What terrible, one-sided reporting this is. There's not even an attempt to present anything other than the voice of conservative preservationists.

thats because there is no other valid opinion on this. the dude violated the terms of his permit, plain and simple.

Except, of course, for the fact that property rights are central to both the US and CA constitutions, with the focus being that you can do whatever you want on your own property.

So here's a valid opinion to blow yours outta the water: ethically, where does SF get the right to tell a citizen what they can and cannot do with their own property?

There of course are many valid opinions ranging from fully totalitarian to fully free/anarchist. Laws have absolutely nothing to do with validity of opinions. Remember slavery?

I think the point of jdubz79's comment was that regardless of what you might think of conservation and zoning policies, it is unambiguous that the developer voluntarily entered into an agreement and then grossly and deliberately violated it.

And even you consider architectural planning some sort of civil rights issue and this some sort of deliberate protest, his violation is unambiguous.

I understood that. However: We are definitely not going to change that ruling - thus talking about the ruling itself or this isolated case is pointless. We can only talk about opinions.

I got prompted 4 times for stuff before I could read the article.