230d
@AverageJoe1 saidJust have one of the footmen do it. 😀
I'm getting a headache cleaning up your posts today. 😕
230d
@AverageJoe1 saidYou just wrote taxes would be lower with more housing. So, your arguing that a homebuilder pitching a new property to a potential buyer with less taxes would not want to build that property?
Homebuilders factor everything into their projected profit. Certainly you are aware that potential prop taxes are important, weighing on a prospect's interest in buying. Like, you tell a prospect what their taxes might be??
As to gov regulation, I believe in little, and only necessary, government regulation, Like Trump does.
Your casual meant-to-be-factual empty co ...[text shortened]... ind? Please don't say what Kamala said, that at the end of the day we all end up in the same place.
Nah. It's regulations, dude. Rich folk use crony politics to keep the riff raff from building in their neighborhoods. Wealthy folk who own all the property also dont want new housing because it will affect the value of existing property.
If you remove regulations, like spruce originally proposed, there would be a lot of new houses built. The economy overall would do well, maybe some rich folks lose their ocean view.
230d
@wildgrass saidNo argument with 2nd paragraph. Regulations are generally necessary anytime 2 or more people interact. A guy alone on an island? No regs required or necessary.
You just wrote taxes would be lower with more housing. So, your arguing that a homebuilder pitching a new property to a potential buyer with less taxes would not want to build that property?
Nah. It's regulations, dude. Rich folk use crony politics to keep the riff raff from building in their neighborhoods. Wealthy folk who own all the property also dont want new housing ...[text shortened]... of new houses built. The economy overall would do well, maybe some rich folks lose their ocean view.
As to home builder selling a house, his concern is to make his projected profit. The tax amount is but a part of his calculations. He would hardly ‘not’ build a house if it would him money to increase his net worth. I have a hard time trying to figure your point in these posts, I gotta tell you.
If you remove regs, there would be a lot of houses built? Yes, I would be the first to jump on that scenario. No red tape, no inspection during the building process, I will use just enough gauge wire that I cud get away with, I would get rich quick. Some homes are packaged homes, it is built in a factory,I would put20 of them side by side, sell them for peanuts to immigrants, and make for a town you will be happy to matriculate your kids into. Beautiful. Meanwhile , I am off being a billionaire and really pissing you off!
230d
@spruce112358 saidThen you'll have to re-write it, you are sounding like Suzianne
I stated this to make it clear what I am arguing AGAINST. I am not 'for' this.
230d
@AverageJoe1 saidJoe - spruce's initial proposal was to remove regulations that prevent low income housing from being built in posh neighborhoods. You fought it immediately, indicating that you were a pro-regulatiin kind of guy.
No argument with 2nd paragraph. Regulations are generally necessary anytime 2 or more people interact. A guy alone on an island? No regs required or necessary.
As to home builder selling a house, his concern is to make his projected profit. The tax amount is but a part of his calculations. He would hardly ‘not’ build a house if it would him money to increase his net ...[text shortened]... your kids into. Beautiful. Meanwhile , I am off being a billionaire and really pissing you off!
230d
1 edit
@wildgrass saidVoluntary covenants at the time of development, not regulation.
Joe - spruce's initial proposal was to remove regulations that prevent low income housing from being built in posh neighborhoods. You fought it immediately, indicating that you were a pro-regulatiin kind of guy.
BTW there are large functioning cities with low or no zoning laws.
230d
@AverageJoe1 saidI wasn't talking about safety standards, since I don't think those are holding up house construction very much. I'm not asking for a glut of unsafe houses - far from it.
If you remove regs, there would be a lot of houses built? Yes, I would be the first to jump on that scenario. No red tape, no inspection during the building process, I will use just enough gauge wire that I cud get away with, I would get rich quick. Some homes are packaged homes, it is built in a factory,I would put20 of them side by side, sell them for peanuts to immigra ...[text shortened]... your kids into. Beautiful. Meanwhile , I am off being a billionaire and really pissing you off!
However, like any libertarian, I am happy to talk about ways to reduce regulation. In this case, you simply accept liability if anything goes wrong with the house (e.g. a fire due to sub-standard wiring) for the life of the house. And I'm talking personal liability here, which is then picked up by your estate, should you pass. Not liability assigned to some LLC that you dissolve later.
Happy then? 🙂 Or, we can go with "I followed the regs" and absolve you of liability if something happens. I'll leave that up to you.
On behalf of immigrants, who won't be able to work for us without a decent house, we thank you for your efforts to build cheap, safe housing.
230d
@wildgrass saidThen I have erred in trying to decipher your facetious posts, don't you know. I have a great idea. Give us all an example of a regulation that is debatable, a regulation that you think we should have, which I would likely not agree with. For purposes of clarity, let us assume that I am poor, and you are rich.,
Joe - spruce's initial proposal was to remove regulations that prevent low income housing from being built in posh neighborhoods. You fought it immediately, indicating that you were a pro-regulatiin kind of guy.
Zero in on regulations. We can at least agree that Covenants which run with the land are enforceable, by whomever makes them? Obviously no trailer can be erected on any of the subdivision lots. We can agree on that too, I presume?
Bring it.
230d
@AverageJoe1
Sorry I was late in responding, was out with my like-culture friends in the neighborhood. I love this place. I want to continue loving it. WGrass, should I worry? Please tell me............
230d
1 edit
@spruce112358 saidNo, not happy. A builder gets his house inspected, the authorities sign off on it. I think only Louisiana (Napolinanic Law, ask the paralegal Marauder) holds seller/builders liable for the life of a property, give me a break. Let 'the buyer beware' is the rule, has been for centuries. If a guy wants to be sure, he hires his own inspector, and that is when he demands perfection from the builder. Imagine being a builder of a house, and 10 years later a disgruntled purchaser finds a gutter leak. Tough.
I wasn't talking about safety standards, since I don't think those are holding up house construction very much. I'm not asking for a glut of unsafe houses - far from it.
However, like any libertarian, I am happy to talk about ways to reduce regulation. In this case, you simply accept liability if anything goes wrong with the house (e.g. a fire due to sub-standard wiri ...[text shortened]... e to work for us without a decent house, we thank you for your efforts to build cheap, safe housing.
So, I just left it up to me. Let the Buyer Beware. You are not a baby to be coddled.
Immigrants? My grandfather was an immigrant. My my, you weenie,.... has something changed? I know that Biden favors immigrants over citizens, but let us not go there.
So, please reword you last sentence to ' On behalf of citizens, who won't be able to work for us without a decent house, they did some poor planning,..... too many children or whatever, they need to find different lodging."
Are you saying that the government should find (and provide, pay for) housing? What ARE you saying I never can get what you are saying, you nor any liberal. So a Guy finds himself with a housing problem.....what happens next?
230d
@spruce112358 saidI get this weird feeling that you seem to hinge your life on the life of others...is that what libertarianism is? Do you not live independently, with self-reliance? Uhhh, have you got something to do with me or your neighbor ? What pray tell?
However, like any libertarian,
230d
@Wajoma saidAn HOA? That only adds a layer of bureaucracy. A college buddy of mine ended up in court because his HOA didn't like the color of the shingles he used when he redid his roof.
Voluntary covenants at the time of development, not regulation.
BTW there are large functioning cities with low or no zoning laws.
The mistake he made was not consulting the HOA director or something before he picked the color. Weeks of headache.
Convince me that's better than not having a HOA.
230d
@wildgrass saidYour first sentence actually should say...." ended up in court because he violated the Declaration of Covenants which are a matter of public record." Then your post would not seem so one-sided as if he did nothing wrong. Everyone is always assumed to know the law. So he has no excuse, no defense, and he needs to rip the roof and put up another.
An HOA? That only adds a layer of bureaucracy. A college buddy of mine ended up in court because his HOA didn't like the color of the shingles he used when he redid his roof.
The mistake he made was not consulting the HOA director or something before he picked the color. Weeks of headache.
Convince me that's better than not having a HOA.
But what an amazing question you pose...."should a subdivision have an HOA?"
For peace and order, of course, which is the number one reason. I am not going to write examples, but certainly you can put yourself in a position of having an absolutely horrible neighbor.
How about this simple one. Shav lives next door and puts up 4 flags across his front wall, one says 'There Is No God'. You have children playing out in your front yard. What if he just paints it on his wall?. Think of the worst thing you can think of and picture it on his wall. How about loud music (as long as it does not violae city ordinance of course).
No HOA. What a joke. Forget ever selling your home for what you have in it.
229d
@wildgrass saidMy personal view is that HOAs should take care of the pool and any common area mowing and maintenance and that's it. Trying to mandate the color of your buddy's roof should be ruled unconstitutional - but unfortunately that view doesn't seem to resonate at the more easily corruptible state level. A ban on HOA 'meddling' will have to be at the Federal level.
An HOA? That only adds a layer of bureaucracy. A college buddy of mine ended up in court because his HOA didn't like the color of the shingles he used when he redid his roof.
The mistake he made was not consulting the HOA director or something before he picked the color. Weeks of headache.
Convince me that's better than not having a HOA.
Setting up a government which does not adhere to the principle that "government exists solely to protect all our rights equally" is a bad idea; and HOAs are governments set up to protect the "right to property values." (I'm going to keep putting that in quotes because I am not sure that right exists.)
Generally speaking, the perceived "right to property values" involves restricting your neighbor's behavior. As in, "I have the right to prevent my neighbor from painting his house pink because that would lower my property values." Do we EVER have such a right? I can tell my neighbor not to walk around naked because he is being obscene. But is a pink house obscene?
Importantly, no HOA has ever been asked to prove that forcing everyone to paint their mailbox posts with Olympic Stain 'California Rustic' hue does anything at all to protect property values. No HOA does a study to show that "when Mr. Wildgrass painted his mailbox post 'Beechwood', all properties in the vicinity immediately lost 5% of their value."
Governments protect rights but also balance that protection. Mr Wildgrass HATES 'California Rustic' and it annoys him every time he walks to his mailbox. Normal people would say Mr Wildgrass has the right to paint his mailbox post any color he wants, if it brings him happiness. We are guaranteed the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness at the federal level and the 14th amendment carries that down to ALL government levels below that. Why is an HOA allowed to sacrifice his right to pursuing happiness in the interest of protecting his neighbor's problematic "right to property values"?
The arbitrary nature of this weird "right to property values" becomes even stranger when you look at entire state - which is now littered with HOAs from one end to the other ALL enforcing different standards which (they claim) protect the "right to property values." One HOA mandates grey roofs. They other bans grey roofs and requires red roofs. Another accepts only black or green roofs.
"Oh but Spruce", you say, HOAs are just looking to create local consistency. Consistent local roof color DEFINITELY protects property values.
Well, government exists to protect all our rights equally. The right to freedom in choosing roof and mailbox colors we like, we can all understand. The right to "property values" is not a clear right at all, and until it is, HOAs should probably be banned from taking an action to protect it.
One final thing: Some will say, 'yabbut you agreed to it.' I view that as beside the point. I live in North Carolina, so I abide under NC rules - whatever they are, just or unjust. But if NC (or an HOA) makes unjust laws, it's not enough to say, "well, you didn't leave." Maybe I shouldn't leave. Maybe I should stay and challenge those rules and see them overturned.
229d
@AverageJoe1 saidOof, bad take. Everyone hates HOAs because the rules are arbitrary, often unnecessary, and open to interpretation and abuse.
Your first sentence actually should say...." ended up in court because he violated the Declaration of Covenants which are a matter of public record." Then your post would not seem so one-sided as if he did nothing wrong. Everyone is always assumed to know the law. So he has no excuse, no defense, and he needs to rip the roof and put up another.
But what an amazin ...[text shortened]... nce of course).
No HOA. What a joke. Forget ever selling your home for what you have in it.