U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Austin
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-29-2007, 10:09 AM
 
Location: Austin 'burbs
3,226 posts, read 9,970,684 times
Reputation: 701

Advertisements

It's HORRIBLE.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-29-2007, 10:11 AM
 
Location: Austin 'burbs
3,226 posts, read 9,970,684 times
Reputation: 701
I would be really interested in hearing a Real Estate Agents view on this. Austin-steve?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2007, 10:21 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX
8,773 posts, read 18,239,659 times
Reputation: 3634
LOL... Just read the article...

The two quotes that sum up the two sides, for me:
Quote:
"This is a very nice, somewhat exclusive neighborhood, and that reputation brings a premium," Chandler said.
and

Quote:
"That these sections, because they carry the moniker of Forest Creek, devalue and degrade the investment these folks have made into their homes I find that concept reprehensible," Maxwell said. "Reputations are developed by how you live and how you treat your neighbors."
It is funny in a depressing sort of way. The older section is apparently saying that the existence of the houses (which is a given) doesn't devalue their homes, but the use of the subdivision name does (by $20,000 per house). That sort of arrogance, at least taken to this level, is scary, but the fact that they may be right is even more depressing...

Oh, and I sure hope they get to call it Forest Creek Section 34

Last edited by Trainwreck20; 10-29-2007 at 10:29 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2007, 10:28 AM
 
Location: Austin 'burbs
3,226 posts, read 9,970,684 times
Reputation: 701
They aren't right - that's the thing.

Without having actually been to the community, it's hard to describe - but you can't compare a $500k+++ golf course home, to a home that is off the golf course, by a long shot and is in the $200-290 range... which actually, is the same value as many existing homes in FC. Mine included! When an agent runs comparables, he/she is comparing homes in the immediate area of similar value. While the new sections may bring down the "median home value" in the short term. All new construction does, anywhere. Really though, how important is the "median" anyway?

Frankly, these homes will exist, name or not. They aren't bulldozing them - so annexing them in and controlling their landscaping, parking and any other atribute that may affect homevalue makes more sense than building a monument to really make people understand... "Now you are DEFINITELY in Forest Creek".

Moderator cut: removed as per the poster's request

Last edited by Trainwreck20; 10-29-2007 at 01:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2007, 10:33 AM
 
135 posts, read 557,261 times
Reputation: 43
We still haven't taken the new section off the table. I can handle snobby people who think they are better then everyone......I would get quite a few laughs with my husband about that. What makes me mad is the children being teased.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2007, 10:34 AM
 
4,062 posts, read 6,369,464 times
Reputation: 1670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainwreck20 View Post
LOL... Just read the article...

The two quotes that sum up the two sides, for me:


and



It is funny in a depressing sort of way. The older section is apparently saying that the existence of the houses (which is a given) doesn't devalue their homes, but the use of the subdivision name does (by $20,000 per house). That sort of arrogance, at least taken to this level, is scary, but the fact that they may be right is even more depressing...

I thought the article was hilarious in a sad way. Of course the answer is to get the existing president thrown out. This reminds me of the desperate housewives episode from last night. Does the value of your property really matter unless you are going to sell?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2007, 10:39 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX
8,773 posts, read 18,239,659 times
Reputation: 3634
Hmm...I will not jump into the debate, but you would think with what they are spending on lawyers, they could make a few changes at the park instead . I am curious on how it turns out...I would be surprised if there was not some precedent one way or the other on that aspect of the ADA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2007, 10:57 AM
 
14 posts, read 23,797 times
Reputation: 10
There's actually much more going on than what was presented in the article. It's unlikely that 600 people would personally vote against annexation without good reason. I wish the reporting had even touched on the real reason we didn't annex in the new section. It(the reporting) was irresponsible, to say the least.

Last edited by bajita1; 10-29-2007 at 11:17 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2007, 12:14 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
8,773 posts, read 18,239,659 times
Reputation: 3634
We would love to here it...I will agree that the statesman is a standard newspaper, which means it is often clueless .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2007, 01:00 PM
 
14 posts, read 23,797 times
Reputation: 10
Our HOA seems to be like many, so I'm assuming our rules are pretty typical. Forest Creek was developed by Rusty Parker, and he is "the developer" in our rules and regs. He gets 3 votes for each and every undeveloped lot he owns in the area. As owners, we get 1 vote for each lot we own. This means that for a very, very long time, Mr. Parker had a controlling interest in our neighborhood and ran our board. Historically (I've only been here 4 years, and this pre-dates me) we were quite unhappy with some of the decisions made, but didn't have enough homeowner votes to overrule anything. As a side note, he did NOT build the pool(which many say he promised to do and then decided not to). A group of homeowners took it upon themselves to assess themselves a special fee and paid for the pool to be put in. When Mr. Parker called for an annexation vote asking for the new area to be brought into the existing HOA, he did not just ask for the area under development, but the entire area he owns on that side of the property. This would give him enough undeveloped lots to, at 3 votes each, regain a controlling interest in the neighborhood. We voted against having Rusty Parker run our board, not against bringing those houses or specific people into our neighborhood.

As for the amount of money we have spent on legal fees, that number was simply fabricated. We have a budget, which has a much smaller number on it, and the category includes legal fees for collection of past due accounts, etc. It is a budgeted amount and has not been realized.

To date, we have not brought any legal action against anyone. The only money spent has been in response to legal action brought against us. That includes being sued by Rusty Parker because he claimed he had a right to allow anyone he pleased to use our pool (based on a rule he wrote himself, when he had enough votes). The judge threw that out.

Now, I feel terrible for the people thrown in the middle of this, and there is no excuse for children being treated badly. Still, to paint the picture that "old forest creek" residents are being aggressive towards "new", well, it's going both ways for sure. Even the article mentioned a threatening letter sent to a resident of "old fc". It's gotten out of hand, and both sides share blame in that.

I'd be happy to answer any other specific questions you may have. Thanks for giving me a chance to present another side of the story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Austin
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top