Did we read the same article? Vogl's argument seemed to rest on :
- These houses are residential properties.
- People are using them as commercial properties (offices, under the guise of 'live/work spaces')
- No one is stopping it, Zoning is not enforced there (because 'it's a poor neighborhood'), but zoning is enforced in wealthier areas (Johnson County).
The rest of the stuff you mention is true too. But I don't think it's the "entirety of her case" -- it's support for the case. "They commute to work instead of living in the office", for instance, is strong evidence that the property is commercial, not residential in nature.
This seems like a cut-and-dry zoning violation, that's being ignored because the area is "poor". I don't think she's being destructive, she's just asking for fair and equal treatment.
- These houses are residential properties.
- People are using them as commercial properties (offices, under the guise of 'live/work spaces')
- No one is stopping it, Zoning is not enforced there (because 'it's a poor neighborhood'), but zoning is enforced in wealthier areas (Johnson County).
The rest of the stuff you mention is true too. But I don't think it's the "entirety of her case" -- it's support for the case. "They commute to work instead of living in the office", for instance, is strong evidence that the property is commercial, not residential in nature.
This seems like a cut-and-dry zoning violation, that's being ignored because the area is "poor". I don't think she's being destructive, she's just asking for fair and equal treatment.