Eight Feet Jolted a $180M Real Estate Deal

Post by financltravsty » Wed, May 01, 2024, 10:46 PM UTC

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.

Post by [deleted] » Wed, May 01, 2024, 11:09 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #41

pc86 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, bec…

Post by bobthepanda » Wed, May 01, 2024, 11:18 PM UTC

codexb wrote: post #55

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…

Post by MichaelZuo » Wed, May 01, 2024, 11:23 PM UTC

ipaddr wrote: post #54

MichaelZuo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Post by balderdash » Wed, May 01, 2024, 11:28 PM UTC

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.