I've ranted my share about housing associations, and about zoning in general. I think both of them are basically ways for fascist people to dictate to other people what they can do with their property.
In fact, I only recently got into a really long argument with a friend who's trying to use zoning to prevent a neighbor from doing what they want to with their own property.
But for anyone who thinks that housing associations aren't fascist scumbags intent on telling you what you can do with your own house, I say that you need to visit Franklin, TN, where apparently garage doors are now the latest focus of ire.
Right, because all these years of garage doors that faced the street, dad outside washing the car on a summer day, kids playing basketball or riding their Big Wheel in the driveway... those are all nasty ugly things which absolutely must be stamped out.
But remember kids, us libertarian-minded folks who have been telling you that this is the sort of thing you had to look forward to, we're just paranoid. Nobody would really think to do shit like this. Honest.
Reminds me of a story I heard back when I was living in Tampa. Despite the fact that the development was in a county where there were no bans on carrying weapons, the *homeowners' association* put one into its covenant. So when some homeowner decided to shoot a wild pig to save the life of a little girl in the development, the sheriff had to arrest the guy for violating the homeowner's association rules.
That said - out here, I do see a ton of new construction with the garages in front, and I really don't like the way it looks. Part of the problem, IM, is that most people seem to not use their garages to store vehicles....
I like detached garages behind the main house.
As far as zoning goes, developers are encouraged to build certain kinds of houses with certain kinds of shapes on certain sizes of lots. With this ordinance the town is trying to address a problem they see with newer houses: where the hell is the door?
The particular direction the garage door is facing becomes more of an issue when the garage is larger than the house.
OK, so people like houses that have the garage in back. But ya know what? If I'm the owner of that place, it's my house. Why does the town care "where the hell is the door"? All that matters is that *I* know where the door is, or that my guests do.
Reason #87 why I became president of the association....
#1. Homeowner's Associations are covered by civil, not criminal law. Anyone who tries to to arrest someone for breaking a neighborhood covenant is looking for a nice, huge lawsuit on their collective asses.
#2. It's easy to stand up to Association Assholes. Just be glad to point out the defects in their homes. Also, threatening to put up a website stating how awful it is to live up there will drive people away as well. Remember, "Google is your friend" is a common phrase known by realtors and prospective homebuyers everywhere. :-)
#3. I honestly don't care where the garage is. Most houses don't have the physical space to have a driveway around the house. And I'm one of those offenders who can only get one car in because of various childrens bikes, toys, and other assorted crap.
I'm with Derek on this one, any town that looks to regulate where the hell a garage door is placed is not a place I want to live. The assholes who contantly bitch about this house and that house are usually retired DINKS who have the spare time to spend 20+ hours a week mowing their yards. I'd prefer to have decent neighbors who worry more about their families than their property value.
Please please please don't equate housing associations with zoning. Zoning is a *wonderful* thing -- it's the reason that there's not a junk yard on one side of your parents' place, and a McDonald's on the other side.
When you or anyone else buys land, it is done with the understanding that there are rules about how it may or may not be used, and that those rules apply to the land around you (or, if the land next to you is zoned differently, you know that too). If you buy land that is zoned residential, and all your neighbors did the same, they have a right to expect that you will not put a Taco Bell on it. In the same way, you have a right to expect that they will not put, say, a church, or perhaps a GW Bush Regional Political Office.
And, if you buy commercially-zoned land right next to a residential zone, you have a right to expect to be able to put up your 7-11. If there'd been an empty plot there before, the residential neighbors will certainly not appreciate a 7-11 next to them, but they have no right to complain and you'd have every right to tell them to shove it.
Zoning is all about creating expectations and protecting rights.
If you don't appreciate zoning, consider Japan, which has much weaker zoning. I recently spent a lifetime's saving on a plot of land in a very nice residential area of Kyoto. But due to the effective lack of zoning, I have to worry about the value of the land plummeting because someone puts in a pachinko parlor next door.
Jeff,
(a) lots of people owned their land since before zoning even existed, and yet those people are still forced to live up to other peoples' "expectations".
(b) Assume I own the property next to you, and I want to put up a Taco Bell, because I say to myself, "hey, there's a lot of hungry middle-aged folk out here who are too lazy to cook for themselves on worknights", or "there's a lot of teenagers in this area, and they loves the crappy pseudo-mexican food" ... why is it moral or ethical for you to get a say in how I use that which I paid for?
I've long held to this maxim: If you want to exercise control over the plot of land next to you, then it's up to you to buy it. See all those mansions? There's reasons why they exist on like hundreds of acres of land, it's for precisely that reason. They wanted complete control over their view, etc.
I agree that many people would like to also be able to control their view, their traffic situations, etc, but I think the reality is that most people simply can't afford to live the lifestyle that affords them that control, and use the government and/or neighborhood associations to give them a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise afford.
Why is it moral or ethical for me to get a say into how to use the land next to mine? Because when I bought mine, it was with the explicit understanding that you nor anyone would not be allowed to put a Taco Bell next to it. There are many ways you could destroy the value of my property (what *I* paid for), but putting a Taco Bell on your next-to-mine land, or a chicken farm, or an apartment building, or a gun range, or a strip club, etc., are not among the ways allowed. You would know this before buying, so if you felt restricted after buying, it'd be your own stupidity.
Yes, I agree 100% with your "if you want to control" statement, but that's a false argument. I know you own a gun and a bullet, but I thing it's totally moral and ethical for me to want to limit your use of it (e.g. by not allowing you to shoot my son).
Zoning is about expectations. I grew up in a small, very rural town (we had 1 stop light in 36 square miles). Over the years we got more built up (now there must be half a dozen lights), and one of the familes sold their land to a developer. Where there used to be one house would be 40 or something. There was a zoning meeting where a lot of people came to complain. A guy in a tiny plot across the street from the proposed development complained, saying "I like to see the trees when I look outside my window. I came here for the quiet." But the land was zoned residential (single-family housing) long before the guy bought his tiny plot, so he had (or should have had) the understanding that the land could be developed that way. I understand his being upset at bad luck, but he had *no* right to complain. My dad, on the zoning board, asked "those trees you enjoy looking at... who owns them? Why should you be able to tell someone else what to do with their trees? Would you want them to tell you what to do with yours?" Cutting down trees and putting houses was allowed, so the developer had every expectation to be allowed to do so, and so he did.
Zoning is about protection. Generally, when zoning is brought into an area that doesn't have it, it's with the overwhelming support of those it affects.
(Certainly, as with anything that must be voted on, there will be those that are unhappy about something or other with it.)
Derek, I guarantee you that if you ever own land upon which you and your family live, you will understand and apprecaite the protections that zoning offers you. Until then, perhaps nothing else is strong enough to break out of your "all authority (other than me) is evil" haze.
Hey D, it's not like you don't have a choice. You can very easily just not buy a house in an subdivisoin with restrctive covenets. Personally, they piss me off too, but they also insure that my property will be worth at least what i paid for it when it comes time to sell it.
As for trashing your HOA on the internet, well, keep in mind that you'll more likely than not be selling that house in the future. Leaving your anti-HOA rants in Google's cache may not work to your advantage.
I don't own a house at the moment, so I'm not trashing any particular HOA. I'm trashing the concept of them in general. :-)
And you're right, I probably wouldn't buy a house in a subdivision. In all likelihood, I would probably buy land and build a home that was "made to order", to the specifications of whomever would be living in it, and anyone who didn't like those things we liked would be given large buckets of sand and told to go pound. :-)
I was speaking more to Woogie's comments. :)
Jeff,
I bet you that you're wrong about the "what happens when I own my own land." Maybe some peoples' morals are "flexible" in that they believe in them only when it's convenient for them to do so, but I'm not one of those people.
I firmly believe that zoning should not be allowed, because it should not be anyone else's business what anyone does with their own property. If your property "devalues" because the guy next to you built something, then you gambled poorly in the real estate market. Or, alternatively, you chose not to control enough of the property in question to ensure control over the neighbors' houses so you could keep your property values high.
Da, I didn't say it was a wise thing to do, but when faced with certain "Eminent Stepfordia" from the elderly owners of the subdivision, it's a nice slash/burn technique that might just scare the crap out of them.
Of course, it also helps that the neighborhood association's domain is registered in my name. :-)
Are these the same people who let child molestors live down the street beacause they have money to "donate" to the housing community?
I think that these people should be more concerned about that weird guy driving up to the community playground six times a day and not whether or not a freakin garage door upsets the fung shui of their block.
It's worth noting that the article is about a twon zoning this requirement. Not an HOA. It was simply an opportunity for Derek to gripe about HOAs.
A town is built of small pieces of property, and by many people, except in the case of places like Celebration or Levittown. Depending on what kind of blocks you build with, the town will be shaped differently. Suppose the many different people in the town were to concur that they would like to build a particular kind of town. Would it not be prudent to ensure that the blocks would fit together? What if you accidentally mixed up Legos and MegaBlox? Putting the garage to the back makes a certain kind of streetscape, much as a 50x75 lot will make a certain kind of streetscape.
That said, if you want to control the view, or your neighbors, it's best to own the property. Especially if cars-on-cinderblocks are not typical of the neighborhood, or you'd like them to address the rat problem before you start taking pot-shots in their direction.
That vine on your property? It's growing over to mine. Your vine is killing my trees. I asked, and you don't fight the vines. I asked again, and you're still not doing anything. What then?
Boy, I bet zoning laws don't look so bad anymore now do they? The SCOTUS just fubarred all of that completely. You can forget that argument about buying up all the land around you to 'afford yourself that lifestyle' because now Wal-Mart can come in and say 'We want Derek's land' and the local government will take it from you and happily sell to to Wal-Mart at a cheap price. Unless of course, you are a rich developer yourself. Then they won't ever declare your neighborhood 'blighted'. It's just us working class folks who are screwed.
Weren't they suppose to buy us dinner first???
Tera -- that's why us gun-loving sons-a-bitches fight to keep the Second Amendment alive. So that when push comes to shove, we can tell the government in the strongest possible way that they've overstepped their moral authority...
http://www.megacity.org/mirrored_stuff/rooftops.jpg