 

[Tom Horn]

I’m sure he was receiving some sort of local tax break for attracting tourist dollars into the economy. I see this as an opportunity for rightful ED. He was paid, now he nolifies the contract.

 

[Praxas]

I’m sure he was receiving some sort of local tax break for attracting tourist dollars into the economy. I see this as an opportunity for rightful ED. He was paid, now he nolifies the contract.

You obviously didn't read the article since it is the city asking for the removal. If anything the city would be nullifying any contract but since the owner agrees, they are in agreement.

 

[Tom Horn]

You obviously didn't read the article since it is the city asking for the removal. If anything the city would be nullifying any contract but since the owner agrees, they are in agreement.

What if he was receiving county or state reduced taxation ?

 

[Grand Mal]

What if he was receiving county or state reduced taxation ?

If my sister had balls she'd be my brother.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

What if he was receiving county or state reduced taxation ?

IF he was receiving reduced taxes for it then he should have to start paying normal taxes again. But I see nothing indicating he received such a reduction.

This one is a no brainer. It is private property. If the owner wants the statue, he should get to have the statue. If he wants it gone, it should be removed.