Spotted by Joseph Takagi in The Augusta Chronicle:
An Evans neighborhood association has blocked a group that was prepared to build a home free of charge for a local veteran who was injured in Afghanistan. The homebuilding group, Homes for Our Troops, says Knob Hill Property Owners Association approved the home's design June 2 but reversed its decision in a later meeting....
Homes for Our Troops worked for four months with the Knob Hill Property Owners Association to get the design approved, according to John Gonsalves, [HfoT's] founder. But at an association meeting, members said the 2,700-square-foot home was too small and neighbors thought it would bring property values down, Gonsalves said. A cease-and-desist order was issued as the site was being prepared last week.
"We've done everything they've asked. For them to do this at the last minute is very disturbing," he said. "I don't think there's a community in America that shouldn't embrace this family after what they've sacrificed. No one deserves it more."
But owners association member Tom Rogers said Homes for Our Troops did not do everything asked of it. The group did not have written approval from the association's architectural review board, but negotiated through e-mail only.
"What's important to understand is the family already lives here. They're a great family. We have no qualms with them," Rogers said. "The problem is, that street down there has 5,000-square-foot homes all the way up and down the street there. ... It just doesn't fit. That's the whole issue."
Gonsalves said his team checked association documents, which do recommend that at least 2,700-square-foot houses be built, but Rogers said homeowners in that section built much larger homes.
"We want to protect our homes that we worked hard to achieve, and we want everyone to be treated equally," Rogers said. "These people will have to go through the same process as everyone else did."
Christmas Day: readings for Year C
9 hours ago
6 comments:
Potentially the most aptly-named organisation in the world?
JJ. beat me to it!
But what a great name though?
After you introduce LVT will the former NIMBYs say: (i) I am happy for any development to be built that will reduce my house in value so that I pay less tax or (ii) I pay all this tax and am entitled to stop these proposed developments so that I get a return on my tax by maintaining the value of my home?
TFB, the answer is a mixture of both, but mainly it's:
(iii) The council wouldn't allow anything to be built that reduces land values significantly, as that would reduce the council's own income.
It's difficult to see what is the real reason for these NIMBYs' objection: are they really worried that one new, smaller, house will bring down the value of the other, existing, larger houses? Perhaps the "local veteran who was injured in Afghanistan" is black, poor, or otherwise "from the wrong side of the tracks".
A friend of the family decided he wanted to sell his house quickly. The house was not in top condition either and so the asking price was very reasonable. He had complaints from his neighbours saying he shouldn't sell for so little because once the selling price got to the published Land Registry figures (and then the house price websites) it would bring down the value of all the other houses in the same street...
Post a Comment