Daniel Lewis For House 26

Owning ones own home represents one of the significant aspects of the American dream.  As the old saying goes, “A man’s home is his castle.”   Today, some are wondering what to do when private property rights compromise a public interest in beautification.  Certainly, property owners have a right to enjoy a beautiful neighborhood. 

What is the best solution when our neighbors don’t share our passion for a beautiful neighborhood?   When the solution is sought through government aggression, the solution usually comes in some sort of restrictive ordinance.   For example, some ordinances regulate landscaping, boards are created to oversee alterations to historic buildings, bodies formed  to govern changes to trees, committees established to dictate the design and color of new buildings, commissions convened to restrict eyesores such as strip shopping centers, laws to prohibit visual pollution such as billboards and other types of outdoor advertising, and even restrictions on parking in your own front yard.   

The Chattanooga City Council’s latest proposed assault on property rights involves creating restrictions on parking cars in your own front yard.   As in other cities, Chattanooga is considering enacting some sort of “Front Yard Parking Ordinance” to deal with complaints about neighbors using their own front yards as a parking space.  Those that favor such “Front Yard Parking Ordinance” complain that when their neighbors use their front yard as a parking spot it decreases the aesthetics of the neighborhood.   While these complaints may have some merit, the Chattanooga City Council should seriously consider the possible outcome of making such a law.

More than likely, Chattanooga would enact an ordinance similar to that was recently enacted in Columbia, South Carolina.   Such an ordinance requires people to park on an “improved surface,” such as concrete or asphalt.  In consideration of people of lower economic classes, the Columbia City Council included makeshift materials like pine straw and gravel in their definition of an “improved surface”.  The objective is of course to improve the appearance of our neighborhoods.  Some members of the Chattanooga City Council have raised concerns that such a restriction might lead some people replace the entire lawn in their front yard with an “improved surface”.   Certainly the widespread exchange of “improved surfaces” for nicely manicured lawns will not aid much with improving the appearance of Chattanooga’s neighborhoods.

Columbia, South Carolina has also encountered problems with enforcement of the new ordinance.  Columbia has seen their complaints of violations of zoning regulations jump from 30 to more than 200, a 620 percent increase.  Columbia’s zoning board reports that it has overwhelmed their department.   Often a single complaint will lead to many more investigations.   Most of these investigations take several weeks or months to resolve.   The zoning board is even asking the city council for three additional workers to enforce the new ordinance.   At this point the City Council has instructed inspectors to only investigate complaints and not directly look for violators.  City officials are having to “bend over backwards” to get residents to comply with the new ordinance.  The city council has still not found a way to help that retired grandmother that cannot afford an “improved surface”.      Along with the legitimate complaints workers must deal with people lodging unfounded complaints against neighbors they dislike, and others unwilling to make the necessary changes.  Additionally, many Columbia residents remain ignorant of the new ordinance, despite extensive efforts on the part of the City Council to educate the public. 

The non-aggressive answer is for residents to establish what are known as “as restrictive covenants” in their neighborhood.   A as restrictive covenant is a voluntary agreement among residents to comply with certain guidelines fro property appearance.  Restrictive covenants are generally aesthetic controls enforced through private contracts known as deed restrictions.
Such restrictions, also known as restrictive covenants, are usually initiated by developers to blanket entire subdivisions. The restrictions are enforced by homeowners' associations, and residents of the subdivision typically have the opportunity to vote periodically, often every 20 or 25 years, to reinstate, revise, or even cancel the restrictions.  Neighborhoods that already exist without such agreements would have to build a consensus among their neighbors to adopt such an agreement.  Those that favor such an agreement may inform their neighbors that they are working with their neighbors to increase property values. Who wouldn’t want their property value to increase?  This gives each property owner an incentive to keep his property looking good. 

Courts have upheld such agreements as binding.   Deed restrictions can also govern fencing, flagpoles, the types and configuration of bedded flowers, and even architectural features, such as facades and the number of stories.  The real beauty of this system is that it is completely voluntary.  If a resident desiring a restriction finds himself among neighbors that do not share his desire for improving property values, then he can simply move to a neighborhood with such restrictions.   While, deed restriction enforcement can be harsh on non-conformists, but non- conformists need not buy into a restricted neighborhood in the first place. As an attorney told The American Legion (February 1996), "These agreements are voluntary contractual arrangements where you have agreed that this is how you are going to live."  
As perspective home owners shop around for property, they can choose how much aesthetic protection they desire, without the government deciding for them. Private controls over the appearance of property, however nitpicky, operate through elective contracts with terms explicitly spelled out.  This solution requires no enforcement at taxpayer expense and is indeed the better solution.