Of course our property taxes are going to increase. I would hope our property values have increased in the last eight years. My God, what do you expect? Go live somewhere with depreciating property values then. I will gladly live in a place that is thriving and property value increases over time. What a sticker of an investment otherwise. Again, call the tax assessors office. You will be pleasantly surprised.
Your assertion that your property taxes go up because of the new big homes is wrong. The tax assessors office compares as close to the same size/age/acreage home to another in the area. It does not compare your home to a newly built home. Declines in property values mean lower tax values. Call down to the tax office and ask. They will confirm this.
My understanding is the five points CAC and Scale gave the thumbs up to Gordon Grubbs to knock down all the affordable housing off of Pine Street. It's okay to knock down that affordable housing, but not for people to keep their current zoning? That doesn't compute.
The fundamental question is: What did the homeowner buy? And would a change in zoning deprive him of what he paid for?
Since the houses are individually paid for, adjacent neighbors never paid for a "view" in perpetuity.
What right does one homeowner have to deprive the other owner of the benefits of building on their property or selling it to a builder?
For those who are attempting to stop the new building in this neighborhood. There was no guarantee that the houses would remain the same forever. Whoever buys the house buys its current privacy and the chance -- not a certainty -- that the homes in this neighborhood would remain the same size forever. It is unreasonable to think so.
If a homeowner wanted a guarantee that the neighbor's homes would remain as is, he could have bought the property surrounding him. That way he would be paying for what he wanted, rather than expecting the government to deprive someone else for his benefit.
If the predatory downzone effort is realized then the effect would turn a chance that someone paid for into a guarantee that they did not pay for, such as a guarantee that a given community would retain these homes forever.
In the normal course of events, things change.
Such downzoning requests purport to help preserve the existing character of the community, at the expense of others. Because they can't retain the buildable space they paid for, their value of their land is reduced drastically.
The biggest losers are those families who are deprived of housing and those families who are deprived of the standard of living they could have if they did not have to pay for sky-high rents or home prices due to an artificial scarcity of housing.
Another rationale for laws restricting land use is that "open space" is a good thing, that it prevents "overcrowding" for example. But preventing people from building homes in one place only makes the crowding greater in other places. This is just another fig leaf for the self-interest of those who want other people to be forced to live somewhere else.
Whatever their rhetoric or rationales, these groups have no more rights under the Constitution than anyone else.
"coming together in a neighborly fashion" did not happen in this downzone situation. Those that are protecting themselves are spending untold hours and money on attorneys to protect their property rights. This is community activism at it's worst. Good luck to you with this crowd. You would be making a deal with the devil.
John Adams said, "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."
Indy Week • 302 E. Pettigrew St., Suite 300, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation