Apologies BUFFALO Drift. What then, is the basis for your concern? Clearly it is not simply that you are a gainst a variance because you don't like the word.

I also gather that if breakfast were served you'd be ok with this. There are plenty of high end short term rentals out there. In my business (corporate relocation services) I use them all the time.

If one of your neighbors (or you) rents a portion of their house then they are covered undet the R-2 zoning. Frankly I don't even see the need for the variance since this is still R-2, just short term rental....

Not a commercial use variance. The variance is to allow the property to be used for short term rentals. Big difference! By definition that is still residential use and not commercial use. I don't think I'd want to live next to you. With your camera, your people counting and keeping track of who is where at 2 am, you sound like Mrs. Kravitz the busybody neighbor.

JohnMartin. Pick up your copy of the Buffalo News (or read it on-line) and it is all there in black and white. The neighbors don't want the loud parties and street parking that are certain to come with this travesty in their neighborhood.

So to echo everyone else but your rant, this is utterly ridiculous. It is a city, People park on the street, Since I don't think the house will hold more than 10 people overnight what is that...max 10 cars?

I also think your neighbors kids are much more likely to have a wild party while their parents are out of town than people paying $300 a night to sleep in a FLW house. I have an idea. Let's get the city to pan anyone entertaining in their homes! That way no one will park on our street and we'll never have to worry about parties. Perfect. I am taking that to the city council!

Espece d'idiots.

This is a perfect example of why this city is the situation it is in. A person comes up with a wonderfully forward thinking idea and a bunch of goofballs worry about loud parties. I can see it now a few FLW fanitics pull up to the house with 50 cent pounding out of their car stereos, start punding brews from a ice cold keg and start smoke blunts.

Buffalo Geek. I am sorry but I just don't agree that the neighbors should have any say. The article in the BN said that Maxwell doesn't need a license. The city only decided he needed a variance after some discussion. The variance is related to the short term nature of the rentals.

He isn't changing the appearance or structure. Do you think that the Davidson house would have ever even gotten built had the neighbors had their say? One thing this site demonstrates well is that 50 people will have 50 different opinions. Forcing someone to change what goes on inside a house (if it is lawful) because the neighbors don't like it strikes me as intrusive.

The newly established need for a variance is the only reason the neighbors get a chance to vet their opinions.

I may be wrong but I don't think the EVA can force anyone to do anything. They can recommend but it is the city that ultimately approves or denies building permits. The city can mandate that design elements are changed in order to get permits approved. See the post on the Walgreens for an example.

It is interesting that another article posted today on this site has this to say:

"At one time this corner was the epicenter of Delaware Avenue high society. It was often referred to as the best address in Buffalo. Once, clustered here were four mansions (Williams, Butler, Metcalf, and Root) designed by McKim Mead and White, the nation's most prestigious and influential architectural firm of their time. Of these four houses only two remain standing today. Many claim that the two demolished houses were much more important examples of the firm's work."

So I am puzzled by all the comments that allowing a commercial use in a residential district is benign - certainly, such changes have a long term impact on other areas of the city - including those that were at one time highly desirable residential streets. I don't think residents of the street need to apologize to anyone for wanting to keep the street residential. There is no reason to expect those neighbors to risk long term, repeated legal battles and unpleasantness with other property owners over property use, so that someone can make money.

I live three doors down, behind the Davidson House. I think its a great idea. Go Russ!

Please be advised that the neighbors already throw loud outdoor parties. We will try and keep the noise down Russ!!

Drift. That is a bunch of schlock. You don't want this in your neighborhood and that's that. Hide behind whatever you want but if you think that I am going to buy into the argument that this is precedent setting and opens the door for Tillinghast to become a commercial street you are wrong. I am pretty sure that most of the other readers here will agree. There are bed and breakfast establishments in quaint neighborhoods in cities across the country, and the world for that matter. I have yet to see a situation where those have opened the door for a Walmart to come in and use their existance as the basis for knocking it all down and building. Hyperbole perhaps, but it is the argument that you are taking. Each variance and zoning case is judged on its own merits. This project would. in no way mean that you'll next have to contend with a bar and grill next door. The only possible precedent setting would be for other lodging establishments ie B&B's. Can you explain why that is bad for you or your property values? It would seem to me that it might actually increase them. Or maybe it means all your houses will be knocked down for a La Quinta....

onestarmartin - if you're insinuating that Yaskow still owns part of the Davidson House, get your facts straight. Yaskow has not held title since 12/15/2006.

See http://ecclerk.erie.gov:9080/prod_public_view/detail_frame.jsp?doc_id=17873622

1. The neighbors' concerns are absurd. Granting a variance isn't going to substantially change how this property is used, and it isn't going to set some kind of precedent that would allow Tillinghast to turn into Tarnsit Road.

2. Strengthening FLW tourism is obviously in the city's interest.

3. One of the reasons that we see so much pointless NIMBY activity is that are no real consequences associated with it. Supporters of sensible development could create those consequences. Sniping on the internet has no effect, but targetting NIMBY leaders with picket lines and other constituionally-protected harrassment techniques might make them think twice.

Because this will not be an open ended commercial use. It will still be a house with people staying there for several days. It's still a "residential" use, albeit temporary and not permanent residence.

If this would have been used for those lost mansions on Delware and North, they may not have been lost at all.

A HoJo's (or a tattoo parlor, or a mini mart, or a hair salon) is not going into this house, nor will the variance ever allow it. Besides a B&B, this is as close residential "buisness" that one can get. One that will further add to our tourist desitation portfolio, especially where architecture/FLW are concerned.

Texpat10: I am against the property in an R2 zoned area to have a variance for commercial use. I am against what this could do to the street. I am against the precedent this will set.

According to the discussion at the meeting held Wednesday night, the decision was that the property needed a variance since it is being used as a short term rental, which is not allowed in R2. The rental is not a long term lease. It is a house that will be unlived in that will be rented and unattended by the owner or a manager or live-in-keeper.

At the end of the day, the neighbors will bear the brunt of whatever goes on at this property. At the end of the year, it could be anyone who thought they lived in a residential area.

If the property receives a variance to operate a commercial entity and then is used for something outside of the allowed use, it could be shut down. But, let’s walk through that scenario, shall we?

Let’s say a group of people rent the property and too many visitors are there, and it is 2AM. I or another neighbor has to go over and shut it down, or take pictures, or ask for names, or whatever because I will need proof to bring forward to use as evidence. Will this one incident be enough to shut down the whole enterprise? Or does it have to happen a couple of times? Three times? Twice in six months? Who will decide if twice is too many times to have to deal with a problem? Will I or a neighbor now have to go to court or a zoning board meeting to handle this?

What if I don’t document it, but just report it? IS that enough, or can someone say, “So, you saw 16 people there and that’s too many. Are you sure? Do you have proof? Did you take pictures? Maybe some were coming and some were going….” So now I can’t say anything, and the incident didn’t happen.

The point is that there many details involved, it is not cut and dry, just put it in the variance wording and all set. Problem solved. The problem is solved right now. Allowing the variance is the start of the problems. Regardless, under Mr. Maxwell’s current plan, it will be up to the neighbors to become Mr. Maxwell’s employees in a sense, because he is not living there and he is not paying anyone to be there as the concierge or manager. We, as neighbors, will be the ones who have to police the property and make sure things go well.

So far everyone has heard one side of the story, and it is just that: one side. As a moron who lives on Tillinghast Place, I would like to present the real issue at hand.

The property is zoned R2. Whether you agree with zoning or not, that is the law. The city has stated that the property would need a variance for a commercial use. That means a fantastic neighborhood that is purely residential will now have a commercial property in the middle of it. The house is being offered as a lodging/rental option now, but it could turn into any sort of commercial establishment once the precedent is set. Also, it opens the door for more commercial property on the street.

Queeneyes should be thanked because he is the person who brought this to the attention of the street. Read that sentence again. It was not “poor” Russ Maxwell who met with the neighbors and begged them to let him buy the house, and then begged the neighbors to allow him to tell everyone what his plans were, and then graciously laid out all the plans, including commercial use, to the neighbors and asked for a chance. Everything that has been done has been done in the media with the goal of manipulating public opinion and manipulating the zoning board into believing that he is the victim of a cruel set of moronic neighbors. So before the neighbors even heard one word of the plans from Mr. Maxwell, he had already created the impression that he is a knight in shining armor that has come down to save the city, so anyone who opposes his commercial venture is an obstructionist.

It is not obstructionist to believe that an R2 zoned property should remain an R2 zoned property. Mr. Maxwell bought a residential property in the middle of a residential neighborhood and wants to turn it into a commercial establishment. I’m sure everyone who has posted here lives next door or two doors down or half a block from a commercial property. And I am sure everyone here bought their house in a residential area and had a nearby property become commercial or industrial while they were living in their house and thought that was great. If you don’t think that this matters, then maybe you’ll be lucky enough for a neighbor to decide to get a variance to open a pig farm- Nothing wrong with mixed use after all. Residents of Tillinghast are happy to be in a great neighborhood where we can walk down the street and across the street, to the zoo, to the park, to Hertel. We have a great mix already; we do not need, nor, according the laws in Buffalo and New York State, do we have to have a commercial use property in the middle of a residential street.

If you think that the way to build trust and win over the neighbors is to ignore them first and ask for forgiveness later, then I have a twin span I’d like to sell you. The neighbors are being asked to “trust him” after Mr. Maxwell has done absolutely nothing to garner our trust. The change that Mr. Maxwell needs to get approval for will benefit him, no one else. He is not sacrificing himself for the betterment of the neighborhood or the city. Converting a residential property in a great neighborhood into a for-profit commercial venture is not a sacrifice. It is a business.

Everyone on the street would welcome Mr. Maxwell as a new resident on the street, if he were moving into the house he bought. We do not welcome the beginning of commercial district at 57 Tillinghast Place.

A few more notes from a Tillinghast Place moron:

-The “give the poor guy a chance” argument: He bought a residential house and wants to get a variance to become commercial. He bought he house knowing this. If he is poor, then he brought the problem on himself. -The “FLW-types are not partiers and won’t cause a ruckus” I agree, but it has nothing to do with why we are opposed and why it is not allowed. It is a zoning issue and a future use issue. By opening the door to allow commercial use in R2, then we are making it easier for the nice and quiet B&B to become a place for weddings every weekend for half the year.

-Queenseyes: You are in error. The neighbors are not proposing a lawsuit. The neighbors do not need a lawsuit. If anyone were to file lawsuit, it would be Mr. Maxwell if he did not get what he wants. The neighbors can be opposed to this, and they could be for it. But, it IS Mr. Maxwell who needs the variance to be able to run a commercial establishment in an R2 area. The neighbors are not the problem; the problem is of Mr. Maxwell’s creation: his decision to change the use of a house that has been a private residence since it was built.

-Mixed use vs. sterilized cities: Interesting, but I live in an area where I can walk to a park, a zoo, a store and a restaurant. We are mixed, but that doesn’t mean I want to live next door to all of these, and I don’t think it is a moral failing to not want this. The argument seems to be that living in the city is good, BUT, you are SUPERIOR if you want to live in the city next door to a bar, a restaurant, a truck repair shop and a tire recycling plant. Then you are *really* a city dweller.

-Shades of Elmwood hotel: Sorry, but that property was already a commercial property. Not the same. And the residents near that location bought knowing that next door was commercial. That is no different than anyone living on Parker near Hertel or Wellington near Hertel, or Auburn near Elmwood.

-Flyguy: You haven’t heard the proposal, but you are welcome to comment. It is not a B&B, it is a commercial variance use in a residential zoned area. If I lived on Minnesota one house from Main Street, NIMBY or NIMFYE could apply, but this is not the case.

-Apocalypsekirk: Love your sarcasm, but it has nothing to do with the ruffians who rent FLW houses. It has to do with a change of use that just opens the door to more changes of use in an area that doesn’t need it. We, the residents of Tillinghast, did not buy a house on Main Street. It is not a moral failing to not want to live next door to a commercial district. You are happy to live next door to a bar on Chippewa, that is great, but it doesn’t make you superior. BTW, the Martin House has not been a private residence since before almost anyone who now lives near it moved in. That is very different than moving into a residential neighborhood that is then turned into a commercial one.

-Not a Motel 6: This is true, it is not yet a Motel 6, but, a commercial there allows more commercial property more easily. That is a fact. That is not good.

-$300 a night! : The current rate is $300 a night for the whole house, for up to 6 people (enforceable by the neighbors we are told, but not told how). That is $50 per person per night for a lot of space. Compare this to a Motel 6, say, one in Amherst on Maple Rd. (Boy the internet is great!) $69.99 is the rate for one night. Not apples to apples, I agree. That said, I don’t care about the rate or the riff-raff, or the non-riff-non-raff, or even half-riff. The issue is the commercial use that sets precedence for the neighborhood, and this is not good.

-Texpat10: Again, it is not about the cars or people, it is about the use.

-We are clowns: Mr. Maxwell is not trying to line his pockets, but he is doing this out of the goodness of his heart to help us poor morons on Tillinghast Place. thank you Thank You THANK YOU! How lucky are we that *someone* wanted to buy this FLW house, because we all know no one would. Then to turn it into a commercial boarding/lodging type house, what more could we ask for? Someone to move in and live there? Come on now, that’s a ridiculous idea! (Sarcasm off)- I recognize that as a clown, I do not have any rights, but maybe someday I will. (OK, sarcasm off for real now) – The Penfield House is a FLW house for rent in Willoughby Ohio. Clearly, *everyone* is now moving to Willoughby Ohio because everyone now knows that the people there are so forward thinking and un-clownlike. It must be a hip, progressive, tres-chic place to be since this type of rental is allowed there, unlike moronic Buffalo. BTW, the Penfield house is located on 30 acres of woodland, so there aren’t many neighbors to oppose it.

I live in the neighborhood and I saw no problem with asking Mr. Maxwell to present his plans for the property to the neighborhood. Prior to the meeting the other night, he had conducted his business in private with the exception of a post on this site by Newell.

I find it more than slightly ironic that the readers of this site are so vehemently opposed to property owners wanting to vet proposals to change their neighborhood. I'll remember that next time there is a 100 comment thread about whether or not the EVA can force commercial property owners to follow zoning regs and design guidelines or whether or not window/cornice design is an important part of the neighborhood fabric.

This is one of the few neighborhoods in the City that has above average property appreciation rates and is home to one of the strongest neighborhood associations in the city. I'm not opposed to the Davidson House project, but granting variances in a solid residential block can open up a can of worms. It's certainly worth vetting...and no one is threatening lawsuits or threatening to destroy the project.

Wow, I can not believe so many people feel that these folk's should not question what is going on in their own neighborhood. Any home owner be it urban or suburban has the right to that. Also, if this [and I may be wrong] is a change of use to "commercial" I would be worried also as there would be no control down the road if it did not work as a B+B and the owner thought "hmmm, maybe an event or wedding venue would work". REALLY, they [the residents] would have a long legal battle at a later date if this went in the wrong direction after the change of use was granted. Yes, the idea is kinda cool, but all issues need to be addressed.

Hello Texpat10: It’s BuffaloDrift to you ;)

What exactly is schlock about what I said? What am I hiding behind? I don’t think there is anything veiled in my posts: Commercial used doesn’t belong in the middle of a residential street. It does set precedence and make it easier for more variances and other types of use. That is a fact. Please explain how it is not precedence setting. There are B&Bs across the country. However, this is not a B&B; this is not about a B&B. This is about a variance for commercial use in what is now a R2 zoned area. It will not be a B&B because there is no Breakfast.

Each zoning case is judged on its own merit. True. But part of the argument that is made in the *next* zoning case will use the fact that this place got a variance, so why can’t I?

I don’t know nor do I care about how this would affect property values, personally. This is not the point. It is about quality of life.

Is this clearer? I am hiding behind nothing.

I am sure you and everyone else who has posted are supportive of the plans to buy and convert the E.B. Green designed homes into commercial use locations, correct?

Colin: I am glad that you know what the future holds. Can you predict the lottery numbers for me on Saturday?

The neighbors’ concerns are not absurd. It is not absurd to think that a variance to commercial will change the use of the property, because that is EXACTLY why the variance is needed, to change the use of the property. Will it substantially change the use? Well, from a single family private residential house on a residential street to a commercial use is pretty substantial. Maybe not to you.

FLW tourism is important to the city. I support that. I also support restaurants and shops and having more technology-based industries in the city, but not next door.

Pointless NIMBY activity: Why is it pointless to not want commercial activities spreading up and down a currently residential street? Why is it pointless to think that people who currently live in a mixed use neighborhood because we want to, but don’t want the commercial establishment to be created next door is wrong? Picket away. I am glad that you are willing to volunteer your time and/or money to picket the neighbors on Tillinghast so that someone can get legal permission to change the use of the property to commercial and use it to make money.

Allowing a variance for commercial use in a residential zoning will, whether you believe it or not, set precedence for future variances like this. And it makes it easier. I hope that residents of Chapin and Lincoln Parkway and Depew and Morris (and…) are supportive of this, because there are many big homes on those streets that are just begging for variances and conversions to hotels and rentals.

Sal: It requires a variance because it is being "rented" like a hotel room is rented, for a couple of days at a time. A rental property is one that rents for a longer term, such as a sixth month or one year rental. Also, the house can be rented (according to the website) by up to six people at a time. They may not be relatives or one family.

platt4: Thanks for your input. Can the residents of Tilly count on you as the enforcer in the middle of the night to go to the house and do a check of the occupants to make sure the rules are being followed or to break up a party? What reason is there to "let the guy run it?" Legally, he can not "just run it"

Indeed, he needs a variance to a commercial use. A precedence-setting variance. Load conditions on this variance and you still have a variance to a commercial use in what is currently a residential neighborhood for what has been a private residence for nearly 100 years. Why would the residents want to deal with all the potential hassles that this use could cause? Not to mention what the variance would mean to *any* property in the city. There is no benefit to the residents of Tilly if this variance to commercial use were allowed. Many people seem to support this "experiment," since it is not their street. Until the commercial variance suddenly puts a business next door to them.

Texpat10: The use is for short-term rental, which, by zoning code, means it is not just a “rental” like a six month lease. It is a lease for a few days, which means the persons are “transients” So the use, as indicated at the meeting, was that a variance of use was needed and this was a commercial use variance. What you are saying is that there is no different between this and a hotel, which there is. You are saying you don’t think a variance is needed, but that is not the case; a variance is needed.

I'm confused as to why a variance is required. It's a single-family house and it will be rented out as a single-family house.

Eliz is reasonable about this: the neighbors on a quiet, one block residential street have every right to ask questions about a new business like this on their street. They would be very dense neighbors not to ask serious questions about it. But Queenseyes' title-- "Just Give it a Chance"-- naively reduces the whole issue to a sappy, black or white, you're for it or against it debate: like so many articles on BRO.

But that's not how neighborhoods work. You don't give it a chance and then ask questions; you probe carefully and then do. And why so many people here wax into sarcasm about neighbors trying to get involved in their street is another of those BRO mysteries.

I ask again: is the Coit house still for sale? I seem to remember an insouciant BRO article about that abandoned Bed and Breakfast.

Texpat, if the man requires a variance, the neighbors absolutely get a say. That's the nature of government, sorry.

Like I said, I don't oppose the project, but it is simply common sense to discuss with the neighborhood when you intend to change the stated use of a house.

What next? A slaughterhouse at 59 Tilly? He needs a variance, not a rezoning. Let the guy run it for six months loaded with conditions and then have him get a renewal with a mandatory public hearing. If he fails to live up to the deal, and it is proved, 'experiment' over. Good luck.

We like to say that we want things to change for the better around here. But most people are not comfortable with the steps and risks that need to be taken to get ahead. There are a lot of people in this area with a vested interest in the way things are. I'm sure the neighbors here have some legitimate concerns that should be addressed, but that shouldn't mean the whole project should get killed.

BuffaloGeek: Actually, the opposition is quite fervent, as at least 75% of the residents have signed a petition against it.

Eric, are you referring to the other bed & breakfast that Russ and Gerhardt planned to open?

JohnMartin. Pick up your copy of the Buffalo News (or read it on-line) and it is all there in black and white. The neighbors don't want the loud parties and street parking that are certain to come with this travesty in their neighborhood.

So to echo everyone else but your rant, this is utterly ridiculous. It is a city, People park on the street, Since I don't think the house will hold more than 10 people overnight what is that...max 10 cars?

I also think your neighbor's kids are much more likely to have a wild party while their parents are out of town than people paying $300 a night to sleep in a FLW house. I have an idea. Let's get the city to ban anyone entertaining in their homes! That way no one will park on our street and we'll never have to worry about parties. Perfect. I am taking that to the city council!

Espece d'idiots.

Texpat10: Please clarify your thought process, because your detour into Islam and property values has me stumped.

You see “it” in the Evangelical and Islamic world view. What is “it”? Islamic culture is opposed to a zoning variance to allow for a commercial use in a residential area? I haven’t seen that in the Koran, but I haven’t read it in a while.

Also, you say “they make a mountain from a molehill to assert their self-important views about "protecting their investment" from a non-existent threat.” Are you saying I oppose this because I think it will hurt my property values? As I said before, that is not at all an issue. I don’t know and don’t care what will happen with property values because of this. But, you seem to be saying that anyone who does care about their property values is closed-minded, while the whole cause of this problem is due to the owner of the property who wants to use it to make money. I didn't ask anyone to do this.

You have taken a strong position, but have, yourself, remained behind the veil of the blog. You don’t live on the street, therefore, everything you say, every position you take is purely a fun exercise for you. You can debate, what is to you, a philosophical position knowing that when this thread dries up, you can move on to another. It is easy to be pie in the sky when it doesn’t affect you everyday. If you are willing to be the permanent caretaker of the rental at 57 Tillinghast (for free, mind you), then super. Otherwise, this is just a project in Philosophy 101 to you.

This post would be more helpful if it had made some effort to be objective and not simply personal about the issue. There's more than one side to this.

Another property loomed in my mind as I read this: the Coit House, Buffalo oldest extant house. I'd like to know how the Coit house, which was also targeted for a Bed and Breakfast, got to be in the condition it's in now. Is that pricelss piece of our history still for sale?

Yeah, people who are willing to pay around $300 A NIGHT are going to be nothing but trouble, invite all thier people and trash the house and the nieghborhood...Get Real People, like all FLW Lovers are such ruff necks.

Texpat10: It’s up to you where you live.

The variance would be a variance for commercial use. It *could* have other restrictions, or it could just be a variance for commercial use with no restrictions.

BTW, how do you know this is “not a commercial use variance?” Were you also at the meeting Wednesday night and was this what you heard? At the meeting, Mr. Tobe (Spelling?) stated that the approach was for a commercial use variance in R2.

What was submitted by Mr. Maxwell stated he wanted to use the property for “short-term rentals.” But that is not the variance. You seem to be confusing what is being asked for by Mr. Maxwell and what language the Zone Board of Appeals is actually looking at.

also, saying that the EVA can force someone to do anything is a bit of an overstatement by me. However, using this site and managing public opinion, they can certainly gin up enough fervor to block a project or demand the city make changes to a proposed project. As I said originally, I find it quite odd that a site filled with people who will argue incessantly about the minutiae of a project or demand developers do things in a certain way would criticize others for doing the same.

Frankly, aside from one or two people in the neighborhood, there really isn't a lot of fervent opposition to the project on Tillinghast. It is more about openness and transparency.

BuffaloDrift - thanks for the response.

The City needs to clarify exactly what you are able to do with a single-family house. Depending on who you speak with, there's a different answer. Personally I have asked about 208 North Street (Nickel City Co-Op) which is now listed as a single-family 6 bedroom house with about 12 or so unrelated people living there.

Commissioner Tobe - can we get a response from your office?

No one knocked on my door with a petition yet and I wasn't able to stay at the whole meeting the other night. The people I've spoken with while walking the neighborhood must be in the 25%. I think everyone needs to relax.

Exterior design is different.

Eliz you are a late comer. This isn't a zoning change it is a variance to allow short term rentals.

What is the stated use of the house? Residential. If people stay there, either short term or long, what is the use? Residential. Does R-2 zoning allow rentals? Yes.

I stayed in a corporate apartment in Seattle last month. I was there for 4 days. I paid rent and signed a short term lease. I highly doubt that the owner needed a variance to be allowed to do that. Why wouldn't the landlord's right to rent to me or my rights and responsibilities as a tenant be exactly the same as anyone else's just because I rented short term?

As long as Maxwell gets leases signed I see no reason why a variance is needed or why the 75% of dissenting neighbors should have a say at all.

By the way, I am not arguing this on the basis that I think this is some fantastic business plan that is the magic bullet to bring Buffalo back. I am arguing it because I think that as long as Maxwell isn't changing the appearance of the property or breaking the law and is using the house in a manner that is consistent with the other houses in the area (for habitation) then that should be his right as a property owner. His is not the only rental property on the block.

Live in the country if you don’t want neighbors or buy up their homes. Russ rent it and good luck. Most of these types of issues mask what the neighborhood is really thinking. They are racist and afraid of the unknown. I am sure he is not looking to rent to people that will damage his investment. I don’t know of any drug dealers or hookers that would rent on Tillinghast for $295 a night. Well maybe the ex-governor. Think it would improve the neighborhood on a tourism venue. That in the long run increase his neighbors’ investment too.

Texpat10, you are missing the point. Regardless of whether you think a variance is needed, the City of Buffalo has decided that one is. Whether or not you feel that the use remains residential, the City of Buffalo has decided that the use is commercial.

Any variance to allow a commercial use opens the door for other property owners to request other commercial uses (or for this owner to request additional commercial uses).

Our society has been brainwashed into believing that land uses must be separated. No commercial mixed residential etc. The results are sterilized cities.

A3. I am not missing the point. I think he should fight the variance requirement. Even if he doesn't I don't see the "granting the variance will open the floodgates of commercial development" or "if he is allowed to do A now he will be allowed to do B later" as valid arguments. If he gets a variance to take short term renters (since, in some city employee's wisdom that was needed given that this has never come up before...even though I can guarantee it isn't the only short term rental in the city) it doesn't mean that tomorrow the Davidson House will be a banquet hall. That is the kind of leap argument that NIMBY's love to make.

I don't know if I'd go that far. I just think it is a combination of factors; Some people don't like change or the unknown, some people aren't visionary enough to see past their perceptions or they just want to get their way and impose their will on others. They make a mountain from a molehill to assert their self-important views about "protecting their investment" from a non-existent threat.

You see this manifest in so many ways, like the people in Amherst that oppose a development that'll bring a Whole Foods to their neighborhood without realizing the postitve effect on them and their community. They chose to buy homes on Maple but complain about traffic. They don't want noise but live by a highway and a gun club. It is illogical.

I see it in the evangelical and islamic radiical types that want the world to look just like them and share their worldview. If you don't then they can't agree to share the planet; you are wrong and have to be stopped. I know that that is an extreme comparison but basically I see this as human nature which hopefully loses out in this case to common sense.

RisingDamp666: Thanks for your input. I impose my personal desires over another's private property? No, you have it backwards. Mr. Maxwell bought a property that is a private residence and has been for almost 100 years. He is trying to get a variance of use so that this property can have a commercial use. He is trying to impose his will over most of this street. He wants to alter the character of the street so that he can run a commercial establishment. I don’t think that this change of use should be allowed. He cannot do what he wants without affecting many people, and without obtaining a variance of use that will allow him to do so. I am perfectly happy to have him live at 57 Tillinghast. I do not want to force anything on him. He needs a variance to use this property as a commercial establishment. He thinks everyone should let him. But, doing this affects everyone else. Why is it us who are imposing our will?

Also, what is an INNER CITY cloister? Is that CODE for something?

TexPat--you just described your own intolerance. Isn't it the neighbors' street? Do you live on that block? It seems that many people here want to impose their own will on that residential block.

I think the Guest House is a good idea and I hope it works out, but I can't understand why people outside of the street feel that the people who do live on the block are stupid or "illlogical" for asking about what this means for them. That's what I call "self-important."

Late to this thread ELIZ. We already determined that this project (rightly or wrongly) requires a variance and not re-zoning. Your city street cred is, I am sure, impeccable.

Mattgo: A comment from one of the goofballs:

What is a perfect example of why this city is in the situation it is? Because people care about where they live? I don't think so.

“A person comes up with a wonderfully forward thinking idea…” What is this forward thinking idea? Making money? Who’d ever think of that? Please elaborate on what you think this great idea is. As far as I know, this “great idea” is based on changing the use of a private residence into a commercial use property so the owner can make money. Sounds very “forward thinking” to me. Let me see if I understand: 1. Spend a lot of money. 2. Make everyone feel sorry for you because some people are meanies 3. Change the rules so that you can make more money 4. Sit back and enjoy. You’re right! That is forward thinking!

I can see people asking questions - that's fair enough...I can see where parking could be an issue. But from what I understand, the Davidson House is only for overnight guests - it's not going to turn into a "reception" or "cocktail" party venue, where 50 people invade the neighborhood/house.

I toured the Davidson House in March. It is GREAT! I believe this is one of six FLW houses you can actually rent for a stay. This is really going to make Buffalo even that more intriguing for FLW and architecture buffs.

RisingDamp666: What is your point? I have a moral failing if I want “peace and quiet?”

Texpat10: Have you also been going after the “goofball moronic clowns” who opposed the B&B at 500 Lafayette? If not, why not?

RisingDamp666: Thanks again for your opinion on this.

The impact is that what is currently a residential property would be allowed to have a commercial use. Once the variance is granted, then others can be, and then the street is no longer residential. It has nothing yet to do with a neon sign.

Me and my claque? I’m not sure why you think I have a claque, because I don’t think I have one. Personally, I don’t control anything, either. I appreciate that you know what is best for me, but I actually like living where I do, noise or no noise. Sometimes there is noise, sometimes there is not as much noise. I hear trains go by, animals from the zoo, cars, sirens, dogs, birds, and crickets. Other people might like living here, others not so much. I agree that when you live in the city, (which you do, correct?), then you have to deal with various issues. However, given where I chose to live in the city, living near a commercial use property is not one of those things. I could live next to a commercial property if I chose to, but I did not. And I don’t think that it is up to you to make me do so.

Peace and quiet. We have finally gotten to the issue. You think that having 6 strangers sleep on your street is going to somehow invade your kingdom of peace and quiet. I find it utterly non-sensical that you, or anyone else would feel that way. I will acknowledge that I am probably different than some people. I have been to almost 60 countries. I love meeting people. I'd be knocking on the door every few days to see who was staying there. I'd be inviting them over for drinks and angling to get inside. I'd love to have this next door to me. So now comes the blah blah blah comments about if I like it so much I should move there, well I can't ok.

Next comes the, its the neighbors right to be able to stop this. Unfortunately true. Too bad that underlying argument is something about stasis and includes elements of control. It is like people who live next to a vacant lot and expect it to remain vacant forever. The argument that this property being used as a short term rental will somehow disrupt the neighborhood is just such a complete load of horsecrap.

Finally Mr. Drift, I do give you points for recognizing that as a detached outsider this is only a debate for me. I don't have a personal stake in it. Just realize that some things, like a Monet, are better viewed from far away. The closer you are the more distorted the picture becomes.