5 ms·
Why do you want to limit people’s property rights for looks? Why does a row of buildings need to be exactly aligned? This type of thing and HOAs are a bane upon
by ok_dad 3y ago
Why do you want to limit people’s property rights for looks? Why does a row of buildings need to be exactly aligned? This type of thing and HOAs are a bane upon property owners. I’m glad I don’t have an HOA, and I’ll never understand the push to not allow semi-organically grown cityscapes. You need some zoning limits, but do it Japan style rather than for looks.
- beaeglebeachh 3y agoYeah this is why I bought land with no HOA and no covenants and basically no codes and liberal zoning. Sure the roads are dirt 4x4 and my neighbors have livestock and wild noises at all times but if I wanted to regulate other land I'd buy it myself rather than using violence of enforcers sent in to stop it. If you want 8 ft setback, simple solution. Build 16 ft from your property line,problem solved even if your neighbor hits the edge.
- caseyohara 3y agoI'd argue this is a bit different than your typical suburban HOA restrictions. Cities are shared spaces, and design consistency is pleasing to humans. Beautiful architecture and good city planning are obviously subjective, but aesthetically, design consistency creates a sense of harmony, unity, and comfort compared to a disjointed hodgepodge without a cohesive architectural through line. Functionally, it can also promote things like walkability and sustainability, making it a nicer place to live and work and visit. The 99% Invisible podcast recently had an episode about Sante Fe, NM. The city has strict guidelines for architecture and design which have ultimately been a big factor in the city's success as a tourist destination. https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/roman-mars-describes-santa-fe-as-it-is/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/roman-mars-describes-...
- ok_dad 3y agoWhen I see a city with organic development, I feel cozier than with the cities that all look the same and were built all the same. I think the American idea of “unity” in these matters is a bit insane and very exclusionary.
- Starman_Jones 3y agoIf there's one thing you can say about America, it's that we're nowhere near as independent and individualistic as the rest of the world. New York is tentpole of homogeneity compared to Barcelona or Lyon.
- shiroiushi 3y agoCome to Tokyo if you want to see a city full of radically-different buildings right next to each other. But ask any normal American, and they'll tell you the city is "ugly" because all the buildings don't look the same.
- caseyohara 3y agoI meant "unity" the design principle, not the patriotic sense. Reasonable restrictions and a bit of city planning don't preclude organic development, New York is probably the most organic city in the US. I'm not advocating for every city to be completely uniform and same-y and soulless, just cohesive and thoughtful. Cohesive != uniform. https://www.invisionapp.com/defined/unity-principle-design https://www.invisionapp.com/defined/unity-principle-design
- ok_dad 3y agoI think we probably agree mostly. I’m also talking about design. I prefer a less constrained design system for a city, I think it gives life. Trying to control every bit of the look of a place makes it boring and conservative, IMO. In the USA, I also think that design unity is used to get rid of undesirable persons, and keep things a certain way for certain types of people.
- renewiltord 3y agoI wonder if this is a cultural thing imported by the original immigrants to the nation or some other factor. The American desire for uniformity is almost German. There needs to be "consistency" and "unity" in design. This is probably why so many houses are all grey and stuff. I much prefer the organic Asian form of things, and I think the US (which is generally quite awesome) would be well improved with that.
- financltravsty 3y agoBecause some of the USA (notably the north east) still gives a shit about the communities where they live rather than embracing rugged frontier individualism a la "trust no one, and get yours first." Just because you own something doesn't mean you get a free pass to be a nuisance to others. Laws are there to keep society together, not to enable antisocial proclivities.
- shermantanktop 3y agoA very, very right-wing coworker once said to me: "There is no such thing as society. There is no such thing as common good. These are fictions created to control you." I was happy he had identified our fundamental disagreement so that we didn't have to argue further.
- financltravsty 3y agoYes, now throw him out deep into the Mongolian steppes and see how he fares without modern supply chains. Everyone's a libertarian until you take away the fruits of industry.
- beaeglebeachh 3y agoMutual benefit is a thing, industry works fine when everyone is driven by selfishness as no one agrees to a transaction unless both parties are better off. I'd much sooner live with that coworker in the steppes than cheerman mao or other charlatans in Asian history proclaiming about the common good.
- ok_dad 3y agoCheck out Japan zoning laws, pal. I’m not some rugged individual, but I still believe in reasonable freedoms. Japan doesn’t have issues with nuisances with their zoning system. Far from it.
- financltravsty 3y agoThat's a cultural artifact. The same as why HOAs proliferated outside the puritan colonies: people could not be trusted to self-govern and self-regulate towards a common good. Japan doesn't have issues with nuisances because -- culturally -- they're more aware of the effect their actions have on the world around them. The same cannot be said for a large portion of the U.S.A. I'm of the opinion freedom as a detached goal for its own sake is a puerile pursuit, and a big driver of why we can't have nice things.
- balderdash 3y agoAdding a covenant to a deed is a property right, I think wanting to know invalidate them is anti-property rights.
- beaeglebeachh 3y agoIf the covenant was added by a dead guy and the counterparty doesn't exist but now it's enforced by a government court against the wishes of the property owner who owns the 'right' is it really property rights at that point? I'm willing to be convinced but it's not super clear to me.
- freejazz 3y agoIt's a property right for whoever would benefit. If no one benefits, then who is enforcing it? The gov't doesn't do so voluntarily, covenants are enforced through the civil court system.
- beaeglebeachh 3y ago[dead]
- ProfessorLayton 3y agoMy parent's house in the Bay Area came with (Now unenforceable) covenants dictating that PoC cannot live there. The can and should be changed as necessary.
- beaeglebeachh 3y agoBut it is anti property rights to force someone to rent or sell to poc. Of course without government influence this becomes a dumb business plan because it depressed the utility of your property and hands business to competitors. I would argue government should eliminate racial discrimination laws as it will just shake itself out in the market and it actually makes things harder on poc.
- bradleyjg 3y agoWhy do you want to limit people’s property rights for looks? Literally is an overused word, but it fits here: A covenant is literally a property right!
- beaeglebeachh 3y agoCovenant is the equivalent of a Eula poisoned into software you've purchased. If you own it you ought have the ability to disable the Eula. A covenant is weird because it more often than not is contract entered unilaterally by some dead guy with himself somehow under the fiction it is an agreement with the land itself, it's not clear who the counterparty even is.
- bradleyjg 3y agoThe major problem with EULAs is the power disparity between the buyer and seller. It’s me vs Microsoft and I can’t practically opt out of MS Word. A secondary problem is that no one knows what’s in them because no one reads them. A real estate deal is nothing like that. The buyer and seller have roughly equal power and everyone is represented by lawyers.
- ok_dad 3y agoEqual power is if you had any control over the covenant. In most cases, it’s a take it or leave it situation. That’s not equal power, that’s a complete lack of it. I personally don’t see how a covenant on a property is anything other than the attempt to control the living world from the grave, and shouldn’t be allowed. Zoning laws can change with the times, they’re sufficient to protect the property owners from major nuisances.
- freejazz 3y agoZoning laws require an entire legislature to enact or change. A covenant only runs between the parties to the covenant. This is such an absurd point that is repeated here.
- 3y ago