Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post

The building owner now is paying landlord registration fees to the city.

The building owner is paying taxes on the rental income.

The restaurant is now paying business tax,income tax,employee tax,corporation taxes,and purchasing local supplies.

So what has happened is a building that had limited use is now generating revenue for the city providing jobs,housing options,and eating options.

It is adaptive reuse of existing buildings verses demolition for highest and best use for the city as a whole,the point of the owner making profit is a non argument,because nobody is going to step up and do all of that for free,they are taking the risk so they will reap the rewards,that is kinda how it works.

You can look at the direct impact to the surrounding residents,but you also have to look at the impact on the city as a whole,because it will impact everybody.

Which is how it will be looked at in the rezoning process.
Perhaps the zoning officials did look at "the impact on the city as a whole", and decided that a restaurant at this location could have a negative impact on the value of the residences nearby, thus affecting the tax base in the area. Is one new business, which conceivably can located elsewhere, necessarily worth lessening the value of the neighboring properties? A zoning variance shouldn't be given without careful consideration.

The building in question [[as is the case with so many old fire stations) looks like a grand old structure and in today's environment, should find a viable way of being reused.