They are cherry picking information to make it appear that they have “facts” and “experts” on their side of the argument. They state a simple fact; all structures begin to depreciate the moment after they’re built, but it’s not too soon, as their “experts” claim, to draw conclusions about structure depreciation in a pre-teardown and post-teardown neighborhood.
We have a perfect example in Santa Barbara, less than 0.5 miles from the border of our neighborhood. Look at the Market Value graph for 4020 Santa Barbara:
Notice how as recently as 2006, their structure was worth $124,000 and their lot was worth $30,000. Today, that structure is worth $21,470. This structure is listed as in Fair condition, as it was in 2006 when it was worth $124,000. The only thing that’s changed is that the builders moved in, started buying up houses, scraping them and building 4,500 sq. ft. houses (on average).
Now look at the house of one of the folks who sent you the latest AGAINST flyer, It's Jack Ormberget's house at 7309 Bennington:
In 2006 the structure was worth $127,840 and the lot was worth $50,000. Today, as Ms. Tama Cole predicted, the structure is worth less; $120,760. But that is far more than any of the older structures on Santa Barbara. Yet Jack's house is nearly the same as 4020 Santa Barbara, slightly larger, but listed in the same Fair condition.
What has protected the value of his structure? Our neighborhood is not yet the target of teardown speculators. You can look at any street or neighborhood that’s gone through what Santa Barbara has – a little farther away, look at Vanderbilt, or Sondra, or Lake Circle – and see the same phenomenon. As soon as the builders move in and the land becomes worth more, the structures are rapidly depreciated, discouraging any investment in that structure, and turning the entire neighborhood into nothing more than deteriorating Scrapers. I learned that term when I called Dallas Central Appraisal District and asked an appraiser why I was seeing such rapid depreciations in the Market Value histories. Scrapers was his term for what those homes have become.
When you’re over on Lake Circle, go down to the 6500 block and look at the Violation citations posted on the now overgrown scraped lots directly across the street from 3,500 & 4,500 sq. ft. homes. Some of these lots are still owned by builders who apparently can’t afford to keep them mowed. Some are now owned by banks. You can look that up at dallascad.org, too.
When the builders move in, the spirit of neighborhood goes out the window. The streets becomes nothing more than a money trench to be mined for profit. Regardless of the best intentions of the people speculating on teardowns, the bottom line is always money, and if the economy goes south, it is the residents, not the builders, who are left looking at the overgrown, vacant lots, all scraped with the best intentions.
What happens in a teardown neighborhood is that the neighbors who have spent time and effort to make their homes attractive and modern and well maintained are the first to be penalized, because their homes cost too much to attract the builders who specialize in teardowns. Those builders are business people, and they pay as little as possible for their lots. So, the neighbors who have improved their homes are the ones left to deal with the dirt and dust and trucks and racket and lunch trucks blaring their horns and everything that comes along with living in a teardown neighborhood. And as an added bonus, they get to watch the value of their structures plummet over a two or three year period, until no matter the condition of their structure – which I like to call My Home – all it’s worth is the dirt that it sits on.
Where is your fact?
ReplyDeleteI posted an example set of properties. Didn't you click on the links and go see them? If you need more proof, take a short drive over to Lake Circle. There really are overgrown vacant lots where families used to live. And some of those lots are now owned by the bank, like I said. You can look up the ownership on DCAD. It's a FACT.
ReplyDeleteYou know, I've asked you on several of your blog pieces to post the facts to back up what you all are saying. You still haven't. But you come here and ask that?
You so nicely post Jack Ormberget's information here, but you don't yours. Also on our blog you stated you lived on Haverford. I find no record of a homeowner named Riley.
ReplyDeleteI live at 7031 Haverford. Our house is in my wife's name.
ReplyDeleteYou said "What happens in a teardown neighborhood is that the neighbors who have spent time and effort to make their homes attractive and modern and well maintained are the first to be penalized, because their homes cost too much to attract the builders who specialize in teardowns."
ReplyDeleteWhat you’re really saying is the builders buy the houses that are the eyesores and are ALREADY dragging down the neighborhood; the ones that have not had any maintenance for so long that it makes no financial sense to do anything other than replace them with new homes. And let’s be honest Steve, these new homes are always going to be maintained for the foreseeable future, and always have attractive landscaping.
So they actually IMPROVE the property values in the neighborhood, because they replace the least desirable houses with new ones. There is NO penalization to the homeowners you mention. Quite the opposite in fact. Your claim makes no sense.
What you're really saying is YOU don't like the big houses on Santa Barbara and Lake Circle. That's fine, you're allowed to not like them. You also have the right to never replace YOUR house with one like the ones on Santa Barbara. Where you cross the line is by trying to tell everyone else what sort of house they should or shouldn't have.
Stop trying to take away the property rights of your neighbors.
Liam Gartside
You say, “the builders buy the houses that are the eyesores and are ALREADY dragging down the neighborhood”. Lucky for us, we don’t have any of those, huh? Or, if you want, why don’t you play house cop and call out the offenders, call out those of our neighbors who don’t meet your personal criteria for fitting into the neighborhood that you envision for us?
ReplyDeleteYou know, Liam, I’ve been asking your team to provide some data that proves I’m going to lose my shirt when we pass this NSO, how property values are going to plummet because of the restrictions that it brings with it because you say the builders are going to stay away in droves from UT.
But they’ve ignored that request.
So, I went out and started looking at all the NSO’s that have passed since 2006, and I wasn’t surprised to find a 3,216 square foot home completed by a prominent builder in 2008 in one of those NSO’s. Now, this NSO passed in March of 2007. The builder, who specializes in new construction, purchased the home in late June 2007, scraped the lot, built his moneymaker and had it sold by early September 2008. This NSO is much the same as what we’re proposing. Actually, it has a front setback more severe than UT’s existing and unchanged front setback, and it has the same height plane restriction as we’re proposing.
This builder knew he was buying into an NSO neighborhood, worked within the restrictions set forth by the NSO and built his house, sold it and moved on. I’ll be willing to bet that if that builder put a pencil to a couple of the houses in our neighborhood that might be hard to remodel due to their condition, they’ll find the same profitability and your problem is solved. You’ll be able to stop worrying about those unsightly homes marring the neighborhood you don’t live in.
But I really need to thank you and thank your team. They could have gone out and cherry picked some data to make it look like you were right, that builders won’t work in an NSO neighborhood. I would have never been the wiser and I might not have gone out there and checked for myself. Lucky for me all they wanted to do was talk about how mean I am and call you out to sign in and give me what for.
But you guys have me all fired up now. I went out and got some pictures of that house today and I’m working on a blog piece featuring those pictures and all the HARD DATA – something sadly lacking from any of your arguments, blogs or websites so far - that I’ll publish probably about midweek, after everyone’s had a chance to read what’s here right now. By then, I ought to have some more examples of real NSO success stories to go along with it. You see, that was the first NSO neighborhood I looked at and I have 9 more to review.
You see, Liam, you couldn’t be more wrong about what I want for this neighborhood. Because what I want for this neighborhood is whatever the majority wants. Lucky for me we have an NSO process to get just that; what the majority wants.
Lucky, huh?
"why don’t you play house cop and call out the offenders, call out those of our neighbors who don’t meet your personal criteria for fitting into the neighborhood that you envision for us?"
ReplyDeleteWhich is exactly what the NSO is all about.
Liam Gartside
"what I want for this neighborhood is whatever the majority wants."
ReplyDeleteIf that was really true you wouldn't have gone to the trouble of making this blog to outline your personal vision of the future of our neighborhood.
Liam Gartside
Look , Liam, you don't get to come here and pretend that you've just recently discovered that there's an NSO for UT and you want to put in your two cents against people who have been at this forever. We're not going to play that fantasy on this blog. And this isn't your first rodeo when it comes to being against NSO's, is it?
ReplyDeleteFurther, you have an anti-NSO website that you've used for this NSO and for another. I think it was Maplewood. Right? You support the Against blog, You've been an Against speaker at other NSO hearings. Right?
You are the Poster Child for Anti-NSO sentiment. Folks on the Planning Commission know you by your first name. Before the ink is dry on the NSO proposals, you're against them. Right? And you have been for years. Right?
But I'm the one with the Personal Vision for this neighborhood?
Now, who's being ridiculous?
Mr. Riley - you can try and restrict all you want but you can not control the quality and the design of what is built. Remember as long as it fits your criteria wether it has turrets - a flat roof. Is extreemly contemporary. It can be built so be careful what you wish for.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand your comment or it's applicability to anything in this thread, but I published it so that everyone could sort of see what I'm dealing with here.
ReplyDeleteUm... okay. They can build turrets. Yes, you're right. They can. We never said they couldn't. Did we? I don't think anyone involved with the NSO said, "Oh, please sign up before we have turrets everywhere!" I really don't. That really hasn't been as big an issue as you might think.
Let's see... Yes, you're right again. They can build flat roofs. Why would anyone tell anyone that they can't have a flat roof on their property?
And what else... "Is extreemly [sic] contemporary". Also right. People can build as contemporary as they want.
I'm a real big fan of contemporary, as a matter of fact. My favorite home in Dallas is a great big flat roofed contemporary around the 6300 block of Azalea Lane. Lots of coke bottle green glass and straight lines, light and trees. Really beautiful.
Anything else?
Anonymous - Loved your comment! But, alas, I can't publish it without a name. Please resubmit your comment with your name. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteWhere is the proof that an NSO has ever protected the value of a property. I think you are confusing a tax value with a market value. We all want our tax value low as that keeps the actual amount of our check at the end of the year low. The Market Value of the property is what you should be concerned about, as that is the actual money that would go into your pocket should be sell your property. If your property is for sale, the overlay would hinder new buyers from even looking at the property. And if you are selling your property, you need as many buyers looking at the property as possible. Buy putting an overlay in place, you are already limiting the return on your investment.
ReplyDeleteAnne - You say these things as if they were facts. You say, "If your property is for sale, the overlay would hinder new buyers from even looking at the property."
ReplyDeleteWho says? Besides you, I mean. Well, besides you and Jack and Liam and Dijea and Big Mac and Concerned.
You ask me for proof, when in fact your team has been stating in your flyers and at your blog and website that an NSO will drive down the property value without offering a shred of proof.
Where is any proof of the things that your team has been saying?
I don't have access to real estate sales records. It's not within the law for me to have that information. But I can go to DCAD, and when I look at properties that have sold in the last few years, I can draw pretty accurate conclusions about what people paid for their homes.
I know that when we bought our house, the very next year our taxes raised to just exactly what we paid for it. It's gone up and down since, mostly up, but is only lagging market value by a little bit.
So, I look at the deed transfer date, look at what the folks are paying in the next tax year after the deed transfer and I can pretty much tell what they paid for their house. It's not the same as having access to sales figures, but it's the best I can do.
So, that's what I'm doing. I'm working on digging out the sales in the last couple of years in NSO neighborhoods and contrasting that with sales figures in adjacent neighborhoods to show that NSO's don't hurt property values.
And that is, from what I can tell, a lot more research than you folks are doing. I mean, you all post and post and post about property rights and how an NSO is going to ruin our property value, but you never offer any data to back it up. It comes across as "because we say so".
And I gotta be honest, nobody's buying it.
Now, you're my across the street neighbor and we're going to be waving hello for years to come, so I just want to say, thank you for the tone of your comment. it is a refreshing change from what I've been getting from your other team members.
Let's have a good and honest debate. You do your homework and post your facts. I'll do my homework and post mine.
Good luck.
I think a lot of your other points are way off base as well, but I didn't have the time last night to address them. I pointed out the most obvious to me. In this economy, we need to protect our biggest investment. Our homes just happen to be an investment in which we live. You ask how do I know if buyers won't look at a house with an overlay? I wouldn't. I'm not in the market for a new home, nor am I selling mine so far. But when I do sell my home, I don't want my neighbors determining what I can do with my investment.
ReplyDeleteYou'll notice that I have not walked across the street and asked your opinion about the stock market. I would never ask my neighbors their advice about my home either. It's my property, not yours. It's within my rights to do whatever I want to do with my property. By putting an overlay in place, you are attempting to take away property rights that were inherant to me when I purchased my property. I would never try to tell you or any of my neighbors what they can or can not do with property that they own.
And frankly, I don't care what my tax value is as long as it's low. The value of my house is going to be the price at which a willing buyer will pay when the time comes. The lower my tax value, the lower the amount of the check that I write each year to Dallas County Tax Collector.
Once again, Anne, I appreciate your thoughtful and well reasoned comments, couched, as they are, in such temperate language. I want to address your concerns one by one, so I will cut and paste your comments in parentheses and follow it with my feelings on the subject.
ReplyDelete“In this economy, we need to protect our biggest investment. Our homes just happen to be an investment in which we live. You ask how do I know if buyers won't look at a house with an overlay? I wouldn't. I'm not in the market for a new home, nor am I selling mine so far.”
Anne, I believe that if you sold your house, you wouldn’t buy in a neighborhood with an Overlay. There are 10 very nice neighborhoods with NSO’s in the city of Dallas, and so you would be excluding those from your search. And there are as many as forty other families here in UT that might not buy in an NSO neighborhood. But there are nearly three hundred families that would.
Now, the thing that drives you to the conclusion that you don’t want to live in an NSO neighborhood is your opinion. And that’s fine. But it is a minority opinion. And, it turns out, a very small minority opinion.
It is my opinion that potential buyers will be more put off if there’s a 3 storey brick wall five feet from my property line on both sides of my house. I believe that will run off more potential buyers than an additional side yard setback and roof height plane requirement, for that is all that this NSO is; a very modest NSO even by NSO standards, and NSO’s are the least intrusive of the Overlays that are available as a remedy to maintaining the character, stability and livability of our neighborhoods.
I believe that failure to protect our neighborhood with an NSO will result in those 3 storey neighbors reducing the potential buyers of my home to a small group of builders who will pay me nothing more than what the dirt is worth.
So, you see, I believe just the opposite of what you believe is the eventual outcome of enacting our NSO. And I believe my point is just as valid as you think yours is. I think it’s important to maintain our average side yard setback. I think it’s important to maintain a height plane restriction.
I think it’s important for my quality of living, and important for the resale value of my property.
Living in a city, it’s impossible to make everyone happy with changes that occur. I believe that this is one of those times. But if you refer back to the actual ordinance that governs Overlays, you find in the language of the Overlay the very reason for it’s existence:
“The city council finds that the construction of new single family structures that are incompatible with existing single family structures within certain established neighborhoods is detrimental to the character, stability, and livability of that neighborhood and the city as a whole.”
The link to the whole document is available on the front page of your team’s Against blog.
You say, “You'll notice that I have not walked across the street and asked your opinion about the stock market. I would never ask my neighbors their advice about my home either. It's my property, not yours. It's within my rights to do whatever I want to do with my property. By putting an overlay in place, you are attempting to take away property rights that were inherant to me when I purchased my property. I would never try to tell you or any of my neighbors what they can or can not do with property that they own.”
Let’s take another example; politics. I, too, would never come knocking on your door to ask you how you’re going to vote in, say, a presidential election. Often, the outcome of an election can determine the course of our country for years to come. And we all have a single vote to cast in the hopes that the person who we feel is best suited to the job gets elected. Depending on the results, a new president may come into office and introduce executive orders that make sweeping changes in our rights. And those changes affect everyone. Not just the folks who elected him. Everyone. I don’t get to say that I’m exempt from those executive orders because I didn’t vote for the guy.
That’s how democracy works.
The NSO process, by the time it’s all done, requires 2 votes by the residents, approval by the Planning Board and final approval by the City Council.
Politicians are elected in a single vote and a simple majority.
I put to you that the NSO process is fair in the extreme, allowing everyone an opportunity to vote, at least twice, for or against the NSO, and to be heard at any of the meetings and hearings throughout the process.
You say, “frankly, I don't care what my tax value is as long as it's low. The value of my house is going to be the price at which a willing buyer will pay when the time comes. The lower my tax value, the lower the amount of the check that I write each year to Dallas County Tax Collector.”
I explained why I was using tax information. But it doesn’t seem that you read, or if you did, understood what I said. I explained how there is valid sales information to be found in the tax data. Not for every home, but for many. Like our home. We bought it in 2004. If you look at the property tax value in 2005, that pretty much reflects what we paid for it. I’ll give you a better example, 5743 Kenwood in the Greenland Hills NSO. The previous owners were paying taxes on $249,000 in 2007. Then the property changed hands that year. The taxes in 2008 are $475,590. Clearly, that’s what the new folks paid, or it’s very close to it. So two conclusions can be drawn from that:
1. DCAD data is useful to determine what people paid for their homes so that comparisons can be made.
2. Homes in NSO neighborhoods are doing very well, indeed.
Granted, I’d like to have access to the same sales information that realtors have. But that’s against state law. However, many members of your team have real estate licenses. But none of them have provided a shred of evidence that property values will suffer in an NSO. And it would be as simple as just “running comps” for those neighborhoods and contrasting that with adjacent neighborhoods. Something realtors do every single day.
And I believe that the reason they don’t share that information with us is because the FACTS don’t support the things they are saying.
I have lived at 7047 Haverford Road in University Terrace since May, 1975. It is a genuine neighborhood. Where we help and look out for each other. And the houses are well built and well kept up. The fact is that 70% of the homeowners support the Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay. And want to maintain University Terrace as an attractive place to live. Jeffery Weber
ReplyDelete