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

51–60 of 114 posts

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

#51

Post by rwmj »

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…

There's zero chance this particular covenant is reducing living space, instead it's preventing some billionaire from building some obnoxious entrance across the existing sidewalk.

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

#52

Post by MichaelZuo »

pc86 wrote: post #39
MichaelZuo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think its logistically possible to negotiate with every relevant party in Brooklyn, or even within a half mile radius. It's effectively impossible to change, without resorting to the legislature, if that's a mandatory requirement.

If you live a half mile away are you impact at all by a setback covenant being altered? If you're a neighbor you almost certainly are.

This is a normal street where people walk every day for their commute, of course someone living a half mile away who uses the street can credibly claim to experience some non-zero impact with a narrower sidewalk.

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

#53

Post by caseyohara »

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.

I'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-...

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

#54

Post by ipaddr »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #52
pc86 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you live a half mile away are you impact at all by a setback covenant being altered? If you're a neighbor you almost certainly are.

This is a normal street where people walk every day for their commute, of course someone living a half mile away who uses the street can credibly claim to experience some non-zero impact with a narrower sidewalk.

What about some who visits on Google street view?

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

#55

Post by codexb »

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…

Typically, covenants are meant to cover issues more locally than zoning could, like a permanent easement for the benefit of an adjoining property or setbacks for all the properties on one street to achieve a particular aesthetic. You could make them zoning laws, but they would be rather complex and have to refer to particular parcels.

They can be removed, but typically you have to prove that removing the covenant isn't negatively impacting another property owner for which it was originally added. It can be done by unanimous agreement of the property owners, or more commonly, by just buying up all the adjoining properties.

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

#56

Post by mminer237 »

pfdietz wrote: post #3

I think a case can be made that covenants like this should be disallowed. Sure, allow contracts to be signed, where if a condition is violated then a penalty can be paid. But here? There's no one to buy off to relax the constraint. It's held in perpetuity by the dead hand of the past. To put it another way: there's a property right here (in that setback) that is just sort of floating in the air, not owned by anyone a…

There are actual owners of the property. It's held by each other the other owners of the lots. They could go to their neighbors and buy them off to sign releases of that covenant, just that's hard to get each of them to agree to do.

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

#57

Post by mminer237 »

toast0 wrote: post #25
pfdietz wrote: post #3

I think a case can be made that covenants like this should be disallowed. Sure, allow contracts to be signed, where if a condition is violated then a penalty can be paid. But here? There's no one to buy off to relax the constraint. It's held in perpetuity by the dead hand of the past. To put it another way: there's a property right here (in that setback) that is just sort of floating in the air, not owned by anyone a…

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…

The interests vested when the lots were first sold.

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

#58

Post by mminer237 »

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.

They can change it if they all agree. Just the buyers are complaining that getting them all to agree to that is "very, very hard" to do.

An HOA is essentially just another covenant giving you more flexible rules to change things.

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

#59

Post by daedrdev »

throwitaway222 wrote: post #49
noah91734 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

And the market has shown where people would like to live

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

#60

Post by mminer237 »

russellbeattie wrote: post #26
function_seven wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

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.

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.

Post reply on HN