"it was recently reported that Apple has failed to pay the $70,162.17 in taxes it owes since purchasing the property. The more than year-long delay has led the city's government to issue two penalties that have now boosted the company's taxes owed to $84,545.42."
It looks like Apple got in on some of those sub-prime mortgages.
WOW, these board is just fighting for the sake of attention.
Apple can build a store right across the river. Just really hate when these old farts fight something like Apple store and let "joe shmoe" have its hot-dog stand on every corner in DC.
They want Apple to pay taxes on a building that they won't let them do what they want?
Well, of course, that's the law. Owning something doesn't allow you to do whatever you want with it!
Owning your kid doesn't give you life and death power over them. Owning your house doesn't allow you to dump your waste directly in the environment. Owning your car doesn't allow you to drive it at 200mph wherever you want.
It's the same with buildings. For instance, owning a historical monument doesn't allow you to demolish it. Owning it lets you use it, but the historical monument still belongs to the common good. Private property has always been limited by the common good, nothing new here.
Quote:
I'm sure the taxes will be paid once Apple gets its way with what it wants to do with it.
That would be very wrong. The law should be the same for everyone - being Apple should not be enough to escape the rules that apply to the rest of us. Apple owns the building. Private ownership implies taxes. If you don't pay the taxes, you're breaking the law and should be punished. End of story.
The fact that Apple cannot enjoy its building to its full extent is its own fault. If someone else than Apple owned the building and merely rented it, the taxes would be paid. There is no reason the local tax payers should pay instead of Apple for its lack of planning and negociation...
Quote:
Its nice to know you can own land and not be able to do what you want with it...
Welcome to the real world. BTW, the same applies to your house if you're in any kind of protected area, whether for historical, natural or other reasons. As it should be.
The historical value of a district will outlast most of us. Moreover, the historical value of a district, if properly managed, is an asset that benefits all the other tax payers. There is no reason to damage the common good to suit one's private needs...
I wish they would have chosen a different location. Metro Center, Dupont, Columbia Heights... Georgetown isn't the greatest location for a majority of the city, but I'm sure it's more about the college students (Georgetown and GW are within walking distance). Logan Circle would have been interesting or even Woodly, but again, I think it's more about the students.
That being said, they should pay taxes on the building, period.
It appears that the place Apple bought is this building. An Apple Store wouldn't be out of place on that street, and the location is pretty good, it looks fairly busy and it's right at an intersection.
Well, of course, that's the law. Owning something doesn't allow you to do whatever you want with it!
Owning your kid doesn't give you life and death power over them. Owning your house doesn't allow you to dump your waste directly in the environment. Owning your car doesn't allow you to drive it at 200mph wherever you want.
It's the same with buildings. For instance, owning a historical monument doesn't allow you to demolish it. Owning it lets you use it, but the historical monument still belongs to the common good. Private property has always been limited by the common good, nothing new here.
That would be very wrong. The law should be the same for everyone - being Apple should not be enough to escape the rules that apply to the rest of us. Apple owns the building. Private ownership implies taxes. If you don't pay the taxes, you're breaking the law and should be punished. End of story.
The fact that Apple cannot enjoy its building to its full extent is its own fault. If someone else than Apple owned the building and merely rented it, the taxes would be paid. There is no reason the local tax payers should pay instead of Apple for its lack of planning and negociation...
Welcome to the real world. BTW, the same applies to your house if you're in any kind of protected area, whether for historical, natural or other reasons. As it should be.
The historical value of a district will outlast most of us. Moreover, the historical value of a district, if properly managed, is an asset that benefits all the other tax payers. There is no reason to damage the common good to suit one's private needs...
Thanks for wasting your own time in stating everything I already knew....
The whole point was its stupid that you can't do what you want with what you own. This isn't just about Apple...its anything and anywhere. You own it...its yours, you should be able to do whatever you want with it.
the article says they already have permission to raze the existing structure, right? So level what is there - and leave it an empty lot - get the tax assessor to reevaluate the now vacant lot to reduce the taxes - then refuse to build anything or to sell the lot and see what the city planners think of that.
Isn't the point of the facade of any commercial property to act as a giant bill board for that company? and its not like they want to put up a giant scaffolding with multi colored lights and make the area look like the side of the highway.
The whole point was its stupid that you can't do what you want with what you own. This isn't just about Apple...its anything and anywhere. You own it...its yours, you should be able to do whatever you want with it.
No, actually, it doesn't sound like you know much, since you fail to understand what the greater good is about.
It's like a car. You own it, you can drive it around and enjoy it. But you can't drive into some parts of the country - military bases, private properties... Likewise, you can't drive it in ways that would endanger other people. And when you're done using it, you can't dump it wherever you wish either.
That's what the greater good is about. Your personnal freedom is fine, but your freedom stops where it jeopardize the freedom of other people - current or futur.
Quote:
Historic crap doesn't last forever....
Well, actually, I live in some "historic crap" dating from a century ago. I have some "historic crap" ranging from 200 to 600 year less than a mile from home, and people also live in them. And I do have some 2000 year old "historic crap" a couple of miles from home. This doesn't prevent the creation of "modern crap" that will become historic for the futur generations either.
All this historic crap draws more than 25 million tourists a year to my city. This means an income of several billion a year for private and public businesses and emploiement for more than 12% of the population. So, yes, I do care about historic crap and I would like for them to last as long as possible. Because the alternative is that I would have to pay taxes to cover the loss of revenues once the tourists are gone, and I certainly enjoy having local taxes low enough that I don't even have to budget for them...
There will be land when we buy the surrounding buildings and demolish them.
Quote:
And whats wrong with trailer parks? People gotta live somewhere you know. Not all trailer parks are cruddy looking places. Some are actually very nice.
Thanks for wasting your own time in stating everything I already knew....
The whole point was its stupid that you can't do what you want with what you own. This isn't just about Apple...its anything and anywhere. You own it...its yours, you should be able to do whatever you want with it.
Historic crap doesn't last forever...
you sound very very out of touch with the world around you. maybe in your own home you can do what you want but not when it affects the public, including local taxpayers who live and work on this street. you need to rethink your empathy and civil responsibility.
did you vote in favour of gay marriage? they "own" their bodies why can't they do what they want with it right? (just an example but be honest)
here's a pic of the store to be razed, i think it works as an apple store
you sound very very out of touch with the world around you. maybe in your own home you can do what you want but not when it affects the public, including local taxpayers who live and work on this street. you need to rethink your empathy and civil responsibility.
did you vote in favour of gay marriage? they "own" their bodies why can't they do what they want with it right? (just an example but be honest)
here's a pic of the store to be razed, i think it works as an apple store
How does Apple building an Apple Store effect the public? Its not like Apple is putting in a building with huge glowing neon signs. I guess its just too bad DC doesn't want the potential tax dollars.... If I were Apple I wouldn't pay the taxes either until I got what I wanted on MY OWN LAND!
The whole point was its stupid that you can't do what you want with what you own. This isn't just about Apple...its anything and anywhere. You own it...its yours, you should be able to do whatever you want with it.
Of course you can't do what you want with land. How about I dump toxic waste next to your house? Land is not a personal item like clothing or furniture. It's a finite resource, for one thing. For another, most land uses, and certainly construction, have an impact on neighbors and the community in general. In a democracy communities get to decide how they want to live. If an area is zoned to require board approval, that's what Apple has to deal with. Nobody is forcing Apple to build a store there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress
Historic crap doesn't last forever....
Not if it were up to people who think like you. Fortunately, lots of people don't think that way, and we have historic districts, parks, and buildings rather than bland corporate uniformity everywhere in the land.
How does Apple building an Apple Store effect the public?
you did not say apple is just building a store whats the big deal you said i can do WHATEVER i want with my land, that's where i take issue, not if its neon or not but simply that you can do what you like.
to some a glass and silver building IS like neon to you, respect that.
regardless of YOUR idea of what the local taxpaying public in georgetown wants that's not for just anyone to buy land and decide, respect that they want things done their way in their taxpaying district and get off your "i own it i can do whatever i want with it" high horse.
the tide of sentiment against you here clearly shows you're in the minority.
again apple store on this street? - not so bad
"anything i want i own it" - no way my friend, you're out of touch.
With respect, that is a ridiculous argument. Apple's stores are about as simple, elegant, and minimal as you can get.
While everybody loves elegant, the same is not true for simple and minimal. Minimalistic design doesn't fit at all with a historic district. You list this as a plus, but in this case it isn't.
Also, whatever happened to "think different"? Apple wants to build pretty much the same store everywhere, as does every other corporate chain. I really like it better when you look around at a street corner and can actually tell what city you are in.
How does Apple building an Apple Store effect the public? Its not like Apple is putting in a building with huge glowing neon signs. I guess its just too bad DC doesn't want the potential tax dollars.... If I were Apple I wouldn't pay the taxes either until I got what I wanted on MY OWN LAND!
By buying into a community, you implicitly agree to the historical, social, and legal norms of that community. Things such as building codes are explicit agreements, and most communities have them to some degree; you cannot just build anything you want on a piece of land, even if you're Apple (I know its hard for some to fathom). Georgetown's public and zoning committees have every right to scrutinize the look of Apple's store until they feel its facade is appropriate for the surroundings. You also said its ridiculous to pay taxes on a building if it doesn't "look" the way you want it to. Besides this notion being completely absurd, go tell that to Georgetown. I'm sure the town's officials would laugh in your face.
The U.S. is in a massive economic downturn, Apple wants to build a massive store hire construction company to build it and after hire more people to man it. The historic committee as a problem with glass frontage. People wonder why the economic situation is the way it is.
The U.S. is in an economic downturn, but Georgetown isn't. It's very affluent and populated by DC's old money and a bunch of trust fund-fed college students -- a retailers' dream. So the community has no incentive to lower its standards for Apple or anyone else. (Besides that, I don't think anyone is blaming the economic downturn on land use and zoning regulations, so it's a non sequiter argument anyway.)
Georgetown has a very distinctive look -- even the freaking Johnny Rockets looks like it belongs there. I don't see why Apple couldn't just do what it did with the SoHo store: keep the architecture in theme with the surroundings and hang an Apple sign off the doorway. Not everything has to be a concrete and glass cube with a big glowing white Apple.
I'm not surprised. Georgetown is known for pulling this kind of crap. As someone who lived in DC for nearly 10 years, and walked through Georgetown pretty much every day, I'd have to say this is not Apple being too weird, but Georgetown being uptight. If the new site is where I think it is, there are already plenty of modern shops there like Restoration Hardware, etc., and I find it hard to believe that Apple would come up with a design that wouldn't fit in perfectly with the area. It's just not like them to ignore their surroundings.
From what I've heard, many years ago the fine folks of Georgetown prevented the metro (subway) from building a station there, and newer residents could not be more pissed that they are denied such a useful/convenient form of mass transit, one that the rest of the damn city enjoys. All because they feared, ahem, shall we say, urban encroachment.
I think the real reason why there is no metro station in Georgetown is that the construction of the tunnel and the station, as well as the vibration from the trains, combined with the local geology, would have caused too much structural damage to the buildings. Of course, if you are Kevin Kostner in the movie No Way Out, you can use the fictitious metro station in the Georgetown Mall.
They want Apple to pay taxes on a building that they won't let them do what they want? I'm sure the taxes will be paid once Apple gets its way with what it wants to do with it. Its nice to know you can own land and not be able to do what you want with it... Makes be proud to live in America! *end sarcasm*
Yep, that's what you call freedom. People died for the few freedoms we have left; at the very least we should be willing to fight as well. I wish one of these big companies would get a bit patriotic and fight the government for once. They all just seem to bend over and take everything. Ever heard of the rights to the fruits of your labor?
Comments
It looks like Apple got in on some of those sub-prime mortgages.
Apple can build a store right across the river. Just really hate when these old farts fight something like Apple store and let "joe shmoe" have its hot-dog stand on every corner in DC.
They want Apple to pay taxes on a building that they won't let them do what they want?
Well, of course, that's the law. Owning something doesn't allow you to do whatever you want with it!
Owning your kid doesn't give you life and death power over them. Owning your house doesn't allow you to dump your waste directly in the environment. Owning your car doesn't allow you to drive it at 200mph wherever you want.
It's the same with buildings. For instance, owning a historical monument doesn't allow you to demolish it. Owning it lets you use it, but the historical monument still belongs to the common good. Private property has always been limited by the common good, nothing new here.
I'm sure the taxes will be paid once Apple gets its way with what it wants to do with it.
That would be very wrong. The law should be the same for everyone - being Apple should not be enough to escape the rules that apply to the rest of us. Apple owns the building. Private ownership implies taxes. If you don't pay the taxes, you're breaking the law and should be punished. End of story.
The fact that Apple cannot enjoy its building to its full extent is its own fault. If someone else than Apple owned the building and merely rented it, the taxes would be paid. There is no reason the local tax payers should pay instead of Apple for its lack of planning and negociation...
Its nice to know you can own land and not be able to do what you want with it...
Welcome to the real world. BTW, the same applies to your house if you're in any kind of protected area, whether for historical, natural or other reasons. As it should be.
The historical value of a district will outlast most of us. Moreover, the historical value of a district, if properly managed, is an asset that benefits all the other tax payers. There is no reason to damage the common good to suit one's private needs...
That being said, they should pay taxes on the building, period.
Sebastian
Well, of course, that's the law. Owning something doesn't allow you to do whatever you want with it!
Owning your kid doesn't give you life and death power over them. Owning your house doesn't allow you to dump your waste directly in the environment. Owning your car doesn't allow you to drive it at 200mph wherever you want.
It's the same with buildings. For instance, owning a historical monument doesn't allow you to demolish it. Owning it lets you use it, but the historical monument still belongs to the common good. Private property has always been limited by the common good, nothing new here.
That would be very wrong. The law should be the same for everyone - being Apple should not be enough to escape the rules that apply to the rest of us. Apple owns the building. Private ownership implies taxes. If you don't pay the taxes, you're breaking the law and should be punished. End of story.
The fact that Apple cannot enjoy its building to its full extent is its own fault. If someone else than Apple owned the building and merely rented it, the taxes would be paid. There is no reason the local tax payers should pay instead of Apple for its lack of planning and negociation...
Welcome to the real world. BTW, the same applies to your house if you're in any kind of protected area, whether for historical, natural or other reasons. As it should be.
The historical value of a district will outlast most of us. Moreover, the historical value of a district, if properly managed, is an asset that benefits all the other tax payers. There is no reason to damage the common good to suit one's private needs...
Thanks for wasting your own time in stating everything I already knew....
The whole point was its stupid that you can't do what you want with what you own. This isn't just about Apple...its anything and anywhere. You own it...its yours, you should be able to do whatever you want with it.
Historic crap doesn't last forever....
Isn't the point of the facade of any commercial property to act as a giant bill board for that company? and its not like they want to put up a giant scaffolding with multi colored lights and make the area look like the side of the highway.
The whole point was its stupid that you can't do what you want with what you own. This isn't just about Apple...its anything and anywhere. You own it...its yours, you should be able to do whatever you want with it.
No, actually, it doesn't sound like you know much, since you fail to understand what the greater good is about.
It's like a car. You own it, you can drive it around and enjoy it. But you can't drive into some parts of the country - military bases, private properties... Likewise, you can't drive it in ways that would endanger other people. And when you're done using it, you can't dump it wherever you wish either.
That's what the greater good is about. Your personnal freedom is fine, but your freedom stops where it jeopardize the freedom of other people - current or futur.
Historic crap doesn't last forever....
Well, actually, I live in some "historic crap" dating from a century ago. I have some "historic crap" ranging from 200 to 600 year less than a mile from home, and people also live in them. And I do have some 2000 year old "historic crap" a couple of miles from home. This doesn't prevent the creation of "modern crap" that will become historic for the futur generations either.
All this historic crap draws more than 25 million tourists a year to my city. This means an income of several billion a year for private and public businesses and emploiement for more than 12% of the population. So, yes, I do care about historic crap and I would like for them to last as long as possible. Because the alternative is that I would have to pay taxes to cover the loss of revenues once the tourists are gone, and I certainly enjoy having local taxes low enough that I don't even have to budget for them...
Go ahead...there's no land available around me.
There will be land when we buy the surrounding buildings and demolish them.
And whats wrong with trailer parks? People gotta live somewhere you know. Not all trailer parks are cruddy looking places. Some are actually very nice.
But we wanna build a cruddy trailer park...
Thanks for wasting your own time in stating everything I already knew....
The whole point was its stupid that you can't do what you want with what you own. This isn't just about Apple...its anything and anywhere. You own it...its yours, you should be able to do whatever you want with it.
Historic crap doesn't last forever...
you sound very very out of touch with the world around you. maybe in your own home you can do what you want but not when it affects the public, including local taxpayers who live and work on this street. you need to rethink your empathy and civil responsibility.
did you vote in favour of gay marriage? they "own" their bodies why can't they do what they want with it right? (just an example but be honest)
here's a pic of the store to be razed, i think it works as an apple store
http://www.ifoapplestore.com/photos/...sconsin_dc.jpg
There will be land when we buy the surrounding buildings and demolish them.
But we wanna build a cruddy trailer park...
Thats impossible...I own all the land around me.
you sound very very out of touch with the world around you. maybe in your own home you can do what you want but not when it affects the public, including local taxpayers who live and work on this street. you need to rethink your empathy and civil responsibility.
did you vote in favour of gay marriage? they "own" their bodies why can't they do what they want with it right? (just an example but be honest)
here's a pic of the store to be razed, i think it works as an apple store
http://www.ifoapplestore.com/photos/...sconsin_dc.jpg
How does Apple building an Apple Store effect the public? Its not like Apple is putting in a building with huge glowing neon signs. I guess its just too bad DC doesn't want the potential tax dollars.... If I were Apple I wouldn't pay the taxes either until I got what I wanted on MY OWN LAND!
The whole point was its stupid that you can't do what you want with what you own. This isn't just about Apple...its anything and anywhere. You own it...its yours, you should be able to do whatever you want with it.
Of course you can't do what you want with land. How about I dump toxic waste next to your house? Land is not a personal item like clothing or furniture. It's a finite resource, for one thing. For another, most land uses, and certainly construction, have an impact on neighbors and the community in general. In a democracy communities get to decide how they want to live. If an area is zoned to require board approval, that's what Apple has to deal with. Nobody is forcing Apple to build a store there.
Historic crap doesn't last forever....
Not if it were up to people who think like you. Fortunately, lots of people don't think that way, and we have historic districts, parks, and buildings rather than bland corporate uniformity everywhere in the land.
How does Apple building an Apple Store effect the public?
you did not say apple is just building a store whats the big deal you said i can do WHATEVER i want with my land, that's where i take issue, not if its neon or not but simply that you can do what you like.
to some a glass and silver building IS like neon to you, respect that.
regardless of YOUR idea of what the local taxpaying public in georgetown wants that's not for just anyone to buy land and decide, respect that they want things done their way in their taxpaying district and get off your "i own it i can do whatever i want with it" high horse.
the tide of sentiment against you here clearly shows you're in the minority.
again apple store on this street? - not so bad
"anything i want i own it" - no way my friend, you're out of touch.
do your neighbours like you?
With respect, that is a ridiculous argument. Apple's stores are about as simple, elegant, and minimal as you can get.
While everybody loves elegant, the same is not true for simple and minimal. Minimalistic design doesn't fit at all with a historic district. You list this as a plus, but in this case it isn't.
Also, whatever happened to "think different"? Apple wants to build pretty much the same store everywhere, as does every other corporate chain. I really like it better when you look around at a street corner and can actually tell what city you are in.
How does Apple building an Apple Store effect the public? Its not like Apple is putting in a building with huge glowing neon signs. I guess its just too bad DC doesn't want the potential tax dollars.... If I were Apple I wouldn't pay the taxes either until I got what I wanted on MY OWN LAND!
By buying into a community, you implicitly agree to the historical, social, and legal norms of that community. Things such as building codes are explicit agreements, and most communities have them to some degree; you cannot just build anything you want on a piece of land, even if you're Apple (I know its hard for some to fathom). Georgetown's public and zoning committees have every right to scrutinize the look of Apple's store until they feel its facade is appropriate for the surroundings. You also said its ridiculous to pay taxes on a building if it doesn't "look" the way you want it to. Besides this notion being completely absurd, go tell that to Georgetown. I'm sure the town's officials would laugh in your face.
The U.S. is in a massive economic downturn, Apple wants to build a massive store hire construction company to build it and after hire more people to man it. The historic committee as a problem with glass frontage. People wonder why the economic situation is the way it is.
The U.S. is in an economic downturn, but Georgetown isn't. It's very affluent and populated by DC's old money and a bunch of trust fund-fed college students -- a retailers' dream. So the community has no incentive to lower its standards for Apple or anyone else. (Besides that, I don't think anyone is blaming the economic downturn on land use and zoning regulations, so it's a non sequiter argument anyway.)
Georgetown has a very distinctive look -- even the freaking Johnny Rockets looks like it belongs there. I don't see why Apple couldn't just do what it did with the SoHo store: keep the architecture in theme with the surroundings and hang an Apple sign off the doorway. Not everything has to be a concrete and glass cube with a big glowing white Apple.
I'm not surprised. Georgetown is known for pulling this kind of crap. As someone who lived in DC for nearly 10 years, and walked through Georgetown pretty much every day, I'd have to say this is not Apple being too weird, but Georgetown being uptight. If the new site is where I think it is, there are already plenty of modern shops there like Restoration Hardware, etc., and I find it hard to believe that Apple would come up with a design that wouldn't fit in perfectly with the area. It's just not like them to ignore their surroundings.
From what I've heard, many years ago the fine folks of Georgetown prevented the metro (subway) from building a station there, and newer residents could not be more pissed that they are denied such a useful/convenient form of mass transit, one that the rest of the damn city enjoys. All because they feared, ahem, shall we say, urban encroachment.
I think the real reason why there is no metro station in Georgetown is that the construction of the tunnel and the station, as well as the vibration from the trains, combined with the local geology, would have caused too much structural damage to the buildings. Of course, if you are Kevin Kostner in the movie No Way Out, you can use the fictitious metro station in the Georgetown Mall.
They want Apple to pay taxes on a building that they won't let them do what they want? I'm sure the taxes will be paid once Apple gets its way with what it wants to do with it. Its nice to know you can own land and not be able to do what you want with it... Makes be proud to live in America! *end sarcasm*
Yep, that's what you call freedom. People died for the few freedoms we have left; at the very least we should be willing to fight as well. I wish one of these big companies would get a bit patriotic and fight the government for once. They all just seem to bend over and take everything. Ever heard of the rights to the fruits of your labor?
http://www.carolinaliberty.com