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.
It is legal because the subdivision was designed as such and the developers assigned restrictions on subdivision and subsequent owner(s) accept and agree.
Covenants between private parties agreeing on usage parameters do not require governmental agreement. Property rights still allow a level of autonomy by owners.
Well, to a point, but.... It's not quite like HiMount covenants where no one but Caucasians are allowed to reside, according to the recorded covenants.
if you look at most subdivisions created before the Supreme Court struck down racial covenants, you'll likely find those restrictions. Anywhere, not just in Raleigh or NC. It's a shameful part of our history.
if you look at most subdivisions created before the Supreme Court struck down racial covenants, you'll likely find those restrictions. Anywhere, not just in Raleigh or NC. It's a shameful part of our history.
Yeah, I am curious enough, I may dig more on that.
It just surprises me that the recorded CCRs are not revised with those provisions struck.
similar as asked in the RE Forum ("Who enforces rules?") - the deed restrictions were put in place, but they don't have any HOA boards, no mechanism to revise rules. I don't know whether it's some super-majority or 100% of owners under the restriction that can get the offensive language removed. I believe one small "neighborhood" ITB (maybe 30 homes) all banded together and got their's removed.
It may be possible to remove a deed restriction (CCR) with a Quiet Title action, or perhaps a vote of the county commissioners. Even if neither is possible - given enough time, I would expect the Legislature to step in and lay out a statutary path to removal. Eventually some important, high value development will be held up by a legacy restriction and the developer will be seeking a legal remedy.
I’m trying to follow. So let’s take my childhood home in Crossroads subdivision that sits on a half acre. Someone could buy it, tear it down, and build 3 townhomes on the land and those be the only townhomes on the street?
I’m trying to follow. So let’s take my childhood home in Crossroads subdivision that sits on a half acre. Someone could buy it, tear it down, and build 3 townhomes on the land and those be the only townhomes on the street?
Possibly, assuming that subdivision is in Raleigh city limits. But, while the general assembly has taken away any ability for local governments to dictate anything about single family housing (like for instance X amount of the front must be brick or you must have a certain amount of setback at the garage or variance of the fronts between different houses next door to each other), that doesn't apply to multi family. So, they should be able to write a section of the UDO to require it to look a certain way or do overlays so a standard single story duplex is allowed next to say other ranch style houses, yet one large more townhome style house might be the required type in other areas where 2 story houses are common. The types of buildings they are wanting don't really exist here but they envision something that looks like a large house, it's just divided into 2, 3, or 4 separate apartments.
Investors are going to swarm neighborhoods in North Raleigh and maximize profits posthaste. I’m sure some good is eeked out of this for some, but I definitely am in the camp that neighborhoods should have some significant say on this going through.
Edit: I guess it autocorrected, but I grew up in Crosswinds.
P...so a standard single story duplex is allowed next to say other ranch style houses, yet one large more townhome style house might be the required type in other areas where 2 story houses are common. The types of buildings they are wanting don't really exist here but they envision something that looks like a large house, it's just divided into 2, 3, or 4 separate apartments.
I wonder if that is what I saw on Dartmouth, next time I go by it I will take a picture and post it here.
if you look at most subdivisions created before the Supreme Court struck down racial covenants, you'll likely find those restrictions. Anywhere, not just in Raleigh or NC. It's a shameful part of our history.
Yup....there were a couple in OH around Cincy; the famous one was Mariemont (could be spelling that wrong) that wouldn't allow Catholics to live there (beyond being a Sundown Town)
My dad's family moved to Cincy from St.Louis (Bellville) in 1967. They were run out on rails from buying a home in Mariemont because of their Catholicism (which is sorta strange given German Catholic is seemingly everyone in Cincy)
If people only acted more like dogs, what a place the world would be.
Yup....there were a couple in OH around Cincy; the famous one was Mariemont (could be spelling that wrong) that wouldn't allow Catholics to live there (beyond being a Sundown Town)
My dad's family moved to Cincy from St.Louis (Bellville) in 1967. They were run out on rails from buying a home in Mariemont because of their Catholicism (which is sorta strange given German Catholic is seemingly everyone in Cincy)
If people only acted more like dogs, what a place the world would be.
We're these legally recorded restrictions in Cincy, or "just the way it was done?"
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.
