I’m not advocating that you paint your house black, or pink, but I did talk about situations involving houses painted those colors, as well as “gold zinger.” It’s my attempt to enlighten my loyal readers about the application of rules that govern what you can and cannot do with your own property.
My March Real Estate Law Update is in the mail and will soon be posted. If you’re interested, take a peek in the publications section at deconcinimcdonald.com.
As soon as I read what the proposed trademark was and that it was denied on the ground that it is “scandalous,” I knew that the discussion would immediately turn to The Slants.
How any times do I have to say it? The First Amendment means that the government can’t prohibit speech based on the content of the speech.
I haven’t posted about autonomous vehicles in a while, so I thought I’d come back to the subject as soon as I saw something interesting. Via Coyote, I came across this article on difficulties with Tesla’s autopilot. It essentially confirms what I, and others who probably know a lot more than I do about it, would have suspected: Tesla is not doing the same kind of intensive research and development for its autonomous driving technology as Waymo and others. That doesn’t cause me to lose confidence in my prediction that self-driving vehicles will become prevalent in my lifetime, nor does it diminish my desire to use one myself, although I have to admit that those photos of a wrecked Tesla are kind of disconcerting.
This time it’s an old house built of yellow brick. Inexplicably, and perhaps mistakenly according to the news account, it got painted black. The historical board cried foul, the owner is trying to remove the black paint without damaging the brick, and locals are up in arms.
The house is in a business district and has apparently been used for retail for a long time. Does that matter?
I agree with the neighbors: the color of that house is sickening.
I also agree with the homeowner: if there is no homeowners’ association, and hence there are no rules for the neighbors to enforce, he should be able to paint his house whatever color he likes.
Like I said, if you want to paint your house the color of your choice, be careful where you buy your house. Conversely, if you want to make sure all the houses in your neighborhood look essentially the same, again, make sure you know what the rules are before you buy. It’s really not that complicated.
Adverse possession isn’t really about “squatting” on, or stealing, someone else’s land, even though it sounds like that’s essentially what happened in a case in Australia that was recently discussed at Lowering the Bar. Adverse possession is really about, in my opinion, putting to rest uncertainty about ownership of land. I have written about adverse possession from both angles: it’s not really about stealing someone else’s land; it really is about resolving uncertainty as to ownership of land.
It’s a subject that maybe only real estate lawyers care about. Other people don’t care about it until they discover that their neighbor is encroaching on their land. Then, they care about it.
There’s an interesting comment at the end of the discussion that I linked in a post last week. As I suspected, there was apparently some bureaucratic skullduggery in applying historic property rules to the house that was the subject of the discussion, with the outcome that the owner’s neighbors (or more accurately, a small subset of his neighbors) got to tell him what color he could not paint his house.
All the more reason to vote with your feet and stay away from properties that are subject to rules enforced by people who like to tell others what to do.
A DISCUSSION THAT ILLUSTRATES PERFECTLY THE POINT I HAVE MADE ABOUT NOT BUYING A PROPERTY THAT’S SUBJECT TO RULES YOU MAY NOT LIKE
The Rosemont Mine to be located south of Tucson is a matter of some controversy. I recognize the environmental harms that could result from it. I think that the benefits will outweigh the potential harms, however.
The Tucson area is not prosperous. I think the Rosemont Mine will undoubtedly improve the economic well-being of Tucson residents. That’s a good reason for the project to proceed, even if some of the public officials who oppose the project don’t seem to recognize it.
And from the perspective of a real estate lawyer with a background in land use law, the proposed project is of tremendous interest, whether or not I’m personally in favor of it.
The contents of this blog, this web site, and any writings by me that are linked here, are all my personal commentary. None of it is intended to be legal advice for your situation.