AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: "Dracula's" Castle Controversy
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Return to Commie Fascism ... or simple property dispute?

Some may call the issue "amateurism, populism and demagoguery" but it sure sounds like the real issue here is that some folks don't understand the whole idea of "private property".
I'm a little confused here. Did the government exercise it's right of First Refusal, as the agreement stipulated? I realize the castle is still open to the public.
John L Wrote:I'm a little confused here. Did the government exercise it's right of First Refusal, as the agreement stipulated? I realize the castle is still open to the public.

Geez John!! :roll:

The Government by putting the agreement in place, basically stipulated that it was HIS property. At the point where they admit it is HIS property, their little clauses etc. become somewhat irrelevant don't they?

I'm with the rabble rousers on this one. His property was taken by the state and then restored when the state realized it's error. The act of restoring it to him renders it private property. The right of First Refusal and 2009 crap are vestiges of fascism ... the state deciding that it's right's supercede the right's of the individual.

This is Romanian Kilo John L.! And I don't see any mention of reparations for some six decades of loss of use! Do you?

... actually that's probably the part where they sue for $200 million.

It will be interesting to see if rule of law works in this former communist state.
Geeze Yakster.

I'm not a lawyer, thank G-d. Further, I am not up to speed on their law either. But it appears to me that both parties reached an "out of court" agreement, as a result of the origional lawsuit. That seems to me to be a binding agreement, assuming there was no duress involved. If they both willingly entered into the agreement, then he would be legally bound to abide by the contract, which stipulated leaving the place open to tourists, AND the right of First Refusal.

What should he care who pays his asking price? If he wants 200 million dollars, he should first offer the right to Romania before placing the property on the open market. I am assuming that what is written is correct, knowing that journalists almost never get things right. After all, they are journalists, correct?
What would you say, if the property of King George II in the new world would be returned to his rightful heir, Queen Elisabeth II?
Watched a documentary about the topic once, more detailed than the article. Initially, I believe, cultural heritage should not be in private hands, but nationalized, and first rang objects say as the pyramids even international property. Vlad is #1 national hero of the Romanians, having beaten back the Ottomans in the 14th century or so. The Dracula fiction is a mere icing. Mr Archduke received a fine and unexpected gift sixty years later, and the Romanians made it a part of the deal that the castle is further open to the public, and to restore it. They couldn't afford it in the turmoil and relative poverty in the early nineties. Market value of the object are an estimated $ 5 million. The gigantic sum of $ 100 million serves the purpose to cheat the Romanian public, they won't pay that price, and Mr Archduke is free to sell to whoever he wants, even below market value, he can choose the buyer. I don't know how the Habsburgs, essentially Austrians, came to possess that castle, presumably by conquering that part of todays Romania, not purchasing it. Considering the timeline, 2006 return of the castle to the owner, early 2007 castle put up for sale, Mr Archduke never planned to honor the agreement.