Beauty Is In...

The Eye Of The Beholder

I’m really sick and tired of the success that professional and amateur “busybodies” enjoy today, particularly when it comes to the rightful use of real estate by the property owners.

Here is my take on private property rights.

If I go out and pay for a piece of property located in the middle of nowhere, with no existing zoning restrictions, building codes, and neighborhood covenants, I should then be able to build the biggest, ugliest, architecturally disgusting tin-roofed-tarpaper “shack” and paint it PURPLE or ORANGE if I want to.

I should be able to build myself a great big front porch for five bird dogs to live under, and adorn my porch with a variety of left over furniture items like an overstuffed Nalgahide sofa and possibly an old refrigerator and maybe a broken washing machine or two.

I should be able to place my shack out in plain view, ten feet off of the highway right-of-way for the enjoyment of every passer-by, or way back on the rear of my property—completely invisible to my neighbors and passing motorists.

After all, it’s MY PROPERTY, and MY PURPLE TARPAPER SHACK, and I happen to think that my flock of 13 pink plastic yard flamingos (they’re cheaper by the baker’s dozen) looks rather nice beside my inflatable snowman and my old Cadillac convertible that I’m going to completely restore one day when I’ve saved up enough money.

My lovely wife and nine kids should be able to enjoy watching from our rusty above ground swimming pool as I shoot old cola bottles and beer cans with my 45 magnum pistol on my newly constructed fifty yard shooting range

And if I want the flexibility of hanging up my Christmas lights at Thanksgiving and I never take them down, and YOU or my other neighbors or your lawyers have a problem with my uncouth, uncivilized Redneck behavior, I have two words for you…

TOUGH SHIT…

You live in Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood now, so get over your pompous self.

Likewise, if I choose to purchase property in a planned neighborhood that requires me to accept a 1” thick stack of protective covenants and to join a homeowner’s association (what I call the Neighborhood Nazis) with complete architectural review privileges, then I know going into the deal that my purple tarpaper shack and my plastic flamingos might be a bit of a liability.

If I'm willing to buy property in "busybody snob central" where people worry about the color of my mailbox, whether or not I leave my garage door open all day, refuse to allow me to store my bass boat hidden in my back yard, or build my child's playset 3" taller than the rules allow, so be it.

You and I probably paid EXTRA for all of these limitations on what would otherwise be considered our decisions, but people that are educated in Government (public) schools these days lack basic logical and decision making skills and generally feel better not having to worry about issues like how often to mow their grass and what kind of landscaping to install without getting the "Neighborhood Nazi's" approval.

The bottom line is that regardless of where I choose to live, I'd like to know the rules, in advance, and as an individual and an owner I would then be prepared to abide by the restrictions, or the lack thereof.

What really gripes my butt is when people start wanting to CHANGE the rules regarding real estate usage, AFTER the fact, because they don’t like what their neighbors are doing.

I once bought some coastal property in Florida, within a few blocks of the Gulf of Mexico in an area that had been originally zoned to allow mobile homes. I knew of the zoning the day I closed the sale transaction on the property. I got a better deal as a result.

I also knew that the property next door had an old dilapidated mobile home on it that was going to be removed and that the property on the other side of my lot had just sold to an owner who said she was going to build a house.

Well surprise, Surprise, SURPRISE…a few months later, after I had spent an additional $6,000 paying the water/sewer tap fees and trucked in about 20 loads of good fill dirt, my new neighbor bought a used double-wide trailer and parked it as close to the roadway and my property line as the zoning would allow.

What her motives were for placing the trailer where she did is beyond my comprehention, but funny thing--IT WAS HER PROPERTY AND WHAT I THOUGHT OR WANTED HER TO DO WAS IMMATERIAL.

It looked like crap when she was finished, but there was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT I COULD DO ABOUT THE SITUATION.

Nothing…

Nada…

Zero…

Zilch.

I didn't feel that I had the right to attempt to use lawyers and the Government to artificially INCREASE my property value at the expense of my neighbor. Trailers were legal when I bought my property, I paid a cheeper price as a result, and I accepted the responsibility for MY decision to locate where I did.

I'm a nice guy, aren't I?

I never said a word to the owner about the situation, I just held the lot for 2-1/2 years, then sold it for a tidy profit to someone that was willing to build a house adjacent to a crappy mobile home installation.

Some people don’t see things the way I do, however. They run around hiring lawyers and trying to persuade their politicians to tell me what I can do with MY PROPERTY, or tell my neighbors what they can't do with THEIR PROPERTY.

After the fact.

After the sale is completed.

What total Bull Hockey.

Having said all of that, take a look at what they’re doing to some poor slob out in Catalina Island’s Avalon harbor.

For nearly 50 years, Robert Sherrill's grimy boat repair barge floated in the teal harbor of Avalon, in front of the casino that stars in most Catalina postcards.Even as the vessel grew from squat to tri-level, no one seemed to worry — until one morning in early August, when Sherrill replaced it with what looked like a floating condo.

It looks like he went from the back bay of Wilmington to Beverly Hills," said Avalon Harbor Master Brian Bray.

Sherrill's new repair barge is painted ivory. It has picture windows and arched balconies. Above the ground-level business are two floors of living space: four apartments meant to house Sherrill's family and guest mechanics.

And ever since it slid into the crescent-shaped harbor, it has generated ardent debate among the island's 3,500 residents and mainland boaters.

There are those who fume at Sherrill, saying he has ruined the view. Others rail against the town government for not putting an end to Sherrill's plan during construction. And plenty of islanders worry that the barge portends a future Avalon where people are priced off the land and into the water, into an offshore neighborhood or worse, a floating trailer park.

"Who wouldn't want … an apartment on the water in Avalon?" asked Stacey A. Otte, executive director of the Catalina Island Museum in the casino.Such questions have prompted the City Council to begin drafting an ordinance that would clearly define the rules for living on the water off Catalina.

Sherrill says he is bewildered by the criticism. He thought he was improving the view by updating the old barge he inherited from his father, with its prison-gray paint and tools dangling from all sides. His aim, he said, was to echo the casino with arches, a terracotta roof and paint that complemented the Art Deco building's creamy tones.

"I thought everybody was going to cheer at getting rid of the old barge," he said.


If you read the whole article, you find out that the “condo” in question is only two 800 square foot spaces--one for the owner’s family, and one to be divided into three small quarters for visiting mechanics.

The other thing that they mention is that mooring space on Catalina Island costs over $1,000,000, IF you can find any.

A MILLION DOLLARS...

So I ask you, why should the property owner not be allowed to upgrade and improve a fifty year old floating structure prominently located on the harbor waterfront?

After all, he already OWNS the RIGHT to be there on the waterfront, he isn’t infringing on anyone else’s use of the waterfront, and his fifty plus year old structure was deteriorating.

Instead of replacement, should the owner be forced by his neighbors and the government to continue to repair his existing eyesore structure at his expense, else remove it entirely and lose the use of his waterfront property rights?

I say not NO, but HELL NO, I wouldn't want idiot politicians and total strangers telling ME what to do with or otherwise limiting what I do with MY Million dollars.

Unfortunately, knowing how things are today, I’m afraid that Mr. Sherrill is going to lose this battle and never be allowed to live in his new condo.

What a wonderful, just, all inclusive Democracy we’ve converted our Republic into, don’t you think?

After all, the law now says that Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...or is it in the Government's eye (where I'd like to poke my finger)?