The letter written by the committee of homeowners claims that once they adopt the restrictions on the exterior appearance of Deerhaven, the property values in Deerhaven would increase as happened in Brookville. In supporting his claim, the author uses as proof the same kind of restrictions adopted by Brookville seven years ago. However, his argument is rife with unsubstantiated assumptions, which cannot provide valid evidence to support his recommendation.
The committee claims that the rise of property values in Brookville seven years ago was completely due to the restrictions on the landscaping and the house painting. But he fails to provide evidence wether the houseowners in Brookville had implemented these restrictions seven years ago. If most of the houseowners in Brookville rejected to follow those restrictions, then the property values’ increase was not the effects of the restrictions. Thus, before the committee provides clear proof that houseowners in Brookville indeed obey those restrictions, we cannot be certain what effects would restrictions have on property values in Deerhaven.
Even assuming that houseowners in Brookville had implemented these restrictions, the committee relies on the additional assumption that the restrictions are responsible and the only reason for the increase of the property values in Brookville. Nevertheless, other factors were the reason for this increase. Property values are the result of demand and supply, it is possible that seven years ago, the demand of Brookville grew considerably due to the newly built business center or natrual park nearby, and thus drove up the property values in Brookville. Or because the supply of housing decreased. Either scenario would provide an alternative explanation for the increase in property values.
Even if the ascent of property values in Brookville were the result of implementation of restrictions on the landscaping and painting, the committee fails to consider possible differences between Brookville and Deerhaven that might help to bring about a different result for Deerhaven. For instance, the houses in Brookville are designed to be suitable for consistent exterior appearance with the same height and size, while houses in Deerhaven vary considerably with different sizes, heights and different locations of the yards. Consequently, potential Deerhaven home-buyers might find the consistent appearance distasteful in which case property values in Deerhaven may actually tend to decrease.
In conclusion, to persuade me that Deerhaven should adopt the same restrictions as Brookville, the committee must supply clear evidence indicating the implementation of Brookville’s restrictions, and not some other factors, was responsible for the rise in Brookville’s property values. The committee must also provide evidence that other factors affecting home prices in the two areas are essentially the same.
