Wednesday, June 8, 2016
Sausages, Laws, and Developed Properties
According to Bismarck, "Laws are like sausages: It is better not to see them being made." I can go Bismarck one more.
There has been considerable dissatisfaction expressed lately in the Village, and the problem is new construction and some improvements.
The first new project was the "Larry King house," at the corner of Griffing and 119th. The old "Larry King house" was a mess. Someone mercifully razed it and replaced it with a new and contemporary structure.
The early stages of the replacement were met with great concern. The house, as it was being outlined, and the outer shell was constructed, appeared very imposing. It seemed high and almost too close to the street. Harvey Bilt pointed out that the house appeared to be an example of the Village's failure to make a statutory limit on the height of house stories. I myself mistook the early appearance to suggest that the new building was two stories. No, it was one. And the tall chain link fence, right up to the property line, made the construction look even more threatening.
The house is finished now. It is painted, and many aesthetic accents were applied. Landscaping was installed, with the creation of a hill, planted with trees.
What's odd, and interesting, about what is now the end of this project is that the house no longer looks so massive. It is no longer imposing. It has a sedate, if stylish, appearance. Although it was way too soon to have been able to tell, I had a feeling I might not like that house, when it was in a more raw state. Now, I like it a lot.
Several blocks to the east on 119th Street, one block west of my house, there is another new structure. This one is a real two story house. I watched it evolve, from the ground up. It had the obligatory covered chain link fence, too. This house, like the other one, looks massive. Various people have complained about it. It was a central stimulus for the "McMansion" flap some months ago.
I've learned to withhold reaction to new houses, or perhaps other things, based on early appearance. And lack of finishing and softening touches, like landscaping. The house, although now painted, is still stark, in the sense that it is the only thing on the lot. That's not a fair basis to judge what the finished project will look like.
The Village has articulated new parking requirements. In an effort to keep people from parking on grass or dirt, and ideally even to avoid parking in the swale, the Code Review Committee proposed a requirement for "approved parking surfaces" on the actual property, and enough to allow parking for a specified number of cars, depending on the house (duplexes need more spaces than single-family houses do). The Commission ratified that proposal. One of our neighbors dutifully installed the required surface of turfblock in front of a duplex on the east side of 11th Place, at about 117th Street.
This was very disturbing to others of our neighbors, though. Their impression was that now, the entire front yard was turfblocked, and they felt it looked terrible. They saw flora replaced by turfblock (paradise was paved, and a parking lot put up, as Joni Mitchell would have complained).
I saw this project, too, in its early stage. And I agree: my first impression was that the approach to the house looked ruined by what appeared to be an elevated massive platform of turfblock. But again, I told myself to withhold judgment, and ideally even to withhold reaction. The project was not completed, and no landscaping had been installed. The fact is, I didn't even know if landscaping was planned.
Today, because of continued complaint from the neighbors, and their assertion that the project was completed three days ago, I drove by that property. I see that the parking installation does in fact appear to be complete. The holes in the turfblock have been filled, the border of the turfblock is now softened by an approach of dirt, and landscaping has been installed, or at least begun, at the border of the house. I think it looks nice. I didn't think so before, but I do now.
It's hard to withhold reaction, especially in an early stage of construction of a project. It's not the business in which I'm an expert, and I don't have the eye, or the vision, to "see" what a project will look like when it's finished. So I have trained myself simply to wait.
No one begins a project intending that it will look bad, or fail in some way. It's presumptuous to come upon a beginning one, and declare it faulty or unworthy. All of these projects-- the two new houses and the new parking surface-- were done to improve the neighborhood, and to be credits to the developers or owners. Why would anyone assume that these goals would not be met?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Given the amount of properties that are in neglect/disrepair, if someone is doing construction, improvements, or upgrades, there better not be a single complaint -- ESPECIALLY when that work is being done to come into code compliance!!! But I realize there are those that complain as a primary hobby... so if it wasn't about someone's property upgrades it would be about something else.
ReplyDeleteBrian,
DeleteYou raise two important points. One is to recall that in some cases, developers, especially, are doing something we might in fact want them to do, and in other cases, property owners are doing what we asked them to do. So in either case, there should be little or no room for complaint from us. The other important point is that in some (many?) cases, the complaint might say more about the people complaining than it does about the project being complained of. And the fact that these complaints come at a time and under circumstances that it's technically too soon to complain suggests that you might be right.
Another example I forgot to include is our new Village welcome signs. Immediately upon their installation, some people complained. Before the steel surfaces of the signs had a chance to cure, before there was lighting, then after there was lighting, but before there was landscaping (which there still isn't), some declared these signs aesthetic tragedies. People complained about the solar collectors, because the posts which elevated them were conspicuous. A simple coat of paint cured that problem, but still, some people complained. And some of the people who are (obligate?) complainers don't even want the mitigating or ameliorative(!) touches, like landscaping, as if they didn't want their basis for complaint taken from them (which recalls your point).
I would not like to think this is as hopeless as your observation and interpretation suggests it might be, but at the moment, I can't prove you wrong.
Fred
I don't mean to harp, Brian, but in keeping with what you're saying, what we owe those people who create and contribute, and improve, is gratitude, not criticism.
DeleteFred
Brian, I agree with your remark on code compliance and neglect/disrepair. But in relation to the ex Larry King house, code compliance is a relative term.
ReplyDeleteHow so?
DeleteFred
Brian, I agree with your remark on code compliance and neglect/disrepair. But in relation to the ex Larry King house, code compliance is a relative term.
ReplyDeleteWe all need to be careful to not ruin the Village with our own personal aesthetics. People need to stop with the ordinances and such trying to manage one discourteous (or perceived discourteous) neighbor.
ReplyDeleteTake our ridiculous boat parking policy because someone had a boat graveyard in their yard. This is South Florida and boats are part of living and enjoying our surrounding, or at least they used to be. Now we are complaining about the number of cars, the amount of dirt, the size of hill, etc. If you want to live in a police state move to coral gables where everything is controlled and you can only choose four house paint colors.
I always thought of Biscayne Park as the cooler more Bohemian Miami Shores, much like Coconut Grove is to Coral Gables. Guess we are trying to play catch up instead of relishing in what makes Biscayne Park special.
Hurting property values is one thing, regulating aesthetics or utilization based on your preference is something differently entirely. There are some things where your opinion doesn't matter (the royal your - This comment was not aimed at anyone in particular).
H
DeleteThere are great examples of boat owners taking care of their property, and respecting their neighbors, our block on 116th is a prime example. However, the block directly behind us had an abandoned uncovered boat that became a mosquito hatchery, to the point we couldn't use our pool or back yard without being attacked. The city fortunately intervened and got rid of the boat, the pool got covered, and the property was eventually sold. Before the code, there were individuals renting out space in their yard and driveway, to accommodate other people's boats (let's not forget the RV's).
I've been selling real estate for 10 yrs (Colorado and Florida), I can guarantee you that the condition and curb appeal of your neighbor's properties can affect the sale of your home. I have seen properties go into a short sale situation, because the seller couldn't get an offer high enough to cover his loan, due to the exterior condition of his neighbor's home and yard. That same home 2 blocks away would have resulted in this seller netting a profit.
Most buyers have a significant amount of their retirement savings in their homes, and can't afford to take a big financial hit, due to a neighbor's lack of maintenance. I believe the city has an obligation to help maintain property values, and improve the investment potential of our community. Thanks.
Problem / negligent / discourteous residents are exactly that and need to be addressed...Completely agree. The boat ordinance goes way beyond that and limits the ability of responsible resident to own and store a boat.
DeleteAny who resident who wants a boat and doesn't have the option to store in their side or back yards are not provided with a way towards legal boat ownership. That is my issue.
H,
ReplyDeleteIn defense of the decision-makers here-- which is, narrowly, the Commission, somewhat more broadly, the Code Review Committee, and most broadly, everyone else, since everyone is more than welcome to express what might be a persuasive opinion-- the matters under consideration are not at all as superficial, and certainly not as pointed or personal, as you seem to imply.
OK, let's take our boat Ordinance, crafted (excuse the pun) "[just] because someone had a boat graveyard in their [front?] yard." You live here. You want BP to be "cool." "Much like Coconut Grove," you suggest. Is a "boat graveyard" in someone's front yard your idea of cool? Or any boat, unregistered and unused, that just sits there indefinitely, decaying? No one else thought so, either. And neither does the City of Miami, of which Coconut Grove is part (it is a neighborhood of Miami, not a part of CG). Almost all municipalities in Dade County have the same boat Ordinance we now do: no, not hanging out in the front yard. And that's our Ordinance, too. We don't say you can't have a boat. We say you can't moor it in your front yard, unless you already had it when the Ordinance passed, and you have no way to move it to your back yard or side yard. And we don't say you can't have a boat there. Just not more than three of them. Do you have, or want, more than three boats?
I doubt there are municipalities that don't have various aesthetic-oriented Ordinances. Some, like CG, are much more restrictive than others. The palette of permitted paint colors in BP used to be vastly more restrictive than it is now. All the houses were white, except the garish ones, which were faintly off-white.
We're just trying to class things up, or improve the overall aesthetic of the neighborhood. In the past year or so, we have loosened more of the restrictions, to try to preserve an overall look of quality, while accommodating broadening personal aesthetics.
You don't want things lifelessly rigid, as it is sometimes thought of CG. Others of us, although we agree with you, don't want things as slack as a trailer park, or as some of us characterize Hialeah. Help us appreciate a happy median. Work with us. "Rising tides lift all boats." Anything that raises property values here raises yours, too.
Fred
My apologies. Where I used the initials CG, I meant to refer to Coral Gables. I forgot they are the same as the initials for Coconut Grove.
DeleteProblem / negligent / discourteous residents are exactly that and need to be addressed...Completely agree. The boat ordinance goes way beyond that and limits the ability of responsible resident to own and store a boat.
DeleteAny who resident who wants a boat and doesn't have the option to store in their side or back yards are not provided with a way towards legal boat ownership. That is my issue.
H,
DeleteOf course you're right. There are limits. There almost always are, about almost everything. Almost everywhere. You're limited in the number of boats you can store anywhere on your property. The limit is three. If you want to store four, or 17, boats on your property, you can't here.
There was a method by which you could keep a boat in your front yard. But you should know there is almost no municipality in the County that permits this. If you had a boat when the Ordinance was passed, or acquired one within a year after, and you had no way to store it out of sight, you could store it in your front yard. In that case, we are more permissive than most municipalities in the County.
Are we unlimitedly permissive? No. But it was a compromise. We live with each other, and we have to make concessions for each other. Obviously, any one person would think the best situation would be if everyone else agreed to let him or her do whatever he or she wanted. It doesn't work that way. Sorry.
Fred
Hi Fred - Thanks for humoring me. I have thought about this more and it is quite troubling in fact. The commission essentially voted to devalue my property by not allowing it to have a boat. If I were to sell, I would be forced to disclose this to a boat owner. As a tax paying citizen, how is it appropriate for me to be afforded less rights and use of my property than my neighbor??? Doesn't sound right.
ReplyDeleteI think this is the typical lack of thinking by gov't as to the unintended consequences of their actions. Citing other municipalities is a lame cover...if they all jumped off a bridge, would you?
H,
DeleteThanks for staying in the conversation. You're a good sport.
What you're describing is a dilemma, or a conundrum, or maybe just a difference of opinion. Your view is that the perceived value, for the owner, of a piece of even residential property is increased if that piece of property is as flexible and accommodating in its usefulness as possible. Your example is that a piece of residential property-- a homestead-- on which you can store a boat is more valuable than one on which you're not allowed to store a boat.
The competing theory is that a piece of property, or a neighborhood, on which boats can be stored (openly and visibly) is perceived or experienced as somehow run down, or not as attractive, or not as appealing, as one in which boats are not allowed to be stored.
Clearly, you disagree, and that's your right. But in a democracy, we have to go with what the majority think, even if you think, or you're sure, they're wrong.
It's not just a matter of being like other municipalities, as if we didn't have the independent enough self-concept to go our own way. Historically, it has been determined, or is the consensus among people who "know," that a neighborhood where boats are visibly stored has lower "value," because it's perceived as not looking nice. Even though it's more convenient for boat owners. Realtors will tell you this. You're not obligated to believe them any more than you have to believe me, or the people who make the statutes, but that's the going conclusion.
If someone argued that it would increase the sense of "value" of a property, at least for some property-owners, if they could use it to run their business, like a car repair shop, perhaps you would perceive that as lowering the sense of community value, even if it was said to raise the value of the property for the mechanic who lived there.
So is this a continuum? Or a slippery slope? Could be. But these are the conclusions as they have been arrived at, by many more people and municipalities than just ours.
By the way, would you guess that the most "valuable" neighborhoods-- Golden Beach, Coral Gables, etc-- are the ones most likely to allow property-owners to store boats openly on their properties? Not the case. In fact, the other way around. So maybe do the math.
Fred