I can't imagine how awkward the listing would be if the owner tries to sell it without rebuilding... How do you sell someone on a property where you have to build a new house to exact...
If the property is sold, the new buyer will also be obliged to honour the ruling.
I can't imagine how awkward the listing would be if the owner tries to sell it without rebuilding... How do you sell someone on a property where you have to build a new house to exact specifications?
That said, it's in SF so it would probably sell in about two hours.
Cheaply, because the cost of building will be factored into the sale price. 😂 Depends on the price point I would say, but yes, a single open house in the bay area is typically enough to get offers...
How do you sell someone on a property where you have to build a new house to exact specifications?
Cheaply, because the cost of building will be factored into the sale price. 😂
That said, it's in SF so it would probably sell in about two hours.
Depends on the price point I would say, but yes, a single open house in the bay area is typically enough to get offers 10-20% above asking.
I wonder what the standards for the rebuild are? I'm guessing it was on the city's historic registry which would probably require the interior to be built to the same specifications. If it's just...
I wonder what the standards for the rebuild are? I'm guessing it was on the city's historic registry which would probably require the interior to be built to the same specifications. If it's just the exterior then I could easily see someone who liked the original and is willing to rebuild it and update it to their standards.
I know I'm probably in the minority opinion here, but I find it insane that the owner of a home can't do as he sees fit with it. It's his. The neighbors should have zero say in that decision, or...
I know I'm probably in the minority opinion here, but I find it insane that the owner of a home can't do as he sees fit with it. It's his. The neighbors should have zero say in that decision, or ownership means nothing.
Counterpoint: The owner would have doubtless been aware that the house was a minor city landmark when he bought it. When you make the choice to purchase an item with legally-recognized cultural...
Counterpoint: The owner would have doubtless been aware that the house was a minor city landmark when he bought it. When you make the choice to purchase an item with legally-recognized cultural value, you are acknowledging that recognition even if (as the case appears to be) you don't recognize the value. If you don't agree, you can choose not to buy that item.
It's also worth pointing out that the owner chose to lie to the Planning Comission. I would hope that anyone who stands up for property rights would also place some value on personal integrity. The fault is with the choices Mr. Johnston made, not the city government -- nobody forced him to make any of the above choices.
I agree that you should be able to do what you want with your land as long as it doesn't affect others. However, metropolitan contexts require compromise, and historical landmarks doubly so. Mr. Johnston was free to purchase ten thousand acres of Modoc County wilderness to build whatever he wanted, and nobody would have cared.
This is so well put. Renovations on historic homes and homes in historic districts are subject to a lot of review, during which the standards that must be adhered to are made abundantly clear....
This is so well put. Renovations on historic homes and homes in historic districts are subject to a lot of review, during which the standards that must be adhered to are made abundantly clear.
Also, historic properties typically have a much higher value, so I find it buck-wild that he would buy it even with the slightest intent to rebuild down the road. Unless it was in disrepair and lower in value to nearby lots. But then again, this is San Francisco; so someone paying a premium just for a tear down isn't surprising.
Same disclaimer as above, but I don't have a problem with that. Property owners should not be barred from modifying their own structures as they see fit. Obviously construction that endangers...
Same disclaimer as above, but I don't have a problem with that. Property owners should not be barred from modifying their own structures as they see fit. Obviously construction that endangers neighboring property or the environment is a different matter. And if somebody opts to build something in an unsafe manner and another person is injured as a result, the owner should be held fully liable. But generally speaking, I hold property rights to be a cornerstone of human freedom.
It's always going to come down to a debate about how far the neighbors' rights extend, in that case. We can set up all kinds of hypotheticals that fall along the spectrum from "unshielded nuclear...
Obviously construction that endangers neighboring property or the environment is a different matter.
It's always going to come down to a debate about how far the neighbors' rights extend, in that case.
We can set up all kinds of hypotheticals that fall along the spectrum from "unshielded nuclear reactor in the basement" to "window frames painted in a non-approved colour", but if we accept any process that protects things like other residents privacy, air quality, light pollution, and so forth then the actual debate is whether "architectural history" is a valid criterion to add to the list.
Which is why an approval process exists - it's there to stop illegal modifications before they happen, rather than paying damages to victims after it falls over and kills the neighbors child. So...
Obviously construction that endangers neighboring property or the environment is a different matter
Which is why an approval process exists - it's there to stop illegal modifications before they happen, rather than paying damages to victims after it falls over and kills the neighbors child.
if somebody opts to build something in an unsafe manner and another person is injured as a result, the owner should be held fully liable.
So it sounds like rather than prevent, you would prefer to repair, is that correct?
That's one way to look at it. Personally I think prevention is a better policy in general, and the natural incentives should lead property owners to that conclusion. The consequences for a...
That's one way to look at it. Personally I think prevention is a better policy in general, and the natural incentives should lead property owners to that conclusion. The consequences for a building falling over and killing the neighbor's child should be dire enough that anyone would think twice before rushing willy-nilly into a new construction project.
I'm mainly concerned with busybodies using the law to bludgeon their neighbors and intrude on their private affairs.
Hold on, do you think this is due to the neighbours complaining and not because he applied for a renovation permit and instead demolished the house? The neighbour only reported the demolition...
Hold on, do you think this is due to the neighbours complaining and not because he applied for a renovation permit and instead demolished the house? The neighbour only reported the demolition since usually everyone around must be notified of a demolition happening, she was not being a busybody.
I'm speaking more generally. As JuniperMonkey also pointed out, the guy in this story made some pretty scummy and fraudulent choices that I can't get behind. I'd prefer if there were no renovation...
I'm speaking more generally. As JuniperMonkey also pointed out, the guy in this story made some pretty scummy and fraudulent choices that I can't get behind. I'd prefer if there were no renovation permits or planning commissions in the first place.
I am annoyed at Ms. Traverce and the other unnamed neighbors in the article though, for waging a battle against a man's right to demolish his own house, and calling this decision "a victory for the neighbors and the little people." It seems to me the neighbors and little people should have no say in this matter whatsoever, they're just meddling busybodies.
That's a bit dramatic. There's no right to demolish one's own house, and the neighbours are not at fault at all for bringing something as a major as an questionable demolition in a city to the...
That's a bit dramatic. There's no right to demolish one's own house, and the neighbours are not at fault at all for bringing something as a major as an questionable demolition in a city to the attention of the municipality. What is a right is the neighbour's ability to protest and speak out about something they felt, correctly, was unsound. It's not much of a battle to file a complaint.
I find it strange that you're so fixated about the neighbours in this situation. You laid the blame for this entire situation at their feet at the start, and that was odd, but now you're getting upset that they got in this guy's way, even after you just said that he had done some seriously questionable things.
It feels like you're going pretty far to find ways to put the blame for all this on the neighbours for following the basic civic process instead of this guy who clearly tried to act above the law.
So you are okay with an approval process? I mean, that's exactly what the permit process does - applies harsher consequences than having the process occurring downstream.
I think prevention is a better policy in general, and the natural incentives should lead property owners to that conclusion.
So you are okay with an approval process?
The consequences for a building falling over and killing the neighbor's child should be dire enough that anyone would think twice before rushing willy-nilly into a new construction project.
I mean, that's exactly what the permit process does - applies harsher consequences than having the process occurring downstream.
I agree in this case, but if it's for historical reasons then I disagree. There's an area near me with dozens of houses that were built in the 1600's or 1700's, and the owners of those must by law...
I agree in this case, but if it's for historical reasons then I disagree. There's an area near me with dozens of houses that were built in the 1600's or 1700's, and the owners of those must by law never build anything extra to them, and they must keep them in decent shape as they're protected due to being part of the heritage or something. It makes sense it is that way, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a house like that!
Tell that to someone owning a house in Paris. You'd tear it down to build a skyscraper, duh. In fact, they banned skyscrapers from the inner city because of this monstrosity. San Francisco needs...
Tell that to someone owning a house in Paris. You'd tear it down to build a skyscraper, duh. In fact, they banned skyscrapers from the inner city because of this monstrosity.
San Francisco needs some affordable housing somewhere but the look of its streets is part of its culture.
All true, but it's a good way to disincentivise the behaviour in future, as the owner is now liable for building costs and still ends up back where they started. If it were just a financial...
All true, but it's a good way to disincentivise the behaviour in future, as the owner is now liable for building costs and still ends up back where they started.
If it were just a financial penalty, there'd be a price point at which the wealthy could demolish, pay the fine, and still get something of a blank canvas to work with. Rather than quibbling over what they could then do with the site, saying "put it back how it was" ensures they make no possible gain from breaking the law.
I don't think it's the best way to achieve the goal. Granted, I don't really know what the best way would be - historical value is arguably subjective, so you can't really convert it into monetary...
I don't think it's the best way to achieve the goal. Granted, I don't really know what the best way would be - historical value is arguably subjective, so you can't really convert it into monetary value.
I think this would be better done as a mixture of punishments. Have the state take ownership of the land and force the owner to build a public space of some sort on the land, and then prevent the land from being sold for some time after. That way the owner would be heavily disincentivized to demolish historic sites and could not benefit from it (at least any more than any other person).
Then again I have been rather critical of the concept of preserving historical sites lately. If historical sites are important enough to protect, why do we allow them to be privately owned?
Good. Preserving what little character most cities have left is a good thing and these libertarian "I can do whatever I want, others be damned" attitudes should be stopped before they destroy more...
Good. Preserving what little character most cities have left is a good thing and these libertarian "I can do whatever I want, others be damned" attitudes should be stopped before they destroy more landmarks (however minor).
I can't imagine how awkward the listing would be if the owner tries to sell it without rebuilding... How do you sell someone on a property where you have to build a new house to exact specifications?
That said, it's in SF so it would probably sell in about two hours.
Cheaply, because the cost of building will be factored into the sale price. 😂
Depends on the price point I would say, but yes, a single open house in the bay area is typically enough to get offers 10-20% above asking.
I wonder what the standards for the rebuild are? I'm guessing it was on the city's historic registry which would probably require the interior to be built to the same specifications. If it's just the exterior then I could easily see someone who liked the original and is willing to rebuild it and update it to their standards.
I know I'm probably in the minority opinion here, but I find it insane that the owner of a home can't do as he sees fit with it. It's his. The neighbors should have zero say in that decision, or ownership means nothing.
Counterpoint: The owner would have doubtless been aware that the house was a minor city landmark when he bought it. When you make the choice to purchase an item with legally-recognized cultural value, you are acknowledging that recognition even if (as the case appears to be) you don't recognize the value. If you don't agree, you can choose not to buy that item.
It's also worth pointing out that the owner chose to lie to the Planning Comission. I would hope that anyone who stands up for property rights would also place some value on personal integrity. The fault is with the choices Mr. Johnston made, not the city government -- nobody forced him to make any of the above choices.
I agree that you should be able to do what you want with your land as long as it doesn't affect others. However, metropolitan contexts require compromise, and historical landmarks doubly so. Mr. Johnston was free to purchase ten thousand acres of Modoc County wilderness to build whatever he wanted, and nobody would have cared.
This is so well put. Renovations on historic homes and homes in historic districts are subject to a lot of review, during which the standards that must be adhered to are made abundantly clear.
Also, historic properties typically have a much higher value, so I find it buck-wild that he would buy it even with the slightest intent to rebuild down the road. Unless it was in disrepair and lower in value to nearby lots. But then again, this is San Francisco; so someone paying a premium just for a tear down isn't surprising.
What's your thought on illegal modifications to a property? Such as building a second floor without approval?
Same disclaimer as above, but I don't have a problem with that. Property owners should not be barred from modifying their own structures as they see fit. Obviously construction that endangers neighboring property or the environment is a different matter. And if somebody opts to build something in an unsafe manner and another person is injured as a result, the owner should be held fully liable. But generally speaking, I hold property rights to be a cornerstone of human freedom.
It's always going to come down to a debate about how far the neighbors' rights extend, in that case.
We can set up all kinds of hypotheticals that fall along the spectrum from "unshielded nuclear reactor in the basement" to "window frames painted in a non-approved colour", but if we accept any process that protects things like other residents privacy, air quality, light pollution, and so forth then the actual debate is whether "architectural history" is a valid criterion to add to the list.
Which is why an approval process exists - it's there to stop illegal modifications before they happen, rather than paying damages to victims after it falls over and kills the neighbors child.
So it sounds like rather than prevent, you would prefer to repair, is that correct?
That's one way to look at it. Personally I think prevention is a better policy in general, and the natural incentives should lead property owners to that conclusion. The consequences for a building falling over and killing the neighbor's child should be dire enough that anyone would think twice before rushing willy-nilly into a new construction project.
I'm mainly concerned with busybodies using the law to bludgeon their neighbors and intrude on their private affairs.
Hold on, do you think this is due to the neighbours complaining and not because he applied for a renovation permit and instead demolished the house? The neighbour only reported the demolition since usually everyone around must be notified of a demolition happening, she was not being a busybody.
I'm speaking more generally. As JuniperMonkey also pointed out, the guy in this story made some pretty scummy and fraudulent choices that I can't get behind. I'd prefer if there were no renovation permits or planning commissions in the first place.
I am annoyed at Ms. Traverce and the other unnamed neighbors in the article though, for waging a battle against a man's right to demolish his own house, and calling this decision "a victory for the neighbors and the little people." It seems to me the neighbors and little people should have no say in this matter whatsoever, they're just meddling busybodies.
That's a bit dramatic. There's no right to demolish one's own house, and the neighbours are not at fault at all for bringing something as a major as an questionable demolition in a city to the attention of the municipality. What is a right is the neighbour's ability to protest and speak out about something they felt, correctly, was unsound. It's not much of a battle to file a complaint.
I find it strange that you're so fixated about the neighbours in this situation. You laid the blame for this entire situation at their feet at the start, and that was odd, but now you're getting upset that they got in this guy's way, even after you just said that he had done some seriously questionable things.
It feels like you're going pretty far to find ways to put the blame for all this on the neighbours for following the basic civic process instead of this guy who clearly tried to act above the law.
So you are okay with an approval process?
I mean, that's exactly what the permit process does - applies harsher consequences than having the process occurring downstream.
I agree in this case, but if it's for historical reasons then I disagree. There's an area near me with dozens of houses that were built in the 1600's or 1700's, and the owners of those must by law never build anything extra to them, and they must keep them in decent shape as they're protected due to being part of the heritage or something. It makes sense it is that way, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a house like that!
Tell that to someone owning a house in Paris. You'd tear it down to build a skyscraper, duh. In fact, they banned skyscrapers from the inner city because of this monstrosity.
San Francisco needs some affordable housing somewhere but the look of its streets is part of its culture.
You don't "own" property in the US. If you did, you wouldn't have to pay tax on it. You rent. There's no ownership - the word itself means nothing.
All true, but it's a good way to disincentivise the behaviour in future, as the owner is now liable for building costs and still ends up back where they started.
If it were just a financial penalty, there'd be a price point at which the wealthy could demolish, pay the fine, and still get something of a blank canvas to work with. Rather than quibbling over what they could then do with the site, saying "put it back how it was" ensures they make no possible gain from breaking the law.
I don't think it's the best way to achieve the goal. Granted, I don't really know what the best way would be - historical value is arguably subjective, so you can't really convert it into monetary value.
I think this would be better done as a mixture of punishments. Have the state take ownership of the land and force the owner to build a public space of some sort on the land, and then prevent the land from being sold for some time after. That way the owner would be heavily disincentivized to demolish historic sites and could not benefit from it (at least any more than any other person).
Then again I have been rather critical of the concept of preserving historical sites lately. If historical sites are important enough to protect, why do we allow them to be privately owned?
Good. Preserving what little character most cities have left is a good thing and these libertarian "I can do whatever I want, others be damned" attitudes should be stopped before they destroy more landmarks (however minor).