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

81–90 of 114 posts

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

#81

Post by caseyohara »

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.

I meant "unity" the design principle, not the patriotic sense.

Reasonable restrictions and a bit of city planning don't preclude organic development, New York is probably the most organic city in the US. I'm not advocating for every city to be completely uniform and same-y and soulless, just cohesive and thoughtful. Cohesive != uniform.

https://www.invisionapp.com/defined/unity-principle-design

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

#82

Post by bradleyjg »

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.

Why do you want to limit people’s property rights for looks?

Literally is an overused word, but it fits here:

A covenant is literally a property right!

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

#83

Post by beaeglebeachh »

bradleyjg wrote: post #82
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.

Why do you want to limit people’s property rights for looks? Literally is an overused word, but it fits here: A covenant is literally a property right!

Covenant is the equivalent of a Eula poisoned into software you've purchased. If you own it you ought have the ability to disable the Eula. A covenant is weird because it more often than not is contract entered unilaterally by some dead guy with himself somehow under the fiction it is an agreement with the land itself, it's not clear who the counterparty even is.

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

#84

Post by jcranmer »

lazide wrote: post #44
jcranmer wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ]

The rule as I've generally seen stated specifically bans interests from vesting, so even if it does apply to deeds, it wouldn't cover the kind of covenant here I think.

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

#85

Post by bradleyjg »

beaeglebeachh wrote: post #83
bradleyjg wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you want to limit people’s property rights for looks? Literally is an overused word, but it fits here: A covenant is literally a property right!

Covenant is the equivalent of a Eula poisoned into software you've purchased. If you own it you ought have the ability to disable the Eula. A covenant is weird because it more often than not is contract entered unilaterally by some dead guy with himself somehow under the fiction it is an agreement with the land itself, it's not clear who the counterparty even is.

The major problem with EULAs is the power disparity between the buyer and seller. It’s me vs Microsoft and I can’t practically opt out of MS Word. A secondary problem is that no one knows what’s in them because no one reads them.

A real estate deal is nothing like that. The buyer and seller have roughly equal power and everyone is represented by lawyers.

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

#86

Post by alistairSH »

drivers99 wrote: post #6

That was anticlimactic (based on the headline, which is an editor's choice, not the author's). They knew about the requirement and followed it, no jolting involved. The setback is used for a sidewalk. Probably makes more sense for it to be public, but that's not how the man laying out the suburb decided to do it.

To be clear, this is 8’ in addition to the normal public sidewalk/right-of-way. Looking at the photo, the building in question has a wider sidewalk than the buildings on either side.

In this photo, it’s the space to the right of the person in the brown jacket… https://archive.is/uNYgK/bc5622d4591c17c2ac4c1f0ff826d2331ab...

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

#87

Post by mannyv »

One question is: if you build on the easement who is going to sue you? The public? The city? Who's going to bother?

Or is the issue that it'll come up in the title search and you won't be able to get title insurance, which will cause problem with the loan?

In any case deed restrictions get invalidated all the time. The racist ones are null and void, for example.

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

#88

Post by lmm »

tzs wrote: post #32
waiwai933 wrote: post #4

Anyone know why the rule against perpetuities wouldn’t apply? Also, is there anyone who could meaningfully enforce this covenant? I appreciate that you wouldn’t necessarily want to risk it anyway, but just to ensure I understand the issue here.

The rule against perpetuities places some limitations on the creation of future interests in land. The kind of covenant in this case doesn't create a future interest.

Presumably someone has a claim for damages if the covenant is violated, in which case they have a future interest in it. If no-one can enforce the covenant, well, it might as well not exist.

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

#89

Post by ok_dad »

caseyohara wrote: post #81
ok_dad wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I meant "unity" the design principle, not the patriotic sense. Reasonable restrictions and a bit of city planning don't preclude organic development, New York is probably the most organic city in the US. I'm not advocating for every city to be completely uniform and same-y and soulless, just cohesive and thoughtful. Cohesive != uniform. https://www.invisionapp.com/defined/unity-principle-design

I think we probably agree mostly. I’m also talking about design. I prefer a less constrained design system for a city, I think it gives life. Trying to control every bit of the look of a place makes it boring and conservative, IMO. In the USA, I also think that design unity is used to get rid of undesirable persons, and keep things a certain way for certain types of people.

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

#90

Post by ok_dad »

bradleyjg wrote: post #85
beaeglebeachh wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Covenant is the equivalent of a Eula poisoned into software you've purchased. If you own it you ought have the ability to disable the Eula. A covenant is weird because it more often than not is contract entered unilaterally by some dead guy with himself somehow under the fiction it is an agreement with the land itself, it's not clear who the counterparty even is.

The major problem with EULAs is the power disparity between the buyer and seller. It’s me vs Microsoft and I can’t practically opt out of MS Word. A secondary problem is that no one knows what’s in them because no one reads them. A real estate deal is nothing like that. The buyer and seller have roughly equal power and everyone is represented by lawyers.

Equal power is if you had any control over the covenant. In most cases, it’s a take it or leave it situation. That’s not equal power, that’s a complete lack of it. I personally don’t see how a covenant on a property is anything other than the attempt to control the living world from the grave, and shouldn’t be allowed. Zoning laws can change with the times, they’re sufficient to protect the property owners from major nuisances.
Post reply on HN