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

101–110 of 114 posts

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

#101

Post by renewiltord »

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…

Personally, I think rent is far too high. We need real change. Perhaps hard-working worker co-ops could build homes designed to a consistent pattern by artists like me for us to live in. Housing is a human right, so the government should build them. It's sheer Mammon-worship if someone were to make a profit so we should ensure that doesn't happen. We could call the project El Sombrito.

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

#102

Post by renewiltord »

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 wonder if this is a cultural thing imported by the original immigrants to the nation or some other factor. The American desire for uniformity is almost German. There needs to be "consistency" and "unity" in design. This is probably why so many houses are all grey and stuff. I much prefer the organic Asian form of things, and I think the US (which is generally quite awesome) would be well improved with that.

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

#103

Post by hanniabu »

nradov wrote: post #99
forgetfreeman wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If by like to you mean are forced to to escape poverty...

Are you claiming that it's impossible to escape poverty by moving to North Dakota and getting a job in the oil & gas industry?

Without sacrificing health working with chemicals

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

#104

Post by forgetfreeman »

nradov wrote: post #99
forgetfreeman wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If by like to you mean are forced to to escape poverty...

Are you claiming that it's impossible to escape poverty by moving to North Dakota and getting a job in the oil & gas industry?

Are you claiming oil patch jobs aren't a rounding error per capita? Lets be clear here, you're for real claiming that a career track that employs fewer people in the continental US than Pizza Hut is relevant to a discussion of rural poverty?

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

#105

Post by tomek_ycomb »

financltravsty wrote: post #73
ok_dad wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

Are you sure / do you have specific Japanese knowledge?

My gut assumption, not having Japanese knowledge, was always that the production needs of WWII incentivized their mixed commercial -residential system.

It does seem that a mixed commercial -residential system would work better with a conscientious of neighbors society, but the zoning itself is also key

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

#106

Post by freejazz »

beaeglebeachh wrote: post #78
ProfessorLayton wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>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.

Yeah, many people did, and then it turned out that it wasn't working!

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

#107

Post by freejazz »

beaeglebeachh wrote: post #74
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.

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.

It's a property right for whoever would benefit. If no one benefits, then who is enforcing it? The gov't doesn't do so voluntarily, covenants are enforced through the civil court system.

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

#108

Post by freejazz »

lmm wrote: post #88
tzs wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Have you bothered to research this at all or are you under the impression that arguing about it on HN will somehow make you right?

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

#109

Post by freejazz »

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…

Isn't it absurd for a zoning regulation to pertain to only one city block? Isn't that actually the antithesis of the concept of zoning?

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

#110

Post by freejazz »

ok_dad wrote: post #90
bradleyjg wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Zoning laws require an entire legislature to enact or change. A covenant only runs between the parties to the covenant. This is such an absurd point that is repeated here.
Post reply on HN