I am a University Terrace homeowner, I been for over a decade. I waited, and waited until I found a home my husband and I could purchase because this was the neighborhood I wanted to be in - hands down my first choice. I have been happy here; I'm raising my children here. I love the location and its easy access to just about anywhere and I’ve always enjoyed my neighbors.
My opposition to the proposed overlay is strictly a property right issue. I am NOT fighting for new construction. I am NOT fighting for 3 stories and I am not “in-bed” with the builders as some of you have implied. I did speak to a builder – he does not want to come in and build “up-side down” houses in our neighborhood. This builder does not build in this area, but has 40+ years of experience and I was drawing on that experience.
I encourage every one of you to get involved. I encourage you to read what is actually being proposed, because this overlay is NOT a fight against McMansions. This is a fight about property rights. YOUR PROPERTY RIGHTS. I bought my property with a certain amount of restrictions already in place by the city, I don’t want additional restrictions and encumbrances placed on my property that might adversely affect my property value.
I don't appreciate being vilified for my opinion. Instead I ask for the residents of the University Terrace to truly understand what the ramifications could be if an overlay were to pass. Please think of the big picture logically and with the benefit of gathered knowledge. Research this subject; do not make a rash decision based on emotion and misinformation.
Amen, Dijea. I am glad to have neighbors like you and Jennifer who care so much about other people's proerty rights.
ReplyDeletePeople may wonder what you mean by the long-term effects of the overlay. I would urge people to look at the aging housing stock in Garland, Plano and Richardson to see what it looks like when a neighborhood goes stagnant. Some people here certainly remember hot tubs in front yards and neglected housing -- back when some of these same critics were busy fighting the DART rail line. Thank god they lost that battle. Thank god this neighborhood was revitalized.
But neighborhoods have natural life cycles, and sometime in the future -- probably not soon, and maybe not in our lifetimes -- this neighborhood will need to be redeveloped and revitalized. Some houses here may not be worth spiffing up. They may need to be replaced. But with a height restriction lower than any neighborhood around us, there will be no interest in that from developers. So those houses will be used for their lowest possible use: rental property. Nothing against renters, but when a large portion of a neighborhood is rental property -- well, just visit older neighborhoods in Richardson and Garland to see what that looks like. And remember, they struggle even without a ban on traditional two-story houses.
If this passes, we will cancel out our greatest asset (location) with the most onerous restrictions of any neighborhood near us. I could support this overlay without the height restriction, thought I would be willing to listen to corner-lot owners about their concerns, too. But I cannot support something that will put us last in line for redevelopment, whenever that comes.
This plan is short-sighted, driven by fear, and deliberately divisive.
I'm sorry that you feel you are vilified for your opinion. I'm about as passionate about this as anyone, holding a diametrically opposing opinion as you, and I certainly don't have any ill will toward you or those who you're working with.
ReplyDeleteI think there are some points about what you and your friends say, and who you and your friends are, that make many people skeptical about the motivations behind your opinions.
The profile you created here at blogpsot indicates that you are a realtor, or you work in the real estate industry. Your friend and neighbor, Jack Ormberget is in the real estate industry. Another person you appear to be working with on your opposition position is Liam Gartside, who Google tells me is a realtor, or at least held a realty license until recently. He also owns several rental properties. You admit to talking with builders about this. It would be hard to work in real estate and not have close relationships with builders.
It’s just a fact that those who have been most closely involved in initially organizing the opposition to the Overlay are routinely involved in the buying and selling of real estate and tend to view it more as an easily exchanged commodity than most of the rest of us. And I think most of us feel that the organizers of the opposition have a view of our neighborhood more driven by profit and loss than by neighborhood and stability.
You keep saying it’s all about property rights and yet all of the people who started this opposition movement, all of you work, or have worked, in the industry of making a profit off the buying and selling and redevelopment of real estate. The people you quote are builders and realtors, whose profits and fees are derived from the sale price of real estate.
So forgive us if we are skeptical when you say your motives are strictly within the bounds of property rights.
In fact, until Ms. Hargrave posted to your blog, the only people who had posted to it or were quoted in it were realtors and builders. It’s not surprising that people in those professions wouldn’t want an Overlay to go forward, and allowing for human nature, not at all surprising that they would profess to come from a position divorced from a pro-builder, pro-teardown bias.
Further, you keep talking about how an Overlay will adversely affect property values when THE FACT is that most homes in neigborhoods protected by an Overlay in Dallas have increased substantially in value. If what I’m saying is a lie, then, with your position in real estate, you ought to be able to easily show me sales data that refutes that.
Show me where homes in the M Streets have lost value, which is a much stricter Preservation Overlay. Or show me where homes have lost value in Cochran Heights, or Woodland Drive, or Northaven Estates, or Casa Linda Estates, or Greenland Hills/Mockingbird Park, or Vanderbilt/Marquita, or Dalewood, all NSO neighborhoods.
But I don’t see any of that data on your website, do I?
In sharp contrast, you can go to http://utnsoyes.blogspot.com and see that everything I say about the differences between teardown, pre-teardown and NSO protected neighborhoods is backed up with data.
The fact that you offer opinion without providing data and keep insisting it’s all about property rights and not about McMansions tells me that even you know that it most certainly is about saving this neighborhood for the builders and not for your neighbors.
If you’ve found anything I’ve said offensive, then you’re mistaking honest debate for vilification.
Mr. Riley again you are not listening to my argument. I am for property rights - us maintaining them not giving them over to someone else's whims.
ReplyDeleteThe M-Streets is of historical significance and an overlay was understandable in that area as it is to preserve Munger Place. University Terrace's homes are not historically significant. These are not mid-century moderns or 20's Tudors or "grand palaces" of the times. These are 50's track homes.
It just might be that with 18 years in Real Estate, I might have dealt with the an NSO a few more times than you. You might respect my experience and knowledge on the subject Its also something you have to disclose when you list your property for sale. Why? Because it is an ENCUMBRANCE on your property. Webster’s defines Encumbrance as something that encumbers; something burdensome, useless, or superfluous; burden; hindrance. You might take that into consideration.
There will be new construction in this neighborhood at some point and I would rather it be with a reputable builder who has a plan for the neighborhood, than with a fly-by-night crew trying to make a buck and have something like that crap on Trammel past the fire station.
By George, I think you've done it. You've roundly insulted everyone's home in about a one mile radius of your house.
ReplyDeleteGood show.
I don't know. I think my work's done here. Thanks for responding so... eloquently?
By the way, would you ask your "reputable builder" friends to start mowing the lawns of all those lots they scraped last year?
I've said it on other threads. Get a life, Mister Riley. I'm certainly not a realtor - realtors being a bugaboo for you - but rather an ordinary working guy with a kid to raise. You use innuendo and suspicion to propel your arguments. Blah! Any stats you raise are circumvent. Now if I were a realtor I would be able to go stat for stat with you. If you're not a realtor (Oh! Heavens!) then you are a lobbyest for the pro NSO group or you don't have much os a life and can fiddle around digging up detailed and ineffective arguments for your side.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned on one of my posts, the way the pro NSOers slanted the initial meetings really rankled me and others. I am open to a democratic process, but resent your attitude. If your goal is to make enemies on this blog, you are succeeding extremely well. Your attitude, redolent of arrogance and smugness, is offputting in the extreme.
Concerned - You can call me Steve.
ReplyDeleteI'm bothered by one thing you say; Any stats I raise are circumvent? That's much the same as saying, "Don't bother showing me proof. My mind is made up."
Further, I don't use innuendo and suspicion. I honestly believe what I'm saying, that the folks who kicked off the opposition campaign and who run this blog are, for the most part, realtors, and that a person who makes their living off of the buying and selling and redeveloping of properties is going to have a different view of our neighborhood and the UT Overlay than most of the rest of our residents. I think it's incredibly naive not to question their motives.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
Three times in your post you resorted to personal attack to try to make some point that I must not have a life because I make the time to look into this matter further. The reason you're doing that is because I'm challenging what you and your friends believe about the NSO. But I don't see you making any comments about the incredible amount of time that Dijea obviously spends running this blog, or posting responses, or going over to the utnsoyes.blogspot.com blog to make comments, or the amount of time that she and the Ormbergets have spent making their flyers and handing them out in the neighborhood.
Yet, by your standard, shouldn't they "get a life", too? Of course not, because they're just out there fighting the good fight. Right? And I'm just a gadfly because I make time to respond to a blog? The funniest part is, you said, "I've said it on other threads...", and "As I mentioned on one of my posts", indicating that you, too, should consider taking your own advice and perhaps look into getting a life, eh?
Do you see what I'm saying? I make comment that disagrees with what you believe, and instead of making coherent argument, instead of going out and rustling up some facts that refute what I'm saying, you just dismiss and attack me instead, and you do all this from the comfort of the anonymous avatar Concerned.
But that seems to be generally how blogs run. It's the people least willing to identify themselves who say the harshest things.
Finally, I want to ask you; did you think that this blog was just going to be all of you on the opposition holding virtual hands and singing Kumbaya? You tell me I'm making enemies. For what? For refuting what you all believe? None of you have posted a single fact to back up what you're saying. The thing that's so irksome is that no one has produced a shred of evidence that we're going to lose money on our homes if we pass the NSO, even though there are several NSO neighborhoods with plenty of sales history to prove or disprove what you all are saying. Show me where homes have lost value in Cochran Heights, or Woodland Drive, or Northaven Estates, or Casa Linda Estates, or Greenland Hills/Mockingbird Park, or Vanderbilt/Marquita, or Dalewood. These are all NSO neighborhoods, and there has to be sales data that can be correlated since their NSO's passed. And since most of you folks are realtors, break out with that data and prove me wrong. Shut me up. Show me a thing or two.
But you won't. You'll just resort to personal attack and call me smug and arrogant and go back to slapping each other on the back for how right and true your position is, regardless of the reality.
I was told my grandfather was a criminal because he was a contractor by one of your NSO supporters. Do you know what he built - Churches.
ReplyDeleteMy father was called a theif & a criminal because he was an architect again by one of your NSO supporters. Do you know what he designed - Grocery Stores. He was also a Medic in the army - you going to blame him for all the wars too?
I pray that you find peace and love and learn to start treating people with respect. Because you sure aren't treating me with any.
So, this latest comment passes for an answer to the question?
ReplyDeleteI have never been so much at a loss to understand how a group of people could get so upset because someone questioned their opinions. You still haven't provided an iota of evidence to back up your claim that we are all going to lose money if the NSO passes.