All means of settling disputes are almost always rooted in "Who owns what?". Thus, I come to this quandry, and would love your respective inputs. (For the record, I have always loved all your respective inputs.....IF ya know what I mean)
Lets say you have lived in a home for several years, but are hoping to move within the next year. Your neighbor, elects to paint their house bright pink with yellow polka dots. Your neighborhood has no ordinances or community guidelines. Now your house is up for sale, and as it ends up, the relative market value of your house has gone down as a result of people not being to crazy about living next to such an eye sore.
Who's property rights are respected here? Does the neighbor not have the right to paint garish colors since it affects his neighbors property values? Do you simply just have to put up with a loss of value on your own property? Should he be required to pay you an arbitrated fee for his crazy choice of color scheme?
This is the tough stuff for me.
Does this extend to such eyesores as uncut grass? How about a beat up car in the driveway?
What does one do when there arent community guidelines?
Should there even be a community guideline system?
What about a neighbor who wrenches on his car, and makes noise during the day?
Or, lets say you live in a low traffic community. Sparsely populated. Your neighbor owns gorgeous, HUGE....tracks of land.... He wants to build several apartments on his land. Does he have a right to simply because he has the property? Or do appeals have to be made to his neighbors regarding what the mass amounts of new human traffic his venture will create in said community?
And what about in large cities? I'll give an example. I lived in Hollywood near the corner of Hollywood Blvd. and Vine. A huge megaplex of shops and restaurants opened up on that corner. Traffic became impossible to navigate many times, creating hectic, nightmarish commutes. Often times parking that was once easy to get by my home, was now impossible due to all the new customers. Does that business complex, which makes money by my inconvenience owe me anything for said inconvenience? Or is it simply my tough break, and my perogative to move?
Thoughts are appreciated.
3 comments:
This question, to me, is easily answered (although the answers themselves aren't that easy to deal with). Our government (and the morals tied to them) were set up with the idea that each person has a right to do what he or she wishes, as long as it does not interfere or harm another. In the case of the garish house making the other house values go down, I think an easy case could be made that doing such a thing would in fact "harm" others in their right to conduct business and their lives as normal. (And they could always move to Taos where polka dots would probably be more than welcome.)
The only problem in this is when capitalism steps in. In the case of the shopping center, businesses (and profits) are given precedence over what is good for others. It seems our courts decide that it's okay for a strip mall to create horrible traffic situations as long as they're bringing in money to the area. In these situations, the original idea that what you do is your business, just don't encroach upon my life, flies out the door. (Granted, by moving to Hollywood, you sort of automatically sign a waiver saying that you do not like to live in bucolic splendor, right?)
So, on this case, I defer to the Constitution and to the moral philosophies of Locke, Rousseau, and other boring Enlightenment thinkers who are not, sadly for both them and me, Ancient Greeks.
As an owner of a townhome, we pay monthly dues to the "community association". In return, we get the public areas landscaped, my front yard mowed, and my trash taken away. We also get twice yearly letters saying what's wrong with my house and that we need to fix it or we will be fined. We typically do nothing and have yet to pay any fines, but there are also no overgrown or trashstrewn yards and no polka dotted houses in our neighborhood.
Property values and financial stability of the families in a school system directly corrolate to the academic success of students in that school system. We could spend weeks arguing the whys and wherefores, but one reason is the tax collected on property.
The shopping center on the corner is bringing a lot more money into the municipal coffers than a block of apartments or some single family homes. However, it is an eyesore and a nuisance, which is why the developer was probably required to get permits and post notices and appear at city council meetings to defend the shopping center, ad nauseum. Had the residents of that community thought it odious enough, they probably could have beaten it back. The town we live in did that with a Walmart and appear to be doing it to the Wegmans. Rarely anymore in this country, I believe, is the machine so powerful that determined citizens can't keep a development that they don't want out. They just need critical mass.
One of the important things we are going to look into before we buy our next house is the level of community restrictions and ordinances. Is it severe enough that you have to get approval before changing your landscaping, or lax enough that I can finally build that demolition derby figure eight I've always dreamed about.
I think what Ethan touched on in his closing paragraph is the root of this particular issue. I am glad that you did not bring this into an eminent domain conversation for that would go on forever. Ethan's point that he and Kate, as potential buyers into any community, have to do their homework to see if the 'rules' of that community are tolerable is central to the issue.
If you move into an area with no guidelines or bylaws you do run the risk of a Graceland, sans the Elvis whimsy, moving in next door. You can also move into an area where the rules of the community limit your ability to increase the value of your home by adding certain landscaping or architectural features. Melissa and I had an end unit townhome. I entertained the idea of adding a window onto the exposed wall to bring more natural light into the living area. Rules of the community did not allow it. That window could have got us $5,000 extra when we sold. Oh well, dem's the rulz.
Hand in hand with property rights is personal accountability and responsibility. Not reading the HOA documents before buying is your fault. Not being sociable with your neighbor to the level of saying 'Hey, do you mind waiting until I sell because that will hurt my value' is a choice. I would say few people are so unreasonable that a compromise could not be worked out. But, in the 21st Century American Dream way you could just sue them to get your money. All's well that ends well.
I find it disagreeable, to put it mildly, that I cannot do with my property whatever I wish. A decrease in property value does not excuse a squashing of my personal rights. A relative could not cut a large, dangerous tree down in his yard because a bald eagle landed on it once. It was now protected habitat. He was going to build on that spot. No building for him. Further, there may be someone who has an affinity for polka dots that will buy a house with a wacky neighbor, so value is relative. It is this application of property value that has allowed government to usurp control of property from citizens by 'blighting' their neighborhood. Oops, I brought in eminent domain. Well, it was imminent I guess. The government has no role in determining or protecting the value of any possession save in the presence of a contract. Without an HOA document, you are at the mercy of your own negotiating skills, I guess.
Post a Comment