Another Response to Mr. Riley

Mr Riley : responses to your questions/comments

1-“And all you folks on the Opposition side do work in real estate.”

Answer:

Who do YOU work for? Your“facts” show that you have spent a lot of time on this matter. Are you an NSO professional , an urban planner? Are you qualified to predict future building and real estate trends?

2-“Where have you folks been in the last 18 months “

Answer: We all have jobs, families, busy lives, we do not have time to start and campaign for a petition to tell our neighbors what they can do with their own homes.

We have also been keeping up with the news. We are concerned about our financial security and the last thing we want to do is hand over the property rights to our major financial asset, our house, to the City of Dallas.

If you have been working on this NSO for 18 months I would suggest that you revise your position given the CURRENT situation. Nothing is what it was18 months ago.

Martine Burlinson

Waiting for an answer.

Since this post wouldn't dare be published on the pro side site I'll put it here. This has been mentioned before but with no response. In the beginning, why is it that the pro side only said "do you want Mc Mansions next to you?" And told people "that every one else has signed it" Those two statements with no information. I too was approached in this manner as were many people. They just can't answer as to why this was done. They don't want to admit that was their only way to gain support. By lying and misleading people. Sure......you have a large percentage for it because you lied to them. I have NO respect for any of the people who started this in this manner, NONE!!! While it may not do any good now, I'm gonna make sure that the city knows just how you went about this. And once again.....THIS IS NOT THE M STREETS you bunch of idiots!!!!

Flyers

Why have the pro NSO decided not to show us their flyers? We gave them ours. What are they afraid of?

M Streets....are you serious?

The pro NSO are comparing our neighborhood to the M streets? Hey......my apple is the exact same as my orange. I don't think so. This is the kind of thinking that is gonna get this thing passed? This is the kind of thinking that had convinced so many people to sign in the first place? This is the kind of thinking that is deciding on the future of our neighborhood? It's a sad state of affairs when being ruled by idiocracy.

Giving Away Valuable Rights

When you own property, you own a "bundle" of rights associated with that property -the right to occupy the property, the right to exclude others from the property, the right make decisions about how to use the property, the right to make improvements to the property, the right to sell and exchange the property.

When the government places restrictions on your rights, you are effectively giving up rights to your property. When you purchase property, you have the right to know what rights you are buying and what rights you are not buying.

We bought our home in University Terrace knowing that there were restrictions on our property - for example, we could not turn our house into a multi-family dwelling. We could not use our property as a restaurant or store. We knew there were restrictions in place regarding the kind of building structure that could be on our property. We found these restrictions to be acceptable, and purchased our home according to those restrictions.

The restrictions in place already are sufficient to ensure that zero lot line mansions are not built next door.

With the proposed overlay, we would be giving away valuable rights to our property, with nothing to gain. The additional restrictions outlined in the overlay further impede the rights I have in my property.

This is serious.

Ask yourself - what exactly are you getting in return for giving away significant rights of ownership? What exactly are you getting in return for the government telling you what you can and can not do with your property?Whether you plan to use those rights or not - that's up to you, for now. If the overlay passes, you no longer have the option of using those rights or not.

I simply can't be in favor of giving away any more rights from the "bundle of rights" associated with my property.

It is About Property Rights - NOT McMansions

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.

Response to Steve Riley on Haverford

Sorry for the delay in responding, but I don’t manage this site; another Friend of UT does.  Therefore, I don’t know when posts are made.  Regardless, since this comment was more directed towards me, I will take the opportunity to respond.

 First, Thank you for engaging this matter in debate, Steve.  

 

To date, much of this process has been pushed through the neighborhood without any forum for opposition.  The meetings that many of us attended did not provide us an opportunity to ask questions or really consider the issue until now.

 

The goal of this media is to provide a vehicle for all of us opposed to the NSO to "come out of the shadows" together and ultimately a forum allowing free and open discussions of the issues.  Encourage all your friends and neighbors to read this blog.  We have nothing to hide and welcome a democratic process rather than having this forced upon us.  Please recognize that this is just that, an open debate regarding the issues and not a place to make personal attacks.

 

With that in mind, again let me stress that this is not a "Me vs. You" issue.  This is a neighborhood issue.  But since I have chosen to be more active in this matter, let me speak strictly on my behalf. I have nothing to hide and I have been fully open to all the residents that I have addressed on the subject matter.  To clarify:

 

1.  I, personally, am not a realtor, understood as a residential realtor.  Rather I work in commercial real estate, whereby I help my clients negotiate fair and equitable contracts.

 

2.  Individually, my house is for sale.  We are moving to a larger home, as we have out-grown our current home.  We have gone through the process and have come to the conclusion that it's not cost-effective to build onto our current home, so we are leaving.  A factor that will be emphasized with the restrictions of the overlay.

 

3.  While walking the neighborhood with our children, I have asked several neighbors whether they are in favor of the NSO.  Many(too many for me to overlook) have said that they were misled into signing the petition.  You quote 71% of the neighborhood support this, but that number has dwindled quite a bit when more facts were given.  Keep an eye on the number of signs that are going up.

 

Yes, my career is founded on attempting to even the playing field, so I took offense to this situation and decided to see if there was enough opposition to further the debate.  I personally feel more strongly about our neighborhood being directed by a small majority, than the overlay issue at hand.  If it is the neighborhood's will to pass this, then fine.  We are moving.  However, if there is not an overwhelming ratio requesting this overlay, then the residents should not be forced to give up the property rights they had when they purchased their homes in the beginning.

 

Again, ask anyone that I personally have approached and you will likely be told that I prefaced all my comments with full disclosure.  Also ask your neighbors with whom we have interacted, we believe that this neighborhood is a fun place.  We participate in the Halloween and 4th of July parades and spend a considerable time at the Ridgewood Rec Center park.  We have truly enjoyed our time here.  It is not MY purpose to disrupt the enjoyment of the neighborhood.

 

You too state that "All experts agree, this type of ordinance is too new to provide any meaningful statistics.”  Yet you seek to implement this overlay and bind all current and future residents to the ramifications of the proposed zoning.

 

Yes, I have spent much time speaking with developers, contractors, residential real estate agents, title and mortgage professionals AND people who are looking to purchase a home.  Almost all of them have said they would not purchase a home that has an overlay and consider that a detraction.

 

I also appreciate that you have looked into the property values and break-downs, as many people have questioned that very issue.

 

Yes, the property values in that neighborhood have shifted from structure to site-value.  That is a fact that cannot be denied.  We have to understand that the city decides the taxable value of neighborhoods.  We don't.  We have some influence by appealing the process, but when the values are actually derived through valid comp's, we can't argue with facts.

 

However, keep in mind that a home only has value if it is purchased.  If such a structure were to be built in our neighborhood, will it sell?  I don't know, but personally, I value our backyard.  As they have too little of one, I wouldn't buy it if it was in UT.

 

On the flip side, there are several "scraper" houses in our neighborhood, specifically two on Bucknell.  I am thankful they aren't my neighbors, and hopefully no offense to those who do live next to them.  These examples are in such disrepair/abandoned, that I worry about vermin infestations.  Do you think that someone will be eager to come in and rehab those to current specifications?  They haven’t done so yet!  How many more are there that have more serious conditions which are not outwardly visible?

 

Thank you and to everyone that I personally have spoken with for engaging this debate.  It truly is very important to all the residents of UT.  If anyone has questions for me specifically, reach out to me.  If there are other questions that you have, keep reading.  My hope is that all the issues will be raised and a resource will be provided to everyone to make an informed decision.

 

Warmest Regards,

Jack Ormberget

one Friend of University Terrace