The following is a Counterpoint column
By Tim Allen
I drove to "Friendly" Acres to see what the fuss was all about ("Demolished dreams," July 2). Entering this subdivision, I found pretty much what I suspected: a cluster of McMansions on tiny lots whose owners, above all else, had attempted to put their best foot forward -- toward the street. Although the houses were individually designed in some way, they were at heart all the same.
There seems to have been a competition among the owners as to who had the most and largest windows, how many gables and other breaks in the roof line could be crammed onto these structures, and how generously the garages provided for SUVs and other essentials. More than one poor owner, alas, had his whole "rear," including oddly placed windows, fake chimney and high-flying deck, exposed as I turned past his corner lot. But this was the back of the house, and we all know that nowadays it is the façade that counts.
In the midst of this obvious display of affluence was the house of the Haj-Mohamadis. I immediately regretted that I had not seen it before the marauding equipment (still parked on the property) had begun to systematically destroy the structure in the front yard. What a shame. The pictures in the newspaper showed a fascinating, thoroughly designed and well-thought-out system of terraces, pools and places for falling water. None of this was to my own taste, actually, but what an imaginative idea it had been. I would love to have seen all the water in action.
I believe "a man's home is his castle," and as much as I might not like it, my neighbor can paint his house purple, and I'll back his right to do it. Maybe one difference in attitude about these matters is how one regards his residence. Note that in the old line I quoted it says "home," not "house."
Our own house is also our home, and we keep it pretty respectable by traditional standards. It sits quietly among those of our neighbors. I think the people who object to eccentricity the most are those who look at their residences as investments, as mere possessions, houses whose resale value is more important than their happiness there.
The writer lives in High Point.
Update: This letter contained an incorrect byline. The writer's name is Terry Allen.
Comments (10)
Wait for it. It'll be here soon.
Posted by Joe Schmoe | July 11, 2005 7:26 AM
Timmy, your letter reeks of class envy. Look up the psychological definition of "projection". It will serve you better life to be able to make a point without exposing your innards.
But then again, what was the point of your letter other than to condemn the people who have the means to live in neighborhoods such as Friendly Acres?
Posted by hugh | July 11, 2005 7:45 AM
Hugh, I thought Tim's letter was very well thought out and well written. I am sure I don't have class envy, and I agree with Tim's opinions. There are many neighborhoods popping up here in Greensboro, that sort of mimic high class neighborhoods....but they aren't. The houses are expensive, yes, but they are crammed too close together, have exaggerated features (whatever is popular during the time they were built) and are not especially well built.
I think what happened to the Haj-Mohamadis was horrible and extremely unamerican. It is a blaring reminder of how most people have a cowardly need to conform, and want everyone else to conform too. I, like Tim, would have to fight for my neighbor's right to paint their house purple or use toilets as yard art. (I would fight for the fountains, however, because I think they are cool as well as Haj-Mohamadis' right to have them.)
As time goes on, I am seeing more and more "Big Brother" creeping into our society, and it scares me.
By the way, even if I made a million + dollars a year, I wouldn't move to Friendly Acres or any neighborhood like it. Freedom is priceless. Conformity is boring.
Posted by Patricia | July 11, 2005 8:12 AM
Pat, it doesn't take a million a year to live in Friendly Acres. a combined income of less than $100,000 would do.
People have just as much right to buy into a neighborhood that has voluntary restrictive covenants as they do to live in areas that don't. Some folks like the idea of living in conformity.
Mohamadi made a choice to live where he did and violated the self-imposed legal restrictions he agreed to when he bought there. He signed those binding agreements as have all the surrounding neighbors.
Mohommadi chose to be non-conforming in a restrictive, conforming environment and he paid the price for his decision.
What I'm curious about is why didn't he appeal the decision? He could have at least finished the work and had another year or two to enjoy it and possibly had the decision reversed by sympathetic judges.
Posted by hugh | July 11, 2005 8:24 AM
What an expensive lesson for Mohammadi. Hopefully, his unfortunate experience will cause him to realize the extreme difference between the realities of conformist, American affluence and the ideals of individualism and personal expression his project embodied.
When and where I grew up, kids were always outside in the streets playing, doing something. American culture wasn't yet dead. In contrast, Mohammadi's neighbor hood is like a sterile, deserted ghost town filled with image-obsessed, dead people - mere ghosts of true American ideals - living their plastic lives behind facades of status and wealth. Tumbleweed blowing down the street would be more in character with that neighborhood than his project of individualistic expression.
Alas, attribute his mistake to cultural innocence; a victim of his own naivete who took the popularly presented images of American freedom, individuality, and self expression at face value. Perhaps he will/has learn(ed) to 'read between the lines' of TV's incessant spew. Or hopefully, at least, to read his home owners agreement.
Posted by Mr. Potatohead | July 11, 2005 9:30 AM
Guys,
If Mr. Mohammadi wanted fountains and individual expression, he shouldn't have decided to live in a neighborhood where people agreed not to do that. The people who live in this neighborhood have agreed that they want their neighborhood to have certain characteristics. This isn't uncommon and it is a way to protect their investment. Yes, we live in our homes, but they are also, to many of us, the most expensive investment we will ever make.
And while individual expression is a good thing, in this case it was against rules that Mr. Mohammadi imposed on himself.
Posted by truth | July 11, 2005 11:40 AM
Hugh, Your points are well taken. You are right. He did choose the environment in which to live. I guess I just didn't like your comment to Tim regarding the "class envy" thing. It wasn't pertinent to the argument. :)
Posted by Patricia | July 11, 2005 1:08 PM
Pat, Tim's critisisims of where other people chose to live and his elitist commentary about their homes is not pertinant to the subject matter of the original story which was about Mohamadi having to tear down his fountains.
Posted by hugh | July 11, 2005 1:54 PM
I have watched this story unfold for some time. I was taken aback at the one sidedness of the front page story, not to mention TV coverage.
Least we all forget a jury of 12 independant people from all walks of life spent 3-4 days listening to both sides and arrived to a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.
I happen to know a little about this case, I am surpised that several significant issues about this were never raised. Such as:
1. All parties went to arbitration. The plaintiffs made several offers permitting the defendant to retain the majority of his structure, with the exception of a few specific items. Let me repeat that, a few specific items; such as not installing a working, functioning toilet in the front yard. I do not know about you, however, I would take issue with anyone wanting to have a toilet in their front yard.
The defendants refused all offers.
2. Months before this went to trial, the defendant was warned by the court to stop all construction until this matter was resolved- both to save him money, time, effort and to prevent this structure to continue to grow.
The defendants ignored the warning.
3. The defendants said they had no knowledge of the deed restrictions. This is pausible.
Their closing attorney said he/she told them of it- could the attorney be wrong. This is pausible.
Two to three people advised the defendant of the deed restrictions three years ago; one or two of them gave him copies of it.
The defendant ignored it and continued building.
How would you like to hear bricks being sawed from 6am to 11pm day in and day out none stop. After 4 years, I think you would get tired of it.
I have heard of other bits a pieces of this matter but only in rumor so it is not worth posting. I'd recommed everyone to take a step back for a moment and really look at the issues here.
The defendant has a right to do something different on his/her property. But does he/she have the right to impose it on everyone else on such a grand scale? I think the folks who live around there have rights too. It is just too bad one of the parties refused to be reasonable (ie the defendant)
Posted by Phil | July 12, 2005 9:28 AM
Restrictive Covenants aren't just writing on paper. They REALLY do mean something.
Actually the plaintiff was lucky to find an Attorney to take this before 12 jurors. Yay for the good ones out there!
So the defendant wanted a toilet in his front yard? What? What? LOL. What's next?
Posted by Lilly | July 12, 2005 1:17 PM