[chris08876]

^^^^^

I'll quote:

"But according to landmarks rules, property owners that have demolition permits issued prior to designation would have that work grandfathered in and would be allowed to proceed — spelling certain doom for the Kaskel & Kaskel building, since the demolition permits have been submitted with no designation in sight."

I'm all for fairness, and the developer did what was "legally" right. Think about if you were a developer and bought this parcel. For someone to tell you, nah... you can't build here.

Knowing this now... they should seek to amend the rules to change this. It's the thinking to change a perfectly legal, applied method into something else that I'm against. The deal was made, and these were the rules aiding in its fruition.

Had the rules been different, than the developer would have to abide by those. In this scenario, they worked in favor.