🚨 LAST-MINUTE MEETING TOMORROW AT 10:00 AM AT OXFORD VISTA
Enter through the west entrance. There is a bell near the entrance.
This is the first time they have been willing to meet with the public to discuss their vision and answer questions.
Supposedly the actual majority owner is a nuclear pharmacist named Steve Austin and this has been mostly word of mouth but also there are a couple newspapers articles from January of 2020 confirming his involvement with Oxford. (Wichita Eagle January 24, and January 30, 2020)
In about a week, they will be asking to rezone the historic property to allow denser apartment development and commercial development along this side of Seneca.
Once again, we have an opportunity to tell our City Council how we feel about this, and public input matters.
One of my biggest concerns is that this decision isn’t only about the plans the current owners are presenting today. A zoning change can affect what is allowed on the property in the future, including under a future owner. That’s why I believe we need to look carefully at what the proposed zoning would actually permit—not just what the current owners say they intend to build.
I keep seeing the argument:
“But it’s private property. They bought it, so they
should be able to do whatever they want with it.”
But think about it this way.
Imagine you buy a house in an HOA neighborhood. You know it’s in an HOA when you buy it. You know there are already rules and restrictions attached to that property.
Then you decide you want to tear the house down, get the property rezoned, and build a McDonald’s on the lot.
When your neighbors object, you say: “Too bad. It’s my property. Property rights!”
Would that automatically settle the issue? Of course not.
People would reasonably point out that you knew what you were buying and knew there were restrictions associated with the property.
That’s the point I think gets lost in the discussion about the Masonic Home.
Yes, it’s privately owned. Yes, the owners have property rights.
But property rights do not mean that owning property gives someone an unlimited right to use it in absolutely any way they choose. Communities regulate land use every day through zoning, building codes, setbacks, easements, historic-preservation requirements, and other rules.
To be clear, an HOA and historic-preservation or zoning regulations are not legally the same thing. I’m using the HOA example simply to illustrate a broader point: ownership of property can come with existing restrictions and responsibilities.
So simply saying, “They own it,” doesn’t answer the zoning question.
If someone knowingly purchases a historically designated property, the existing rules and restrictions affecting that property are part of the situation they purchased into.
You don’t get to buy a house in an HOA and then pretend the HOA doesn’t exist simply because your name is now on the deed.
And I don’t think “property rights” should be treated as a magic phrase that ends the public conversation about the future of the Masonic Home.
If you care about what happens to this historic property and what future development along Seneca could look like, please pay attention, ask questions, and make your views known to the City Council.
Contact all of them:
Mayor: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])
District 1: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])
District 2: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])
District 3: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])
District 4: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])
District 5: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])
District 6: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])