An NSO Success Story

  Click To Enlarge Photo


There is a brand new home on Kenwood. What makes that news is that it's in the Greenland Hills NSO. You know, the same kind of NSO that The Others say will keep the builders from wanting houses in our neighborhood. The Greenland Hills NSO was enacted on March 28th, 2007. This home, the one you see in the picture above, was built by J. Gregory Homes. According to Dallas Central Appraisal District property records, J. Gregory Homes bought this property on 7/25/2007 (click on this link and see the deed transfer date on  the data for 2007). That's four months after the NSO was enacted. It's hard to imagine that they didn't know they were buying in an NSO neighborhood. J. Gregory Homes sold the home on 9/8/2008. That's 13 months and a few days from start of project to finish.

Now, J. Gregory Homes is a very successful new construction custom home builder here in Dallas. They specialize in buying older homes, scraping the lot and building newer, larger homes in their place. For example, they built 4124 Santa Barbara, at 3,469 square feet, and 4306 Santa Barbara, at 3,512 square feet.

Much like this home on Kenwood. It is 3,419 square feet. It was built after the NSO was enacted and it meets all of the requirements of the NSO. The Greenland Hills NSO is, in many ways, like the one proposed for University Terrace. In some areas, it is even stricter than what is being proposed for our neighborhood. Greenland Hills has a minimum front yard setback of 33 feet. Ours is about the same, but it's not part of the NSO. It turns out that the setback requirement was established when our neighborhood was built. Greenland Hills has a 20 ft height plane restriction, and that's what we're proposing for University Terrace as well. Greenland Hills has a garage placement requirement and it has a driveway entrance requirement. The UT proposal has neither of those.

In fact, this exact home could be built right here in University Terrace within the guidelines of the proposed NSO.

If this doesn't prove that successful builders are willing and able to work with an NSO, I don't know what does. The Other Side wants to enflame everyone with their "opinion" that no one will want our houses.

Wrong.

So, now, who says builders won't want to buy your house? Responsible builders who make an effort to build to scale will be very interested in our neighborhood. But what they won't be able to do is build something like what they built next door to our Santa Barbara neighbors Julie Walters & Eric Van Steenburg. See the next blog article to read their story.

By the way, that house next to them is 4,245 square feet according to DCAD.

A new word in the Lexicon; Garage-Mahal

A letter came to the University Terrace Friends FOR the Overlay from our Santa Barbara neighbors Julie Walters & Eric Van Steenburg via Neicey Whitaker. It's a MUST READ if you have any doubts about your position in the upcoming vote.  Here's a picture of Julie & Eric's situation. Theirs is the home on the left. You can click on the photo to enlarge it.

Now I'll get out of the way and let Julie and Eric tell you first hand what it's like to live in a neighborhood without an NSO.

April 20, 2009

To Whom It May Concern:

            Two years ago, Miss Lucile passed away. We loved our 94-year-old next door neighbor. But little did we know the impact that her passing would have on our home life. Miss Lucile’s kids had long ago moved out of the home that Miss Lucile and her late husband purchased brand new in the early 1950s, the same time our modest home was built. So when their mother passed away, they had no need for the home.

They sold it to a custom homebuilder who saw an opportunity to turn a modest homestead into a “garage-Mahal”.

Down went the one-story, 1,400 square foot prairie home, and up went a two-story 4,500-square foot McMansion. And throughout the process, our home and our life were less than an afterthought to the builder – they were no where in his thinking at all.

It started as soon as the demolition of Miss Lucile’s house began. Two days into the demolition, the builder’s bulldozer knocked over Miss Lucile’s garage – straight into our new fence, knocking down two complete panels. Needless to say, our small dog was delighted that it now had a 16-foot escape route out of the side of our yard. We, on the other hand, were not as excited about our brand new fence being demolished.

The demolition crew tried to repair the fence right away, thanks to the insistence or our good friend who was dog-watching for us at the time. If she had not been there to demand that the fence be replaced immediately, our dog would have surely run away.

However, remember that the crew that replaced our fence wasn’t in the fence repair business – they were in the demolition business. Our brand new fence was never the same. It had a bend in it from that day forward, and still has that same crook today.

The view out of our master bedroom and our guest bedroom used to be of landscaping surrounding Miss Lucile’s home. Now, all three windows look directly into an eight-foot high fence with metal poles staring straight back at us. The builder promised to install a second row of pickets on the fence so we wouldn’t have to look at the poles, but he never did. He also promised to stain the back of the fence. But he never did that either.

In fact, the builder promised many things that he never delivered upon. What he did do was damage our sprinkler system, destroy our landscaping, and allowed his construction workers to pee in our flower bed – all the things that make for good neighbors.

The result is the following:

·       No privacy in our backyard – the gargantuan structure adjacent to us includes several rooms with views into what was once our private sanctuary

·       No sunlight into half of our house – the side of our home that is now so close to this two-story monstrosity is in constant darkness

·       Destruction of our iris bed – the lack of sunlight into our once gorgeous iris garden has kept the flowers from blooming

·       Floodlight nights – when the lights are on in the house next door, our entire bedroom is awash in lights so bright, we can’t sleep.

Our neighborhood was reluctant to enact a Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay because they thought it would curtail development. Well, there has been no lack of development in our neighborhood. Houses all over have been torn down, and now it looks like every block in Plano. In fact, the development has been able to run rampant, over the lives, landscaping, and privacy of those who have lived here for years. Don’t let this happen to you. We’ve regretted it from the day Miss Lucile passed away.

Julie Walters and Eric Van Steenburg

4526 Santa Barbara Drive

Dallas, TX 75214

Here are a few more photos of Julie and Eric's home and how it contrasts with what's been built next door. You might have noticed the For Sale sign in their yard, too. They're moving on.

Click to enlarge either of these photos. This first one shows how the house next door really towers over their home. It also shows how much farther forward on the lot the new house is.

The bottom photo give a better perspective of just how close that fence is to Julie & Eric's home. It is right on top of them and runs the whole length of their home.

Don't let this happen to you. Vote FOR the NSO.

University Terrace Is a Blessing

Since this is the “Yes” blog, I guess I have tipped my hand on my position regarding the NSO. However, I want to say at the outset that I understand why others might vote differently, and I am not particularly comfortable with the yes/no choice that we have to make. I am somewhat saddened by the divisiveness that it has generated.

At another time, I will go into my opinions on at least some of the issues that have been raised and commented on previously on this blog. First, though, I want to say something about how I feel about our neighborhood.

We moved here in 1970 into a two-bedroom house with 1150 square feet on the diagram. While it looked pretty big when it was empty, it was pretty easy to fill up. Nevertheless, we did not see how we could ever afford the mortgage payment, which in the next 30 years became dwarfed by the insurance and taxes.

When we moved in, there were only a few children on our street. We were pleased to have three living right next door for a while in a rented house, but they moved after a few years and left us hunting hard for playmates for our two kids. Now, I am pleased to see how many young families with small children have moved in. I expect that at least some of these parents are wondering how they will ever afford to pay the mortgage and other costs of a home.

One of our newest neighbors is our son, daughter-in-law, and one-year old granddaughter. They live three doors down in a house my wife and I are financing, which included remodeling the house from the studs to the brick. I know what their mortgage payment is, and I know they are wondering how they will be able to keep up with that mortgage.

I can’t tell you what a joy it is to live so close to these kids and our granddaughter. And I believe in my heart that we could never have swung such a deal in a neighborhood with larger homes. If my faith were stronger, I would say that Someone wanted us to stay here for so long just so we could do this. Faith or not, I feel that we have been truly blessed.

My larger point is that I think the University Terrace neighborhood has been and can be that kind of blessing for a lot of people. Its high quality has continued for the 30 years I have been here, and it is still affordable, making it a hallmark of value. The current residents are obviously taking advantage of that value, and I think we should consider maintaining the blessing we have enjoyed for future residents. This neighborhood is something special, and we should recognize that and act accordingly.

If/when I write again, I’ll try to go a little less “Touched By An Angel.” I promise.

Pete Dickson

Fact #4

There is provable, negligible difference in the tax value of the original homes in a teardown neighborhood and in one protected by an NSO. The values remain virtually the same, with the difference being that the lot value improves while the structure value diminishes.

You can look at the previous posts, where I've provided links to property records of homes in teardown neighborhoods. You've seen that as the lot values increase, the structure values rapidly and dramatically decrease, yielding a near flat value when normal citywide appreciation of property is taken into account.

Further, I took a sampling of the first 10 original houses on Santa Barbara, starting at 4007, and contrasted them with the first 10 houses on my street, Haverford, here in University Terrace, and the first 10 homes on Westbrook in Dalewood, an area protected by an NSO. The result was as follows:

The homes on Santa Barbara, with an average age of 36 years, mostly built in 1971, have a value of $163.19 per sq. ft. 

The homes on Haverford, with an average age of 50 years, mostly built in 1957, have a value of $144.37 per sq. ft. 

The homes on Westbrook, with an average age of 58 years, mostly built in 1954, have a value of $156.75 per sq. ft.

Considering the 14 to 22 additional years of normal depreciation for the homes on Haverford and Westbrook, that's a provable, negligible difference in the tax record market value for these homes. You may take other sampling groups and find slight variations, but I think these are generally accurate numbers.

But what you see in every case, in every home that you look at, is that once the builders move in, the value shifts from the structure to the lot. Your home doesn't appreciate any faster. You're not going to get a fat check from the builder. You're going to get market value for your home. 

What will affect your home the most is it's Condition, and if you live in a teardown nieghborhood, and you've lost your incentive to improve your structure because your only value is in the lot, then your home will slide from Good to Average to Fair to Poor, and along with it, so goes your total value.

Look at the Dallas Central Appraisal District records and pick homes listed Fair and Poor condition and contrast them with homes in Good condition. The price per square foot is startlingly different.

Fact #3

The best way to ensure that older homes in a neighborhood aren’t updated or improved is to vote NO. Once builders target a neighborhood for teardowns, the value of the structures, of the homes, plummets as much as 80%. The result is that people are less likely to invest in upgrades and even routine maintenance, because the only value is in the dirt under the structure.

You don't have to dig too deeply into the Dallas Central Appraisal District records to find examples of this occurring. Here are some examples:

4020 Santa Barbara: Structure Value in 2006; $124,800 / Structure Value in 2008; $21,470

83% decrease in Structure Value.

4212 Santa Barbara: Structure Value in 2006; $140,270 / Structure Value in 2008; $15,050

89% decrease in Structure Value.

4402 Santa Barbara: Structure Value in 2006; $94,830 / Structure Value in 2008; $15,440

84% decrease in Structure Value.

Some will say I'm cherry picking. So let's compare Apples and Apples.

Here's a home at 4007 Santa Barbara Dr. It is 2,162 sq. ft. and according to DCAD, has a market value of 320,020, or $148.00 per sq. ft. It is listed in Good condition. 

Here's a home at 7006 Haverford Rd. It is 1,798 sq. ft. and according to DCAD, has a market value of 293,430, or $163.00 per sq. ft. It is also listed in Good condition.

The difference is that the home on Santa Barbara has a lot value of $200,000 and a structure value of $120,020, while the home on Haverford has a lot value of only $80,000 and a structure value of 213,430.

Oddly, the Structure on the lot at 4007 Santa Barbara Dr. was worth $295,920 as recently as 2006. But it has lost 60% of it's value in three years. Many will say that this was done to protect the homeowner from higher and higher taxes. But this home has a homestead, capping the taxable value at $316,963. So, if the structure depreciation rates applicable to University Terrace (which are all over the board, ranging from a few percent year depreciation to as much a 5% a year appreciation), were applied to this property, given the new value of their lot ($200,000) the home on Santa Barbara ought to be worth as much as $495,000.

But it's not. 

None of the older homes on Santa Barbara, or Vanderbilt or Sondra or Lake Circle have been able to enjoy anything close to a dollar for dollar increase in their homes as the value of their lots increased.

For whatever reason this is done, it sure makes it easy for the builders to point to why they're offering so much less than you dreamed you would get once the destruction of your neighborhood began.

Fact #2

There are single storey homes in our neighborhood that fit within the guidance of the proposed NSO that are as large as 2,000 square feet. Clearly, a 4,000 square foot, two storey home could be built in the exact same footprint without being at all creative with home placement on the lot. Truth is, the houses being built on teardown lots in other neighborhoods on our side of town are all two storey and seldom exceed 4,500 square feet, with many at 3,500 square feet. That’s plenty of room for a house and a back yard under the proposed NSO.

7010 Haverford Rd.  2,040 sq. ft.

7115 Haverford Rd.   2,264 sq. ft.

7125 Haverford Rd.   2,100 sq. ft.

7129 Haverford Rd.  2,016 sq. ft.

7205 Haverford Rd.  2,031 sq. ft.

7319 Haverford Rd.   2,175 sq. ft.

These are just the examples on my street. I'm sure if you go to dallascad.org and search the property records for the homes on your street, you can find just as many like examples. In fact, there were a lot more than this between 1,750 and 2,000 sq. ft. that would yield a structure at least 3,500 sq. ft. at two storeys, and if you look at the property records for the new homes on Santa Barbara, many of them are in that range; 3,500 to 4,000 sq. ft.

Fact #1

It’s not too early to tell and it is provable, through Dallas Central Appraisal District Records, that the best way to protect the value of your structure, of your home, is to enact an NSO.

Our opposition has stated that "all experts agree" it's too early to tell the impact an NSO has on a neighborhood. They quote Ms. Tama Cole of Briggs-Freeman, a local real estate agency where Ms. Cole works as a commission sales agent: ‘When you buy property, much like a car, the house immediately begins to depreciate because of age. The only appreciation is in the land. If the land is restricted, making it hard for builders to construct new houses and make a profit, then your land will not appreciate..."

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.