| ▲ | ratelimitsteve 3 days ago |
| A law negating a covenant everyone entered into willingly and freely does kinda alter the deal after its made. I do wholeheartedly agree that removing zoning restrictions doesn't impinge on anyone's liberty though. |
|
| ▲ | wqaatwt 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| > and freely If that was the case i.e. nobody wanted to build anything new on their land why would the “convenant” be necessary. Or is the idea that former owners can impose these decisions they made on anyone they sell the property to? |
| |
| ▲ | ratelimitsteve 2 days ago | parent [-] | | We allow all sorts of encumbrances to transfer with property. You can sell a house with an easement that lets neighbors use some amount of your property for access, with a tenant who has a contractual right to stay to the end of a lease regardless of what the new owner wants, or with a covenant to limit development. Hell, a couple years back an entire mall sold for $20 with the agreement that the buyer was assuming all of the seller's debt and also the seller's contractual obligation to perform road maintenance. If you couldn't transfer these agreements with a sale they'd be useless even absent a sale. Either no one would buy the property because its unsellable and the value would plummet or you would buy it with the encumbrances, transfer ownership from your left hand to your right hand to remove them and then do what you want. |
|
|
| ▲ | tptacek 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Covenants are already heavily regulated and have a pretty icky history in the US. |