Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
We've already established you don't know a damn thing about the topic at hand except for your own ill informed opinion. Let us know when you can converse with some actual facts vs legalese from 1925 that you wholly do not understand and that does not even apply to the topic.
I won't hold my breath.
I didn't see any facts in your postings. I did observe you have an inflated sense of self-worth when it came down to whether your desires as to your neighbor's house should prevail over the desires of the actual owner of the house.
The topic was "Advantages of HOAs". The point is "there aren't any". HOA-burdened property does seem to be a breeding ground or collection point for folks like yourself which is another reason the OP should avoid them like the plague. There is no shortage of folks that have insatiable desire to control and oppress neighboring property owners. I doubt the OP wants to buy a house and be subjected to a neighbor like you who believes he should have prior approval over the neighbor's house.
Here's a fact for you: I represent homeowners that have been victimized by folks like yourself. I've prevailed against HOAs and jacka$$ board members in court. Is that a fact that you like? I don't use emoticons in legal pleadings - they are unprofessional and tend to undermine the writing as well as the writer as evidenced by your use of emoticons.
In one of the more recent cases that an HOA corp (i.e., its board members) lost, the board settled for a large payout - of other people's money of course. You know the board members sounded a lot like you right up until the end. For years they proclaimed "those people" were "harming property values". They sure clammed up about losing. They just stuck with the same mantra they used for everything: "might harm property values if people found out". Kinda the same mantra used for embezzlement, lawsuits, fraud, record concealment, etc., etc., - the type of activity frequently found in involuntary membership organizations, notably HOA corporations.
Your apparent distaste of pink is not a relevant fact concerning the topic at hand. Perhaps you could enlighten readers with facts about the topic at hand?
The topic was "Advantages of HOAs". The point is "there aren't any". HOA-burdened property does seem to be a breeding ground or collection point for folks like yourself which is another reason the OP should avoid them like the plague. There is no shortage of folks that have insatiable desire to control and oppress neighboring property owners. I doubt the OP wants to buy a house and be subjected to a neighbor like you who believes he should have prior approval over the neighbor's house.
And that right there is why you have a biased opinion... not founded in anything resembling reason or intelligence.
Here's a fact for you: I represent homeowners that have been victimized by folks like yourself. I've prevailed against HOAs and jacka$$ board members in court. Is that a fact that you like? I don't use emoticons in legal pleadings - they are unprofessional and tend to undermine the writing as well as the writer as evidenced by your use of emoticons.
Since you have no qualms about posting legalese about other cases that have nothing to do with HOAs in a pathetic attempt to prove a point, by all means, post up the relevant details regarding your victories against them in court. Case name, number, etc. Would love to read all about it. Unless of course... you're just lying out of your a$$... which I have no doubt.
I don't care for HOAs and I tend to think they shouldn't even be allowed to exist.
What business is it of yours if I want to paint my house pink? Really, how is that any of your business? No, property values don't count towards that, that I paint my house something other than tan or beige or brown just happens to cause a reduction in value towards your home is an "incidental byproduct," not a deliberate act, and my rights to paint MY house MY way shouldn't be trampled on because of your freaking precious property values. You reply "pay $150,000 for a home and then come back and talk to me." I say "when I work my fingers to the point making $1,500 monthly payments and incurring thousands of dollars in interest over those years towards paying $150,000 for MY house with MY NAME on it, I don't want some communist-like bureaucrat coming around telling me I can't do it when they didn't pay $150,000 for MY HOUSE and it doesn't infringe on them in any deliberate sort of way."
To me, it's all in the name, BUYING a home vs RENTING a home. If we were talking about rentals, then that's one thing. But when I BUY a home, it's MINE. Period. Either it's mine to do with as I please, or it's not, no in-between, no mudding up the words and the concept of OWNERSHIP. I don't care about you across the road, this is MY home, that's YOUR home. You tend to YOUR fence, I'll tend to mine. I don't care what color you paint your house, it's YOUR house to paint whatever color you darn well please. The same goes with mine. (Again, if we're renting, then that's a different thing altogether.)
It amuses, or irritates (I can't decide which), me to no end that someone thinks that because they can SEE a neighbor's yard with a pink roof or a yellow fence or whatever and be so bothered by something that petty, such makes it okay to infringe on that person's right to make their house truly THEIR house vs having to be like everyone else and paint their home off-white or brown. We're not the former USSR for crying out loud. I could understand, say, noise issues, especially barking dogs. A neighbor with 15 hunting dogs that never shut up or, more likely, with 2-3 yorkies that never shut their piehole and yap at everything, that truly is something that is a legitimate bother to other people, I can totally understand that. I can also understand lack of maintenance in yards, but ONLY if that means that others now have more rodents in their yard; that it looks offensive, oh well, it's no one else's business.
I mean, should I not be allowed to drive a pink or hot-yellow car because others don't like its appearance and consider that trashy? After all, the roads are public, my car isn't an island all of its own. No, taste isn't legislated in that way, nor should it be with someone's HOME that cost them like $150,000 and it's their HOME. My rights with respect to my car are only limited when it means someone's life is in danger, which is understandable (although they take it too far a lot of the time with ridiculously-slow speed limits and stop lights seemingly every 0.001 miles vs spreading them out at least 2-3 miles apart), this despite the fact that the roads are public.
A man's home is his castle, HIS castle, not the neighborhood's castle. I could care less, nor do I think I SHOULD care less, nor do I think others should be made to care less, what others with their noses stuck about 15 miles up in the air think of MY yard and MY house that I paid for and they didn't. I don't care, nor should I care, that my house is part of a group of other homes. I don't care about them, nor do I INTEND to care about them, nor do I expect anyone else to care about the others around them with respect to pink fences and purple roofs, nor should the law make anyone do so. In fact the law should MAKE THEM mind their own business (aside from REAL concerns like noise pollution or causing your neighbors to have more rodents and such in their yard due to your neglect) and if that means flat-out abolishing all HOAs completely, then I say great.
Wrong. If you and I were neighbors and you painted your home chartreuse and that hurt my property value...........it would be my business. Same with cars, grass and all manner of things.
People who think like you need to live somewhere between Celina and Sherman.
Here's a fact for you: I represent homeowners that have been victimized by folks like yourself. I've prevailed against HOAs and jacka$$ board members in court. Is that a fact that you like? I don't use emoticons in legal pleadings - they are unprofessional and tend to undermine the writing as well as the writer as evidenced by your use of emoticons.
Since you have no qualms about posting legalese about other cases that have nothing to do with HOAs in a pathetic attempt to prove a point, by all means, post up the relevant details regarding your victories against them in court. Case name, number, etc. Would love to read all about it. Unless of course... you're just lying out of your a$$... which I have no doubt.
Enjoy that one too, purely at your expense.
I suspect meeting you in court is inevitable given your proclivities.
The cases illustrate the court's opinion as to attitudes like yours. You've experienced no harm. Your insecurity/phobia regarding the color pink is your deficiency, not your neighbor's.
Older cases were cited to illustrate that folks trying to control other people's property have been around for a long time. The quotes illustrate how the courts dealt with the feigned harm and sensitivities of the aesthetic police.
Now back on the OP's topic - there are no advantages to HOAs and they don't "preserve" or "enhance property value". Various trade groups profiting from HOAs or the owners of HOA-burdened property have made claims to the contrary for decades yet they haven't been able to come up with any empirical evidence to support their claim. The promoters also ignore the risk and the carrying costs (assessments, special assessments, litigation costs, fees), the lack of any obligation of the HOA corp to the owners, and the devaluation to the owner due to perpetual liens and loss of use and enjoyment of the property.
I suspect meeting you in court is inevitable given your proclivities.
The cases illustrate the court's opinion as to attitudes like yours. You've experienced no harm. Your insecurity/phobia regarding the color pink is your deficiency, not your neighbor's.
Older cases were cited to illustrate that folks trying to control other people's property have been around for a long time. The quotes illustrate how the courts dealt with the feigned harm and sensitivities of the aesthetic police.
Now back on the OP's topic - there are no advantages to HOAs and they don't "preserve" or "enhance property value". Various trade groups profiting from HOAs or the owners of HOA-burdened property have made claims to the contrary for decades yet they haven't been able to come up with any empirical evidence to support their claim. The promoters also ignore the risk and the carrying costs (assessments, special assessments, litigation costs, fees), the lack of any obligation of the HOA corp to the owners, and the devaluation to the owner due to perpetual liens and loss of use and enjoyment of the property.
LOL! I was on an HOA board and various committees of a large subdivision (~350 homes) in Plano for the best part of two decades.
Over that span the HOA filed precisely one lien and that was in efforts to kick a meth cook out of the neighborhood - guess what it worked.
IF you don't like HOAs don't live a neighborhood with an HOA. It's really simple.
Wrong. If you and I were neighbors and you painted your home chartreuse and that hurt my property value...........it would be my business. Same with cars, grass and all manner of things.
People who think like you need to live somewhere between Celina and Sherman.
And people who think they have the right to tell what color to paint MY house shouldn't be allowed to live anywhere in the entire US whatsoever simply for HAVING that opinion, much less putting it into action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
Opinion? Isn't that exactly what your aesthetic preferences are? Why should the neighbor's opinion trump the owner's opinion? A barking dog is considered a legal nuisance. A pink house is not. How about that!
Exactly. Barking dogs are one of many forms of noise pollution. Those are totally understandable concerns. However, to CHOOSE to be "offended" at someone's pink house, come on now, that's being ridiculous. That's simply legislating TASTE. Barking dogs aren't a matter of taste, they're a matter of noise pollution. A pink house isn't "polluting" anything. It's like being in public--do you really think that a person, say, wearing some type of ridiculous-looking shirt is anywhere near the same sort of thing as a person making awful noises like squalling or going "eh!" (like a buzzer) loudly?
As for property values--that's just insane, that one should have to alter their life over property values. So I suppose that if they found a correlation between how I dressed when I'm outdoors watering the plants or whatever, then there could be dress codes on my own property because of that? I might have to wear a suit and tie outdoors instead of torn jeans? Dress codes on my property--really? To me it's the same thing when you try and dictate to me the color of my house. Mind your own business, bucko.
Again, though, the big part of all of this to me is that we're talking about home OWNERSHIP. Much of this HOA nonsense, I'd be apt to be much more agreeable to it if we were talking about people who were RENTING a place. To me, though, ownership and the rights that go with it are something I take seriously. Ownership means nothing whatsoever if you have 8032 limitations on what you can do with it that are based on other people's tastes. If you own something, it should be yours to do whatever you want to do with it PERIOD. To me, in principal it is IMPOSSIBLE to own a home and have such limitations. If you do, then you don't actually own it to any extent at all whatsoever. Zero.
And people who think they have the right to tell what color to paint MY house shouldn't be allowed to live anywhere in the entire US whatsoever simply for HAVING that opinion, much less putting it into action.
Exactly. Barking dogs are one of many forms of noise pollution. Those are totally understandable concerns. However, to CHOOSE to be "offended" at someone's pink house, come on now, that's being ridiculous. That's simply legislating TASTE. Barking dogs aren't a matter of taste, they're a matter of noise pollution. A pink house isn't "polluting" anything. It's like being in public--do you really think that a person, say, wearing some type of ridiculous-looking shirt is anywhere near the same sort of thing as a person making awful noises like squalling or going "eh!" (like a buzzer) loudly?
As for property values--that's just insane, that one should have to alter their life over property values. So I suppose that if they found a correlation between how I dressed when I'm outdoors watering the plants or whatever, then there could be dress codes on my own property because of that? I might have to wear a suit and tie outdoors instead of torn jeans? Dress codes on my property--really? To me it's the same thing when you try and dictate to me the color of my house. Mind your own business, bucko.
Again, though, the big part of all of this to me is that we're talking about home OWNERSHIP. Much of this HOA nonsense, I'd be apt to be much more agreeable to it if we were talking about people who were RENTING a place. To me, though, ownership and the rights that go with it are something I take seriously. Ownership means nothing whatsoever if you have 8032 limitations on what you can do with it that are based on other people's tastes. If you own something, it should be yours to do whatever you want to do with it PERIOD. To me, in principal it is IMPOSSIBLE to own a home and have such limitations. If you do, then you don't actually own it to any extent at all whatsoever. Zero.
After you've, of free will and sound mind, signed a legal contract - the people in your HOA community absolutely do have the right to limit some of the choices you might make regarding your home.
Older cases were cited to illustrate that folks trying to control other people's property have been around for a long time. The quotes illustrate how the courts dealt with the feigned harm and sensitivities of the aesthetic police.
Still waiting for you to give the details of the cases you've supposedly won. And, the older cases you cited have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand, they are not related to HOAs, and do not help the argument you are trying to make, only making you look more foolish.
Here's the truth... you're a former homeowner that couldn't be bothered/not intelligent enough to understand the HOA bylaws for a home you'd just purchased, and then you wanted to make changes in extremely poor taste and your neighbors (who probably didn't like you much at all to begin with, who can blame them) reported you, and the HOA fined you and you whined and cried and eventually moved out and no one missed you.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
