Monday, May 14, 2007

CM PRESS # 139


NO-PLANNING COMMISSIONER JIM RIGHEIMER KNOCKS THE BRADY BUNCH HOME
(Here's a photo of the actual home used for the exterior shots for the Brady Bunch TV series)


In his latest column in the Daily Pilot (5/12/07), new Costa Mesa resident and new no-Planning Commissioner Jim Righeimer writes that it is not a homeowner's responsibility to "protect a neighbor's view, sunlight or ocean breeze, or to make his or her house compatible with your 1972 'Brady Bunch' special."

In other words, if your neighbor wants to build a massive building next door to your home so that your home becomes a dark and dank dungeon fit only for a mushroom farm, it's okay with Righeimer.

Anyone with such a simplistic view of property rights shouldn't be on the no-Planning Commission.

The truth is that people on both sides of the property line have rights. When we buy homes, we don't just buy them for what's inside our property lines. We buy them for the neighborhood--for those things that exist outside our property lines.

And, we're usually especially interested in what buildings are right next to the one we are considering buying. A home is more than just shelter. When we buy a home, we buy a life style and we buy the right to the quiet enjoyment of our property without having it impacted by neighbors who selfishly disregard our rights and make it uncomfortable for us to continue living in our home.

When we buy a home in a neighborhood, we have a reasonable expectation that the character of the neighborhood will remain fairly constant, i.e. that it will remain more or less the way it was when we bought our home and that our quality of life won't be destroyed by those who make radical changes to the neighborhood.

Now, notwithstanding what we've just written above, we must also be allowed to improve our homes. We must be able to make them larger and more modern. But, as we do so, we must be respectful of the rights of others. Our changes must "fit" the neighborhood.

And, that's where the real battle lies: what fits and what doesn't fit a particular neighborhood?

A couple of years ago, the CM PRESS heard some people on the no-Planning Commission and on the City Council rail against the "mansionization" of Costa Mesa.

We argued against their position and in favor of mansions and even said that we could use some mansions in our city. Our position is still the same. We're all for bigger and more expensive homes to compete with the homes to our south that are stealing our upwardly mobile citizens away from Costa Mesa.

However, we are for balance, appropriateness, and respect for others and their rights. These are things that we think are missing in Righeimer's one dimensional view of property rights as expressed in his column.

If a homeowner has a small home that is outdated, we're all for letting him or her making it larger and more modern. In fact, we've argued for years that the City should encourage homeowners to make such changes. But, we also want to see those who do want to improve their homes respect their neighbors' reasonable expectations of not being adversely impacted by the changes.

The problem we have in Costa Mesa is that most of our home lots are very close to each other. We don't have large estates with empty land all around them. If we had the latter, we'd have no problem with someone building a massive home that blocks light and air on their own property, but in Costa Mesa that's not the case.


Here's the link to the Daily Pilot where you can find Righeimer's column: http://www.dailypilot.com/
# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

 http://frankspeech.com/