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

71–80 of 114 posts

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

#71

Post by ok_dad »

caseyohara wrote: post #53
ok_dad wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pro…

When I see a city with organic development, I feel cozier than with the cities that all look the same and were built all the same. I think the American idea of “unity” in these matters is a bit insane and very exclusionary.

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

#72

Post by dangus »

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 are a lot of bad zoning laws and covenants out there that encourage housing scarcity. This is not one of them.

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

#73

Post by financltravsty »

ok_dad wrote: post #70
financltravsty wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because some of the USA (notably the north east) still gives a shit about the communities where they live rather than embracing rugged frontier individualism a la "trust no one, and get yours first." Just because you own something doesn't mean you get a free pass to be a nuisance to others. Laws are there to keep society together, not to enable antisocial proclivities.

Check out Japan zoning laws, pal. I’m not some rugged individual, but I still believe in reasonable freedoms. Japan doesn’t have issues with nuisances with their zoning system. Far from it.

That's a cultural artifact. The same as why HOAs proliferated outside the puritan colonies: people could not be trusted to self-govern and self-regulate towards a common good.

Japan doesn't have issues with nuisances because -- culturally -- they're more aware of the effect their actions have on the world around them. The same cannot be said for a large portion of the U.S.A.

I'm of the opinion freedom as a detached goal for its own sake is a puerile pursuit, and a big driver of why we can't have nice things.

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

#74

Post by beaeglebeachh »

balderdash wrote: post #69
ok_dad wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Adding a covenant to a deed is a property right, I think wanting to know invalidate them is anti-property rights.

If the covenant was added by a dead guy and the counterparty doesn't exist but now it's enforced by a government court against the wishes of the property owner who owns the 'right' is it really property rights at that point? I'm willing to be convinced but it's not super clear to me.

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

#75

Post by financltravsty »

shermantanktop wrote: post #68
financltravsty wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because some of the USA (notably the north east) still gives a shit about the communities where they live rather than embracing rugged frontier individualism a la "trust no one, and get yours first." Just because you own something doesn't mean you get a free pass to be a nuisance to others. Laws are there to keep society together, not to enable antisocial proclivities.

A very, very right-wing coworker once said to me: "There is no such thing as society. There is no such thing as common good. These are fictions created to control you." I was happy he had identified our fundamental disagreement so that we didn't have to argue further.

Yes, now throw him out deep into the Mongolian steppes and see how he fares without modern supply chains.

Everyone's a libertarian until you take away the fruits of industry.

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

#76

Post by ProfessorLayton »

balderdash wrote: post #69
ok_dad wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Adding a covenant to a deed is a property right, I think wanting to know invalidate them is anti-property rights.

My parent's house in the Bay Area came with (Now unenforceable) covenants dictating that PoC cannot live there. The can and should be changed as necessary.

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

#77

Post by beaeglebeachh »

financltravsty wrote: post #75
shermantanktop wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A very, very right-wing coworker once said to me: "There is no such thing as society. There is no such thing as common good. These are fictions created to control you." I was happy he had identified our fundamental disagreement so that we didn't have to argue further.

Yes, now throw him out deep into the Mongolian steppes and see how he fares without modern supply chains. Everyone's a libertarian until you take away the fruits of industry.

Mutual benefit is a thing, industry works fine when everyone is driven by selfishness as no one agrees to a transaction unless both parties are better off.

I'd much sooner live with that coworker in the steppes than cheerman mao or other charlatans in Asian history proclaiming about the common good.

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

#78

Post by beaeglebeachh »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #76
balderdash wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adding a covenant to a deed is a property right, I think wanting to know invalidate them is anti-property rights.

My parent's house in the Bay Area came with (Now unenforceable) covenants dictating that PoC cannot live there. The can and should be changed as necessary.

But it is anti property rights to force someone to rent or sell to poc. Of course without government influence this becomes a dumb business plan because it depressed the utility of your property and hands business to competitors.

I would argue government should eliminate racial discrimination laws as it will just shake itself out in the market and it actually makes things harder on poc.

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

#79

Post by zdragnar »

pfdietz wrote: post #31
ghouse wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not severed. Still part of the real property and owned fee simple, but subject to use restrictions.

You did not understand what I wrote. I didn't say the eight foot slice was severed, I said control of the right to build on it was severed. That right is an abstract thing, but it has value, and the value is now not owned by anyone.

Control over the right remains with the covenant. The city could end it if they so choose.

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

#80

Post by Starman_Jones »

ok_dad wrote: post #71
caseyohara wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pro…

When I see a city with organic development, I feel cozier than with the cities that all look the same and were built all the same. I think the American idea of “unity” in these matters is a bit insane and very exclusionary.

If there's one thing you can say about America, it's that we're nowhere near as independent and individualistic as the rest of the world. New York is tentpole of homogeneity compared to Barcelona or Lyon.
Post reply on HN