Modular homes ban in districts upheld
Modular homes ban in districts upheld
view story
Tags:
Wed Nov 21, 2007 09:52:15 CST
Viewed 102 times
0 responses 2 comments
| Reply or Comment | Send to a Friend | Report a Violation |
thirteenthjuror, I think you're protesting a bit too much here. There are empty lots ALL over town that Clegg can build his modular homes on. If the property owners want to keep a certain look in the relatively small area of the "historic district, what's wrong with that?
First of all, you might have a case if Clegg was restricted to putting up his wares in just one area of Victoria (say, the south side of town for instance) but he's not, his modulars are located all over including the center AND the north side of town. Secondly, if there were some kind of industry located in that historic area where people might want to live close to where they work, you might have a case, but there is none.
I think its a shame that Victoria doesn't have a zoning law. I'll give you one small example of the problems that creates. I mentioned in an earlier post about a plumbing contractor who built a "shop" in his front yard half a dozen blocks away. The homes in that area are definitely older (perhaps 40 years or so) but the owners keep their properties up, houses are neatly painted, the lawns are kept mowed and no "junkers" are parked on the streets or in the driveways. But you can be sure that homeowners on either side of or across the the street from this man are not happy with the effect his shop will have on re-sale value of their homes. His shop is well built, but it IS a business shop and obviously out of place in the neighborhood.
What concerns me about the council meeting last night is the nearsightedness of this community. What Clegg was essentially told was "go build your mod homes, just 'not in my back yard.'" A modular home represents a way to get someone who cannot afford housing into housing. If you're compassionate, you want to see that. Apparently, the structure has to be on Mayfair or Crestwood, not somewhere where "property value" may be affected.
Supposedly, we want to see the City grow and prosper. But we also want to make sure that the people that we greet on our morning walks "fit." It's not a zoning issue, it's an affordable housing issue. And if you say you are for afforadable housing on THAT side of town, then it's apartheid.
Make no mistake: the lady that is worried about property values dropping is really worried about Sanford & Son or the Beverly Hillbillies moving in next door and after a couple of margaritas she will tell you the same. It's not about a building structure, it's about "those people."
It's much easier to profess concern about the underclass and write big checks to promote your beliefs than it is to have it affect you next door. Not in my backyard, bub. What good are principles and the ability to make good speeches if you don't actually act on them? People need a place to live. But if the house you paid a hundred grand for is now worth 300 grand and Sanford & Son threaten to know that down to 250, then "forget" them. OK, I get that. But let's not flower it up and wrap ourselves in "historical" sentiments. For some speakers, let's just say that money has become more important than people. How disappointing, if you have held yourself out in the community otherwise.
As long as Victoria keeps itself insular, then it will get what it deserves. Keep that "shop Victoria" campaign going. You are welcoming people's wallets with your right hand and holding them away from your neighborhoods with your left hand. It won't work.
And for the lady with five last names admiring Mr. Clegg's "ambition." Please, she curses him with faint praise. He's offering a product. He just made the mistake of thinking he could do so fairly.
And for Mr. Clegg: you have a point, you just failed to make it. You offer a good product at a decent price that actually houses people and benefits the community. Where was your sabre?