63 replies to this topic

[Sam Stone]

Nor are minimum lot sizes the answer. Quality housing can be built on very small lots and poor quality housing can be built on very large lots.

[redhead]

:angry: As anyone in this field knows, size---either lot or building---has absolutely NOTHING to do with quality. The problem is that by changing codes to improve "quality"---like requiring 100% masonry in the recent Arlington change---excludes people from home ownership. Since the monetary gap between stick-built and modular housing is growing vaster with every layer of code compliance, is it any wonder that the biggest builder in the country is not Centex, Horton or Pulte but J. Walters Homes! Codes and zoning should only be used as tools of safety and community and not of discrimination, but that is indeed how they are used around the country.

As for builder licensing, I am one of th few members of the local builders' association that supports it. The new rules at least require registration. I have said for years it is more difficult to become a notary than a builder---you have to pay $25 and prove you did not commit a felony. On a more serious note, there are certification programs within NAHB for serious members---like the Certified Master Builder program. It is probaly stronger than licensing, but lacks awareness at most buyers' level.

[mosteijn]

Here's the article in case anyone would like the whole story:

http://www.dfw.com/m...cal/8745692.htm

[Urbndwlr]

I'm VERY glad to see that Fort Worth is considering leglislating some discipline in that business. There are way too many builders who are polluting our city by throwing up tomorrow's slums. They routinely defend this practice by pulling out the voilin and saying they're doing it for the common man.

I see three main issues:
1) Fort Worth is saddled with new homes that will deteriorate quickly and turn into slums very quickly
2) Many of these new homes are straining our city's resources (i.e., they require more resources than they contribute), meaning they cost the rest of us tax dollars to build.
3) Our neighborhing municipalities have said "Not in my back yard" and raised their building standards (in a variety of ways), shifting the homebuilding industry to pencil Fort Worth in as the place to build the cheapest houses.
-- Sorry tract mass-produced homebuilders, we can't allow Fort Worth to bear that burden alone.

Fort Worth simply does not have a shortage of affordable housing. It is very easy to find very inexpensive housing throughout the city. Sure, one might have to invest in a house in an existing neighborhood (usually a good thing for the community).

My proposal:

1) restrict poor building materials (EIFS stucco, other non-durable materials)
2) require at least two street trees in front of each house (can have reasonable landscaping alternatives if it doesn't work on certain sites)
3) Absolutely prohibit garages from facing the street
4) Encourage quality features (e.g. non-single pane windows, front porches, masonry or stone facades, additional trees, non-composite roofing materials) through incentives.
5) Pass the additional cost of extending city infrastructure (water, sewer, roads) on green field development along to the developers (which would indirectly go to the consumers - alligning the cost of sprawl to the consumers of sprawl)

[Dismuke]

5) Pass the additional cost of extending city infrastructure (water, sewer, roads) on green field development along to the developers

I disagree with virtually everything in Urbndwlr's posting - but his last point makes a lot of sense to me not so much from the standpoint of trying to socially engineer where people may or may not be permitted to live but rather as a matter of fairness. Existing residents and taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize the cost of housing developments for newcomers.

As for the issue of sprawl, in a free country people have a right to live wherever they darn well please so long as someone is willing to build, sell or rent them a dwelling. If those who have different lifestyle preferences don't approve of it, well, the flip side of the same coin in a free society is that everyone else shares in the same freedom that you have - which means that some people are going to sometimes do certain things that you disapprove of. So if people choose to live in outlying areas, it is their right to make such a choice. However, they do not have a right to expect other people to subsidize their choices.

.

[Dismuke]

Regarding the issue of shoddy construction - I have asked this before some while back and nobody was able to give me an answer so I will ask it again: Would somebody please provide me with two examples of housing developments 10 years old or older that are falling apart because of poor quality construction as opposed to falling apart because of abuse on the part of residents or because they were not properly maintained?

If the problem is as widespread as some seem to suggest, then it shouldn't be at all difficult to find such developments. Please provide me with the general part of town the development is in as well as the names of some of the streets in the development so I can look up how to go there. If you can only think of one example - well, by all means post it and maybe someone else can think of a second one.

I ask for two examples - preferably built by different developers - because a single instance of a shoddy housing development is indicative of nothing other than the nature of its particular developer. If one wishes to maintain that such developments are a problem, then one needs to be prepared to demonstrate that it is not just an isolated instance.

Since this alleged problem is supposedly widespread in Fort Worth, I would prefer that the examples come from Fort Worth - but if nobody can think of any, I am willing to drive by and check out any examples people may know about in surrounding suburbs (please keep them in Tarrant County however - I probably would not be willing to drive out to Dallas County for something like this)

Let me once again emphasize that the houses need to be deteriorating or falling apart because they were badly built - not because the people who live in them fail to take care of them and perform the sort of routine maintainance that comes along with owning any sort of structure. Even well built homes can deteriorate quite rapidly at the hands of careless and neglectful inhabitants. Such instances are hardly the fault of the developer. All the developer does is build them and sell them - and he is required by Federal law to sell them to any buyer who can can afford them.

[Rob1316]

Hey I really like Dismuke's challenge. I haven't been in the area long enough to know of any communities that are deteriorating due to poor construction though I can name a few that are deteriorating.

I am curious as to how this group see's a "volunteer" approach to improving building construction. I haven't completed the thought process, but it would be something above and beyond the life and safety code requirements. I invision something like the "energy star" program offered by the EPA. Consumers have the option of buying a cheaper computer monitor (for example), or a computer monitor that meets the "energy star" criteria. Consumers know that the product in question might cost more, but it will use less energy over it's life span.

If a quality construction program was started the building community could devep criteria that if followed would lead to a higher quality structure. I believe that such an approach is viable if the building community buys into it, and if the general public is informed.

Maybe such a program exists, if so I'd like to know of it. I know that a LEED program exists and is doing quiet well, but this program aims at making structures more "green", or sustainable, and I don't believe it addresses issues regarding the quality of construction.

[normanfd]

Although I like the idea that if homes are built by well-trained, professional builders as determined through the NAHB certification program or some other respected criteria, that developers and realtors should promote that information with the hope that home buyers would begin to insist on purchasing nothing less.

However, I fear only people purchasing housing for the long haul would pay any attention. O. K. Carter mentioned in one of his recent columns in the Star-Telegram that census figures in Arlington show that 22% of residents didn't live in their current homes one year ago, and over 70% didn't five years ago.

If Fort Worth's suburbs have similar demographics, you're talking about a lot of people who are only concerned that their home won't start falling apart for the few years they live in the home before selling it sooner rather than later.

[Dismuke]

May I point out to you that the cost of infrastructure improvements for development are already passed along to developers/builders in the myriad of fees that are charged: impact fees, water tap fees,sewer tap fees, building permits,inspection fees, park assessments, etc.  In fact the origin of impact fees was a knee jerk reaction to Prop 13 in California and it disproportionatley front-end loads the cost of new housing. 

I would agree with you that, to the degree such fees and taxes exceed the cost of the infrastructure improvements, they are unwarranted and unjustified. The purpose of taxes and governmental fees in a free country is to raise revenue and cover the cost of necessary services. There are those who wish to increase fees, taxes and regulations in order punish builders and new home buyers for the purpose of trying to change people's behavior and lifestyle choices - i.e. they view the tax system as a tool for social engineering. Such notions are antithetical to a free society. The purpose of government in a free society is to protect individual rights - not to serve as an "agent for social change" by legislating private morality and lifestyle choices.

On the other hand, to the degree that the fees levied against builders go towards recouping the actual expenditures local governments must make for the necessary infrastructure upgrades and expansion, I have absolutely no problem with them whatsoever.

Consider that a dollar of property taxes only cost the taxpayer the single buck, but a dollar of impact fees collected from the developer costs the consumer ten-fold---by the time the interest is paid on the developer's loan, passed on to the builder and ultimately rolled into the consumer's mortgage. For what? The EXACT same services that older homes in lower end neighborhoods get for substantially less money.

I have no problem with that whatsoever.

People in older homes SHOULD pay less because, for them, the actual infrastructure that serves them is already in place. The only burden that they add is the maintenance costs necessary to keep it working. The capital expenditure for building that infrastructure was presumably paid for a long time ago. Somebody has to come up with the money for the infrastructure improvements necessary to support new subdivisions. One can either pass the costs along to those who will live in those subdivisions or one can pass along part of the cost to taxpayers in older parts of town. Sure, cities can issue bonds and collect some of the money back from the taxes paid by the eventual owners of the new homes. But since we basically have a flat property tax rate for all homeowners in the entire city, it would be impossible to levy extra taxes just on the owners of the new homes for the specific purpose of paying for the infrastructure improvements. The result is that the cost of the infrastructure improvements is spread out and paid for by all property owners in the city. This, in effect, amounts to a subsidy for new neighborhoods paid for by the property owners in older neighborhoods. Passing the cost for such infrastructure improvements on to builders and, therefore, eventually to the buyers of the new homes does away with this subsidy. And, by adding the cost to the mortgage, it enables new home buyers to pay for it over time instead of all at once - while the city gets reimbursed for its expenses up front thus saving the taxpayers the interest on the bonds that might need to be issued to finance them. Since property taxes, in theory, would no longer be used for such infrastructure expansion, it would be possible to reduce tax rates without any sort of reduction in city services as the only infrastructure burden the people in newer neighborhood would add would be the cost of maintaining it - just as is the case in older neighborhoods.

fact, I would submit to you that run-down, crime ridden neighborhoods cost the taxpayers much, much more than entry level Choice Homes-style communities do.

Absolutely. But the cost of providing things such as police protection is not what I am talking about passing along to the builders and, therefore, to the new home buyers. The kind of expenses I am talking about are road upgrades, water and sewer system upgrades, new fire houses etc. Such things are huge capital expenditures that would take years to pay off through the collection of property taxes. Ongoing expenses such as paying the salaries of policemen and firemen can basically be paid for immediately out of "cash flow" - i.e. the property taxes that new home buyers will be paying from the day they move in.

Now, there are some who would argue that there is absolutely nothing wrong with property owners in older neighborhoods having to partially subsidize the infrastructure expansion needed in newer parts of town because "growth is good for the community."

First off, communities don't pay taxes, only individuals pay taxes and some individuals, for one reason or another, do not regard such growth as a good thing.

Second, to argue for growth on grounds that it is in the "public interest" is pure collectivism - and that is a very dangerous road for builders and others who are pro-growth to go down when it comes to advocating their positions. Keep in mind that it is on the basis of some variant of collectivist arguments that those who are anti-growth and/or anti-sprawl and/or anti-builder and/or anti-capitalism justify their positions and their demands to place builders on a punitive leash. "Public interest" is a term utterly devoid of any rational meaning. Who is the public - and who gets to determine what is and is not in its best interest? In practice, the answer ultimately is "whoever has sufficient political pull." There is no such entity as "the public" - there are only individuals and the only person who can properly decide what is in a given individual's best interest is that individual. The effective way to advocate and defend economic growth and the rights of builders is NOT to say that they serve the "public interest" but rather on the basis of individual rights - i.e. peaceful people have a right to live their lives as they see fit and make their own lifestyle choices, including the choice to purchase or rent a home wherever they wish.

Why talk about how and how not to defend growth and the rights of builders? Well, because, from the looks of things, builders seem pretty incapable of defending themselves. For example, in the Star-Telegram article that Johnnyrules23 linked to, Joe Howell of the Greater Fort Worth Builder's Association is quoted as saying the following:

"I don't like this 'pulling their weight' business," Howell said. "There are some areas of town that don't generate as much tax as others. That's kind of what the city government's function is, to come in and levy fair taxes and at the same time provide decent, affordable housing."

Really, Mr. Howell? So it is the city government's function to "provide decent affordable housing"? Well, if that is indeed the City's function, then why shouldn't it step in and establish quality guidelines for such housing? How else can the City responsibly perform such a function? I rather doubt that Mr. Howell considers himself to be a socialist - but, whether he realizes it or not, that is exactly what he is advancing when he spews nonsense such as that. Whenever you see businessmen trying to defend their profits and their right to exist on grounds of their "public service" the only thing it accomplishes is to further the agenda of those who seek to destroy them. The people they are trying to convince are understandably cynical and dismiss it as nothing more than an evasive rationalization and such an approach only reinforces the their enemies' premise that profit and self-interest are somehow less than virtuous if not downright evil.

I still do not believe that codes should be used for anything other than health and safety---not to codify class structure in communities!

I agree 100% and I suspect you are absolutely correct about the attempt to codify class structure. Let's just be really candid and bluntly state what I think many who are pushing for this are thinking and will not admit openly: "We don't want any more low life rednecks, white trash and minorities moving into the city."

[Rob1316]

Dismuke writes

The purpose of taxes and governmental fees in a free country is to raise revenue and cover the cost of necessary services. There are those who wish to increase fees, taxes and regulations in order punish builders and new home buyers for the purpose of trying to change people's behavior and lifestyle choices - i.e. they view the tax system as a tool for social engineering.

I can't resist asking what country Dismuke lives in. Here in America people have accepted and passed so called "sin" taxes for years now. Taxes that are used specifically to change people's behavior and lifestyle choices. Just look at cigerrette taxes. These taxes are based on the premis that if cigerrettes are more expensive less people would smoke. They even use this money to advocate the dangers of smoking.

I don't know why we can't use taxes to define the urban landscape?

[redhead]

Whoa! Dismuke---I wished I knew how to do all the fancy quotes and stuff--but I'm a neophyte here, baby! Anyway, I don't think we are that far apart, I just need to print and digest everything you had to say. So far I'm screwed because our server got zapped in the storm. I'm doing this from home..
Anyway, the analogy I generally employ is this: If you are buying widgets from a manufacturer who runs out of capacity and has to build a new factory---should you have to pay more for the widgets from the new factory? Closer to the point: should I have to pay more to flush a toilet with a new connection than you do to flush one with an old connection? Personally, I think NOT. The service is the same! However, that is what the "new growth" thought is at present.
How stupid!! The population is growing, albeit slowly, but households are getting smaller. That is the primary determinant of housing growth and since it is shrinking, the number of actual units is growing...that does not necessarily affect the overall growth in capapcity, but try to convince (ANY) city of that. They are still stuff in the days of Ward and June!!!

[Dismuke]

The U.S. Senate has a wonderful tradition of not injecting the motives of an opponent into debate.

I think there are instances when it is entirely appropriate to do so.

Hidden agendas are extremely commonplace in today's political and ideological battles - especially when what a certain group is ultimately after is unpopular or involves taking away the freedom of those they hope to either neutralize or even win over as supporters. It is absolutely crucial to identify and understand what motivates and animates one's political and ideological enemies so that one can more effectively counter them and, above all, publicly expose their true nature and intentions.

I am in agreement with that approach because it keeps the focus on the rational (or something like it).

There is nothing inherently irrational about attempting to identify other people's motives and/or hidden agendas. Like any other assertion that a person makes, claims about the motives of others need to be factually based and not mere arbitrary utterances. One does so by taking into consideration previous statements and behavior as well as how much of what one's opponent explicitly advocates involves the evasion of readily available facts that the person can reasonably be expected to be aware of.

One, of course, must be extremely careful not to paint with too broad a brush. For example, it is fairly common for casual supporters of dishonest ideological/political movements to have merely bought into their slogans and propaganda and actually support them based on honest error and good intentions. The motives of such people are often vastly different than those of the individuals who constitute the movement's hard core intellectual leadership. And when it comes to debates about a specific matter of public policy, it is often possible for there to be a wide variety of motives for people taking a specific position - so once again, it is important not to over generalize.

Are there times when it is inappropriate to ascribe motives? Sure - especially if one does not have enough facts or evidence to do so. Also, there are times when a person's motives are utterly irrelevant to an issue. One often sees examples of this when apologists assert that certain allegedly positive motives somehow make up for negative consequences. For example, people will sometimes say about a politician whose policies have been utter failures with disastrous consequences: "Yes, but he meant well" - as if a politician's intentions are more important than his actual behavior and policies.

As to the Senate policy - that can make perfect sense in such a contentious forum where certain rules of order are necessary in order to keep business moving forward and on topic.

Besides, my experience has been that rednecks are the most worried about minorities, and that most minorities resent being lumped in with white trash in any discussion.

Perhaps that is indeed the case. But the fact of the matter is that so-called "rednecks" and minorities are NOT the ones who are advocating increased lot sizes and other regulations designed to increase the size and prices of houses. Most of the people I have personally encountered who advocate such things are fairly well-off individuals who tend to look down their noses (with either contempt or condescension) at the sort of people who are the primary consumers of affordable housing. The ones that I have met tend to be highly pretentious elitist snobs.

There is no need to slander the proponents of the housing standards policy.

I did not slander "the proponents of housing standards policy." My exact words were:

Let's just be really candid and bluntly state what I think many who are pushing for this are thinking and will not admit openly: "We don't want any more low life rednecks, white trash and minorities moving into the city."

I deliberately qualified my statement to refer to many - not all - advocates of such policies. So the worst that I could have possibly done is slander some advocates of housing standards policy.

Furthermore, it is not slander if it is true. Rather than talk about my personal experiences with people who advocate such things, let me just point to a few quotes from the Star-Telegram article.

For example:

"We've got to stop this; it's madness," said City Councilwoman Becky Haskin, who has pushed for the changes. "The quality of life in Fort Worth is at stake here.

"We want them to look like homes, not next year's rental properties."

What is wrong with rental properties, Ms. Haskin? You know, the Firestone and the Sundance Apartments are also rental properties. Somehow, I don't think that such places are what Ms. Haskins has in mind. What demographic groups tend to be the biggest consumers of non-luxury rental property? And exactly where are these people supposed to live if not in rental properties? And, Ms. Haskins, exactly how do such people constitute a threat to your "quality of life"?

There's no doubt that there are some low life renters out there. But the vast majority of renters are decent honorable people. There's no doubt that some people in the lower middle class are repulsive - but again, the vast majority are perfectly honorable and decent people.

Also from the same article:

We do need to do something," said Lance Griggs, president of the Summerfields Neighborhood Association. "What happens with smaller homes is they quickly deteriorate and property values start to go down."

This is nonsense. Exactly how does it follow that, because a house is small, it is going to deteriorate quickly? There are many neighborhoods of homes much smaller than anything being built today that were built as long as 40 and 50 years ago that are NOT falling apart and are neat and well maintained. And many such neighborhoods have rental properties mixed in. Drive around some of the side streets in River Oaks or Benbrook. Also observe that, so far, nobody has answered my request and posted a single example of a neighborhood that is falling apart due to shoddily built houses - and this is the second occasion that I have asked for such an example on this Forum.

What is true is that there are a handful of areas around town where smaller houses are falling apart not because they were badly built but rather because the people who own them either can't or won't take care of them. THAT is what Mr. Griggs is referring to when he talks about small homes that deteriorate and property values going down. He is taking a handful of slum areas and using them to paint a negative picture of all neighborhoods with small houses and the people who live in them. Again I ask, what demographic groups tend to live in such neighborhoods and what pejorative terms are often used to describe such people?

In this very thread Urbndwlr writes:

There are way too many builders who are polluting our city by throwing up tomorrow's slums. They routinely defend this practice by pulling out the voilin and saying they're doing it for the common man.

I see three main issues:
1) Fort Worth is saddled with new homes that will deteriorate quickly and turn into slums very quickly

But once again, all one has to do is drive around town to see that the vast majority of neighborhoods filled with small houses are NOT slums - but that fact apparently does not stop people from trying to get such neighborhoods outlawed. I would also like to have just one example of a neighborhood that is NOT already next to an existing slum that has "turned into a slum very quickly."

Urbandwlr also points out, probably quite accurately:

3) Our neighboring municipalities have said "Not in my back yard" and raised their building standards (in a variety of ways), shifting the homebuilding industry to pencil Fort Worth in as the place to build the cheapest houses.

People say "not in my back yard" about things such as trash dumps, halfway houses for criminals, homeless shelters etc. Apparently, in the eyes of some, small affordable houses fall into a similar category. Ask yourself what the powers that be in those municipalities really object to having in their back yards - the houses themselves or the people who live in them?

[Dismuke]

I can't resist asking what country Dismuke lives in. Here in America people have accepted and passed so called "sin" taxes for years now. Taxes that are used specifically to change people's behavior and lifestyle choices. Just look at cigerrette taxes. These taxes are based on the premis that if cigerrettes are more expensive less people would smoke.

And that is a perfect example of what I am talking about when I say that I am opposed to using the law and the tax code to legislate private morality. The fact that such laws have been on the books for a long time does not, in any way, alter the fact that they are antithetical to a free society. And just because the laws happen to already be on the books, that doesn't make them right or justify expanding them further.

Is America a free country? Well, in the context of comparing ourselves to the rest of the world, yes we are. The United States is the first and only country in the world that was formed on the explicit premise that the purpose of government is to protect the inalienable rights of the individual (see the Declaration of Independence). Everything that is great about this country is rooted in its historically unprecedented protection of individual rights. It was a very radical concept back in 1776 - and, sadly, that is still the case two and a quarter centuries later, indeed, even more so. But there were grave contradictions in our political execution of that principle from the very beginning - most notably the continued tolerance of the institution of slavery for a number of decades and the subsequent policy of racial segregation. After the civil war, the government began to increasingly meddle in the economic life if its citizens, a trend which snowballed rapidly as the 20th century progressed and imposed many significant infringements on individual rights. Attempts to legislate private morality have also been around for a long time. Traditionally, they have been attempts by some people to impose their religious beliefs and values on others at the point of a gun - for example: Prohibition, anti-prostitution laws, anti-gambling laws, sodomy laws and the many local "Blue Laws" which lasted almost until the end of the 20th century and perhaps still exist in some of the more backward areas. In recent decades, there have been secular attempts to legislate private morality - including the example you gave as well as the food fascists, those who seek to outlaw automobiles etc.

I don't know why we can't use taxes to define the urban landscape?

Because of something called freedom, that's why. Its because the money that individuals earn belongs to them - not to the government or to a bunch of self-appointed do-gooder elites who think they somehow are more qualified to spend it than those who actually earned it in the first place.

Ask yourself this: by what right does one group of people use the police power of the State to impose their wishes, desires, opinions and lifestyle choices on peaceful citizens at the point of a gun?

[Dismuke]

Anyway, the analogy I generally employ is this:  If you are buying widgets from a manufacturer who runs out of capacity and has to build a new factory---should you have to pay more for the widgets from the new factory?  Closer to the point: should I have to pay more to flush a toilet with a new connection than you do to flush one with an old connection? 

Here is the difference: manufacturing widgets is a private, for profit enterprise. The up-front capital for things such as expansion, equipment upgrades, etc. comes from willing private investors who voluntarily put their money on the line in hopes of eventually realizing a return on their investment. Those who do not believe the endeavor is a good idea or have no personal interest in its outcome are under absolutely no obligation to support it or invest in it.

The money for the expansion of government provided infrastructure, by contrast, does not necessarily come from willing participants. It is confiscated by force from the taxpayers - including those who may even be opposed to the projects it is being used for and have no personal interest in the outcome. And, unlike private investors, the taxpayers have absolutely no prospect of getting even a small part of their money back in the form of profits.


That is why it is inappropriate to ask existing residents to pay for the upfront costs of government infrastructure improvements for newer neighborhoods. Unlike with a private investment, such a transaction is nothing more than a forced subsidy, pure and simple.

BTW - there is a lot of other "infrastructure" that ends up needing to be put into place in newer parts of town besides government roads and water lines. Such areas need grocery stores, dry cleaners, gas stations, shopping malls etc. And, of course, there are the houses in housing developments. Observe that residents in older parts of town do not have to pay a single penny for such expansion. That's the beauty of capitalism - everything is done on a voluntary, non-sacrificial basis. Those who want absolutely nothing to do with the growth in that part of town are perfectly free to refuse to participate in it financially or otherwise. Notice that when the government becomes involved in a project such as expanding roads and water lines, everyone is forced to participate.

[redhead]

Dismuke, You and I could have a very lively debate on this one. Let's go back to the crux of it: smaller houses don't pay for themselves according to Ms. Haskins. Based on what data? Are you sure that the data did not include ALL city services divided into the number of dwelling units on the tax roster? If that is how they arrived at the conclusion, then I would suggest that the city has policies in conflict with one another.
Consider that the city of Fort Worth has a very aggressive annexation position. What is available to be annexed? It is generally housing (why would they want raw land? Minimal tax increase..)that is far out of the city. That distance makes the dirt attractive to developers because it is inexpensive, and allows them to build (TA-DA!!) smaller houses! Big wow--many of the developers actually do their own infrastructure to support these developments because there is no city to turn to. So when the city annexes these areas, they do it merely for the tax increment increase. So how can it be justified that this does not pay for itself when many annexed residents are against it in the first place because they know their taxes will go up!

[Dismuke]

Dismuke, You and I could have a very lively debate on this one.  Let's go back to the crux of it:  smaller houses don't pay for themselves according to Ms. Haskins.  Based on what data?  Are you sure that the data did not include ALL city services divided into the number of dwelling units on the tax roster?  If that is how they arrived at the conclusion, then I would suggest that the city has policies in conflict with one another.

I too would be interested in knowing the numbers used to arrive at such a conclusion. After all, the City also collects money in sales taxes, hotel taxes and taxes on undeveloped land that does not put any sort of burden on city services.

However, let's just give Ms. Haskins and the anti-small house crowd the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is true that, once sales taxes and such have been taken into consideration, properties with a lower tax value do not pull their full weight when it comes to paying for the balance of City expenses through their property taxes. If this is indeed the case, then what is the primary cause of the problem? Is it some inherent flaw with small houses? Or is it instead a problem with a tax system where every homeowner in the city pays the exact same tax rate percentage determined by figuring out what percent of all taxable properties in the city is needed to cover the cost of city services? Whenever you have such a system, the inevitable result is that some people will end up paying much more than they consume in city services while others will end up paying less. The question to me is, if this is considered a problem, isn't the answer to reform the property tax system so that the burden is more evenly distributed? Instead what they are attempting to do is simply try and outlaw lower value properties.

Also, notice something else: when it comes to Federal taxes the same "problem" exists only on a much more exaggerated and grotesque scale. The more one makes the more obscenely confiscatory one's tax rate becomes. At the same time, the number of people in this country with modest incomes who pay absolutely ZERO in Federal income taxes has grown significantly. Notice that the same people who decry the fact that some home owners don't pay their burden of property taxes rarely get upset about the fact that probably a far greater percentage of people pay nowhere near their "fair share" of income taxes. I suspect that there is a reason for this: When it comes to federal taxes, a "soak the rich" system is beneficial to politicians of a certain political persuasion because it enables them to play the class warfare card and buy the votes of some people with the money confiscated from their more productive fellow citizens. When it comes to local politics, however, the inadvertent "soak the rich" system which evolves when average property tax values are low is not considered desirable because the wealthy always have the option of locating to another city nearby where they will not be thusly "soaked."

[Dismuke]

Here is something to consider next time you hear people who claim that small houses are shoddy and that regulating lot sizes, house sizes and requiring certain amenities will improve the quality of housing in the city. If you stop and think about it, the results are likely to be quite the opposite. Anytime the government interferes with the marketplace, dislocations result causing additional problems. Just as the "War on Poverty" did not eliminate poverty (which, at one time in this country was, to a very large degree, a temporary condition that most people eventually rose out of) but rather institutionalized it and turned it into a permanent generational cycle, so too is a "War On Shoddy Houses" likely to achieve the exact opposite of its intentions.

Let's say that you are a builder whose target market is first time home buyers looking for houses in the $95,000 - $110,000 range. Let's say that the City passes a bunch of regulations requiring larger lots, larger floor plans and features such as porches or bay windows. All of these things have the effect of increasing the cost of building the house. The money for these extra costs has to come from somewhere. The only question is: where? Could it come from home buyers in the form of higher prices? Probably not because, in this case, we are primarily dealing with first time home buyers, most of whom are already stretching things pretty thin in order to be able to make the deal work. Raise prices on such houses too much and you probably have priced most of your customers out of the market. If you were such a home builder, you would be left with two choices: either you could give up the first time home buyer market and move on to something else ( for which there may not be much of a market) or you could try and find some way around the City regulations in order to make the houses affordable to potential buyers. If you can't raise prices, your only other alternative is to cut costs - and, short of innovations of technology or efficiency, the only way to do that is to cut quality. Thus, in order to pay for the larger lot size, the builder might use less expensive materials. In order to pay for the porch or bay window, the builder might use cheap veneer covered particle board for the kitchen and bathroom cabinets. To help offset the larger house size, the builder might use lower quality floor coverings, less sturdy doors, eliminate ornate molding around the ceilings, install less expensive ceiling fans and central air conditioners. Unless the city regulations are so draconian that they drive such home buyers out of the market altogether, the only result of such regulations will be to replace better built smaller houses on smaller lots with houses that are not as well built but which are larger and sit on larger lots.

Let's assume that the city regulations go so far that they actually price such home buyers out of the new home market (which, by the way, IS the purpose of such regulations in the first place). Earlier in this thread, Urbndwlr wrote:

Fort Worth simply does not have a shortage of affordable housing. It is very easy to find very inexpensive housing throughout the city. Sure, one might have to invest in a house in an existing neighborhood (usually a good thing for the community).

If such people are priced out of the new home market, what Urbndwlr describes will not be the case for very long. What will happen is that the supply of affordable housing in existing neighborhoods will become increasingly tight as the area continues to grow and more people move in from elsewhere. This, of course, will result in increasingly higher prices for the houses which are currently considered affordable. The result would be the sort of chronic housing shortages that plague other large cities on the east and west coasts where the cost of living is astronomical. Talk about a prescription for creating slums! And, of course, a higher cost of living will have a huge impact on how desirable our area will be in the eyes of individuals and companies considering where they want to move to.

Of course, there is another alternative that could happen if the city's regulations are passed and have the intended effect of destroying the affordable new housing market: In order to escape such regulations and the resultant higher prices for modest homes in older neighborhoods, people seeking affordable housing will be forced to go further out into places such as Parker, Johnson and Wise Counties where such artificial restrictions on the housing market do not exist. This, of course, will only add to the kind of "sprawl" that the same people who support the proposed regulations on builders routinely complain about on this Forum.

The fact of the matter is that, no matter how much the snobs of the world may wish otherwise, people of more modest means are not going to simply disappear from the face of the earth. Such people are absolutely no different than anyone here on this Forum in that most of them wish to improve their lot in life and find a place to live that they can call their own and be proud of. If you try and place obstacles in their path, they are going to do exactly what you and I would do in the face of similar obstacles: they will try and find a way around them. Outlaw small houses and they will find a way to afford a bigger house, even if it means giving up quality. Pass laws that make it impossible for them to afford a house in Fort Worth or its surrounding suburbs and they will move even further out and quite likely bring employers seeking to be near their workforce out with them. If you think the response to the proposed city regulations will be that current buyers of affordable new homes will just conveniently keep themselves out of sight like good little peasants in some out of the way section of town where they will ride the bus everywhere and remain content living in some dinky apartment for the rest of their lives - well, I wouldn't count on it if I were you.

[mosteijn]

That's horrible! I think the city should confine these new housing standards to the suburbs, perhaps everything outside of Loop 820. It seems a bit unrealistic and unfair to make everyone follow the same standards when not everyone wants to live in a suburb. The inner city should keep whatever guidlines it has, maybe even add new ones to PREVENT houses like this from going up. I kind of liked the idea of making new subdivisions follow stricter standards, but if they're going to be applied to the entire city, then I oppose them.

[Dismuke]

Fort Worth Weekly article on the housing standards issue:
http://www.fwweekly....html/page1.html

Excellent article. Thanks for posting it.

As I have said previously, the primary reason for the so-called "building standards" is so that self-appointed holier-than-thou elitist snobs can keep out working class people, blue collar types, "rednecks" and other groups that they look down their nose at. The other reason is because local politicians hope it will mean that they can get their grubby paws on more tax dollars to play with.

As I mentioned before, such "standards" have absolutely NOTHING to do with addressing issues of shoddy and poorly built houses. Obviously there is NOT a widespread problem of such houses being built in this area. It has been more than a MONTH since I posted my challenge for someone to name just ONE housing development in the area that is falling apart because of shoddy construction - and I have not received a single response in answer to it. Furthermore, this was the SECOND such challenge I have posted on this Forum. Nobody was able to provide me with an example the first time around either. I suspect that, if one were to look hard enough, such an example would eventually turn up. But if poor construction were the widespread problem that backers of this authoritarian nonsense claim it to be, then people here should have been able to cite several examples off the top of their heads. But, instead, nobody so far has named even just ONE example.

Furthermore, things such as house size, pitch of roof and masonry rather than wood siding have absolutely NOTHING to do with ending shody building practices. There are wooden houses that have been standing for centuries. High pitched roofs with lots of decorative gables are more prone to leaks and, therefore, expensive roof repairs than are the low pitched roofs of the older types of starter homes the elitist authoritarian snobs are trying to outlaw.

<begin rant>

Folks, can't you see what is going on here? WAKE UP, for god's sake. This is the United States of America - and here we have a bunch of do-gooder authoritarians trying to make it ILLEGAL for a person to buy a new home unless he makes a certain amount of money. Who the HELL has the right to tell other people that they may or may not buy a house on the open marketplace? Is this the proper function of government? This is nothing more than authoritarianism being sugar coated by a bunch of do-gooders with a smug "but it's for our own good." This is nothing more than statism, pure and simple. Is this the road we wish for our country to go down?

If you collectivist monsters who judge people not as individuals but by what socio-economic group they happen to belong to don't like blue collar people, "rednecks" or others you look down your noses at - well, you are free to hold your bigoted opinions. But you do not have the right to force them one anyone else - which is exactly what you seek to do. If you don't wish to live near such people - well then don't do so. There is no shortage of higher priced neighborhoods in this city where you can do just that. Live your pathetic, small-minded, bigoted lives however you wish - just mind your own bloody business and stop trying to use the police power of the State to interfere in the business and rights of peaceful individuals who have just as much right to live their own lives as they see fit as you do yours.

<end rant>

Now, the FW Weekly article mentions a low value home consuming $2,000 worth of services per year and only paying only $1,900 in taxes as an argument some are using to rationalize these "standards." Well, let's consider that for a moment.

Isn't the solution to this "problem" pretty obvious? All you have to do is raise that household's taxes by $100 instead of forcing them to pay thousands of dollars extra on the price of a new home.

Why would the fact that some households do not pay their share of the property tax burden be considered a problem in the first place? Isn't the ONLY rational answer the fact that owners of higher valued property are subsidizing the city services of those with lower value property? I personally think that such an inequity IS a problem - but there is next to NO evidence I have seen that the authoritarian do-gooder types, in fact, do consider it to be a problem. If someone genuinely considered such inequities to be a problem and wanted to do something about it, he would not be going around trying to impose building "standards" on people. Instead, he would out there advocating a MAJOR overhaul of our Federal income tax system where such inequities are VASTLY more evident. How much in income taxes does a working class or middle class family with lots of kids pay these days? Now compare that to someone of similar income who does not have kids or someone who makes lots of money. The degree to which the highly productive (i.e. have high incomes) in this country subsidize the tax burden of everyone else is obscene - and the more productive you are the more obscene it gets. Any inequities in our property tax system are absolutely NOTHING compared to what is going on and has been going on with our Federal tax system for a very long time. Since I haven't heard a single word of complaint about the Federal tax system being voiced by the do-gooders (indeed, many of the do-gooder types support just such a system when it comes to Federal taxes), it is very safe to say that the issue of property tax inequities is little more than a convenient rationalization. It, along with the nonsense about being concerned about shoddy builders, is mere cover for their real motives - which they know very well would be political suicide to reveal openly and honestly.

In addition to the do-gooders, there are the politicians who hope that by increasing average property values they will end up with more tax money to spend on their all so important "visions" about such things as city owned hotel schemes and providing subsidies to developers to knock holes in historic buildings. And, for politicians, more money ultimately means more power. Why is it more of a perk to be a council person in Fort Worth than, say, in a place such as Benbrook? Apart from the visibility, one obvious answer is the fact that the larger budget with its wider scope means that they wield much more power. Next time you hear one of the city politicians say that they support these "standards" because it will bring in more tax revenue, ask yourselves this: Does the government exist to serve the citizens - or is it the other way around? The answer the politicians are, in fact, giving when say this is the latter. What they are saying is that individual rights, which include property rights and the right of each individual to make his own lifestyle choices, need to be subordinated by force to the fiscal needs and desires of local politicians.

The issue at stake is not housing quality or whether some neighborhoods will become slums a half century from now. The issue is FREEDOM - and those who support these "standards" are thoroughly hostile to it. Maybe such laws do not personally impact everyone who is reading this. Maybe you already own a home. Maybe you can already afford a house well beyond the proposed minimum "standards." And maybe you don't particularly care about or even like blue collar types. Well, it is still your battle. Individual rights and freedom are indivisible. An attack on someone else's individual rights is, by implication, an attack on your own. If you value your freedom and your own hard earned private property, if you do not want a bunch of do-gooder would-be thugs to someday gain influence over the police power of the state in order to dictate to YOU how you may or may not live your own life, then this IS your battle too.

[hipolyte]

Dismuke and I have disagreed on many topics, often by mere degrees. However, here I agree with almost everything Dismuke has said.
The one point overlooked is that these so called 'undesirables' are absolutely necessary to the daily operation of the city. Who do they think is picking up the trash, mowing the lawns, checking out the groceries, filling the cups of coffee at Starbucks.
It's no accident that just down the street from old opulent neighborhoods there were rows of shotgun houses.
There is no longer a servant class, but there is still a 'service' sector. The ones who would disavow these good solid working citizens are the first ones who would scream when their coffee is slow in forthcoming, because some worker bee's 20 year old car has broken down on their 30 mile commute from the place where they have been hidden from view.
The one point where we diverge(Dismuke and I) is the comments on 'soak the rich' taxation. The truly rich are not being 'soaked'. That's only the great middle class, lower, upper, and between.

[Urbndwlr]

Dis, perhaps you haven’t received a response because so few of us are willing to read through your entire comments. They are a bit lengthy and tend to include many redundancies.

Your question was somewhat loaded, you have to admit. You asked us to name examples of housing where the houses are run down because of poor construction, not because “they were not properly maintained”. How do you draw the line between homes constructed of poor materials and those that have been poorly maintained? It would be very easy to accuse the homeowner of any run down house of neglecting to maintain their home. The problem is that many homes are constructed in manners that lead to their aging very poorly. When many inner-ring suburbs (built 10-25 yrs ago) begin to show signs of age, a significant portion of their residents decide to “dump” their houses and buy newer ones, farther out, rather than invest in their existing neighborhood because they feel that the homes in the neighborhood will simply fall apart and that the neighborhood “is on the way downhill”). Thus begins the viscious cycle of our disposable neighborhoods.

I am aware that when the first homeowner sells his/her house, they are making a home available to another party at a cheaper price. The problem is that these homes are not designed to last more than 20 years. Why? I suspect the answer is that initial buyers are 1) snowed by the tract homebuilding industry’s marketing and sales campaigns and 2) only interested in keeping homes for a few years and the residual values do not feel as significant to them as the initial costs of the homes.

When a home is thrown together with the cheapest possible materials and new neighborhoods and neighbors can be counted on to exit the neighborhood in 5-20 years rather than continue to invest in and maintain their home and neighborhood, what incentive is there for an individual homeowner to put forth the time and money to maintain his/her home that begins falling apart at age 20? None.

We need to build more sustainable neighborhoods. I agree that the proposed housing standards do miss the target, however we do need something. In my proposal above, I suggest targeting specific building materials that are proven (or strongly suspected) to be non-durable. It is really a consumer-protection mechanism.

Prohibiting garages from facing streets is simply wise urban design that produces more attractive streetscapes.

I understand where Dis is coming from with his hypothesis that the standards are an attempt to gentrify the city, however I think he is at most partly correct.
Those who would be adversely affected would be consumers who wish to purchase the bare-minimum cheapest new home that offers the cheapest possible materials and construction. I argue that such a protective mechanism will ultimately protect those consumers from purchasing homes that will cause them to lose much of their investment in their home and saddle them with high maintenance costs of replacing the non-durable materials.

A few examples of neighborhoods that feature poorly built homes that are aging poorly because of their poor construction and/or materials.

1) I don’t know its name, however it is a subsection of Arlington Heights. Check out the difference between the houses around Harley and Owasso versus the homes at Frederick and Lafayette. The former features siding-covered homes that have essentially all become rent houses. The later is a street lined with brick homes built around the same era. Drive around those streets – you will see the noticeable difference between blocks.

2) I don’t head down there much, but far southwest FW has some great examples for you as well.

3) Ridgmar. Those homes were in MUCH better shape in the early 80’s than they are now – and that neighborhood has definitely not suffered from lack of investment. Just poor construction (Frank Talley built most of it I believe).

[Dismuke]

[quote name='Urbndwlr' date='Jul 13 2004, 12:58 AM']Dis, perhaps you haven’t received a response because so few of us are willing to read through your entire comments. [/quote]
Really? How would you know how many people read my postings? Have you conducted a survey or something?

Regardless, whatever opinions you may have about my writing style, they are utterly irrelevant to the validity of the points that I put forward. And, quite frankly, I couldn't care less whether you read my postings or not.

[quote]Your question was somewhat loaded, you have to admit. [/quote]

Well, actually - no, I don't have to admit.

My question is completely valid and appropriate. Advocates of the proposed "standards" claim that there is a widespread problem in this town of builders putting up small homes that are shoddy and which, in your words, will "simply fall apart." It is entirely valid, proper and highly relevant to ask such people to back up their assertions with specific examples.

As to why I made distinction between houses that are poorly built and houses that are falling apart because of a lack of maintenance - well, I think the reason should be pretty obvious to most people. Obviously maintenance is a crucial factor. ANY house will very quickly start to fall apart if it is not properly maintained or is subjected to unreasonable abuse - and there are neighborhoods where exactly that has occurred. It is hardly the fault of the builders if the occupants of the house do not take proper care of it.


[quote]How do you draw the line between homes constructed of poor materials and those that have been poorly maintained?[/quote]

Well, that line is very easy to draw. Any structure has certain components - mostly mechanical systems and the things which are designed to protect it from the elements - that are eventually going to wear out and need replacing. The shingles on a roof will usually need to be replaced every 15 - 20 years or so - and even more frequently when they are subjected to large hail. If a house has wood siding or trim, it will need to be repainted - I don't know, perhaps every 10 years or so. Things such as air conditioning/heating systems and water heaters have a finite period of time that they can be expected to last. Plumbing systems should last for many decades - but eventually they will begin to deteriorate and will need repairs and/or replacement. Unless a house is made entirely of concrete, the home owner needs to be on guard against termites. If home owners don't take care of such things, any house will deteriorate. That's not the builder's fault. So long as such things are taken care of a house should last hundreds of years.

A house constructed of poor materials or shoddy workmanship would be a house where the roof leaks after a few years despite the fact that the shingles are still in great shape. Or it could be a house that gets water damage around the foundation and/or leaks around the floors because the builder failed to ensure that water drains away from and not towards the house. It would be a house where the mechanical systems break down before their normal lifetime. It would be a house where things such as doors and siding start falling off under normal usage. In short, it would be a house where things start wearing out before their normal lifespan is up or things that shouldn't fall apart do fall apart.

[quote]1) I don’t know its name, however it is a subsection of Arlington Heights. Check out the difference between the houses around Harley and Owasso versus the homes at Frederick and Lafayette. The former features siding-covered homes that have essentially all become rent houses.[/quote]

How do you know that they are rent houses? Besides, so what if they are? What have you got against people renting houses?

[quote] The later is a street lined with brick homes built around the same era. Drive around those streets – you will see the noticeable difference between blocks. [/quote]

Well, thank you for being the first person to at least attempt to provide a specific example.

I drove through that neighborhood this afternoon - but I am not sure that it in any way advances your point. In fact, I think it does quite the opposite.

I drove up and down several streets in the area you mentioned and the worst that I could find was a couple of houses where the paint was starting to peel. There was one small house where the shingles looked to be in pretty bad shape. They may or may not be currently leaking - but they will be if they are not replaced fairly soon. I saw a couple of yards that were rather unkempt. None of these things are the fault of the builders. On balance, the vast majority of the houses look like they are in good shape and have been maintained. I could not find a single example of a house that was anywhere near "falling apart." When one considers that most of the houses in that area are between 50 and 60 years old with a small number mixed in that are up to 80 years old, I would say that they have aged very well.

Now, if by making the comparison to the 1920s brick bungalows further west in Arlington Heights you are suggesting that the brick houses are better built than the modest wooden houses closer to Montgomery - well, there's no doubt that is the case. But to cite the existence of other houses that are better built in no way advances the case that the houses near Montgomery are badly built. If by saying that the 1920s bungalows have "aged" better you mean that they are more attractive from an aesthetic standpoint - well, that has been the case ever since the more modest houses were brand new. Aesthetics cost money - and the 1920s neighborhoods in Arlington Heights were built for a more affluent crowd than were the post World War II houses near Montgomery. But the fact that the wooden houses are modest in their design does not mean that they are badly built.

So unfortunately, your example does not support the claim that modest, inexpensive houses are shoddily built and fall apart after 20 years. Those houses have been around much longer than 20 years and they show no signs that I could see of falling apart.

As to the other examples given:
[quote]2) I don’t head down there much, but far southwest FW has some great examples for you as well.

3) Ridgmar. Those homes were in MUCH better shape in the early 80’s than they are now – and that neighborhood has definitely not suffered from lack of investment. Just poor construction (Frank Talley built most of it I believe). [/quote]

I appreciate and thank you for the attempt to provide these additional examples - but I am afraid I am going to have to ask you to please be more specific than that. "Ridgmar" and "far southwest FW" each encompass quite a bit of territory. I am afraid the burden is not on me to drive down street after street trying to figure out what you are referring to. If you will provide me with specific intersections like you did in the other example, I will be glad to drive out and take a look. And if you don't recall the specific intersections, well if I am willing to take the time and effort to look, then you might consider doing likewise if you are interested in making your point.

[quote]When many inner-ring suburbs (built 10-25 yrs ago) begin to show signs of age, a significant portion of their residents decide to “dump” their houses and buy newer ones, farther out, rather than invest in their existing neighborhood because they feel that the homes in the neighborhood will simply fall apart and that the neighborhood “is on the way downhill”). Thus begins the viscious cycle of our disposable neighborhoods.
[/quote]

Once again, I ask you to please provide me with a specific example of such a neighborhood. Your one attempt so far of doing so is of modest inner city neighborhood that is over a half century old and is NOT falling apart.

By the way, the statistic usually quoted is that most homeowners, on average, move every 5 to 7 years - and it has nothing to do with houses falling apart. People move because they change jobs or because their incomes rise and they are able to afford a nicer house. That is hardly the same thing as "dumping" a house.

It is probably true that the turnover rate is higher for neighborhoods of starter homes because a higher percentage of such buyers are moving in an upwardly mobile direction than are the people in more expensive neighborhoods, many of whom have already "peaked" in terms of their earning potential and/or housing ambitions. This has nothing to do with construction quality. And if you wish to label this as an example of people regarding houses as "disposable" - then so be it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people wanting to make such upgrades and, if they choose to do so, it is not any of your business nor is it the government's.

Also, how does new people moving in translate into a neighborhood being "on the way downhill"? It sounds to me like a neighborhood would qualify as having gone "downhill" in your book the very instant that blue collar and working class types start to enter the picture.


[quote] am aware that when the first homeowner sells his/her house, they are making a home available to another party at a cheaper price. The problem is that these homes are not designed to last more than 20 years. [/quote]

Again, show me a house that is not designed to last more than 20 years. Heck, these days, even many mobile homes are designed to last that long.

[quote]I suspect the answer is that initial buyers are 1) snowed by the tract homebuilding industry’s marketing and sales campaigns[/quote]

Translation: people are too stupid to understand what is in their own self-interest and to make wise decisions on their own behalf when they are buying houses so we need a bunch of do-gooders and politicians to make those choices for them. And if a person wishes to choose otherwise, any builder who offers such choices will be regarded as a criminal.

Question: exactly how does requiring houses to have higher pitched roofs, making it illegal for them to be under so many square feet or to have garages that face the street protect people from dishonest marketing tactics?

[quote]2) only interested in keeping homes for a few years and the residual values do not feel as significant to them as the initial costs of the homes.
[/quote]

Translation: I disapprove of other people's priorities so I am going to ask the government to impose my priorities on them by force.


[quote]When a home is thrown together with the cheapest possible materials and new neighborhoods and neighbors can be counted on to exit the neighborhood in 5-20 years rather than continue to invest in and maintain their home and neighborhood, what incentive is there for an individual homeowner to put forth the time and money to maintain his/her home that begins falling apart at age 20? None.
[/quote]

In addition to providing me with an example of a neighborhood that is falling apart at age 20 because of a flaw inherent with the houses, please answer the following:

1) How does requiring a higher pitched roof prevent a house from falling apart more quickly? If one were really concerned about neighborhoods falling apart, wouldn't the option of being able to buy one with a lower pitched roof make more sense as they are much less expensive to repair and maintain? What purpose does such a law serve other than to prevent "undesirables" from being able to afford to buy a home?

2) How does making it illegal for a house to be under a certain size prevent it from falling apart? If one were really concerned about neighborhoods falling apart, wouldn't the option of being able to buy a smaller house make more sense? Isn't a smaller house less expensive to maintain? Wouldn't the existence of smaller homes enable quality conscious home buyers on a budget to make the choice of quality over size? What purpose does such a law serve other than to prevent "undesirables" from buying a house?

3) You advocate making it illegal for a garage to face the street. How does this prevent a house from falling apart? Isn't this merely your own aesthetic preference? What right to you have to ask the government to impose your aesthetic preferences on others by force?

4) You think stucco exteriors should be outlawed. You also seem to disapprove of wood siding, apparently because it requires more maintenance than does masonry thereby opening the door to the possibility that somebody might refuse to paint it when it comes time to do so. But the vast majority of homes in this city with stucco or wood exteriors - even ones in working class neighborhoods - are in good condition because their owners have properly maintained them. Question: Are you suggesting that, because of the irresponsibility of a few, the government should come in and limit the choices of everyone - including those who are responsible?

5) Can you not see the authoritarian premises upon which these proposed "standards" as well as the specific regulations that you advocate rest? Do you consider individual rights and freedom to be important? Or do you consider them to be subordinate to your opinions of what the city ought to look like and how people ought to live their own private lives?

[quote]We need to build more sustainable neighborhoods. [/quote]

And what if people through the marketplace decide that they don't want such neighborhoods? Does the fact that you want it give you the right to ask the government to force it down everyone else's throats?

[quote] Those who would be adversely affected would be consumers who wish to purchase the bare-minimum cheapest new home that offers the cheapest possible materials and construction. I argue that such a protective mechanism will ultimately protect those consumers from purchasing homes that will cause them to lose much of their investment in their home and saddle them with high maintenance costs of replacing the non-durable materials.

[/quote]

Really?

"Gee, Mr. and Mrs. Joe Sixpack, but you are just going to have to continue living in that noisy overpriced apartment complex. People in your income bracket are too stupid to make responsible decisions about how to invest their own money. If left to your own devices, you would probably go out and do something dumb like buying a house with a garage that faces the street. You might even choose to buy a house that has wood siding and composite shingles thereby saddling yourself with high maintenance costs. How do you know that you will be able to afford to paint a house 10 years from now? How do you know that you will be able to afford to hire a roofer to shingle the house in 20 years? And what if you end up living next door to someone who cannot afford to paint or shingle his house? Or what would happen if your neighbors decided to "dump" their house just when it needs to be painted for the first time and a bunch of -ugghhhhh - renters - move in next door? What? You are already living next to a bunch of renters in the apartment complex? Well....uhhhh.....uhhhhh..... Well, as I was saying, your moral superiors have decided to pass laws to prevent you from making such decisions. They know what is best for you. Call it a "protective mechanism" for your own good. Besides, whenever folks like you move into a neighborhood, it ends up going downhill. That doesn't help promote the image of our city as being a place occupied by white collar professionals. People like you need to know your place in this world and stay out of sight in the boundaries of your existing neighborhoods and just do as you are told by those of us who know what's best for you. "

[Urbndwlr]

Now, if by making the comparison to the 1920s brick bungalows further west in Arlington Heights you are suggesting that the brick houses are better built than the modest wooden houses closer to Montgomery - well, there's no doubt that is the case. But to cite the existence of other houses that are better built in no way advances the case that the houses near Montgomery are badly built. If by saying that the 1920s bungalows have "aged" better you mean that they are more attractive from an aesthetic standpoint - well, that has been the case ever since the more modest houses were brand new.
- Dis

You're getting warmer, Dis. There is a distinct difference between the two sets of houses. And, you can tell the houses closer to Montgomery are rent houses by all of the "FOR RENT" signs throughout those streets, and the relative lack thereof on the streets to the west.

Question: exactly how does requiring houses to have higher pitched roofs, making it illegal for them to be under so many square feet or to have garages that face the street protect people from dishonest marketing tactics? – Dis

Entirely different issues. Certifying builders is designed to protect against deceptive marketing tactics, not architectural standards. I presume the architectural standards are an attempt to keep our new neighborhoods from looking like Levittown.

4) You think stucco exteriors should be outlawed. You also seem to disapprove of wood siding, apparently because it requires more maintenance than does masonry thereby opening the door to the possibility that somebody might refuse to paint it when it comes time to do so. – Dis

Wrong – I think a certain TYPE of stucco, called EIFS, should be outlawed. I have no problem (and never said I did) with siding or wood. I only have a problem with it when non-durable variations (sorry, I don’t know brands) are used to cut corners, resulting in premature deterioration. I wish we had more quality wood and stucco homes in Fort Worth. And NO, I’m not making a social comment there.

Check it out: http://www.kinsella.com/eifs/
http://www.stuccosettlement.com/


Again, show me a house that is not designed to last more than 20 years. - Dis

http://www.choicehomes.com/

By the way, who said that 20 years is a sufficient life span of a home? My concern of our city’s future extends far beyond a 20 year time horizon.

You advocate making it illegal for a garage to face the street. How does this prevent a house from falling apart? Isn't this merely your own aesthetic preference? What right to you have to ask the government to impose your aesthetic preferences on others by force? - Dis

I would support a code or requirement of some sort that requires garages to face a rear (alley ideally), or otherwise be screened or hidden from view in some way from the street. This is not an unreasonable requirement. Witness streets (throughout North Texas) which are lined with houses with prominent garages facing the streets compared with those that have them facing rear alleys or recessed behind the house to the rear. Individuals can always request variances if they have special circumstances.


And if you wish to label this as an example of people regarding houses as "disposable" - then so be it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people wanting to make such upgrades and, if they choose to do so, it is not any of your business nor is it the government's. - Dis

Actually, as a neighbor of a homeowner who is disinterested in the long-term value of his/her home and neighborhood, I DO have a vested interest. My home value is affected by that neighbor’s.

Additionally, I would agree with you that it would be more palatable for our society to have “disposable” neighborhoods if land was an infinite resource. It is, however, not in infinite supply so we, as a society, should take reasonable care to use it as respectfully as possible.

…..
You have twisted and distorted so many of my other comments. I would love to address each and debate you on individual points, but I don’t have the time.

I will conclude with a couple of comments on the themes I've noticed in your posts:

1) There appears to be one key flaw in many of the assumptions on which your economic theories are based: You ignore transaction costs and the externalities perpetrated by property owners. That would explain why you think any controls whatsoever on development only limit the liberties of the land owner.

2) You seem very bitter toward people who are well to do, and consistently suggest that they are selfish, even evil people. This bitterness casts a cloud that hangs over your otherwise well-though out comments. Hey, it is your right to be bitter – just constructive criticism for you.

[normanfd]

2) You seem very bitter toward people who are well to do, and consistently suggest that they are selfish, even evil people. This bitterness casts a cloud that hangs over your otherwise well-though out comments. Hey, it is your right to be bitter – just constructive criticism for you.

It seems to me, Urbndwlr, that you haven't paid that much attention to Dismuke's previous posts. In most of his previous commentary on this forum, it's fair to conlude that he is NOT an anti-elitist. He even has spoken to quite some length advocating a regressive restruturing of property taxation, a position that I suspect most GOP officeholders who desire reelection would not dare speak publicly even in our state's conservative political climate.

Having said that, I'll say that this personal and unwarranted attack is the low point of your argument in the debate betweeen you two; nevertheless, I find both of your discussions very interesting.

[Dismuke]

2)  You seem very bitter toward people who are well to do, and consistently suggest that they are selfish, even evil people.  This bitterness casts a cloud that hangs over your otherwise well-though out comments.  Hey, it is your right to be bitter – just constructive criticism for you.

Thank you for your reply. I will respond to all of the other points you raised when I have the time to do so. However, I will take a moment to respond to the above because it is so utterly bizarre and far from the truth.

If I am bitter towards people who are well-to-do, then why have I put up so many postings staunchly opposed to "soak the rich" tax schemes? Why have I characterized the welfare state and leftist economic policies as being motivated by envy and a nihilistic desire on the part of the non-productive and those politicians who pander to them to loot and enslave the productive and successful?

I have absolutely nothing but respect and admiration for people who are productive and successful. Far from considering such people to be "evil" I consider productivity - and its result, wealth - to be a virtue. Nor do I suggest that such people are "selfish" in the sense that you mean by that word. I consider "selfish" to mean "self interest" and I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with being concerned with one's self-interest. In fact, I think that every person should be concerned with their own self-interest. I think the world would be a far better place if people spent their time looking after their own self-interest rather than butting their noses into everyone else's business.

I will tell you what I am bitter towards...... No, "bitter" is your word and not particularly accurate. "Contempt" is a better word. I will tell you what I have contempt for:

I have contempt for snobs. I have contempt for people who pass collective judgments on individuals based on what socio-economic group they belong to. I have contempt for people who put up postings on this Forum advocating making it illegal to open a chain restaurant in downtown Fort Worth because it would attract - and I am using your words here, "rednecks." I have contempt for people who go so far as to put up a posting openly wishing for either a tornado or an accidental bomb drop from an airplane at Carswell to wipe out neighborhoods in White Settlement because, as such neighborhoods are now, no large company would be interested in locating there. I remember that posting well - it was one among the first that I responded to on this forum. In fact, the posting was so outrageous, it had to be removed.

Above all, I have nothing but contempt for self appointed do-gooder busybodies who think they know what is best for everybody else and seek to use the police power of the government to impose by force their personal preferences on everyone else. The fact that you equate that contempt - which I have expressed openly and candidly on this Forum for a very long time - as being "bitterness towards people who are well to do" demonstrates that you either haven't been paying attention to or are incapable of grasping what I have been saying.

Unlike you (as demonstrated by your postings), I don't really pay that much attention to people's socio-economic status. I judge people as individuals. I have had friends who have been very wealthy and those who have been very poor. How much money a person does or does not have is really none of my business and makes very little difference in my life one way or another.

[Doug]

Thanks, GHUGHES, for the PDF link.

[mschrief]

Dismuke, your last post was one of the best I've ever read on this forum.

I, too, have contempt for those who are turning downtown Fort Worth into a place where only the elite and well-to-do will be welcomed.

Downtown has changed so much in the last five years.....the diversity has dimnished......no more Caravan of Dreams, CoffeeHaus, Whatburger, places where people actually enjoyed going and could be themselves.

I would love a couple of fast food restaurants, housing that the average person could afford (under $800 a month, please), reliable stores (Gap, etc.), a music venue where you could let your hair down and have fun, and a more accepting attitude towards the average working person.

The expensive condos and apartments, expensive restaurants and snazzy bars, who are their customers? The elite of Fort Worth. Average folk like me are being run out of town, as it were, because we are feeling we don't fit in.

[hipolyte]

Yes, downtown Fort Worth is beginning to have a certain sort of 'Logan's Run' feeling to it. Anything or anyone not rich, beautiful, and young will be eliminated.[I]
And with the new housing standards, they are seeking to extend that friendly feeling throughout the city. Or at least some of the statements made would give that indication.
And folks, please remember that this is a forum for civil discussion, and maintain a level of decorum at least to the standards set by the Vice President of the United States.
And as for soaking the rich, personally, I feel it's the middleclass that's being soaked to the brink of extinction.
"From those to whom much has been given, much shall be required." JFK
The only truly rich person I know has that line engraved on the wall.

[Dismuke]

Dismuke, your last post was one of the best I've ever read on this forum.

Well, gee....thank you so very much. You made me blush!

Also, thank you normanfd for pointing out the facts about the positions I have taken in previous postings. I very much appreciate having someone besides myself setting the record straight on this particular point.

I do intend to make good on my promise to rebut the other points that were raised. These past few weeks have been extremely hectic and busy for me. I have not had time to follow the Forum all that closely let alone to put up postings.

Downtown has changed so much in the last five years.....the diversity has dimnished......no more Caravan of Dreams, CoffeeHaus, Whatburger, places where people actually enjoyed going and could be themselves.

I would love a couple of fast food restaurants, housing that the average person could afford (under $800 a month, please), reliable stores (Gap, etc.), a music venue where you could let your hair down and have fun, and a more accepting attitude towards the average working person.

I agree completely. A REAL big city downtown is a place of remarkable diversity. That is largely lacking in downtown Fort Worth which is still in a relatively early phase of its long road back towards the vitality and relevance it once had. Right now, it is still mostly a tourist trap/entertainment district - which is absolutely fine and certainly preferable to the decline and decay of a couple of decades ago. But in downtown's heyday, EVERYBODY came downtown - including the sorts of people that some seek to exclude from the city via laws prohibiting certain types of houses (not to mention wishing for malevolent and violent acts to conveniently remove such houses from public view). If only "low lifes" shopped at Montgomery Ward......well, I sure would hate to see what the people who shopped at less prestigious stores downtown such as Kress, Woolworth and Everybody's (a discount outlet operated by Leonards) would somehow be classified as.

[Dismuke]

Interesting. I'm a bit of a people watcher (not professionaly, mind you) and I've always felt there was a decent mix downtown. Not as diverse as it could be or will be, but I think that will come.

I don't necessarily disagree with this. If one goes downtown on a busy evening, one is going to see a rather diverse lot walking the streets. The crowd tends to be mostly younger people - but one sees older people as well. If nothing else, the movie theatres draw people in from a wide variety of demographic groups.

My comment on a lack of diversity was made in the context of mschrief's posting regarding the diversity available to those who wish to do more than simply go there to work or get together with friends.

Take restaurants, for example. Where are the fast food joints? Let's say you are by yourself and want to get a quick bite to eat. Sure, there are casual places such as Mia Cocina and Razoos, both of which I enjoy. But neither is going to be especially quick and sometimes the staff in such places kind of looks at you funny if you go in by yourself. (That certainly doesn't stop me - I couldn't care less what they think. But I have known quite a few people who, for whatever reason, feel a bit intimidated when people look at them funny). And even if you have the time for it, you are not going to get out of either place for under $10. That's not a big deal for some people - but it sure is for others and there was a time in my life when it would have been a big deal to me. Let's see..... one can go to the Corner Bakery or La Madelene. I enjoy both places - but I usually go there if I am downtown during the day and want to get something to drink or perhaps a snack. But you are not going to get much in the way of a substantial meal at either unless you are willing to order multiple items - in which case you are probably better off to a full service restaurant from a price standpoint. There is a fast food hamburger place that I have never been to in the old Whataburger building. Next door is a pizza-by-the-slice place that was very good the one time I went there. So there are a few options for people in such a situation - but not many and they would get old very quickly. Look at it this way - I work in an out of the way section of Irving and I have a vastly greater array of lunchtime dining options at both ends of the price spectrum available to me there than I would if I worked in downtown Fort Worth.

Take shopping. Well, ever since the Eckerds closed virtually everything besides the Barnes & Noble and the Walgreen's on the edge of downtown is pretty much targeted towards tourists.

As for living downtown - well, the rents certainly aren't cheap. And those who are looking for something within that price range aren't going to get a whole lot for their money when it comes to space. For example, here's something from a recent article about the Transport Life Building conversion to apartments:

Lofts will range from 582 square feet for a one-bedroom, one-bath unit to 1,653 square feet for a two-bedroom, two-bath unit; most will be between 1,300 and 1,400 square feet. Finley said rents will be upward of $2 per foot.

So they are saying that a 582 square foot apartment is going to cost around $1,164 per months? Well, for that kind of money, that's downright tiny. Of course, not everyone is a pack rat like I am and has thousands upon thousands of 78 rpm records. But I have a hard time imagining someone dropping that kind of money on a place so small when one can get so much more for the same amount of money elsewhere. Of course, there are some whose financial situation is such that the cost of an apartment rental is a relatively small percentage of their income and/or assets and for whom the price per square foot is but a minor consideration. So I don't have as hard a time seeing someone willing to pay $2,800 per month for 1,400 square feet. But I have a hard time figuring out why someone in such a position would wish to be cramped into 582 square feet of space.

As things are today, the only real advantage I can see of living in downtown would be if one works there as well. Being able to walk to work and having the extra time as a result of not having to commute is wonderful. But for someone like myself who works elsewhere and commutes, I think much of the novelty would wear off very quickly. Having the restaurants and nightlife close by might be nice at first for some - but they will start to grow old. How many nights of the week do most people go to such places anyway once they have outgrown the novelty of being able to do so? Sure, downtown now has a certain amount of hustle and bustle on its street at night. But the vast majority of it comes from visitors from other parts of the Metroplex who will leave within a few hours. Sure - one does have the neat old buildings and the skyscrapers nearby and perhaps even in view from one's window. For me at least, that aspect would never grow old. But is it enough to make up for having to live in an apartment that is not as desirable in terms of amenities as I could easily get for the same money in an apartment or even a house a few miles away? People move downtown hoping to experience a taste of the kind of lifestyle that is possible in places such as New York City - and end up discovering that they still have to get in the car and drive elsewhere in order to buy a roll of toilet paper, grab a Big Mac, purchase cat litter and countless other things that most people do on a daily basis.

I think mschrief's point is that there are a lot of people of average income out there who probably would enjoy living a more urban lifestyle but who are simply not willing to take the hit in their standard of living and give up the conveniences that "ordinary" people in the suburbs take for granted. That's why apart from the stupid hole in the Montgomery Ward Building I have no problem at all with the sort of retail stores the development is attracting and actually view that aspect of the project as a positive. If one really wants a genuine urban environment to emerge in Fort Worth, there has to be a certain amount of "critical mass" in order for that to happen. And, quite frankly, there simply are not enough prosperous young professionals and older empty nesters as a percentage of the population for such people to create that critical mass. To achieve it, one must draw in a wider base - including people who shop at places such as Target and Ross because that's all they can afford and who consider occasionally taking their kids to places such as McDonalds, Panchos or CiCi's to be a treat and not some form of "slumming." Despite their claims to the contrary and regardless as to whether they actually realize it or not, those who don't want such people and such establishments coming anywhere near downtown are not particularly interested in creating a genuine urban environment in Fort Worth. What they are more interested in creating is the plastic picture-book perfect Walt Disney version.

Of course, as of right now, there is a proven market out there for such a Walt Disney version - so that's what we mostly have. It remains to be seen whether or not there exists a potential market for the real thing. It is possible that there isn't such a market. That's ultimately a private lifestyle matter for each individual living in and moving to the area to decide for him or herself - or for those investors who might find it worthwhile to try and create such a market. I personally would enjoy seeing something like that emerge in Fort Worth. But if it doesn't - well, it is none of my business if other people choose to live their lives otherwise. The city government should be completely neutral about its citizens' lifestyle choices and should neither encourage nor discourage such things one way or another.

All of these comments probably dovetail better with other threads. But at least here they remain in context. Nor are they entirely inappropriate in a thread about housing standards. As I have mentioned, such "standards" are nothing more than a way of using governmental force to price certain demographic groups out of the city. I think for the same reason that diversity is beneficial to downtown it is also beneficial on a city wide basis as well. "Big city" and "diversity" always go hand in hand.

[Dismuke]

Ok - before I put up my promised reply to Urbndwlr's posting, I need to make a clarification and apology.

I said:

I have contempt for people who put up postings on this Forum advocating making it illegal to open a chain restaurant in downtown Fort Worth because it would attract - and I am using your words here, "rednecks."

I finally located that posting and Urbndwlr never actually advocated making it illegal to open such restaurants. He did indeed refer to people who go to such restaurants as "rednecks" and expressed his concern that such restaurants would attract a crowd to downtown that he considers to be less than desirable and which would cause damage to the city's image. While I consider that to be a blighted, bigoted and, yes, contemptuous, point of view, he is certainly entitled to his opinions on the matter. But he never did advocate making such restaurants illegal and indeed very explicitly stated that such restaurants do have a right to compete for business. His only call for action was to encourage those who think likewise to avoid patronizing such restaurants - which is a valid form of activism on such matters and those of us who disagree are free to ignore it.

Around the time that the posting was made, there was a thread on this forum about making such restaurants illegal in downtown - and I guess my memory blurred his statements expressing mere dislike for such restaurants with those who would go one step further and actually outlaw them. And as offensive as I found his statements on the matter to be, there is a huge distinction between those who merely express them and those who would seek to implement them at gunpoint - which Urbndwlr clearly stated he was not advocating. So my apologies for my fuzzy memory and my mischaracterization on this one very specific point.

[Dismuke]

Here is my promised reply to Urbndwlr's posting that I have had to put off for a couple of weeks due to my being so busy.

I am going to begin with the one thing that Urbndwlr has said so far that has at least some element of validity to it:

[quote]Actually, as a neighbor of a homeowner who is disinterested in the long-term value of his/her home and neighborhood, I DO have a vested interest. My home value is affected by that neighbor’s. [/quote]

True enough, as a home owner you do indeed have a potential vested interest in what your neighbors do with their property. YOUR neighbors. Not somebody else's neighbors and certainly not the neighbors of someone who lives in a neighborhood miles away from you on the other side of town.

As to where your vested interests with your neighbors begin and end - well, that depends on a number of factors. Any time you have a number of property owners in close proximity to one another there exists the potential for conflict between the various parties over their desire to use their property in ways that are incompatible with one another. But that doesn't give one license to throw individual rights out the window and impose a bunch of authoritarian rules on everyone to be enforced by the police power of the State.

People aren't stupid helpless waifs incapable of solving their own problems without the assistance of a gun wielding politician or do-gooder. There are plenty of voluntary, contractual ways for people to work such problems out before they even arise. For example, deed restrictions and home owners associations are more than capable of dealing with the kinds of matters we are discussing here. And for those occasional instances when such potential conflicts are not identified ahead of time, that's why we have a court system. Furthermore, to a very large degree, such issues are often worked out by nothing more than the operation of the free market. Deed restrictions or no deed restrictions, those who live in places such as Colleyville, Southlake or Westover Hills almost never have to worry about someone building an inexpensive starter home on the empty lot next door. The economics don't make sense - and that fact alone helps perpetuate the characteristics of such neighborhoods.

It is important to keep in mind that there is a definite limit on how far one can impose obligations on one's neighbors in the name of protecting one's property value. A homeowner does NOT have some sort of inherent entitlement to a high property valuation. For example, this entitlement notion was used for many decades to rationalize the existence of legally enforced racial segregation. The argument used to be made that, whenever people of color moved into a neighborhood, white people no longer wanted to live there resulting in a drop in property values. The lower property values made it possible for even more racial minorities to live there which resulted in even further declines in property value. Sad to say, that trend was pretty much the way things happened and perhaps continue to happen in some areas. But the fact that a home owner has a desire for his house to have a high resale value does NOT give him the right to prevent people from moving nearby because they happen to have a different skin color.

Now, I don't know of any credible people today who openly advocate a return to racial segregation. So to apply the example to a modern context - unless you have entered into some sort of contractual agreement such as a deed restriction or home owners' association, your desire for your house to have a high resale value does NOT give you the right to prevent someone from having his garage face the front street, or to paint his house in a color you consider to be gaudy or from having a low pitched roof. If you are concerned about such things impacting your property value, then you need to move to a neighborhood where you will not have to worry about such things either because of its exclusivity or because of the protections afforded by a home owners' association. As to how people in other parts of town choose to live their lives - well, quite frankly, it is none of your business.

[quote]Now, if by making the comparison to the 1920s brick bungalows further west in Arlington Heights you are suggesting that the brick houses are better built than the modest wooden houses closer to Montgomery - well, there's no doubt that is the case. But to cite the existence of other houses that are better built in no way advances the case that the houses near Montgomery are badly built. If by saying that the 1920s bungalows have "aged" better you mean that they are more attractive from an aesthetic standpoint - well, that has been the case ever since the more modest houses were brand new.
- Dis

You're getting warmer, Dis. There is a distinct difference between the two sets of houses. And, you can tell the houses closer to Montgomery are rent houses by all of the "FOR RENT" signs throughout those streets, and the relative lack thereof on the streets to the west.
[/quote]

Well, Urb - so what if there is a distinct difference? There's also a distinct difference between the brick houses in Arlington Heights and the houses a few blocks away on the other side of Camp Bowie in Rivercrest. What's your point? The fact that one set of houses is nicer than another? So what? That fact has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of exactly what on earth is so wrong with those houses closer to Montgomery. Does the fact that your neighbor has a nicer house than you do somehow make your house any less nice?

And what if there are more rent houses in the neighborhood by Montgomery? What is the problem with people renting houses? If you personally don't like being around a bunch of renters, then why not just move to a neighborhood where there aren't any or where everyone has already agreed ahead of time not to convert their property into rentals? Do you, by chance, happen to live in that particular neighborhood by Montgomery? If not, then how is it any concern of yours if the people who live there are renters?

I find it very interesting that Urbndwlr as well as others who support these "standards" seem to regard the existence of rent houses in a less than favorable light. Yet, at the very same time, they advocate laws which would make it difficult or impossible for many of these renters to become home owners. Far from preventing slums, by passing regulations which will make it impossible for the affordable housing market to expand, all one accomplishes is to freeze that market at the status quo basically killing off all new competition for that price segment. The long term result will be a shortage of lower priced housing. Faced with less competition, landlords will have less motivation to keep their properties nice in order to attract paying customers. Such a situation would be a slum lord's dream come true. Take a look at some of the cities where governmental interference in the marketplace through either rent controls or regulations has created a shortage of low cost housing. The result is that you have people paying monthly rents that could be used to pay for a modest mortgage payment in Fort Worth in order to live in old and rundown rat traps.

[quote]Question: exactly how does requiring houses to have higher pitched roofs, making it illegal for them to be under so many square feet or to have garages that face the street protect people from dishonest marketing tactics? – Dis

Entirely different issues. Certifying builders is designed to protect against deceptive marketing tactics, not architectural standards. [/quote]

Well, YOU were the one who stated: "The problem is that these homes are not designed to last more than 20 years. Why? I suspect the answer is that initial buyers are 1) snowed by the tract homebuilding industry’s marketing and sales campaigns......"

Deceptive marketing practices are an example of fraud - and that is already against the law. Why do we need to scrap individual rights and impose authoritarian rules and certifications - i.e. the necessity of having to ask for governmental permission before a person can enter into his chosen trade?

Also observe that not one single scrap of evidence has been put on the table to support this assertion that the homebuilding industry is engaged in fraud and deception. Yet that does not stop Urbndwlr from throwing such an allegation out as though it were somehow self-evident and proposing that we turn certain homebuilders that he disapproves of into criminals. But that shouldn't come as much of a surprise: we still don't have a single example or scrap of evidence to back up his oft repeated assertion that we have a widespread problem of houses falling apart after 20 years.

[quote]I presume the architectural standards are an attempt to keep our new neighborhoods from looking like Levittown.
[/quote]

Well, if someone doesn't like neighborhoods that look like Levittown, I have a real simple solution: don't live in one. Such people should just mind their own business and stop trying to interfere in the business of those who do want to live in a neighborhood that looks like Levittown or who don't particularly care if it looks like Levittown.


[quote]4) You think stucco exteriors should be outlawed. You also seem to disapprove of wood siding, apparently because it requires more maintenance than does masonry thereby opening the door to the possibility that somebody might refuse to paint it when it comes time to do so. – Dis

Wrong – I think a certain TYPE of stucco, called EIFS, should be outlawed. I have no problem (and never said I did) with siding or wood. I only have a problem with it when non-durable variations (sorry, I don’t know brands) are used to cut corners, resulting in premature deterioration. I wish we had more quality wood and stucco homes in Fort Worth. And NO, I’m not making a social comment there.

Check it out: http://www.kinsella.com/eifs/
http://www.stuccosettlement.com/ [/quote]

Well, based on a brief look at the above links and a few websites that came up in a quick Google search, it appears that there are a lot of people out there who are making the claim that EIFS is a problem because there have been some instances where it has trapped in moisture and resulted in wood rot and structural damage. Some people claim that the problem is inherent with the material. Others claim that the problem occurs when it is improperly installed. Obviously I am not going to be able to acquire sufficient knowledge within a few minutes to make a determination on the matter one way or another. I will say this much: in this day and age where we have all sorts of environmentalist extremists and other assorted anti-capitalists constantly making outrageous and apocalyptic assertions based on nothing more than junk science in order to advance their agenda of outlawing various technologies and enslaving entire industries, I tend to be automatically skeptical about any organized campaign against a certain product or industry. But, of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't products out there that don't have problems. So I have no way of knowing what the case is in this instance - nor do I have enough interest to take the time to find out. Therefore, for the sake of the argument, I am just going to hypothetically assume that everything horrible said about EIFS is true and that a significant number of houses built with it are doomed to rot.

Even assuming that EIFS is as bad as it is claimed to be, there is still NO justification to resort to authoritarian governmental controls over the homebuilding industry. Existing laws combined with the unhindered operation of free market forces are more than sufficient to eliminate such a product from the marketplace.

If EIFS is as bad as it is claimed to be, then the companies that manufacture it will be subject to lawsuits and will have to pay out a lot of money in damages and perhaps even go out of business. If home builders knowingly use a material that is widely known to be defective, they are opening themselves up to expensive litigation. Once banks and other mortgage lenders get word of how horrible this material is, do you think that they will continue to write 30 year loans on houses they have every reason to expect to fall apart in 20 years? Once insurance companies get word of how horrible this material is, do you think they are going to write policies insuring people against such damage? And, above all, don't you think that word will get out to the people who are considering purchasing homes made of such material? And if you think the average new home buyer is just too stupid to learn about such things, don't you think, at the very least, their lenders and insurance agents will warn them before making such a purchase?

Since what I have described has not yet happened, I can only conclude one of two things: 1) The jury is still out on the virtues and vices of EIFS as a building material or 2) EIFS is horrible but the industry has lobbied for and achieved authoritarian governmental rules and regulations that insulate it from the consequences it would otherwise face on a free market.

Isn't it amazing how the very instant someone merely alleges the existence of some sort of problem with a product or industry, a whole bunch of authoritarians come out of the woodwork clamoring for all sorts of governmental rules and regulations without any regard for individual rights? Yet, at the same time, if I were to tell such authoritarians about the actual FRAUD that has been perpetrated for DECADES by our politicians in the form of their insolvent shell game Ponzi scheme known as "social security" which they shamelessly try to pass off as some sort of insurance plan (If a private insurance company ran such a scheme, its officers would quite properly rot in jail for the rest of their lives) and propose that the system be phased out and replaced by voluntary private pensions - well they would just yawn and look at me as if I were the menace to civilized people.

The vast majority of people aren't stupid. If the housing industry started building shoddy products, the exact same thing would happen to it as happened to the American automobile industry when it started turning out shoddy products back in the 1970s.

[quote]Again, show me a house that is not designed to last more than 20 years. - Dis
http://www.choicehomes.com/
[/quote]


Ok. It is a website for a home builder. So what? Am I supposed to click on one of the links in order to see a house that is not designed to last for more than 20 years? Or am I supposed to visit one of their housing developments? If so, which one and how am I supposed to know? Or is this one of those cases where for those who understand no explanation is necessary and for those who don't none is possible?

So, we still have not been provided with a single example of a house that is not designed to last 20 years. If such houses do indeed exist, one has to kind of wonder why banks are so willing to write 30 year mortgages on them.

Now, it just so happened that, a couple of weekends ago, when I was in Dallas County and had my camera with me, I was driving down I-20 in the southeastern part of the county and noticed a billboard advertising a Choice Homes housing development called Hickory Creek located off of US 175. The sign said that the houses started in the high $80,000s - though the signs closer to the development said low $90,000s. Since this was just after the Choice Homes link was posted here, I decided to make a brief side trip and take a look. The area that the development is located in is right on the Dallas/Seagoville line in what used to be the small city of Kleburg before Dallas annexed it some year back. In terms of snob appeal, well, this part of town doesn't have any. Many parts are still rural and actually still have some pretty scenery. But it is pockmarked with rundown trailer parks and auto salvage yards. So, my guess is that this is probably one of Choice Home's lower end housing developments.

So here are the photos:





Now would somebody please tell me exactly what is wrong with these houses? I am not asking whether you would want to live in such houses if you are in a position to afford something nicer. I am asking what is wrong with someone who wants to live in such a house doing so? I never even left my vehicle so I can't claim that I examined the houses up close. But on what basis is there for one to conclude that these houses are going to fall apart in 20 years? Oh, yes, they have garages that face the front street. How scandalous!

On my way back towards I-20, I ended up coming across another Choice Homes development with almost identical houses but which was more fully developed and most of the houses were occupied. Driving down the streets, I saw three families outside in their yards - an elderly Asian lady, a Mexican family and a black couple. The yards were tidy. The people were dressed casually but neatly and appeared to be well groomed. My guess is that every single one of them is proud of having a brand new house and a piece of the American Dream. By what right does ANYONE have to use governmental force in order to deny them that?

By the way, here's a brand new business establishment that I noticed right down the street from the second Choice Homes development:



I guess that's just the final bit of proof that such houses attract a crowd that is not particularly good for a city's image. We sure don't want such people coming to Fort Worth, for goodness sake! Quick! Pass a law making such houses illegal!


[quote]By the way, who said that 20 years is a sufficient life span of a home? My concern of our city’s future extends far beyond a 20 year time horizon.
[/quote]

Well.... to my knowledge, nobody said it. You - along with a few other busybodies mentioned in the newspaper - are the ones who are going around talking about 20 years and making the unsupported assertion that there we have a widespread problem of houses falling apart within that time frame.

As for your "concern" - well, you are entitled to be concerned about anything you like. But you don't necessarily have the right to take action against other people based on that concern. We have to be very careful when we use language like "our city." Strictly speaking, it is not YOUR city or MY city in the sense of having some sort of proprietary ownership over it. In that sense, the only people who "own" the city are those who happen to own the various parcels of land within the city's limits. And with the exception of your neighbors and those who are engaged in some form of force or fraud, what people do with their property is none of your business no matter how passionately held your "concern" may be. I think we have all been "concerned" about friends and/or family members from time to time regarding matters such as their diet and exercise habits, their spending habits etc. But that "concern" does not give us license to butt into their business or to call in government thugs to do so on our behalf. And for the exact same reason, the range of action that one can properly take with regard to one's "concern" for their city is significantly limited by everyone else's individual rights.

[quote]I would support a code or requirement of some sort that requires garages to face a rear (alley ideally), or otherwise be screened or hidden from view in some way from the street. This is not an unreasonable requirement.[/quote]

It is profoundly unreasonable because it is none of your damned business whether people have their garages hidden or in full view. Your support of such a code is proof positive of your authoritarianism.

[quote]Witness streets (throughout North Texas) which are lined with houses with prominent garages facing the streets compared with those that have them facing rear alleys or recessed behind the house to the rear. [/quote]

Real simple solution: move to a neighborhood where all of the garages are situated according to your personal taste. I am sure that you will have no difficulty finding such a neighborhood as there are probably plenty of them in existence. And if nobody has chosen to build a neighbhorhood that suits your taste - well, then you have been outvoted by the marketplace. Join the club. It happens to me all the time.

[quote]Individuals can always request variances if they have special circumstances. [/quote]

Yes, individuals can go stand before a bunch of government officials and humbly beg for permission as to what they may and may not do with their own private property. Yeah - that's the American way of doing things. Seig Heil!

As I have already indicated, legitimate disputes amongst neighbors about such matters could very easily be settled on a voluntary, contractual basis without the sacrifice of individual rights and without having to grant authoritarian powers to government officials.

[quote]Additionally, I would agree with you that it would be more palatable for our society to have “disposable” neighborhoods if land was an infinite resource. It is, however, not in infinite supply so we, as a society, should take reasonable care to use it as respectfully as possible.
[/quote]



ANY commodity exists in finite supply - otherwise it wouldn't be considered a commodity. Land is no exception. To claim that a commodity's finite supply necessitates authoritarian governmental controls over it - well, if you are going to consistently stick with that premise, you are going to have to start advocating complete and pure communism.

Furthermore, the truth is the exact opposite of what you suggest: it is precisely because a commodity (including land) exists in finite supply that people value it and are careful with it. Observe that people don't think twice about tossing a tin can into the trash. That's because tin is in very plentiful (though not infinite) supply and costs more in human effort and storage space to hang on to it after it has been used than any value that might be obtained by keeping it around. But you won't find too many people throwing scrap gold or scrap silver into the trash. That's because it exists in a far more finite supply and, at the same time, is in high demand.

No commodity has any sort of "intrinsic value" independent of the benefits and utility it provides to human beings. The market value of a commodity depends on how many people desire the benefits it provides and how intensely. Sure, land exists in finite supply. But in some areas of the country one may buy large amounts of land for relatively little money. Such land is of very limited benefit from an agricultural or development standpoint and there exists little demand for it. Thus it is inexpensive and mostly sits unused. Real estate in Manhattan, on the other hand, is very much in demand and, as a result, is extremely expensive. You rarely see it sitting empty and you certainly won't see any suburban track homes being built in mid-town Manhattan. Lesson: the scarcer highly desirable land becomes in any given context, the more productive and higher quality uses people are going to put it to. I am afraid that is economics 101. If you want a local example, just look at what happened to the worn out century old homes along Samuels Avenue. Because of the success of downtown, low cost housing was no longer the most economical use of that property - so it became worthwhile for the residents there to sell out and move elsewhere. Now plans are being made for the property to be used in a more efficient and economical manner. Perhaps 50 years from now the buildings that will be built there will also be deemed uneconomical and torn down and replaced with skyscrapers. Urbndwlr's implication is that once land is developed it somehow disappears and is out of circulation forever. But all one has to do is research the history of downtown and its immediately surrounding areas. Most plots of land there have been developed and redeveloped many, many times during the course of the last 160 years. The area we today call "Upper West Side" used to be called "Quality Hill" and was filled with beautiful Victorian mansions - only a handful of which still survive. The neighborhood is once again in transition and will undoubtedly look very different 20 years from now. In that sense, ALL neighborhoods are ultimately "disposable" regardless as to how well-built their houses are.

[quote]You have twisted and distorted so many of my other comments. I would love to address each and debate you on individual points, but I don’t have the time.
[/quote]

Well, your mere assertion that I have twisted what you have said does NOT constitute proof that I have done so. Thus we have yet another unsupported assertion that I guess the reader is supposed to take as fact.

If someone put up a posting that twisted something I had said and I only had a limited amount of time to reply, the very FIRST thing I would take care of would be to set the record straight before worrying about the issue under debate. So I find it odd that you have chosen not to do so.

If you provide actual proof of how I have, in any way, "twisted" what you have said, I will be very first to acknowledge it and apologize - as I did proactively in my previous posting. My question is this: Have I indeed twisted what you are saying? Or have I instead merely identified the premises on which your arguments rest and their ultimate logical consequences if acted upon? If so, that's not twisting.

[quote]1) There appears to be one key flaw in many of the assumptions on which your economic theories are based: You ignore transaction costs and the externalities perpetrated by property owners. That would explain why you think any controls whatsoever on development only limit the liberties of the land owner.
[/quote]

Well, I am afraid it is impossible for me to respond to this without a very clear definition of exactly what is meant by "transaction costs" and "externalities perpetrated by property owners." Perhaps you do have specific meanings in mind when you use those terms. But in the current context they are nothing more than floating abstractions. I have certain suspicions as to what you probably mean by such terminology - but it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment when I don't know for sure. So if you define your terms, I will be more than happy to respond to your assertion.

[RD Milhollin]

Article in the S-T Monday August 16: Differing opinions on housing standards for Fort Worth sent to Council committees.

http://www.dfw.com/m...100771037404dfw

Pup

[Dismuke]

Article in the S-T Monday August 16: Differing opinions on housing standards for Fort Worth sent to Council committees.

http://www.dfw.com/m...100771037404dfw

Pup

Thanks for posting an article that I would not have otherwise seen.

Some brief comments about the article from which the following quotes are taken:

After three months of debate, city leaders are still sharply at odds over how to raise the minimum standards for new home construction.

Observe that the debate is described as being over how and not if. What a sad state of affairs we have come to.

On one side is Councilwoman Becky Haskin on the council's housing committee, who says that small homes on small lots cost the city more than they generate in taxes.

As I have stated before, to the degree that this is a legitimate issue, the solution is to fix the tax structure - NOT to dictate to people what sort of new homes they may and may not build or purchase.

"You go and look at those neighborhoods in 20 years and most of the houses are rental properties," Haskin said.

So what, Ms. Haskin? What have you got against people renting houses?

Gessshh! What a bloody pathetic little snob!

Haskin and other supporters say the concentration of small houses has hurt the city's tax base. City officials estimate that the average home in Fort Worth contributes $1,564 in taxes but requires $2,007 in city services.

Assuming that these numbers are even for real and assuming that the methodology that was used to generate them is valid and does not drop massive context (my policy is to NEVER trust at face value statistics or numbers thrown out by those who have an authoritarian agenda - very often they are misleading or downright false) the solution is to find a way to tax such people an extra $443 per year or $37 per month - not to make it illegal for them to purchase a new home or force them to pay a whole lot more than $37 per month in housing costs because of authoritarian regulations passed by the likes of Ms. Haskin and her ilk.

Notice that Ms. Haskin's concern seems to be limited only to the fact that some households allegedly pay $443 less per year than they consume in taxes. What about the households that pay a whole heck of a lot more than $443 per year in taxes over the cost of the "services" that they use? Is she going to offer to refund the extra money that they pay? I seriously doubt it. I can assure you that Ms. Haskin does NOT have any fundamental problem with some people subsidizing city "services" (such as expensive bridge railings in her district that she pitched a fit over at the last minute and sent city officials scrambling to find the money to pay for them out of other departments' budgets) used by others. I am sure that she doesn't mind the owners of high dollar homes subsidizing everyone else's use of the library or the parks or money-losing Rail Markets that nobody bothers to shop at or developers who knock holes into historic buildings. But to have those same owners of high dollar homes pick up part of the tab for such things as police and fire protection - well gee, we couldn't possibly allow that.

It is pretty obvious that the motive of Ms. Haskin and her supporters is a lust for more tax dollars to spend on their pet "visions" and to prevent any more "undesirables" such as those who live in rent houses from moving into our city.

But I want to go back to the first sentence in the last paragraph I quoted:

Haskin and other supporters say the concentration of small houses has hurt the city's tax base.

Observe the hierarchy of values held by Ms. Haskin and her supporters: In terms of public policy collecting taxes takes precedence over individual rights (which necessarily include property rights). I'm sorry, but that premise is the exact opposite of the one on which this country was founded and which differentiated us from the rest of the world back in 1776 and still does, to a large degree, even in our own day. The United States was founded on the principle that individuals have inalienable rights to which the government is subordinated and exists solely for the purpose of protecting. According to Ms. Haskin, individual rights take a back seat to the needs of government. Well, that is the mindset that is at the root of any dictatorship or tyranny the world has ever seen. But I am sure things like that are of very little concern to Ms. Haskin. It is very obvious that Ms. Haskin is more than just another run of the mill, stuck up snob who looks down her precious little snotless nose at those poor schmucks who live in rent houses - she is an authoritarian and a thorough statist who is a foe to anyone who values freedom and liberty, regardless of what size house they live in.

[redhead]

Hey Dis, you ought to come to the public hearings. You could express your views in public and I think there are a lot of people that would agree with you! I do not think you try to codify price---and I'm not even sure that under the Fed's guidelines to Fair Housing that it's legal!!