Neighborhood rules

[psychic_serpent]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Tracy" <neonsister at a...> 
wrote:
> The zoning and planning comission in my neighborhood recently came 
> up with a list of nitpicky rules for new houses being built...size 
> of garage, how many inches of foundation can show above the 
> ground, types of trees, height of fences, etc. 

I've long thought that housing developments here in the US that have 
a slew of nitpicky regulations about these sort of things are the 
next best thing to living in Stepford.  (Yes, I'm showing my age; 
ask your parents if you've never heard of the film "The Stepford 
Wives.")  There are places where you cannot display flags of any 
kind because some people were putting up banners that were 
considered too kitschy (pumpkins and scarecrows at Halloween, 
snowman for winter, etc.), not realizing that this made it against 
the rules to display the national flag as well.  People actually got 
in trouble for it until an exception was written into the rules in 
some places.  

In some places fences are completely against the rules, too, and if 
people want to allow their dogs to run free in the yard, the owners 
are encouraged to get 'invisible' fences or tether the dog so that 
it can only run in a circle.  Now, I know that kennel clubs in this 
country and elsewhere say that tethering a dog in a yard is a 
dreadful thing to do and recommend against it.  There are also 
breeds of dog, such as Irish wolfhounds, that are 'sight-hounds.'  
This means that they need to SEE their boundaries.  These dogs have 
been injured by going through invisible fences, which also don't 
protect a valuable show dog from being stolen by a human interloper 
in the yard.  (And Irish wolfhounds are the largest breed of dog; 
many rather small fences would be easily leapt by such an animal.)  
This means that, in effect, the housing regulations are limiting 
what breeds dog owners can select, since certain breeds require 
certain environments.

> This prompted a local resident (Mike Johansen; not anyone I know) 
> to write this to our local paper:
> 
> "These regulations remind me of what would happen if Vernon and 
> Petunia Dursley (Harry Potter's aunt and uncle) ran Dublin. These 
> crotchety people would love nothing more than to be able to run 
> the lives of others because their lives aren't interesting enough."
 
> I was lol when I read that!
> 
> Tracy  *feeling rebellious; going to plant daffodil bulbs without 
> permission!*

You go, girl!  Yes, I think Dursley-esque people are exactly the 
sort who come up with regulations to make their neighborhoods 
look 'perfect' so they won't risk housing values sliding downhill.  
Never mind that if you're building in a flood-plain there may be 
conflicting regulations determining how much foundation should be 
above the ground, and there have been cases of recommended plantings 
being non-native species that then 'contaminate' the local ecosystem 
when their seeds get planted in wild areas and take over the former 
territory of the native species of plants, upon which the native 
wildlife was dependent....The harm from these stupid regulations 
goes on and on.  I also have a very strong dislike of developments 
with rules against sidewalks and street lights (or which simply 
don't have them), as I am an intrepid pedestrian and these places 
force everyone to drive everywhere.  Let's just make that hole in 
the ozone a little BIGGER, while we're at it.

There's also a trickle-down effect from the insurance industry.  We 
found, when we were buying our house, that some insurers in the area 
wouldn't insure flat-roofed houses, which means just about any 
rowhouse.  Now, we live in Philadelphia, a city of rowhouses, so 
that rules out much of the city.  This is actually a subtle (okay, 
maybe not so subtle) form of red-lining, a way for insurers to avoid 
low-income areas (although it also covers the pricier city homes) 
with a criteria that might not appear, on the surface, to be 
bigoted.  Some regulations regarding new houses might require 
pitched roofs because of insurers attempting to redline.  This 
would, however, rule out many modern designs.  The insanity goes on 
and on....

At least while I'm still in architecture school, my designs don't 
need to conform to these sort of inane regulations.  I'm not sure 
any of us could complete our assignments if they did need to.  This 
is probably why most housing developments are not actually designed 
by architects, and it really shows.  A developer often puts together 
something that's aiming at a certain look (in the US it's usually 
mock-colonial) and he just gets an architect to point out any truly 
egregious flaws that will make it fall down or make it impossible to 
vent the plumbing, etc.   If it'll stand up and otherwise meet local 
codes, the architect signs off on it.  (A certified architect has to 
SIGN all blueprints approved for use by builders, but the architect 
doesn't have to DESIGN the building.)  

I hope this changes by the time I'm done school, but lets say I'm 
not actually holding my breath. ;)

--Barb

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Psychic_Serpent
http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb
http://www.livejournal.com/~psychic_serpent/