I like this concept. What they are selling is modular houses. They don’t say what the houses cost. They do give the price to rent a space to park one of the houses. I’m not sure if that price makes sense, compared to renting an apartment with similar amenities, but there is the benefit that you own the house and that it is relatively mobile, unlike most modular houses. We’ll see if this concept has any lasting appeal.
I have written in the past about the use of shipping containers to construct modular houses.
Certainly not people who are clueless enough to say things like this:
Tokyo is one of the few cities in which supply has kept up with demand, keeping a crisis from developing. But that is due largely to deregulated housing policies that other countries would have a hard time reproducing.
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.
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.
Can your children be forced to continue paying your timeshare maintenance fees after you die? It’s an assertion I have heard, but since I’ve never been involved in the administration of an estate where that claim was actually made, I haven’t ever looked at a timeshare contract to see if they make that claim. My off-the-cuff answer is no, because the beneficiaries of your estate could simply disclaim that “asset.”
I put “asset” in quotes because timeshares in my opinion are a liability, not an asset. I do know people who have them and love them, however. I don’t know if their children will share that enthusiasm.
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.