“Anti-mansionization” ordinances, writes Adam Summers, hit at a fundamental right that Americans have long taken for granted: the right to build or buy the biggest home you can afford. According to anti-mansionization proponents: “Homes are being built larger than is necessary” and so they are going to stop it. But if “activist” neighbors, politicians, and bureaucrats can place restrictions on what you can do with your property, do you really own your property? FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/4069/your-home-is-your-cottage/
Your Home is Your Cottage
Previous post: Forget the 1970s
Next post: Two “Lost” MNR pieces
{ 35 comments }
This is an example of a taking without just compensation. Homeowners who object to the ordinance should have their lots appraised (under the hypothetical condition that the building does not exist) based on buildable area before the ordinance and the buildable area after the ordinance. The difference is a government taking or condemnation. Although still controversial, there is case law that supports this position.
I think that the issue is not the rights of the home owner but the recharacterization of a neighborhood. Those Godzilla homes need be zoned accordingly based on their height and square footage. It’s a zoning issue. Not a homeowner’s rights. It’s just another example of the selfishness and decadence that pervades this society. Let those that want to live in those monstrocities live next door to other monstrocities , with their monster cars, and their monster TV’s ,their monster ego , and their monster debt.
I am torn on this, if you buy property in a development where they restrict housing sizes, then you are bound by contract and lose the right to complain. but if you buy a property in an area where there are no restrictions and then they are placed on you at a later day, there you get into issues of do you own your property.
Unfair discussion without addressing the zoning and building code issues involved. If exisiting building code elements such as height and setback restrictions are observerd then let them build.
It is unrealistic for someone to expect to have no restriction on the use of their property when they live in a community. It may be argued as reasonable for someone living in isolation – but isolation is difficult to find in society in the 21st century.
Although there are communities where anarchy reigns and an individual is allowed to do as he/she pleases (at their own risk), more modern societies follow rules established by their members. In most cities, a person would not be allowed to install a ceptic system on their property, nor sell unrestriced goods and services an their choice on their property.
With regard to housing, to the best of my knowledge, no homeowner has ever been asked to reduce the size of their home. New ordinances apply to new contruction, not existing homes.
If a homeowner does not like the situation, he has several choices. He can appeal to the authorities, etc., accept the unpleasant situation, or sell at market value and find more acceptable quarters.
Civilization has probably been in conflict over the rights of the individual vs. the community since the first communities were formed. I understand the difficulty of the individual to accept restriction not to their liking. However, to live in a society requires accepting the decisions of the community. Alternatively, one can fight a battle that may take years and many precious hours of ones life, or find better venues.
For me the choice regarding property rights is not one of right or wrong. I can see both sides of the issue. It is one a choice regarding life in a society, anarchy, or living in isolation.
Mr. Lamboley’s retort that “it’s a zoning issue” does not negate Mr. Summer’s argument. In fact, the L.A. City Council’s action may be a zoning ordinance. Whether it is or not, Mr. Summer’s property rights argument applies to zoning ordinances as well. Sweeping generalizations, such as restricting neighborhoods, blocks, and regions from commercial activities do harm, rather than good. On the other hand, the Two Laws, which encompass free market activities and property rights, provide infinite flexibility and adaptability necessary for liberty and prosperity. (The Two Laws being: ‘do all you have agreed to do,’ and ‘do not encroach on other persons or their property.’ Taken from one of Richard J. Maybury’s references in many of his books, “Ancient Rome” in particular.) After all, what purpose should anyone, including government officials, have in regard to others, other than promoting and protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Preserving character of a community? Restricting other people’s actions to suit your ideals? I should say not. If your property, peace or security are encroached upon, then defend yourself, otherwise, mind your own business.
The writer needs to live next to the neighbor from hell for awhile to understand neighborhood realities. As in: the streets around my home are packed with the cars of the boarders illegally taken in by these large houses, some of which have seven bathrooms. Some owners have extendd the building right to the lot line and when you mention it your are physically threatened. The big houses cause a general rise in assessment and taxes and force out the little people anyway. All of the big houses are cheaply constructed by untrained workers. Pulleeeezz…
These ordinances are not passed, in my opinion, to preserve the “character” of a community. They are simply passed because of envy and jealousy of those who can afford (or think they can afford) larger homes. It is only a matter of time before these ordinances are extended to cover all propery within a governmental jurisdiction.
The change in the values of a given property on enactment of the new ordinance, if the change is negative, do seem to constitute a taking, but good luck ever finding a court that will agree and be upheld on appeal.
Looking at the issue from a different perspective, would people built such large houses if the government did not subsidize them with tax breaks on the interest? Could taxes be the reason banks offer “no-down” and “interest-only” loans?
Bruce,
People can build close to the lot line on their property whether they have a big house or not. Physically threatening your neighbor is a crime anyway, but what does that have to do with laws about house size? And tax laws are the fault of the government, not your neighbors. By your logic, people should fight to keep their neighborhoods poor so that assessments stay low.
As for cheap construction, why should you care if someone else wants to live in a cheaply constructed house? The “neighborhood realities” you speak of are hardly restricted to living in a neighborhood of large houses. They happen in poor neighborhoods, too. You don’t have to have money to be a bad neighbor.
This issue resonates with me, but Bruce Batchelor’s post irritated me in particular;
“The writer needs to live next to the neighbor from hell for awhile to understand neighborhood realities. As in: the streets around my home are packed with the cars of the boarders illegally taken in by these large houses, some of which have seven bathrooms.”
The streets are apparently owned by the town, which will not discriminate in favor of property owners, instead of being owned by a neighborhood association, which would give you a (small) say in how intensively the common resource can be used for this. But this problem isn’t unique to your “mansionized” neighborhood – as the residents’ families in my modest home town grew and grew up, the number of cars on the block skyrocketed. We dealt with it. We also had to deal with some residents selling their homes to landlords, who rented them to Section 8 subsidized renters, who turned out to be the worst elements of society (NOT a race issue – they were white). My folks eventually moved because of it. That’s the risk you take when you buy a house in a neighborhoood with small lots.
“Some owners have extendd the building right to the lot line and when you mention it your are physically threatened. The big houses cause a general rise in assessment and taxes and force out the little people anyway. All of the big houses are cheaply constructed by untrained workers. Pulleeeezz…”
1) If there isn’t a covenant prohibiting it, or a zoning ordinance, then you agreed to this when you bought. 2) Yeah, this sucks. It happened to most of the blacks in my neighborhood – but they got oppressed by the nice appreciation of their houses too. 3) That’s the owner’s fault for buying cheaply-constructed houses. What does that have to do with you?
Judging by some of the comments forwarded here, especially the one from Mr. Lamboley, many of the feelings toward these rules or laws stem from their own envy and prejudice, instead of reason or fairness. There seems to be something about the idea that another person could actually be more successful that we to become green as martians and ask mommy-government to make it all right for us…
I do not care if my neighbor builds a bigger house next to mine, as long as it does not affect my property directly. If he or she is able to improve his or her living quarters, I say: good for him (or her).
Let’s be real. Since your property can be taken away for non payment of taxes, or for being used for “illegal” activity, you never have owned it as a personal possession. You only rent it conditionally at the pleasure of government, if you perform according to it’s dictates.
I think this topic is more about principles than about anything else. The libertarian, property rights-based viewpoint is just because it is consistent and equally applicable to all people. It is grounded in principles that both in theory and in practice can be held up as being inviolate. The question regarding zoing laws and other arbitrary regulations is not whether they can produce a desired effect, the question is what principle are they based on. The answer is none. They purportedly represent the will of the “community” or of “society” but this cannot be. Neither of these entities actually exist. They are simply labels (as the article says) used to describe groups of individuals. As such, these kind of laws represent the will of some people (“the community”) over the property of others. This is precisely the type of thing that the principle of private property is supposed to protect us from. Now, we may say that this is a small quibble. We aren’t enslaving our neighbors, nor are we sending people to the Gulag for building too big of a house. But in principle, these ideas are the same. The difference between the tyranny of the law discussed in this article and the tyranny of the Third Reich is a difference of degree only. And although that difference is huge, once the principle that protects us from both is removed there is little to stop us from moving down that same road that will lead us to much worse conditions. There are ways to solve these neighborhood disputes that honor private property. We should pursue these options rather than allowing the arbitrary rule of some imaginary collective run roughshod over our principles.
Mr. Batchelor is factually incorrect in his contention that big houses cause a general rise in taxes. Total property taxes for a municipality are based on the annual budget. The total budget is divided by the total assessed value to arrive at a property tax rate. Therefore, any increases in total assessed value lowers the property tax rate. Furthermore, in California, Proposition 13 results in higher assessments for newer buildings and property that has transferred more recently. Consequently, anyone who wants lower tax rates should encourage the construction of more high market value properties in their municipality.
George Washington said that without private property there can be no freedom.
Doug is correct that the building of large houses does not directly increase taxes per se, however, in my neighborhood, a change in zoning that permitted the building of houses on less than an acre (due to the odious “Mount Laurel Decision”) caused an explosion of large houses (4500sq ft +) built on small lots (1/4 to 1/8 acre). These were supposedly “affordable” housing (as if $200-$400K houses could be called “affordable”).
This then occasioned a 30% rise in taxes to cover the 6 additional school buildings (3 major additions and 2 entirely new schools in a town of 4500). (Yes I know that zoning is egregious on principle – but when I moved there, everybody knew the town had acre zoning and there was no clamor to repeal it. We could just as easily had restrictive covenants, if they weren’t illegal in NJ).
The rise in taxes caused exactly the opposite effect of what the MLD was supposed to achieve – low income people are selling out and moving away, in part due to elevated real estate values, but also due to elevated TAXES. Evil.
If you think the California anti-big-house rule is bad, consider this one from Randolph, VT: there a local zoning board denied a 9-unit multi-family housing project in full compliance with all published zoning regulations after one of the neighbors, an Assistant Attorney-General with the State of Vermont, advised the planners that regulatory compliance didin’t matter: if the neighbors are opposed, then the project “doesn’t fit” and must be rejected for a permit. It was.One of the “reasons” given was that the new dumpster might smell.
What about views?
If I own a cottage with a lovely view of a duck pond, and mountains et al, does my neighbour have the right to change their property such that it obscures my view?
What if my house was there first?
What if I’ve claimed previously unowned land with a view, can I claim property rights over the view then?
Homesteading a piece of land gives you rightful ownership over that land, not everything within line of sight. If I build a house on a mountain top, does that mean I own everything for 10 miles around? I don’t think so.
The issue of views is relatively simple to deal with in a free market. The owner of a property could retain his views by purchasing a conservation easement from adjoining property owners. Of course, he would have to outbid others who might want to develop the surrounding property more intensively. Conservation easements are commonly purchased by various environmental trusts that are currently funded by private donations and government subsidies.
As Mr. Ward indicates, the likelyhood of winning a legal case based on the premise that downzoning represents a partial taking is far from certain. Prior court awards in these cases seem to require a full taking. Nonetheless, expansion of the theory that downzoning represents a taking is one method of addressing this type of concern within the current system.
Mr. Daliessio makes a good point. While the direct effect of an increase in total assessments is a decrease in property tax rates, other factors (such as an increase in the budget for the school district) can offset the decrease. New Jersey seemed to be going hog-wild with additional regulations recently. It reminds me of a Pennsylvania economic development official who told me last year that the best thing to happen to Pennsylvania economic development was New Jersey.
Well, if the other owners in the development had such an issue with building a larger house, couldn’t they team together and purchase the property from the owner at a price he would forgo his addition at? I am sure he would sell his rights to have a larger abode if the price was right. This gives a solution to the “larger house” issue, but of course it is easier to force someone at gunpoint than attempt to change their mind through buying them out.
So why would a libertarian submit to any law? I got to this site from antiwar.com where Lew Rockwell argues eloquently for a rational and cooperative way to approach affairs betweeen states but here we have the impossioned appeal of the wealthy aginst the poor.
“How dare those little people inconvenience ME for their petty little cottages. How dare they disapprove of my mansion! Where do they want me to house the help? Next they won’t want to fight for oil for my SUV!”
“Those little poor people should kneel down and thank me for increasing property costs so they don’t have to live next to disgusting people like themselves!”
Zoning was introduced in NYC in the early 1900′s when the Equitable Building rose enormously above its neighbors, blocking light, views, windows, etc. Zoning has a purpose in protecting the rights of the group from the indiscriminate construction of buildings and the indiscriminate introduction of uses that interfere with the rights of other residents. Has a person lost property rights when someone is not allowed to build a MacMansion, or have the rights other residents (such as light, views and privacy from unwelcome eyes looking down from four feet away from one’s lot line)been protected? In this case, I say the latter outweighs the former.
Chuck,
The problem is that the zoning laws largely make housing and property less affordable for the poor, not more.
Agreed. Zoning is a way to do poorly and politically what should be done cheaply and efficiently by private agreement.
Chuck, before you conclude this argument isd simply one of rich versus poor, consider that the mansions raise the value of buildings around them, typically, possibly resulting in a potential profit for the cottage-dweller if he decides to sell.
But Austrian economics is value-free – in other words, following principles rather than trying to use government to achieve certain outcomes maximizes freedom, and with it the opportunities for good outcomes, but in no way guarantees people’s interests will not be harmed. You are still responsible for protecting your own interests. And sometimes, as my parents found out, your interests get harmed, and you have to move to better your position.
I currently live in Japan where there appears to be no zoning laws. It’s great! The house I share is small, but within a few-block radius are dozens of shops, restaurants, convenience stores, banks, post offices, and more. Everything I need on a daily basis is easily satisfied by a 10-minute walk or less.
Back in my small but highly zoned Canadian hometown, even the simplest errand involved hopping in a car and going out for a significant drive. In this Japanese city of 2.5 million people, market forces have shaped a city layout where businesses can be near their patrons. I have not noticed any ghetto areas of town, even though some sections obviously have wealthier residents than others.
I am a member of the Greater Valley Glen Council, and we just passed a proposal that restricts mansionization in our area. It was drafted by the Valley Glen Neighborhood Association in conjunction with our Council. I was pretty much the lone voice supporting individual property rights. I argued that “character” and “size” are elements of taste or aesthetics. I feel that restrictions—if they are put into place—should relate only to objective factors, such as a loss of privacy and sunlight.
The final draft was a compromise between my position and that of most other Council members. It is probably the most comprehensive anti-manisonization proposal ever drafted in this country.
If you would like to read my article about mansionization, please go to this link http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20951~3008957,00.html
or you can go to this link
http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/bias/0909_much_ado_about_mansionization.html
L.A. Councilmember Wendy Greuel now has our proposal. I assume she will be taking it to the full City Council after it is reviewed by the City Attorney’s office.
Charlotte Laws
Hi Charlotte,
I am sure some will object to your proposal, and that’s fine. But you seem to have found a balance that is equally respectful of all property owner’s rights. I still have serious qualms about it being implemented on a zoning basis, however – I think it should be done on a 1:1 basis between immediate neighbors, with the only input from government being the requirement that the mansion proponent and his immediate neighbors come to a mutually-acceptable agreement addressing JUST the sunlight and privacy issues.
Eventually though, if present trends continue, demand will push all buildings in urbanized areas skyward. Again, individual agreements can be renegotiated to accomodate such changes, but zoning laws mean opportunities for graft and rent-seeking that are incompatible with property rights and should be avoided.
One thing that isn’t mentioned in these arguments is the right to have a small home. Small families, single people, lower income people… all may benefit by having smaller homes. The State regulations, for example, that a single mother with two children, a boy and a girl, MUST have a three-bedroom apartment that is beyond her means virtually enforces that family to be broken up and the children placed in foster care or detention centers, all at taxpayer expense.
Those with modest needs, such as single people, are often driven away by communities with excessive BOCA regulations or zoning ordinances, which drive the price of housing beyond the affordability level of hard workers with low wages, and place greater numbers of people at risk of homelessness and increased costs to taxpayers.
A town has every right to plan and create zoning laws. In fact, 99 percent of all towns in the USA have an ordinance that relates home size to lot size. All these new ordinances accomplish is an adjustment of that ratio. And thank God people are doing something about the McMansion mindset. It makes a town look junky, increases population density, and destroys the soul of a city, assuming it had one to begin with. If a city’s own Town Council wants to keep the community looking a certain way, (i.e. no monster houses) then more power to them.
I’m sure that most cities know what they want their town to look like, but I seriously doubt they know how to do that without other, unintended consequences. Just once, I’d like to have a city try freedom more or less wholeheartedly and see if a municipal miracle takes place.
Hi There –
your taste is seriously deficient. I suppose that’s because your benchmark is the plywood epitomes of architectural mediocrity Americans tend to call homes.
Go to Europe and see how things worked when socialists didn’t meddle with architecture (i.e. in the old cities). The stark contrast with the collectivist-era districts is quite telling.
…as for McMansions — well, you don’t acquire taste just because you got money. It takes time to learn to be tasteful.
I am torn on this, if you buy property in a development where they restrict housing sizes, then you are bound by contract and lose the right to complain.
That assumes that the restriction is made by the legitimate owner. Since the government is no such thing, no such restriction is valid.
but if you buy a property in an area where there are no restrictions and then they are placed on you at a later day, there you get into issues of do you own your property.
Right; and all governmental restrictions came about that way (you may have bought your property after the restriction was in place, but the previous owner, or the one before that, and so on, didn’t! At some point it was simply emplaced by govt fiat)
Comments on this entry are closed.