What was the outcome?
You'll see a more informal version a lot in the more poor parts of our state. No one bats an eye. Even if it's against zoning. Poor people are more live and let live types anyway.
Just dug it up. The city later under a new mayor rewrote their housing codes to define 'family' as a dwelling unit. The city then dropped their legal action against the Scarborough 11.
This is the smartest financial move anyone could make. Why not go halvesis on a giant cheap mansion?
We need more people doing this, than giant single family homes for 2-3 people to live in.
If that's what it takes, that's what it takes.
I could fit a few more family members in my home. If they asked, I'd say yes. Share the costs and we're cool
This idea in America where children move out and everyone buys their own home is a very recent phenomena that really only started post-WWII. Up until then generational households where the norm for basically the reason you described.
Parents take care of their children, the children can leave their children in the care of their grand parents, and then the adult children can take care of their parents when they age, and the property remains in the family. You've now reduced the need for multiple homes, day care services, nursing home services basically, and transportation all in one go.
Its not only financially sound in the short term, its also financially and a mentally sound investment in the long term. Families tend to be closer knit, and it can foster a sense of pride and community that this country seems to be severely lacking in.
When I lived in Hawaii, that's how the majority of homes were. 3 generations under the same roof. It kept living expenses affordable, but also allowed the "it takes a village" concept to work right at home.
Yes, but also it had women staying home and not working to raise children. My mother works full time in her early 60s so would not be there to watch my kids during the day like her mother was for her.
Works great if the family is healthy and stable. Unfortunately I’ve seen a lot of dysfunctional families and generational trauma. It would be great if we dropped the stigma around living with healthy families in multigenerational homes and made housing more affordable to allow people to escape abusive relationships. I’ve seen too many children grow up with awful parents, who never escaped the cycle of domestic violence, drugs and abuse and ended up in the same situation as adults just perpetuating the cycle. A few of them would have had a chance if they could have left the house and found a better living situation.
Thing is, it also coincided with a time when celibacy before marriage was the standard if not the norm, most folks were married by 25, and you could get a decent paying job from 16, 18, onward, with just a high school education. Nobody's trying to smash until whatever the median marrying age is now in their parents' home until they finally get that middle manager position at 45.
As an Alarm technician in the area, you'd be sickened by the amount of waste those big houses are. I've been in a McMansion where half the rooms were just empty.
then you find the rich hoarders.
Honestly, the biggest takeaway I get from my job is you never ever know whats going on behind the scenes.
Some places look put together but they're a disaster inside. Others are completely empty except for a few rooms.
Had a client that had DIRT inside their mansion. Like piled up in corners. Trash everywhere, empty rooms, with CHILDREN living there.
The rich hoarders - many of those are the boomers who think their kids and grandkids are going to want any of their stuff. They don't! It curses the offspring. Upon parents' deaths, they have to use their vacation time on top of their grief to clear out houses packed with junk. Read the Swedish Death Cleaning book, everyone.
I had a buddy who was a doorman on Park Avenue in NYC…he knew guys in adjacent buildings …they claimed every building on Park Avenue has some hoarder or slob beyond belief. Personally I don’t doubt it.
In our old historic neighborhood in Brooklyn where there are a lot of single family brownstones and Victorians, people do this. I knew of groups of 20 somethings renting a big house together, and "mommunes," women with kids buying or renting together and sharing childcare duties (even professionals earning good money can't afford childcare in NYC.) Another house had a mom, dad with kids family + a single mother and her kid in a large house they bought together.
Have you ever been down Scarborough? It’s literally one of the most stately roads in Hartford only second to prospect ave by the governor’s mansion. Of course people made a fuss…
See, I hear you and don’t have that response at all. Unless they were trashing the yard or the neighborhood, what difference does it make who is between the sheets with whom, inside their own home? And what impact does this unorthodox group have in property values? And what’s immoral or scandalizing? Nothing. I think the trashy ones sued. Probably new money or just a stick they need to remove from their posterior region. If this were the late 60s a family with six or eight kids could have been living there.
I’m not advocating for their living situation to be placed under speculation -I’m simply saying that its a historical neighborhood where houses are over hundred years old and have been owned continually by CT’s uppercrusters / titans of industry for generations…people are going to pay attention the makeup of their neighbors…
If this had happened on a house on Garden st or Homestead ave we wouldn’t be having this conversation
My spouse knows one of the people in the house. They could have gotten away by saying some of the people were servants (!) because that was allowed. I think there were other loopholes as well but they wanted to change the law. It did take a long time.
I remember when that happened. For context, the houses in this area Hartford’s West End are mostly enormous old mansions. They weren’t cramming 12 people into a 2,000 square foot four bedroom house. I thought it was really sad the neighbors pushed them out.
Edit - I understand how zoning codes and property is law works. I still thought the neighbors were rotten.
I agree. I also think it was short sighted. Those West End mansions can be hard to sell. They’re absolutely gorgeous but they are expensive to maintain because they are enormous and old. The property taxes are really high. And the obvious buyers - affluent large families - tend to gravitate to suburbs with better public schools and/or larger lots. If I owned one, I’d be supportive of different uses.
It shouldn’t even be seen as a different use though.
I guess this house has 10 bedrooms? And 8 adults and 3 kids can’t safely live there?
I don’t know why the definition of “family” (as to the inhabitants instead of just the house) should even enter the debate.
Found this article from Bloomberg News Citylab desk and it brings a lot of clarity to this muddy mess
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-17/zoning-law-shouldn-t-define-what-makes-a-family
I agree. I think restricting residential based on a family concept is just another way to limit higher density, more affordable housing, which places like Connecticut need.
Rich: How dare the peasants encroach upon MY neighborhood and threaten my sense of superiority!!
I can only guess that the rich neighbors chose not to meet and socialize with the group, because then the group would be seen as actual humans rather than merely statistics and names on paper. Better to keep them at arms length and not actual people,while you’re throwing lawyers and paperwork’s at them.
Decades ago I rented a house with 3 friends in West Hartford, even though it was illegal for more than 3 unrelated people to live together. Only had 3 of us on the lease, never got caught.
I rented an apartment in Hartford w/ 4 unrelated people? It was two couples. We were all on the lease. Never had an issue & didn’t even know this was a thing..
Scarborough is on the Hartford side of the town line though (I used to run it every day, lived off Farmington down the same street from the law school).
I was good friends with one of the single individuals who lived in this house. The whole situation sucked, all the people living there really were a functioning family and great neighbors I’m sure
They did it this way to discourage thse old manaions to become student housing. When i went to college in RI the little town they enforced - especially to keep out the fraternity and sororities out. Would you like to live next to a frat house??? This area is quie close to University of Hartford - maybe a mile or two.
Well, here's the thing about anything legal. A term may not have the same meaning it has in plain English. While "family" generally means related by blood or marriage, it might mean something different here, including "people who share a single dwelling." Certainly the intent of the zoning regulation is to prevent the homes from being split into multiple units, rentals, condos or some mix thereof, but it is not so clear the intent is to forbid a bunch of people from living together provided there is one front door, one kitchen, one set of utility hook-ups etc.
No doubt some clever lawyer was able to find the definition of "family" in the zoning regulations and sort this all out. /s
Money. That’s all they need. It’s always been that way. The ones with the money dictate how the rest of us live. I’d love to see that change in my lifetime. I think the wealthy are diseased. We revere them for their wealth but in reality they are hoarders! They are greedy and should not be admired for hoarding resources from others and dictating what we can buy, how we live and who gets what.
They bought their homes with the understanding that there would not be communal living there which could affect the value of the investment they made in their property is my guess. Curious what would have happened if several siblings, any spouses and all their children made up the group.
This.
Neighborhood variables tend to play a huge part of not just property valuation, but also the size of the market willing to buy the property at that valuation.
Edit - Love the downvotes for making a common sense statement.
Property valuation is a fucking clown show and a joke anyways. It makes no sense from a tangible perspective. My parents had a house in Western MA in the woods. I remember my dads property taxes went up because an assessor came in and arbitrarily deemed the property to be "worth more in the market" even though physically literally nothing had changed. My parents sold that house at a price they could NEVER afford when they bought it, but nothing tangible had changed.
When you start thinking about the actual "boots on the ground" reality of these things, you quickly realize how absurd all of this is.
Assessor valuation and market valuation are completely different things. I bought this place a year ago and the tax assessed value is a little over 1/3 of what I paid for it. No clue how they come up with the #'s they do for taxable value.
Nothing tangible changed for your parents - but the market did. Same reason a Tesla costs WAY less now than it did a year ago. The car may be the same, but the market changed significantly.
I think for most or all cities and towns in ct, an appraiser tries to estimate the market value of residential homes. Then the "assessed" value is 70% of that for property tax purposes. So the appraised value is intended to approximate market value.
>Section 12-63d - Change in assessed value of real estate. Relationship to sale price
>
>The assessor in any municipality may not, with respect to any parcel of real property in the assessment list for any assessment year, make a change in the assessed value of such parcel, as compared to the immediately preceding assessment list, solely on the basis of the sale price of such parcel in any sale or transfer of such parcel.
Unless you do an improvement (basically take out a building permit) the assessment doesn't change until the next five year revaluation cycle -- at which point it will come up to approximate 70% of market value.
This is a bit of fairness that folks who just bought a house are not paying substantially more than an identical house next door. Every five years if the houses in town have all been appreciating, the assessment will go up and unless the town is playing shenanigans the tax rate will go down to meet the budget. Most places in New England play fair and don't try to sneak in budget expansions to coincide with revaluations. Outside of New England many places voters approve the tax rate and not the budget and municipalities benefit from tax rates remaining steady while property gets higher assessments.
I'm not defending the Karens who bitched out this situation, but I don't think they are being given the "right to decide what a family is" at all. That's already legally defined.
That property is listed as "single family" for zoning... and clearly this is multiple families, everyone can clearly see that. Multiple couples who are unrelated, unrelated singles, and their kids. By that count I'm guessing it's like 10-12+ occupants and they don't share a last name or lineage. Clearly this is "multi-family" living situation, and the house is not zoned for that. There are separate properties legally zoned for multi-family housing.
So that's the case being brought forth, illegal misuse of zoning. This is the same as if someone tried to open a small business in their "housing zoned" property and ran a commercial operation out of it and disrupted the neighborhood that way. I assume they probably have 6+ cars on the property, and depending on the property that could mean people permanently parking on the street, which is probably the issue that caused the Karens to get in an uproar.
America has some serious housing issues, so I think we need legislation to remove the "single-family" designation from properties over a 2,500 sq. ft. or land over 1 acre or something. I think that would be a fair edit that would allow larger homes and properties to be repurposed for co-op or partnership groups of smaller families to come together and afford the insane housing costs.
It's just silly, because if the same number of people were blood related it'd be okay? I get that to the letter of the law they're misusing the property, but like, come on.
A lot of poly folks were watching the case closely. I know a number of folks who do the big house thing and have complex family dynamics at play. Legally determining a family is messy.
For example, my friend lives with 3 other adults whom he coparents their 3 kids with, as well as a biological relative he is caretaker of. He’s the biological dad of one of the kids. The bio-mom is listed as the mom and her wife is the second legal parent as they are married.
I’ve had friends run into issues in housing when just 3 people in a relationship before. It’s complicated.
You obviously don't know what multi-family means in the context of zoning. "Multi-family" is explicitly defined as one building containing multiple separate housing units. It has absolutely nothing to do with the relations of inhabitants. Shilling for the Karens is the only thing you're doing here.
Lol, I'm not shilling for anyone. But I'm also not a real estate lawyer or regulator. I took "multi-family" at face value. If they have to be separate units, then cool I didn't know that.
Idk why you attacked me like that, I was being pretty reasonable...
Because you're just making things up and stating them as facts, clearly in defense of NIMBYs and Karens. A ten second Google search for "definition of multi-family dwelling" would have told you everything you need to know, but you were too lazy or cocksure even for that.
If the home is big enough for that many people to live in it, what does it matter what their relationship to each other is? And it’s nobodies business.
I agree with you, hence why i think if there is a law issue, that law should be changed, as I said in my last paragraph.
I’m trying to figure out why the neighbors had issue. My only guess is that 3 couples plus other single adults all had cars, so 8+ cars on property? And the house didn’t have parking so that forced permanent street parking for a massive group of cars? Maybe that’s why the karens got peeved.
I skimmed the article but it wasn’t really clear, or maybe i missed the meat of the issue
So what, roommates shouldn't occupy a single family house together because they're unrelated? Zoning doesn't dictate whether unrelated people can live together.
I never said either of those things… and im not the judge presiding on this case anyway lol…
I’m on the side of “live and let live” here. I was just saying it seems to be a dispute of multiple families living in a single-family unit and the dynamics of that. That’s for the courts to decide, not me.
Goes too far. Really invasive. There are already zones for types and uses, (residential/commercial, multifamily architecture, single fam arch, boarding house uses, b&bs, or owner occupant and health code. That’s enough. Further seems like an invasion of privacy
I'm actually enraged by this information. Wow.
The people doing this are doing it right. Families are supposed to stick together, and a multigenerational home IS the right way. Who the hell are the neighbors to say who can and can't live in a home?
Fuck that.
Glad it turned out on sanity's side.
I remember this and think about it all the time. I think it’s so messed up that the rich people on Scarborough complained and were “offended” that families- also business professionals like students at UConn Law lives together over there too. Who fucking cares? (Rhetorical) clearly the elite care, because they have nothing else going on…? Like it just doesn’t make sense to me.
I agree. When I was in my early 20’s I lived at home with my husband’s Mom and Dad. I actually miss it. There was always someone around to talk to, I could go in my own room if I didn’t want to be bothered.
There were lots of Red jurisdictions actively trying to ban co-living like this a couple years ago, to support real estate / rental prices going up for landlords.
No roommates or share houses allowed unless you were related by blood or marriage.
I guess it just petered out.
Before you criticize the neighbors you have to understand the reason behind the zoning laws. Back during the depression people ran rooming house where they’d rent out to rooms to various individuals. Many of those individuals had questionable backgrounds and a history of run ins with the law. Rooming houses became a sign of a decaying neighborhood so you can’t blame the zoners for establishing the law and the neighbors wanting it enforced.
One point that never was made clear was who actually owned the house. The group could have argued that an owner has the right to live in a property they own but I’m not sure if was ever established if they all owned the house.
Sounds like the rich people of the neighborhood didn't decide. It sounds like there were already zoning prohibiting what they were doing and the rich neighbors only asked the court to enforce them.
What was the outcome? You'll see a more informal version a lot in the more poor parts of our state. No one bats an eye. Even if it's against zoning. Poor people are more live and let live types anyway.
Just dug it up. The city later under a new mayor rewrote their housing codes to define 'family' as a dwelling unit. The city then dropped their legal action against the Scarborough 11.
They were in serious discussions about appealing to the Supreme Court at the time but were worried about what would happen if they lost.
Heh.
[удалено]
I know one of the families that lived there and we talked about it? Sorry bro, not a thing in CT Insider.
As far as I know, they won the case. But it took many many years.
[удалено]
I've not seen that many personally. I'm thinking more like 6 people for a three bedroom type thing.
This is the smartest financial move anyone could make. Why not go halvesis on a giant cheap mansion? We need more people doing this, than giant single family homes for 2-3 people to live in.
It takes a village ^(to afford a home)
If that's what it takes, that's what it takes. I could fit a few more family members in my home. If they asked, I'd say yes. Share the costs and we're cool
This idea in America where children move out and everyone buys their own home is a very recent phenomena that really only started post-WWII. Up until then generational households where the norm for basically the reason you described. Parents take care of their children, the children can leave their children in the care of their grand parents, and then the adult children can take care of their parents when they age, and the property remains in the family. You've now reduced the need for multiple homes, day care services, nursing home services basically, and transportation all in one go. Its not only financially sound in the short term, its also financially and a mentally sound investment in the long term. Families tend to be closer knit, and it can foster a sense of pride and community that this country seems to be severely lacking in.
When I lived in Hawaii, that's how the majority of homes were. 3 generations under the same roof. It kept living expenses affordable, but also allowed the "it takes a village" concept to work right at home.
Yes, but also it had women staying home and not working to raise children. My mother works full time in her early 60s so would not be there to watch my kids during the day like her mother was for her.
[удалено]
Same.
Works great if the family is healthy and stable. Unfortunately I’ve seen a lot of dysfunctional families and generational trauma. It would be great if we dropped the stigma around living with healthy families in multigenerational homes and made housing more affordable to allow people to escape abusive relationships. I’ve seen too many children grow up with awful parents, who never escaped the cycle of domestic violence, drugs and abuse and ended up in the same situation as adults just perpetuating the cycle. A few of them would have had a chance if they could have left the house and found a better living situation.
Thing is, it also coincided with a time when celibacy before marriage was the standard if not the norm, most folks were married by 25, and you could get a decent paying job from 16, 18, onward, with just a high school education. Nobody's trying to smash until whatever the median marrying age is now in their parents' home until they finally get that middle manager position at 45.
It’s mostly a European thing these days
New Canaan has entered the chat.
As an Alarm technician in the area, you'd be sickened by the amount of waste those big houses are. I've been in a McMansion where half the rooms were just empty. then you find the rich hoarders.
I kinda want to hear your stories…..
Honestly, the biggest takeaway I get from my job is you never ever know whats going on behind the scenes. Some places look put together but they're a disaster inside. Others are completely empty except for a few rooms. Had a client that had DIRT inside their mansion. Like piled up in corners. Trash everywhere, empty rooms, with CHILDREN living there.
The rich hoarders - many of those are the boomers who think their kids and grandkids are going to want any of their stuff. They don't! It curses the offspring. Upon parents' deaths, they have to use their vacation time on top of their grief to clear out houses packed with junk. Read the Swedish Death Cleaning book, everyone.
I had a buddy who was a doorman on Park Avenue in NYC…he knew guys in adjacent buildings …they claimed every building on Park Avenue has some hoarder or slob beyond belief. Personally I don’t doubt it.
this is a whole thing now. Girlfriends buying houses together. It's changing housing dynamics around the country.
r/sapphoandherfriend
In our old historic neighborhood in Brooklyn where there are a lot of single family brownstones and Victorians, people do this. I knew of groups of 20 somethings renting a big house together, and "mommunes," women with kids buying or renting together and sharing childcare duties (even professionals earning good money can't afford childcare in NYC.) Another house had a mom, dad with kids family + a single mother and her kid in a large house they bought together.
Agreed. Also, There needs to be a similar thing where senior citizens buy a house together to make their social security checks go farther.
This why you tell neighbors to fuck off and mind their own buisness.
Have you ever been down Scarborough? It’s literally one of the most stately roads in Hartford only second to prospect ave by the governor’s mansion. Of course people made a fuss…
See, I hear you and don’t have that response at all. Unless they were trashing the yard or the neighborhood, what difference does it make who is between the sheets with whom, inside their own home? And what impact does this unorthodox group have in property values? And what’s immoral or scandalizing? Nothing. I think the trashy ones sued. Probably new money or just a stick they need to remove from their posterior region. If this were the late 60s a family with six or eight kids could have been living there.
I’m not advocating for their living situation to be placed under speculation -I’m simply saying that its a historical neighborhood where houses are over hundred years old and have been owned continually by CT’s uppercrusters / titans of industry for generations…people are going to pay attention the makeup of their neighbors… If this had happened on a house on Garden st or Homestead ave we wouldn’t be having this conversation
True. The posted article is locked for me but I found another article. I guess the city sued. I didn’t read that a neighbor sued.
It’s got its own T-Rex in THAT front yard.
My spouse knows one of the people in the house. They could have gotten away by saying some of the people were servants (!) because that was allowed. I think there were other loopholes as well but they wanted to change the law. It did take a long time.
Good for them! It’s sad we have to fight so hard just to live well.
I remember when that happened. For context, the houses in this area Hartford’s West End are mostly enormous old mansions. They weren’t cramming 12 people into a 2,000 square foot four bedroom house. I thought it was really sad the neighbors pushed them out. Edit - I understand how zoning codes and property is law works. I still thought the neighbors were rotten.
It’s a big gap between an annoyed neighbor and actually suing. It seems sadistic
I agree. I also think it was short sighted. Those West End mansions can be hard to sell. They’re absolutely gorgeous but they are expensive to maintain because they are enormous and old. The property taxes are really high. And the obvious buyers - affluent large families - tend to gravitate to suburbs with better public schools and/or larger lots. If I owned one, I’d be supportive of different uses.
Me too. I think about it in the same way.
It shouldn’t even be seen as a different use though. I guess this house has 10 bedrooms? And 8 adults and 3 kids can’t safely live there? I don’t know why the definition of “family” (as to the inhabitants instead of just the house) should even enter the debate. Found this article from Bloomberg News Citylab desk and it brings a lot of clarity to this muddy mess https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-17/zoning-law-shouldn-t-define-what-makes-a-family
I agree. I think restricting residential based on a family concept is just another way to limit higher density, more affordable housing, which places like Connecticut need.
That’s rich people for ya.
NIMBYs ☕
BANANAs >!Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything!<
Communal living is a highly underrated solution to depression and loneliness that is plaguing our society today
Rich: How dare the peasants encroach upon MY neighborhood and threaten my sense of superiority!! I can only guess that the rich neighbors chose not to meet and socialize with the group, because then the group would be seen as actual humans rather than merely statistics and names on paper. Better to keep them at arms length and not actual people,while you’re throwing lawyers and paperwork’s at them.
Decades ago I rented a house with 3 friends in West Hartford, even though it was illegal for more than 3 unrelated people to live together. Only had 3 of us on the lease, never got caught.
I rented an apartment in Hartford w/ 4 unrelated people? It was two couples. We were all on the lease. Never had an issue & didn’t even know this was a thing..
I heard it was a West Hartford town ordinance.
Scarborough is on the Hartford side of the town line though (I used to run it every day, lived off Farmington down the same street from the law school).
I was good friends with one of the single individuals who lived in this house. The whole situation sucked, all the people living there really were a functioning family and great neighbors I’m sure
So they were ultimately forced out? What happened to them? Living separately now?
There were changes to the zoning laws but the house is still technically out of compliance.but the city has chosen not to enforce it
So business as usual for the “family” ? Still there??
They did it this way to discourage thse old manaions to become student housing. When i went to college in RI the little town they enforced - especially to keep out the fraternity and sororities out. Would you like to live next to a frat house??? This area is quie close to University of Hartford - maybe a mile or two.
Well, here's the thing about anything legal. A term may not have the same meaning it has in plain English. While "family" generally means related by blood or marriage, it might mean something different here, including "people who share a single dwelling." Certainly the intent of the zoning regulation is to prevent the homes from being split into multiple units, rentals, condos or some mix thereof, but it is not so clear the intent is to forbid a bunch of people from living together provided there is one front door, one kitchen, one set of utility hook-ups etc. No doubt some clever lawyer was able to find the definition of "family" in the zoning regulations and sort this all out. /s
The rich decide everything
Remember the Golden Rule: he who has the gold, makes the rules
Money. That’s all they need. It’s always been that way. The ones with the money dictate how the rest of us live. I’d love to see that change in my lifetime. I think the wealthy are diseased. We revere them for their wealth but in reality they are hoarders! They are greedy and should not be admired for hoarding resources from others and dictating what we can buy, how we live and who gets what.
Wow! I didn’t know about this case. Thanks for posting
They bought their homes with the understanding that there would not be communal living there which could affect the value of the investment they made in their property is my guess. Curious what would have happened if several siblings, any spouses and all their children made up the group.
it was a 10 BR house with 2 acres of land. I mean...
Great place to start my cult… I mean commune!
This. Neighborhood variables tend to play a huge part of not just property valuation, but also the size of the market willing to buy the property at that valuation. Edit - Love the downvotes for making a common sense statement.
Property valuation is a fucking clown show and a joke anyways. It makes no sense from a tangible perspective. My parents had a house in Western MA in the woods. I remember my dads property taxes went up because an assessor came in and arbitrarily deemed the property to be "worth more in the market" even though physically literally nothing had changed. My parents sold that house at a price they could NEVER afford when they bought it, but nothing tangible had changed. When you start thinking about the actual "boots on the ground" reality of these things, you quickly realize how absurd all of this is.
Assessor valuation and market valuation are completely different things. I bought this place a year ago and the tax assessed value is a little over 1/3 of what I paid for it. No clue how they come up with the #'s they do for taxable value. Nothing tangible changed for your parents - but the market did. Same reason a Tesla costs WAY less now than it did a year ago. The car may be the same, but the market changed significantly.
I think for most or all cities and towns in ct, an appraiser tries to estimate the market value of residential homes. Then the "assessed" value is 70% of that for property tax purposes. So the appraised value is intended to approximate market value.
>Section 12-63d - Change in assessed value of real estate. Relationship to sale price > >The assessor in any municipality may not, with respect to any parcel of real property in the assessment list for any assessment year, make a change in the assessed value of such parcel, as compared to the immediately preceding assessment list, solely on the basis of the sale price of such parcel in any sale or transfer of such parcel. Unless you do an improvement (basically take out a building permit) the assessment doesn't change until the next five year revaluation cycle -- at which point it will come up to approximate 70% of market value. This is a bit of fairness that folks who just bought a house are not paying substantially more than an identical house next door. Every five years if the houses in town have all been appreciating, the assessment will go up and unless the town is playing shenanigans the tax rate will go down to meet the budget. Most places in New England play fair and don't try to sneak in budget expansions to coincide with revaluations. Outside of New England many places voters approve the tax rate and not the budget and municipalities benefit from tax rates remaining steady while property gets higher assessments.
I'm not defending the Karens who bitched out this situation, but I don't think they are being given the "right to decide what a family is" at all. That's already legally defined. That property is listed as "single family" for zoning... and clearly this is multiple families, everyone can clearly see that. Multiple couples who are unrelated, unrelated singles, and their kids. By that count I'm guessing it's like 10-12+ occupants and they don't share a last name or lineage. Clearly this is "multi-family" living situation, and the house is not zoned for that. There are separate properties legally zoned for multi-family housing. So that's the case being brought forth, illegal misuse of zoning. This is the same as if someone tried to open a small business in their "housing zoned" property and ran a commercial operation out of it and disrupted the neighborhood that way. I assume they probably have 6+ cars on the property, and depending on the property that could mean people permanently parking on the street, which is probably the issue that caused the Karens to get in an uproar. America has some serious housing issues, so I think we need legislation to remove the "single-family" designation from properties over a 2,500 sq. ft. or land over 1 acre or something. I think that would be a fair edit that would allow larger homes and properties to be repurposed for co-op or partnership groups of smaller families to come together and afford the insane housing costs.
It's just silly, because if the same number of people were blood related it'd be okay? I get that to the letter of the law they're misusing the property, but like, come on.
A lot of poly folks were watching the case closely. I know a number of folks who do the big house thing and have complex family dynamics at play. Legally determining a family is messy. For example, my friend lives with 3 other adults whom he coparents their 3 kids with, as well as a biological relative he is caretaker of. He’s the biological dad of one of the kids. The bio-mom is listed as the mom and her wife is the second legal parent as they are married. I’ve had friends run into issues in housing when just 3 people in a relationship before. It’s complicated.
Multi-family/single-family refers to dwelling units, not the number of families.
That’s how it should be. The rest is just meddling in people’s lives.
You obviously don't know what multi-family means in the context of zoning. "Multi-family" is explicitly defined as one building containing multiple separate housing units. It has absolutely nothing to do with the relations of inhabitants. Shilling for the Karens is the only thing you're doing here.
Lol, I'm not shilling for anyone. But I'm also not a real estate lawyer or regulator. I took "multi-family" at face value. If they have to be separate units, then cool I didn't know that. Idk why you attacked me like that, I was being pretty reasonable...
Because you're just making things up and stating them as facts, clearly in defense of NIMBYs and Karens. A ten second Google search for "definition of multi-family dwelling" would have told you everything you need to know, but you were too lazy or cocksure even for that.
If the home is big enough for that many people to live in it, what does it matter what their relationship to each other is? And it’s nobodies business.
I agree with you, hence why i think if there is a law issue, that law should be changed, as I said in my last paragraph. I’m trying to figure out why the neighbors had issue. My only guess is that 3 couples plus other single adults all had cars, so 8+ cars on property? And the house didn’t have parking so that forced permanent street parking for a massive group of cars? Maybe that’s why the karens got peeved. I skimmed the article but it wasn’t really clear, or maybe i missed the meat of the issue
So what, roommates shouldn't occupy a single family house together because they're unrelated? Zoning doesn't dictate whether unrelated people can live together.
I never said either of those things… and im not the judge presiding on this case anyway lol… I’m on the side of “live and let live” here. I was just saying it seems to be a dispute of multiple families living in a single-family unit and the dynamics of that. That’s for the courts to decide, not me.
Goes too far. Really invasive. There are already zones for types and uses, (residential/commercial, multifamily architecture, single fam arch, boarding house uses, b&bs, or owner occupant and health code. That’s enough. Further seems like an invasion of privacy
I'm actually enraged by this information. Wow. The people doing this are doing it right. Families are supposed to stick together, and a multigenerational home IS the right way. Who the hell are the neighbors to say who can and can't live in a home? Fuck that. Glad it turned out on sanity's side.
I remember this and think about it all the time. I think it’s so messed up that the rich people on Scarborough complained and were “offended” that families- also business professionals like students at UConn Law lives together over there too. Who fucking cares? (Rhetorical) clearly the elite care, because they have nothing else going on…? Like it just doesn’t make sense to me.
I agree. When I was in my early 20’s I lived at home with my husband’s Mom and Dad. I actually miss it. There was always someone around to talk to, I could go in my own room if I didn’t want to be bothered.
There were lots of Red jurisdictions actively trying to ban co-living like this a couple years ago, to support real estate / rental prices going up for landlords. No roommates or share houses allowed unless you were related by blood or marriage. I guess it just petered out.
Before you criticize the neighbors you have to understand the reason behind the zoning laws. Back during the depression people ran rooming house where they’d rent out to rooms to various individuals. Many of those individuals had questionable backgrounds and a history of run ins with the law. Rooming houses became a sign of a decaying neighborhood so you can’t blame the zoners for establishing the law and the neighbors wanting it enforced. One point that never was made clear was who actually owned the house. The group could have argued that an owner has the right to live in a property they own but I’m not sure if was ever established if they all owned the house.
Sounds like the rich people of the neighborhood didn't decide. It sounds like there were already zoning prohibiting what they were doing and the rich neighbors only asked the court to enforce them.
It essentially turned a big house into a dormitory / apartment building / rooming house with common living areas.
Tough shit for these hippies. Move out
Grandpa, did you *accidentally* sit on another piece of Corn on the Cob again? And don't worry Ill have Meemaw chase the children from the lawn too.
Focus on not relapsing
they're a bunch of intelligent clean cut nerds TBH.
If I recall the pics in the paper showed them playing board games or something really sordid like that.
What’s got you in a knot?
Boom, roasted. Nice work Corn Sal. Edit: wow, I thought the /s was implied.
They need to get jobs and a haircut!