I woke up just to mentally rant about housing developments. Maybe after I write this, I can sleep

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

We've got a 30-house housing development going in on our street. It's taking up 60 acres, with each house getting a 1-acre plot and the other 30 acres being natural preserve and "open area" (whatever that means).

Since we live in a part of our county that is mandated to be 5+acre plots to preserve wildlife and "rural character," they get away with these "rural cluster developments" because they concentrate the houses and the roads and have preserved areas to "preserve rural characters."

Yeah right.

What they do in these "rural cluster developments" is CLEAR OUT EACH ACRE of LAND to make into a lawn, and plop a giant house on it. It drives me NUTS, for so many reasons.

Who wants to mow an acre of land? And, you bet these people won't be able to have sheep or anything, because it'll have HOA covenants that will make sure people don't do things like that.

There's multipple black bears that (used to) live in those acres. Now they're roaming around our houses a lot more, and will probably be roaming the development, which will certaily have tempting trash and children that will be endangered

All those lawns (1) have no shade and will create warmer micro climates (2) will need a lot more inputs, such as watering, peseticides, herbicides, fertilizers and gas to mow them. All just to have a stupid lawn no one uses

These developments in no way, shape or form look like the rest of the county side. Most other properties clear out enough room for the house, and not much more, or, if they clear out more, they graze something on it. I don't really care about appearances, but since appearances are in the laws about these things, I figured I should mention it.

Because it's a housing development, they will have all sorts of stupid covenants and laws that will make sure people can't do "unseemly" things like grow their own food

All the kids living in these developments are deprived of trees. And, the people who buy this land don't even get the choice of having trees, because they're all cut down. I hate these developments because they take that chose away from people. Right now, in our "rural" areas, there are probably more homes in rural clusters than there are outside of the clusters. Area that is supposed to be agricultural or at least natural preserve, is just LAWN.

By cutting down all the trees, smoothing out the land, and sticking grass on it, they kill the topsoil and remove native habitat, not just for bears, but for all sorts of live. They are, destroying all that live, just for an acre of grass

These developments also, then, try to strong arm their actually rural neighbors. We had a neighbor that would have friends over and they would shoot into the hill for fun. We live in a place where one can legally hunt, so it's perfectly legal and safe entertainment. On the other side of my house, accessed by a road that's miles away, is a housing development. Multiple times over the years, neighbors have driven miles to come over and complain and even call the police when anyone shoots out here. It's ridiculous. In other areas, that are still "rural" the developments have passed laws making their enclaves into non-shooting zones.

The development pretty much makes a place with MORE rules, that aren't democratic at all, and then enforces those rules upon the surrounding areas, and the people who reside inside. And, since there are SO MANY stinkin' housing developments, it's really hard to find a house that isn't in one, and thus a house where you can actually grow your own food and raise animals.

The giant houses that they build on these developments take up tons of unnecessary resources, and a huge footprint, and are generally more house than anyone actually needs. Who needs 3,000 sqft? ???

These housea are also priced way out of the reach of most people. They're $700,000+!

Here's a housing development, made by the same developer, also made in a "rural" area. It has 1/2 acre plots and $3,000 sqft houses. They're UGLY houses, too, with tons of unnesseary changes in roof types. Look at all that asphault shingles. Does this look like a "rural" house to you https://www.redfin.com/WA/Snohomish/11711-176th-Ave-SE-98290/unit-9/home/146013923

Here's a picture of one of those ugly houses (more pictures here)


And another hideous house, in that same development. It's 2,500sqft of roofing, as it's only one story. Probably actually more roofing than that, because of the garage. What a huge, expensive, unnessiary house (more pictures here



These developments drive me crazy. I wouldn't mind having a development where the plots weren't turned into solid grass and people were actually allowed to do what they want on their land, but that's not what happens with the developments. It makes me want to cry and scream as I watch each tree knocked down.

It kills me that people are still building developments from the middle of the previous century (but with much larger houses!), as though we haven't learned anything since then.

I'm even in the "progressive" and "environmentally-friendly" area of the country, and these still think this is fine and preserves wild land and "rural character." Nope, it destroys both.

There is a development going in about 1.5 miles from my place along a bike trail I take to work. They removed all the vegetation and literally removed every small hill and variation in the land. They then used some of the soil to even further level it all. The whole area was then compacted by heavy equipment until today it is this huge bare expanse that is completely level. All this so they can plop their cookie cutter homes down on top...

Good Dog, those are ugly houses!

Tyler Ludens wrote:Good Dog, those are ugly houses!

They really are! I'm not looking forward to having such eyesores in my neighborhood, though that's really the very least of my concerns. But, come on, for $700,000+, at least they could make them look pretty?

There is a development going in about 1.5 miles from my place along a bike trail I take to work. They removed all the vegetation and literally removed every small hill and variation in the land. They then used some of the soil to even further level it all. The whole area was then compacted by heavy equipment until today it is this huge bare expanse that is completely level. All this so they can plop their cookie cutter homes down on top...

It makes me so sick. In another area, that's not "rural" (it's in the "urban growth area"), they flattened and leveled each individual plot, putting up retaining walls between each property to keep them all individually level. I can't imagine that's the most stable way to build a house, especially in an earthquake are. Who thought, "let's just build a bunch of homes on leveled out fill that's held up by a retaining wall, in an area due to have a level 9.0+ earthquake"???

Here's the development, not that they show you any of the surrounding area, because it's ugly. https://www.redfin.com/WA/Monroe/20548-134th-St-SE-98272/home/146093520 the house is 3,000+ sqft, on a 5,000sqft plot. Kids don't need a yard or nature to play in, they obviously need a giant house.

Ya, the one in my area is in the urban growth area. I live outside of it but not very far outside.

The area they leveled used to be about 10feet bellow the level of the bike trail at the start and then equal to the bike trail at the end. Now at the start it is about 5 feet higher than the trail... at the edge of the buffer between the development and the trail it just drops down to the original level...

The soils there are mostly clay too. With all the compaction they are doing and making it level I'm sure there is going to be water issues. Plus as you said I can't imagine this being stable in an earthquake...

I wish I had the money to buy up the land surrounding mine so I could make sure no developments went in...

Only bright side is the organization I work for does just that. I'm getting ready this morning to drive out to a 312 acre property that has over 100 acres of wetlands including a lot of beaver ponds and salmon streams. This was going to be developed into a ton of houses but the organization I work for bought it a few years ago and I have been restoring it (removing culverts and planting native veg in a few areas that had been degraded). We now own it and will keep it as a nature preserve. There are some old access roads that we are maintaining for hiking and other low impact activities. So far we have protected around 7,500 acres of land. When I get frustrated about development at least my work helps me feel a little better.

I plan on putting a conservation easement on my land in the future to ensure it can never be developed or degraded.

How do you put a conservation easement on your land. 1/3rd of mine is already protected wetlands, but that means next to nothing if a developer comes in. They just "buy up" wetlands elsewhere and put in some retention ponds  that aren't even wetlands, and call it good. Sigh.

I just checked our counties permit and zoning map, and there's planned to be another 112 72 houses put behind the  30 houses they're already put in. The 112 72 houses development will take place on 137 acres. The land was totally logged (because, you know, money) before the recession, and then they stopped plans for development, and the county ended up buying it up. It looks like the plan on making our private road into a public road to acces those 112 72 houses. So, our street is going from having 7 houses to having almost 150 houses. It makes me sick.

Nicole, how did they obtain an easement on your private road?

I have no idea. But, since the county owns the property behind our road, that they're going to connect to our road, I'm assuming the county can do whatever it pleases when it comes to making private roads public?

When I looked at the plat map for the 30 house development going in now, it shows a round-a-bout at the south side of it (which is the side that connects to the 137 acre development area), and it has wording saying "Add to this note "to be extinguished when the road is extended to the satisfaction of the County." I thought I saw somewhere, too, about it becoming permies, but maybe the county will just extend the private road all the way up through the development?

Conservation easements are a bit confusing at times... you need to find an organization that will "hold" it and enforce it. You get to work with that organization to determine what the easement says. Generally you sell or donate a specific right - say the right to develop. Small acres is harder to do and generally the easement has to be donated but you can still get a tax right off for the value of the rights you donated.

I work for a land trust. I will need to look up the land trust in your area. You can look up the Washington Association of Land Trusts too to see which one works in your area. Then you would need to start a conversation with them.

It is not an easy process but can be worth it. You want an organization to hold your easement that is stable and takes it seriously. They should do a once a year monitoring to make sure there are no violations. Might not be needed while you are living there but if you move then it would apply to the next owner and they might not be so good.

Some easements are more limiting than others but they are all negotiated with the current owner and the organization that will be holding and enforcing the easement. Pick a good organization and it should work out. You still own your property the organization just holds the rights you sold or donated and ensures no one violates the terms of the easements.

Development rights, timber harvest, where houses can be built, etc. All these can be part of a conservation easement.

I plan on donating a fairly restrictive easement in the future once my land is all setup.

I was wrong about the 112, houses. I was reading the statement "112 2 single family residents" and thinking that was the amount of houses. But that's just a bit of code. The development is actually for "only" 72 houses.

IANAL, but the county should have to obtain an easement to turn a private road into a public one.  There may already be an easement to the county on the road - this information should be at your county clerk's office.  If not, you and your neighbors on the road might want to lawyer up, because it is likely the county is planning to steal land from you all.

Our land extends to the middle of our county road, and there is an easement granted by previous owners, which conveys with the land.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!  

 indeed.  I don't know what to add, except that... that really sucks.  And I feel for you.  I would definitely petition or go door to door with your existing actual rural neighbors and go with your concerns to your County.  Unfortunately the county is looking to increase it's tax base and is unlikely to go against a new developer who is increasing the 'rural' population.  This is not rural development, it is sub-urban.  Get that into their heads.

Worse yet, most of the homeowners who enjoy "maintaining" those one-acre lawns have a literal scorched-earth attitude about the correct way to do it.  I was just talking to a guy who drives a delivery truck out my way who lives in a place like that; he was real proud of the fact that he hasn't seen a tick yet this year, because he "sprays every inch of his property once a month."  I didn't ask "with what?" because I didn't want to continue that line of conversation, but you know that means the insect life at his place isn't doing well.  It's just as well his HOA doesn't let him garden, unless he wants to be out there hand-pollinating his plants!  And you know his lawn feed product contains an herbicide *and* a grub-killer, so the soil life isn't doing all that well, and I'm sure he's death on moles and gophers, and and and.  

Meanwhile I was chortling last week about the fact that my tomato hornworm issue this year has taken a very peculiar turn.  I've had half a dozen different plants turn up with the characteristic hornworm damage on a single branch, but when I look... no hornworm!  And the damage never spreads.  "They" say nothing eats hornworms, and I don't know what's eating mine, but my garden seems to be an unhealthy place for them.  I *think* it's the huge flock of cardinals living in my yard this year due to the fact that nothing got mowed, but that's just a guess.

I just wanted to say, I'm not so much unhappy about people moving out to rural areas. I don't want to be one of those "NIMBY" (Not In My Back Yard) people. I understand that people need places to live, and frankly, I would be fine with those 60 acres turning into 30 homes if they weren't in a Housing Development with all its covenants. My parents have an acre of land. Everyone on their street has an acre. Most of the properties are about 1/3rd yard, and the rest are garden, native wildlife, &/or horse pasture. Many people have chickens, geese, ducks, etc.

But, in these housing developments, people usually aren't allowed to do any of those things. They are forced to have non-edible plants and giant lawns that take lots of resources to maintain, and provide little-to-no habitat. And, when more and more of the property in my area is in housing developments, less and less people have choices to have any other sort of place to live.

And, these housing developments are able to get around all the rules that everyone else has to play by. Anyone who isn't a developer can't buy, say, 1 acre or 1/4 acre out here. They need to find 5 acre plots to build their homes. For every undeveloped 5-acre parcel of land, there's at least 30 HOA homes that newly built. And, for every home that's not in an HOA, there's probably 3-5 that are.

To make matters more complicated, a normal person couldn't buy 60 acres of land to have as an intentional community of 30 tiny homes where people wildcraft and grow their own food. That's against the law. They'd have to somehow manage to make it a housing development, which would require paved sidewalks and roads, etc, that they might not be able to afford.

My beef isn't with people moving out here, it's with HOAs, and with the land being forced into lawns. We need places for people to grow food, especially as our population continues to grow. HOAs don't often allow that, and they love to cut down all the native veg and destroy the topsoil, which people who are just one house usually don't do.

In addition, these Rural Cluster Developments are marketed as being less destructive to the environment because they cluster the houses together and use less roads and driveways than if people built their homes seperately...but, if they really want to preserve the environment, they need to not be chopping down all these trees and destroying all the topsoil, just to put in giant, level lawns.

Nicole, look at your deed as to who owns the easement for your private road.  Do this as a top priority because a developer or the county cannot just make a private road into a public road or a county road.

Someone has to give permission for the folks who buy those houses and to the builder to use the private road.

Who pays for the maintenance of your private road?  

I would also call your County Commissioner to get more information on the status of the road.

Tyler Ludens wrote:IANAL, but the county should have to obtain an easement to turn a private road into a public one.  There may already be an easement to the county on the road - this information should be at your county clerk's office.  If not, you and your neighbors on the road might want to lawyer up, because it is likely the county is planning to steal land from you all.

Our land extends to the middle of our county road, and there is an easement granted by previous owners, which conveys with the land.

It depends.

Here in Maine it is completely legal depending on certain factors. For instance, I have a right of way that extends to my land that comes to a point about a half mile back in off the main road. Just beyond that point I have a neighbor that has 6 acres of land, and while my Grandfather built the road over the Right of Way, by law we cannot deny access to the person living behind me who is "landlocked." If I did, it would make his land absolutely worthless. Even though that land has no legal Right of Way, by me having one, they are entitled to use mine by default.


It sounds like this might be the case with Nicole, but I am not sure. If the land behind her home was public land, then the road leading to it was legally a public road. I am not sure that is exactly the case, but Land Laws get really strange at times. My deeds are teeming with the strangest things!!
…

As for Conservation Easements, I do not like them because as with many things, while they are well meaning, there are many things they do not tell you. For instance here we have some, but they are not worth the paper they are printed on even though they are registered in the record of deeds. It is a lengthy explanation, but a person has to think of the legal rights of a landowner as a bundle of asparagus bunched together with a rubber band. Those rights include mineral rights, gas and oil rights, air rights, timber rights, farming rights, and the rights to build buildings, etc. There mare many, many rights, and a person can sell off, or give away any one of those rights. For instance, when fracking was full throttle, Grandparents who had sold oil and gas rights decades ago, suddenly had the oil companies knocking on the Grandchildren's door with signed agreements from decades before in their hand. Their Grandparents had sold out, and it was all legal.


The Conservation Groups WANT people to think that by giving up aspects of their conservation rights the farm will never become developed, but that is just NOT the case. Here in Maine, there is fine print that says they can sell off select house lots. On one occasion a school was going to expand and had a choice. On the left side was an undeveloped subdivision, and on the right side was a farm who was in conservation easement. the State would have to pay dearly for the subdivided land because it was in 2 acre lots, so they simply took the farm land under eminent domain making everyone here quickly realize those conservation papers were meaningless. But it gets worse...

A person who does Conservation easements must PAY THEM TO TAKE AWAY YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. I would be darned at doing that, as the rate my rights as a property owner are being stripped away from me now is incredibly ridiculous, to even think that I am going to PAY someone to take even more away is insane!! But it gets worse than worse. You have to pay an ANNUAL FEE to have YOUR RIGHTS REMOVED!! What the fanny pack?  Yes you have to pay them every year just to be fleeced. Like that is EVER going to happen to me!! No thanks, since all they are doing is limiting how I can farm, hiding in the fine print that after my demise can sell house lots off, and charge me every year for the "pleasure" of all that, I will just stay FAR, FAR away from that nonsense!!

This is what my deed says about the easement:

A non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress as delineated on the said survey.

Subject To: This conveyance is subject to covenants, conditions, restrictions and easments, if any, affecting title, which may appear in the public record, including those shown on any recorded plat or survey.

There is no one mandated to maintain the road in our easement. We have 2-3 different neighbors who put down gravel when potholes, and I pay them $20-40 when they do. The other neighbors should also--out of neighborly kindness--be doing the same, but they don't.

We have wells, but there's public water that was brought into the street a few years back, and the new development is hooking up to that.


In other news, I found the HOA covenants of other housing developments made by the same people. On these one-acre plots, the owners:

Can't have RVs be parked there for more than 14 days,

no antenae

can't make any signs

compost heaps allowed as long as they are tidy and hidden from view

car can't be parked in view for more than 48 hours, unless there's people visiting, and even then, they have to have permission for the cars to be parked more than 14 days.

no animals other than household pets

no discharging firearms

landscaping designs have to be submitted to a commitee for approval to make sure they fit the character of the other houses

No outbuildings (including play equipment or play houses) without approval

I think I'd go crazy!


I looked up another one of their developments. It's a spiffy one on a lake, that they tout as all ecologically-friendly. They show on their webpage all the houses being tucked into the wood:



But, in reality they cleared out the trees from 2/3rds of each property. At least it's not 100%. It gives me hope that they won't clear out all of the trees in the development.





Kids are clammering for dinner. Got to go!

I'm rather amazed at the "green washing" that apparently goes on with these developments. The Wonderland Park (http://lakesideatwonderland.com/developer/lid/index.php) by our same developer lists all sorts of marvelopus things that they are doing to preserve the environment, like not cutting down trees, and not doing "catch and collect" stormwater management, and building green houses, etc...

And then the houses they build aren't green, with composition roof and cement fiberboard siding (https://www.redfin.com/WA/Snohomish/18608-55th-St-SE-98290/unit-03/home/145511631), and they cut down 2/3rds of the trees on the lots.

And, if they go and try to green wash the development on my street, I really gotta wonder about these extreeeeeeeemly large water retention ponds. The totally terraformed the second one, which was previously a wetland.

Reminding me of the movie, "Over the Hedge" right now. It's tooooo true to life, that movie.

People will mow way more than 1 acre. I live on a section with 40 acre plots and people will mow nearly all of it. Blows the mind!

elle sagenev wrote:Reminding me of the movie, "Over the Hedge" right now. It's tooooo true to life, that movie.

People will mow way more than 1 acre. I live on a section with 40 acre plots and people will mow nearly all of it. Blows the mind!

And good luck finding one who even stops to ask, why have a lawn? It is taken for granted as something you're "supposed" to want.

The below image is my neighborhood. I am attempting to do permaculture on my plot, and I am thankful that at least some of my neighbors are in more of a rural mindset than a housing development mindset; but on the other hand, I do not think any of them are seriously interested in growing food on their plots; I;m  a bit of a maverick in that sense. The delineated plots are all carved out of dairy pasture, much of which is still in use as the houses are waiting to be built. I am also thankful that our community bylaws prohibit the cutting down of mature trees without permission, and that our preserved natural area really is natural, not lawn. I think that, if done with a permaculture ethos in mind, housing developments can be livable communities; what is needed is to get away from the conventional/conformist worldview of most HOA's and take a more integrative approach.

Nicole,

These sorts of developments break my heart too.  Technically, I live in a subdivision, but they are 10 acre lots and I only touched a small portion of mine to build my house and plant a yard.  Near my house a development went in with two acre lots.  This would drive me crazy as a homeowner.  These people are planting 2 acres of lawn.  My 3/4 acre lawn was plenty for me.  I can only imagine the water used to plant this grass or mowing that huge amount of lawn.  Worse, this does not seem like quite large enough to leave as a wild area, though I would prefer wild grasslands to 2 acres of lawn.

Sad to see and it breaks my heart as well.

Eric

Nicole's initial post struck a chord with me and speaks largely to my Permie roots.  I have a little rant of my own that I think will dovetail with what Nicole and others have been stating on this thread.

I grew up in Central Illinois and as a child I lived in a country subdivision.  We had roughly 1/2 acre lots and modest sized homes.  For the longest time (by childhood reckoning) much of the subdivision was unfinished and as far as I was concerned it was thoroughly wild.  By the mid 80s, interest rates dropped and a tremendous housing surge began around me and I watched painfully as literally thousands of acres around me "developed" into new housing.  Something that irritated me greatly about the new subdivisions that went up is that the lots were typically 1/4 to 1/3 acre (called Luxury Lots if you can believe that!) parcels.  This meant that the housing was going to be fairly dense.  Worse, the houses that went up on these "luxury" lots were HUGE!  Some actually looked like small castles.  We are talking about 5000-7000 sqft homes.  The homes were so big that they frequently occupied more space than the "yard" did.  I hesitate to call these yards as to me a yard was a semi-recreational place.  A yard to me is where children play and one grills outside and even does the occasional project outside and nobody ever cares.  The "yards" I was seeing were incredibly immaculate, bare except for a few ornamental plants.  It looked like if a piece of dirt was out of place the local HOA would be all over the owner.  

Often these developments were justified on the grounds that they were made out of "useless" farmland in the first place.  We are talking about some of the most productive farmland on earth with rich, black topsoil reaching down at least 6 feet and often further.  Once productive fields, with their own rural character and beauty, were consumed by the score to put in cookie-cutter homes that all looked the same, with the same postage-stamp "yard".  I swear that one could almost get lost in one of these developments for lack of distinguishing features.  The homes and yards were all that similar.  I always wondered how much water was needed to keep all of these yards green.  Certainly, any given homeowner could claim that individually they only used a bit of water as the yard was not that big in the first place.  The same could be said for fertilizer and various other lawn chemicals.  Individually sure, they were easy to maintain, but it makes my head spin when I think of all of the water poured and fertilizer spread to make the lawn emerald green.  I thought about the sheer amount of earth that was paved over or had a roof over it--a substantial portion that would not surprise me if the total amount exceeded 50% of the total land area.  Between cement roads, driveways, patios and roofs, a LOT of ground was covered.  And the consequences were felt during times of flood and drought.  Without earth to soak up the rains, the water surged off into streams and the flooding became markedly worse.  Alternately, during the summertime, drought would turn off those same streams and creeks that would otherwise flow through the heat of the summer season.  To me it was heartbreaking.  I like to say that I grew up in the country, and I still firmly believe this as my childhood home was surrounded by fields and pastures.  If one were to visit that same house today, they would never agree that it was country at all, and in a sense they are right.  The country has been absorbed by city development and urban sprawl.

This experience tremendously influenced my desire to own acreage so that I could be steward to land and not let it be destroyed by development.  As I said before, technically I live in a subdivision, but it has approximately 10 acre lots.  When I found the piece of land that would eventually become my home, it sort of spoke to me. We placed our house back off the road on a little high spot that was in an old pasture and flanked by woods.  The back and side yards are well defined by the woods.  The front yard was of an arbitrary depth, and we deliberately made it on the small side.  Some people have suggested (some rather firmly) that I should consider planting the yard all the ways to the road, but this seems frivolous at best and destructive at worst to me.  From the edge of my front yard to the road is about 375 feet of old pasture that I let grow wild (I do have my gardens there, flanking my driveway though).  By local ordinance I have to mow the grass once per year  and I am OK with this requirement.  It keeps the land from being taken over by invasive autumn olives that grow like mad around us.  We have many deer that visit our property and some even call it home.  I do keep a few trails mowed and maintained in the tall grass, and this makes for a nice walk with the dog.

In the end, I am lucky.  I have a house in the country and I fully enjoy just having plenty of rural character around me.  Still it bothers me a bit that some feel the need to tell me that I need to tame the land better, or worse, spray acres of tall grass with roundup and replant with lawn type fescue and bluegrass.  So long as I own the property that will not happen.  I do keep the grass mowed a bit more often, but the deer still love it as do birds and all other sorts of wild life.  I suppose that seeing my beloved rural acres around my childhood home turn into suburban sprawl did have at least one desirable outcome--I am determined to keep my acres as natural as I can.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.  It has been a bit cathartic.  Like Nicole, I too despise seeing developments that wholesale destroy nature and contort rural areas into some quasi suburban development with enormous houses and yards too big to mow quickly and too tidy to play in.  I will take my country home with its rural character any day.

Eric

I don't really understand people who want to live in the country, but not engage in country living. Even a 1/2 acre lot is considered huge in the Bay Area. The older developments (post WW2) are typically 1/10 acre, with newer developments being much smaller, with postage stamp yards. And even with my 1/10 acre lot, I was able to do a lot. Why buy a lot of land if you don't need it, and just try to reproduce suburban living on a larger scale.

I'm buying property that is farm zoned, and that can't be changed locally, and somewhat surrounded by BLM land. I know that doesn't guarantee anything, but at least it's not easily turned into a subdivision.

Here we find townies coming out and building a country house, they then cover half the plot in gravel the other half in lawn and light the place up like a Christmas tree. Bringing the town with them really.

As to the HOA's I just do not understand them so very American!

The house I am in right now is rural zoned and an old farm one can do what one wants here, new buildings need planning permission but I can have a cow or 20. My new house is town zoned but is a registered farm, so I can still do basically what I want I can certainly forget to mow the grass!
The only requirements on the land is it need to be kept in a farm-able condition or it loses the farm status, and we have to kill any Hogweed/Giant hogweed and one other invasive weed who's name I forget on the land.

We have the same issues as well – a lot of retirees and couples with young kids moving from the city to have, for unidentified reasons, their piece of rural living. BUT, then the rot sets in:

They build modern brick houses (concrete slab on ground) with tiled roofs. The area is dominated by houses raised on piers, made from timber weatherboard, corrugated roofs and with large verandahs. One retiree actually chose to build using glistening WHITE bricks! WTF? So much for Planning Controls. In the Sub Tropical/Tropical environment, those houses must be like furnaces in summer and expensive to cool

They seem to gravitate towards ‘pretend’ dogs, the small rat-like ones, that yap and bark continuously. Most rural people have multipurpose kelpies or cattle dogs for work, security and as general pets – they don’t yap.

Have the audacity to complain if a neighbour has a crowing rooster, ducks or geese, their horse whinnies or cattle low/bellow. Noting the area is on a wetland and a major river, so every bird and frog in God’s creation is there making a cacophony of sound 24/7!

Wood fired BBQ, pizza oven or fire pit? Yep, they complain about the smoke and fire hazard potential.

They want all the city paraphernalia: cafes, supermarkets, bakeries, et al

At some point no doubt they’ll complain to Council about the mosquitoes and snakes emanating from the wetland – good luck with that, it’s a conservation area and is significantly flood prone.

Most of them just don’t fit in and mix with the locals. Ah, to dream of winning the lottery: buy up all the nearby properties and stock them with ewes that have twin lambs, sit back and smile as they bleat and baa and annoy the hell out of the ‘new’ neighbours!

There’s only one ‘gated-community’ (Commonhold) in the area, located on a prestigious beach frontage, so the precious occupants probably need ‘protection’ from the local ‘hoodlums’. Like most of their type, the development has manicured everything with typically non-native ornate gardens – being surrounded by native bushland it is very unsympathetic to the nearby landscape.

Development corporations, with their versions of Commonhold, are not currently in the area. Laws of ownership are somewhat different here, and most people much prefer freehold (Torrens) title rather than some type of tenant (Strata/Commonhold) title which is usually restrictive and often has hidden and on-going costs.

Frankly, a lot of the long-time rural residents would prefer city people to stay put, and perhaps pay to do ‘farm-stays’ once or twice a year to bring money into the community and let outsiders pretend to be country-folk for a week or so.

Farm-Stays are fairly common and are a good way to make additional income for farmers. Some are fully operational farms that open either full time or seasonally to vacationers wanting the sanitised version of farm living: milking cows, making cream/butter, patting calves, collecting eggs, going for horse rides, etc. Others are the real-deal involving branding and castrating bulls, fixing fences, herding stock on horses or motorcycles. Then there are the glorified ‘bed & breakfast’ set ups – somewhere to relax and use as a base to drive around an area and sightsee. Some even have separate cabins and/or camp grounds to satisfy most customers price range.

The best thing about ‘farm stays’ is they provide farmers with that extra income, so during lean times they are less likely to walk away from farming and allow it to be subdivided for housing. And, I guess, they’d be easier to sell as an on-going concern to the next generation because of that additional business base.

So, the development is building now, and I took a look at its covenants. They're dreadful! Houses cannot have a smaller footprint than 1,800 sqft on the bottom floor. That's twice as big as my whole house! And, that's just the bottom floor. These houses are 2-story mansions. Why???   (I've been wanting to use those emoticons for a long time. Finally got a chance)

They can't have any livestock or even breed their pets.

The housing association authorities can enter their homes at any time to inspect and see if they are meeting the rules. Really?!?

They have to submit applications to put in a hot tub or a shed or a playground.

If they don't meet HOA requirements, the HOA can have landscapers/painters/construction workers/whatever come and "fix" things and make the homeowner pay for it.

No firearms (these are 1 acre plots in the middle of a LEGAL HUNTING area, and they're not allowed to shoot), no motorbikes, no parking their car on the road, etc. No loud hobbies. In other words, no living.

It makes me so sad to see such environmental destruction of trees and watershed (it's a good 10+ degrees hotter and drier there than at my place 1/2 mile a way, and the water doesn't soak into the ground and there's lots of erosion and silt entering the fish-bearing streams), and use of resources to build such giant homes that are more like giant prisons than freedom. So very sad.

Here's another one of their developments. $745,000 for a 1 acre lot of dying grass and a 3,000+sqft house. A whole forest that was cut down to put in 1 acre of lawn they can't do anything with. So sad on so many levels.

WHY??? do people want to live in such hellholes???

The housing association authorities can enter their homes at any time to inspect and see if they are meeting the rules.

Who would sign such an agreement? What did they learn in history class about that?

Nicole,  In our neck of the woods, I would be quite concerned about how this development would be affecting my future property taxes.  Does Washington have some sort of control on that thing so it doesn't get too outlandish for those planted before the development emerged?

Tyler Ludens wrote:WHY??? do people want to live in such hellholes???

Tyler: I often wonder that too. I look at so many things and say "why?" and then "who thinks this is a good idea?"
Ooh, look honey, no swingsets to offend the eye, this is our kind of place!!
I join Nicole in the puking party  

Nicole - I'm so sorry that this is happening in your area. When we were selling our house in San Lorenzo we learned that it was the first HOA in the country. The HOA was/is horrible, at the time it was a white's only community, apparently this is only officially removed about 10 years ago, although it wasn't enforced for a long time. As for why we bought there, it was one of the more affordable areas in the Bay Area, obviously that is not what is happening near you. The only explanation I have is that people worry a lot about home value. I don't really understand it as my home is primarily a home, and an investment second. The property we have now, we never intend to sell. Nevertheless, I hope this doesn't impact your life too much.

It's funny to see how enthusiastically people will sign up for an expensive prison when they believe it will enhance their social class, finances, and happiness. Even when that means destroying ecosystems and living in a sterile hell-hole.

People trade their privacy and freedom for safety and resale value and prestige.  There's so much, throughout history, that speaks to the downfalls of trading freedom for safety, but I think these people are so busy working to afford their mansions, that they don't have time to think about history, or probably even to read their covenants.

As for our property values going up, I'm sure they will continue to do so. Mine's already almost doubled in the past 6 years . I'll have to look for controls on property value, but I highly double we have any, since everyone's property values have been skyrocketing in the last few years .

Nicole Alderman wrote:So, the development is building now, and I took a look at its covenants. They're dreadful! Houses cannot have a smaller footprint than 1,800 sqft on the bottom floor. That's twice as big as my whole house! And, that's just the bottom floor. These houses are 2-story mansions. Why???   (I've been wanting to use those emoticons for a long time. Finally got a chance)

They can't have any livestock or even breed their pets.

The housing association authorities can enter their homes at any time to inspect and see if they are meeting the rules. Really?!?

They have to submit applications to put in a hot tub or a shed or a playground.

If they don't meet HOA requirements, the HOA can have landscapers/painters/construction workers/whatever come and "fix" things and make the homeowner pay for it.

No firearms (these are 1 acre plots in the middle of a LEGAL HUNTING area, and they're not allowed to shoot), no motorbikes, no parking their car on the road, etc. No loud hobbies. In other words, no living.

It makes me so sad to see such environmental destruction of trees and watershed (it's a good 10+ degrees hotter and drier there than at my place 1/2 mile a way, and the water doesn't soak into the ground and there's lots of erosion and silt entering the fish-bearing streams), and use of resources to build such giant homes that are more like giant prisons than freedom. So very sad.

Here's another one of their developments. $745,000 for a 1 acre lot of dying grass and a 3,000+sqft house. A whole forest that was cut down to put in 1 acre of lawn they can't do anything with. So sad on so many levels.

You do live in the USA and not the former USSR/North Korea, right? What’s with those restrictive covenants!

Seems like a very hard bunch of rules to enforce in the long run – particularly the home entry one. I suspect the firearms rule is to protect the HOA from litigation e.g. if a nutjob decides to go on a rampage – common in the U.S, not so much in the former USSR/North Korea!

Suppose there’s restrictions on backyard gatherings and BBQ’s too?!

It's likely some of the home owners will bide their time then apply for certain covenants to be removed = decades.

Regardless, there are rules and then there are the spaces between the rules – to tie in another Forum thread: I bet there’s no covenant on gardening and mowing lawns naked whilst smoking smelly cigars!

However, on the up side, I see an opportunity waiting to be exploited via flyers in their letterboxes: Free pick up of lawn clippings, turn it into compost, grow vegetables/fruit/eggs, weekly box of fresh seasonal farm produce delivered to their door! Alternatively, start a lawn mowing business and do the same thing.

The best we can do is lead by example, showcase our little pieces of Permaculture Heaven so others can learn and know there is a better way.

Oh, they only allow certain exteriors and colors of paint, no temprary structures, no RVs unless hidden from public view in a structure you need to apply for approval for, you can't have visitors for more than 14 days parking their cars or RVs in your driveway, they can't post any signs other than for-sale signs and political signs during an election, you can't park your car in your driveway--it has to be in a garage, guests can't park an "unsightly car" in open view for any amount of time (best not have any bible studies or birthday parties and invite the poor to them. *Shudder*)

"owners hereby grant to the Association an express easement for the purposes of going upon the Lots of Owners for the purpose of removing vehicles, goods, or equipments, which are parked or stored in violation of terms of these declarations"

Not only can they come and inspect your property, they can take things that violate the covenants.

I bet there’s no covenant on gardening and mowing lawns naked whilst smoking smelly cigars!  

Oh, they got that covered, too, "No noxious or offensive activity or condition shall be conducted on any Lot, nor shall anything be done or maintained on any Lot which may be or become an activity or condition which unreasonably interferes with the right of Owners to use and enjoy their respective Lots,"

Pretty sure smoking naked counts as being "noxious or offensive" to someone in that HOA.

They can, however, have a compost heap, as long as no one else can see it. At least they have that going for them...it's probably all they have going for them... Well, there also doesn't appear to be any covenants about what they can plant, other than that it needs to be attractive and well-kept at ALL times.