Press release went out today - come help por favor
NoMcMansions.org Launches Responsible Development Awareness Campaign
T-shirts, stickers, yard signs and advocacy website used to promote Dallas homeowner concerns about oversized “McMansion” developments.
We’re familiar with the phenomenon. A speculator “flipper” makes a fast-buy offer and tries to get a commitment to buy a house on an established residential block before it even appears on the market. Usually by approaching a retiree or the estate of a recently deceased resident. A developer then gets a large loan and levels the house, quickly erecting a new 5,000+ square foot house which consumes most of the surface area of the lot, and towers over neighboring houses. A certain type of realtor then sells the “supersized” house to an incoming suburbanite or someone from outside of Dallas who values the proximity of the house to the city. The parties involved can make anywhere from $80,000 to $200,000 per house.
Neighboring houses are now “overshadowed,” and since they are now expected to follow suit by selling, the value of the existing smaller houses is reduced to the raw land value.
While many neighborhoods have broad constituent sympathy for the idea of limiting construction that disrupts a neighborhood, people are often unaware how to do anything about it. Neighborhood associations typically are not touching the issue for fear of creating a “hot potato” by offending certain individuals with an economic interest in the redevelopment. Well-spoken and well-funded representatives from the development and realty industry say a zoning overlay would severely limit individual rights, and have attempted to delay any action and dissipate Dallas into smaller neighborhood groups that have little collective influence.
The citizens group Dallas Citizens for Responsible Development (DCFRD) will be launching a broad awareness campaign to promote the idea that new development in existing neighborhoods needs to be “better, not bigger.” Yellow and red bumper stickers and t-shirts will be appearing around town and at community events, city meetings and open “McMansions.” The goal of the group is to educate Dallas citizens on the reality of their property rights, and demonstrate to the Dallas government that citizens need an effective tool in place to provide some reasonable limits to new construction in existing neighborhoods.
The first t-shirts and bumper stickers will be distributed and sold at the Lower Greenville Homeowner’s Association “National Night Out” against crime on August 2nd at Tietze Park. All proceeds from the sales will go toward increasing the production of yard signs and other awareness materials as the campaign continues.
The goal of DCFRD is to get a Zoning Overlay passed by demonstrating a visible level of support within Dallas and disseminating information through the site that educates homeowners and provides suggestions on how to show support for responsible development.
In addition to the outward signs of the awareness campaigns, many citizens are working directly and meeting with their council members, the zoning commission and other government bodies to ensure that reasonable building limits and controls are part of the proposed zoning overlay.
A zoning overlay is not intended to stop homeowners from renovating or improving their own houses. In fact, it encourages the expansion and/or improvement of existing houses. In addition, each neighborhood will still determine its own standards once an overlay is in place.
Nor does the overlay halt new construction and improvement of neighborhoods. But development companies are attempting to spread the idea that the zoning tool would create a “block war” within communities that have differing opinions on what limits should be. In reality, the overlay would primarily affect only new developed houses and simply limit their overall size, setbacks and height to proportionate levels in comparison to neighboring houses. It would eliminate that quick-flip profit of a larger house, which isn’t a popular notion for certain developers and realtors currently enjoying the lack of zoning controls.
Unregulated construction not only destroys the character of a neighborhood, it provides little economic benefit except for the parties who profit from the sale. Unregulated development is now rampant on many Dallas streets, with development companies running hundreds of crews to feed the teardown boom. The unregulated construction is not only disturbing and hazardous to existing residences, it is fueled by a low-interest economic housing “bubble” that has spiraled out of control and will leave behind an inconsistent legacy in many neighborhoods.
Dallas has the worst credit score in the country
Yes, we have officially done it! According to Experian, Dallas has the worst credit of any city in the country. 650.
More per capita foreclosures and bankruptcies than any other major city. And who can blame us? You see, we are a town that likes things big, new, and no money down. Come join in the party. But what will happen when the interest rates change, or the maxed-out credit comes due?
Free credit counseling is available now from the City of Dallas.
(Story reported July 26 on CBS-11 news.)
Another good story - apparently job growth in housing has fueled the new housing boom and "creative loans"... uh.... now it's stalling...
Say Hi to the Developers Everyone!
I had no idea that developers would go to the trouble of posting their loosely veiled "concerns" (insults so far) on our little chat site, but apparently they have. so alright! This is positive encouragement that we're getting under their skin!
Many realtors/builders/bankers are very good people. They support development that is reasonably compatible, loans that are sustainably based, and therefore they improve the quality and the economy of the neighborhoods they work within.
Many profiteers don't want any kind of reasonable controls on development in our neighborhoods, because they intend to take over our blocks with no regard whatsoever for the people that live here. If they had just shown a tiny bit of restraint, we wouldn't have to organize.
Yes, some houses need to be replaced from time to time. But I guarantee you won't find a resident who has been here and wants to stay in their current home, who appreciates unregulated construction and being shadowed and/or "gentrified" with a giant wall. Unless they make money from that process.
The only people who would say otherwise are those who profit off of us. How do you sleep at night telling lies like this?
And oh my god: I just heard that someone defaced a builder's sign! What can we do about this terrible injustice? Well... it's probably a lie, but please, if you want to speak out, though you are tempted to do so, don't do anything that will get YOU in trouble. Just report their work site violations. Just talk to your neighbors. Just write some letters. Just express your opinion. Just show up when your elected officials show up. And tell them how you feel.
U.S. House Size, Resource Use, and the Environment
Article from MIT Journal of Industrial Ecology, Winter/Spring 2005 issue.Read/download the full article here.
As house size increases, resource use in buildings goes up, more land is occupied, increased impermeable surface results in more stormwater runoff, construction costs rise, and energy consumption increases. In new, single-family houses constructed in the United States, living area per family member has increased by a factor of 3 since the 1950s. This journal article examines some of the trends in single-family house building in the United States and provides recommendations for downsizing houses to improve quality and resource efficiency. By Alex Wilson and Jessica Boehland
________________________________________
Since 1950, the average size of new single-family houses in the United States has more than doubled, even as the average family size has steadily shrunk. More area (square footage) per family member is being used than ever before, and projections are that the trend will continue. As house size increases, so too do the environmental impacts associated with buildings and development: resource consumption increases, the land area affected by development grows, stormwater runoff increases as impermeable surface area increases, and energy use rises. In addition to carrying larger environmental burdens, larger houses cost more to build and operate. For single-family houses, "small is beautiful" in terms of environmental performance.
Because single-family, detached houses account for 63% of total dwelling units in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001), this study focuses solely on single-family houses. A broader study that examined single-family attached houses, multifamily buildings, and mobile homes would produce somewhat different and probably less dramatic results.
Demographics vs. House Size The U.S. Census Bureau has been collecting detailed information on household size since 1940 and tracking certain characteristics of houses since 1963. Data on houses were collected by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and other agencies from 1940 to 1963. Average household size in the United States has dropped steadily from 3.67 members in 1940 to 2.62 in 2002. The average size of new houses increased from about 1,100 ft2 (100 m2) in the 1940s and 1950s to 2,340 ft2 (217 m2) in 2002. Factoring together the family size and house size statistics, we find that in 1950 houses were built with about 290 square feet (27 m2) per family member, whereas in 2003 houses provided 893 square feet (83 m2) per family member (NAHB 2003) -- a factor of 3 increase.
Other trends in American single-family housing have been similar. In 1967, for example, 48% of new single-family houses had garages for two or more cars; by 2002, that figure had jumped to 82%. In 1975, 20% of new single-family houses had 2.5 or more bathrooms; by 2002, that figure had increased to 55%. In 1975, 46% of new houses had central air conditioning; by 2002, 87% had it.
Resource Consumption Larger houses consume more resources -- both in construction and during operation. The U.S. National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) estimates the materials used in building a 2,082-square-foot (193-m2) single-family house to include 13,837 board-feet of framing lumber, 11,550 square feet (1,073 m2) of sheathing, and 16.92 tons (15,350 kg) of concrete. One would expect that, relative to material use, there would be an economy of scale as house size increased -- that material use per unit area of floor area would drop as floor area increased.
But that is not necessarily the case, according to Gopal Ahluwalia, the director of research at NAHB. Although NAHB has not compiled data on material use as a function of house size, Ahluwalia believes that, because larger houses tend to have taller ceilings and more features, larger houses may actually consume proportionally more materials. He estimates that a new 5,000-square-foot house will consume three times as much material as the 2,082-square-foot house NAHB has modeled, even though its square footage is only 2.4 times as large. Even if Ahluwalia's intuition is not correct and larger houses are more material-efficient per unit area of floor, the higher ceilings and added features in large houses may mean that material use efficiency improvements with increased floor area of a house are not proportionate -- that is, that the increased material efficiency one would expect from purely geometrical calculations is not realized.
The use of lumber, structural panels, and nonstructural panels in new houses from 1950 through 1992, along with figures for total wood use calculated from these data, are presented in table 2 below. As would be expected, total wood use in houses has increased steadily between 1950 and 1992, as houses have grown in size. But when we examine total wood use per unit of floor area, we find that it dropped between 1950 and 1970 -- perhaps due to the substitution of plywood sheathing for board sheathing and the introduction of more wood-efficient roof trusses. Then, around 1970, wood use per square foot of floor area began to increase again, and by 1992 it was up about 12% from the low point. Exactly why this is occurring is not clear; it could result from an increasing use of 2×6s instead of 2×4s1 for wall framing, or a shift to more complex geometries.
In general, the energy efficiency of a building envelope (i.e., the structural elements that enclose a building, including the walls, roofs, and foundations) is a function of how well insulated it is, how airtight it is, the exposure of its glazed areas to solar gain, and its area. All else being equal, a house with more surface area will consume more energy for heating and cooling. Thus, a larger house -- or one that has more complex geometry -- will consume more energy.
A house's smaller square footage does not always mean a comparable reduction in surface area. If one reduces the total size of a house but breaks it into smaller, separate wings and more complex geometry, for example, as is sometimes done in custom houses, one may not gain much in the way of energy savings compared to the large box. Along with the greater surface area increasing heat loss and unwanted heat gain, larger houses also generally require longer runs for ducting and hot water pipes. Losses in conveyance of warm air, chilled air, and hot water can be significant.
Quantity vs. Quality With single-family houses, the notion that bigger is better has been a leading driver of the real estate industry. Large houses are a status symbol. Even retirement homes built for "empty-nesters" (couples whose children have left home) are usually a step up in terms of size. Virtually all segments of the American home-buying market are buying the largest houses they can afford.
Designer-builder John Abrams of the South Mountain Company in West Tisbury, Mass., describes three factors that are driving the popularity of large houses: "First, with less of a sense of community and public life in our culture, the home becomes a fortress which needs to contain everything we need, including multiple forms of entertainment, rather than basic shelter; second, the building industry has been selling 'big is better' and the message has been heard; and third, diminishing craft and design generosity has resulted in sterile homes -- people mistakenly think that what's missing is grandeur: more space."
This status quo is being questioned today. Homebuyers are becoming less interested in size than they are in quality. Sarah Susanka's book The Not So Big House (1998), which emphasizes a very different approach to house design -- one focused on quality, not quantity -- is selling extremely well. According to Taunton Press, over 360,000 copies have been sold. Two of Susanka's subsequent books also continue to sell well: Over 240,000 copies of Creating the Not So Big House (2002) and 50,000 copies of Not So Big Solutions for Your Home (2002) have been sold. A residential architect in North Carolina, Susanka argues for space-efficient houses with spaces that will be used. For example, she suggests eliminating the formal dining room in favor of a larger kitchen that provides both dining space and some informal living space.
The South Mountain Company has been emphasizing space-efficient houses since its launch nearly 30 years ago. In addition to providing open-plan living/dining/kitchen areas, the company suggests providing built-in furnishings and storage spaces, eliminating single-use hallways, designing multiple uses into rooms, and utilizing often-wasted attic and low-roof space.
Legal and Regulatory Issues with Building SmallZoning regulations, restrictive covenants (i.e., provisions in the deed for the property that restrict the way the property may be used by the owner) and design standards for specific subdivisions, and even mortgage banking requirements2 can significantly limit options for creating small, space-efficient, single-family houses. Some municipalities establish strict limits on how small a house can be. Though less common than in the past (due in part to lawsuits that have challenged their constitutionality), such regulations still exist. In the suburbs around Atlanta, Ga., for example, Fulton County specifies a minimum heated floor area of houses in most of its zoning districts. For single-story houses, these minima range from 850 to 1,800 square feet (79-167 m2); for two-story houses, they range from 1,100 to 2,000 square feet (102-186 m2).
Far more common than minimum house size regulations in municipal zoning ordinances are restrictive covenants established by developers for specific, privately controlled subdivisions. In the La Marche Place neighborhood in the 3,400-acre (1,400-ha) Wooded Hills subdivision in Little Rock, Ark., for example, single-level houses must be at least 2,600 square feet (242 m2) and multilevel houses at least 3,000 square feet (279 m2). In the Spring Glen subdivision in Medina County, Ohio, the minimum heated square footage of houses (exclusive of garages, finished basements, porches, etc.) ranges from 1,800 to 2,600 square feet (167-242 m2), with a provision for reducing the square footage by up to 10% if the developer deems that "the design is unusually good and is or will be compatible with other houses in the development."
Mortgage bankers can also in effect specify minimum house size for new houses by mandating ratios of house value to land value. Secondary mortgage markets often have a rule of thumb that the lot should not be worth more than 30% of the total value of the real estate. Thus, on an expensive lot, homeowners are required to build expensive, and therefore often large, houses. Appraisals (which assess the value of the a house for financial or taxation purposes) for small houses also run into difficulty when all the houses in a particular area are very large and the appraiser cannot find small comparable houses. This issue does not apply at the high end of the real estate market, where land values commonly exceed house values.
Examples also exist of both zoning regulations and restrictive covenants on subdivisions that specify maximum house size. Many municipalities effectively limit the footprints of houses on small lots by specifying the maximum coverage of the lot. This restriction is generally governed by stormwater concerns, but particularly with small infill lots, it can have a big impact on house size. Cupertino, Calif., goes much further by restricting house floor area to a maximum size of 6,500 square feet (604m2) -- less in areas of significant slope or smaller lots (Cupertino Municipal Code 1999).
Santa Cruz County in California and several communities in Chicago, Illinois, USA suburbs also have maximum house size regulations. In the Chicago area the regulations are addressing a trend referred to as mansionization, in which houses are often designed to fill the maximum available footprint of a lot -- overwhelming the neighborhood scale.
In the environmentally focused Dewees Island subdivision in South Carolina, maximum house size has been established by covenant at 5,000 square feet (465 m2). Given that this is a luxury development, with most 2-acre sites selling in the $400,000 range, but some as high as $850,000, this restriction on house size is highly unusual. So is the fact that there are no minimum floor area or footprint requirements. Developer John Knott suspects that they have lost a few sales because of these standards, but in general he thinks that property owners feel relief at the maximum size limit -- they don't have to "keep up with the Joneses." The average-sized house at Dewees is 2,600 to 2,700 square feet (242-251 m2), with the smallest just 1,200 square feet (111 m2).
Another influence on house size in the United States has long been capital gains tax policy. Until recently, when an American family sold a house it had to buy a new house of equal or greater value within 2 years to avoid capital gains tax on the appreciated value of the house that was sold. That policy often resulted in people moving into larger houses, especially empty-nesters moving into areas with lower real estate values. Since that policy changed in 1998, U.S. citizens are no longer taxed for capital gains on the first $250,000 value ($500,000 for a couple) for a primary residence, so the incentive for moving up into larger houses to avoid capital gains taxes is gone or significantly reduced in most cases.
Selling the Concept Even without any regulatory or financing impediments to building compact houses, convincing others of their benefits can be challenging.
Clients often have preconceived notions of how large a house they need, often because a friend's house of that size seems to have the features that the client wants. A different understanding may be reached if the clients focus on their housing needs and expectations. Visiting high-quality, compact houses may also influence their views. It may also be possible to convince clients that, by keeping the square footage down, they can end up with a higher quality house.
Rather than using up the budget to create the largest, most impressive house possible, many designers today recommend creating smaller houses with a higher level of finish quality and added amenities. "A house that favors quality of design over quantity of space satisfies people with big dreams and not so big budgets far more than a house with those characteristics in reverse," says Susanka. She argues that a good house designer should suggest to clients that, for a given budget, they reduce square footage to allow high-quality detailing. Fine carpentry detailing, granite countertops, hardwood floors, labor-intensive but soulful salvage materials, and quality architecture can be far more impressive than sheer size.
On the regulatory side, remaining zoning ordinances that mandate large houses should be eliminated, and zoning regulations should be revised to prohibit or discourage design standards or covenants in private developments that mandate large houses. Restrictions in private developments that specify maximum dwelling size should not be prohibited or discouraged. Rather, regulatory incentives should be developed that encourage such restrictions.
Final Thoughts A great deal of attention is paid to material selection and energy detailing in creating environmentally friendly ("green") houses. Designers, builders, or owners of these houses seek out recycled-content building materials, low embodied- energy materials, or natural materials. Advanced framing techniques reduce wood use. Well-insulated walls and ceilings, high-performance glazings, and efficient equipment reduce energy consumption. But far too often, the more important consideration of size is overlooked.
A 1,500-square-foot (141-m2) house with mediocre energy-performance standards (R-13 walls and R-19 ceilings) will use far less energy for heating and cooling than a 3,000-squarefoot (28-m2) house of comparable geometry with much better energy detailing (R-19 walls and R-30 ceilings). Downsizing a conventionally framed house by 25% should save significantly more wood than substituting the most wood-efficient advanced framing techniques (24"-on-center studs, single top-plates, two-stud corners, elimination of cripple studs at windows, etc.) for that house. And it is easier to reduce the embodied energy of a house by making the house smaller than by searching for low embodied- energy materials.
In considering space requirements in houses, storage requirements should be considered. Anecdotal observations show that Americans have more belongings than used to be the case. Thus, spaces need to be designed not only for the people using those houses, but also for the many belongings those homeowners own. A shift toward smaller houses may also necessitate some degree of change regarding possessions. This issue has not been addressed in this article.
Building small is not easy. To make small houses work well requires understanding the needs of homeowners and then fulfilling those needs with careful design. Simply using off-the-shelf house designs may not adequately account for the specific needs of a family. Fortunately, a number of excellent resources on compact house design are available, some of which include floor plans and elevations. To ensure success with small, resource-efficient houses, however, builders should involve a designer, preferably one with experience in compact house design. And both builders and designers should spend enough time with clients to adequately explain the benefits of smaller houses.
---------
For references and illustrations,
download this article in PDF format.
This article has been reprinted courtesy of the Journal for Industrial Ecology. It was first published in the journal's Winter/Spring 2005 issue.
The Site to Fight Suburban Blight
This site will become a gathering place for information on how we, as current homeowners within Dallas, can help preserve the character and value of our neighborhoods.
Content posted on NoMcMansions will include:-- Action items for helping ensure responsible development in our community;
-- Upcoming community and zoning meetings and meeting notes;
-- Information resources for finding out about development plans and legal countermeasures against irresponsible building practices;
-- Relevant articles (both Dallas local and from other neighborhoods facing the same challenges)
-- Example pictures of offensive houses and the names of the developers and realtors responsible
-- Government and media contact lists to voice our concerns.
Respectful Complaints are OK, but Responsible Action is BetterMany individuals will be posting content to this site, and even more will be commenting on the posts on NoMcMansions.org. Please keep the tone of this content oriented around how we can make a positive difference in our neighborhood while still respecting property owner's rights.
Look for more content on this site soon, and thanks for your interest and participation in this process.
Webmaster@NoMcMansions.Org
Dallas Citizens for Responsible Development
Lies Developers/Speculators Tell You
The July 8 issue of Lakewood People, which is a piece of trash they throw in our yard, had a couple great articles by JD Sparks about why you are living in the stone age if you don't sell your house to a suburbanite who would much prefer your plot of land.
PLEASE comment on this post with your own lies you've heard from people with economic interest in displacing our neighborhood.
1. The bubble will never burst on new home construction values. Well, actually, it may in certain cases, if we can slightly reduce the average selling price and ease of construction and sale of these properties. And say interest rates change rapidly, some of these companies will default on their loans before development is finished, and their financial house of cards will fall from there. Or, there may just be too many new houses. Hey, yeah, in general real estate will appreciate, but it is still a market! Look at stocks in 2000 as well, that's when people were saying the "bubble will never burst" too. Scary words to hear if you're the last one in.
2. The quality and value of these new homes is superior to the existing structures. Well, we've been here for 50+ years. Sitting on a real piece of rock. And we've seen some of these new houses going up in record time, and they are seriously matchstick/particle board frames with fortress-like papier-mache facades. They are built on hastily packed abutments of dirt to increase the "stature." The concrete and plaster is barely even dry by the time they're up for sale. Once the word gets out on some of the quality problems these builders have, including foundation and drainage problems, shoddy materials, mold from improperly dried surfaces, inability of the underlying piping and earth to handle the weight, etc. you will see some declining values. Sorry. Check out some of the horror stories of hastily built communities in the outlying areas of D/FW. There's new home owners who picked the wrong builder and are left with valueless houses, legally useless warranties, and nothing to show for it.
3. Your house is only worth the land it is sitting on anyway. This is their attempt to get you to concede now and sell your house for far less than it is worth, because you fear everybody else will! Notice that your lot taxable values are not-so-subtly increasing (since a good land value is good loan collateral), while it is easy to decrease the value of your house. They hope that you will react with fear now instead of standing your ground and fighting this outrageous claim. Your house is solid and will outlast every McMansion on your block unless they bulldoze it.
4. The new zoning overlays will take away your property rights. This is outrageous! You will hear from people insidiously claiming that any new zoning will make you unable to build a carport, put in a grill or add a new bathroom. This is exactly what they want you to believe, so you won't support a responsible development plan. They MUST build very large houses, with many square feet, very fast, to get their speculative loans and turn a quick profit on the sale. A zoning overlay would limit the overall size and height of their house and kill that quick profit. Don't believe this one. They know a new zoning overlay will be detrimental to unregulated (and inconsiderately large) new home construction and encourage renovation or reasonably sized homes instead.
5. They're putting in a luxury high-rise! What a ruse. Well, these may be responsible, or they may not be. But chances are they make much better use of a limited amound of land, comparatively. Bear in mind that this is a distinct and separate issue that deserves its own attention. But it turns out, when you bring up McMansions, some government people and real estate professionals talk about these condos instead. So, why would we not want a way for more "gentrified" residents to live close to the city and improve business and tax base, without destroying our neighborhoods? Oh, yeah, the developers and realtors who are complaining about the high-rise DON'T GET ANY PART OF THE DEAL!
There are many more ways developers are trying to hoodwink our homes right out from under us. Please comment here and we'll add them to the list.
A good pic from our Preston Hollow neighbors
Preston Hollow (like Lakewood and many other neighborhoods) is going through a similar mess... developers coming in and basically expecting the existing residents to leave. What happens if the fly-by-night developer lets you down?
You can keep up with posts from this group by simply signing up at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/myoldhome/ thanks for the great updates Kathleen!
Monsters of Austin Rock Home Tour
The point of this site is not to condemn houses that are already built. Or the families moving into them.
However, if we don't take some kind of action now, we can look forward to more large houses on tiny lots. So let's focus on the houses that are about to be torn down.
12 Things to do Instead of Building a McMansion
If you're feeling like building a massive house that blocks out the sun, in order to fit your Hummer and your kids Ashleigheh, Dakota, and Pacifica, here's some handy ways to beat the need to build. Ok, I had to add a couple more.
1. Get on your roof occasionally so you can feel the superiority of looking over the tops of your neighbors' houses.
2. Mirrors can expand the impression of "space" in a room.
3. If you need a bigger master bedroom or bathroom, try renovating and adding onto your house, or losing weight.
4. Go to the devastation of Sondra Dr. in Lakewood and look at the uh, "custom" homes there to remind yourself how much variety and unique character our area has.
5. Enjoy a barbecue in your "yard," which is a piece of grass not seen around McMansions.
6. It takes about 2 years for the formaldehyde and toxic chemicals inherent in a new house to be reduced to safe levels. Cut out the middleman and expose your family to these chemicals.
7. Get a job in Frisco, so you can have a monster house closer to your workplace if you must have one.
8. Take the money you saved in building costs and get a vacation property.
9. Try self-hypnosis. "I do not need 5 bathrooms, 4 bedrooms, a 3 car garage, a wine room, a computer room and a media room."
10. Put bricks in all your side windows, that's pretty much the view you would have in a "luxury enclave" anyway.
11. Set up a sub-woofer in your attic, and a timer kicking in at 7 a.m. that starts a CD playing nail-gun and saw sounds, with an oom-pah music undertone. Strew nails and fast food wrappers in your yard and driveway to achieve the full effect of unregulated construction going on next door.
12. Buy and fix a house. If the house must be knocked down, please build a new one that has a reasonable footprint and doesn't look like a quarry pile.
13. Buy a good plot of land outside of town, build your dream McMansion, and in a few years you'll be able to fly your Lexus AeroCar on the Microsoft/Matsushita AirHighway straight downtown in less than 10 minutes.
Chief Offenders
This section will be used to point out the companies and individuals who are promoting suburban blight in Dallas. Please comment to this message with additions and we will continue building this section out.
"Lakewood is being gentrified," said Sherryl Wesson, manager of Ebby Halliday's Lakewood office. "The average guy's not living there any more." What about families who have lived here for generations? And everybody else who chose to live here because Dallas has character and doesn't look like Frisco?
What can we do about this? First of all, find a realtor who represents you and will get the best value for your property as the SELLER. Second, we're going to be looking for, and recommending responsible realtors who understand and respect the neighborhoods they work in.
Please post your comments here and they will be incorporated into the site. Or call and write these parties and tell them (respectfully) that you don't appreciate what they are doing to our neighborhood, and we are not going to take it sitting down.
Developers/BuildersJ. Gregory Homes - 214-828-4902
The Newport Group - 469-831-0807
Elizabeth Newman Custom Homes - 214-821-6070 - www.ench.net
Bailey Custom Homes - 214-325-4777
Blanchard Homes - 972-841-3055
Realtors/AgentsDiane Benjamin, ReMax - 214-443-1224 - dianeb@airmail.net
Scott Jackson, Glenda Jackson - JacksonSells (www.jacksonsells.com)
Carol Scott, Others, Virginia Cook Realtors - www.virginiacook.com
Sherryl Wesson, Jack White - Ebby Halliday - 972-407-3978
Neil Broussard - Rhodes Real Estate - 214-520-4422
MediaPeopleNewspapers.com - Sorry, I thought, and was wrong, that this was a developer-opinion-only newspaper. But as it turns out, like everything else, they can't talk about our side of the story if we don't talk to them. Thanks to this newspaper for representing the Overlay side of the story as well.
