4 ms·

I don't fully understand why it's so hard for a legislative body to eliminate such covenants.

nobodyknowin 3y ago
Basically yeah, it take legislation. Like the Civil rights act immediately struck down all of the racist covenants (that still exist but are unenforceable). So maybe a municipal action could do something similar? Of course the easiest way to not deal with covenants like this is don't buy property with them. Condos have tons and I will never live in one.
function_seven 3y ago
Because constituents will often fight such an attempt. For every covenant that's annoying you, there are people in the vicinity that like it. People generally like setbacks. It prevents their neighbors from being too close, or the street getting crowded in. Property owners might want to develop along the edges, but their neighbors may not want them to. So clearing these covenants out wholesale is going to be a fight. And going through the legislative process for a single property is really inefficient.
- russellbeattie 3y ago
  Ah, this answers a question I had: How is a covenant enforced since it's not a law? Who would have standing for a civil suit if a 200 year old covenant was simply ignored? So what you're saying is that others in the vicinity would be able sue to make sure the covenant was honored? I have to assume this has been tested in court many times before and upheld.
  - IncreasePosts 3y ago
    Probably, someone who claims to be a pedestrian negatively affected by the lack of sunlight that was previously there.
  - halestock 3y ago
    I would imagine neighbors would have standing to sue for since it might affect their view or property values or something of that nature.
  - mminer237 3y ago
    Every one of the neighbors holding the right under the covenants could sue. They could either seek damages for however much they could show that harms them (good luck, but sometimes more modern covenants will provide a minimum damages amount), or they could seek an equitable remedy and have a court order that anything built past the setback be torn down. If none of the neighbors care, theoretically you'd be fine to ignore since no one else has standing to sue, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that a neighbor would sell it someday to someone who wants to shake you down. If everyone's fine with it, you really should get them to give up their interests in the covenants.
kayodelycaon 3y ago
Legally, it's not hard, you just make a law. You can make an existing type of contract illegal. At that point in time, the contract (or parts of it) become unenforceable. See banning non-competent agreements. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_v._Kraemer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_v._Kraemer where the United States Supreme Court ruled the 14th amendment made "racially restrictive covenants" unenforceable. Also, depending on the state, you might be able to get a covenant removed by a court if it has been violated for a sufficient period of time.

Basically yeah, it take legislation. Like the Civil rights act immediately struck down all of the racist covenants (that still exist but are unenforceable). So maybe a municipal action could do something similar? Of course the easiest way to not deal with covenants like this is don't buy property with them. Condos have tons and I will never live in one.

function_seven 3y ago

Because constituents will often fight such an attempt. For every covenant that's annoying you, there are people in the vicinity that like it. People generally like setbacks. It prevents their neighbors from being too close, or the street getting crowded in. Property owners might want to develop along the edges, but their neighbors may not want them to. So clearing these covenants out wholesale is going to be a fight. And going through the legislative process for a single property is really inefficient.

russellbeattie 3y ago
Ah, this answers a question I had: How is a covenant enforced since it's not a law? Who would have standing for a civil suit if a 200 year old covenant was simply ignored? So what you're saying is that others in the vicinity would be able sue to make sure the covenant was honored? I have to assume this has been tested in court many times before and upheld.
- IncreasePosts 3y ago
  Probably, someone who claims to be a pedestrian negatively affected by the lack of sunlight that was previously there.
- halestock 3y ago
  I would imagine neighbors would have standing to sue for since it might affect their view or property values or something of that nature.
- mminer237 3y ago
  Every one of the neighbors holding the right under the covenants could sue. They could either seek damages for however much they could show that harms them (good luck, but sometimes more modern covenants will provide a minimum damages amount), or they could seek an equitable remedy and have a court order that anything built past the setback be torn down. If none of the neighbors care, theoretically you'd be fine to ignore since no one else has standing to sue, but that doesn't preclude the possibility that a neighbor would sell it someday to someone who wants to shake you down. If everyone's fine with it, you really should get them to give up their interests in the covenants.

kayodelycaon 3y ago

Legally, it's not hard, you just make a law. You can make an existing type of contract illegal. At that point in time, the contract (or parts of it) become unenforceable. See banning non-competent agreements. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_v._Kraemer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_v._Kraemer where the United States Supreme Court ruled the 14th amendment made "racially restrictive covenants" unenforceable. Also, depending on the state, you might be able to get a covenant removed by a court if it has been violated for a sufficient period of time.