Living Central, considering a change. Advice welcome! (Austin, Georgetown: best neighborhood, 2013)

[mackenziep]

Originally Posted by llkltk

Yes, the creepy comment threw me a bit. This is obviously some person who believes they are entitled to living amongst certain people and don't want to tolerate students and large structures that they fear will ruin their property values. Oh, I must live in the city, it's so cool but I'm going to create my own HOA and kick out students that need a place to live.

You have totally contradicted yourself here. One of the things that makes the 'burbs around here creepy is the HOAs. That kind of neatness and order can only come from living in a police state. Nope, nope, nope - that's not for me. You also obviously don't know your Austin geography - W 38th St (and Hyde Park, for that matter) are not Pemberton. We keep it reasonably real where we are.

[Komeht]

To be clear, HOA and NAs are in no way analogous organizations. An HOA is a contractual relations one enters into when purchasing a property and manages such the development and enfoces covenants agreed to by home owners.

NAs are advocacy groups. They have no authority over anyone's property, they serve merely to inform about issues affecting a neighborhood and lobby on behalf of that neighborhood. Many neighborhoods that have HOAs also have NAs. There is no overlap in their functions.

That being said, the same kind of fearful crackpot typically occupies positions on both HOAs and NAs. They tend to be people with a lot of time on their hands who fear change - blue haired biddies and cranky old goats who think the highest calling in life is to fight pernicious crabgrass or a corner bar from ruining the character of the neighborhood.

[EzPeterson]

Originally Posted by Komeht

To be clear, HOA and NAs are in no way analogous organizations. An HOA is a contractual relations one enters into when purchasing a property and manages such the development and enfoces covenants agreed to by home owners.

NAs are advocacy groups. They have no authority over anyone's property, they serve merely to inform about issues affecting a neighborhood and lobby on behalf of that neighborhood. Many neighborhoods that have HOAs also have NAs. There is no overlap in their functions.

That being said, the same kind of fearful crackpot typically occupies positions on both HOAs and NAs. They tend to be people with a lot of time on their hands who fear change - blue haired biddies and cranky old goats who think the highest calling in life is to fight pernicious crabgrass or a corner bar from ruining the character of the neighborhood.

So, my question would be this:

For all the folks out there that disagree with the direction of an HOA or NA - why not get in there and change the direction?

[mackenziep]

Originally Posted by Komeht

To be clear, HOA and NAs are in no way analogous organizations. An HOA is a contractual relations one enters into when purchasing a property and manages such the development and enfoces covenants agreed to by home owners.

NAs are advocacy groups. They have no authority over anyone's property, they serve merely to inform about issues affecting a neighborhood and lobby on behalf of that neighborhood. Many neighborhoods that have HOAs also have NAs. There is no overlap in their functions.

That being said, the same kind of fearful crackpot typically occupies positions on both HOAs and NAs. They tend to be people with a lot of time on their hands who fear change - blue haired biddies and cranky old goats who think the highest calling in life is to fight pernicious crabgrass or a corner bar from ruining the character of the neighborhood.

I would say that the organizations are almost exactly analogous except that you have no choice but to join an HOA, and you pay them money to tell you that you can't park in your own driveway. NAs might like to have that power, but thankfully they don't. Both exist to reinforce community standards (whatever they may be). The lack of a robust NA is what allowed the Hyde Park Baptist Church armageddon to occur. Surely you aren't in favor of megachurches and their giant parking garages occupying prime central real estate?

What would you like to see happen in NU and HP? Single-family houses bulldozed? I'm not sure what your alternative vision exactly is.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by mackenziep

I would say that the organizations are almost exactly analogous except that you have no choice but to join an HOA, and you pay them money to tell you that you can't park in your own driveway. NAs might like to have that power, but thankfully they don't. Both exist to reinforce community standards (whatever they may be). The lack of a robust NA is what allowed the Hyde Park Baptist Church armageddon to occur. Surely you aren't in favor of megachurches and their giant parking garages occupying prime central real estate?

What would you like to see happen in NU and HP? Single-family houses bulldozed? I'm not sure what your alternative vision exactly is.

My position is and always has been it is totally unrealistic to ban All MF housing from developing in the central city. NUNA and Hyde Park hold untenable positions on this and have totally abused the agreement when they crammed down the absurd McMansion ordnance down our throats.

I do not fear multifamily and attached SF development. I welcome it and can point to the best neighborhoods in the world being filled with such development.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by mackenziep

I would say that the organizations are almost exactly analogous except that you have no choice but to join an HOA, and you pay them money to tell you that you can't park in your own driveway. NAs might like to have that power, but thankfully they don't. Both exist to reinforce community standards (whatever they may be). The lack of a robust NA is what allowed the Hyde Park Baptist Church armageddon to occur. Surely you aren't in favor of megachurches and their giant parking garages occupying prime central real estate?

What would you like to see happen in NU and HP? Single-family houses bulldozed? I'm not sure what your alternative vision exactly is.

BTW, you are completely wrong. 100%. HOAs and NAs are not analogous at all. There is almost zero overlap in their function. They are not organized in the same way, they do not do the same things, they do not serve a remotely similar puprose.

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by Komeht

My position is and always has been it is totally unrealistic to ban All MF housing from developing in the central city. NUNA and Hyde Park hold untenable positions on this and have totally abused the agreement when they crammed down the absurd McMansion ordnance down our throats.

I do not fear multifamily and attached SF development. I welcome it and can point to the best neighborhoods in the world being filled with such development.

?

Since when is MF banned from NUNA and Hyde Park? Both neighborhoods are full of MF. Plenty of MF has gone up around the edges of both as well. McMansion, quite properly, seeks to preserve what remains of SF-3 in the neighborhoods. Without it, and the impervious cover regulations, we'd have things like the beach house monstrosities at 3500 Speedway all through supposedly "single family" zoned areas.

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by Komeht

That being said, the same kind of fearful crackpot typically occupies positions on both HOAs and NAs. They tend to be people with a lot of time on their hands who fear change - blue haired biddies and cranky old goats who think the highest calling in life is to fight pernicious crabgrass or a corner bar from ruining the character of the neighborhood.

Says someone who does not own real estate.

You tie up a signficant part of your net worth in your house and see how your opinions change on the matter.

[mackenziep]

Originally Posted by Komeht

My position is and always has been it is totally unrealistic to ban All MF housing from developing in the central city. NUNA and Hyde Park hold untenable positions on this and have totally abused the agreement when they crammed down the absurd McMansion ordnance down our throats.

I do not fear multifamily and attached SF development. I welcome it and can point to the best neighborhoods in the world being filled with such development.

OK then - point to the best neighborhoods that you're referring to. I'm pretty well-traveled - if I've been there, I can weigh in and then maybe we can have an apples-to-apples conversation. I would really like to know the name of a place that proudly points to the replacement of good quality single-family housing stock with apartment buildings for transient college students. I don't think you can.

[capcat]

Originally Posted by Komeht

-blue haired biddies and cranky old goats.

Thankfully, I'm not old enough to be in this age group, but that was such a disrespectful thing to say. It's one of the ills of our society.