Steve Can't Tear Down House

[Roger1]

Even neglect has a negative sound to it, he simply took no action to either destroy or maintain the property, he just let time and the elements effect the original architects design. Maybe a better design would've lasted better.

ne·glect Audio pronunciation of "neglect" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-glkt)
tr.v. ne·glect·ed, ne·glect·ing, ne·glects

1. To pay little or no attention to; fail to heed; disregard: neglected their warnings.
2. To fail to care for or attend to properly: neglects her appearance.
3. To fail to do or carry out, as through carelessness or oversight: neglected to return the call.


n.
1. The act or an instance of neglecting something.
2. The state of being neglected.
3. Habitual lack of care.

dictionary.com


Houses need regular maintenance of one form or another, regardless of their age. Part of maintenance is repairing vandalism. If not repaired, then it's neglected.

 

[mpw]

ne·glect Audio pronunciation of "neglect" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-glkt)
tr.v. ne·glect·ed, ne·glect·ing, ne·glects

1. To pay little or no attention to; fail to heed; disregard: neglected their warnings.
2. To fail to care for or attend to properly: neglects her appearance.
3. To fail to do or carry out, as through carelessness or oversight: neglected to return the call.


n.
1. The act or an instance of neglecting something.
2. The state of being neglected.
3. Habitual lack of care.

dictionary.com


Houses need regular maintenance of one form or another, regardless of their age. Part of maintenance is repairing vandalism. If not repaired, then it's neglected.

Houses only need regular maintenance and repair if you want to keep them in a certain condition. Your definitions of neglect imply not doing something you should be doing. If you don't want to do something and don't do it it isn't neglect it's a choice to not act.

The way I see it there was no reason for the landowner to take any action and he didn't so what's the problem?

The state appear to have made a derelict house a historic building and therefore the present owner can only fairly be required to keep it in its present condition. If the property really is/was worth saving for the public good then the public should question why the state didn't act sooner and protect the perfectly good building that was there in the 80's.