Re: Your home is your cottage, er, sort of.....

Thats just bull... who gives them the right to say?

Remove "NOSPAM" out of email address when replying directly

My home is only 2,000 square feet so therefore it is now illegal for anyone > else to have a home larger than that and I don't care what you think about > it! > > > ************************************ > > Property rights are in trouble just about everywhere. The latest trend hits > an economic right Americans have traditionally taken for granted: the right > to build or buy the biggest home you can afford. > > The L.A. City Council recently approved, on an 11-0 vote, an > *anti-mansionization* ordinance prohibiting smaller homes from being torn > down and replaced by larger houses in the Sunland-Tujunga area. The > ordinance limits houses on 8,000-square-foot lots or less to 2,400 square > feet or 40 percent of the lot size, whichever is greater. Burbank and > Glendale have similar laws, and other San Fernando Valley communities such > as Valley Village and Valley Glen are lobbying for such restrictions. > > This all begs the question: If *activist* neighbors, politicians, and > bureaucrats can place restrictions on what you can do with your property, do > you really own your property? > > According to anti-mansionization proponents such as Councilwoman Wendy > Greuel, who made the motion for the ordinance, *Homes are being built larger > than is necessary.* (to that I respond, *No matter the size of Mrs Greuel's > home, to me it is still too large and must be torn down.*) > > But who is Ms. Greuel to judge how large someone's home may be or what is > best for the homeowner? Different people have different wants and needs, and > they should be free to pursue their happiness as they see fit, provided they > *do not violate the rights of others* in the process. No third party - gov't > official or not - has the capacity to determine what is right for everyone > else, much less dictate how everyone else must use their private property. > Next, you will have to trade in your Hummer for a Mini Cooper because a nosy > neighbor or heavy-handed bureaucrat thinks your vehicle is *larger than > necessary.* > > Anti-mansionists also argue that by limiting how large one can build his own > house on his own land they are, as Greuel said, *preserving the unique > character of the community.* But homeowners do not own all of the homes in a > community. They only control the one they live in. > > What? You don't remember the old lady down the street with all the cats > signing the deed to your house? Too bad. According to anti-mansionization > activists, she has just as much right to decide what you do with your > property as you do. > > There is no basis on which to believe that the *character* of a community > should remain unchanged in perpetuity. Housing demands are not the same as > they were in the 1970s or the 1950s. Community make-ups often change > drastically over time. Why should communities be rigidly *preserved* as > though they were stuck in time? > > This is not to say that a group of homeowners who each choose to establish > and maintain a certain community character should not be free to do so. > Indeed, many people join homeowners associations for just this reason. These > groups may self-regulate the size, shape, and color of homes, as well as > numerous other things, in order to preserve a certain community look and > feel. Those not bound by such voluntary restrictions, however, should not be > forced, through the power of gov't, to comport with the whims of an > overzealous politician, bureaucrat, or neighbor. > > Large-house supply is merely meeting large-house demand. The increase in > housing size is a long-term trend. According to U.S. Census Bureau > statistics, the average house size more than doubled from 1950 to 1999. As > interest rates rise, savings levels approach zero, personal debt skyrockets, > and adjustable and interest-only home loans continue to flourish, the > inevitable bursting of the housing bubble in California markets may reverse > this trend, however. > > At the heart of the debate is whether we should embrace *individual rights* > or *community rights.* Councilman Greig Smith offered the chilling assertion > that *while we have personal rights to property, we also have community > rights to property.* > > The problem is that individual property rights and communal rights are > mutually exclusive: either you have the right to control your property or > political entity does. You do not really own something if you have to put > anything you do with it up to a public vote. If everyone *owns* something, > no one *owns* it. > > It has been talked at length of individual rights; but what, it may be > asked, of the *rights of society*? Don't they supersede the rights of the > mere individual? The libertarian, however, is an individualist; he believes > that one of the prime errors in social theory is to treat *society* as if it > were an actually existing entity. *Society* is sometimes treated as a > superior or quasi-divine figure with overriding *rights* of its own; at > other times as an existing evil which can be blamed for all the ills of the > world. The individualist holds that only individuals exist, think, feel, > choose, act and held accountable for those acts; and that *society* is not a > living entity but simply a label for a set of interacting individuals. > Treating society as a thing that chooses and acts, then, serves to obscure > the real forces at work. If, in a small community, ten people band together > to rob and expropriate three others then this is clearly and evidently a > case of a group of individuals acting in concert against another group. In > this situation, if the ten people presumed to refer to themselves as > *society* acting in *its* interest, the rationale would be laughed out of > court; even the ten robbers would probably be too shamefaced to use this > sort of argument. But let their size increase, and this kind of

obfuscation

becomes rife and succeeds in easily duping the public. > > This is the same sort of logic demonstrated by the Adam's of the world, that > theft on an individual level is immoral and criminal but when practiced on a > grand scale by gov't through taxation it is acceptable and even necessary. > Clearly people that think this way are not thinking at all and are > unprincipled and deserving of an absurd instance of that which they wish for > others. > > It has been said: *Society is everyone but you.* A *society* - or > *community* - is nothing but the sum of the interactions of a group of > individuals. It is a label, nothing more. It does not possess its own > special rights or privileges. In short, not only do *community rights* not > supersede *individual rights*, there are no *community rights* to private > property, only *individual rights*. The deed to your house does not give you > a partial interest in mine as well. > > Everyone has the right not to like what their neighbors do to their homes. > You do not, however, have the right to impose your preferences on another's > property. As much as you are repulsed by your neighbor's pink flamingo lawn > ornaments or garden gnome collection, you do not have the right to prevent > him from displaying them any more than you have the right to go over to his > yard and steal or destroy them. You just have to suck it up and deal with > it; it's not your property! > > Ironically, unlike prolific garden gnomes, larger houses may even increase > the value of surrounding homes because they are more desirable these days. > This leads to higher resale values for homeowners and higher property tax > revenues (which governments normally prefer) for local governments. It thus > appears that local officials are shooting themselves in the foot by denying > themselves funding for needed services in order to maintain a community's > stagnant character. (Note: This should not be construed as an endorsement of > property taxes, merely an observation of the consequences of restricting > home size under the current tax system.) > > A man's home is his castle, even if he decides to build it next door to you. > Individuals should be less concerned with their neighbors' lack of respect > for a perceived *community character* or their tacky lawn displays and more > concerned with the way gov't is whittling away their fundamental property > rights. Remember John Locke's natural rights of life, liberty, and property, > upon which the Declaration of Independence was based? (if not, go look it up > right now) That shadow looming over you is not that of the large mansion > your neighbor just built, it is the shadow of gov't enveloping your property > rights. > >
Reply to
Mark M (NJTermite)
Loading thread data ...

"Don" wrote in news:IwXTe.8767$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

Exactly: "the latest trend".

In a long list, over a long period of time, of other trends.

Firstly, you *never* "really own" your property. If you doubt that, just refuse to pay your property taxes. Or try to do something without the permission of your local neighborhood committee or whatever they call it where you are. Or try to put up an addition without a city permit. Unless you live out in the middle of a wilderness somewhere (good luck finding one), the plain fact is that holding the deed to a property does not mean you can do whatever you want to it or with it. In a sense, you actually "rent" that property because you are subject to any number of fees and bylaws and neighborhood committees and etc. and so on and so forth.

Secondly, the problem isn't only huge houses - it is paving in general.

Paved land cannot absorb rainfall. This harms watersheds (and the supply of drinking water), but also, it contributes to flash floods. This is a big problem in areas where long, hot, very dry summers bake the soil to the point where its capacity to absorb water is already comprimised. As houses and their associated paving takes more and more land, this problem is exacerbated.

OTOH, mass housing (condos/apartments, towhnouses) are still seen as being less desireable than a separate house, even if the actual property is so small that there are only 6" between your walls and those of your neighbor, and can't plant anything larger than a small shrub. I personally think that this, in turn, is one reason why so many townhouses have noting but regualr walls (sheetrock nailed to either side of a framed wall) between one unit and another, which in turn makes the experience somewhat like living inside of a drum set. I've lived in townhouses where I could literally, while in bed, hear the neighbor on one side pee, and the neighbor on the other side snore.

I also worried constantly about fire. The whole complex would burn like one large house.

If the complex has no driveways or garages for each unit, you're stuck with common parking lots and end up with paint scraped off the roof and hood and trunk (because the dumbass neighbors plop their groceries and various other purchases there, so that they don't scratch up their own car) and all sorts of dents, dings, broken lights, and other sundry damage.

And there are always people tromping around right in front of your unit, kids leaving their toys on your sidewalk, and just about every other form of total lack of consideration. Can't plant anything because either the kids, or the groundskeepers, tear it up. Then thre is the question of things like community pools - where you get to swim in the accumulated pee, snot, spit, and other non-sterile exudates, of bunches of other poeple of unknown sanitary habits.

Yee-haw...

Concentrated housing would allow a given amount of land to have maximum open space, as opposed to the typical subdivision. But mass housing is seldom built to be pleasant, never mind quiet.

If allowing people to pave over 80% of their property causes flooding, which in turn causes damage to other property elsewhere, then the only recourse is to add another restriction or covenant to the many that already exist, which limits a house's footprint, and it's associated paving, to a certain percentage of the lot.

And really, an 8000 sq ft lot is just not all that big to begin with. It's really easy to fill it up quickly.

If the space in every yard is maxed out with building and paving, you end up with an area (so-called "neighborhood") that has all the disadvantages of row housing and none-to-few of the advantages.

Reply to
Kris Krieger

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.