# Intolerance, hypocrisy, and stoopid. Coincidence? I think not. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 14, 2014, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-hypocrisy-and-stoopid-coincidence-i-think-not/693035 "2014-07-14T00:15:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-hypocrisy-and-stoopid-coincidence-i-think-not/693035/21 "2014-07-14T15:06:18Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Huh. Saloon, dry goods store, livery, that kind of thing? Aye, that kind of thing. [Davie, FL. > [@](#): > > Davie has always had a reputation as a “Western” town. It boasts a significant horse-owning population and once was home to many herds of cattle. In recent years, commercial and residential development has discouraged such practices but Davie still tries to maintain a “Western” feel. Pioneer City, a western theme park, was located across the street from Flamingo Gardens. It was built in the 1960s and closed a few years later. ]([Davie, Florida - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davie,_Florida)) I understand that now they’ve designated part of the town the Western Theme District and the requirements are restricted to just that part of town, but back in the 1970s and '80s IIRC it was the whole town. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-hypocrisy-and-stoopid-coincidence-i-think-not/693035/22 "2014-07-14T15:12:21Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > But don’t you, and **Snowboarder** , think it’s a bit late to cancel the building permit? > [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > I don’t know. I don’t know what the law says, so I don’t know if the town acted correctly or not. Ditto. As I said, I think the whole thing is ridiculous, but I don’t know what the law says. I’m also not exactly sure of the timeline of events, either. From the 2nd linked article, it sounded like she saw the renderings before construction had begun or as it was beginning. But then from the other article it also sounded like construction had been going on for months and months and was almost complete when suddenly she had a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-hypocrisy-and-stoopid-coincidence-i-think-not/693035/23 "2014-07-14T15:12:42Z")
Well, how dare they use brick! That is soooo 19th century… ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-hypocrisy-and-stoopid-coincidence-i-think-not/693035/24 "2014-07-14T15:55:04Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > 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. But for an appeal process to be fair to the builder, the builder has to know about it. If you apply for a building permit, and receive the permit, what are you supposed to do? Delay building, just in case someone files an appeal against your house? The first thing to note, in this case, is that it was not the city itself that heard the appeal and made a move to stop the construction. While the permits were originally approved by the Raleigh City Council, with the input and support of the Raleigh Historic Development Commission, the appeal was heard by the Board of Adjusters. Not only that, but the Raleigh City Council, according to [this article](http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/03/20/3717437/raleigh-to-file-court-appeal-to.html), filed an appeal against the Board of Adjusters decision, arguing procedural irregularities and that the Board overstepped its authority. Furthermore, if this [letter](http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/03/20/3717705/oakwood-modernist-house-owners.html) sent by the builder to the city council back in March is to be believed, the city itself never actually informed him that the appeals process then underway could threaten the very existence of his house. > [@](#): > > For the record, we were ONLY notified of Ms. Wiesner’s appeal of our COA to BOA by city staff of the RHDC—we received no formal notification from BOA, nor were we informed by anyone prior to the initial BOA hearing of our ability to be involved in the BOA hearing. > > City staff of RHDC told us several things at this juncture: > > 1. that there was nothing about this appeal that would impede us going forward with construction > > 2. that this would be a hearing only about procedure > > 3. that the BOA could not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the RHDC (who are expert on historic districts and the Guidelines) > > 4. that this was an appeal of the RHDC’s decision and we were not a party to the appeal > > 5. that the worst that could happen is that our COA would have to go back to RHDC to address any concerns regarding the procedures, if any were found (this was also the stated position of Nicolette Fulton, whom the city attorney appointed to represent the RHDC at the BOA hearing) > > Please see two attached email correspondences that demonstrate why we felt comfortable proceeding after we learned of the appeal; note also that our house was well under construction when the appeal was filed. > > Based upon the information provided to us by the city, we had no reason to feel anything other than confidence in continuing our construction. Why would we come to any other conclusion? Surely it is the city’s responsibility to inform citizens if there is any real potential for risk in a situation like this—how about an email, a letter, a phone call, or even more to the point, issue no building permit, or a stop work before the damage was done? > > But none of these things happened—not even a written notification of the appeal from the BOA [for the record, too, the BOA appeal process lasted three months plus another month to ratify the minutes, unfairly prolonging a time-sensitive decision]. You can read the rest of the letter at the link provided above. Whether or not you like the style of the house, and whether you think that the woman leading the charge against the house is a valiant crusader or a fucking nutbar, it seems to me that these people have been caught up in a legal and bureaucratic net that was not of their own making. If they have to tear the house down now, i think it would be a fucking travesty. ETA: I would add, by the way, that the New York Times article linked by the OP does not really do a very good job of explaining the situation here. It’s long on generalities and outrage, but short on the specifics of the case. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-hypocrisy-and-stoopid-coincidence-i-think-not/693035/25 "2014-07-14T16:34:41Z")
Wonderful post (and cite), **mhendo**. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2014, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-hypocrisy-and-stoopid-coincidence-i-think-not/693035/26 "2014-07-14T17:27:10Z")
I agree that once the permit has been issued and construction has begun, the permit should not be overturned except under extraordinary circumstances. As a general rule, people should be able to feel that an issue has been settled. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2014, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-hypocrisy-and-stoopid-coincidence-i-think-not/693035/27 "2014-07-15T01:45:12Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Furthermore, if this [letter](http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/03/20/3717705/oakwood-modernist-house-owners.html) sent by the builder to the city council back in March is to be believed, the city itself never actually informed him that the appeals process then underway could threaten the very existence of his house.You can read the rest of the letter at the link provided above. The builder is only presenting one side of the story, and a carefully-spun one. The notice issue is definitely important, but the letter never says when they actually received notice. In any event, despite the newspaper article trying to present the appeal as odd or rare, the Board of Adjustment’s [website](http://www.raleighnc.gov/home/content/BoardsCommissions/Articles/BoardofAdjustment.html) contains a standard set of procedures (including notice) for RHDC appeals and a checklist to ensure that they have been followed. It will be easy enough for the reviewing court to determine whether the appeal was properly noticed. Besides, the builder’s letter admits that they kept going with construction after learning of the appeal, which ought to strip them of much sympathy. They say they did so based on conversations with the city, but that’s meaningless. As you noted yourself, the appeal is not administered by the city but by a wholly separate Board. Why should they think that the Board would be bound by what the city said about the appeal, especially when, as you also note, the city is an interested party to the dispute? Put another way, the builder is arguing that Wiesner’s rights in the process should be forfeited because of conversations that took place between her opponents. That makes no sense to me, and I’m hard pressed to think that the reviewing court will give it much traction. Personally, I also think it strains credibility that a sophisticated builder would be so ignorant of the law governing its operations as to think that a building permit cannot be substantively altered or revoked on appeal. That’s obviously just speculation on my part, though. I see that the Board’s website contains a document describing the law governing the appeal process, which contains this language: “(c) Interpretations. The decision may reverse or affirm wholly or partly or modify the order, requirements, decision, or determination appealed from,” but it’s not clear to me that this provision applies to precisely these appeals, and a non-lawyer homeowner can hardly be expected to go digging through this document. Procedural back-and-forth aside, I have doubts that Wiesner will or should win in court on the merits. The guidelines for the historical district seem very vague, such that it seems hard to say with any certitude what is permitted and what is not; in that situation, I don’t know what basis the Board could have for concluding that the RHDC got it wrong. On the other hand, I suppose Wiesner might try to argue that this house is so modernist that no matter how vague the law might be around the edges, clearly it was meant to forbid this one. ---
**Author:** ![Claverhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/13edae/32.png) [@Claverhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Claverhouse)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2014, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-hypocrisy-and-stoopid-coincidence-i-think-not/693035/28 "2014-07-15T02:09:57Z")
What a hideous house. ---
**Author:** ![HookerChemical](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@HookerChemical](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HookerChemical)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2014, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-hypocrisy-and-stoopid-coincidence-i-think-not/693035/29 "2014-07-15T16:28:26Z")
> [@Knowed\_Out](#): > > 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. Covenants can be quite reasonable. The Community Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R) in my area are about a page long, and they make reasonable restrictions that may restrict how I use my property, but also insure that my neighbors can’t do the same and impact my quality of life. The restrictions are things like a prohibition of backyard foul, property line setbacks, and restrictions on the type of fence you can have in the front yard (nothing too tall and opaque, but a white picket or short chain link fence would be okay). I’ll take covenants over a HOA any day of the week. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2014, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-hypocrisy-and-stoopid-coincidence-i-think-not/693035/30 "2014-07-15T18:37:44Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > 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. [Doesn’t look that way to me.](https://maps.google.com/maps?q=515+Euclid+St,+Raleigh,+NC&hl=en&ll=35.787262,-78.631071&spn=0.000017,0.009924&sll=35.787406,-78.631298&layer=c&cbp=13,10.32,,0,-6.6&cbll=35.78726,-78.630964&hnear=515+Euclid+St,+Raleigh,+North+Carolina+27604&t=h&z=17&panoid=be9BsBkoNVe6j6RTd_Zy4Q) Sure, it’s larger than the others but it’s in the same post-war style whereas the new house is more of an early '60s suburban style. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2014, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-hypocrisy-and-stoopid-coincidence-i-think-not/693035/31 "2014-07-15T18:39:26Z")
Better point: those houses are all ugly as fuck and there’s no value in preserving the character of that shitty neighborhood. Though **Tom Tildrum** raises a number of issues that are not apparent from the news articles. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2014, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-hypocrisy-and-stoopid-coincidence-i-think-not/693035/32 "2014-07-15T18:47:27Z")
You want to talk out of place? Compare [this McMansion](https://maps.google.com/maps?q=george+mason+drive+%26+dinwiddie,+arlington,+va&hl=en&ll=38.849986,-77.114228&spn=0.000017,0.009924&sll=35.787271,-78.63121&sspn=0.00745,0.009924&t=h&hnear=S+George+Mason+Dr+%26+S+Dinwiddie+St,+Virginia&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.84986,-77.113839&panoid=neqjwrxc8_qmOx-vyve-4w&cbp=13,247.1,,0,-6.05) to its neighbors! ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2014, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-hypocrisy-and-stoopid-coincidence-i-think-not/693035/33 "2014-07-16T00:47:54Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I agree that once the permit has been issued and construction has begun, the permit should not be overturned except under extraordinary circumstances. As a general rule, people should be able to feel that an issue has been settled. Disagree. There might be plenty of reason why a permit could be issued when it shouldn’t have been (issues overlooked, mistake, city very supportive of a project consequences be damned, plain corruption…) . Injured third parties must be able to have it cancelled (and the permit issuer held responsible for the monetary loss). ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-hypocrisy-and-stoopid-coincidence-i-think-not/693035/34 "2014-07-24T17:07:26Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > 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 ! My thoughts exactly. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2016, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-hypocrisy-and-stoopid-coincidence-i-think-not/693035/35 "2016-11-05T05:11:26Z")
It’s amazing what pops into your head when you’re sitting at home on a Friday evening. I remembered this case, and decided to see what came of it. Initially i couldn’t even remember which state it was, or how long ago it was, so it took a bit of guesswork in my search terms, but i finally found it. Long story short: after tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills, the home builders are not going to have to demolish their home. The legal ruling was that the woman seeking to challenge their permit did not have standing under the laws of the state and prior rulings of the courts. I’ve read through the [26-page decision](http://www.ncmodernist.org/2016-cherry-gordon.pdf) (PDF), from February this year, and pulled out some quotes that i think give a pretty decent sense of how the final chapter went down. In this case, the house-builders are the Petitioners, and the woman seeking to stop them is the Respondent. > [@](#): > > Since standing is a jurisdictional requirement, the party seeking to bring her claim before the court must include allegations which demonstrate why she has standing in the particular case… (p. 10) > > “[T]o be considered an‘aggrieved person’ and thus have standing to seek review, a party must claim special damages, distinct from the rest of the community.” (p. 12) > > A reduction in value of property may be part of the basis for standing, but diminution in value alone is not sufficient: (p. 13) > > Vague, general allegations that a property use will impair property values inthe general area also will not confer standing. (p. 15) > > And we note that even assuming that respondent’s allegations are true and the proposed use will actually adversely affect property values in the general vicinity,because this type of effect is not distinct to the particular landowner who is challenging a land use, this factor alone does not confer standing. (p. 16) > > In this case, respondent alleged that she would suffer special damages because the Cherry-Gordon house is “directly across the street from her home” and that its architectural incongruity would “harm the character of the neighborhood and contribute to erosion of the neighborhood’s value[.]” On appeal, her arguments are purely aesthetic or are not distinct to her property. (p. 17) > > The mere fact that respondent’s home is“directly across the street” from the Cherry-Gordon house does not constitute special damages. (p. 18) > > Respondent responds that she did not have an opportunity to allege standing before the Board. But respondent’s argument is not so much that she did not have the opportunity but that she did not realize that she needed to make a showing of her special damages. She actually had multiple opportunities to allege standing before the Board. After retaining counsel, respondent submitted two separate Applications for Review of the Committee’s decisions to the Board. The Applications for Review were on forms provided for this purpose. (p. 19) > > Essentially, respondent argues that her application was sufficient to give “notice” of the basis for her claim,and that she should not be required to set forth specific allegations of her special damages, particularly since the Application for Review form did not set forth a definition of the term “aggrieved party.” But the Application for Review form goes above and beyond the call of duty in setting forth the applicable statute and general appeal procedure. Ignorance of the law is no excuse; a party does not need notice that she must allege standing because standing is a jurisdictional prerequisite and the complaining party bears the burden of alleging in its pleadings that it has standing…In addition, even after the Commission moved to dismiss her appeal for lack of standing and the Board invited the parties to submit written responses, respondent failed to allege special damages. (p. 21) > > In any event, the Commission raised the issue of respondent’s standing in its first responsive pleading,thus highlighting the need for support for her status as an aggrieved party. In sum,we hold that respondent had multiple opportunities to allege standing before the Board. We therefore hold that the trial court did not err in concluding that respondent lacked standing despite the Board’s failure to directly address the issue. (p. 22-23) Weisner, in an appeal asking to be allowed to supplement the record and demonstrate standing, also had the hubris to argue that the notoriety of the case, for which she was largely responsible, had caused increased traffic in the area, and thus impacted her property values. The court was not persuaded: > [@](#): > > Even if the Cherry-Gordon house has generated increased “gawk[er]” traffic and unwanted media attention, respondent’s affidavit indicates that the traffic increased due to the publicity surrounding the challenge to the construction of the Cherry-Gordon house. This is simply not the sort of increased traffic our prior cases have addressed as part of the basis for standing of an adjacent property owner to challenge a permit, since traffic is not generated by the usual or intended use of the Cherry-Gordon house or property itself but is generated only by the media coverage of the controversy surrounding its construction. The Cherry-Gordon house is a 2,580-square-foot single-family residence, and the record shows that it would generate exactly the same type of “traffic” in its normal use as respondent’s home or any other single-family residence of similar size. (p. 26) There’s a whole page [here](http://www.ncmodernist.org/2014oakwood.htm) that details almost every twist and turn in the case in the two years since this thread was opened. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2016, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-hypocrisy-and-stoopid-coincidence-i-think-not/693035/36 "2016-11-05T11:03:21Z")
Wow, the block parties there are sure going to be awkward. Seriously, I can’t imagine living across the street from someone so hateful. People living that close have all kinds of ways to at least try to make your life miserable. I’d sure be tempted to put the house on the market as soon as it was finished, even if it was at a loss. ---
**Author:** ![Baker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bb73d2/32.png) [@Baker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baker)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2016, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-hypocrisy-and-stoopid-coincidence-i-think-not/693035/37 "2016-11-05T12:49:18Z")
Id forgotten this story too, but am grateful for the update. As **Roderick Femm** said, it’s going to make for awkward relationships and neighbors. There’s a historic homes district not too far from my mother’s home. For many years there was a large empty space on a corner, where many years ago a small hospital once stood. The space was divided into two lots and two houses were built on them. But the houses were built in the same style as the original turn of the century homes, so they don’t stick out like sore thumbs. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2016, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-hypocrisy-and-stoopid-coincidence-i-think-not/693035/38 "2016-11-05T15:32:52Z")
Ah yes, “standing” is where so many cases die. People don’t get that just anyone can’t simply go up and say “Hey, that’s just wrong, do something about it!” even if it \*\*\*were \*\*\*wrong. Y’know, I’ve been looking at the Street View of the block in question and the pictures in linked pages. I honestly don’t see what’s wrong with the house that this would depress property values in that neighborhood or “ruin” it somehow. ISTM Wiesner was just butthurt that she formerly fronted open green space from her home which she built with with short setback, and now she’s fronting a 2-story home that does not blend into the woods. Well, the courts have ruled that was not a vested right of hers and it’s not a damage that it happened. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2016, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-hypocrisy-and-stoopid-coincidence-i-think-not/693035/39 "2016-11-05T18:06:33Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > 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. One more reason (as if I needed any) never to consider living in a historic district. Between the neighbors and the people overseeing the rules, it’s like an HOA on crack. Congrats to the homebuilders on their Pyrrhic victory. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/intolerance-hypocrisy-and-stoopid-coincidence-i-think-not/693035.md?page=1)