At 10:53 AM 3/30/2005, Steve Katz wrote:
>Here in the Phoenix area, property literally sells in hours.
>
>
>::Here in L.A., it usually sells before the listing is made public, and a
>common result is an auction that takes place in the driveway of the newly
>listed property before a sign is ever posted on the lawn. However, that
>doesn't mean you can't find out about deed restrictions, on your own, well
>in advance: You can, and I do. It is very unlikely that a single property
>will have restrictive covenants unless the properties surrounding it also
>do, and anybody can do a title search.
>> and, these little "bidding wars" include such incredibly hokey (to me)
things like handwritten letters to the owner explaining how you'll continue
their legacy with their house. Last week there was a story in the
L.A.Times about someone promising to take care of a tortoise in the
yard. Since non CC&R houses tend to be older, I suspect that this would be
a sensitive area.
>That's one reason the ARRL has been trying to push Congress to restrict the
>ability of builders and HOA's to put CCR's restricting antennas in their
>plans. Almost ALL new housing has these restrictions. Builders and HOA's
>aren't fools and they know what sells. CCR's wouldn't exist if the market
>didn't demand them.
>
>::Actually, I disagree with this. In 8-1/2 years of research in this
>specific field, I've found CC&Rs are nearly automatically invoked by
>developers for only two reasons, neither of which has anything to do with
>"what sells." (1) Makes it easier to get construction permits from the
>towns, municipalities or other governance; and (2) Makes it easier to get
>construction loans from major lenders. "Conforming" properties grease the
>skids, but don't actually sell any better than non-conforming ones. In
>fact, the real situation is the opposite: Covenant-free properties are in
>such high demand that virtually *everywhere* they cost more, when all
>features are directly compared. (Based on market studies of 260 cities and
>towns in all 50 States.)
>>> I have noticed the same. The trend towards RPD (Residential Planned
Development) zoning is very strong. It allows both the city and the
developer a lot of flexibility in siting, lot shapes, accomodation of other
"public good goals" like integrated affordable housing, school siting,
etc. Especially in non-flat areas (all the flat areas have already been
built out, so that's all that's left) or in areas with planning/development
constraints (only X number of dwelling units may be built because existing
roads can only accomodate it), the developer needs that flexibility.
>> On a more nefarious note, it's much easier for a city to impose onerous
requirements by the sort of backdoor method of requiring builder CC&Rs than
by legislative means. CC&Rs, as has been pointed out many times, are a
private contract, and don't have to pass all sorts of gates that
legislation does (i.e. they can be negotiated behind closed doors, don't
have to be put to vote, etc.). Why should the city get involved in icky
and contentious quality of life ordinances like house color restrictions,
trash cans, RV storage, etc., when they can just have them rolled into
CC&Rs in a hot real estate market where people will literally buy sight-unseen.
> Unfortunately, it's an example of the herd mentality so common in the US
>today.
>
>::Can't argue with that!
>
>::WB2WIK/6
_______________________________________________
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|