News, Florida homeowners fined for "Starry Night" murals on house (sale, contract)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I kinda like it, kinda hate it.
I think the house walls are cool and would have been enough for me. The fence/wall with Van Gogh's face is awfully busy.
They are going to smoke the city on this. I had a similar case when I served on zoning board of adjustment in my city. In that case it was over a giant shark sculpture that formed the entrance to a beach shop(shells, tshirts, towels, souvenirs). You walked though the mouth to go in the store. I did a big review of case law and basically found out that the definition of the sign all cities use is overly broad and unconstitutional. It's the same definition you cite.
In my case I was the lone vote in favor of the shark.
I know that shark. I'm glad the city didn't win. It is a theme for their store.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merjolie8
While I don't really like what they did with the house, I think the city is wrong. The paint job is not a sign and homeowners should be free to paint their house the way they see fit, be it a Van Gogh's painting, black, gold with purple polka dots or anything else.
It might attract some traffic, but I also refuse to believe that just because my neighbor has bad taste, then my house is automatically worth $50K less.
My husband and I buy and sell a lot of houses. We make many decisions based on the houses that surround the ones we are interested in. Some people when buying a house can't get over the furniture of the people selling the house. How do you think they will not get over something that they cannot change
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandy221
Indeed the whole thing is stupid..... ITS THIER HOUSE,if they want this thing there,ITS THIER RIGHT!!!
Ha, ha really. Yes they have the right to sue the city but sadly we have so many laws and policies that we don't have as many rights as you think.
Either way they could have expressed themselves inside the house or in their backyard if it didn't face a street. Mt. Dora is an artsy area but it also gets very congested with traffic. That house will cause people to stop, look and I'm sure take pictures. "Only" if that becomes or is a problem do I think the city will win.
The problem is for the neighbors. It will also attract excessive traffic to the neighborhood, of people hearing about it going by to get a look at it, causing potential neighborhood traffic problems and dangers for a neighborhood. Things like this can cause traffic to come to a standstill, due to excessive traffic in a quiet neighborhood.
Three things that lower the value of single family homes in a neighborhood, and make them difficult to sell. Excessive traffic that makes it dangerous for children and homeowners to use the street as a normal residential street. The sound of all the traffic it can generate from people just wanting to see what it really looks like. The other being something like this home, that offends a lot of people due to it's look.
Neighbors would find their property difficult to sell, unless the price is reduced to a ridiculous point. As a long time investment real estate broker, I have seen a house painted like that can lower the value with close by homes, at least $50,000 to $100,000 and possibly more, and makes them nearly impossible to sell.
Absolutely right. One has to wonder why the owners did this to their neighbors. It's not as if he didn't realize it would affect others' values. I remember a guy who painted his house bright purple just to spite his neighbors.
Also, the person must have money to burn since repainting the house is going to cost a lot. Add that to the drop in house value- his own and the neighbors'. Why destroy equity? A lot to pay for the "personal expression" of copying an iconic Van Gogh. Glad this fool is not my neighbor!
Absolutely right. One has to wonder why the owners did this to their neighbors. It's not as if he didn't realize it would affect others' values. I remember a guy who painted his house bright purple just to spite his neighbors.
Also, the person must have money to burn since repainting the house is going to cost a lot. Add that to the drop in house value- his own and the neighbors'. Why destroy equity? A lot to pay for the "personal expression" of copying an iconic Van Gogh. Glad this fool is not my neighbor!
well, those who don't mind living near it would get a better home at a better price. That's a housing market should work. I think it looks cool, btw.
Whether you like the painted house or not, the city is on shaky legal ground by trying to regulate it as a sign. It may be a sign of something about the owner, but it's not a commercial sign as (not) spelled out in the city ordinance. The city may find out that overly broad definitions can become meaningless for legal purposes.
Guess you're Ok with destroying neighbors' property values.
You'll learn what actually happens if you buy a house and this happens to you. I'm thinking it won't be so cool then ......
There are two separate issues at play:
1) Whether or not people like the house painted this way; and
2) Whether the city has the right to prohibit it under their sign ordinance.
There is the court of public opinion...and then there is our judicial system. This is a matter for our actual courts to decide.
*I think the city deserves to lose, but not because I'd like to live next to this house.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm glad the city didn't win. It is a theme for their store.
How do you think they will not get over something that they cannot change
Yes they have the right to sue the city but sadly we have so many laws and policies that we don't have as many rights as you think.
