The story is about a family of Katrina evacuees who have been kicked out of a house with three bedrooms, large basement and 2 1/2 baths in Manassas Park because it is too small for the 10 of them. Leaving that aside for a minute, what really ticked me off was this:
quote:They have maintained the property well, he said. But [the landlord] received a call from an anonymous woman who said she was a neighbor and tried to discourage him from renting to anyone with a Section 8 voucher, Dukes said.
How much a of misanthrope does one have to be to do that? I wonder who tipped the city off.
As for the city, these zoning laws have been developed and enforced in at least partial response to large numbers of immigrants moving into houses in neighborhoods.
Gee, can't have people economizing, can we? If they won't live up to our standard of consumption, they don't deserve to be in America anyway.
P.S., I know there are other justifications for such zoning laws, but in NoVa, they've been advanced openly as a response to Hispanic families living in houses that are too small.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm always amazed to find out the level of attention some people pay to their neighbors. Without ever meeting them, they know more about them than their own relatives, I suspect. No doubt this is why police departments and the FBI like to talk to the neighbors...
It's not just Northern VA. I've seen it all over.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm always amazed to find out the level of attention some people pay to their neighbors.
Yikes. Just, yikes.
BTW, I'm much madder about the nosy neighbor campaigning to get the landlord to deny them a place to live than the enforcement officials. They have no real discretion once a complaint is filed, although certainly there ought to be some.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A number of cities in the Midwest have a law which mandates no more than two inhabitants per dedicated bedroom. *grumble*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, and to be honest, I can even understand the concern over maintaining the "character" of a neighborhood and see your property values increase...etc.
But translating that concern into exclusionary practices, or to the point where basic human decency is thrown out the window is a whole 'nother ball game.
I do know that some cities have had problems with this. Rental properties become a neighborhood sore point, especially in residential areas of single-family homes. It does decrease property values, and the appearance of the neighborhood is one of being crowded, etc.
Sometimes, there are legitimate concerns too, like overwhelming the infrastructure in the area (too much sewage for old pipes, too much electricity usage for old wires). Fires are a concern and I didn't read the article but I'm guessing the government officials involved were either some local "code enforcement" or the fire marshall. The concern isn't over the # people per sq. ft. per se, but, I think, limiting the disaster when something DOES happen. A single family home with that many people in it...# deaths, etc.
But, ultimately, I think most of this stuff comes down to a smokescreen for protecting neighborhoods from "slipping" in some vague sense, that usually translates to "not too many non-whites" and "not too many REALLY poor people"
They are usually very easy laws to pass, as well. Who's going to argue the other side? Who's going to stand up in front of their neighbors and make a case in favor of things that harm everyone's property values?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Lawrence, they passed a "no more than two unrelated adults living in the same house" law for an entirely different reason. And I mean actual houses, not apartments. They did it because students, more than willing to have lots of roommates, were pricing families out of houses. I mean, 4 people all paying $400 a month for a 3-4 bedroom apartment is $1,600. That enough to make payments on a house worth $200,000.
Most families just starting out can't afford to pay that much for a house, yet because of the students willingness to pay outrageous rents, there are too many people who own rental properties and very few decent options for families to buy. At least, that was the reason given.
I mean, right now, at one realty site, there is a "charming cape cod" for sale, 3 bedroom, 2 bath for $196,000 that was built in 1937!
There is also one that was built in 1947, 2 bedrooms, 1 bath, 794 sq. ft. for $105,000, no basement, no garage. Seriously. And it's pretty far away from KU. The further away they get, the lower the price.
46 of the 145 on the market today, are less than $150,000. 43 are between $150,000-$200,000 and the other 56 of them are more than $200,000. In Lawrence, Kansas! I find it hard to believe that there are more homes that cost over $200,000 than there are homes that cost less than $150,000.
There are 8 homes in the $500,000-$1,200,000 range.
I mean, it Kansas for Pete's sake.
But, there are other realtors, so I'm sure there are cheaper houses out there. I'm just not sure anyone would want to live in them. Then again, I can't believe there are people out there who would pay for some of the ones I just saw.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, I agree with the "people suck" thing. There should always be exceptions to rules. There is nothing wrong with those people living in that house.
(This coming from someone who was thinking "I'd kill any neighbor who did that" after watching "the best light display ever" video.)
Neighbors are bad. This is why I don't know any of my neighbors. It only leads to trouble.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The neighborhood association where my house in TX is passed a binding covenant along the same lines. No more than two unrelated families in the same house. It was for the same purpose -- to stop the neighborhood becoming a run-down student housing area.
Just outside our borders (one block closer to the TX A&M campus) the houses are really run down and they rent to as many students as they cram in there. But the rents aren't very high. It's more like the neighborhood went to heck.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait...are those prices really bad or something?
I guess I'm just used to Hawaii real estate, where the median price for a 3 bedroom 2 bathroom house is over $500,000 :-\.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it looks to me like the median price of a home is about $150,000. That's the same median price of a home in Kansas City.
Considering the size and location of Lawrence, the prices should be much more in line with Topeka, the state Capital, which is $99,000. Even in Wichita, the median is only $105,000.
Found another website that said the average (rather than median) home in Lawrence was $156,000, while the average for the state was $113,000. Oh, found medians. For Lawrence, it was almost 120,000 and for Kansas, it's less than $85,000. So, big difference. (But those are 2000 figures, and housing has gone through the roof. Five years of double digit increases in property value.)
But yes, Hawaii has outrageous prices. The national median is $216,000 while it's over $500,000 in Hawaii.
Then again, Lawrence Kansas ain't Hawaii.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Hawaii you're paying a lot because the land has to be imported from the center of the earth. Kansas has land lying around all over the place.
mph, I can understand the reasons for such covenants, and while I don't particularly like the idea that someone else can limit what I can do with my property, I'm pretty happy to have limits placed on what my neighbors can do, having had some pretty terrible neighbors in the past.
I have to say, though, that the best policy is to be up front and make sure that people know what the restrictions are. If they don't like them they can just not move their. If people enter into the covenants voluntarily, I don't really see the problem.
As long as local, state and federal laws supercede the covenants, there's at least some protection against putting covenants in place that are blatantly discriminatory.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Also, $400 a month each isn't much at all, in my opinion. Then again, I've been looking at New Orleans rent, which as jumped a LOT.
At least $600 a month, and that house had no refrigerator. $650 to live in a small two bedroom one bath basement apartment. For a three-bedroom house? $2200 a month, total.
posted
Come to North Seattle, where a three bedroom two bathroom apartment with parking space, secured building entrance, carpeted floors, high ceilings, sizable patio, dishwasher, and water/sewage/garbage included in rent is, uh...$845/month. Total, not per person.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Sadly, the combination of student renters and landlords not exactly interested in maintenance has made for blight in the neighborhood just campus-side of where my house is. I have little doubt that if the covenant were lifted, my neighborhood would be in a major slide appearance-wise not too soon after.
Oddly enough, I don't think it'd necessarily affect my property values negatively. There's just as good a chance in my mind that the land (not the buildings) would go up in value to make up for the lack of nice neighborhood character that exists there now.
Ironically, I think the covenants are keeping the property values down and affordable for families in my neighborhood. The houses are nicer and the lots are larger than other near-campus neighborhoods, but property goes for a lot less. Part of that is the school district isn't as good, so it's not as attractive a place to buy for people with school-age kids. But taxes are lower and services are generally as good or better.
I think the "exclusion" can actually harm property values by simply reducing the proportion of people willing to buy there.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: A number of cities in the Midwest have a law which mandates no more than two inhabitants per dedicated bedroom. *grumble*
Imagine. The Brady Bunch evicted and homeless.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the law here and in Dallas, too, although only for rentals. Children under the age of 1 aren't counted, but if we had, say, 3 children over the age of 1 year, we wouldn't be allowed to move into a 2 bedroom rental, even if there was plenty of room for bunk beds. (As it is, we'll be looking to move when our lease is up here-- there's barely room for a crib and a toddler bed in our second bedroom.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When we were living with my in-laws for a while, the neighbors called to complain about the number of cars in the driveway, which then led to the realization that we had 6 people in that house. Even though a third dedicated bedroom had been built in the basement space, and the room that once had been a family room was now a bedroom, making it a 4BR house, we were told that we had exceeded occupancy ordinances. We were also told that the basement bedroom was disqualified (even though the village approved the plans 10 years ago before the remodeling was done) because the basement didn't have a separate entrance in case of fire?
Whatever, it was enough to force my hand and get the girls and I out of that house and away from a neglectful and possibly emotionally abusive spouse.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Come to North Seattle, where a three bedroom two bathroom apartment with parking space, secured building entrance, carpeted floors, high ceilings, sizable patio, dishwasher, and water/sewage/garbage included in rent is, uh...$845/month. Total, not per person.
you forgot the fireplace. Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heck, go to some parts of Iowa. $845/month would buy you the whole town.
Not the farm land, mind you.
I rented a HOUSE for $200 a month.
Okay, the house WAS a bit small. But still, I could've rented four houses for that price, and had $45 left over for bottled water.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
If you want to feel better about your rent, you should check out student housing prices on Long Island. I'm paying $700/month right now for an illegal studio - and that's on the cheaper end!
Posts: 952 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol, no. It's built into my landlord's home without the proper zoning/permits. They're really common in this area - people turn their basements or garages into apartments and supplement their income with the rent from their mostly student tenants. Legal apartments tend to be several hundred dollars more expensive.
Posts: 952 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
pH, I know you don't have a lot of choice at the moment, but if you were able to move out to the suburbs, you could find larger units for less money. I'm paying 865 for a 2 bedroom (no I don't know s.f.), separate entries, front and back yards (small but still yards) and two dedicated parking spaces.
I'm starting to scan the want ads for houses for rent in our town, the eldest is on the brink of teenhood and already chafing at having to share a bedroom with her sister. And I don't want to change school districts on her unless there's absolutely no choice at all (i.e. my lease is terminated and I can't find anything I can afford, but I don't see that happening cause my landlord likes me)
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
