Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Eight Feet Jolted a $180M Real Estate Deal

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 114 posts

Re: Eight Feet Jolted a $180M Real Estate Deal

#41

Post by crazygringo »

pc86 wrote: post #38
crazygringo wrote: post #36

First of all, the headline is pretty clickbaity -- from the article it seems quite clear that this was a case of competing buyers, and the 8-foot setback is some spurious justification for why one of the buyers didn't move fast enough. Second, many commenters here are arguing that perpetual clauses like this ought to be disallowed. It certainly makes sense to me that clauses like these ought to be converted to regula…

Doesn't your argument that this should be converting to a zoning regulate kind of negate your point that we should want to ensure some level of consistency on a dense city block?

No, the point is that the zoning maintains the consistency.

But that if someday in the future there's a greater public need for something that outweights the architectural consistency, there's the flexibility to consider that too, through the existing public mechanisms of zoning changes.

Like if the entire block gets purchased and torn down to put in a single school building, then the setback is no longer needed, because a new kind of consistency can take its place.

Re: Eight Feet Jolted a $180M Real Estate Deal

#42

Post by ok_dad »

crazygringo wrote: post #36

First of all, the headline is pretty clickbaity -- from the article it seems quite clear that this was a case of competing buyers, and the 8-foot setback is some spurious justification for why one of the buyers didn't move fast enough. Second, many commenters here are arguing that perpetual clauses like this ought to be disallowed. It certainly makes sense to me that clauses like these ought to be converted to regula…

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.

Re: Eight Feet Jolted a $180M Real Estate Deal

#43

Post by beaeglebeachh »

ok_dad wrote: post #42
crazygringo wrote: post #36

First of all, the headline is pretty clickbaity -- from the article it seems quite clear that this was a case of competing buyers, and the 8-foot setback is some spurious justification for why one of the buyers didn't move fast enough. Second, many commenters here are arguing that perpetual clauses like this ought to be disallowed. It certainly makes sense to me that clauses like these ought to be converted to regula…

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.

Yeah 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.

Re: Eight Feet Jolted a $180M Real Estate Deal

#44

Post by lazide »

jcranmer wrote: post #29
toast0 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is the Rule against Perpetuities, that may apply. But it sounds the rule and its application is very complex in New York, so you'd likely need a lawyer very familiar with the specifics in New York to tell you if it applies to restrictive covenants in real estate deeds. My lay person understanding is the covenants in the 1905 deed were void for my house near San Jose, CA; but those were temperance covenants and…

My understanding of the Rule against perpetuities is that it only applies to inheritance, not general real estate transactions, so covenants can't violate the rule. (Of course, rule against perpetuities is so difficult to apply correctly that some courts have ruled it's not legal malpractice for a lawyer to screw it up.)

Nope, applies generally to deeds too. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities]

Re: Eight Feet Jolted a $180M Real Estate Deal

#45

Post by sam1r »

crazygringo wrote: post #36

First of all, the headline is pretty clickbaity -- from the article it seems quite clear that this was a case of competing buyers, and the 8-foot setback is some spurious justification for why one of the buyers didn't move fast enough. Second, many commenters here are arguing that perpetual clauses like this ought to be disallowed. It certainly makes sense to me that clauses like these ought to be converted to regula…

So in other words, this feat was a well worthwhile hack

Re: Eight Feet Jolted a $180M Real Estate Deal

#46

Post by noah91734 »

crazygringo wrote: post #36

First of all, the headline is pretty clickbaity -- from the article it seems quite clear that this was a case of competing buyers, and the 8-foot setback is some spurious justification for why one of the buyers didn't move fast enough. Second, many commenters here are arguing that perpetual clauses like this ought to be disallowed. It certainly makes sense to me that clauses like these ought to be converted to regula…

> Ensuring some minimal level of architectural consistency on a dense city block is a good thing.

Check zillow. Of the 32 units for rent in Brooklyn Heights, the cheapest is a tiny $2,600/month studio. The median rent is $4,500/month, and that's for an apartment with one bedroom and one bathroom.

No, I don't think allowing a 200 year old private rule to reduce living space in an age of incredible housing scarcity is good. I could not care less about your architectural consistency when it is part of the reason why people are sleeping on the streets and others are paying most of their income on rent.

Re: Eight Feet Jolted a $180M Real Estate Deal

#48

Post by singleshot_ »

Gare wrote: post #17
pfdietz wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's this dispersed ownership I'm objecting to. Ultimately it's indistinguishable from being a citizen living in a region. We have a way of representing such collectives: the government of that region. Only here, we have a law that's effectively undemocratic.

Yeah, ideally there would be a HOA-like collective of owners that could change it if they all agreed.

[flagged]

Re: Eight Feet Jolted a $180M Real Estate Deal

#49

Post by throwitaway222 »

noah91734 wrote: post #46
crazygringo wrote: post #36

First of all, the headline is pretty clickbaity -- from the article it seems quite clear that this was a case of competing buyers, and the 8-foot setback is some spurious justification for why one of the buyers didn't move fast enough. Second, many commenters here are arguing that perpetual clauses like this ought to be disallowed. It certainly makes sense to me that clauses like these ought to be converted to regula…

> Ensuring some minimal level of architectural consistency on a dense city block is a good thing. Check zillow. Of the 32 units for rent in Brooklyn Heights, the cheapest is a tiny $2,600/month studio. The median rent is $4,500/month, and that's for an apartment with one bedroom and one bathroom. No, I don't think allowing a 200 year old private rule to reduce living space in an age of incredible housing scarcity is…

The us is huge

Re: Eight Feet Jolted a $180M Real Estate Deal

#50

Post by rwmj »

duxup wrote: post #9

Not that there shouldn't be such restrictions in some form, but as the article mentions "It’s an agreement that was made in the past.". Makes you wonder who was involved in that agreement and if it matters now. And I wonder if this applies? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities Semi related: Who approved those signs, all caps, that spacing? https://static01.nyt.com/images/2024/04/19/multimedia/bkhei…

In the UK you can adjust or remove covenants by paying a large fee to the original covenant holder. The legal theory is that the land without the covenant would have been worth more when it was originally sold, so you pay that difference. In this case finding the original covenant holder seems like it would be tricky, but in the UK most covenants were issued by councils [local government] when council-owned housing was sold off, so you'd pay the council to adjust the covenant. Our house has a covenant against keeping farm animals which I've not felt the need to remove.
Post reply on HN