Intolerance, hypocrisy, and stoopid. Coincidence? I think not.

The BBQ Pit
1

Intolerance, hypocrisy, and a good dose of stoopid. That’s what this* New York Times article describes, with most of that unholy trinity radiating out from the brain of one Gail Wiesner.

(*I assume it’s full, free text so long as you haven’t used up your monthly allotment of free articles for non-subscribers. But if you can’t access it, here’s the link to another, less up-to-date piece on the same story. That said, although a few months out-of-date, this article includes a VERY interesting picture - but more on that in a minute.)

In any case, after months of importuning the local city government, Ms. Wiesner finally succeeded in getting the city to revoke the building permit it had issued some nine months earlier that had specifically permitted the construction of a new house in the vacant lot across from her home. And not just any house, mind you. No, the city had given its approval for a house to be constructed according to a set of highly specific, architect-created plans. Indeed, with said permit issued on the basis of those plans, the owner began construction, adhering without deviation from them.

In fact, in the nine months since the permit had been issued, the architect/owner of the ‘to be constructed’ house had completed about 85 percent of the construction and had done so in total compliance with the previously approved plans. In other words, after he and his wife had sunk a lot of time, cash, and energy into the project, and their city-approved plans were about to come to fruition, Ms. Wiesner got the city to revoke the permit. Retroactively! Construction on the home had to come to a halt.

And now it sits, vacant, incomplete, and without landscaping. And so it will sit until the matter is decided by the courts.

‘Wait a minute’, you may be saying’, ‘why did this Wiesner person object to the construction of the new house? And, regardless, how could the city revoke a permit it had issued almost a year earlier, especially when the owner had proceeded to build it in good faith?’

You can read the linked articles for more details, but suffice it to say, Gail Wiesner objected to the appearance of the new home (shown here on the right) and even better here. According to her, it violated the ‘look and feel’ of her community. That, coming from a woman who had, herself, built THIS (the house on the left) just six years ago. That’s the “intolerance and hypocrisy”. And the “stoopid”? Well, for good measure, Ms. Wiesner also claimed that the new home would cause property values in the neighbourhood to decline. As if people would now be rushing in to the area to make her their neighbour! Seriously, who in their right mind would want to voluntarily move in to a “community” where people like her not only live but, evidently, can persuade the city to accede to her petty demands. So, “stoopid”.

And, as to how the city thought it appropriate to revoke a permit it had previously issued, I simply don’t know. But when I do, there may be another Pit thread appearing under my moniker.

2

No question, that’s kind of a weird house. But I don’t really know who’s right. It’s a historic district, so there are a bunch of restrictions on the kind of stuff you can build, and street facing and all.

3

from your 2nd link:

So it wasn’t just one lady on a crusade. You might characterize it as “one lady leading the charge” but it’s definitely not just this one person who has a problem with the house.

That said, I think the whole thing is ridiculous, but then I grew up next to a town where every “public building” (i.e. government buildings and commercial stores, etc.) had to have a “Western facade”, so I know that local types can get pretty specific about what types of buildings they want to see and what they don’t.

4

But, from the NYT article, we have this:

So, she’s hardly speaking for the “preservationists”.

5

But don’t you, and Snowboarder, think it’s a bit late to cancel the building permit?

6

I missed the edit window but had wanted to add that she is a hypocrite because her recently constructed home looks just as out of place as the new one is claimed to be. Likewise, she is intolerant of others who want to build their own place based on their own preferences, yet she did exactly that six years ago.

Her claim of property value decline seems silly since she is single-handedly making the neighbourhood look like a vicious circus.

She deserves to be called out.

7

So Karl, is that you and your wife in the photo?

If not, if you do not have some personal stake in this, then, although you may well be right in principle, I am finding it hard to understand why you are getting so worked up about it all.

8

Since when is property value a legal right?

9

I’m surprised that so many posters disagree with the OP. It’s not like the permit application was denied. It was approved, and the house was built according to that approval (and perhaps according to modifications required by the board during the process). Aside from the lawyers’ fees mentioned by the owners - what about whatever money they’ve spent with the architect and contractors and for materials? If the appeal stands, will the house be demolished? Will the owners receive some kind of restitution from the city?

10

Ha. I just read that article and was considering putting it up in defence of Ayn Rand. The woman bringing the lawsuit sounds like a cardboard cutout villain from the Fountainhead.

11

I don’t know. I don’t know what the law says, so I don’t know if the town acted correctly or not.

12

It seems like they knew, going ahead to build, while an appeal was still pending was a risk. If they didn’t know, they should have. Even the article says no one has ever had the balls to push forward with a build while an appeal pends, before this instance. They seem like pretty intelligent and informed people to me. It’s hard to believe they didn’t press ahead, regardless, playing a form of chicken with the council. To me, that makes it appear like they knew they’d lose, or their position was weak.

Building anyway, was a big gamble, but their’s to take. But not a lot of sympathy should be given, in my mind, if it blows up on them, in the end. I just can’t convince myself that they didn’t realize they were rolling the dice.

They should consider themselves lucky if they don’t get made ‘an example’ of !

13

I’m reminded that the only thing worse than a housing development with a hyper-HOA, is a Historic District. This case is an extreme example, but similar nonsense goes on all the time.

These settings are perfect for busybodies, not so good for people who want to live without someone peering over their shoulder, eager to harass anyone who deviates from Community Norms.

14

I’m sure a half-built home that sits there unfinished while the case drags on in court will do wonders for property values too.

15

I think it’s fair to say that a planning procedure that allows a permit to be cancelled retroactively is stupid. Or (more likely, I would guess), the city did not follow its own procedures either in granting or cancelling the permit.

But either way the pittee here should be the city and planning commission, not the crazy neighbor.

16

When I went house hunting, I told my realtor to avoid any neighborhoods that had covenants.

Cary, to the west of Raleigh, is even more anal. Building colors can’t be bright. Not even the bright red shingles of fire stations are permitted. Homes can’t display signs or have lights in their windows. Flags and banners can only be municipal in nature.

This article details the nightmare involved in establishing Gypsy’s Shiny Diner in Cary back in 1997.

17

Forget it, Karl. It’s Oakwood.

Former Raleighite

18

Huh. Saloon, dry goods store, livery, that kind of thing?

19

And every time you walk into the DMV people stop playing poker and the pianist trails off nervously.

20

There’s an appeal process, and it takes its time to work. Whether the appeal was administered fairly or not, I can’t say, but there’s nothing retroactive happening here. They took their chances by beginning to build, and for them now to argue that the very fact that they started to invest money while the permit was on appeal should be a basis for defeating that appeal really makes a mockery of the legal process.