11 foot asphalt with cement curbs trail on my property line (Spring: 2014, HOA)

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

Same here. Much better than a back neighbor's 2-story home looming over the yard.

It won't devalue your property at all. If you put in a gate to access the trail, most would consider it an awesome "plus" for the home. Depending on where you are along the trail, it will probably mostly be runners and cyclists using it.

What neighborhood are you in?

Steve

I'm going to cast a dissenting vote here.

The OP is not faced with a choice between the view of a "back neighbor's 2-story home looming over the yard" versus a hike and bike trail.

The OP is facing a choice between "an existing, natural, undisturbed greenbelt" and a "hike and bike trail". Clearly in the choice he is actually facing, the "hike and bike trail" is the least desirable as he is giving up a lot of privacy and views. Many people specifically look for property that has this degree of privacy and seperation from their neighbors and are willing to pay more for it. Property that does not have these qualities is not valued as highly.

Providing these existing property owners with a reasonable green buffer between their property and the trail is in my opinion the decent thing the City should try to provide. The private property owner can still easily put a gate in their fence to allow them easy access to the trail, so nothing is lost with this scenario.

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

This reminds me of the new boardwalk and what has transpired in regards to some of the property owners. One of the most eastern complexes used a lawyer to fight against the boardwalk being so close to the edge of their property. They of course lost and got no concessions. Now that same property advertises boardwalk apartment rentals with a big vinyl sign facing the boardwalk. They finally saw it as an amenity that makes their property more desirable and not something to fear.

There is nothing similar in this comparison of multi-family properties abutting the boardwalk. Yes I agree those that did not try to work with the City to incorporate the boardwalk into the design of their property lost out in this situation. But it is no where an apples to apples comparison with what the private singel family property owner is facing. The public spaces of the multi-family properties already have no privacy to loose in that scenario with the boardwalk and they have everything to gain in easy access to the boardwalk.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

I'm going to cast a dissenting vote here.

The OP is not faced with a choice between the view of a "back neighbor's 2-story home looming over the yard" versus a hike and bike trail.

The OP is facing a choice between "an existing, natural, undisturbed greenbelt" and a "hike and bike trail". Clearly in the choice he is actually facing, the "hike and bike trail" is the least desirable as he is giving up a lot of privacy and views. Many people specifically look for property that has this degree of privacy and seperation from their neighbors and are willing to pay more for it. Property that does not have these qualities is not valued as highly.

Providing these existing property owners with a reasonable green buffer between their property and the trail is in my opinion the decent thing the City should try to provide. The private property owner can still easily put a gate in their fence to allow them easy access to the trail, so nothing is lost with this scenario.

I'm with my fellow Captain here. We paid extra for a green belt behind us - one so deep you can't see the houses behind us. Love that we see deer back there regularly. If there was suddenly a ten foot paved path back there - complete with regular foot or wheeled traffic - I would be steamed.

[ppp38]

Originally Posted by scm53

I'm with my fellow Captain here. We paid extra for a green belt behind us - one so deep you can't see the houses behind us. Love that we see deer back there regularly. If there was suddenly a ten foot paved path back there - complete with regular foot or wheeled traffic - I would be steamed.

You made a risk purchasing land backing up to a city owned property. The COA should develop it as they see fit.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

This reminds me of the new boardwalk and what has transpired in regards to some of the property owners. One of the most eastern complexes used a lawyer to fight against the boardwalk being so close to the edge of their property. They of course lost and got no concessions. Now that same property advertises boardwalk apartment rentals with a big vinyl sign facing the boardwalk. They finally saw it as an amenity that makes their property more desirable and not something to fear.

This X a million. These urban trails are an amazing amenity. Anyone who's ever been on the Katy Trail in Dallas or on the new Walnut Creek Trail in east Austin can tell you how incredibly desirable it would be to have access to this directly to your property.

Eventually there will be thirty miles of improved trail right steps from the back yard linking hill country to the city by a completely safe bike path. How cool is that?

[Trainwreck20]

If you are talking strictly property value, I doubt that there will be a significant change when it is put on the market - some people will value it less due to less privacy, others will value it more due to trail access. Overall, it will be a wash, probably.

Now, only YOU can answer what it does for your value, and I think you have already weighed in with that .

[scm53]

Originally Posted by ppp38

You made a risk purchasing land backing up to a city owned property. The COA should develop it as they see fit.

You are assuming the city owns the property behind my house. They don't.

You are also making the assumption that this trail is being built totally on city owned property. It isn't.

Finally, you are saying the city can, at any time, materially change the use of any city owned property - "develop it as they see fit". Follow that to its logical extreme, parkland can become a dump. Grassy fields can become lit ball fields - lit all hours of the night. No citizen should have to stand for that.

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

I'm going to cast a dissenting vote here.

The OP is not faced with a choice between the view of a "back neighbor's 2-story home looming over the yard" versus a hike and bike trail.

The OP is facing a choice between "an existing, natural, undisturbed greenbelt" and a "hike and bike trail". Clearly in the choice he is actually facing, the "hike and bike trail" is the least desirable as he is giving up a lot of privacy and views. Many people specifically look for property that has this degree of privacy and seperation from their neighbors and are willing to pay more for it. Property that does not have these qualities is not valued as highly.

Providing these existing property owners with a reasonable green buffer between their property and the trail is in my opinion the decent thing the City should try to provide. The private property owner can still easily put a gate in their fence to allow them easy access to the trail, so nothing is lost with this scenario.

...

I understand what you're saying. The existing owner may not prefer the trail over the emptiness that was there before. I was just saying that it won't lower the property value on resale. It will probably increase it.

Will there be a "greenbelt purest" buyer who scoffs and says "that's not a greenbelt, there's a dadburn public trail traversing it, and they can see me in my yard as they pass by!" Perhaps.

But the more common response will be "look honey, you can take the kids out on their bikes right from the back yard!" And honey will trot over and have a look and say "awesome!". And they will feel better about this house than they did before.

Without the trail, they would look out and ask "can anything ever be built there?", to which the answer from someone like me will always be "you should assume so, and not buy the home if you can't live with that possibility".

Steve

[gpurcell]

If it was me, I'd be more willing to buy with a nice bike path behind than with just greenbelt. When I lived in Canberra there was a whole network of bike-only asphalt paths that were marvelous.

Just make sure you get gate access.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

I'm going to cast a dissenting vote here.

The OP is not faced with a choice between the view of a "back neighbor's 2-story home looming over the yard" versus a hike and bike trail.

The OP is facing a choice between "an existing, natural, undisturbed greenbelt" and a "hike and bike trail". Clearly in the choice he is actually facing, the "hike and bike trail" is the least desirable as he is giving up a lot of privacy and views. Many people specifically look for property that has this degree of privacy and seperation from their neighbors and are willing to pay more for it. Property that does not have these qualities is not valued as highly.

Providing these existing property owners with a reasonable green buffer between their property and the trail is in my opinion the decent thing the City should try to provide. The private property owner can still easily put a gate in their fence to allow them easy access to the trail, so nothing is lost with this scenario.



There is nothing similar in this comparison of multi-family properties abutting the boardwalk. Yes I agree those that did not try to work with the City to incorporate the boardwalk into the design of their property lost out in this situation. But it is no where an apples to apples comparison with what the private singel family property owner is facing. The public spaces of the multi-family properties already have no privacy to loose in that scenario with the boardwalk and they have everything to gain in easy access to the boardwalk.

Never said it was exactly the same situation, but it is about a public trail being adjacent to private property. Multi-family or single family they are all residents so I see no reason to distinguish. Before you had to be in a boat to get that close to the lake-front properties but now anyone who can walk can do so. Before trail users would use the sidewalk adjacent to lakeshore drive if they wanted to pass this way. This increased pedestrian traffic is why the complex (stupidly) fought the trail in the first place. And I would not say 'everything to gain' because some residents will never use the boardwalk. Of course it is their loss.........

[tibbar]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

Same here. Much better than a back neighbor's 2-story home looming over the yard.

It won't devalue your property at all. If you put in a gate to access the trail, most would consider it an awesome "plus" for the home. Depending on where you are along the trail, it will probably mostly be runners and cyclists using it.

What neighborhood are you in?

Steve

Westcreek neighborhood. The path is proposed to go behind the homes on Yellow Rose Trail.