Painting Your House Whatever Colour You Like?

Zardnaar

Deity
Joined
Nov 16, 2003
Messages
21,514
Location
Dunedin, New Zealand
As the title says. Do you think you should be allowed to paint your jouse whatever colour you like?

Sounds silly yes and most houses tend to get painted pastel type colours.

However in certain parts of New Zealand there's bylaws about what colours you can paint your house. This is normally Alpine areas where you have to use natural tones so brown and green are kind of the default.

Visual pollution is a thing IMHO. Every now and then you see a house and think WTH.
 
As long as it isn't causing any measurable harm to others, then one should be allowed to do whatever they please with their property. And no, "I think it looks ugly and that upsets me" does not meet the definition of "measurable harm".
 
What is your opinion on year-round christmas lights?

As far as house paint, I think absolute freedom is best, as God intended.

If someone wants a razzle dazzle color scheme to make it harder on AI drone bombers, it should be allowed.
 
I think it looks ugly and that upsets me

But the doorknob humpers will counter that people in fact are shallow pieces of ****, and your visual uggo fugliness will negatively impact their proper-muh-tie values, which is harm and measurable. God Money totes operates on that level. We should be glad we're allowed to impose ourselves walking around not being pretty, really. Actually, not fitting into the neighborhood in that way is a really good way of winding up speaking with the police, now that one thinks about it.
 
What is your opinion on year-round christmas lights

Depends. Gaudy Christmas displays can cause measurable harm to a neighborhood. I remember a story about a town charging a guy $2000 a day for his Christmas display because it attracted so many visitors that extra police resources to direct traffic had to be committed to the neighborhood and kept neighbors from being able live in peace and quiet.

He tried to fight it in court and lost and I agree that he should be forced to pay for causing a disruption like that to the neighborhood.
 
No, I don't.
We are currently involved in a planning dispute with neighbours who want to develop their house in an individual style that would adversely affect a couple of the neighbours directly and would affect the others in that the way in which they wish to develop their house doesn't fit the neighbourhood.
Everyone lives in a neighbourhood, their neighbours are affected by what they do.
 
But the doorknob humpers will counter that people in fact are shallow pieces of ****, and your visual uggo fugliness will negatively impact their proper-muh-tie values, which is harm and measurable. God Money totes operates on that level. We should be glad we're allowed to impose ourselves walking around not being pretty, really. Actually, not fitting into the neighborhood in that way is a really good way of winding up speaking with the police, now that one thinks about it.

That's where the "measurable" part comes in. If someone is going to claim it will lower their property values, they have to show irrefutable evidence that their claim is true. And someone hiring their own appraiser isn't good enough. They have to get some type of government authority to support their claim.
 
The government will totally help in those cases. Some cities use fines as revenue generation, or a stick to foreclose on poors that can't maintain their house super pristinely. Absolutely no shortage of Vogons at the local housing level.
 
No, I don't.
We are currently involved in a planning dispute with neighbours who want to develop their house in an individual style that would adversely affect a couple of the neighbours directly and would affect the others in that the way in which they wish to develop their house doesn't fit the neighbourhood.
Everyone lives in a neighbourhood, their neighbours are affected by what they do.

Did the neighbourhood have existing rules they're trying to break or was it more assumed?

I think we have limits here on boundary fences so idk if your neighbour is allowed to build a 3 meter fence for example.
 
We repainted our house this past year. I would quite opposed to anyone but us having a say in the color we choose.
 
In the subdivision I used to live in while I still had a house, there were a couple of houses I liked. One was across the street from us and was painted in a dusty peach palette. I found it relaxing to look at. But then the owner decided to paint it yellow and brown, and painted the cement steps grey. I hated it.

The other house was a few blocks away and was a cheerful palette of chartreuse and kelly green. It was unlike all the other houses around, and I enjoyed looking at it.

(If anyone is wondering why I remember specific houses from so many years ago, I had a couple of jobs that took me around the neighborhood on a frequent basis - paper delivery and census taker.)

As long as it isn't causing any measurable harm to others, then one should be allowed to do whatever they please with their property. And no, "I think it looks ugly and that upsets me" does not meet the definition of "measurable harm".
This doesn't apply to houses, but there was a time when the public pressured one of the grocery stores in my city to repaint its exterior.

Real Canadian Superstore has a corporate color scheme that is green and yellow. As in hideous shades of green and yellow. It's very distinctive, which is why they like it. But that particular color scheme doesn't fit in at all with the low-key tone and historical theme of our downtown area.

People complained that the building was an eyesore and really ugly and they would not shop there. So finally the store gave in and painted it some shade of dark purple with grey overtones. It's less noticeable now, and less eye-hurting. But for me, I still won't set foot there because of the disgusting attitude their greeters have, and the dismissive and denigrating attitudes shown to disabled customers.

What is your opinion on year-round christmas lights?

As far as house paint, I think absolute freedom is best, as God intended.

If someone wants a razzle dazzle color scheme to make it harder on AI drone bombers, it should be allowed.
If people want to waste money on pointless displays that use a lot of electricity, that's their right. But if the display means the neighbors can't enjoy their own property (ie. if the lights are allowed to shine in the neighbors' windows and prevent them from enjoying a dark yard), that's different. It's especially different if the display is so large and elaborate that it causes an electrical outage.
 
Did the neighbourhood have existing rules they're trying to break or was it more assumed?

I think we have limits here on boundary fences so idk if your neighbour is allowed to build a 3 meter fence for example.

A lot of its always going to be assumed.
This is an area of brickbuilt houses so when somebody tries to build an aluminium warehouse because they want to make a statement they upset people.

edit: And my statement is biased, its very much from the viewpoint of the people opposed to the development, our new neighbours would doubtless put a different perspective on it.
 
A lot of its always going to be assumed.
This is an area of brickbuilt houses so when somebody tries to build an aluminium warehouse because they want to make a statement they upset people.

Okay, but regardless of how upset you might be, it's not your property. You or your other neighbors should have no say in what this person wants to do as long as they are complying with all applicable laws and regulations.

With that said though, it would probably behoove this person not to piss off the entire neighborhood as that could make their time living there rather unpleasant.
 
Okay, but regardless of how upset you might be, it's not your property. You or your other neighbors should have no say in what this person wants to do as long as they are complying with all applicable laws and regulations.

With that said though, it would probably behoove this person not to piss off the entire neighborhood as that could make their time living there rather unpleasant.

Ofc, although that doesn't really solve the problem of what is appropriate to be settled as a matter of local regulations.
 
I haven't thought much about the outside but I've put a lot of thought into how I'd do the inside of a dream house. I'd want it to look like a set in Mass Effect or Tron
 
As long as it isn't causing any measurable harm to others, then one should be allowed to do whatever they please with their property. And no, "I think it looks ugly and that upsets me" does not meet the definition of "measurable harm".

What about "there is general agreement that that is ugly, which severely limits who I can profitably sell my house across the street to"? Does that meet your definition of "measurable harm"?
 
I think it depends on how control over your painting is being exercised.

If you have bought into a community scheme (or neighbourhood scheme, or whatever strata-like equivalent you have), you've bought into a set of rules, and the aesthetic is part of the proprietary right you have bargained for. But if there's no covenant, no known bylaws, and then a governmental authority imposes some sort of restriction because certain homeowners wish that they had those in place, then it's just rent-seeking.
 
I think it depends on how control over your painting is being exercised.

If you have bought into a community scheme (or neighbourhood scheme, or whatever strata-like equivalent you have), you've bought into a set of rules, and the aesthetic is part of the proprietary right you have bargained for. But if there's no covenant, no known bylaws, and then a governmental authority imposes some sort of restriction because certain homeowners wish that they had those in place, then it's just rent-seeking.

This.
 
Back
Top Bottom