Tag Archives: property values

Beyond Halloween, what would make a suburban home spooky to the neighbors

Posted on by

Inspired by seeing this request for photos of the spookiest house on the block, I thought of ways a suburban house could be spooky all year round. And by spooky I mean a threat to property values in the eyes of the neighbors. Here are some ways:

Photo by Yana Kangal on Pexels.com

-Don’t maintain the lawn and front yard. Long grass. Large weeds. Overgrown bushes. The backyard is more hidden so it might escape scrutiny. The front yard will be seen by everyone driving or walking by.

-Paint the house a bright and/or unusual color. Be way out of the ordinary in the color palette. Stand out. High contrast between the main color and the trim. Make people take notice.

-Leave the trash and recycling cans in a very visible location. Don’t put them away or screen them from public view. Remind everyone that the house generates refuse and recycling.

-Have holiday decorations up and on all year round. It is fun at the holiday season but keep the Christmas or Thanksgiving or Halloween or July 4th or big game decor up all the time. Have those red and green lights twinkling in late April.

-Park an unattractive vehicle or one clearly needing repair in the driveway for a long time. Let it sit without any positive changes.

I have seen some macabre Halloween yard scenes but these examples above might bother residents more. They are partly why so many Americans are willing to live in neighborhoods with HOA’s. Let a quasi-governmental body regulate these matters. Determine the exterior colors, make sure garbage cans are put away, have guidelines about landscaping, decorations, and driveways. Or some of these might fall under local ordinances, such as the height of the grass before it will be cut by a municipality with the bill going to the property owner.

Could such a scene I described above win a spooky Halloween house competition? Probably not as people like their Halloween decorations. But ask American homeowners what they would truly consider spooky and I suspect the answers would go beyond Halloween.

The suburban Illinois lawmakers and leaders for and against the BUILD plan

Posted on by

With the BUILD plan under consideration in Illinois, some suburban leaders have announced they are for or against what the bill would provide for:

Photo by Clay Elliot on Pexels.com

Democratic state Sen. Laura Ellman of Naperville is among the plan’s proponents. Ellman and other lawmakers staged a news conference Tuesday in Springfield to outline a slew of proposals aimed at making housing more affordable for owners and renters…

Other suburban sponsors and cosponsors of BUILD-related legislation include state Sens. Mark Walker of Arlington Heights, Adriane Johnson of Buffalo Grove and Cristina Castro of Elgin.

Aligned against them are lawmakers including Republican state Rep. Martin McLaughlin of Barrington Hills; municipal leaders in South Barrington, Barrington Hills, Algonquin and other suburbs; and groups including the Illinois State Association of Counties, the DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference and the Northwest Municipal Conference.

At a city council meeting earlier this month, Naperville Mayor Scott Wehrli said the BUILD proposals promote housing density, not affordability…

McLaughlin hopes pressure from municipal leaders opposed to BUILD will be strong enough to persuade enough Democrats in the General Assembly to break with Pritzker and oppose the legislation.

Illinois has a lot of suburban residents (as does the United States as a whole). I would interested to hear from suburban lawmakers what they are hearing from these residents and voters. How many are for these proposed changes, how many are against? If people think their property values might be threatened, they tend to respond. At the same time, those seeking out housing might also be making their voices heard.

On a related note, if suburban voters are critical in national elections because of the number of them plus the number of suburbanites who might be swayed by particular issues or leaders, might legislative votes in Illinois come down to suburban representatives?

It would also be interesting to hear if there local leaders and communities who see such legislation as providing an opportunity for growth and change in their community. The population in the Chicago region and Illinois has been relatively stagnant in recent decades. Could adding more housing provide a new opportunity to add residents and status?

NIMBY wins by reducing the number of residential units

Posted on by

One observer discusses how NIMBY efforts reach their goals:

Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels.com

Sometimes working together, sometimes working separately, NIMBYs have manipulated a web of local laws and requirements—such as exclusionary zoning, minimum lot sizes, and parking minimums—to reduce production of homes. As with any production cap, the result is higher prices for new residents and higher profits for incumbents, and a transfer of wealth and power from buyers and renters to existing owners.

The article places this in the context of antitrust efforts. Local residents and officials are able to operate a monopoly with local land and regulations, thus limiting any competition. Loosen the monopoly’s hold, others can promote and build housing, and housing prices might be more reasonable and more units are available to those who could not otherwise more there.

In the suburban context, one of the reasons Americans tend to like suburbs is because of this local control. They want to buy a home in a community, enjoy the benefits of that community, and then see their property values appreciate as they are there for a while. More housing units is perceived to do multiple things: (1) threaten the amenities of the community – through density, traffic, new residents, etc. and (2) threaten property values.

The author describes efforts in Washington state to counter local NIMBY efforts. It sounds like efforts at the state level changed what local communities could do. It remains to be seen how much local change will now occur and it is not clear how many states would be willing to go as far as Washington. How many local residents would support state-wide efforts that could overrule community interests regarding housing/

A common suburban playbook: zone for big lots, oppose apartments

Posted on by

A new book about Southlake, Texas discusses some of the mechanisms used to keep the community white:

These approaches are found across American suburbs. Start with zoning for larger residential lots which has several effects. It keeps houses further apart. It maintains a more rural image. It avoids having dense housing. It raises the price of homes as each lot is bigger and costs more and the houses can be bigger since there is more space to build.

Next, take apartments and why a good number of suburbanites do not like them. They are denser housing. Suburbanites prefer homeowners, who they think have more commitment to the community and to the property in which they live. They are cheaper and this may drive property values down.

Put these two together and suburbs can keep housing values up and limit who can live in a community. This is not an accident; suburbs often have particular residents in mind when they think about development and the future of their community.

If NIMBY movements wanted to protect property values, were they wildly successful?

Posted on by

The last fifty or so years of life in the United States has included numerous NIMBY efforts by residents (see recent examples here, here, and here). One of the reasons for NIMBY activity is to protect property values. Did NIMBY efforts lead to higher property values?

Photo by Monstera Production on Pexels.com

I was thinking about this recently after reading more Internet/social media chatter about the rise in housing values in recent decades. The appreciation in value is astounding in many places.

NIMBY efforts could have contributed to this in multiple ways. They may have limited housing supply. One common argument regarding promoting more affordable housing prices is to build more housing units. This will reduce demand for existing units.

Or, NIMBY movements may have limited what communities will build. When they do construct housing, it is of similar or better quality of what is already there so as to not create downward pressure on prices.

Or, effective NIMBY efforts have kept less desirable uses away from housing. In particular, single-family homes are often located away from other land uses perceived to threaten property values.

These actions led by residents may not be the only reason housing and property prices have soared. Residents are not the only actors with influence in housing markets and communities; certainly the actions of those involved in real estate, local officials, and others contributed to increased property values.

However, taking the long view, if NIMBYs have acted in order to protect property values, does it appear – whether they directly caused it or not – that this was successful?

Dallas neighborhood fought off McMansions with conservation districts

Posted on by

The Greenland Hills neighborhood in Dallas limited McMansions in recent decades by establishing conservation districts:

Photo by David Gonzales on Pexels.com

Neighbors were also concerned about tear downs and new builds. They watched as modern mega mansions took over the Park Cities. “There’s this thing coming,” Pratt says. And the residents, who founded the Greenland Hills Neighborhood Association in 1983, knew they had to do something to fight the “McMansions.”…

After that, Greenland Hills residents formed a conservation district. In the early 2000s, they surveyed the houses, and a feasibility study showed that about two-thirds of the homes were Tudors. And there was a schism in the neighborhood. There was the M Streets, between Central and Greenville, and then there was M-Streets East, which was sandwiched by Greenville and Skillman. East wanted less restrictive conservation rules, Mut says, and some blocks wanted to opt out.

Finally, the M Streets and M Streets East conservation districts formed in 2003. The M Streets Conservation District protects seven architectural styles, like neo colonial and contemporary. “We all get hung up on Tudors, and we should because that’s pretty massive,” Pratt says. “But the other styles are just as notable in the time period as well.” The district rules preserve each architectural style’s most iconic features on the front façade. The longest section is dedicated to the Tudors. There are specifications on window proportions, roof pitches, secondary gables, even doors. “We’re not going to put a Victorian door and a Tudor home,” Mut says…

And the prices of the houses increased. Homes in Greenland Hills often go for $800,000 or more. Mut can’t pinpoint the exact reasons for the surge in pricing, but he attributes it to inflation, the proximity to downtown, and demand for the homes. Mut and Pratt recognize the irony of the neighborhood’s start as an “affordable” neighborhood versus today. But it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison, Pratt says, especially now that the neighborhood is not on the outskirts of Dallas. And the overall value, she says, is still there. 

Three thoughts come to mind:

  1. The neighborhood wanted to protect its particular architecture and character. To do this, they set up guidelines that limited property owners. This is often the trade-off of historic preservation in American communities: retaining the older styles limits what current and future property owners can do.
  2. This occurs in a metropolitan region where McMansions are common. When I compared how McMansions were defined in the New York Times and Dallas Morning News, I found people in Dallas more open to McMansions. However, it sounds like people saw what was happening in other neighborhoods and decided they did not want this in their neighborhood.
  3. Home values in the neighborhood have increased. Would this have happened at the same rate if McMansions had been constructed instead? Preserving the older homes means the neighborhood appeals to certain buyers. Building McMansions means newer and bigger homes. Which option would have raised property values more?

Suburban aesthetic regulations for homes and solar panels on the roof

Posted on by

One wealthy Chicago suburb does not allow solar panels on the roofs of houses due to concerns about their appearance:

Photo by Kindel Media on Pexels.com

In an attempt to stay true to its motto — “A Unique Village in a Natural Setting” — Kildeer is one of the few Illinois municipalities that bans roof-mounted solar panels from residential buildings.

The reason? Village leaders think they’re ugly…

Residents may install only the generally pricier version of solar energy collection: integrated solar roofs, which are made of solar shingles that blend into a home’s appearance…

Restrictions on solar-power equipment to certain materials and designs is not unusual for the village, said Chief Village Officer Michael Talbett. The municipality already restricts building materials based on quality and aesthetic concerns, he said. For instance, the village does not permit vinyl siding on its homes…

Golf, a small Cook County community just north of Morton Grove, has a moratorium in place on solar development while it finds “the best fit” for its community, village administrator Michelle Shapiro said.

It sounds like property values are the primary concern here. If certain materials are used on a house in a neighborhood or community with more expensive houses, some fear a threat to values and neighborhood continuity. Americans like to talk about the rights of individual property owners but also are very willing at times to regulate property owners to counter perceived threats and interactions with neighbors (think HOAs, local regulations, etc.)

Do solar panels on the roof mar a house or do they indicate a certain class status? Or, as the article indicates, there are higher-end solar panel options that would satisfy those with aesthetic concerns.

Who benefits from preserving open space in the suburbs?

Posted on by

I was reading through some newspaper articles from the 1990s about development in my suburban county. In an article on a $75 million bond proposal for county voters to preserve 2,300 acres of open space (which voters did approve), here is one explanation why county voters should increase their property taxes for this purpose:

Photo by David Boozer on Pexels.com

Bond issue proponents have stressed that preserving open land will help everyone by making DuPage County an even more desirable place to live. Saving open space will improve wildlife habitats, help control flooding, improve stream water quality, avoid added congestion and protect property values, Oldfield said. (Lynn Van Matre, “DuPage voters to decide on open space,” Chicago Tribune, November 2, 1997)

The reasons listed for voting in favor of spending this money appear to split into two areas: (1) environmental concerns (wildlife, flooding, water) and (2) a particular quality of life marked by property values and limited traffic.

But, I wonder if the first category is a subset of the second set of concerns. Suburbanites in Chicagoland care about property values and have concerns about drug treatment centers, waste transfer facilities, religious buildings, apartments, and anything else they think threatens their financial investment.

Do suburban residents care more about environmental concerns or about what development might go into these open spaces? From the perspective of some (and this was also expressed in the article above), such land could be used for affordable housing or for community amenities. To keep it as open space means it could not be other uses that people could benefit from.

If preserving property values is the top concern regarding land development, this is the sort of decision that might be made. Such a decision does not come cheaply; local property owners pay more but they do so in order to hopefully boost their investment even more.

(See earlier posts involving questions about who benefits from open space in New Jersey and the motives behind acquisitions by forest preserves.)

Regulation coming for renting out suburban backyard swimming pools?

Posted on by

Suburbanites are renting out their pools through an app and their neighbors are not happy:

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

The sounds of summer fun ripple up from ads for Swimply, an app that allows homeowners to rent out private pools to strangers looking to enjoy cool water under the hot sun. But that seasonal chorus has sharply divided suburban residents of Montgomery County as the local government considers formally regulating the short-term amenity rentals — potentially becoming the first in the nation to do so…

It is only mid-spring, but already dozens of pools in and around Maryland’s most populous county have been listed for rent on Swimply, which launched in 2020 as people sought alternatives to public pools that shut down because of the pandemic on the heels of the wild success of apps like Airbnb and Uber. Hosts set hourly rates anywhere between $25 to $100 an hour to access private backyard pools that bypass lines and crowds.

Unlike long-established home rental and ride sharing apps, newer apps that let people rent out their pools, home gyms and backyards have largely been unregulated across the United States so far. In fact, several jurisdictions, from the city of San Jose to towns across New Jersey to the state of Wisconsin, have tried over the past three years to ban the rentals or set up strict rules that require private pools to meet the same standards as a public pool…

A like-minded group of 36 county residents from Chevy Chase, Rockville, Montgomery Village, Kensington and Rosemary Hills, wrote a letter opposing the bill and asking the county instead to outlaw the amenity rentals altogether. The group argued that the rentals turn quiet residential neighborhoods into bustling business districts, without the infrastructure to support commercial activity. They raised dozens of concerns, largely over the added nuisance of strangers pouring into their neighborhoods because of the apps, congested roads, scarce parking, and noise and safety.

Should the property rights of homeowners reign supreme – they can do what they want with their property – or is this too much activity within residential neighborhoods where people expect quiet and do not want neighboring activities that they perceive will affect their property values?

If Montgomery County does not regulate this, someone will. I can imagine an alternative line of reasoning from a suburban government: this is a possible revenue stream.

When the values of homes quintuple over 5 decades by just being there

Posted on by

I recently saw a house near me that was for sale. Checking the online property history, I found that the home is now worth roughly 5 times more than what it sold for in the early 1980s. By just being there for the last four decades, the home has quintupled in value.

Photo by Nataliya Vaitkevich on Pexels.com

This is not a phenomena restricted to our suburban area. Recently following an Internet rabbit trail, I was looking up property values in Levittowns on the East Coast. I remember seeing that their values had at least tripled or quadrupled over a similar span. What were once cheap and simple suburban homes became homes with values significantly above the median value for owner-occupied homes.

Homeowners would likely say that the values have increased because of the maintenance and upgrades in the homes and properties. There has been change; the homes near us have been updated and added to over the last fifty years while the Levittown houses have been transformed in numerous ways over the decades.

But, those positive changes do not add up to such an increase in value. Much of the increase in value has come from just being there. Being in the right location. The owners who lived in such homes benefited financially from a positive return on investment and could roll that new found wealth into other homes, investments, or opportunities.