Posted on 10/21/2009 2:19:18 PM PDT by Arec Barrwin
University Park Nixes Kids' Tree House Front-yard structure that violates city code to be torn down By SUSY SOLIS and ELLEN GOLDBERG Updated 8:42 AM CDT, Wed, Oct 21, 2009
Print Email Share Buzz up! TWITTER FACEBOOK
NBCDFW.com
A labor of love between a father and his two sons will have to be torn down after the University Park City Council declined to amend a city ordinance that prohibits the structure.
Brenk Johnson built a tree house in a large oak tree in his front yard because there wasn't a tree big enough to support one in his backyard. But weeks after it went up, an anonymous neighbor called the city wondering if the structure violated city code -- which it did.
"It's called accessory buildings that are prohibited. Basically, it's anything of a permanent nature," said Steve Mace, a city spokesman. "As you know, driving through our community, you'll see lots of soccer nets and trampolines, basketball poles, but none of those structures that are currently in front yards are of a permanent nature like Mr. Johnson's tree house."
At a council meeting Tuesday, the Johnsons asked the city to amend the city code and give them an exception to the city code or simply wait for their kids to outgrow the tree house before they tore it down.
University Park Nixes Kids' Tree House University Park Nixes Kids' Tree House WATCH
University Park Nixes Kids' Tree House
Council members said they sympathized with the family's plight but could not make an exception or amend the city code for one family.
Johnson said he and his children were disappointed by the council's unanimous vote.
"But you know, it's still a great community," Johnson said. "We love living here. The council was great. They worked with us. They gave us all the time we needed to present out argument."
He said he felt the family "had to try" to get an exception made for their tree house, but they will abide by the council's decision.
"This is as far as we ever planned on going," Johnson said.
Letters to city spilled in from neighbors who said the tree house was a great and safe way for their kids to play together. And Johnson said he appreciated the support from the community.
Tree houses are allowed in University Park, but not in front yards.
"We have tons of neighbors, a ton of kids on the block. That's what you do when you're a kid, climb tree houses and we don't have any backyards," said Anne Hardaway, who lives down the street from the Johnsons.
There was no immediate word on when the tree house will be torn down.
"We are just going to work with the city to take it down, I guess," Johnson said.
Sounds familiar.
OK people, no treehouse in the front yard.
I live in University Park (which is small community surrounded by the City of Dallas). Seems silly but I agree that the treehouse needed to be removed from the front yard which effects the entire neighborhood.
Lets see, we buy a new home in an upscale neighborhood, we review the covenants in the neighborhood, and make the biggest investment of our lives into a home.
Then, a neighbor decides to construct an eyesore in his front yard - what is everyone supposed to do? How about putting a Chevy up on blocks in your driveway? Or parking your RV against the curb in front of your home? Covenants exist for a reason, you know them before you close on your house. Sorry, no sympathy from this Grandpa.
The effort would have been better spent building a ‘Club House’ in the back yard - out of sight of the neighbors, and could have potentially have been not only cheaper, but would have been something his kids could have bragged on.
Sad, but inevitable. When you choose to live somewhere with rules, you have to follow the rules. This is why I stay the hell away from any neighborhood with a homeowner’s association. My home is MY HOME. Mine.
Can’t have kids playing in the front yard. Better to set up a game room in the attic and let them play video games 24/7.
What is the city’s definition of temporary? Kids outgrow treehouses pretty quick.
Yeah, because that treehouse might attract (shudder!) poor people...
I guess if it had been on the ground, it would have been ok. How ‘bout one foot off the ground? Two?
Let’s make sure we go by the book to remove this structure.
1. Have the environmental impact study done.
2. Get certificate for lead abatement.
3. Inspect and do Asbestos removal, according to code.
4. Obtain demolition permits.
5. Hire licensed and insured contractor, using union labor.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Do you remember the case of the “ship in the yard”? Not sure if it was U Park or Highland Park, but it was written up in Life magazine. This lady had a replica ship the size of a cabin cruiser built, and it was labeled an eyesore and she was ordered to remove it. The case wound up in court. This was probably 50 years ago, I guess. When my wife and I were first married, we lived a few blocks away from the house, which by that time was pretty neglected-looking. One Sunday afternoon we walked up to look it over. The grounds were all grown up in underbrush, but when we walked into the yard we suddenly felt that we were being observed, and we took off fast. Almost like a ghost story. I wish I could remember the name of the “ship”. Not “Lollipop”, but something like that.
This is the typical American battle between midget Albert Speer totalitarians and Daniel Boone free spirits.
You don’t have a constitutional right to live in a neighborhood with neatly trimmed King George III lawns that assures you a 200% profit on your cheap made-in-ChiComm yuppie shack. Most fascist one-inch-tall lawn freaks don’t get that.
If you want to sign on to a restricted neighborhood covenant that demands no dandeloins, no pink flamingos and no birdbaths, patroled by reincarnated skirt-lifting old lady Red Coats, that’s fine with me. (I’m very much in favor of contractual communities, as it establishes American individual choice and contract law.)
Since I don’t know if this family made the blunder of moving into a black-heart anti-private property HOA, I withold comment. Other than that, you Prussian goosesteppers best keep your eyes off my lush and wild acres and don’t ever tell me what to do.
I fish and my eyes ain’t as good as they were. And some of you look like suckers and bottom feeding carp.
OK, folks:
1. There is a difference between a homeowner’s association and a city government.
2. University Park is a municipality, not a modern planned community.
3. If you want to live somewhere without zoning, move to Houston - or northeastern Collin County.
4. One should savor watching folks with a sense of entitlement battle. And let’s face it - folks inside the ‘bubble’ have a sense of entitlement. They are not used to having the rules applied to them.
And that’s where you and I would differ. When I drop a couple hundred thousand on a home; I expect that what I saw when I drove through the neighborhood was what I was going to get. Just as you would be incensed to see my parents 25 yr old RV take up permanent residence on my driveway, you would look at that beast and say “That doesn’t belong here, park that in back where I don’t have to look at it.”
When you lose your job (and we both hope that doesn’t happen), and you have to move to anohter place to find work; will your home sale be easier if the neighborhood is clean and manicured, or if everyone has built kiddie structures in their front yard? If a tree house, why not a swing-set from Wal-mart? Why not a home-made play-set? How about a club-house? If these folks can do it; then everyone can. Good luck on selling your home.
Yep. If you want to control what happens on a piece of property: buy it.
I don’t believe anyone would dare to suggest that your home, bought where you live, in the undeveloped, unplanned areas - without neighbors living in close proximity - be bound by the rules that other people have agreed upon within their community. You sacrificed property value, for quantity of property; and I personally like your choice.
However, for those of us who work in a populated area, finding a nice spread of land is just not feasible. We exercise our free choice by making the balance to a nice home, in a cozy community. We then mortgage our soul to achieve the best we can get, and pray that despite the Democrats selling our nation away, that our homes will appreciate in value; so that our NEXT home can be smaller, less expensive and free (paid for by the appreciation of our current home). At least, that is our plan.
For our plan, and the value of our community; we sign on to covenants to PROTECT our investments. Not home, investment. An investment we live in, that is financed with money available cheaper than any other source, with tax benefits - that provides us a place to live.
Do we like our HOA? No, we tolerate it; it’s a contractual truce that tells what we can get away with, and holds our neighbors to the same sets of standards. Want a pink and purple garage? Sorry, not here. Like a weed infested front yard, raise sheep, rebuild a series of cars, or run a daycare out of your home? Sorry, not in this neighborhood.
This is the ONLY means of protection a homeowner has. Pres. Zero is in charge of inflation, taxes, employment, interest and in a large measure the property values. The only means we have of making our community look attractive and make others want to invest their money in our homes, is to make covenants and set standards.
Now, if you don’t have the money to move into a planned community, or prefer to drive farther out into the country - be my guest. But do NOT agree to the covenants, buy your home and then decide that you chose to ignore the covenants you signed up for; because now they restrict you. They also restrict me - so everyone can hope to have their home value grow.
You want what you do not own. You see, you want, you think you own, but you do not. You insist that what looks good to you be the minimum requirement for others. Move to my neighborhood, you can join the idiot busybodies that the rest of us laugh at for relief.
Actually, I couldn't care less what's in your drive way or your yard since it's your private property. By the same token all of my neighbors have the Walmart swing sets and club houses that you deride, but I have no problem with them at all. Sounds like the only place you would be happy is behind walls in a gated community or a retirement golf course community without any kids around period.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
This is the crux of the issue---you see your present home merely as an investment and want to protect that investment, while the rest of us view our homes as just that, actual homes, where we live through old age and where our kids can play.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.