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.
No I would not. It's their property, it's their business. So as long as they're not infringing on my rights or being disruptive, they can do what they want. Would I like for them to take more pride in their property? Of course I would. I grew up in a rural area where anything goes. Yet, almost always, even people in these rural areas took pride in their property and didn't need any ordinance to tell them what to do.
Keep in mind that being on a farmette in the exurbs is a vastly different experience than living in an urban area (at least urban by NC standards) on a 50' x 125' lot. The luxury someone has on a five acre plot that's 500 feet from their closest neighbors (where you possibly can't even see the neighbor's yard or house) is vastly different than someone who is 15 feet from their neighbors. And people who live in an urban area (who are paying both city taxes and county taxes BTW) are expecting a different level of protection/regulation of their property values than somewhere way out in the hinterlands of the county.
What may work in the country isn't going to fly in a developed urban area (at least if it doesn't want to go into quick decline). It's when people used to a "do whatever you want" rural way of life move into town expecting that their lifestyle is going to be the exactly same as when they lived on acreage in the middle of nowhere and could basically do what they wanted that causes problems.
Actually, they can't. Chapel Hill also has an ordinance prohibiting parking in the front yard. Virtually every city does. And I haven't said anything about on street parking, mail box colors, etc. Please don't paint me in the pro-HOA corner, as I'm not.
Chapel Hill has an ordinance that no more than 40% of the front yard can be used for parking cars. I'm fine with that. It doesn't outlaw parking your car in your own yard. It's aimed at students who go in together on a house and have 8 cars parked in the yard. The ordinance is designed to keep the front yard from completely turning into a parking lot. We don't care if homeowners park their own cars in their yards, though. And you can apply for an exception if you need to.
I mentioned the on street parking because in my neighborhood we don't have curbs so a lot of folks park their vehicles with two tires on the grass and two tires in the street, so it's half on-street and half in-the-yard parking.
Chapel Hill has an ordinance that no more than 40% of the front yard can be used for parking cars. I'm fine with that. It doesn't outlaw parking your car in your own yard. It's aimed at students who go in together on a house and have 8 cars parked in the yard. The ordinance is designed to keep the front yard from completely turning into a parking lot. We don't care if homeowners park their own cars in their yards, though. And you can apply for an exception if you need to.
I mentioned the on street parking because in my neighborhood we don't have curbs so a lot of folks park their vehicles with two tires on the grass and two tires in the street, so it's half on-street and half in-the-yard parking.
The 40% limit means parking on a driveway. Parking on grass is prohibited, regardless, which is what I meant by "yard". Just as virtually all cities allow one to park in a driveway in front of your house, they also prohibit parking on grass.
Keep in mind that being on a farmette in the exurbs is a vastly different experience than living in an urban area (at least urban by NC standards) on a 50' x 125' lot. The luxury someone has on a five acre plot that's 500 feet from their closest neighbors (where you possibly can't even see the neighbor's yard or house) is vastly different than someone who is 15 feet from their neighbors. And people who live in an urban area (who are paying both city taxes and county taxes BTW) are expecting a different level of protection/regulation of their property values than somewhere way out in the hinterlands of the county.
What may work in the country isn't going to fly in a developed urban area (at least if it doesn't want to go into quick decline). It's when people used to a "do whatever you want" rural way of life move into town expecting that their lifestyle is going to be the exactly same as when they lived on acreage in the middle of nowhere and could basically do what they wanted that causes problems.
Of course, but I think you're assuming only rural areas are farm areas. That isn't the case. Rural areas can also be similar to suburban areas like the ones you'd find up here in Oak Ridge. Only difference is that these neighborhoods tend to be about a 15 or 20 minute drive (sometimes longer) into "town", and a lot of these rural neighborhoods are not on the main road. But still, neighbors can be fairly close together with each other. Growing up, we had neighbors in front of us and to either side of us. Property all within site and fairly close. I would suspect the reason why cities tend to invoke ordinances like this one is that more times than not, the property isn't very big and a lot of the neighborhoods are pass through. The neighborhood I live in in Oak Ridge is not subjected to HOAs and if someone needs to park a vehicle on their front yard, they have the freedom to. It's also on a dead end road, so you're not going to have constant traffic passing through the neighborhood. However, that doesn't take away from the point that most all of us in our neighborhood, including the side streets, all take pride in our properties even though we're not really subjected to any enforced ordinances. It's a shame that the city feels the need to provoke such an ordinance.
Of course, but I think you're assuming only rural areas are farm areas. That isn't the case. Rural areas can also be similar to suburban areas like the ones you'd find up here in Oak Ridge. Only difference is that these neighborhoods tend to be about a 15 or 20 minute drive (sometimes longer) into "town", and a lot of these rural neighborhoods are not on the main road. But still, neighbors can be fairly close together with each other. Growing up, we had neighbors in front of us and to either side of us. Property all within site and fairly close. I would suspect the reason why cities tend to invoke ordinances like this one is that more times than not, the property isn't very big and a lot of the neighborhoods are pass through. The neighborhood I live in in Oak Ridge is not subjected to HOAs and if someone needs to park a vehicle on their front yard, they have the freedom to. It's also on a dead end road, so you're not going to have constant traffic passing through the neighborhood. However, that doesn't take away from the point that most all of us in our neighborhood, including the side streets, all take pride in our properties even though we're not really subjected to any enforced ordinances. It's a shame that the city feels the need to provoke such an ordinance.
Fair enough. I'm sure there are some exceptions, but on average, most people in Oak Ridge/Summerfield/Stokesdale, etc. have a larger yard that is setback further from their neighbors than an area within two miles of downtown Greensboro, for instance.
And I do agree that such an ordinance does have its positive and negatives (which often boil down to how much "common sense" is exercised in the way its written and enforced), and probably isn't appropriate everywhere.
In some areas facing blight, they are trying to reach for everything they can to make the area look better and keep property values stable, but I agree that residents taking pride in their properties voluntarily is far more effective than trying to pass ordinances on every possible "tacky" behavior imaginable.
It's just that this seems to happen on its own more in some communities than others. The bigger question may be, why do people in some neighborhoods/areas naturally take more pride in their homes, while others don't, even with strict ordinances like this? There's definitely some complexity in determining the answer, but part of that is may be that as a general rule, homeowners (and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Oak Ridge has a very high relative % of homeowners) have a vested interest in keeping their property up more than renters (who can be hit or miss in keeping property looking good and turnover frequently on one property) or their absentee "investor" landlords. I say this with a huge disclaimer that I know there are some great renters who take so much pride in their homes and some homeowners who are extremely sloppy, but this is a rough, general trend. The same dynamic applies to the yard that's a hot mess that has a great neighbor with a big heart, and the obsessively well-maintained, "by-the-book to all homeowners association regulations" mansion that houses the horrible sociopath neighbor. There's not always a direct relationship to appearance and more subtle quality of life factors.
It's just that this seems to happen on its own more in some communities than others. The bigger question may be, why do people in some neighborhoods/areas naturally take more pride in their homes, while others don't, even with strict ordinances like this?
Some people are just starting off. You can't expect them to have the money or the tools, or even the time, to keep up with the Joneses. Slapping an ordinance on every little thing that might put a damper on curb appeal isn't the answer. In fact, it probably causes a higher turnover in home ownership than anything else. The ones who want more ordinances are probably the ones who pay someone else to do all the work for them anyway. Either that or they have the time and the tools to do all the work themselves. Not all of us have the money/time.
I can understand if it's a touristy location where most everyone is going to be driving through your neighborhood. I can understand noise ordinances. But I believe that, generally, people are going to have more pride in their homes if they're not under so many restrictions.
Some people are just starting off. You can't expect them to have the money or the tools, or even the time, to keep up with the Joneses. Slapping an ordinance on every little thing that might put a damper on curb appeal isn't the answer. In fact, it probably causes a higher turnover in home ownership than anything else. The ones who want more ordinances are probably the ones who pay someone else to do all the work for them anyway. Either that or they have the time and the tools to do all the work themselves. Not all of us have the money/time.
I can understand if it's a touristy location where most everyone is going to be driving through your neighborhood. I can understand noise ordinances. But I believe that, generally, people are going to have more pride in their homes if they're not under so many restrictions.
I'll disagree with you on this. Just because you're starting out or poor doesn't mean you can't be clean & neat.
I'll disagree with you on this. Just because you're starting out or poor doesn't mean you can't be clean & neat.
Where did I say you can't be clean and neat starting off?
I said don't expect perfect curb appeal. Many who are starting off just simply don't have the tools and the money to have everything perfect on the outside like someone who's been in the home for decades and has accumulated the tools to make the jobs easier, or has the money to pay someone to do it. I can look on our street and tell you who the retirees are. They are the ones who have the better looking curb appeal. The others who have a great looking home and landscape on the outside have landscaping companies coming in on a weekly basis and do it for them. They have companies coming in who take care of the upkeep of the outside of the home.
Simply my point is, creating more restrictive laws to force people to keep things perfect on their property will just scare away more potential home owners. That isn't good for the community either. I can understand some ordinances, but fining someone because they may have skipped a week of mowing due to whatever reason is a bit ridiculous. Fining someone for simply parking a car in their front yard is also ridiculous. I can understand if there is a fleet of cars parked in the front yard, especially if the yard is quite small. But honestly, when I'm driving through city neighborhoods in Greensboro, I don't really notice a large % of homes having cars parked in the front yard. And if there is, I don't really pay any attention to it.
Where did I say you can't be clean and neat starting off?
I said don't expect perfect curb appeal. Many who are starting off just simply don't have the tools and the money to have everything perfect on the outside like someone who's been in the home for decades and has accumulated the tools to make the jobs easier, or has the money to pay someone to do it. I can look on our street and tell you who the retirees are. They are the ones who have the better looking curb appeal. The others who have a great looking home and landscape on the outside have landscaping companies coming in on a weekly basis and do it for them. They have companies coming in who take care of the upkeep of the outside of the home.
It doesn't take any tools or money to not park a car on the grass in your front yard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy37
Simply my point is, creating more restrictive laws to force people to keep things perfect on their property will just scare away more potential home owners. That isn't good for the community either. I can understand some ordinances, but fining someone because they may have skipped a week of mowing due to whatever reason is a bit ridiculous. Fining someone for simply parking a car in their front yard is also ridiculous. I can understand if there is a fleet of cars parked in the front yard, especially if the yard is quite small. But honestly, when I'm driving through city neighborhoods in Greensboro, I don't really notice a large % of homes having cars parked in the front yard. And if there is, I don't really pay any attention to it.
Yeah, thats because there's an ordinance prohibiting that, remember?
And I bet if you lived next door to someone with a fleet of cars parked in their yard, you'd pay a lot of attention to it, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
Where did I say you can't be clean and neat starting off?
I said don't expect perfect curb appeal. Many who are starting off just simply don't have the tools and the money to have everything perfect on the outside like someone who's been in the home for decades and has accumulated the tools to make the jobs easier, or has the money to pay someone to do it. I can look on our street and tell you who the retirees are. They are the ones who have the better looking curb appeal. The others who have a great looking home and landscape on the outside have landscaping companies coming in on a weekly basis and do it for them. They have companies coming in who take care of the upkeep of the outside of the home.
Simply my point is, creating more restrictive laws to force people to keep things perfect on their property will just scare away more potential home owners. That isn't good for the community either. I can understand some ordinances, but fining someone because they may have skipped a week of mowing due to whatever reason is a bit ridiculous. Fining someone for simply parking a car in their front yard is also ridiculous. I can understand if there is a fleet of cars parked in the front yard, especially if the yard is quite small. But honestly, when I'm driving through city neighborhoods in Greensboro, I don't really notice a large % of homes having cars parked in the front yard. And if there is, I don't really pay any attention to it.
No, you didn't:
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy37
Some people are just starting off. You can't expect them to have the money or the tools, or even the time, to keep up with the Joneses. Slapping an ordinance on every little thing that might put a damper on curb appeal isn't the answer. In fact, it probably causes a higher turnover in home ownership than anything else. The ones who want more ordinances are probably the ones who pay someone else to do all the work for them anyway. Either that or they have the time and the tools to do all the work themselves. Not all of us have the money/time.
I can understand if it's a touristy location where most everyone is going to be driving through your neighborhood. I can understand noise ordinances. But I believe that, generally, people are going to have more pride in their homes if they're not under so many restrictions.
Keeping up with the Jones' has many connotations depending on where you live. If the neighborhood is low income people may indeed not have the financial resources to achieve perfect curb appeal such as higher income neighborhood might. However, this doesn't excuse them from parking cars in the yard, acquiring and accumulating junk. Parking cars in the yard is not only unsightly, but eventually the grass disappears and the yard erodes. Conversely you can have the sweetest looking yard in the neighborhood, but if the houses around you are dumpy and unkempt such as; cars parked in the yard potential home buyers will keep driving. This is one way neighborhoods lose value more so than any ordinance would ever cause.
My business requires me to often be in lower income neighborhoods. I am quite appreciative we have a HOA and a city that prevents people from ruining other's property values with lack of consideration for their own.
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.
