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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nuisance could be more cars on the street parked as well. We have a neighbor who couldn't get his truck out of the driveway because another neighbor kept his car parked in exactly the wrong spot on the street. These streets are not that wide. County was called on that one.

You seem confused by the situation. This will still house a single (multigenerational) family.

Regardless, no, you don't have a reasonable expectation to easy street parking. Nor is there a reasonable expectation to a certain amount of sunlight.

If this meets zoning requirements, there's no lawsuit.

It sounds like there will be many more people living there than there are now. There are four adults and two children living there now. How many more family members will be moving in when they have all the added bedrooms and bathrooms? How many of them will have cars, which will have to be parked somewhere?

It literally doesn't matter because there aren't off-street parking space requirements for SFHs, and you have no private right to street parking. You can feel annoyed about there being extra cars, but it's not legally actionable.

You seem very positive about this addition, and that’s nice for you, but you should understand that there are many aspects of this design that, if the homeowner is allowed to proceed, will lower the value of every house on that street.

When buyers look at houses, they consider how the neighborhood looks. This house looks out of proportion to the other houses there. The quality of the construction appears to be very poor according to images that are available on line. If the building quality looks poor now, how will it hold up over time? What will it look like in five or ten years? Add in multiple extra cars parked out on the street, possibly making it difficult for neighbors or their visitors to park.

A buyer sees all this and will not want to buy near there. The selling prices will go down when the only way to get someone to buy your house is to offer a bargain. The house with the addition will have an even lower value. Everyone is hurt by this construction, even the family building it.

The issue isn't whether your neighbor's behavior is annoying, rude, or will harm neighboring property values. The issue is whether there is a private right of action. Standing by itself, your neighbors building an ugly, unattractive home that meets county requirements does not create a private right of action. There is no common law right to sunlight and views. And your neighbors owe you no duty to preserve your property values. Do the neighbors have the right to be annoyed? Sure. But that's as far as their rights go absent some cognizable legal claim that shows legally recognized harm to neighboring property owners.

The issue is that property values will go down for all, even the person building this addition- possibly especially the person building this addition. They’re not taking the long view of what is « penny wise and pound foolish. »

We're talking about whether the neighbors have a real basis to sue (and win). They don't. I'm sorry you don't like the addition. I hate how it looks too. But I really believe people should be able to do mostly whatever they want with their properties. It's why I deliberately chose NOT to live in an HOA. I'd be sad the addition would hurt my property values, but I'd understand I have no rights to control other's lawful choices for their own property.

It really doesn’t matter whether they can sue or not, the more important issue is that property values will go down. Time, money, and effort that people have put into their houses will be lost because of the choices of one homeowner. Yes, a property owner can do what they want, but most people feel at least some responsibility to be a good neighbor and not do things that reduce the value of what their neighbors and they themselves own.

Yes, it’s sad. For a lot of us our house is a big part of our retirement planning. Losing a percentage of that value can be a blow to future planning. Sure, you can lose money in the stock market, but this would really sting to know that this situation didn’t have to happen.

This is why you should never consider your primary home an investment and why real estate is much riskier than people appreciate. That green space that's zoned as residential green space. The county could approve a variance and it could be turned into a disgusting industrial park. All kinds of things outside of your control could happen that lead your property values to go down. An index fund is way safer. My home isn't an investment. It's a lifestyle choice I made (and a shitty one at that).

That’s nice if you’re rich, but hard working middle class people don’t have that luxury.

You can rent, like the vast majority of poor people. Right now, renting is cheaper than buying almost always. Even with my 2.5% interest rate, I'm better off renting in the vast majority of scenarios than owning my 80 year old house with exorbitant maintenance expenses. I made a lifestyle choice. Nobody owes me their efforts to preserve my property values or appreciation.

This answer appears to be deliberately obtuse. Hard working middle class is not poor. And this answer indicates a lack of care for your neighbors.

Lots of middle class people rent. You’re not forced to buy a home, and it’s generally not a great investment!

Regarding lack of care, sure, I wouldn’t have approached it that way. And that would annoy me, but that’s as far as it goes. Annoyance.

The neighbors would obviously prefer that the owner spend tens of thousands or potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the addition look more attractive to them. But they’re not offering to pony up the difference, I suspect.

Actually, the neighbors would probably prefer that the family not build this odd looking addition that doesn’t fit into the look of the rest of the neighborhood. Why would you think the neighbors should offer money to this family when this family is taking actions that will take thousands away from their neighbors? Is that what they’re thinking- that the neighbors should pony up money for them to build a better addition? That’s a bit beyond a rational plan, you must know.

This family is thinking of themselves and what they want- they don’t appear to be giving a thought to the good of their community.

You think it is wrong for someone to prioritize their family's basic needs over maximizing profit for their neighbors?

[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:
Nuisance could be more cars on the street parked as well. We have a neighbor who couldn't get his truck out of the driveway because another neighbor kept his car parked in exactly the wrong spot on the street. These streets are not that wide. County was called on that one.

You seem confused by the situation. This will still house a single (multigenerational) family.

Regardless, no, you don't have a reasonable expectation to easy street parking. Nor is there a reasonable expectation to a certain amount of sunlight.

If this meets zoning requirements, there's no lawsuit.

It sounds like there will be many more people living there than there are now. There are four adults and two children living there now. How many more family members will be moving in when they have all the added bedrooms and bathrooms? How many of them will have cars, which will have to be parked somewhere?

It literally doesn't matter because there aren't off-street parking space requirements for SFHs, and you have no private right to street parking. You can feel annoyed about there being extra cars, but it's not legally actionable.

You seem very positive about this addition, and that’s nice for you, but you should understand that there are many aspects of this design that, if the homeowner is allowed to proceed, will lower the value of every house on that street.

When buyers look at houses, they consider how the neighborhood looks. This house looks out of proportion to the other houses there. The quality of the construction appears to be very poor according to images that are available on line. If the building quality looks poor now, how will it hold up over time? What will it look like in five or ten years? Add in multiple extra cars parked out on the street, possibly making it difficult for neighbors or their visitors to park.

A buyer sees all this and will not want to buy near there. The selling prices will go down when the only way to get someone to buy your house is to offer a bargain. The house with the addition will have an even lower value. Everyone is hurt by this construction, even the family building it.

The issue isn't whether your neighbor's behavior is annoying, rude, or will harm neighboring property values. The issue is whether there is a private right of action. Standing by itself, your neighbors building an ugly, unattractive home that meets county requirements does not create a private right of action. There is no common law right to sunlight and views. And your neighbors owe you no duty to preserve your property values. Do the neighbors have the right to be annoyed? Sure. But that's as far as their rights go absent some cognizable legal claim that shows legally recognized harm to neighboring property owners.

The issue is that property values will go down for all, even the person building this addition- possibly especially the person building this addition. They’re not taking the long view of what is « penny wise and pound foolish. »

We're talking about whether the neighbors have a real basis to sue (and win). They don't. I'm sorry you don't like the addition. I hate how it looks too. But I really believe people should be able to do mostly whatever they want with their properties. It's why I deliberately chose NOT to live in an HOA. I'd be sad the addition would hurt my property values, but I'd understand I have no rights to control other's lawful choices for their own property.

It really doesn’t matter whether they can sue or not, the more important issue is that property values will go down. Time, money, and effort that people have put into their houses will be lost because of the choices of one homeowner. Yes, a property owner can do what they want, but most people feel at least some responsibility to be a good neighbor and not do things that reduce the value of what their neighbors and they themselves own.

Yes, it’s sad. For a lot of us our house is a big part of our retirement planning. Losing a percentage of that value can be a blow to future planning. Sure, you can lose money in the stock market, but this would really sting to know that this situation didn’t have to happen.

This is why you should never consider your primary home an investment and why real estate is much riskier than people appreciate. That green space that's zoned as residential green space. The county could approve a variance and it could be turned into a disgusting industrial park. All kinds of things outside of your control could happen that lead your property values to go down. An index fund is way safer. My home isn't an investment. It's a lifestyle choice I made (and a shitty one at that).

That’s nice if you’re rich, but hard working middle class people don’t have that luxury.

You can rent, like the vast majority of poor people. Right now, renting is cheaper than buying almost always. Even with my 2.5% interest rate, I'm better off renting in the vast majority of scenarios than owning my 80 year old house with exorbitant maintenance expenses. I made a lifestyle choice. Nobody owes me their efforts to preserve my property values or appreciation.

This answer appears to be deliberately obtuse. Hard working middle class is not poor. And this answer indicates a lack of care for your neighbors.

Lots of middle class people rent. You’re not forced to buy a home, and it’s generally not a great investment!

Regarding lack of care, sure, I wouldn’t have approached it that way. And that would annoy me, but that’s as far as it goes. Annoyance.

The neighbors would obviously prefer that the owner spend tens of thousands or potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the addition look more attractive to them. But they’re not offering to pony up the difference, I suspect.

Actually, the neighbors would probably prefer that the family not build this odd looking addition that doesn’t fit into the look of the rest of the neighborhood. Why would you think the neighbors should offer money to this family when this family is taking actions that will take thousands away from their neighbors? Is that what they’re thinking- that the neighbors should pony up money for them to build a better addition? That’s a bit beyond a rational plan, you must know.

This family is thinking of themselves and what they want- they don’t appear to be giving a thought to the good of their community.

Why should the person be prevented from building a legal addition because the neighbors think it’s ugly? A nicer addition is going to cost more money that I’m sure this person doesn’t want to pay. Unless the neighbors are willing to pay for changes, they should pipe down.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:
Nuisance could be more cars on the street parked as well. We have a neighbor who couldn't get his truck out of the driveway because another neighbor kept his car parked in exactly the wrong spot on the street. These streets are not that wide. County was called on that one.

You seem confused by the situation. This will still house a single (multigenerational) family.

Regardless, no, you don't have a reasonable expectation to easy street parking. Nor is there a reasonable expectation to a certain amount of sunlight.

If this meets zoning requirements, there's no lawsuit.

It sounds like there will be many more people living there than there are now. There are four adults and two children living there now. How many more family members will be moving in when they have all the added bedrooms and bathrooms? How many of them will have cars, which will have to be parked somewhere?

It literally doesn't matter because there aren't off-street parking space requirements for SFHs, and you have no private right to street parking. You can feel annoyed about there being extra cars, but it's not legally actionable.

You seem very positive about this addition, and that’s nice for you, but you should understand that there are many aspects of this design that, if the homeowner is allowed to proceed, will lower the value of every house on that street.

When buyers look at houses, they consider how the neighborhood looks. This house looks out of proportion to the other houses there. The quality of the construction appears to be very poor according to images that are available on line. If the building quality looks poor now, how will it hold up over time? What will it look like in five or ten years? Add in multiple extra cars parked out on the street, possibly making it difficult for neighbors or their visitors to park.

A buyer sees all this and will not want to buy near there. The selling prices will go down when the only way to get someone to buy your house is to offer a bargain. The house with the addition will have an even lower value. Everyone is hurt by this construction, even the family building it.

The issue isn't whether your neighbor's behavior is annoying, rude, or will harm neighboring property values. The issue is whether there is a private right of action. Standing by itself, your neighbors building an ugly, unattractive home that meets county requirements does not create a private right of action. There is no common law right to sunlight and views. And your neighbors owe you no duty to preserve your property values. Do the neighbors have the right to be annoyed? Sure. But that's as far as their rights go absent some cognizable legal claim that shows legally recognized harm to neighboring property owners.

The issue is that property values will go down for all, even the person building this addition- possibly especially the person building this addition. They’re not taking the long view of what is « penny wise and pound foolish. »

We're talking about whether the neighbors have a real basis to sue (and win). They don't. I'm sorry you don't like the addition. I hate how it looks too. But I really believe people should be able to do mostly whatever they want with their properties. It's why I deliberately chose NOT to live in an HOA. I'd be sad the addition would hurt my property values, but I'd understand I have no rights to control other's lawful choices for their own property.

It really doesn’t matter whether they can sue or not, the more important issue is that property values will go down. Time, money, and effort that people have put into their houses will be lost because of the choices of one homeowner. Yes, a property owner can do what they want, but most people feel at least some responsibility to be a good neighbor and not do things that reduce the value of what their neighbors and they themselves own.

Yes, it’s sad. For a lot of us our house is a big part of our retirement planning. Losing a percentage of that value can be a blow to future planning. Sure, you can lose money in the stock market, but this would really sting to know that this situation didn’t have to happen.

This is why you should never consider your primary home an investment and why real estate is much riskier than people appreciate. That green space that's zoned as residential green space. The county could approve a variance and it could be turned into a disgusting industrial park. All kinds of things outside of your control could happen that lead your property values to go down. An index fund is way safer. My home isn't an investment. It's a lifestyle choice I made (and a shitty one at that).

That’s nice if you’re rich, but hard working middle class people don’t have that luxury.

You can rent, like the vast majority of poor people. Right now, renting is cheaper than buying almost always. Even with my 2.5% interest rate, I'm better off renting in the vast majority of scenarios than owning my 80 year old house with exorbitant maintenance expenses. I made a lifestyle choice. Nobody owes me their efforts to preserve my property values or appreciation.

This answer appears to be deliberately obtuse. Hard working middle class is not poor. And this answer indicates a lack of care for your neighbors.

Lots of middle class people rent. You’re not forced to buy a home, and it’s generally not a great investment!

Regarding lack of care, sure, I wouldn’t have approached it that way. And that would annoy me, but that’s as far as it goes. Annoyance.

The neighbors would obviously prefer that the owner spend tens of thousands or potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the addition look more attractive to them. But they’re not offering to pony up the difference, I suspect.

Actually, the neighbors would probably prefer that the family not build this odd looking addition that doesn’t fit into the look of the rest of the neighborhood. Why would you think the neighbors should offer money to this family when this family is taking actions that will take thousands away from their neighbors? Is that what they’re thinking- that the neighbors should pony up money for them to build a better addition? That’s a bit beyond a rational plan, you must know.

This family is thinking of themselves and what they want- they don’t appear to be giving a thought to the good of their community.

You think it is wrong for someone to prioritize their family's basic needs over maximizing profit for their neighbors?

There is no world in which having six bedrooms and bathrooms is a « basic need »! Come on, that’s a silly argument. These are not basic family needs being fulfilled here: this was already a comfortable house on a nice sized lot. I’ve seen bigger families living in smaller houses who had all their basic needs met.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:
Nuisance could be more cars on the street parked as well. We have a neighbor who couldn't get his truck out of the driveway because another neighbor kept his car parked in exactly the wrong spot on the street. These streets are not that wide. County was called on that one.

You seem confused by the situation. This will still house a single (multigenerational) family.

Regardless, no, you don't have a reasonable expectation to easy street parking. Nor is there a reasonable expectation to a certain amount of sunlight.

If this meets zoning requirements, there's no lawsuit.

It sounds like there will be many more people living there than there are now. There are four adults and two children living there now. How many more family members will be moving in when they have all the added bedrooms and bathrooms? How many of them will have cars, which will have to be parked somewhere?

It literally doesn't matter because there aren't off-street parking space requirements for SFHs, and you have no private right to street parking. You can feel annoyed about there being extra cars, but it's not legally actionable.

You seem very positive about this addition, and that’s nice for you, but you should understand that there are many aspects of this design that, if the homeowner is allowed to proceed, will lower the value of every house on that street.

When buyers look at houses, they consider how the neighborhood looks. This house looks out of proportion to the other houses there. The quality of the construction appears to be very poor according to images that are available on line. If the building quality looks poor now, how will it hold up over time? What will it look like in five or ten years? Add in multiple extra cars parked out on the street, possibly making it difficult for neighbors or their visitors to park.

A buyer sees all this and will not want to buy near there. The selling prices will go down when the only way to get someone to buy your house is to offer a bargain. The house with the addition will have an even lower value. Everyone is hurt by this construction, even the family building it.

The issue isn't whether your neighbor's behavior is annoying, rude, or will harm neighboring property values. The issue is whether there is a private right of action. Standing by itself, your neighbors building an ugly, unattractive home that meets county requirements does not create a private right of action. There is no common law right to sunlight and views. And your neighbors owe you no duty to preserve your property values. Do the neighbors have the right to be annoyed? Sure. But that's as far as their rights go absent some cognizable legal claim that shows legally recognized harm to neighboring property owners.

The issue is that property values will go down for all, even the person building this addition- possibly especially the person building this addition. They’re not taking the long view of what is « penny wise and pound foolish. »

We're talking about whether the neighbors have a real basis to sue (and win). They don't. I'm sorry you don't like the addition. I hate how it looks too. But I really believe people should be able to do mostly whatever they want with their properties. It's why I deliberately chose NOT to live in an HOA. I'd be sad the addition would hurt my property values, but I'd understand I have no rights to control other's lawful choices for their own property.

It really doesn’t matter whether they can sue or not, the more important issue is that property values will go down. Time, money, and effort that people have put into their houses will be lost because of the choices of one homeowner. Yes, a property owner can do what they want, but most people feel at least some responsibility to be a good neighbor and not do things that reduce the value of what their neighbors and they themselves own.

Yes, it’s sad. For a lot of us our house is a big part of our retirement planning. Losing a percentage of that value can be a blow to future planning. Sure, you can lose money in the stock market, but this would really sting to know that this situation didn’t have to happen.

This is why you should never consider your primary home an investment and why real estate is much riskier than people appreciate. That green space that's zoned as residential green space. The county could approve a variance and it could be turned into a disgusting industrial park. All kinds of things outside of your control could happen that lead your property values to go down. An index fund is way safer. My home isn't an investment. It's a lifestyle choice I made (and a shitty one at that).

That’s nice if you’re rich, but hard working middle class people don’t have that luxury.

You can rent, like the vast majority of poor people. Right now, renting is cheaper than buying almost always. Even with my 2.5% interest rate, I'm better off renting in the vast majority of scenarios than owning my 80 year old house with exorbitant maintenance expenses. I made a lifestyle choice. Nobody owes me their efforts to preserve my property values or appreciation.

This answer appears to be deliberately obtuse. Hard working middle class is not poor. And this answer indicates a lack of care for your neighbors.

Lots of middle class people rent. You’re not forced to buy a home, and it’s generally not a great investment!

Regarding lack of care, sure, I wouldn’t have approached it that way. And that would annoy me, but that’s as far as it goes. Annoyance.

The neighbors would obviously prefer that the owner spend tens of thousands or potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the addition look more attractive to them. But they’re not offering to pony up the difference, I suspect.

Actually, the neighbors would probably prefer that the family not build this odd looking addition that doesn’t fit into the look of the rest of the neighborhood. Why would you think the neighbors should offer money to this family when this family is taking actions that will take thousands away from their neighbors? Is that what they’re thinking- that the neighbors should pony up money for them to build a better addition? That’s a bit beyond a rational plan, you must know.

This family is thinking of themselves and what they want- they don’t appear to be giving a thought to the good of their community.

You think it is wrong for someone to prioritize their family's basic needs over maximizing profit for their neighbors?

There’s a big difference between maximizing profit and taking actions that reduce the value of your own property and that of all your neighbors. Forget maximizing any profit, this family and their neighbors all stand to lose money if this construction goes through.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nuisance could be more cars on the street parked as well. We have a neighbor who couldn't get his truck out of the driveway because another neighbor kept his car parked in exactly the wrong spot on the street. These streets are not that wide. County was called on that one.

You seem confused by the situation. This will still house a single (multigenerational) family.

Regardless, no, you don't have a reasonable expectation to easy street parking. Nor is there a reasonable expectation to a certain amount of sunlight.

If this meets zoning requirements, there's no lawsuit.

It sounds like there will be many more people living there than there are now. There are four adults and two children living there now. How many more family members will be moving in when they have all the added bedrooms and bathrooms? How many of them will have cars, which will have to be parked somewhere?

It literally doesn't matter because there aren't off-street parking space requirements for SFHs, and you have no private right to street parking. You can feel annoyed about there being extra cars, but it's not legally actionable.

You seem very positive about this addition, and that’s nice for you, but you should understand that there are many aspects of this design that, if the homeowner is allowed to proceed, will lower the value of every house on that street.

When buyers look at houses, they consider how the neighborhood looks. This house looks out of proportion to the other houses there. The quality of the construction appears to be very poor according to images that are available on line. If the building quality looks poor now, how will it hold up over time? What will it look like in five or ten years? Add in multiple extra cars parked out on the street, possibly making it difficult for neighbors or their visitors to park.

A buyer sees all this and will not want to buy near there. The selling prices will go down when the only way to get someone to buy your house is to offer a bargain. The house with the addition will have an even lower value. Everyone is hurt by this construction, even the family building it.

The issue isn't whether your neighbor's behavior is annoying, rude, or will harm neighboring property values. The issue is whether there is a private right of action. Standing by itself, your neighbors building an ugly, unattractive home that meets county requirements does not create a private right of action. There is no common law right to sunlight and views. And your neighbors owe you no duty to preserve your property values. Do the neighbors have the right to be annoyed? Sure. But that's as far as their rights go absent some cognizable legal claim that shows legally recognized harm to neighboring property owners.

The issue is that property values will go down for all, even the person building this addition- possibly especially the person building this addition. They’re not taking the long view of what is « penny wise and pound foolish. »

We're talking about whether the neighbors have a real basis to sue (and win). They don't. I'm sorry you don't like the addition. I hate how it looks too. But I really believe people should be able to do mostly whatever they want with their properties. It's why I deliberately chose NOT to live in an HOA. I'd be sad the addition would hurt my property values, but I'd understand I have no rights to control other's lawful choices for their own property.

It really doesn’t matter whether they can sue or not, the more important issue is that property values will go down. Time, money, and effort that people have put into their houses will be lost because of the choices of one homeowner. Yes, a property owner can do what they want, but most people feel at least some responsibility to be a good neighbor and not do things that reduce the value of what their neighbors and they themselves own.

Yes, it’s sad. For a lot of us our house is a big part of our retirement planning. Losing a percentage of that value can be a blow to future planning. Sure, you can lose money in the stock market, but this would really sting to know that this situation didn’t have to happen.

This is why you should never consider your primary home an investment and why real estate is much riskier than people appreciate. That green space that's zoned as residential green space. The county could approve a variance and it could be turned into a disgusting industrial park. All kinds of things outside of your control could happen that lead your property values to go down. An index fund is way safer. My home isn't an investment. It's a lifestyle choice I made (and a shitty one at that).

That’s nice if you’re rich, but hard working middle class people don’t have that luxury.

You can rent, like the vast majority of poor people. Right now, renting is cheaper than buying almost always. Even with my 2.5% interest rate, I'm better off renting in the vast majority of scenarios than owning my 80 year old house with exorbitant maintenance expenses. I made a lifestyle choice. Nobody owes me their efforts to preserve my property values or appreciation.

This answer appears to be deliberately obtuse. Hard working middle class is not poor. And this answer indicates a lack of care for your neighbors.

Lots of middle class people rent. You’re not forced to buy a home, and it’s generally not a great investment!

Regarding lack of care, sure, I wouldn’t have approached it that way. And that would annoy me, but that’s as far as it goes. Annoyance.

The neighbors would obviously prefer that the owner spend tens of thousands or potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the addition look more attractive to them. But they’re not offering to pony up the difference, I suspect.

Actually, the neighbors would probably prefer that the family not build this odd looking addition that doesn’t fit into the look of the rest of the neighborhood. Why would you think the neighbors should offer money to this family when this family is taking actions that will take thousands away from their neighbors? Is that what they’re thinking- that the neighbors should pony up money for them to build a better addition? That’s a bit beyond a rational plan, you must know.

This family is thinking of themselves and what they want- they don’t appear to be giving a thought to the good of their community.

You think it is wrong for someone to prioritize their family's basic needs over maximizing profit for their neighbors?

There’s a big difference between maximizing profit and taking actions that reduce the value of your own property and that of all your neighbors. Forget maximizing any profit, this family and their neighbors all stand to lose money if this construction goes through.

The family needed more space, and this is what they could afford. It is ridiculous to think that they should prioritize property values over the housing needs of the family.

And no, the neighbors won't lose money. The neighbors on each side and across the street have all seen their home values increase substantially.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nuisance could be more cars on the street parked as well. We have a neighbor who couldn't get his truck out of the driveway because another neighbor kept his car parked in exactly the wrong spot on the street. These streets are not that wide. County was called on that one.

You seem confused by the situation. This will still house a single (multigenerational) family.

Regardless, no, you don't have a reasonable expectation to easy street parking. Nor is there a reasonable expectation to a certain amount of sunlight.

If this meets zoning requirements, there's no lawsuit.

It sounds like there will be many more people living there than there are now. There are four adults and two children living there now. How many more family members will be moving in when they have all the added bedrooms and bathrooms? How many of them will have cars, which will have to be parked somewhere?

It literally doesn't matter because there aren't off-street parking space requirements for SFHs, and you have no private right to street parking. You can feel annoyed about there being extra cars, but it's not legally actionable.

You seem very positive about this addition, and that’s nice for you, but you should understand that there are many aspects of this design that, if the homeowner is allowed to proceed, will lower the value of every house on that street.

When buyers look at houses, they consider how the neighborhood looks. This house looks out of proportion to the other houses there. The quality of the construction appears to be very poor according to images that are available on line. If the building quality looks poor now, how will it hold up over time? What will it look like in five or ten years? Add in multiple extra cars parked out on the street, possibly making it difficult for neighbors or their visitors to park.

A buyer sees all this and will not want to buy near there. The selling prices will go down when the only way to get someone to buy your house is to offer a bargain. The house with the addition will have an even lower value. Everyone is hurt by this construction, even the family building it.

The issue isn't whether your neighbor's behavior is annoying, rude, or will harm neighboring property values. The issue is whether there is a private right of action. Standing by itself, your neighbors building an ugly, unattractive home that meets county requirements does not create a private right of action. There is no common law right to sunlight and views. And your neighbors owe you no duty to preserve your property values. Do the neighbors have the right to be annoyed? Sure. But that's as far as their rights go absent some cognizable legal claim that shows legally recognized harm to neighboring property owners.

The issue is that property values will go down for all, even the person building this addition- possibly especially the person building this addition. They’re not taking the long view of what is « penny wise and pound foolish. »

We're talking about whether the neighbors have a real basis to sue (and win). They don't. I'm sorry you don't like the addition. I hate how it looks too. But I really believe people should be able to do mostly whatever they want with their properties. It's why I deliberately chose NOT to live in an HOA. I'd be sad the addition would hurt my property values, but I'd understand I have no rights to control other's lawful choices for their own property.

It really doesn’t matter whether they can sue or not, the more important issue is that property values will go down. Time, money, and effort that people have put into their houses will be lost because of the choices of one homeowner. Yes, a property owner can do what they want, but most people feel at least some responsibility to be a good neighbor and not do things that reduce the value of what their neighbors and they themselves own.

Yes, it’s sad. For a lot of us our house is a big part of our retirement planning. Losing a percentage of that value can be a blow to future planning. Sure, you can lose money in the stock market, but this would really sting to know that this situation didn’t have to happen.

This is why you should never consider your primary home an investment and why real estate is much riskier than people appreciate. That green space that's zoned as residential green space. The county could approve a variance and it could be turned into a disgusting industrial park. All kinds of things outside of your control could happen that lead your property values to go down. An index fund is way safer. My home isn't an investment. It's a lifestyle choice I made (and a shitty one at that).

That’s nice if you’re rich, but hard working middle class people don’t have that luxury.

You can rent, like the vast majority of poor people. Right now, renting is cheaper than buying almost always. Even with my 2.5% interest rate, I'm better off renting in the vast majority of scenarios than owning my 80 year old house with exorbitant maintenance expenses. I made a lifestyle choice. Nobody owes me their efforts to preserve my property values or appreciation.

This answer appears to be deliberately obtuse. Hard working middle class is not poor. And this answer indicates a lack of care for your neighbors.

Lots of middle class people rent. You’re not forced to buy a home, and it’s generally not a great investment!

Regarding lack of care, sure, I wouldn’t have approached it that way. And that would annoy me, but that’s as far as it goes. Annoyance.

The neighbors would obviously prefer that the owner spend tens of thousands or potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the addition look more attractive to them. But they’re not offering to pony up the difference, I suspect.

Actually, the neighbors would probably prefer that the family not build this odd looking addition that doesn’t fit into the look of the rest of the neighborhood. Why would you think the neighbors should offer money to this family when this family is taking actions that will take thousands away from their neighbors? Is that what they’re thinking- that the neighbors should pony up money for them to build a better addition? That’s a bit beyond a rational plan, you must know.

This family is thinking of themselves and what they want- they don’t appear to be giving a thought to the good of their community.

You think it is wrong for someone to prioritize their family's basic needs over maximizing profit for their neighbors?

There is no world in which having six bedrooms and bathrooms is a « basic need »! Come on, that’s a silly argument. These are not basic family needs being fulfilled here: this was already a comfortable house on a nice sized lot. I’ve seen bigger families living in smaller houses who had all their basic needs met.

It is when you have a large family living under one roof, as they do.

If their intent was the flip the house for a profit, this isn't what they would have built.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nuisance could be more cars on the street parked as well. We have a neighbor who couldn't get his truck out of the driveway because another neighbor kept his car parked in exactly the wrong spot on the street. These streets are not that wide. County was called on that one.

You seem confused by the situation. This will still house a single (multigenerational) family.

Regardless, no, you don't have a reasonable expectation to easy street parking. Nor is there a reasonable expectation to a certain amount of sunlight.

If this meets zoning requirements, there's no lawsuit.

It sounds like there will be many more people living there than there are now. There are four adults and two children living there now. How many more family members will be moving in when they have all the added bedrooms and bathrooms? How many of them will have cars, which will have to be parked somewhere?

It literally doesn't matter because there aren't off-street parking space requirements for SFHs, and you have no private right to street parking. You can feel annoyed about there being extra cars, but it's not legally actionable.

You seem very positive about this addition, and that’s nice for you, but you should understand that there are many aspects of this design that, if the homeowner is allowed to proceed, will lower the value of every house on that street.

When buyers look at houses, they consider how the neighborhood looks. This house looks out of proportion to the other houses there. The quality of the construction appears to be very poor according to images that are available on line. If the building quality looks poor now, how will it hold up over time? What will it look like in five or ten years? Add in multiple extra cars parked out on the street, possibly making it difficult for neighbors or their visitors to park.

A buyer sees all this and will not want to buy near there. The selling prices will go down when the only way to get someone to buy your house is to offer a bargain. The house with the addition will have an even lower value. Everyone is hurt by this construction, even the family building it.

The issue isn't whether your neighbor's behavior is annoying, rude, or will harm neighboring property values. The issue is whether there is a private right of action. Standing by itself, your neighbors building an ugly, unattractive home that meets county requirements does not create a private right of action. There is no common law right to sunlight and views. And your neighbors owe you no duty to preserve your property values. Do the neighbors have the right to be annoyed? Sure. But that's as far as their rights go absent some cognizable legal claim that shows legally recognized harm to neighboring property owners.

The issue is that property values will go down for all, even the person building this addition- possibly especially the person building this addition. They’re not taking the long view of what is « penny wise and pound foolish. »

We're talking about whether the neighbors have a real basis to sue (and win). They don't. I'm sorry you don't like the addition. I hate how it looks too. But I really believe people should be able to do mostly whatever they want with their properties. It's why I deliberately chose NOT to live in an HOA. I'd be sad the addition would hurt my property values, but I'd understand I have no rights to control other's lawful choices for their own property.

It really doesn’t matter whether they can sue or not, the more important issue is that property values will go down. Time, money, and effort that people have put into their houses will be lost because of the choices of one homeowner. Yes, a property owner can do what they want, but most people feel at least some responsibility to be a good neighbor and not do things that reduce the value of what their neighbors and they themselves own.

Yes, it’s sad. For a lot of us our house is a big part of our retirement planning. Losing a percentage of that value can be a blow to future planning. Sure, you can lose money in the stock market, but this would really sting to know that this situation didn’t have to happen.

This is why you should never consider your primary home an investment and why real estate is much riskier than people appreciate. That green space that's zoned as residential green space. The county could approve a variance and it could be turned into a disgusting industrial park. All kinds of things outside of your control could happen that lead your property values to go down. An index fund is way safer. My home isn't an investment. It's a lifestyle choice I made (and a shitty one at that).

That’s nice if you’re rich, but hard working middle class people don’t have that luxury.

You can rent, like the vast majority of poor people. Right now, renting is cheaper than buying almost always. Even with my 2.5% interest rate, I'm better off renting in the vast majority of scenarios than owning my 80 year old house with exorbitant maintenance expenses. I made a lifestyle choice. Nobody owes me their efforts to preserve my property values or appreciation.

This answer appears to be deliberately obtuse. Hard working middle class is not poor. And this answer indicates a lack of care for your neighbors.

Lots of middle class people rent. You’re not forced to buy a home, and it’s generally not a great investment!

Regarding lack of care, sure, I wouldn’t have approached it that way. And that would annoy me, but that’s as far as it goes. Annoyance.

The neighbors would obviously prefer that the owner spend tens of thousands or potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the addition look more attractive to them. But they’re not offering to pony up the difference, I suspect.

Actually, the neighbors would probably prefer that the family not build this odd looking addition that doesn’t fit into the look of the rest of the neighborhood. Why would you think the neighbors should offer money to this family when this family is taking actions that will take thousands away from their neighbors? Is that what they’re thinking- that the neighbors should pony up money for them to build a better addition? That’s a bit beyond a rational plan, you must know.

This family is thinking of themselves and what they want- they don’t appear to be giving a thought to the good of their community.

You think it is wrong for someone to prioritize their family's basic needs over maximizing profit for their neighbors?

There’s a big difference between maximizing profit and taking actions that reduce the value of your own property and that of all your neighbors. Forget maximizing any profit, this family and their neighbors all stand to lose money if this construction goes through.

The family needed more space, and this is what they could afford. It is ridiculous to think that they should prioritize property values over the housing needs of the family.

And no, the neighbors won't lose money. The neighbors on each side and across the street have all seen their home values increase substantially.

How many square feet per person will this family have? They already had a very nice size house.

And the values are going to go down for this street after this addition is completed. The only people willing to pay to live on this street will be people looking for a bargain. It will be a slippery slope from there.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nuisance could be more cars on the street parked as well. We have a neighbor who couldn't get his truck out of the driveway because another neighbor kept his car parked in exactly the wrong spot on the street. These streets are not that wide. County was called on that one.

You seem confused by the situation. This will still house a single (multigenerational) family.

Regardless, no, you don't have a reasonable expectation to easy street parking. Nor is there a reasonable expectation to a certain amount of sunlight.

If this meets zoning requirements, there's no lawsuit.

It sounds like there will be many more people living there than there are now. There are four adults and two children living there now. How many more family members will be moving in when they have all the added bedrooms and bathrooms? How many of them will have cars, which will have to be parked somewhere?

It literally doesn't matter because there aren't off-street parking space requirements for SFHs, and you have no private right to street parking. You can feel annoyed about there being extra cars, but it's not legally actionable.

You seem very positive about this addition, and that’s nice for you, but you should understand that there are many aspects of this design that, if the homeowner is allowed to proceed, will lower the value of every house on that street.

When buyers look at houses, they consider how the neighborhood looks. This house looks out of proportion to the other houses there. The quality of the construction appears to be very poor according to images that are available on line. If the building quality looks poor now, how will it hold up over time? What will it look like in five or ten years? Add in multiple extra cars parked out on the street, possibly making it difficult for neighbors or their visitors to park.

A buyer sees all this and will not want to buy near there. The selling prices will go down when the only way to get someone to buy your house is to offer a bargain. The house with the addition will have an even lower value. Everyone is hurt by this construction, even the family building it.

The issue isn't whether your neighbor's behavior is annoying, rude, or will harm neighboring property values. The issue is whether there is a private right of action. Standing by itself, your neighbors building an ugly, unattractive home that meets county requirements does not create a private right of action. There is no common law right to sunlight and views. And your neighbors owe you no duty to preserve your property values. Do the neighbors have the right to be annoyed? Sure. But that's as far as their rights go absent some cognizable legal claim that shows legally recognized harm to neighboring property owners.

The issue is that property values will go down for all, even the person building this addition- possibly especially the person building this addition. They’re not taking the long view of what is « penny wise and pound foolish. »

We're talking about whether the neighbors have a real basis to sue (and win). They don't. I'm sorry you don't like the addition. I hate how it looks too. But I really believe people should be able to do mostly whatever they want with their properties. It's why I deliberately chose NOT to live in an HOA. I'd be sad the addition would hurt my property values, but I'd understand I have no rights to control other's lawful choices for their own property.

It really doesn’t matter whether they can sue or not, the more important issue is that property values will go down. Time, money, and effort that people have put into their houses will be lost because of the choices of one homeowner. Yes, a property owner can do what they want, but most people feel at least some responsibility to be a good neighbor and not do things that reduce the value of what their neighbors and they themselves own.

Yes, it’s sad. For a lot of us our house is a big part of our retirement planning. Losing a percentage of that value can be a blow to future planning. Sure, you can lose money in the stock market, but this would really sting to know that this situation didn’t have to happen.

This is why you should never consider your primary home an investment and why real estate is much riskier than people appreciate. That green space that's zoned as residential green space. The county could approve a variance and it could be turned into a disgusting industrial park. All kinds of things outside of your control could happen that lead your property values to go down. An index fund is way safer. My home isn't an investment. It's a lifestyle choice I made (and a shitty one at that).

That’s nice if you’re rich, but hard working middle class people don’t have that luxury.

You can rent, like the vast majority of poor people. Right now, renting is cheaper than buying almost always. Even with my 2.5% interest rate, I'm better off renting in the vast majority of scenarios than owning my 80 year old house with exorbitant maintenance expenses. I made a lifestyle choice. Nobody owes me their efforts to preserve my property values or appreciation.

This answer appears to be deliberately obtuse. Hard working middle class is not poor. And this answer indicates a lack of care for your neighbors.

Lots of middle class people rent. You’re not forced to buy a home, and it’s generally not a great investment!

Regarding lack of care, sure, I wouldn’t have approached it that way. And that would annoy me, but that’s as far as it goes. Annoyance.

The neighbors would obviously prefer that the owner spend tens of thousands or potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the addition look more attractive to them. But they’re not offering to pony up the difference, I suspect.

Actually, the neighbors would probably prefer that the family not build this odd looking addition that doesn’t fit into the look of the rest of the neighborhood. Why would you think the neighbors should offer money to this family when this family is taking actions that will take thousands away from their neighbors? Is that what they’re thinking- that the neighbors should pony up money for them to build a better addition? That’s a bit beyond a rational plan, you must know.

This family is thinking of themselves and what they want- they don’t appear to be giving a thought to the good of their community.

You think it is wrong for someone to prioritize their family's basic needs over maximizing profit for their neighbors?

There is no world in which having six bedrooms and bathrooms is a « basic need »! Come on, that’s a silly argument. These are not basic family needs being fulfilled here: this was already a comfortable house on a nice sized lot. I’ve seen bigger families living in smaller houses who had all their basic needs met.

It is when you have a large family living under one roof, as they do.

If their intent was the flip the house for a profit, this isn't what they would have built.

Four adults and two elementary school children are not that large a family. I know of a number of bigger families who live in houses the size of this house before the addition. It is in no way fulfilling some sort of basic need to have six bedrooms and bathrooms for four adults and two young children.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nuisance could be more cars on the street parked as well. We have a neighbor who couldn't get his truck out of the driveway because another neighbor kept his car parked in exactly the wrong spot on the street. These streets are not that wide. County was called on that one.

You seem confused by the situation. This will still house a single (multigenerational) family.

Regardless, no, you don't have a reasonable expectation to easy street parking. Nor is there a reasonable expectation to a certain amount of sunlight.

If this meets zoning requirements, there's no lawsuit.

It sounds like there will be many more people living there than there are now. There are four adults and two children living there now. How many more family members will be moving in when they have all the added bedrooms and bathrooms? How many of them will have cars, which will have to be parked somewhere?

It literally doesn't matter because there aren't off-street parking space requirements for SFHs, and you have no private right to street parking. You can feel annoyed about there being extra cars, but it's not legally actionable.

You seem very positive about this addition, and that’s nice for you, but you should understand that there are many aspects of this design that, if the homeowner is allowed to proceed, will lower the value of every house on that street.

When buyers look at houses, they consider how the neighborhood looks. This house looks out of proportion to the other houses there. The quality of the construction appears to be very poor according to images that are available on line. If the building quality looks poor now, how will it hold up over time? What will it look like in five or ten years? Add in multiple extra cars parked out on the street, possibly making it difficult for neighbors or their visitors to park.

A buyer sees all this and will not want to buy near there. The selling prices will go down when the only way to get someone to buy your house is to offer a bargain. The house with the addition will have an even lower value. Everyone is hurt by this construction, even the family building it.

The issue isn't whether your neighbor's behavior is annoying, rude, or will harm neighboring property values. The issue is whether there is a private right of action. Standing by itself, your neighbors building an ugly, unattractive home that meets county requirements does not create a private right of action. There is no common law right to sunlight and views. And your neighbors owe you no duty to preserve your property values. Do the neighbors have the right to be annoyed? Sure. But that's as far as their rights go absent some cognizable legal claim that shows legally recognized harm to neighboring property owners.

The issue is that property values will go down for all, even the person building this addition- possibly especially the person building this addition. They’re not taking the long view of what is « penny wise and pound foolish. »

We're talking about whether the neighbors have a real basis to sue (and win). They don't. I'm sorry you don't like the addition. I hate how it looks too. But I really believe people should be able to do mostly whatever they want with their properties. It's why I deliberately chose NOT to live in an HOA. I'd be sad the addition would hurt my property values, but I'd understand I have no rights to control other's lawful choices for their own property.

It really doesn’t matter whether they can sue or not, the more important issue is that property values will go down. Time, money, and effort that people have put into their houses will be lost because of the choices of one homeowner. Yes, a property owner can do what they want, but most people feel at least some responsibility to be a good neighbor and not do things that reduce the value of what their neighbors and they themselves own.

Yes, it’s sad. For a lot of us our house is a big part of our retirement planning. Losing a percentage of that value can be a blow to future planning. Sure, you can lose money in the stock market, but this would really sting to know that this situation didn’t have to happen.

This is why you should never consider your primary home an investment and why real estate is much riskier than people appreciate. That green space that's zoned as residential green space. The county could approve a variance and it could be turned into a disgusting industrial park. All kinds of things outside of your control could happen that lead your property values to go down. An index fund is way safer. My home isn't an investment. It's a lifestyle choice I made (and a shitty one at that).

That’s nice if you’re rich, but hard working middle class people don’t have that luxury.

You can rent, like the vast majority of poor people. Right now, renting is cheaper than buying almost always. Even with my 2.5% interest rate, I'm better off renting in the vast majority of scenarios than owning my 80 year old house with exorbitant maintenance expenses. I made a lifestyle choice. Nobody owes me their efforts to preserve my property values or appreciation.

This answer appears to be deliberately obtuse. Hard working middle class is not poor. And this answer indicates a lack of care for your neighbors.

Lots of middle class people rent. You’re not forced to buy a home, and it’s generally not a great investment!

Regarding lack of care, sure, I wouldn’t have approached it that way. And that would annoy me, but that’s as far as it goes. Annoyance.

The neighbors would obviously prefer that the owner spend tens of thousands or potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the addition look more attractive to them. But they’re not offering to pony up the difference, I suspect.

Actually, the neighbors would probably prefer that the family not build this odd looking addition that doesn’t fit into the look of the rest of the neighborhood. Why would you think the neighbors should offer money to this family when this family is taking actions that will take thousands away from their neighbors? Is that what they’re thinking- that the neighbors should pony up money for them to build a better addition? That’s a bit beyond a rational plan, you must know.

This family is thinking of themselves and what they want- they don’t appear to be giving a thought to the good of their community.

You think it is wrong for someone to prioritize their family's basic needs over maximizing profit for their neighbors?

There is no world in which having six bedrooms and bathrooms is a « basic need »! Come on, that’s a silly argument. These are not basic family needs being fulfilled here: this was already a comfortable house on a nice sized lot. I’ve seen bigger families living in smaller houses who had all their basic needs met.

It is when you have a large family living under one roof, as they do.

If their intent was the flip the house for a profit, this isn't what they would have built.

Four adults and two elementary school children are not that large a family. I know of a number of bigger families who live in houses the size of this house before the addition. It is in no way fulfilling some sort of basic need to have six bedrooms and bathrooms for four adults and two young children.

After all, geriatrics love bunk beds!

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nuisance could be more cars on the street parked as well. We have a neighbor who couldn't get his truck out of the driveway because another neighbor kept his car parked in exactly the wrong spot on the street. These streets are not that wide. County was called on that one.

You seem confused by the situation. This will still house a single (multigenerational) family.

Regardless, no, you don't have a reasonable expectation to easy street parking. Nor is there a reasonable expectation to a certain amount of sunlight.

If this meets zoning requirements, there's no lawsuit.

It sounds like there will be many more people living there than there are now. There are four adults and two children living there now. How many more family members will be moving in when they have all the added bedrooms and bathrooms? How many of them will have cars, which will have to be parked somewhere?

It literally doesn't matter because there aren't off-street parking space requirements for SFHs, and you have no private right to street parking. You can feel annoyed about there being extra cars, but it's not legally actionable.

You seem very positive about this addition, and that’s nice for you, but you should understand that there are many aspects of this design that, if the homeowner is allowed to proceed, will lower the value of every house on that street.

When buyers look at houses, they consider how the neighborhood looks. This house looks out of proportion to the other houses there. The quality of the construction appears to be very poor according to images that are available on line. If the building quality looks poor now, how will it hold up over time? What will it look like in five or ten years? Add in multiple extra cars parked out on the street, possibly making it difficult for neighbors or their visitors to park.

A buyer sees all this and will not want to buy near there. The selling prices will go down when the only way to get someone to buy your house is to offer a bargain. The house with the addition will have an even lower value. Everyone is hurt by this construction, even the family building it.

The issue isn't whether your neighbor's behavior is annoying, rude, or will harm neighboring property values. The issue is whether there is a private right of action. Standing by itself, your neighbors building an ugly, unattractive home that meets county requirements does not create a private right of action. There is no common law right to sunlight and views. And your neighbors owe you no duty to preserve your property values. Do the neighbors have the right to be annoyed? Sure. But that's as far as their rights go absent some cognizable legal claim that shows legally recognized harm to neighboring property owners.

The issue is that property values will go down for all, even the person building this addition- possibly especially the person building this addition. They’re not taking the long view of what is « penny wise and pound foolish. »

We're talking about whether the neighbors have a real basis to sue (and win). They don't. I'm sorry you don't like the addition. I hate how it looks too. But I really believe people should be able to do mostly whatever they want with their properties. It's why I deliberately chose NOT to live in an HOA. I'd be sad the addition would hurt my property values, but I'd understand I have no rights to control other's lawful choices for their own property.

It really doesn’t matter whether they can sue or not, the more important issue is that property values will go down. Time, money, and effort that people have put into their houses will be lost because of the choices of one homeowner. Yes, a property owner can do what they want, but most people feel at least some responsibility to be a good neighbor and not do things that reduce the value of what their neighbors and they themselves own.

Yes, it’s sad. For a lot of us our house is a big part of our retirement planning. Losing a percentage of that value can be a blow to future planning. Sure, you can lose money in the stock market, but this would really sting to know that this situation didn’t have to happen.

This is why you should never consider your primary home an investment and why real estate is much riskier than people appreciate. That green space that's zoned as residential green space. The county could approve a variance and it could be turned into a disgusting industrial park. All kinds of things outside of your control could happen that lead your property values to go down. An index fund is way safer. My home isn't an investment. It's a lifestyle choice I made (and a shitty one at that).

That’s nice if you’re rich, but hard working middle class people don’t have that luxury.

You can rent, like the vast majority of poor people. Right now, renting is cheaper than buying almost always. Even with my 2.5% interest rate, I'm better off renting in the vast majority of scenarios than owning my 80 year old house with exorbitant maintenance expenses. I made a lifestyle choice. Nobody owes me their efforts to preserve my property values or appreciation.

This answer appears to be deliberately obtuse. Hard working middle class is not poor. And this answer indicates a lack of care for your neighbors.

Lots of middle class people rent. You’re not forced to buy a home, and it’s generally not a great investment!

Regarding lack of care, sure, I wouldn’t have approached it that way. And that would annoy me, but that’s as far as it goes. Annoyance.

The neighbors would obviously prefer that the owner spend tens of thousands or potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the addition look more attractive to them. But they’re not offering to pony up the difference, I suspect.

Actually, the neighbors would probably prefer that the family not build this odd looking addition that doesn’t fit into the look of the rest of the neighborhood. Why would you think the neighbors should offer money to this family when this family is taking actions that will take thousands away from their neighbors? Is that what they’re thinking- that the neighbors should pony up money for them to build a better addition? That’s a bit beyond a rational plan, you must know.

This family is thinking of themselves and what they want- they don’t appear to be giving a thought to the good of their community.

You think it is wrong for someone to prioritize their family's basic needs over maximizing profit for their neighbors?

There’s a big difference between maximizing profit and taking actions that reduce the value of your own property and that of all your neighbors. Forget maximizing any profit, this family and their neighbors all stand to lose money if this construction goes through.

The family needed more space, and this is what they could afford. It is ridiculous to think that they should prioritize property values over the housing needs of the family.

And no, the neighbors won't lose money. The neighbors on each side and across the street have all seen their home values increase substantially.

How many square feet per person will this family have? They already had a very nice size house.

And the values are going to go down for this street after this addition is completed. The only people willing to pay to live on this street will be people looking for a bargain. It will be a slippery slope from there.

If you believe that, then the neighbors on the street would be the primary ones to benefit from a more expensive project. The family in that home (rightfully) seem more focused on a suitable place to live rather than on an investment property. They should chip in.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nuisance could be more cars on the street parked as well. We have a neighbor who couldn't get his truck out of the driveway because another neighbor kept his car parked in exactly the wrong spot on the street. These streets are not that wide. County was called on that one.

You seem confused by the situation. This will still house a single (multigenerational) family.

Regardless, no, you don't have a reasonable expectation to easy street parking. Nor is there a reasonable expectation to a certain amount of sunlight.

If this meets zoning requirements, there's no lawsuit.

It sounds like there will be many more people living there than there are now. There are four adults and two children living there now. How many more family members will be moving in when they have all the added bedrooms and bathrooms? How many of them will have cars, which will have to be parked somewhere?

It literally doesn't matter because there aren't off-street parking space requirements for SFHs, and you have no private right to street parking. You can feel annoyed about there being extra cars, but it's not legally actionable.

You seem very positive about this addition, and that’s nice for you, but you should understand that there are many aspects of this design that, if the homeowner is allowed to proceed, will lower the value of every house on that street.

When buyers look at houses, they consider how the neighborhood looks. This house looks out of proportion to the other houses there. The quality of the construction appears to be very poor according to images that are available on line. If the building quality looks poor now, how will it hold up over time? What will it look like in five or ten years? Add in multiple extra cars parked out on the street, possibly making it difficult for neighbors or their visitors to park.

A buyer sees all this and will not want to buy near there. The selling prices will go down when the only way to get someone to buy your house is to offer a bargain. The house with the addition will have an even lower value. Everyone is hurt by this construction, even the family building it.

The issue isn't whether your neighbor's behavior is annoying, rude, or will harm neighboring property values. The issue is whether there is a private right of action. Standing by itself, your neighbors building an ugly, unattractive home that meets county requirements does not create a private right of action. There is no common law right to sunlight and views. And your neighbors owe you no duty to preserve your property values. Do the neighbors have the right to be annoyed? Sure. But that's as far as their rights go absent some cognizable legal claim that shows legally recognized harm to neighboring property owners.

The issue is that property values will go down for all, even the person building this addition- possibly especially the person building this addition. They’re not taking the long view of what is « penny wise and pound foolish. »

We're talking about whether the neighbors have a real basis to sue (and win). They don't. I'm sorry you don't like the addition. I hate how it looks too. But I really believe people should be able to do mostly whatever they want with their properties. It's why I deliberately chose NOT to live in an HOA. I'd be sad the addition would hurt my property values, but I'd understand I have no rights to control other's lawful choices for their own property.

It really doesn’t matter whether they can sue or not, the more important issue is that property values will go down. Time, money, and effort that people have put into their houses will be lost because of the choices of one homeowner. Yes, a property owner can do what they want, but most people feel at least some responsibility to be a good neighbor and not do things that reduce the value of what their neighbors and they themselves own.

Yes, it’s sad. For a lot of us our house is a big part of our retirement planning. Losing a percentage of that value can be a blow to future planning. Sure, you can lose money in the stock market, but this would really sting to know that this situation didn’t have to happen.

This is why you should never consider your primary home an investment and why real estate is much riskier than people appreciate. That green space that's zoned as residential green space. The county could approve a variance and it could be turned into a disgusting industrial park. All kinds of things outside of your control could happen that lead your property values to go down. An index fund is way safer. My home isn't an investment. It's a lifestyle choice I made (and a shitty one at that).

That’s nice if you’re rich, but hard working middle class people don’t have that luxury.

You can rent, like the vast majority of poor people. Right now, renting is cheaper than buying almost always. Even with my 2.5% interest rate, I'm better off renting in the vast majority of scenarios than owning my 80 year old house with exorbitant maintenance expenses. I made a lifestyle choice. Nobody owes me their efforts to preserve my property values or appreciation.

This answer appears to be deliberately obtuse. Hard working middle class is not poor. And this answer indicates a lack of care for your neighbors.

Lots of middle class people rent. You’re not forced to buy a home, and it’s generally not a great investment!

Regarding lack of care, sure, I wouldn’t have approached it that way. And that would annoy me, but that’s as far as it goes. Annoyance.

The neighbors would obviously prefer that the owner spend tens of thousands or potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the addition look more attractive to them. But they’re not offering to pony up the difference, I suspect.

Actually, the neighbors would probably prefer that the family not build this odd looking addition that doesn’t fit into the look of the rest of the neighborhood. Why would you think the neighbors should offer money to this family when this family is taking actions that will take thousands away from their neighbors? Is that what they’re thinking- that the neighbors should pony up money for them to build a better addition? That’s a bit beyond a rational plan, you must know.

This family is thinking of themselves and what they want- they don’t appear to be giving a thought to the good of their community.

You think it is wrong for someone to prioritize their family's basic needs over maximizing profit for their neighbors?

There is no world in which having six bedrooms and bathrooms is a « basic need »! Come on, that’s a silly argument. These are not basic family needs being fulfilled here: this was already a comfortable house on a nice sized lot. I’ve seen bigger families living in smaller houses who had all their basic needs met.

It is when you have a large family living under one roof, as they do.

If their intent was the flip the house for a profit, this isn't what they would have built.

Four adults and two elementary school children are not that large a family. I know of a number of bigger families who live in houses the size of this house before the addition. It is in no way fulfilling some sort of basic need to have six bedrooms and bathrooms for four adults and two young children.

After all, geriatrics love bunk beds!

Geriatrics also LOVE several flights of stairs! /s

[Anonymous]

AFAIK, 4 adults and 2 children live in the existing structure. That model was originally about 1500 sf.

Not sure what the addition that was already in the back was (you can see it in the drone footage), but the garage space had been converted into what neighbors think was living space.

I believe I read that the space before this current building started was somewhere around 2000 sf?

Yes, it is a bit tight, but if the 6 br/6 ba addition paperwork is correct, how is that helping living space? Other than shoving as many people into this house as humanly possible.

Which is why I believe this is boarding space/apartments vs family living.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Nuisance could be more cars on the street parked as well. We have a neighbor who couldn't get his truck out of the driveway because another neighbor kept his car parked in exactly the wrong spot on the street. These streets are not that wide. County was called on that one.

You seem confused by the situation. This will still house a single (multigenerational) family.

Regardless, no, you don't have a reasonable expectation to easy street parking. Nor is there a reasonable expectation to a certain amount of sunlight.

If this meets zoning requirements, there's no lawsuit.

It sounds like there will be many more people living there than there are now. There are four adults and two children living there now. How many more family members will be moving in when they have all the added bedrooms and bathrooms? How many of them will have cars, which will have to be parked somewhere?

It literally doesn't matter because there aren't off-street parking space requirements for SFHs, and you have no private right to street parking. You can feel annoyed about there being extra cars, but it's not legally actionable.

You seem very positive about this addition, and that’s nice for you, but you should understand that there are many aspects of this design that, if the homeowner is allowed to proceed, will lower the value of every house on that street.

When buyers look at houses, they consider how the neighborhood looks. This house looks out of proportion to the other houses there. The quality of the construction appears to be very poor according to images that are available on line. If the building quality looks poor now, how will it hold up over time? What will it look like in five or ten years? Add in multiple extra cars parked out on the street, possibly making it difficult for neighbors or their visitors to park.

A buyer sees all this and will not want to buy near there. The selling prices will go down when the only way to get someone to buy your house is to offer a bargain. The house with the addition will have an even lower value. Everyone is hurt by this construction, even the family building it.

The issue isn't whether your neighbor's behavior is annoying, rude, or will harm neighboring property values. The issue is whether there is a private right of action. Standing by itself, your neighbors building an ugly, unattractive home that meets county requirements does not create a private right of action. There is no common law right to sunlight and views. And your neighbors owe you no duty to preserve your property values. Do the neighbors have the right to be annoyed? Sure. But that's as far as their rights go absent some cognizable legal claim that shows legally recognized harm to neighboring property owners.

The issue is that property values will go down for all, even the person building this addition- possibly especially the person building this addition. They’re not taking the long view of what is « penny wise and pound foolish. »

We're talking about whether the neighbors have a real basis to sue (and win). They don't. I'm sorry you don't like the addition. I hate how it looks too. But I really believe people should be able to do mostly whatever they want with their properties. It's why I deliberately chose NOT to live in an HOA. I'd be sad the addition would hurt my property values, but I'd understand I have no rights to control other's lawful choices for their own property.

It really doesn’t matter whether they can sue or not, the more important issue is that property values will go down. Time, money, and effort that people have put into their houses will be lost because of the choices of one homeowner. Yes, a property owner can do what they want, but most people feel at least some responsibility to be a good neighbor and not do things that reduce the value of what their neighbors and they themselves own.

Yes, it’s sad. For a lot of us our house is a big part of our retirement planning. Losing a percentage of that value can be a blow to future planning. Sure, you can lose money in the stock market, but this would really sting to know that this situation didn’t have to happen.

This is why you should never consider your primary home an investment and why real estate is much riskier than people appreciate. That green space that's zoned as residential green space. The county could approve a variance and it could be turned into a disgusting industrial park. All kinds of things outside of your control could happen that lead your property values to go down. An index fund is way safer. My home isn't an investment. It's a lifestyle choice I made (and a shitty one at that).

That’s nice if you’re rich, but hard working middle class people don’t have that luxury.

You can rent, like the vast majority of poor people. Right now, renting is cheaper than buying almost always. Even with my 2.5% interest rate, I'm better off renting in the vast majority of scenarios than owning my 80 year old house with exorbitant maintenance expenses. I made a lifestyle choice. Nobody owes me their efforts to preserve my property values or appreciation.

This answer appears to be deliberately obtuse. Hard working middle class is not poor. And this answer indicates a lack of care for your neighbors.

Lots of middle class people rent. You’re not forced to buy a home, and it’s generally not a great investment!

Regarding lack of care, sure, I wouldn’t have approached it that way. And that would annoy me, but that’s as far as it goes. Annoyance.

The neighbors would obviously prefer that the owner spend tens of thousands or potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the addition look more attractive to them. But they’re not offering to pony up the difference, I suspect.

Actually, the neighbors would probably prefer that the family not build this odd looking addition that doesn’t fit into the look of the rest of the neighborhood. Why would you think the neighbors should offer money to this family when this family is taking actions that will take thousands away from their neighbors? Is that what they’re thinking- that the neighbors should pony up money for them to build a better addition? That’s a bit beyond a rational plan, you must know.

This family is thinking of themselves and what they want- they don’t appear to be giving a thought to the good of their community.

You think it is wrong for someone to prioritize their family's basic needs over maximizing profit for their neighbors?

There is no world in which having six bedrooms and bathrooms is a « basic need »! Come on, that’s a silly argument. These are not basic family needs being fulfilled here: this was already a comfortable house on a nice sized lot. I’ve seen bigger families living in smaller houses who had all their basic needs met.

It is when you have a large family living under one roof, as they do.

If their intent was the flip the house for a profit, this isn't what they would have built.

Four adults and two elementary school children are not that large a family. I know of a number of bigger families who live in houses the size of this house before the addition. It is in no way fulfilling some sort of basic need to have six bedrooms and bathrooms for four adults and two young children.

After all, geriatrics love bunk beds!

Geriatrics also LOVE several flights of stairs! /s

Maybe if we all put our heads together we can think of a solution to that problem!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AFAIK, 4 adults and 2 children live in the existing structure. That model was originally about 1500 sf.

Not sure what the addition that was already in the back was (you can see it in the drone footage), but the garage space had been converted into what neighbors think was living space.

I believe I read that the space before this current building started was somewhere around 2000 sf?

Yes, it is a bit tight, but if the 6 br/6 ba addition paperwork is correct, how is that helping living space? Other than shoving as many people into this house as humanly possible.

Which is why I believe this is boarding space/apartments vs family living.

If it turns out that this is a group living situation, you can certain report to Fairfax County Code Compliance. In my experience, they take complaints very seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AFAIK, 4 adults and 2 children live in the existing structure. That model was originally about 1500 sf.

Not sure what the addition that was already in the back was (you can see it in the drone footage), but the garage space had been converted into what neighbors think was living space.

I believe I read that the space before this current building started was somewhere around 2000 sf?

Yes, it is a bit tight, but if the 6 br/6 ba addition paperwork is correct, how is that helping living space? Other than shoving as many people into this house as humanly possible.

Which is why I believe this is boarding space/apartments vs family living.

It turns out adding space helps with space.