« Life's Biggest Pleasures (not necessarily real estate) | This Article | A spring real estate surge party but few RSVP's »

• Builder constructs custom home home for his own family. A community in a local area has large lots (greater than an acre), no HOA and no restrictions on building other than county requirements. Builder buys a 2 to 3 acre lot with some woods, builds a beautiful custom, three level home with about 6,500 square feet of finished space. The problem: the neighborhood is what I call very "eclectic." The surrounding homes range from 20 to 30 year old ranch style homes, log homes, to colonials and everything in between (including run down shacks).
  
  Now the subject of selling this home: In a planned community, It would probably list at greater than $1,000,000. Since it was in a "non-conforming" neighborhood, It was listed in the high $800,000's and eventually sold after 9 months in the high $600,000's. Reference the Inman article above: it took a considerable price concession to attract the right buyer. This situation was brought back into "economic balance." There was a price at which a buyer overlooked the non-conforming nature of the area and focused on the bargain to be attained. This may not have been bad for the builder in this case because he minimized development costs by building it himself. Did he maximize value? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on his original objectives and motives.
• Conforming neighborhood with an undeveloped private lot. This neighborhood consists of colonials on 1 to 1 1/2 acre lots with surrounding open space, views of the local hillsides and abundant wildlife. The existing homes in a subsection of the development (not completely built out) range from about 3,000 square feet on two levels to the largest at a bit over 5,000 square feet on two levels. The homes in this subsection were built in the mid 1990's and incorporate architectural style of the area and building designs of the time. A range of home sizes but, conforming nonetheless.
  
  The empty lot, purchased from the original developer as an investment, was sold to a private, boutique, custom home builder. The builder proceeds to construct an 11,000 square foot home (on three levels) of an architectural style that does not fit the neighborhood. Blatantly non-conforming. Homes in this neighborhood sell for $600,000 to slightly over $1,000,000. The new home is listed at over $2,000,000. What's wrong with this picture?
  
  It makes absolutely no logical or economic sense. The builder in this case has every legal right to build what the county will allow. But, the consequences, perhaps unintended, could be devastating on the community. Does a $2M home in a neighborhood of homes with values averaging less than a million bring up the value of the whole. I think not. In fact, it may have the opposite effect. Could the HOA representing this neighborhood have a say in what could have been built on this lot? It could. Unfortunately, the HOA is not yet controlled by the homeowners. It is still controlled by the original developer. Somehow the county should have had a say besides zoning and building code. The original developer of the community should have had a say as they controlled the HOA and this had to pass "architectural review." The builder of this home needed to look at his plans, look around the immediate neighborhood and come to the responsible conclusion that his plan was economically "out of balance." No wonder builders have such a poor reputation in general. I suspect that economic balance will be achieved and somebody is going to be financially disadvantaged.

In the first case of a non-conforming area, the individual builder is totally responsible for his own decisions and the financial consequences.

The real question in the second case is: Should there be and can there be strict oversight and control of building in planned, conforming neighborhoods? In my mind, there should be better controls because the actions of one has a potential economic impact on many. I'm not sure it can be (or could be in this case) because ordinary citizens were not involved nor had responsibility to review the actions that impact their living environment. Counties and towns go to great lengths to protect the character of its "historic districts" and rely on significant oversight of proposed expansion and redevelopment within those areas. The same principle should be applied to planned, conforming developments as well. Maybe this is just a one off case that got out of hand because of the circumstance. So be it. The bottom line, as I see it, is no one used any common sense in allowing this to happen and the individual was not exercising any social awareness or consideration of his actions on others. I am not an advocate of legislating to protect an individual from making poor choices. I would advocate protecting the many from the impact of individuals making poor choices.

There are cases where very old neighborhoods go through redevelopment because the land value far exceeds the improved value of existing homes. In these cases, redevelopment can have a positive economic impact on existing owners. The theory here is highest and best use. More about this in a future article.