Best suburb/ neighborhood of Cincy WITHOUT HOA's? (Cincinnati, Evendale: apartment, foreclosure)

[progmac]

Originally Posted by kjbrill

HOAs are not the only method to protect property values. A well planned subdivision will have a set of covenants attached to the plat/deeds to cover a range of undesirable activities such as prohit front yard fences, prohibit the parking of RVs in direct view of neighbors, prohit off road parking other than on paved surfaces, plus a host of others. Always ask for a list of the covenants when considering purchasing property. In higher end developments they may be very comprehensive and restrictive, such as no chain link fencing, no detached storage structures, even down to the exterior paint colors which may be used.

The argument against covenants is that it involves the local government in fairly trivial neighborhood squabbles. Said government may lack the staffing or motivation to get involved. Imagine having to enforce 400 sets of rules for 400 different subdivisions. Hence, HOA.

[kjbrill]

So the HOA is better than a set of covenants? If someone violates the covenants and nothing is done, you take them to court. The HOA is more prone to the decision/feelings/prejudices of the current officers. I would rather battle something in black and white than the igos of individuals.

[t45209]

A good friend of mine lives in Loveland, pays a stiff HOA. Last year there was huge controversy because someone painted their front door the wrong color! Oh, the humanity!

[Ohiogirl81]

If I lived in an HOA neighborhood, I'd gladly pay a fine once or twice a year just to honk people off! LOL I'd be the one with the purple door ... or the clothesline heavy with dangling undies ...

[Briolat21]

the problem with overly insane HOAs is that it isn't 1 fine, its continuing fines, with continuing fees - that could easily drive someone into bankruptcy...

over something that is after all - personal taste.

Our HOA was going to institute a new fine fee - which there is nothing in the covenants about. But the board decided they could, without a vote from the community.

1st violation $200. 2nd violation (same offense) - $500. 3rd violation - $1000.

They said "this is not meant to be punitive" I told them that simply writing that, doesn't in fact take away the fact that such high amounts are CLEARLY punitive - and would be clearly used as a club to drive people from the community.

then you also have things like the fact that our HOA documents state clearly that prior approval of an item does not constitute "precedent". So if your buddy puts up a shed, and is approved and it looks a certain way ... you could apply for the exact same thing - and be denied.

Because it it is totally subjective.

Knowing what I do now (this was our first HOA experience) - I'd never buy in an HOA neighborhood again. Sorry - I'd look for the most stable, oldest neighorhood I liked. If that means there's a statistical chance the guy next to me is going to put up a windmill - no prob.

I'd take that over being driven to bankruptcy for gardening and door paint.

[StuckHereinFL]

Yep. I live in an HOA neighborhood. The builder pulled out. Shortly thereafter the HOA management pulled out (days after collecting fees for the quarter). Common areas went to hell. A new builder came in, hired the same management company who now expects to be paid for a quarter in which absolutely no services were provided. Oh but we should be grateful they forgave the a years worth of fees in which no services were provided.

They used to require approval to plant a freaking plant in your yard. thankfully the Florida Friendly landscaping laws passed and supercede HOA regulations.

[kjbrill]

One of the biggest problems with HOAs is a few people then feel anointed for their 15 minutes of fame. They have been charged to protect the community from all of you reprobates who want to destroy it. Problem is, many times this is strictly a situation of personal preference. But because they have been anointed, they can prevent you from exercising your personal rights. HOAs are just full of self-righteous people who know their's is the only validated approach. Where else do we see this, try both the Democrat and Republican parties.

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by progmac

The argument against covenants is that it involves the local government in fairly trivial neighborhood squabbles. Said government may lack the staffing or motivation to get involved. Imagine having to enforce 400 sets of rules for 400 different subdivisions. Hence, HOA.

The implication that the existence of an HOA is mutually exclusive from restrictive covenants is misleading.

Restrictive covenants are used to burden property with involuntary membership in an HOA corporation. In other words, this isn't an "either/or" choice between restrictive covenants vs an HOA. If there is an HOA there are also going to be restrictive covenants. If there are restrictive covenants there may or may not be an HOA.

[Sarah Perry]

A tangential comment: I myself wouldn't want to live in an HOA neighborhood based on just the type of scenario described by Briolat21. But I do wish I'd known beforehand that the city I moved into (Cincinnati) was so lax about enforcing its own zoning code. It's nearly a black and white contrast to my experience in Lexington, which was the only other place my husband and I had been homeowners. My advice to anyone considering moving into whatever jurisdiction is to talk to residents and others to find out how enforcement's handled. Laws on the books are not worth the paper they're printed on when they're not enforced.

[ryanf03]

well to answer your actual question, I would recommend looking in Evendale.