Thursday, July 12, 2007
The housing busybodies and green technology
If there is a category of busybody I cannot stand, it is "neighbors" who through covenants, statutes, regulation, or agitation try to prevent or micromanage perfectly mainstream and reasonable changes to one's property and home. Princeton is full of such people. Their sensibilities are bruised by virtually any change, no matter how crappy and run down the original state of the home in question. Me, I do not even understand the impulse. If my neighbor ripped down the split-level ranch next door and put up a tiny little Taj Mahal, my reaction would be "Cool! I live next to a tiny little Taj Mahal!" But that would never happen even if my neighbor had taste that bad, because the housing aesthetes would gun him down in the street. Bastards!
So here's to hoping that the environmentalists, who do not mess around, run roughshod over them.
As I've written before, we desperately need a federal law that declares any local statute or restrictive covenant unenforceable against minor changes to property if their primary purpose is to achieve a favorable impact on the environment.
29 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Jul 12, 10:37:00 PM:
One small example of this problem is that many homeowner associations throughout the country prohibit the hanging out of laundry. While hanging out laundry may be offensive to condo nazis, and may result in an outrageous loss of property value, it conserves energy and reduces CO2 emissions.
By , at
Thu Jul 12, 11:01:00 PM:
When I moved in to my house, my neighbor fought every single improvement I made to my home. When I needed a variance to replace a rundown, even decrepit, garage he fought me all the way to a hearing before the zoning board.
In the hearing, when asked why I couldn't replace my garage in a manner consistent with every single other house on my street (I had photos) he replied, "Because I like the view I now have of his garden". The unmitigated gall.
I hate busybody neighbors, and I hate government regulation that enables those busybodies.
By , at
Thu Jul 12, 11:03:00 PM:
PS. Sorry, I know that has nothing to do with green technology- it's just that I see red whenever this subject comes up! I say: Go ahead- put up all the windmills you want to in your backyard! It's your. house!
By 
TigerHawk, at
Thu Jul 12, 11:07:00 PM:
Anonymous, I couldn't agree more (obviously).
By , at
Fri Jul 13, 12:54:00 AM:
The enviro nazis dont want any technology at all they want us all living a stone age existence and cowering in our caves when their a solar eclypes and going OOOOMMMM OOOOMMMM OOOMMMM when we find a tree and were all kneeling lotus style around the tree while doing it
By , at
Fri Jul 13, 12:55:00 AM:
I have the misfortune of living in one of those places that is designated as an "Historic Area".
The extra requirements to do anything to your house is beyond the pale.
Even to paint my house without any other change I have to get a permit and have the color scheme approved.
In addition since my house has an already approved color scheme, I can't change it for another because of the 5 color schemes to choose from all the others are used on the same street so I can't alter mine to a different approved color scheme.
Lucky for me I like the one I have.
By , at
Fri Jul 13, 01:02:00 AM:
In the historic area where I live there are well documented over 15 architecture waves of different design styles showing how it evolved over the years.
So by using the hammer they have stopped and frozen an area in the time capsule preventing any new evolution and progress.
In addition, there really is nothing truly "Historic" about this area, it is just a bunch of very old houses that were designated that way back in the 60's when Historic Areas designation was all the rage.
In fact there is a major move here to get the city to remove that designation and it is close to passing.
By , at
Fri Jul 13, 01:14:00 AM:
About 10 years ago we had a old 3 story house burn to the ground and the owner wished to rebuild an exact duplicate of the house to replace it.
To meet all the requirements to match exactly the house construction the cost estimate by the architect was over a million dollars in an area where average house prices is still only in the 130k range.
This is a blue collar town who's main employer is a Pulp Mill.
The house was never built because the lot the house was on was to small by the new minimum lot size requirements and the house would have exceeded maximum lot coverage percentages and also could not meet the setback requirements of the current building code.
By , at
Fri Jul 13, 06:34:00 AM:
This one doesn't strike me as so cut and dry. I have no doubt that some neighborhood associations go too far (and similarly have no doubt that Princeton dwellers are likely in this group).
OTOH, to the extent that neighboring home property values are at least partly related to what I do with my [hypothetical] home, there is a signficant externality associated with my decisions. Managing this externality is appropriately the purview of a neighborhood association.
Surely you can envision some cases where the environmental gain is less than the cost of reduced property values to neighbors (in additional to the equity issue of who bears the costs).
Now, the politically active environmentalist movement is famously averse to these kinds of cost/benefit exercises in formulating policy - but they're also... umm... wrong.
Again here, the devil is in the details - as you implicitly recognize with the flexible language of "minor changes" and "primary purpose" when describing the federal law. I have roughly as much faith that this is implemented well at the federal level as I do that when I purchase a home, my neighborhood association won't drive me nuts too. Sigh.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Jul 13, 07:01:00 AM:
My problem, Howard, is that I do not believe that most of these restrictions -- whether contractual, regulatory, or simply a question of whining from neighbors -- have anything to do with the genuine economic value of the property. At the end of the day, that is hard to measure and rarely influenced by whether my neighbor paints his house canary yellow or not. In virtually all instances, these "neighborly" responses are triggered by a combination of control impulses and (in the case of tear-downs, the most environmentally sensitive means for rebuilding the housing stock) jealousy. The vast majority of these changes increase the value of the surrounding housing.
Take joy in the diversity of the housing around you, rather than trying to regulate it into bland uniformity. That's what I say.
By Jim in Virginia, at
Fri Jul 13, 07:14:00 AM:
I live in an old (1920's) but not "historic" neighborhood. No compulsory homeowner association, no covenants. There are some tight zoning requirements, but my neighbor can paint his porch any damn color he wants to. So can I.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Jul 13, 07:55:00 AM:
That's because, Jim, you live in the great Commonwealth of Virginia. A lot will change, though, if the suburbs of Washington get too much political influence in the rest of the state...
My guess is that you live south of the James...
By , at
Fri Jul 13, 08:30:00 AM:
I live in an area where perfectly good homes are torn down and replaced by exceptional quality and truly magnificant homes. Every block has 3 or 4 torn down annually, year in and year out. The public school is awesome with our own police and fire that for the most part truly exists to serve and protect, own city hall, a small town within the epicenter of Dallas. The historic folks discuss events to their dislike in the local paper but that is about the extent of it. Many living in future tear downs complain, but none seem willing to donate the proceeds of their lot value to the cause! Then we visit the "historic" areas of cities like San Antonio and see the remarkably rundown historic neighborhoods. What a contrast!
Yes folks, this is Texas. But I do still like the beauty of Princeton and New Jersey. However,...
By , at
Fri Jul 13, 08:43:00 AM:
TH -
I won't defend the silly activities of your Princeton neighbors (and similar people of their ilk, like those in my current town of residence). Your points are well taken there.
Still, the federalist in me is instinctively uncomfortable with passing federal regulations to override the collective wishes of a particular locality - even in cases where that locality has its priorities wrong.
By , at
Fri Jul 13, 10:07:00 AM:
I agree with howard in Boston. Having the feds overrule the locals is a bad idea. If the local rules are onerous/intolerable and you can't change them, why don't you just move?
By , at
Fri Jul 13, 11:00:00 AM:
"At the end of the day, that is hard to measure and rarely influenced by whether my neighbor paints his house canary yellow or not."
No doubt rare, but it happens. Down the street from us, a house is still on the market because a buyer backed out when the next-door neighbors painted their house an outrageous yellow-orange. Pleas met indifference.
Which suggests the "environment" has an aesthetic component, no? Aesthetics and environment aren't two different categories.
By , at
Fri Jul 13, 11:50:00 AM:
I also agree with Howard in Boston. However, I live where I can stand out in front of my garage and take a piss without bothering anybody (well, except for my wife). That's where I choose to live. Others choose to live among homeowners associations and covenants.
Not all covenants are bad. Here in the "Old Line State" we can apply a covenant at sale to the land deed of a single property. It doesn't mean much unless the seller decides to come back and enforce it!
By , at
Fri Jul 13, 12:19:00 PM:
TH,
the devil here is not in the details, but in putting together a halfway competent local board that knows its own business, and more importantly knows what ain't its business. I say this from experience: registered architect on Long Island, sat for ten years on a local Historic (Hysteric) Board, appeared before all flavors of boards. Rpinceton has real historic neighborhoods. It also has other neighborhoods where the law of the jungle should apply.
Getting five volunteer board members (or seven or nine) who understand what their job is is extremely difficult. I've seen zoning and planning board members fer chrissakes that can't understand the drawings, don't know their own village zoning code, much less the governing state law that enables a village or town to even have a zoning or planning board and which details their responsibilities! Hence, you have empowered morons making life miserable for their neighbors.
Spent Wednesday night at just such a hearing. One sour old individual has been on the planning board for twenty plus years, and if you don't think that he doesn't think he owns the village, you haven't been around. So we wasted time on inane questions, and rehased questions that were properly the purview of the Zoning Board. As a professional with a client, you remain polite and professional, when you desparately want to school the morons in the limits of their commission.
Enough of the rant.
Jhawk
By , at
Fri Jul 13, 01:29:00 PM:
One way to fight the busybodies, if you have the time, is to get a copy of ALL of the local city ordineances and local restrictions.
You get your camera and then cruise around finding violations. The most flagrent violaters tend to be city employees and elected officials. You then give them the option enforce all of the rules on everybody or they get off your back, or the violations you found go public and to court. It worked for a buddy of mine.
By ScurvyOaks, at
Fri Jul 13, 01:56:00 PM:
Great topic, Tigerhawk. I agree with Howard that federalism controls the question of whether there should be a preemptive federal law.
I take issue with some of what Anonymous of 8:30 AM has to say. I lived for 12+ years in his area (the Park Cities, composed of Highland Park and University Park -- I can't tell which of those two he's in). A lot of the tear-downs have been replaced with the worst sort of houses you get when property values are extremely high. I.e., gaudy extravagance, with the maximum footprint the zoning allows, wrecking the historic streetscapes. Although there are exceptions -- a lovely New England Greek Revival on Bryn Mawr comes to mind -- the bulk of these houses are architectural crap (e.g., a couple monstrosities on Gillon, which are particularly regrettable given the elegant, dignified houses they replaced).
For the last 7+ years I have lived in the Swiss Avenue Historic District (which is near downtown Dallas) in a 1923 Georgian Revival house. I'll be the first to say that the preservation ordinance is a pain. We made significant alterations to fences, gate, garage, &c. a few years ago, and the Landmark Commission certainly did not give us everything we wanted. But, you know, what we got was not unreasonable. The great thing about living in that area is that I know that those great old houses will still be around. And, whatever Anonymous thinks of San Antonio, I'll note that he did not claim that Swiss Avenue is a rundown neighborhood.
Ron Kerridge '84, aka
By , at
Fri Jul 13, 03:43:00 PM:
ScurvyOaks D
describes "these houses are architectural crap". OK, if you think so, I respectfully disagree! And how is your plumbing, electrical, termites, police, fire, schools and CRIME? But thanks for helping maintain that historic area of Dallas. SEW
By ScurvyOaks, at
Fri Jul 13, 04:09:00 PM:
SEW,
Perhaps I can nudge you as far as admitting that, among the new houses in the Park Cities, there is significant variation in architectural merit.
My 1923 plumbing is undergoing an expensive upgrade even as I type. The electrical is all original -- cloth-covered wire that is, however, entirely in conduit, so it's not a fire hazard. It works fine. No problems with termites.
Crime is certainly more serious than in your neck of the woods, but it's not terrible, and the situation is improving. The Swiss Avenue Historic District Association hires off-duty police for supplemental neighborhood patrol. So like a lot of stuff, it costs more money, but we have pretty good police protection. And there's not a history of "drunk in car" arrests, while we're in the business of comparing neighborhoods. ;) Fire house very nearby on Skillman.
The schools in my part of town are a problem, no doubt about it. I have two children from my prior marriage. They live with their mother on Hanover. One will be a sophomore at HP this fall; the other, an 8th grader at Providence.
But help me understand this: how does the fact that the Park Cities has no historic preservation ordinance cause it to have good schools (or good police, fire, safety, &c.)? If HP and UP started preserving pre-WWII houses now, is it your opinion that the quality of HPISD would decline?
By Miss Ladybug, at
Fri Jul 13, 04:29:00 PM:
When I first moved to Arkansas in '96, I moved in with my best friend, in the 2-bedroom house she was renting. It was likely built in the 1920s or 1930s: crawl space, wood floors, no central A/C no dishwasher. Landlord didn't hired the best people to have work done on it. She "painted" it, but instead of scraping off the old peeling paint, the painter just painted directly over the old paint. The street I lived on had other homes about the same age, but it also had "newer" (relative term) homes/duplexes on it.
However, in the actual historic district, there were beautiful homes that I might describe as Antebellum - short picket or wrought iron "fencing", verandas, columns. Always very well taken care of. I don't know what kind of restrictions the homeowners had to deal with. But, "historic district" didn't equal "run down". I guess it depends the community and the kind of regulations are imposed upon owners of "histric" homes.
By , at
Fri Jul 13, 05:42:00 PM:
ScurvyOaks,
The quality of schools would likely decline as property values decreased. There is no economic reason to have a $50,000 home on a $3,000,000 lot. Tax revenues and school tax receipts would drop. In your example, Gillon is priced by the Dallas Appraisal district at $100 square foot, $20,000 per front foot. Swiss is $6.15 to $8.50 per ft, $2,000 per front foot of land. The appraisers and realtors are pretty accurate. And not to throw rocks, but Live Oak to the rear and Gaston to the front explains much of that discrepancy, plus schools and police protection. The homes and lots on Swiss are magnificant and thanks for preserving that. For the most part here I feel there is a dramatic neighborhood improvement overall. Not much would be done without the open border.
Perhaps you referred to the Gillon home on the corner of Lakeside? My now deceased partner owned that but took the $4,000,000 for the lot as the $40,000 house went. You would be correct about the architecture of the home there now. Basic free market economics. Regards, SEW
By ScurvyOaks, at
Fri Jul 13, 06:12:00 PM:
SEW,
My argument is that introducing a preservation ordinance now would not cause property values to decrease. Many of the deserving tear-downs -- and there certainly were a bunch -- have already been torn down. Moreover, I'd propose only protecting pre-1941 houses and duplexes, so the ordinance wouldn't stand in the way of replacing the remaining post-1941 ranch houses in UP. Under those parameters, there wouldn't be many $50,000 houses frozen on $3,000,000 lots.
I actually had in mind some other houses on Gillon, rather than the one at the corner of Lakeside.
My biggest concern is that there's just no protection for the really great old houses. Take the house on the south corner of Euclid and Lakeside, for example. Tav Lupton completely appreciates the house's importance -- so much so that he sent Hal Thomson's blueprints to UT's architectural archives. But there's no guarantee that the next owner won't be a cretin who wants to tear it down. I understand completely the economic efficiency point. My argument is that the Park Cities can afford a preservation ordinance, and that Dallas cannot afford to lose any more of what little fine old residential architecture it has left. Unless we're happy to become Plano.
Regards,
Ron
By , at
Fri Jul 13, 06:15:00 PM:
You really think more Federal laws would be a cure better than the disease? I'm skeptical.
I live in Princeton too, in the Griggs Farm condominium. We have lots of restrictive Rules, some of which make me a little crazy, but I knew I was signing up for such when I moved here.
What I tell my neighbors who complain about the Condo Association rules is that the cure is political. If they don't like the rules, they can get their neighbors organized, run for Association Board, throw the bums out, and change the rules.
Doesn't that apply to you, too?
For which kind of law will it be easier to muster the political will to get it changed from what you don't like to what you do like: Federal, or local?
By , at
Fri Jul 13, 09:00:00 PM:
I think you are referring to Sam H's house, a professional and social friend. Likely the cretin wins but it could also be a place similar to Troy A around the corner. Awesome home.
For fun drive by 3600[I think] Beverly while the shell is in place. Spec home built for a Saudi? Massive. SEW
By , at
Sat Jul 14, 02:50:00 PM:
> One way to fight the busybodies...
> get a copy of ALL of the local city
> ordineances and local restrictions.
> You get your camera and then cruise
> around finding violations.
I got a traffic ticket a few months ago. The people around me were speeding too, but they didn't get a ticket. Does that mean I can fight mine?
By , at
Sat Jul 14, 02:53:00 PM:
What do you all think about people that agree to follow the rules when they sign their purchase agreement, but then decide not to?
