Note from Michael Rocco Cannatti on two upcoming bills currently under consideration by the Texas legislature. Take action!
Following up on an earlier request, I am writing to request the Dallas neighborhood associations help the other property owners and neighborhood associations throughout Texas. We need you to help stop the state legislature from passing laws (House Bills 1732 and 1736) that would prevent cities, such as Dallas, from passing their own residential construction zoning rules to address local problems. The proposed laws would also prevent cities from enacting local historic preservation rules. In particular, HB 1736 would prohibit a city, in the case of residential construction, from regulating more than one of the following: (1) the percentage of a lot that may be occupied; (2) the amount of impervious cover allowed on a lot; or (3) the limits on the floor-to-area ratio of the lot. As for HB 1732, it would require two years to pass before a zoning regulation would apply that affects the floor-to-area ratio, the impervious coverage, the vertical setback of a previously platted lot, the exterior appearance of a single family house or the landscaping of a single family residential lot.
These bills are currently in the House Calendars Committee, but if they are released for a vote, the legislators will need to hear from property owners and neighborhoods from all across the state. If there is any concern in Dallas about the state legislature's efforts to eliminate local zoning laws, such as historical preservation laws or anti-McMansion rules that Dallas may wish to enact in the future, it would helptremendouslyfor the state legislature to hear from folks outside of Austin on this. Accordingly, we are asking you to inform your neighborhood associations about the concerns here. Andif the bills are released for a vote by the House and Senate, we will ask you (and your neighborhood associations) to contact your representatives and senators(their emails are listed below) with your concerns.Also, please forward this message to anyone who will help us stop these bills and help us preserve and protect our neighborhoods.
As you can see the text of the proposed state laws at the links below, the proposed lawscould have devastating effects on the quality of life and property value within neighborhoods, and wouldprevent other cities from finding a local solution to a local problem. For example, Dallas enacted a number of conservation districts in response to the teardown trend and to address concerns about overly large new houses (so-called “McMansions”).Indeed, it is our understanding that there are numerous neighborhoods in Dallas currently being studied for potential conservation district protections.Likewise, Austin’s recently enacted “McMansion Ordinance” was passed to protect its neighborhoods from tear-down activity in Austin.Other cities, such as Corpus Christi, Lubbock, Fort Worth, Texarkana, El Paso and San Antonio, have zoning rules that could be limited by these proposed bills. In addition to conservation districts, these bills could also impact historic districts in Dallas, and even existing historic zoning districts.
These bills raise a number of concerns for cities and neighborhoods across the state:
The bills are a dangerous interference by the State Legislature in the municipal zoning authority, in that they will eliminate the ability for alocal response tolocalconditions, and will strip the cities and towns across our State of the power and decisions that must be tailored to the individual communities that we serve.
The bills may require changes to currently adopted development regulations for residential zoning and to historic preservation rules, especially since many Texas cities currently employ zoning regulations that would be prohibited by the bills.
The bills would retroactively be applied to nullify Austin’s “McMansion Ordinance,” as well as any other zoning regulations in Dallas or San Antonio that were enacted after January, 2006.
The bills would replace local/city zoning control with state-mandatedone-size-fits-all zoning solution that seeks to override local building rules that enjoy substantial support from property owners in the affected area.
The bills are based on an erroneous belief that property values are hurt by local building rules, such as Austin's “McMansion Ordinance.” Contrary to exaggerated warnings, property values have not been hurt and development has not stopped in Austin. Indeed, property values have risen and development has continued quite briskly.
These are the two “pro-McMansion” bills currently being considered:
Now that the discussion of the ordinance is behind us, our little neighborhood (called Lakewood North) is getting together to talk about what types of zoning we'd like to decide on for the future.
A group of concerned citizens is posting meeting information, etc. at http://lncd.blogspot.com if you are interested. More information will be posted there as it becomes available.
At its root level, a stable neighborhood encourages re-investment and renovation, and a more consistent value appreciation level. When rampant speculation and development destabilizes the market, if the market does not bear the changes or the new houses are not of the same quality, a long-term stagnation results.
Yes, we have seen substantive progress in Dallas - the Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay was passed Wednesday night, November 9th, with a vote of 11-4. Though the tool certainly contains many compromises, that is quite simply the nature of any negotiation.
At the very least it is a way for neighborhoods to control some of the most extreme cases of overbuilding, while still protecting their own property rights. And it represents the fact that the residents (and not just the developers) should have a voice in the future direction of our neighborhoods.
THANK YOU to everyone who has supported this cause with your letters, conversations, actions and good thoughts. Thanks to the City Council for coming together and working out this issue. OK, you can feel good about it now. But this isn't over yet.
There is still some "refinement" that needs to happen to how this new law is actually put in practice, with a meeting on that December 9th. And, once the tool is in place, how successful will neighborhoods that want an overlay be in actually getting it passed?
Stay vigilant, and stay involved! Because make no mistake, there are still plenty of ways speculative developers can roll back our protective measures - both locally and at a state level.
Look here and on our sister site, http://www.harmonioushomes.org for more information as we start to see how this new tool will play out for real.
"THIS I would regard as a very polite mega-house," says Ken Lampton, a Dallas realtor (estate agent). The house in question, built in the past few years, has the arched doorways and brick-and-stone-facade that mark many of the new mansions in the Lakewood neighbourhood. It is about 3,000 square feet (279 square metres), Mr Lampton reckons, roughly double the size of the area's original houses, which were built half a century ago. Its redeeming feature is that the garage is at the back, rather than the front. Its width is also tastefully shrouded by greenery.
Driving through Lakewood is an eye-opening experience. On some streets, every fourth or fifth house has been torn up and replaced by a "McMansion". A few are so big that they barely have a garden at all. Some of the modest original houses, priced in the low $200,000s, are surrounded by new $700,000 monsters. Scaffolding, plaster and other signs of construction are everywhere.
Many Lakewood residents are fed up. "When I bought a home here, I bought into a neighbourhood that had trees, that had houses with certain setbacks, that had mostly one-storey homes," says Wendy Segrest, who moved to Lakewood just a year ago. Now, a 4,500-square-foot mansion--three times the size of her home--has gone up next door, with seven trees bulldozed to make way for it. Ms Segrest worries that her house has been reduced to its value as a vacant lot. "If I were to sell right now, I don't know if I could get somebody other than a builder to buy it," she says.
Ms Segrest has planted a few "Don't Supersize Dallas!" signs in her front yard. She and other residents have appealed to the local government for help. They emphasise that they are not against construction, but simply want the new houses to fit in better. The city council is currently considering a measure allowing neighbours a say about what new houses in their area should look like. For example, if a majority agreed, they could specify limits for height, garage (at the back, please) and how far the house is set back from the street and from neighbouring lots. A vote is scheduled for November 9th.
Most property people (with the exception of Mr Lampton) are aghast at the idea of any such restrictions. McMansions are "market-driven. It's what the consumer wants," says Peter Urrutia, director of government affairs for a Dallas-based realtors' association. The idea of "a few individuals deciding what you can or cannot do with your property" is a fundamental issue of property rights.
That is a powerful rallying call in the sprawling suburbs of the South and the west. In most of the battles between growth and nimbyism (not in my backyard), growth has won. But Dallas is not alone in spurring wars about the disproportionate size of some buildings.
Houses across the country are getting bigger: the national average now stands at 2,349 square feet, a 12% increase from ten years ago, though the spurt has slowed in recent years. Some new palaces are close to 20,000 square feet. And from Queens to Salt Lake City efforts are afoot to change zoning rules to limit sizes.
Thanks for coming out to the briefings and demonstrations! We'll keep attending until our elected officials get the message!
Coming October 26th! THE HEARING at City Council Yes, apparently they will be having a hearing about a Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay... Wednesday, October 26th, 2pm - whenever Dallas City Hall, 6th Floor
Even though they are having the hearing, there is a bigger question at stake here than Yes or No. What exactly is this document that they are voting on? Rumor has it the secret overlay is not based on the original version from the Single Family HousingTask Force -- instead, it was presented to Laura Miller and the Council by the Home Builders Association without resident input.
It is critical to have a big turnout in favor of the original Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay at the October 26th meeting. If you were present for the City Plan Commission meeting on August 11 or September 7, you know you need to be patient, but your presence alone makes a big difference when considering options.
Time will be limited, but if you have something focused to say, please come and participate.
FREE PARKING - Free parking is available in the City Hall Garage. Those parking outside of the garage will not be able to enter or exit the building at ground level after 5:00 p.m.
5 Things you can do today!! 1. Post your new yard sign. Wear your t-shirt to the grocery store and/or flash a bumper sticker and talk to interested neighbors. 2. Go visit the McMansions for sale in your neighborhood. Respectfully tell the selling agent that you do not appreciate what they (including their developers) are doing to our neighborhood. 3. WRITE (not just email, but letters and phone calls) your Council member and the Mayor. There is only one thing that trumps commercial interest, and that is NUMBER OF VOTERS. So if you don't show your support, how are they supposed to know we need this Overlay? 4. Show up at Council/Plan commission meetings - number of people in attendance is the primary way they measure how important this issue is! 5. Spread the word to your neighborhood associations, any reporters you know, and please, if you know any sponsors or businesses who want to "chip in" by carrying NoMcMansions gear, send them our way!
Dallas Citizens for Responsible Development to Demonstrate at City Hall Thursday, October 20, 2pm
Come out and show your support! Demonstration to promote the drafting of a proposed ordinance to protect reasonable limits on new housing construction in established Dallas neighborhoods
A brief demonstration of Dallas citizens who support responsible housing development will be conducted outside DallasCity Hall tomorrow, Thursday October 20, on the north side of the building facing Young Street.
At issue is a proposed Neighborhood Zoning Stabilization Overlay ordinance, which was originally proposed by the Dallas Single Family Housing Task Force in November 2004. The purpose of the original ordinance was to allow a neighborhood to voluntarily choose, or not choose, certain maximum size, height and setback limits for newly constructed houses in established, stable neighborhoods.
“If we are going to realize the increasing value and quality of life of our established neighborhoods, we need to think beyond short-term profits and consider the rights of Dallas citizens,” said Jason English, communications director of the non-profit organization. “We encourage both redevelopment and renovation of existing neighborhoods, but we need an Overlay ordinance because of certain cases of extreme speculative development that are disruptive to our neighborhoods.”
The proposed overlay document would be a “Conservation District Lite” and allow a majority of citizens to select a set of size and placement maximums without regard to specific style or materials. But since the ordinance was proposed, well-organized and funded groups of building and realty lobbyists have been actively campaigning against any means of residential self-governance.
The proposed ordinance has made its way through zoning and planning commissions, with key controls removed from it at every step. We currently have no idea what is even on the document currently under consideration by mayor Laura Miller and the City Council. However, the secret document appears to have been proposed by the Home Builders’ Association (HBA), and would impose an impossible set of voting conditions to put any limits in place.
The demonstrators are proposing that the council should pass the Overlay document as originally drafted and passed by the Dallas ZOAC commission. This would give us a reasonable ordinance that is both legitimate and enforceable by neighborhoods, without hampering renovation or eliminating new reconstruction. DCRD would like to ensure these points survive in the Overlay ordinance:
That 60 contiguous houses or 3 acres of land be considered enough of an area for a “neighborhood” to be able to define itself and apply to Dallas for an Overlay District
That the citizens of a proposed neighborhood have at least 6 months, and preferably 12 months, to gather the required signatures to put an overlay in place.
That a majority of 50% +1 be all the signatures of households required to achieve an approval status for an Overlay. This standard has been in place for 100 years in other types of zoning and more restrictive tools such as Conservation and Historic districts. To make the “majority” requirement higher would make achieving the required signatures very hard for private citizens in almost every neighborhood (as many houses are rented, and much canvassing is required to catch every citizen at home and explain the benefits of an overlay)
That we only require ONE signature per household – requiring both spouses to sign a simple petition doubles the difficulty of any petition.
The overlay must allow limits on overall building height (usually 30-45+ feet), front and side setbacks, and either lot coverage or building size. Builders and realtors have been trying to remove these meaningful methods of putting any controls on size.
It is the residents of Dallas who pay the majority of the taxes in this city, and not the building industry, so we are demanding that we have reasonable sovereignty over the destiny of the neighborhoods we live in.
Why is this happening?
If builders had shown a sense of self-restraint or consideration for existing neighborhoods, no political action would be necessary.
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 existing residential block before it even appears on the market. 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 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, discouraging renovation and reinvestment as the character of the neighborhood is changed.
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 (DCRD) conducted a broad awareness campaign over the past 3 months to promote the idea that new development in existing neighborhoods needs to be “better, not bigger.” Yellow and red yard signs, bumper stickers and t-shirts are appearing around established neighborhoods 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.
About Dallas Citizens for Responsible Development (DCRD)
The goal of DCRD is to get a meaningful and enforceable 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 Dallas council members, city officials, and other community advocacy groups 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. 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 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 in the short-term – 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.
Is it rude, opprobrious and downright criminal to speak up for your neighborhood?
Jim Chester, we demand an apology for your inappropriate comments about our effort in the Lakewood Life flyer. We are doing nothing more than speaking our minds. Hey, we wanted to talk about this at our own Lakewood Neighborhood Association meetings, but as LNA president, you wouldn't allow discussion of this issue in any form or fashion. Nor did you care to talk to anyone here about the problem. So go ahead and say you are not declaring sides, but we know who's buttering your bread. We know you don't represent us.
We "No-Macs" are not taking a scorched earth policy or pitting "neighbor against neighbor" as your byzantine realtor/developer friends say. We are simply providing awareness and input to a process we'd like to be able to manage with some reasonable standards. How can a few yard signs be more offensive and shameful to you than a massive, wasteful and tacky speculative house that hurts neighbors?
Scorched earth is the very thing we are fighting... we like redevelopment fine, as long as there is some consideration. We're talking about the process of cutting down every tree, then quickly building and paving all the way out to the edge of a lot that was never intended to hold such a big structure, in order to maximize profit.
This movement is happening because completely unrestrained development is hurting us. This is creating land tax hikes (but not home valuation), increasing the infrastructure burden, drainage problems, bringing often unsupervised crews into our neighborhood, discouraging us from reinvesting in our own homes, and creating what we believe are eyesores. New houses can be built excellently with more value upside, but we are fighting against the runaway abuse cases.
Yes I know, the signs are a little garishly colored and over the top. But they got your attention. And we'll take the free publicity too. Because you can unfairly malign us, but nobody believes you. There are hundreds of us now, and we are upstanding, contributing, regular neighbors in every way.
You can lie about this movement being "slanderous vandalism" but it's just people speaking their minds on their own property. We have NEVER condoned any sort of criminal or aggressive behavior, unlike certain builders who have both stolen the signs out of our yard and physically threatened residents here.
NY Times mentions Dallas: Are McMansions Going Out of Style?
By FRED A. BERNSTEIN Published: October 2, 2005
LAST year, McDonald's phased out its "supersize" French fries and soft drinks. Portions, it seems, had gone about as far as they could go.
Could the same be true of the supersized houses known as McMansions?
After more than 30 years of steady increase, the size of the typical American house appears to be leveling off, according to statistics gathered by the Census Bureau.
"The Generation X-ers who are becoming home buyers right now want more amenities - and they are willing to trade away space to get them," said Jerry Howard, vice president and chief executive of the National Association of Home Builders.
Sandy Kennedy, a real estate agent, said the house she and her husband, John, are building in Cheshire, Conn., will be around 3,500 square feet, which is larger than the national average but smaller than many homes in the area. "We could afford more, but we want to limit ourselves to spaces we'll really use," she said. "We're looking more at quality than quantity of space."
A few years ago, she might not have felt that way. The size of the average American house rose from about 1,500 square feet in 1970 to more than 2,300 square feet in 2001, with a particularly big growth spurt in the late 1990's.
But from 2001 to 2004, the growth practically halted. "That suggests that the size of the average house is stabilizing," said Gopal Ahluwalia, a statistician with the home builders' association. For the second quarter of 2005, the average new detached house measured 2,400 square feet, according to the Census Bureau.
Mr. Howard says consumers are thinking less about space and more about "bells and whistles," including professional-style appliances and exotic woods with names like ipe and wenge.
Ms. Kennedy's house will have high ceilings, a Sub-Zero refrigerator and radiant heating embedded in the floor of a glass-walled "conservatory." And there will be lots of architectural moldings, her architect, Melanie Taylor of New Haven, said.
In a 2004 nationwide survey, the association asked homeowners: "For the same amount of money, which of the following would you choose: a bigger house with fewer amenities, or a smaller house with high quality products and amenities?" Only 37 percent of the 2,900 randomly selected respondents wanted the bigger house. Sixty-three percent said they would prefer the smaller house with more amenities.
In 2000, when the association asked the same question, the results were sharply different. Back then, 51 percent said they wanted the bigger house; 49 percent opted for the smaller-but-better house, Mr. Ahluwalia said. He added that he believes that even more will choose "the smaller house" when the association asks the same question in its next survey, in 2006.
Across the country, developers say they are seeing signs of that shift. "More and more people who come in are willing to talk about less space," said Catherine Horsey, a vice president of Urban Edge Developers in Dallas. She said new houses at the company's Urban Reserve development will average 2,500 square feet.
That, she said, is small for Dallas.
Of course, megahouses that outrage neighbors - and keep armies of contractors employed - are still going up in affluent areas. And companies like Toll Brothers that build thousands of homes each year say that some of their biggest models are also among their biggest sellers.
But even at the high end, where master bedrooms suites the size of tennis courts are common, there are signs that the trend toward bigness has abated.
Richard Warren, a planning consultant on the East End of Long Island, helps clients obtain zoning approval for new houses. In the last few years, he said, the number of people looking to build the largest permissible house has declined. "There will always be people who want big houses, but we're not seeing the grossness we'd been seeing," he said. "People are thinking twice about why they need all that space."
There are many reasons the appeal of bigger houses may be waning, including the high cost of maintaining them. "In a city where $1,000-a-month air-conditioning bills are not uncommon," said Ms. Horsey of Dallas, "people are beginning to say, 'Maybe I can have less space, and spend the money on a trip to Europe.' " Increasing fuel prices are likely to make large houses even less appealing, Mr. Ahluwalia and others said.
Rising interest rates and land prices also make large houses harder to afford. And an aging population increasingly includes empty-nesters who are looking to downsize, said Ms. Taylor, the designer of Ms. Kennedy's house in Cheshire.
Then there is the cost of furnishing the houses in a style appropriate to their dimensions. Robert A. M. Stern, the dean of the Yale School of Architecture, said he believes many McMansions are actually empty nests. "You walk in the door, and there's not a stick of furniture - certainly not furniture large enough to justify the spaces," he said.
But it may also be that Americans have simply attained all the space they need. The home builders' association, in its polls, asks consumers how big a house they would like to have. The average response in the 2004 poll was 2,426 square feet - barely bigger than the average house built this year. Mr. Ahluwalia, who has worked for the association for 29 years, said the gap between how big houses are - and how big people would like them to be - has never been so slight.
Mr. Stern, himself the designer of many large houses, agreed. "I think we've reached a size that satisfies most people's ambitions," he said.
George Suyama, a Seattle architect, has designed more than 100 houses in the Pacific Northwest. During the 1990's - the peak years of the dot-com boom - he was designing houses so large that he declines to give their dimensions. But now, he says, the houses he is being asked to design are far more modest.
"At least in Seattle, the people who can afford to do really huge houses have already done them," Mr. Suyama said.
Mr. Warren, the planning consultant on Long Island, said that several clients had "built large homes, and after they were finished they decided they were too big and they sold them to move to smaller houses."
Ron Jones, the owner of Sierra Custom Builders in Placitas, N.M., near Albuquerque said, "There's been a shift in the culture: More and more, people are realizing that it's not just the square footage. They're thinking more about issues like durability, and they're open to the idea of flexible spaces."
The public perception of big houses may help explain the shift. Owners of oversized homes are routinely portrayed as architectural yahoos whose "plywood palazzos" leave neighboring buildings in shadow. Some also associate the big houses with greed. In the corporate scandals of recent years, "a persistent motif was the grotesquely large houses of the perpetrators," said James Gauer, author of "The New American Dream: Living Well in Small Homes" (Monacelli, 2004).
At a recent zoning board meeting in New Canaan, Conn., speaker after speaker described new megahouses as intrusive. Residents demanded measures to reduce the so-called loom factor, or the degree to which new houses overpower their neighbors.
In less populous areas, builders of large houses are derided for despoiling the natural environment. Arthur Spiegel, who is retired from the import-export business, is building a 10,000-square-foot house in Lake Placid, N.Y., in the Adirondacks. The hilltop house has brought protests from the Residents' Committee to Protect the Adirondacks, and construction has been halted by local building authorities.
Mr. Spiegel said that the house "is only 6,500 square feet, unless you count the basement," and that it's the right size for his extended family to gather in for ski vacations.
It may also be that, in the way skirts get shorter and ties narrower, housing styles change. For decades, houses with historical details - often rendered in a kind of fake stucco - have been in fashion. Ornaments reminiscent of Versailles or Buckingham Palace require extensive facades.
But those looks appear to be losing some ground to a style that harks back only to the mid-20th century, with flat roofs, generous overhangs and large glass walls.
Modernist houses stress connections between indoors and outdoors. Well-designed terraces, architects say, expand livable space, without requiring heating or air-conditioning.
While magazines like Architectural Digest regularly feature chateau-sized houses, upstarts like Dwell show modernist homes as small as 1,200 square feet.
Many architects are happy to see the tide turn away from big houses. Ms. Taylor of New Haven began her career 25 years ago designing 600-square-foot houses in Seaside, Fla. But in the 80's and 90's, she said, it became harder and harder to find people who wanted smaller houses, and her projects crept up as high as 11,000 square feet.
"I worked on houses, especially for developers, where you just had to fill the space because it was there," Ms. Taylor said. "It just seemed ridiculous. You just keep wondering what people are going to do with all those rooms."
Mr. Ahluwalia of the home builders' association can't hide his relief that houses aren't continuing their rapid increase in size. He called the new statistics "a ray of hope."
But aren't members of his association hoping houses will keep getting bigger? "If the consumer doesn't buy it, the builder is stuck with it," he said. His job, he said, is to tell builders what people want in a new home.
Added Mr. Howard, the association's chief executive, "What builders build is entirely market-driven. And the market appears to be changing."
Look around, you can see it. Frisco is attempting to annex Dallas. If you think you are safe because of your current zoning, think again. Because make no mistake, there are lobbyists and professionals working daily to change the face of your neighborhood for a short-term gain.
You have to go to work, like everybody else. You can't hang out while the city council deliberates about your neighborhood on any given workday. So what can you do? WRITE your councilmember, CALL them, and simply say "I want the ability to control the destiny of my own neighborhood!"
There is no "tool" in place to save you other than your vote. The proposal now in front of the mayor and the council is not any form of the original ordinance we spent countless community meetings working on with Forward!Dallas or the Single Family Housing Task Force. It was not arrived at through any compromise with residents. No, it was written by the Home Builder's Organization, and it effectively gives them the ability to shut down any opposition through unachievable petition requirements and unenforceable limits.
If you don't speak up now, face it, most of your block may be replaced. And then, who cares what you think about "the way it was?"
We know TV news has to move in a hurry, but in this "breaking story," NBC-5 reporter Loriana Hernandez really picked up the essence of what can be a complex issue. And this is the whole point of our site. We are only trying to raise awareness of our right to select, or not select, a Stabilization Overlay tool as originally proposed -- not a different document written by the Home Builder's Association that the council and mayor are currently considering that would give us virtually no way to successfully impose reasonable maximums on new house size vs. lot size.
The online survey results in the 4pm newscast? The tone of the question was actually pretty strong: "Do you think there should be laws against tearing down houses and building McMansions*?" - 58% of respondents said YES - 37% said NO - 5% didn't know
* Bear in mind, the overlay tool isn't a "law against" teardowns or new construction, but even with this extreme wording, most of the viewing audience was on the YES side!
Neighbor against Neighbor? Let me also say that we are NOT here to condemn residents who live in these new houses. The house was for sale, you bought it or you had it built, and you like it. Now we can all get along fine. There is nothing we can do about the houses that are already built -- and there is no point in holding any kind of grudge against our new neighbors! However, we'd like to see the ability to responsibly manage FUTURE development, while we still can. That is all!
Thanks again to everyone who has helped raise awareness of these issues so we could bring it to the media's attention.
How about that? You know, I didn't really know Lakewood People was a forum for the actual people living here... based on the articles I have seen before. But I sent in a letter, and heard back, then, they wrote this story. Once again I feel that journalism isn't lost.
You see, here is why you write letters to the editor. And why you write your council and mayor. Private comments are not enough. If you don't say something, THEY DON'T KNOW how you feel about the issue. ----------------------------
Group says 'No' to Supersized Lakewood Homes Grass-roots effort underway to protect teardown tool
by Kristina Chestnutt Special Contributor
A group of Lakewood residents have joined together in an effort to educate the community about how homes in Dallas do not need to be "supersized" like a fast food meal.
Residents are using a website -- NoMcMansions.org -- as a tool in their awareness campaign to bring new development in line with prevailing standards in Lakewood.
"Like fast food, it's quick, it's cheap, and it's not something that's good for you in the long term," Jason English, the founder of the site, said of the growing trend to build oversize.
One way the groupbelieves will limit the "McMansions" is the approval of the proposed Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay, which would allow neighborhoods to create building standards for new homes in their area.
"We have great neighborhood character and real value invested in our homes, and the teardown phenomenon has just started to disrupt that process. Give it a couple more years unchecked and you will have a different type of neighborhood," he said.
The City Plan Commission forwarded a revised version of the overlay tool to the city council, but some of the strongest restrictions have been removed. As part of the overlay plan, a neighborhood must gather signatures from a majority of residents, who then decide what building features to limit.
Mr. English said that residents are in favor of the overlay proposal, but only in its original format. In particular, his group takes issue with the increase in the number of homeowners required to sign the overlay's zoning change petition from 50 percent to 75 percent.
"As residents, we all want some ability to define the destiny of the neighborhood," he said. "The idea of getting 75 percent of people to sign something is not achievable."*
[*Editor's note: Consider that the last mayoral election represented a 20% total response... with renter-owned houses, people absent and the sheer time it takes to find at home and talk to every single person, more than 50% actually signing is a huge majority for private citizens to achieve in an area. 50%+ has been the zoning/conservation standard for 100 years in Dallas. It is unprecedented, but they're trying to change that.]
Mr. English, who has been a Lakewood homeowner for five years, said the website went online in June as a place where he could rant about this problem.
The group has about 50 people registered for updates, roughly a quarter of whom are actively participating in the campaign, he said. People involved in the awareness campaign hold informal meetings about every two weeks, mostly to share announcements about meetings in the city.
"It's been pretty grass-roots," Sperry Road [ed. Street!] resident Danielle Arvanitis said. "I think the impact we're having is connecting people who already felt the same way we do."
The website contains information about the overlay, updates on city meetings, and all of the city council members' names and conteact information, including sample letters people can use to write to council members.
Lakewood resident Wendy Segrest, who also lives on Sperry Street, said she got involved in the initiative after she had a "McMansion" built next to her 1,460-square-foot home. The new building was more than triple the size of her house.
Ms. Segrest, whose father is a developer, says she's not against new homes, but she is opposed to homes that stick out in the neighborhood.
"I do want new construction to continue," she said. "What I'm against are the homes that so blatantly don't fit in."
Ms. Arvanitis is also concerned about the aesthetics of a neighborhood, but she is more concerned about the direct effects of overly large homes, such as blocked sunlight, drainage problems, and the removal of trees.
"When I moved into the area, there were not any teardowns in the vicinity," she said. "I started getting concerned. From what I can tell, without any limits there's nothing stopping the trend from continuing."
As part ofthe awareness campaign, the Dallas Citizens for Responsible Development launched a line of bumper stickers, yard signs and T-shirts printed with the slogans "Don't Supersize Dallas" and "Stop Levelin' It."
Mr. English said about 200 signs and 100 T-shirts have been sold so far.
If the Dallas City Council passes the overlay proposal as it currently stands, Mr. English said the awareness campaign will keep moving forward undil something more satisfactory is established.
"The issue won't just go away if we end up with something that doesn't give us some ability to control the [destiny of] neighborhood," he said.
You grow. You buy your ticket. $8. Well I guess prices have gone up.
So you go inside, take your seat, and the movie starts. Maybe you like the movie, or you don't, but you paid for your seat and you're going to watch it.
Then in the middle of the movie, an agent comes over and offers the guy in front of you $10 for his seat. He gets up and leaves, throwing his popcorn all over you. And then, a 16.5 foot guy who pays the agent $24 sits down in front of you. What can you do about it? Complain?
The movie is just getting to the good part. But you can't see it anymore. So, you get up and take your ticket stub to the manager. The manager says, "were all sold out, so how else are we supposed to make more money?" You get angry. "I paid for my seat, and I want to see the movie!" The manager says there is nothing you can do about it, but you are welcome to sit in on their policy discussions.
There has been a lot of talk on the points of what is a reasonable compromise for controlling the destiny of our own neighborhoods. But the main point is, how can you compromise with someone who thinks your seat is worthless, and doesn't care at all about your view? Since we are looking at the possibility of "passing" an ordinance that is unusable and unenforceable, it will happen to you unless you say otherwise.
Hey, since some developers think that "tract homes" that stand for 50 years are disposable, maybe a few years from now, builders will develop the "individual condo" to outshadow the McMansions: a 6-story, single family tower with its own store, gym, cigar room, etc. and a roof-deck that gives a great view of the city, until the 18-story ones come out.
Here's the problem: there are real people being hurt by this. They bought their tickets, they settled down, they live and work in our city. But we're basically expected to understand that your vote, your tax dollars, are really not as important as the next guy's money. Life is like a movie. You only get one ticket.
Morning Edition, August 25, 2005 · Around the country, buyers are scooping up real estate, knocking down old houses, and building grand new mansions. It's a trend that's finally coming to Cape Cod, birthplace of the original summer cottage. Some residents worry the demolitions are slowly erasing the cape's traditional character. From member station WBUR, Monica Brady-Myerov reports.
A Lakewood resident alleges that a man wearing a shirt bearing the logo of an area builder trespassed on her property, took her "noMcMansions.org" yard sign, and placed it in his truck. When a passerby intervened to request the sign back, the man allegedly threatened her and challenged her to call the police.
What to do: Display your yard sign proudly, but if you see a "goon" trespassing on your property to steal it, remember it's free speech to you, but to him its a threat to his money supply. Don't confront him -- report the theft to the police.
A zoning overlay is simply a temporary legal tool, which individual neighborhoods within Dallas can choose, or not choose, to self-determine their own basic standards for new construction, while more comprehensive zoning guidelines are reviewed.
The Stabilization Overlay and Zoning Tool, which have passed the Dallas Plan Commission (August 11) and will later be considered by the City Council are a somewhat unprecedented move. Typically, individual neighborhoods can regulate control building practices and style through deed restrictions and/or a "conservation district" plan. But for many neighborhoods of Dallas, the existing deed restrictions have expired, so any incoming builder has no restrictions on the size or layout of new houses. Passing a Conservation District or changing zoning are complex processes that take time (2+ years).
We support the Zoning Overlay and will attempt to demystify this simple (yet controversial?) tool.
Market forces have fueled the acceleration of new construction. New construction is a positive sign for the economy, but there are other factors creating the boom. Interest rates hit an all time low. This is a great thing for many people buying their first home, or upgrading to a house for improved location, space or ameneties. At the same time, we've seen volatility in other types of investments such as the stock market, so both individuals and institutions are investing in real estate, as it appears to be the only solid investment with guaranteed rates of return. These forces are causing the real estate "bubble" phenomenon in established urban neighborhoods: the more investment in property and new construction, the higher the prices go, and so on, and there is an incentive to build bigger houses and destabilize some city neighborhoods.
EVERY ONE OF US agrees on one thing: We wish there didn't need to be a Zoning Overlay.
Developers and sellers of new houses are doing a booming business, and this well-financed industry certainly doesn't want an overlay. They are applying pressure at the state level (Austin), as well as locally, to stop neighborhoods from regulating or self-determining new construction standards. There are responsible developers and realtors building and selling compatible houses, but there are extreme exceptions that require some form of control.
Residents of existing or established neighborhoods wish there were no need for a Zoning Overlay. They wish many developers had shown a tiny bit of restraint and consideration both in their building practices and in the tremendous size of the houses they build. Unfortunately, it appears that the supersize building trend is accelerating in many neighborhoods. Something must be done, as the builders have shown no desire to responsibly self-regulate their practices.
Given all of the messages flying around on this issue in the media and in advertising venues, it is important that each of us understand specifically what a zoning overlay would affect, in order to make a more informed decision about the future of our neighborhoods.
A zoning overlay is not a blanket city-wide restriction on big houses. It is a tool for individual neighborhoods to determine their own standards for new houses. You will have neighborhoods that prefer to allow McMansions of any size -- how the Overlay will affect zoning depends entirely upon the will of the people in your specific area.
A zoning overlay does not automatically prevent teardowns and new construction. Houses can and will still be torn down, and new ones can be built in their place. The new houses can be bigger than neighboring houses and more costly, however there is a temporary maximum limit on certain dimensions imposed. For some older or more historic neighborhoods, the individual area can use the tool to help keep new houses within reason.
A zoning overlay does not prevent you from upgrading and renovating your house! Imposing some limits on new construction encourages reinvestment, renovation and add-ons to existing houses, rather than teardowns.
A zoning overlay does not erode the value of your home. In reality, it protects the significant investments you (and your neighbors) have made in your homes, beyond the mere value of the land it sits on. An experienced appraiser will tell you that neighborhoods with stable development plans see far more reinvestment in the original structures.
A zoning overlay may not reduce your property taxes. The lack of restrictions has caused land values to increase far more than house values in some areas, so an overlay may limit the acceleration of land taxes somewhat, while house taxable value may appreciate. In general taxable values will still increase in urban areas.
A zoning overlay will not "discriminate" against current McMansion owners. It does not take away your existing property rights, whatever type of home you live in. Nor is it designed to somehow create a "block war" among neighbors. It does give us a way to decide on the future of a neighborhood together. Without an overlay, we don't have a democratic way to self-determine the character of our neighborhoods.
A zoning overlay will not make it impossible to build higher-priced homes. We would all like to see new houses that are not just bigger - but better. With unregulated construction and a housing boom, you have thousands of crews building as fast as possible, and often the quality of these new homes suffers. We believe that a new house can achieve higher value to customers, and positively lift the value of surrounding neighborhood, by including better features, materials, energy performance and ameneties besides just tons of square feet.
Who should decide? The residents, or the developers? It is important not to get sidetracked and fall into the builder/realtor trap of debating the "economic impact" of overlays, or whether cheaper old homes should or should not be torn down to make way for expensive new homes.
The time and place for that debate is among neighbors when they decide whether they want an overlay or not, and they are best suited to have that debate as they have the keenest eye on the desires and values of their own neighborhoods. If a builder or realtor lives in my neighborhood and wants to vote against an overlay if my neighbors propose one, that's fine. But if that builder or realtor does not live in my neighborhood, then they should butt out of our business and keep their economic impact analysis to themselves.
We should focus on the fact that approval of the Overlay ordinance does not impose an overlay on anyone. It just makes it an option available to neighborhoods, if they want it.
Wear it at the Council Meetings! Make a statement loud and clear on your person, your car, and even your yard. The NoMcMansions.org gear has one purpose: to help you strike up a conversation about the reality of responsible development.
Soon we will have an online store as well as outlets to purchase NoMcMansions gear for your personal or community group use. For now, you can email us to order them. Any and all proceeds will go toward the continuation of this campaign until we achieve a successful zoning overlay, at which time it will be donated to a charitable community cause.
BUSINESS SPONSOR: If you are a retailer or business owner and would like to help distribute NoMcMansions merchandise, we can promote you publicly or privately, and we will send you PLENTY of appreciative residents and good karma for your support. For details contact webmaster@noMcMansions.org .
The noMcMansions tee: $10 These 100% heavyweight cotton tees will be perfect for attending community events, block parties and teardowns.
The NoMcMansions bumper sticker: $1 Honk if you love your house
The NoMcMansions yard sign $5 - NOW HERE.... Put them in your yard EVERY DAY. Show your support with these high-quality yard signs -- they're practically indestructible!
All phone numbers/addresses of council, put on your fridge!
OK, make a call a day and let your council person know where you stand on this issue. "Dear Councilmember _______, I am calling to support the Stabilization Overlay zoning document as approved by ZOAC. We need the ability to choose, or not choose, height, size and setback requirements with a majority vote, in order to preserve the value and continuity of our neighborhoods. Please let us know if you support the Overlay document as a tool for self-governing a basic level of zoning."
Here's the contact info-- To write to any member, send your letter to:
City of Dallas
1500 Marilla St., Room 5EN
Dallas, Texas 75201-6390
To call or send a fax to any member:
Mayor: Laura Miller, (214) 670-4054 or fax (214) 670-0646
District 1: Elba Garcia, (214) 670-4052 or fax (214) 670-3409
District 2: Pauline Medrano, (214) 670-4048 or fax (214) 670-5115
District 3: Ed Oakley, (214) 670-0776 or fax (214) 670-5115
District 4: Maxine Thornton-Reese, (214) 670-0781 or fax (214) 670-5117
District 5: Don Hill, (214) 670-0777 or fax (214) 670-3409
District 6: Steve Salazar, (214) 670-4199 or fax (214) 670-5115
District 7: Leo Chaney Jr., (214) 670-4689 or fax (214) 670-5117
District 8: James Fantroy, (214) 670-4066 or fax (214) 670- 5117
District 9: Gary Griffith, (214) 670-4069 or fax (214) 670-5115
District 10: Bill Blaydes, (214) 670-4068 or fax (214) 670-5115
District 11: Linda Koop, (214) 670-7817 or fax (214) 670-5117
District 12: Ron Natinsky, (214) 670-4067 or fax (214) 670-5115
District 13: Mitchell Rasansky, (214) 670-3816 or fax (214) 670-5117
District 14: Angela Hunt, (214) 670-5415 or fax (214) 670-5117
Please request support for the ORIGINAL ordinance in your letters to the Council
In the last minutes of the City Plan Commission meeting on Thursday night, the Commission recommended modifying the Neighborhood Stabilization Overlay tool in a way that would make it much less effective. The Commission recommended removing the option to limit building height, number of stories, and floor-area ratio. It also suggested raising the required percentage of supporting homeowners from "50% plus 1 person" to 75%, plus another check for 75% once the neighborhood decides on its overlay criteria.
The first three changes would make the tool much less effective in regulating the size of new construction. Setbacks and garage placement would be the main criteria left for neighborhoods to decide. What's worse, the percentage requirement would make it likely that no neighborhood would ever get one of these things passed.
Unfortunately, and unbelievably, there was no coverage of these last-minute changes in the media.
So, if you write a letter in support to the Mayor and City Council, please request support for the original version of the ordinance that was submitted by the Single Family Task Force to the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Council.
Area realtors and builders have hired professional consultants to start a misinformation campaign that apparently will include radio ads. Please be aware that these people have only their own financial self-interest at heart, which makes anything that they say about the overlay suspect. They may say and do anything to ensure that this overlay tool does not get approved.
Overlay supporter Ken Lampton, also a real estate agent, had a good point when he called the overlay tool a "sheep in wolf's clothing," adding, "It just ain't that powerful, folks." He suggests that the building industry is strongly overreacting to a tool that functions as a "Conservation District lite" for those neighborhoods that choose to pursue it. The tool will not prevent building new homes, it will only help to ensure that new homes fit better into their respective neighborhoods. The fact that this group of realtors and builders wants to deny neighborhoods this tool does not reflect well on them personally or professionally.
In short, don't believe their scare tactics. An overlay district is an _optional_ tool for neighborhoods that are interested in it. If your neighborhood is not interested, just don't apply for one! But there is no reason to keep this tool out of the hands of neighborhoods that do want it.
Overlay Passed Plan Commission - Needs Support Now
Thanks primarily to a good background of evidence that dates back to early in the Task Force process last year, and very compelling arguments on the part of the pro-overlay attendees, the Stabilization Overlay passed the Plan Commission last night.
Next, it will be voted on by the City Council. If it passes, Dallas neighborhoods will have the option of choosing, or not choosing, a basic stabilization overlay and zoning guidelines.
However, to counter well-funded opposition, a much greater level of support was and is still needed from individuals like you, or we will see unregulated construction destroy every neighborhood not now covered by a Conservation/Historic District and ruin current residents' investments in their homes.
** To help you start, we have a message here soon that says exactly what to say, and we need your support. "Dear Councilmember _______, I am calling to support the Stabilization Overlay zoning document as approved by ZOAC. We need the ability to choose, or not choose, height, size and setback requirements with a majority vote, in order to preserve the value and continuity of our neighborhoods. Please let us know if you support the Overlay document as a tool for self-governing a basic level of zoning."
The fact is, commercial interests are actively courting every council member, and calling every day. We need more letters and more calls from private citizens, from Dallas voters, if this measure is to pass Council and be significant in any way.
The entire "Metro-Tex Realtors Association" came out in large numbers with their no-overlay stickers as well, to explain how they represent the builder, and not the resident. Apparently, having citizens decide their own zoning matters is "unconstitutional" and they threatened lawsuits, economic ruin and total chaos if residents had such rights.
In a unique example of public speaking, organizing realtor Diane B. complimented the Plan Commission for being of diverse racial origin. When asked if she supported Conservation Districts, she spoke at length about how she likes trees. "I'm not a lawyer, but I have 4 sons who are," she said. "And they tell me not to be a lawyer."
To all the realtors out there who might still have a conscience As you listened to private citizens simply trying to defend their basic right to have some zoning self-regulation, did you perhaps feel a little guilty about your position? These are the same neighbors you helped buy and sell houses in Dallas a few years ago, and now you stand against them. Or do you think you can't make money without disrupting perfectly stable neighborhoods that would have grown in value if they were renovated instead of destroyed?
REALTORS who pledge to be considerate of existing neighborhoods get our endorsement and we'll recommend listing with them.
He approved the gun, but not the bullets Plan Commission chair Bruce Wilke, whose current residence value was recently protected by a Conservation District, made a move at the end of the meeting while passing the overlay to geld the document for other residents. Wilke recommended that number of stories, maximum height and floor area ratio (FAR) be dropped from the available controls and 75% signatures must be achieved. An overlay document without height or size restrictions would be totally useless. Don't worry too much, this is what Dallas is like. Fortunately, the document has PASSED, and the Plan Commission's recommendations are just that: recommendations. We can continue to show and promote our support for the original Stabilization Overlay document in order to get it through City Council.
If you've waited to act, to call your representatives, to tell your neighbors to support a basic level of sanity in residential zoning, the time to start is now. Seriously WE NEED YOUR CALLS and LETTERS.
Update: The hearing on the Stabilization Overlay Tool might not come up until 5 p.m. at today's meeting, as it is near the end of the agenda.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Just wanted to publish details about the City Plan Commission's public hearing on the Stabilization Overlay:
Date: August 11, 2005 Time: 1:30 p.m. Place: City Council Chambers, 1500 Marilla Dr., 6th floor (public entrance)
Meet us beforehand starting at 1pm. Bear in mind that the Zoning Overlay part of the hearing will happen toward the end of the session, you do not have to wait in the chambers the entire time.
Use this Letter for your Commissioner/Councilmember
Below is a letter you can copy, "fill in" your name and address to your Dallas City Plan Commissioner. Print and mail or fax one in! Email doesn't count! In the future we will be arranging group dropoffs for mail to save a few cents on postage (and increase our "thud" factor).
----------------------- LETTER TO DALLAS PLAN COMMISSION ________________
City Plan Commissioner______X DallasCity Hall 1500 Marilla St Dallas, TX75201
August 9, 2005
RE: Passing the Stabilization Overlay
Dear Commisioner:
I am writing to express my support for the Zoning Overlay tool currently under consideration by the City Plan Commission of Dallas.
Like many other residents of established neighborhoods, we are extremely concerned that the trend toward teardowns and rapid, oversized construction is being driven by short-term profits for a few development and realty firms that have no long-term interest in the preservation or economic health of neighborhoods with existing residents.
Homes could still be responsibly bought, sold and built with an overlay. The idea that realtors and builders cannot make money without cannibalizing perfectly solid neighborhoods is preposterous. The only realtors and builders this will impact are speculators looking for a quick buck by buying houses at rock-bottom lot values to flip as oversized, hastily erected “McMansions” with no regard for neighbors. We do not believe the Overlay infringes on our property rights or ability to renovate, in fact it encourages continued improvement.
This new tool is crucial for protecting our property value and the significant investments we have made in our homes beyond the mere land value. Uncontrolled development within established neighborhoods creates extreme inconsistencies in property values, where steady appreciation was once the norm. We need the right to locally determine some reasonable limits (or locally set no limits) on the overall size of new houses, especially when they are being placed next door to solid houses that have lasting value.
When the economic “bubble” of rising housing prices, speculative rapid development, and poorly qualified loans at record low interest rates bursts, it will leave many vacant and poorly constructed large houses, and devalued neighboring properties in its wake if this process is not managed properly.
To generate long-term growth in property values and economic health, new construction must be conducted in a manner that does not disrupt and push out homeowners that have been solid Dallas citizens, businesspeople and taxpayers for decades. We know the Overlay tool is an unprecedented measure, but it is one we need now, as teardowns are accelerating, our zoning has expired, and Conservation Districts take time and may not be practical for every area.
Since we see no effort on the part of certain aggressive development firms and realtors to take into account the neighborhoods they are working within, we are asking you to please pass the Strategic Overlay tool, so the existing homeowners can have some means of determining their own future before it is too late.
Thank you for your consideration,
YOUR NAME HERE, SIGN ABOVE 123 YOUR ADDRESS HERE Dallas, TX 7XXXX [Contact: optional]
Those of us who just got back from the National Night Out meetings are glad to see that so many others feel the same way. Thanks for investing in the future of your neighborhoods and let's stay with the plan together! For those who signed up/bought t-shirts, you'll hear from us again soon.
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 TietzePark. 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.
An online publication of the Dallas Citizens for Responsible Development, a community group concerned with the razing and replacement of our neighborhood with oversized no-lot houses.
Email Webmaster@NoMcMansions.org to sign up for future updates, request upcoming T-shirt, yard sign and sticker info. Please provide address, email and (optional) phone so we can contact you if needed.
