On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 12:14:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 10:45:13 -0500, "TomR" wrote:

In ,
G. Morgan typed:
TomR wrote:

In ,
G. Morgan typed:
trader_4 wrote:

Yes, even cash deals. Rentals too. New tenant, you need a new CO.

Strange state, NJ. I have some relatives there. They allow medical
marijuana, but its apparently illegal to sell it from a dispensary
(from what I hear).

Strange town -- Houston. I have relatives there (plus I live in New
Jersey).

Lol...

I heard that Houston has very few zoning laws and allows oil wells
next to homes etc.

There are no zoning laws. . . ,
No zoning has had no detrimental effects as one might expect.

I know we are getting off topic here but . . . ,

I like the idea of no zoning laws, and I have heard that not having zoning
laws in Houston works fine, although I have never actually been to Houston.
I hate over-regulation in general. Some regulation is fine, but it is
overdone in every area that I have lived or worked.

It works in Houston because if anyone decided to put an oil well, or a
junkyard, or any other unsavory land use next to high end residential
he'd get shot - and he knows it.


That's "self zoning" in action!!!


I am curious how this "no zoning" concept works in the places where
apparently it exists. From everything I know about human nature, it
would lead to a real mess.

On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 05:48:08 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

After reading all the posts questioning the age of smoke detectors, I
decided to replace my hard wired units original to the house. I was
concerned about the inter connection and how it is done, but turns
out, it is just another wire with a wire nut in the box. Easy to do.
My new units arrived yesterday and I'll put them in this weekend.

I replaced all my detectors ~2 years ago. Some are not interconnected
some were. You may not need the third wire, but you may need to
change the plug as different detectors have various types. I like the
new ones with the battery on the face, open the latch and slip a new
battery in - no removing the detector like with batteries installed on
the back.

On 1/22/2015 12:44 PM, trader_4 wrote:


I am curious how this "no zoning" concept works in the places where
apparently it exists. From everything I know about human nature, it
would lead to a real mess.


Depends on the town. A couple of small rural town near me have done
rather well without zoning. Of course, anything happening needs a
permit and anything that is a problem is pounced on by the residents.

I don't think those tactics would have worked for the past 100 years in
any big city.

On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 13:39:04 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 1/22/2015 12:44 PM, trader_4 wrote:


I am curious how this "no zoning" concept works in the places where
apparently it exists. From everything I know about human nature, it
would lead to a real mess.


Depends on the town. A couple of small rural town near me have done
rather well without zoning. Of course, anything happening needs a
permit and anything that is a problem is pounced on by the residents.

I don't think those tactics would have worked for the past 100 years in
any big city.

"...Yes, Two Egg is a real place. We are located amidst the
farms, woods and lakes of Jackson County, Florida. We
have no city government, no city taxes, no city services
and no city attitudes!

Two Egg is a where people still wave as they pass,
neighbors know and care about their neighbors and life
is lived with a touch of Southern charm and hospitality."

http://www.twoeggfla.com/index.html

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 1:29:26 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/22/2015 12:44 PM, trader_4 wrote:


I am curious how this "no zoning" concept works in the places where
apparently it exists. From everything I know about human nature, it
would lead to a real mess.


Depends on the town. A couple of small rural town near me have done
rather well without zoning. Of course, anything happening needs a
permit and anything that is a problem is pounced on by the residents.

I don't think those tactics would have worked for the past 100 years in
any big city.

I think another factor would be if they are already pretty much
developed over the last century+. If you have a small town that's
mostly residential, another section that's commercial, very little
open space, it's one thing. It's kind of defacto zoned, so if you had
no zoning I could see how that might work. At the other extreme,
you could have a township that's 64 square miles, with only 20% of
it developed.

On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 19:02:25 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


While probably not needed, I think I would get the title insurance. I did

I meant to say t hat I did get title insurance. After all it's a
6-sided lot carved out of another 6 or 8-sided parcel, neither of whose
boundaries have never been fought over in court.

When the guy next to me started claiming part of my land, I called the
title company and they emailed me the plat, which I already had on
paper. And which I'm 98% sure I now can get myself digitally from the
county clerk's office. Their version can be enlarged much beyond my
ability to read the paper version. I suppose if he ever really
tried to claim it, they would send a lawyer to talk to his lawyer and
defend me in court if needed, but i didn't ask them if that was true.
(the policy is in my file cabinet.) .

on the last house I bought even though I payed cash for it.

On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 23:39:54 -0600, G. Morgan
wrote:

micky wrote:


Because there was no bank there, there was no one to require homeowners
insurance. I got it on my own a little later Then I got a mortgage
about 90 days later, but then the bank must have assumed I had
homeowners insurance, because they didn't ask, didn't say a word.

Because of an obnoxious law-violating seller's real estate agent, I'd
hired a lawyer, and back at that first closing, he didn't do anything
about title insurance and I left without any. When I questioned him,
he said I didn't need it (EVen though my lot was oddly shaped broken
out of a much bigger parcel, also oddly shaped, and only created 4 years
earlier. In fact it had turned out that the whole HOA didn't own what
it thought it owned and had to swap land with an adjacent propery owner.
The real reason the lawyer didn't get me insurance is that he was
charging a flat price. Ugh)

And I knew a lot, at least book learning, about property law. I can't
imagine how someone buying the first house in his family, when his
parents rented, must feel when he goes through this. Chewed up and
spit out, I'll bet.


Sounds like your lawyer screwed you.

Yes, indeed. He's one of about 6 people I should have told off, but
never did. I always think I'll get over it. But I never went back to
him for anything (which is not saying much since I didn't need a lawyer
for another 20 years.)

You were exposed big-time until you
finally got the insurance! The fact he didn't have a survey done is also
scary.

There was a survey by the previous owner, but he didn't give me all his
papers until the inspection, an hour before the closing (I went back to
Brooklyn between signing the contract and closing day, but I think for
him it woudl have been a mistake to give them to me until the closing.)

But it took me 25 years to understand that it was only a location
survey, just for the purpose of putting in the fence. So their are
several dimiensions given, but they're all with respect to my house. I
even borrowed a metal detector to look for brass pegs, which I coudln't
find (not even where the corner of my lot is also the corner of HOA's
parcel) and later realized are not put in for location surveys. AFAIK.

You probably could have sued him for errors and omissions . At least

What were my damages? He never promised orally or in writing to get
me title insurance or to pay for it. It wasn't discussed at all.

maybe you would have got your money back from him. Even though it was a cash
deal, a Realtor wouldn't have missed that - probably worth the 6%.

Well the seller's realtor got 6% from the seller, I think it was that
much. The seller wasn't quite complaining, but he did point out that
he had to cash a certificate of deposit to sell the house, because he
only asked and I only paid what he had put in and what he owed on the
mortgage**. To pay the real estate agent, he had to cash the CD. I
think he might have said this in part to explain why he didn't come down
on the price at all, even though of course he had no obligation to do
so.

**Since he had no equity, he said he was looking at it like he paid rent
for 4 years for a very nice place. And he did a lot of planting and
gardening, and I know he enjoyed that a lot. The neighbors called
him the berryman.

He was moving back to Lousiana, because he thought Baltimrore was too
cold. While I was planning to clean every little thing out of my
apartment in Brooklyn, I told him he didn't have to remove anything from
the house if he didnt' want it, and I would either use it or take it to
Goodwill, that I woudlnt' throw anything away. He said if he got his
tansfer to the branch in Lousiana in time, he would move there and leave
for me the dining room table and a couple other things. And if he
didn't, he'd rent an apartment in Baltimore until the transfer came and
leave me all the gardening tools, some opened paint, and there was a
bunch of other stuff too, all of which I liked. I probably took a
couple things to Goodwill, but I know that as I promised, I didn't throw
anything in the trash.

On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:12:28 -0500, "TomR" wrote:


For example, for rental properties, some towns require a smoke detector
INSIDE each bedroom as well as outside of bedrooms (within about 10 feet of
the bedroom, I think).

That could be 4 or 5 smoke detectors just for the second floor of a
modest 3-bedroom townhouse.

In ,
micky typed:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:12:28 -0500, "TomR" wrote:


For example, for rental properties, some towns require a smoke
detector INSIDE each bedroom as well as outside of bedrooms (within
about 10 feet of the bedroom, I think).

That could be 4 or 5 smoke detectors just for the second floor of a
modest 3-bedroom townhouse.

Yes, that is correct -- that is the requirement in those towns -- one
detector inside each bedroom; and one on the outside of the bedrooms within
about 10 feet of each bedroom door.

On 1/23/2015 11:37 AM, TomR wrote:
In ,
micky typed:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:12:28 -0500, "TomR" wrote:


For example, for rental properties, some towns require a smoke
detector INSIDE each bedroom as well as outside of bedrooms (within
about 10 feet of the bedroom, I think).

That could be 4 or 5 smoke detectors just for the second floor of a
modest 3-bedroom townhouse.

Yes, that is correct -- that is the requirement in those towns -- one
detector inside each bedroom; and one on the outside of the bedrooms within
about 10 feet of each bedroom door.



Seems like overkill, but does make some sense. If you sleep with the
doors closed the fire could get going rather strongly in a bedroom
before the alarm sounded, potentially killing the occupants of that
room. I don't know the statistics, but space heaters and smoking
probably start far more fires than anything out in the hallway.

On 22 Jan 2015, Ed Pawlowski wrote in
alt.home.repair:

After reading all the posts questioning the age of smoke
detectors, I decided to replace my hard wired units original to
the house. I was concerned about the inter connection and how it
is done, but turns out, it is just another wire with a wire nut in
the box. Easy to do. My new units arrived yesterday and I'll put
them in this weekend.

Me, too. It hadn't occurred to me that they needed periodic
replacement, since I know they still go off occasionally when there's a
cooking incident. But they're about 35 years old and it seems a good
idea. I just hope the new ones aren't over-sensitive.

trader_4 wrote:

I think if someone opens a 7-11 on a lot next to your house or puts
up a 50 unit low income apartment building there, or puts a scrap yard
next to your professional office, etc, you'd probably change that opinion.

The market takes care of that by itself. Its too expensive to put a scrap
yard next to a professional office.

micky wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 15:12:28 -0500, "TomR" wrote:


For example, for rental properties, some towns require a smoke detector
INSIDE each bedroom as well as outside of bedrooms (within about 10 feet of
the bedroom, I think).

That could be 4 or 5 smoke detectors just for the second floor of a
modest 3-bedroom townhouse.

Yup.

On 1/24/2015 3:07 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
trader_4 wrote:

I think if someone opens a 7-11 on a lot next to your house or puts
up a 50 unit low income apartment building there, or puts a scrap yard
next to your professional office, etc, you'd probably change that opinion.

The market takes care of that by itself. Its too expensive to put a scrap
yard next to a professional office.



Exactly. Mostly is the opposite in reality. Scrap yard is in place for
50 years, but the neighborhood is developed around it. Then the new
neighbors complain and want the scrap yard closed.

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 3:07:06 PM UTC-5, G. Morgan wrote:
trader_4 wrote:

I think if someone opens a 7-11 on a lot next to your house or puts
up a 50 unit low income apartment building there, or puts a scrap yard
next to your professional office, etc, you'd probably change that opinion.

The market takes care of that by itself. Its too expensive to put a scrap
yard next to a professional office.

OK, I buy a house in a residential area next to your house.
I decide to go in the septic tank cleaning business and buy 3
honey dippers. I use my small backyard to park them in. They
barely fit, so I back them up, right to the property line,
close to your kitchen. Or I decide to go in the car selling
business and start putting 10 old used cars out on the front lawn to
sell. Happy now?

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 8:20:57 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 1/24/2015 3:07 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
trader_4 wrote:

I think if someone opens a 7-11 on a lot next to your house or puts
up a 50 unit low income apartment building there, or puts a scrap yard
next to your professional office, etc, you'd probably change that opinion.

The market takes care of that by itself. Its too expensive to put a scrap
yard next to a professional office.



Exactly. Mostly is the opposite in reality.

It only takes one asshole to screw you and your neighborhood.
It's not hard to come up with examples where without zoning
it's cost advantageous to destroy a neighborhood and everyone
else's property values. See the other examples I cited, I think
the honeydipper one is an excellent example. How would you like
it if your neighbor started running a septic pumping business
from his house, parking the trucks there?


Scrap yard is in place for
50 years, but the neighborhood is developed around it. Then the new
neighbors complain and want the scrap yard closed.

Yes, that happens sometimes too. But zoning also protects the business
that's already there. It's happened here with a local auto race track.
It's in a zone where it's permitted, been there for 50+ years, etc.
Some folks are bitching because the noise travels a long way. But
they haven't been successful.