So this zoning ordinance is designed to keep property values high and protect "ordinary" citizens against noise from parties, trash, etc.
So I can't have a third roomate and save money on rent and bills, which detracts from the money I would inevitably spend on the businesses and services in the greater San Marcos area...less tax revenue.
Also my neighbors can park pickup-trucks, tractors, etc., in their yard regardless of how tacky it looks, but I can't have a third roomate....to protect property values.
Then there is this noise issue. I would imagine that neighbors wouldn't notice this noise from parties etc. over the noise from the train track we live RIGHT BESIDE!
Now I understand that a significant number of people whom attend TXU are downright slobs (ever visit Craddock St.?) and citizens of the city should be able to protect their real estate investments. But isn't this best done at the individual level through renter discretion etc.?
There are very few things that support this town...among them the Outlet Mall and Texas State University. How about giving back to the students or at the very least allowing us the option of choosing how many people we choose to live with and where we choose to do it.
That's exactly why property owners don't want renters in their neighborhoods. What is wrong with protecting property values? What do you own that you would allow me to destroy the value of?
Since I am assuming that you can afford $700 rent with one roommate, you must want to live in a nicer place. Let's say that the house you want has a rent of $1400 and you want two roommates. That house probably cost $150,000 +/-. So did all of the houses around it. Those people worked long and hard to get those houses. You should understand that, since you can't afford 1/4 of what they pay.
How much should their property values suffer so that you can save $350 per month? 10%? 5%? 1%? If that trashed rental house costs them 1% of value, that's $1500 per house, per year. So, three of your neighbors, who are already paying 4x as much as you, lose enough money to offset the $350 per month that you so generously offer to contribute to our local economy.
Let's look at that contribution for a moment too. $350 per month equals $4200 per year. If you spent all of that in San Marcos, about $84 would go to local taxes to help improve the city. The property owner next to you, on the other hand, pays $4500 per year in local property taxes alone.
I'm sorry to hear about the railroad tracks and the junk cars. It sounds like you are on Haynes street (where I lived for several years). If so, all I can say is that if you are paying over $500 for rent, you're getting screwed. I am not sure why you need another roommate.
We have bad neighbors too. That does not mean we are going to invite more by changing the zoning regs. Craddock is disgusting, and so are Comanche, Sagewood, Bishop, just about all of the side streets off Bishop, and anyplace else where there is a large population of renters. Particularly college kids.
You want to live in a nice neighborhood? Then show some respect for the people who have worked so hard to buy those houses. Don't speed. Don't scream. Don't throw **** out your window. Don't have parties so loud that they can be heard three streets away. You get the idea. Otherwise, go f* yourself. You'll be gone in a few years, so why should we help you out?
I still do not understand why you can?t get one rommmate and rent a small house or duplex for $700. Other than the obvious reason that most of those houses and duplexes are in neighborhoods that have been trashed by renters. So, you?re saying that when you and your roommates move into my neighborhood, you?re not going to be followed by the dirtbags that trashed those neighborhoods? Yeah, right. Why don?t you try to find a handful of renters willing to walk around your neighborhood, picking up all of the trash? That?s what the property owners have to do all the time. You throw trash in our yards when you drive by and we clean it up. Then, when we drive by your place, we see that you live in filth. Maybe if you cleaned up your neighborhood, the way we always do ours, we would think more highly of you. Maybe you wouldn?t want to move out.
04-11-2005, 06:26 PM
Posts: n/a | Kudos: +
cut the crap semi-native; you dont know whether those people work hard or not for what they have. you are attempting to state that everyone that has the money to buy an house or open a mortgage has the right because they have the money. that is untrue because most people have excessive mortgages and cannot pay them. just because a person has a house and pays taxes does not mean they can afford the mortgage. most people have a debt to income ratio well beyond 20%. also, whether you pay $84 or $4500 does mean you are any more of a citizen of san marcos than anyone else. we all have to live here in harmony and just because you have money doesnt mean you worked hard and really has no implications at all. the saddest part of all this is that you believe that. you seem believe that money is the only thing that makes you worthy of living somewhere. we all pay taxes because we are us citizens; therefore, we all share the same concerns. i do not want a bunch of wild people roaming around at all hours of the night in my neighborhood either but when you say that all college students are rufians then you discriminate against the good ones as well as the bad. i agree with most of what you say except for the money issue. zoning laws do not need to be changed, but the zones themselves need to be re-evaluated to include all of san marcos. property values are b.s. and are determined not by the neighbors or the neighborhood themselves; they are formulated by the amenities included in the neighborhood; for example, if you were to live by a trailer that was dilapidated it would make no difference at all in property values; it is the county that determines all corresponding cities' property values so if hays is high then your property taxes as well as value would be high and vice versa. anyone should have the opportunity to live and work where they choose; unfortunately laws must be formulated to protect upright citizens but in essence it is still wrong to deny anyone certain rights in theory. i empathize with you semi-native but i must stick with my convictions.
04-11-2005, 06:37 PM
Posts: n/a | Kudos: +
also, as a side note. people are sh*theads from the day they are born till the day they die. you cannot honestly say that you know where the trash came from. you assume a college student but it could be a doctor or lawyer or police officer or anyone. all you continue to do is assume it is college students. not all college students are bad and not all older residents are good. i had an older gentleman who owned a house down the road that he would throw beer cans on our street. he owned a house and was not a college student does that mean he should be exonerated. no. he is just as bad as anyone else that does it including college students. we resolved the issue peacefully but that is an example of bad people being bad not just college students.
I still don't see why everyone is so opposed to living in college neighborhoods, if they aren't so bad. There are plenty of places for rent on Sagewood. Go get one and use your diplomacy to get the neighbors to behave. I'm sure it is as easy as you all say.
BTW, you are confusing assessed property values with real property values. Let's look at the $150,000 home again. When the owner bought that house, s/he paid about $5000 in closing costs. So, if the house was $150,000, s/he paid $155,000.
The principal and interest on that property will be about $1000 per month. On top of that, there will be about $500 per month for taxes and insurance. Over 5 years, the homeowner will pay about $90,000. Because of the way mortgages are structured, s/he will have only paid about $12,000 toward the principal, meaning s/he will still owe $138,000.
Now, if s/he needs or wants to sell at this point, s/he needs to get $153,000 for that house just to break even when you take the initial closing costs, plus realtor commissions into account; not to mention all of the maintenance costs over 5 years.
I guess where you and I differ is that I believe that property owner has a right to protect that investment. If the neighborhood is trashed, you better believe s/he will get less money for it. S/he also might end up paying for that house and a new place if s/he is selling because s/he is being forced to relocate for a job.
Also, please keep in mind that if you rent a place and the neighborhood goes to ****, you can move with very little effort. If I buy a house for $150k (just to use the same numbers) and 2 years later I decide that I can't live with the noise and the traffic and the trash, etc, I've got a real problem.
That house is probably still only worth about $155-160k (if I'm lucky), but I need to sell it for closer to $165 just to break even. If I sell it for under $153, I owe the bank money. Imagine if you decided to move out of your apartment and the landlord said, "Ok, but first you need to give me $10,000, because the values around here have dropped over the last few years." You'd think about it very differently, I promise you.
well i do not want to get off to the wrong foot but when you say neighbors it should mean everyone in san marcos not just your small avenue. people travel your road often, not just residents. have you ever gone down a road that you did not live on? just ask the surveyor the next time they come by to see what exactly goes into property value and it is not trash. that is an assumption that you need to ask someone that know what they are talking about. not to be rude but come on man, there are other places other than sagewood that have trash and college students. if you are so concerned about property then move somewhere where there are no people whatsoever to reduce your hard earned property value. things can be deceiving. dont always believe what you hear.