Renting in violation of hoa (Tiger: foreclosures, renters, countertops) - Atlanta - Georgia (GA) - City-Data Forum

Onyxhawk · 03-26-2008, 09:51 AM

Correct me if I am wrong. The HOA has the 'right' (and I use this term very loosely) to dictate things that happen outside the house/property. They have no jurisdiction on what occurs inside the property. In my mind, the 'no rent' rule is like saying that owners cannot paint their bedrooms hot pink or red & black, if that as their preference. Unless 'they' (HOA) start paying property owners' mortgages or can explain/prove that 'renters' will depreciate the value of the community, they should have no say in the matter.

I would guess that if there were more properties rented (with close to a positive cash flow), there would be less foreclosures and therefore better property values in that community.

Quote:

Originally Posted by postprime

I tend to agree with you on this, but the problem would be that absentee owners would be deciding who is qualified. Also, it would be difficult to change rule because of high percentage of senior residents who would oppose it.

lastminutemom · 03-26-2008, 09:54 AM

Actually, in townhome and condominiums (which have HOAs), many of the complexes/communities built in the last 10 years or so do have a limit on the number of homes that can be rental units (usually 25 percent). Additionally, some governments will put caps on rental units when developers need rezonings to build condo/townhome complexes.

postprime · 03-26-2008, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onyxhawk

Correct me if I am wrong. The HOA has the 'right' (and I use this term very loosely) to dictate things that happen outside the house/property. They have no jurisdiction on what occurs inside the property. In my mind, the 'no rent' rule is like saying that owners cannot paint their bedrooms hot pink or red & black, if that as their preference. Unless 'they' (HOA) start paying property owners' mortgages or can explain/prove that 'renters' will depreciate the value of the community, they should have no say in the matter.

I would guess that if there were more properties rented (with close to a positive cash flow), there would be less foreclosures and therefore better property values in that community.

Point taken, but eveyone who buys here signs an agreement at closing that states the rules of the hoa. Based on my limited knowledge of the law, such agreements are binding.

plessthanpointohfive · 03-26-2008, 10:22 AM

I HATE HOAs. I'd rather have an LSU Tiger painted house as one neighbor and a chop shop as another than live under an HOA. Grrrrrrrrrrr.

spacelord75 · 03-26-2008, 10:35 AM

We had this as a rule at my old development (Providence in Mab'n) but I don't see how they enforced it. I know that there were/are tons of units for rent and I don't understand how they could quantify how many. Having said that, I understand the reasons behind the rule, as not everyone is diligent in screening renters, but I think many of these rules were written without knowing the abandonment issues caused by mass foreclosures like we have now (as stated above by another poster).

Onyxhawk · 03-26-2008, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plessthanpointohfive

I HATE HOAs. I'd rather have an LSU Tiger painted house as one neighbor and a chop shop as another than live under an HOA. Grrrrrrrrrrr.

Cute. Point taken though.

wxjay · 03-26-2008, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onyxhawk

Correct me if I am wrong. The HOA has the 'right' (and I use this term very loosely) to dictate things that happen outside the house/property. They have no jurisdiction on what occurs inside the property. In my mind, the 'no rent' rule is like saying that owners cannot paint their bedrooms hot pink or red & black, if that as their preference.

Well, as a member of an HOA board, let me certainly correct you here.

Painting your room hot pink is something that is only seen from the inside of your unit. Replacing your countertops is a decor change that only impacts you. But when your behaviors impact other people, common property, etc., then it is under the HOA to step in.

Renters in a community are not just inside your unit. They use common areas, they interact with neighboring units in the complex, etc. In my complex, the major nuisances we have with noise, improperly parked cars, damage to common areas, and the such come overwhelmingly from renters. Simply put, renters do not have a vested interest in the appearance of their community or of how their neighbors like them necessarily - it's a "temporary" stay for them. With homeowners, however, your interest is in maintaining your property value. For a condo or townhome community (even in a single family neighborhood to a degree), this value comes not just from the inside of your unit but from the quality and condition of the neighbors and the common areas. In that sense, having the rental cap established (or no rental cap, which some communities choose) is definitely a power that the HOA must exercise.

Quote:

Unless 'they' (HOA) start paying property owners' mortgages or can explain/prove that 'renters' will depreciate the value of the community, they should have no say in the matter.

I think I have provided evidence above about why renters are statistically more problematic than residents in terms of upkeep and maintaining property values. Couple that with the fact that many buyers seek a neighborhood where they can mingle with other homeowners and not just people who are in and out every 6 months, and there is enough evidence to warrant having rental caps.

Quote:

I would guess that if there were more properties rented (with close to a positive cash flow), there would be less foreclosures and therefore better property values in that community.

You would guess incorrectly.

plessthanpointohfive · 03-26-2008, 11:21 AM

I have a problem with this phrase: "statistically more problematic". What does that mean? Did someone do a logistic regression? Or better yet, a Poisson regression? Modeling the count of transgressions from renters and homeowners? Did they find a rate ratio of 4? or even 2? Was the lower limit of the confidence interval above 1? How far above 1? Did the chi-square test for the parameter estimate show that PLESSTHANPOINTOHFIVE?

I crack myself up!

Onyxhawk · 03-26-2008, 11:33 AM

wxjay - I can understand some of your points, but I would have to disagree with some.

For example, I think it is generalizing to assume that ALL renters have no interest in the upkeep if their home/rental properties.

And, less foreclosures due to renting DOES increase ro stabilize property values in ANY community. This is a fact, not a guess by the way.

As a member of the HOA in your community, you do have insight and I can understand where you are coming from, but you can't (shouldn't) stereotype or generalize. I have rented and I have owned and I haven't treated either with less respect or responsibility. And I am sure there are a lot of others who have treated their 'homes' with just as much respect.

todd_307 · 03-26-2008, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plessthanpointohfive

I have a problem with this phrase: "statistically more problematic". What does that mean? Did someone do a logistic regression? Or better yet, a Poisson regression? Modeling the count of transgressions from renters and homeowners? Did they find a rate ratio of 4? or even 2? Was the lower limit of the confidence interval above 1? How far above 1? Did the chi-square test for the parameter estimate show that PLESSTHANPOINTOHFIVE?

I crack myself up!

lol u always crack me up