Massive home addition causes confusion in Fairfax County neighborhood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice.

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember?

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. I’d live there. But it’s extra weird to be shaken up about aesthetics when there aren’t many aesthetics to begin with. It’s not as though this is some luxe enclave with custom homes being totally ruined by an ugly addition (though I wouldn’t consider that a persuasive argument either).

Do you think only people who live in a “luxe enclave” deserve to not have out-of-character structures built in their neighborhood? Middle class people don’t deserve to live in a less crowded neighborhood if that’s their choice?

My point is that the neighborhood has no charm or “character” to begin with, so there’s nothing really to preserve. To clear, I don’t think the argument is a valid one either way. People who don’t live in an HOA aren’t owed some coherent aesthetic. And people definitely aren’t entitled to “uncrowded” neighborhoods.

I don’t think you understand what the zoning board means by referring to the character of a community. They’re not talking about charm. It refers to a sense of continuity and cohesiveness and whether a proposed project fits into a neighborhood in the same way other structures do. It has to do with a proposed structure not being of a totally different character than what is already there.

And, yes, the requirements for two off street parking spaces do go to how “crowded” a neighborhood can be. Suburban neighborhood streets are not super wide, and can be narrow. More cars parked on the streets can make it more difficult for two cars to pass each other safely. They can also make it less safe for children crossing streets, riding bikes, or even just playing in the street.

It's a house in a residential neighborhood where homes are close together. The zone's requirements already specify what uses, setbacks, heights, parking, etc., fit in the neighborhood. They're not going to relitigate those. The only issue is the setback reduction. The only option seems to be trying to argue that reduction has an adverse impact, but if it stays at 6 inches that's going to be a hard case to make. At 1 foot, it might be a lot easier. So I'd be looking for creative options to keep that as short as possible. (e.g., skipping gutters for a french drain system).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice.

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember?

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. I’d live there. But it’s extra weird to be shaken up about aesthetics when there aren’t many aesthetics to begin with. It’s not as though this is some luxe enclave with custom homes being totally ruined by an ugly addition (though I wouldn’t consider that a persuasive argument either).

Do you think only people who live in a “luxe enclave” deserve to not have out-of-character structures built in their neighborhood? Middle class people don’t deserve to live in a less crowded neighborhood if that’s their choice?

If you're concerned with subjective aesthetics, and want to substitute your judgement for property owners, then you should have bought a home in an HOA. You knew the risk (and reward) when you picked this home. There are plenty of middle class homes with HOAs, and they're always looking for busybodies to serve on design review committees. You'd have a great time.

Well, I’m not sure who you think you are conversing with here, but I already live in a community with an HOA. And we have people who serve on committees who are not busybodies but people who care about their community and are willing to put in volunteer hours on a regular basis to help others. They run a swim team and put on seasonal parties and celebrations for the children in the neighborhood throughout the year. They care about and help other people beyond just their own families.

I'm talking about the design review committee. Those are almost always staffed by busybodies until things get so bad that they clean house. Over time busybodies naturally flock back, because it's mostly only retired women that have the time to do it (if you follow the local/state laws, it becomes a much bigger time commitment than serving on the HOA Board), and the cycle repeats.

If that sounds good to you, great! As you probably observed, there are plenty of homes in neighborhoods with HOAs. But some people don't want to relinquish that much control over their own property to a neighborhood cabal, and that's ok, too.

If this is the same person who also referred to the neighbor filing “vexatious” complaints, this person clearly has a problem with women in general, and women who speak up in particular. This person sounds like someone who would like women to just sit down and shut up.

This poster’s disdain for women is just oozing out of these posts.

Feel free to believe that. I'll admit to having a bias against old people, though. But, it's mostly just that HOAs attract exactly the sort of people you don't want serving in the design review role. It's sort of like how police officer positions attract people with authoritarian tendencies- particularly men.

Your bias against women is very obvious. Maybe you don’t even see it in yourself, but you clearly think women should not be speaking out about public issues.

No, I don't think anyone should be trying to screw over their neighbors over a trivial infraction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice.

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember?

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. I’d live there. But it’s extra weird to be shaken up about aesthetics when there aren’t many aesthetics to begin with. It’s not as though this is some luxe enclave with custom homes being totally ruined by an ugly addition (though I wouldn’t consider that a persuasive argument either).

Do you think only people who live in a “luxe enclave” deserve to not have out-of-character structures built in their neighborhood? Middle class people don’t deserve to live in a less crowded neighborhood if that’s their choice?

My point is that the neighborhood has no charm or “character” to begin with, so there’s nothing really to preserve. To clear, I don’t think the argument is a valid one either way. People who don’t live in an HOA aren’t owed some coherent aesthetic. And people definitely aren’t entitled to “uncrowded” neighborhoods.

I don’t think you understand what the zoning board means by referring to the character of a community. They’re not talking about charm. It refers to a sense of continuity and cohesiveness and whether a proposed project fits into a neighborhood in the same way other structures do. It has to do with a proposed structure not being of a totally different character than what is already there.

And, yes, the requirements for two off street parking spaces do go to how “crowded” a neighborhood can be. Suburban neighborhood streets are not super wide, and can be narrow. More cars parked on the streets can make it more difficult for two cars to pass each other safely. They can also make it less safe for children crossing streets, riding bikes, or even just playing in the street.

Zoning is about land use, not about aesthetics. Even accepting what you're saying as true, Fairfax County zoning laws consider three-story rectangular additions used for residential purposes sufficiently cohesive. This property satisfies parking minimums, so no right to challenge. There aren't resident minimums for a family related by blood/marriage, so the parking minimums aren't about "crowds."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the best solution, if money is available, is for the neighbor to tear down their garage and build a mirroring structure, maybe with a nice rooftop patio so they can have sun again.

As much as I like that idea, it is clear these two neighbors should split up. The well has been poisoned.

What a pity. The aesthetics are certainly jarring, but I’m sure such an addition would have ended up paying for itself in increased home value, and improved the neighbor’s enjoyment of their current home. Instead, they’re going to be out of pocket on frivolous lawsuits and needlessly increase their blood pressure.

Haha, you don’t really think an addition like this will increase the value of a home? What is more likely is that it will bring down the value of the house itself and the other houses on this street. Fewer people will want to buy houses on this street and the ones who are willing to buy there will only be willing to pay bargain prices.

The reality is that middle class and UMC people value function over form. All things being equal, people want a nice-looking house, but when they're making tradeoffs, that's one of the first to go.

Citation for this?

I don’t know anyone who owns a home who doesn’t care how the house looks on the outside.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking at the permit site, Courtney has been filling vexatious complaints for months. The staff has probably lost sympathy for her.

You'll get a lot of leeway for your first complaint, but once you get past 3, you better make sure your complaint has merit. Where did she get the idea the house needed a firewall?

And, of course, she repeated the racist tropes that this must really be an apartment. She complained about a second kitchen, apparently not bothering to read closely enough to see the old kitchen is being removed.

Reading her complaints, and noting her writing style, I have no doubt many of the comments here are from Courtney.

The same could be said about what is likely the owner of the property making multiple posts naming her by name and saying disparaging things about her.

I don’t blame her or any other close neighbors for filing as many complaints as they can to try and stop this thing which is clearly being poorly built and is not following the plans that were approved.

This is a weird take. Courtney turned this into a public issue. She posted on the internet before others knew about this, did interviews with the press, and filed public complaints in her name (several with little-to-no merit). The vast majority of the disparaging remarks here have been directed at the homeowner- the scale and magnitude of the remarks directed at Courtney pale in comparison.

I don't believe any of those actions are against the law. Is there something "Courtney" should be prosecuted for?

When you take public action, expect a public response. That’s not illegal either.

Apparently, it is according to at least one poster here, because the builder might have to defend their actions or suffer from increased blood pressure. It seems that once you start building in Fairfax County you should receive an invisible shield from all public and private scrutiny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice.

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember?

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. I’d live there. But it’s extra weird to be shaken up about aesthetics when there aren’t many aesthetics to begin with. It’s not as though this is some luxe enclave with custom homes being totally ruined by an ugly addition (though I wouldn’t consider that a persuasive argument either).

Do you think only people who live in a “luxe enclave” deserve to not have out-of-character structures built in their neighborhood? Middle class people don’t deserve to live in a less crowded neighborhood if that’s their choice?

My point is that the neighborhood has no charm or “character” to begin with, so there’s nothing really to preserve. To clear, I don’t think the argument is a valid one either way. People who don’t live in an HOA aren’t owed some coherent aesthetic. And people definitely aren’t entitled to “uncrowded” neighborhoods.

I don’t think you understand what the zoning board means by referring to the character of a community. They’re not talking about charm. It refers to a sense of continuity and cohesiveness and whether a proposed project fits into a neighborhood in the same way other structures do. It has to do with a proposed structure not being of a totally different character than what is already there.

And, yes, the requirements for two off street parking spaces do go to how “crowded” a neighborhood can be. Suburban neighborhood streets are not super wide, and can be narrow. More cars parked on the streets can make it more difficult for two cars to pass each other safely. They can also make it less safe for children crossing streets, riding bikes, or even just playing in the street.

Zoning is about land use, not about aesthetics. Even accepting what you're saying as true, Fairfax County zoning laws consider three-story rectangular additions used for residential purposes sufficiently cohesive. This property satisfies parking minimums, so no right to challenge. There aren't resident minimums for a family related by blood/marriage, so the parking minimums aren't about "crowds."

Zoning used to be solely about land use. That's no longer the case. You are living in the past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the best solution, if money is available, is for the neighbor to tear down their garage and build a mirroring structure, maybe with a nice rooftop patio so they can have sun again.

As much as I like that idea, it is clear these two neighbors should split up. The well has been poisoned.

What a pity. The aesthetics are certainly jarring, but I’m sure such an addition would have ended up paying for itself in increased home value, and improved the neighbor’s enjoyment of their current home. Instead, they’re going to be out of pocket on frivolous lawsuits and needlessly increase their blood pressure.

Haha, you don’t really think an addition like this will increase the value of a home? What is more likely is that it will bring down the value of the house itself and the other houses on this street. Fewer people will want to buy houses on this street and the ones who are willing to buy there will only be willing to pay bargain prices.

The reality is that middle class and UMC people value function over form. All things being equal, people want a nice-looking house, but when they're making tradeoffs, that's one of the first to go.

This is not true. Horrendous looking frankenstein homes like this one bring down property values in the entire city.

Middle class cares a lot about their home exteriors, maybe renters don't. Have you seen the ugly turret cities being built in McLean/Great Falls? Those people building the turret monstrosities have plenty of money, but no taste.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the best solution, if money is available, is for the neighbor to tear down their garage and build a mirroring structure, maybe with a nice rooftop patio so they can have sun again.

As much as I like that idea, it is clear these two neighbors should split up. The well has been poisoned.

What a pity. The aesthetics are certainly jarring, but I’m sure such an addition would have ended up paying for itself in increased home value, and improved the neighbor’s enjoyment of their current home. Instead, they’re going to be out of pocket on frivolous lawsuits and needlessly increase their blood pressure.

Haha, you don’t really think an addition like this will increase the value of a home? What is more likely is that it will bring down the value of the house itself and the other houses on this street. Fewer people will want to buy houses on this street and the ones who are willing to buy there will only be willing to pay bargain prices.

The reality is that middle class and UMC people value function over form. All things being equal, people want a nice-looking house, but when they're making tradeoffs, that's one of the first to go.

Citation for this?

I don’t know anyone who owns a home who doesn’t care how the house looks on the outside.

I didn't say they don't care. But they often accept homes that they don't find attractive if it is in a location they want or provides the space they need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice.

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember?

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. I’d live there. But it’s extra weird to be shaken up about aesthetics when there aren’t many aesthetics to begin with. It’s not as though this is some luxe enclave with custom homes being totally ruined by an ugly addition (though I wouldn’t consider that a persuasive argument either).

Do you think only people who live in a “luxe enclave” deserve to not have out-of-character structures built in their neighborhood? Middle class people don’t deserve to live in a less crowded neighborhood if that’s their choice?

If you're concerned with subjective aesthetics, and want to substitute your judgement for property owners, then you should have bought a home in an HOA. You knew the risk (and reward) when you picked this home. There are plenty of middle class homes with HOAs, and they're always looking for busybodies to serve on design review committees. You'd have a great time.

Well, I’m not sure who you think you are conversing with here, but I already live in a community with an HOA. And we have people who serve on committees who are not busybodies but people who care about their community and are willing to put in volunteer hours on a regular basis to help others. They run a swim team and put on seasonal parties and celebrations for the children in the neighborhood throughout the year. They care about and help other people beyond just their own families.

I'm talking about the design review committee. Those are almost always staffed by busybodies until things get so bad that they clean house. Over time busybodies naturally flock back, because it's mostly only retired women that have the time to do it (if you follow the local/state laws, it becomes a much bigger time commitment than serving on the HOA Board), and the cycle repeats.

If that sounds good to you, great! As you probably observed, there are plenty of homes in neighborhoods with HOAs. But some people don't want to relinquish that much control over their own property to a neighborhood cabal, and that's ok, too.

If this is the same person who also referred to the neighbor filing “vexatious” complaints, this person clearly has a problem with women in general, and women who speak up in particular. This person sounds like someone who would like women to just sit down and shut up.

This poster’s disdain for women is just oozing out of these posts.

Feel free to believe that. I'll admit to having a bias against old people, though. But, it's mostly just that HOAs attract exactly the sort of people you don't want serving in the design review role. It's sort of like how police officer positions attract people with authoritarian tendencies- particularly men.

Your bias against women is very obvious. Maybe you don’t even see it in yourself, but you clearly think women should not be speaking out about public issues.

No, I don't think anyone should be trying to screw over their neighbors over a trivial infraction.

Wow, weird choice of words. Give a little thought to which neighbor doesn’t seem to care about how their choices affect the other neighbors on the block. Which neighbor doesn’t appear to care about driving down all the other neighbors’ property values?

It’s also weird that someone keeps calling out just the one neighbor when news reports and even posts on here make it clear that there are many people in this neighborhood who are not pleased with what is going on. If the next door neighbor had not reported it, there are plenty of other people who would have, so it’s silly to act as though only that one person cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the best solution, if money is available, is for the neighbor to tear down their garage and build a mirroring structure, maybe with a nice rooftop patio so they can have sun again.

As much as I like that idea, it is clear these two neighbors should split up. The well has been poisoned.

What a pity. The aesthetics are certainly jarring, but I’m sure such an addition would have ended up paying for itself in increased home value, and improved the neighbor’s enjoyment of their current home. Instead, they’re going to be out of pocket on frivolous lawsuits and needlessly increase their blood pressure.

Haha, you don’t really think an addition like this will increase the value of a home? What is more likely is that it will bring down the value of the house itself and the other houses on this street. Fewer people will want to buy houses on this street and the ones who are willing to buy there will only be willing to pay bargain prices.

The reality is that middle class and UMC people value function over form. All things being equal, people want a nice-looking house, but when they're making tradeoffs, that's one of the first to go.

This is not true. Horrendous looking frankenstein homes like this one bring down property values in the entire city.

Middle class cares a lot about their home exteriors, maybe renters don't. Have you seen the ugly turret cities being built in McLean/Great Falls? Those people building the turret monstrosities have plenty of money, but no taste.

Yet look at the prices. People might not like it, but they accept tradeoffs. When you're price-strapped, you don't have the luxury to consider only aesthetically pleasing homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice.

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember?

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. I’d live there. But it’s extra weird to be shaken up about aesthetics when there aren’t many aesthetics to begin with. It’s not as though this is some luxe enclave with custom homes being totally ruined by an ugly addition (though I wouldn’t consider that a persuasive argument either).

Do you think only people who live in a “luxe enclave” deserve to not have out-of-character structures built in their neighborhood? Middle class people don’t deserve to live in a less crowded neighborhood if that’s their choice?

My point is that the neighborhood has no charm or “character” to begin with, so there’s nothing really to preserve. To clear, I don’t think the argument is a valid one either way. People who don’t live in an HOA aren’t owed some coherent aesthetic. And people definitely aren’t entitled to “uncrowded” neighborhoods.

I don’t think you understand what the zoning board means by referring to the character of a community. They’re not talking about charm. It refers to a sense of continuity and cohesiveness and whether a proposed project fits into a neighborhood in the same way other structures do. It has to do with a proposed structure not being of a totally different character than what is already there.

And, yes, the requirements for two off street parking spaces do go to how “crowded” a neighborhood can be. Suburban neighborhood streets are not super wide, and can be narrow. More cars parked on the streets can make it more difficult for two cars to pass each other safely. They can also make it less safe for children crossing streets, riding bikes, or even just playing in the street.

Zoning is about land use, not about aesthetics. Even accepting what you're saying as true, Fairfax County zoning laws consider three-story rectangular additions used for residential purposes sufficiently cohesive. This property satisfies parking minimums, so no right to challenge. There aren't resident minimums for a family related by blood/marriage, so the parking minimums aren't about "crowds."

Zoning used to be solely about land use. That's no longer the case. You are living in the past.

Do you dispute that three-floor, rectangular box addition six inches narrower than this person's would comply with all FFX county zoning ordinances despite not having the same "character" as the rest of the neighborhood?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice.

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember?

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. I’d live there. But it’s extra weird to be shaken up about aesthetics when there aren’t many aesthetics to begin with. It’s not as though this is some luxe enclave with custom homes being totally ruined by an ugly addition (though I wouldn’t consider that a persuasive argument either).

Do you think only people who live in a “luxe enclave” deserve to not have out-of-character structures built in their neighborhood? Middle class people don’t deserve to live in a less crowded neighborhood if that’s their choice?

If you're concerned with subjective aesthetics, and want to substitute your judgement for property owners, then you should have bought a home in an HOA. You knew the risk (and reward) when you picked this home. There are plenty of middle class homes with HOAs, and they're always looking for busybodies to serve on design review committees. You'd have a great time.

Well, I’m not sure who you think you are conversing with here, but I already live in a community with an HOA. And we have people who serve on committees who are not busybodies but people who care about their community and are willing to put in volunteer hours on a regular basis to help others. They run a swim team and put on seasonal parties and celebrations for the children in the neighborhood throughout the year. They care about and help other people beyond just their own families.

I'm talking about the design review committee. Those are almost always staffed by busybodies until things get so bad that they clean house. Over time busybodies naturally flock back, because it's mostly only retired women that have the time to do it (if you follow the local/state laws, it becomes a much bigger time commitment than serving on the HOA Board), and the cycle repeats.

If that sounds good to you, great! As you probably observed, there are plenty of homes in neighborhoods with HOAs. But some people don't want to relinquish that much control over their own property to a neighborhood cabal, and that's ok, too.

If this is the same person who also referred to the neighbor filing “vexatious” complaints, this person clearly has a problem with women in general, and women who speak up in particular. This person sounds like someone who would like women to just sit down and shut up.

This poster’s disdain for women is just oozing out of these posts.

Feel free to believe that. I'll admit to having a bias against old people, though. But, it's mostly just that HOAs attract exactly the sort of people you don't want serving in the design review role. It's sort of like how police officer positions attract people with authoritarian tendencies- particularly men.

Your bias against women is very obvious. Maybe you don’t even see it in yourself, but you clearly think women should not be speaking out about public issues.

No, I don't think anyone should be trying to screw over their neighbors over a trivial infraction.

Wow, weird choice of words. Give a little thought to which neighbor doesn’t seem to care about how their choices affect the other neighbors on the block. Which neighbor doesn’t appear to care about driving down all the other neighbors’ property values?

It’s also weird that someone keeps calling out just the one neighbor when news reports and even posts on here make it clear that there are many people in this neighborhood who are not pleased with what is going on. If the next door neighbor had not reported it, there are plenty of other people who would have, so it’s silly to act as though only that one person cares.

Building an ugly home isn't an infraction. Homes are for housing people. That function reasonably takes priority over aesthetics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the best solution, if money is available, is for the neighbor to tear down their garage and build a mirroring structure, maybe with a nice rooftop patio so they can have sun again.

As much as I like that idea, it is clear these two neighbors should split up. The well has been poisoned.

What a pity. The aesthetics are certainly jarring, but I’m sure such an addition would have ended up paying for itself in increased home value, and improved the neighbor’s enjoyment of their current home. Instead, they’re going to be out of pocket on frivolous lawsuits and needlessly increase their blood pressure.

Haha, you don’t really think an addition like this will increase the value of a home? What is more likely is that it will bring down the value of the house itself and the other houses on this street. Fewer people will want to buy houses on this street and the ones who are willing to buy there will only be willing to pay bargain prices.

The reality is that middle class and UMC people value function over form. All things being equal, people want a nice-looking house, but when they're making tradeoffs, that's one of the first to go.

Citation for this?

I don’t know anyone who owns a home who doesn’t care how the house looks on the outside.

I didn't say they don't care. But they often accept homes that they don't find attractive if it is in a location they want or provides the space they need.

Who? I don’t know anyone who has said, well, the house isn’t very attractive but it’s in the right location/big enough. How many people do you know who live in homes they don’t find attractive? Maybe someone who is poor would accept this, but not middle class and UMC people.

This is such a strange take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like the best solution, if money is available, is for the neighbor to tear down their garage and build a mirroring structure, maybe with a nice rooftop patio so they can have sun again.

As much as I like that idea, it is clear these two neighbors should split up. The well has been poisoned.

What a pity. The aesthetics are certainly jarring, but I’m sure such an addition would have ended up paying for itself in increased home value, and improved the neighbor’s enjoyment of their current home. Instead, they’re going to be out of pocket on frivolous lawsuits and needlessly increase their blood pressure.

Haha, you don’t really think an addition like this will increase the value of a home? What is more likely is that it will bring down the value of the house itself and the other houses on this street. Fewer people will want to buy houses on this street and the ones who are willing to buy there will only be willing to pay bargain prices.

The reality is that middle class and UMC people value function over form. All things being equal, people want a nice-looking house, but when they're making tradeoffs, that's one of the first to go.

Citation for this?

I don’t know anyone who owns a home who doesn’t care how the house looks on the outside.

I didn't say they don't care. But they often accept homes that they don't find attractive if it is in a location they want or provides the space they need.

Who? I don’t know anyone who has said, well, the house isn’t very attractive but it’s in the right location/big enough. How many people do you know who live in homes they don’t find attractive? Maybe someone who is poor would accept this, but not middle class and UMC people.

This is such a strange take.

I got a great deal on an expensive house in an exclusive neighborhood that is . . . very unusual . . . Not my aesthetic at all. Purchased anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Greenbriar is a mess. Has anyone actually driven through it?! Shudders. One of DS's team mates lived there.

There is nothing wrong with the neighborhood. It isn’t shiny and new, but it isn’t “a mess”

I wouldn't call it a mess, but it looks like a middle middle class neighborhood filled with 1950s-1960s split levels, some of which are quite poorly maintained. People are melting down about architectural cohesion when the neighborhood architecture isn't even nice.

It was built in the late 60s-early 70s

What is wrong with a middle class neighborhood?

Are there some properties that aren’t well maintained? Sure. No HOA, remember?

Absolutely nothing wrong with it. I’d live there. But it’s extra weird to be shaken up about aesthetics when there aren’t many aesthetics to begin with. It’s not as though this is some luxe enclave with custom homes being totally ruined by an ugly addition (though I wouldn’t consider that a persuasive argument either).

Do you think only people who live in a “luxe enclave” deserve to not have out-of-character structures built in their neighborhood? Middle class people don’t deserve to live in a less crowded neighborhood if that’s their choice?

If you're concerned with subjective aesthetics, and want to substitute your judgement for property owners, then you should have bought a home in an HOA. You knew the risk (and reward) when you picked this home. There are plenty of middle class homes with HOAs, and they're always looking for busybodies to serve on design review committees. You'd have a great time.

Well, I’m not sure who you think you are conversing with here, but I already live in a community with an HOA. And we have people who serve on committees who are not busybodies but people who care about their community and are willing to put in volunteer hours on a regular basis to help others. They run a swim team and put on seasonal parties and celebrations for the children in the neighborhood throughout the year. They care about and help other people beyond just their own families.

I'm talking about the design review committee. Those are almost always staffed by busybodies until things get so bad that they clean house. Over time busybodies naturally flock back, because it's mostly only retired women that have the time to do it (if you follow the local/state laws, it becomes a much bigger time commitment than serving on the HOA Board), and the cycle repeats.

If that sounds good to you, great! As you probably observed, there are plenty of homes in neighborhoods with HOAs. But some people don't want to relinquish that much control over their own property to a neighborhood cabal, and that's ok, too.

If this is the same person who also referred to the neighbor filing “vexatious” complaints, this person clearly has a problem with women in general, and women who speak up in particular. This person sounds like someone who would like women to just sit down and shut up.

This poster’s disdain for women is just oozing out of these posts.

Feel free to believe that. I'll admit to having a bias against old people, though. But, it's mostly just that HOAs attract exactly the sort of people you don't want serving in the design review role. It's sort of like how police officer positions attract people with authoritarian tendencies- particularly men.

Your bias against women is very obvious. Maybe you don’t even see it in yourself, but you clearly think women should not be speaking out about public issues.

No, I don't think anyone should be trying to screw over their neighbors over a trivial infraction.

Wow, weird choice of words. Give a little thought to which neighbor doesn’t seem to care about how their choices affect the other neighbors on the block. Which neighbor doesn’t appear to care about driving down all the other neighbors’ property values?

It’s also weird that someone keeps calling out just the one neighbor when news reports and even posts on here make it clear that there are many people in this neighborhood who are not pleased with what is going on. If the next door neighbor had not reported it, there are plenty of other people who would have, so it’s silly to act as though only that one person cares.

Building an ugly home isn't an infraction. Homes are for housing people. That function reasonably takes priority over aesthetics.

Okay. See what happens to property values in your neighborhood if everyone builds ugly additions around you. If only function is prioritized, people will be clamoring to buy those ugly houses. Stuff that won’t happen for $500, Alex.