Missing Middle middle finger -- seller insists on SFH restriction

[Anonymous]

My area of Arlington has 40×150 lots. Explain to me how fitting a triplex or sixplex next door with my 8 ft side yard is not unfair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's overtly classist. Keeping the poors away.

Trust me they aren't putting up housing that poors could afford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My area of Arlington has 40×150 lots. Explain to me how fitting a triplex or sixplex next door with my 8 ft side yard is not unfair.

I’m also in an R-6 neighborhood. Explain to me how the number of units in a building is different than being sandwiched between 2 new build SFH that are built right up to the maximum lot coverage?

The house in question is asking $1.2 for a teardown. That’s an expensive lot. To turn a profit, you have to build a $2.5-3M home or multiple units. Guess what? That $2-3M home will also tower over your modest house next door and shade the yard with a tall, narrow monstrosity of a home.

[Anonymous]

Covenants aren't legally enforceable. Right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally get why he is doing it. To preserve the character of the neighborhood. Laudible. That said it is covertly racist. I doubt that he even realizes.

I missed the part of the listing that says that a black person cannot buy the house. Can you point it out?

That would be overtly racist. Covertly racist is when the effect disproportionately effects people of color even if the intent was otherwise. For example, public schools pursuant to federal standards require milk as the drink. Why? It’s not health, although milk has healthy components. It’s because the dairy industry lobbied harder than the orange industry. Did you know that less than 10% of white people are lactose intolerant, approximately 50% of black people are lactose intolerant and over 90% of Asians are lactose intolerant.

I am presuming that the covenant is not intended as racist but it is rather indisputable that single family houses in will attract a higher percentage of white buyers than multi family in the same location.

Your argument only holds if the MM units were affordably priced. However, this SFH would be replaced with, at minimum, two units that would EACH sell for 1.2M. Look at ARL real estate for proof.

Under this absurd logic basically everything is racist or discriminatory. There is not a single policy that has the same impact on every age group, gender, ethnicity etc. Your definition of racism is so expansive that it is practically meaningless. There are many other policy goals that have nothing to do with race and not everything is about race. If you want to play this game, the MM zoning changes are actually racist because they will disproportionately incentivize development of more affordable single family neighborhoods that have more minority households. The overall effect will be gentrification and displacement of minorities. The rich white neighborhoods with 4M homes will see very little of this development. Ultra-luxury single family is more profitable to develop in those areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Covenants aren't legally enforceable. Right?

They are legally enforceable. There have been multiple lawsuits over this and the precedent is clear that the rest of the covenant is enforceable even if portions of it are no longer legal. So that covenant from the 1920's or 1930's still applies minus the stuff that is no longer legal due to the Shelly V Craemer SCOTUS ruling invalidating racial covenants (in 1948).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it stand up to legal scrutiny?

No, all the new owners have to do is submit for a variance wit the county to subdivide. talk to a local real estate lawyer before purchasong

The covenant is absolutely enforceable if he gets another property owner in the neighborhood to sign onto the agreement.

If I was the neighbor, I would only sign on if the seller agrees to pay all legal costs to enforce it.

Even then…I am skeptical the seller would be available when it comes time to hire a lawyer.

Again….this is why some people really like HOA communities.

If I were a neighbor, I would love this and would happily cover my own legal fees to enforce it. My guess is that the seller's neighbors feel the same way -- look on street view, and you'll see lots of recent builds. You really think any of those people want a 6-plex on their street?

Good for you...however, I honestly don't think you would consider $100k+ in legal fees to enforce this if you are going up against a well-heeled developer.

I think you are imagining a much lower number or you don't have the same demographics of what I imagine this person's neighbors to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally get why he is doing it. To preserve the character of the neighborhood. Laudible. That said it is covertly racist. I doubt that he even realizes.

I missed the part of the listing that says that a black person cannot buy the house. Can you point it out?

That would be overtly racist. Covertly racist is when the effect disproportionately effects people of color even if the intent was otherwise. For example, public schools pursuant to federal standards require milk as the drink. Why? It’s not health, although milk has healthy components. It’s because the dairy industry lobbied harder than the orange industry. Did you know that less than 10% of white people are lactose intolerant, approximately 50% of black people are lactose intolerant and over 90% of Asians are lactose intolerant.

I am presuming that the covenant is not intended as racist but it is rather indisputable that single family houses in will attract a higher percentage of white buyers than multi family in the same location.

Your argument only holds if the MM units were affordably priced. However, this SFH would be replaced with, at minimum, two units that would EACH sell for 1.2M. Look at ARL real estate for proof.

Why is this a problem? Fine, get a minimum of two luxury units. Two units entering the housing supply is a win in my book.

[Anonymous]

I like this. Population density is already too high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will it stand up to legal scrutiny?

No, all the new owners have to do is submit for a variance wit the county to subdivide. talk to a local real estate lawyer before purchasong

The covenant is absolutely enforceable if he gets another property owner in the neighborhood to sign onto the agreement.

If I was the neighbor, I would only sign on if the seller agrees to pay all legal costs to enforce it.

Even then…I am skeptical the seller would be available when it comes time to hire a lawyer.

Again….this is why some people really like HOA communities.

If I were a neighbor, I would love this and would happily cover my own legal fees to enforce it. My guess is that the seller's neighbors feel the same way -- look on street view, and you'll see lots of recent builds. You really think any of those people want a 6-plex on their street?

Good for you...however, I honestly don't think you would consider $100k+ in legal fees to enforce this if you are going up against a well-heeled developer.

I think you are imagining a much lower number or you don't have the same demographics of what I imagine this person's neighbors to be.

There are plenty of upper middle class retirees in Arlington with 100k to throw at a lawsuit. Developer will not buy the property to begin with because it will come up during the title search.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally get why he is doing it. To preserve the character of the neighborhood. Laudible. That said it is covertly racist. I doubt that he even realizes.

I missed the part of the listing that says that a black person cannot buy the house. Can you point it out?

That would be overtly racist. Covertly racist is when the effect disproportionately effects people of color even if the intent was otherwise. For example, public schools pursuant to federal standards require milk as the drink. Why? It’s not health, although milk has healthy components. It’s because the dairy industry lobbied harder than the orange industry. Did you know that less than 10% of white people are lactose intolerant, approximately 50% of black people are lactose intolerant and over 90% of Asians are lactose intolerant.

I am presuming that the covenant is not intended as racist but it is rather indisputable that single family houses in will attract a higher percentage of white buyers than multi family in the same location.

Your argument only holds if the MM units were affordably priced. However, this SFH would be replaced with, at minimum, two units that would EACH sell for 1.2M. Look at ARL real estate for proof.

Why is this a problem? Fine, get a minimum of two luxury units. Two units entering the housing supply is a win in my book.

The problem is that it forces at the middle they claim they are trying to help. Two luxury units is really where the racists/classist neighborhood turnover takes place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My area of Arlington has 40×150 lots. Explain to me how fitting a triplex or sixplex next door with my 8 ft side yard is not unfair.

I’m also in an R-6 neighborhood. Explain to me how the number of units in a building is different than being sandwiched between 2 new build SFH that are built right up to the maximum lot coverage?

The house in question is asking $1.2 for a teardown. That’s an expensive lot. To turn a profit, you have to build a $2.5-3M home or multiple units. Guess what? That $2-3M home will also tower over your modest house next door and shade the yard with a tall, narrow monstrosity of a home.

We have those 1.8M houses across the street. They do not cover the max lot coverage.
Three or six or four different households living next door make a difference. Also in street parking. We have a driveway, others don't or have 2 cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I totally get why he is doing it. To preserve the character of the neighborhood. Laudible. That said it is covertly racist. I doubt that he even realizes.

It’s not racist and you know it. Another lie MM tried to push. These apartments are going to be expensive. They aren’t going to any cops, teachers, or under represented families. Just a bunch of rich professionals, who I’m not sure you realize in 2024, can actually be minorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's overtly classist. Keeping the poors away.

Trust me they aren't putting up housing that poors could afford.

+1

That's the thing. 1mil+ condos are not for the poors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I totally get why he is doing it. To preserve the character of the neighborhood. Laudible. That said it is covertly racist. I doubt that he even realizes.

It’s not racist and you know it. Another lie MM tried to push. These apartments are going to be expensive. They aren’t going to any cops, teachers, or under represented families. Just a bunch of rich professionals, who I’m not sure you realize in 2024, can actually be minorities.

+1