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.
Is yours actually an HOA or a subdivision with restrictive covenants?
This one I'm thinking of where only some residents pay and responsible ones have to kick in more of their money for thing like trash removal, snow snoveling....it's even the same with landscaping at their entrance. If a turning vehicle runs over something or a tree comes down or something doesn't meet the deductible it's up to those same few all the time.
Neither. It's a voluntary NA. Snow removal is not an issue here. Trash is taken care of by the city, not the neighborhood. I make a small contribution towards the small (tiny, actually) landscaped area every year and also usually participate in the plant sale which goes towards the NA. I have no way of knowing who doesn't, and I'm not concerned if my neighbors do or don't. We have no covenants, only what the city requires.
Is yours actually an HOA or a subdivision with restrictive covenants?
This one I'm thinking of where only some residents pay and responsible ones have to kick in more of their money for thing like trash removal, snow snoveling....it's even the same with landscaping at their entrance. If a turning vehicle runs over something or a tree comes down or something doesn't meet the deductible it's up to those same few all the time.
NO, they're talking about a neighborhood ASSOCIATION - no different than a cooking club or book reading club. A loosely formed group of residents with no legal rights to do ANYTHING outside of the courts like an individual citizen.
A few residents who get together to do EXTRA stuff like repaint a sign at the entrance or plant a couple of flowers around it.
You're thinking of a CORPORATION (even if it is non profit) but this is more of a social club. A TRUE HOA is a corporation generally REGULATED by the STATE. Each state's law can be different but generally have the same common elements.
My mother's neighborhood's sign needed to be painted after 20 years. Some residents passed out flyers for donations to paint or replace it - depending on how much they got. Whoever wanted to - contributed. They ended up replacing the sign and planting a coupla flowers around it.
The funny thing is the new sign was WAY TOO SMALL and not even representative of a neighborhood of houses worth half a million dollars.
The people who didn't bother to get involved with the project had nothing to say about it since they didn't care BEFORE LOL. And it wasn't a big deal anyway; just a lot of eyerolling.
I think you're confused about the one you're thinking about. That is not how HOAs work. UNLESS the place if full of foreclosures and abandoned properties so there ARE NO PEOPLE to pick up the difference and they are in the process of losing the house anyway. You can lose your house if you don't pay your HOA fees in a legal HOA.
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.
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."
You have a lot to learn. You think an action has to be deliberate in order to cause harm to others? You ever hear about involuntary manslaughter? Hmm? Yep, that's people being punished for doing something stupid that they didn't intend to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shyguylh
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.
LOL So living next to barking dogs is annoying, but having to live next to a bright pink house isn't? Says who? You and your opinion? Congratulations, you are exactly the reason why HOAs had to be created in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shyguylh
In fact the law should MAKE THEM mind their own business
Quote:
Originally Posted by shyguylh
We're not the former USSR for crying out loud.
Too bad huh? The KGB would've been great at making people mind their own business!
I have lived here since 1971. I don't pay nor go to meetings. Those who pay can vote on elections. About half are members and half are not. I have made contributions to some projects like extra police and cameras. The reason I don't pay dues is because I don't want it to become something it is not now.
NO, they're talking about a neighborhood ASSOCIATION - no different than a cooking club or book reading club. A loosely formed group of residents with no legal rights to do ANYTHING outside of the courts like an individual citizen.
A few residents who get together to do EXTRA stuff like repaint a sign at the entrance or plant a couple of flowers around it.
You're thinking of a CORPORATION (even if it is non profit) but this is more of a social club. A TRUE HOA is a corporation generally REGULATED by the STATE. Each state's law can be different but generally have the same common elements.
My mother's neighborhood's sign needed to be painted after 20 years. Some residents passed out flyers for donations to paint or replace it - depending on how much they got. Whoever wanted to - contributed. They ended up replacing the sign and planting a coupla flowers around it.
The funny thing is the new sign was WAY TOO SMALL and not even representative of a neighborhood of houses worth half a million dollars.
The people who didn't bother to get involved with the project had nothing to say about it since they didn't care BEFORE LOL. And it wasn't a big deal anyway; just a lot of eyerolling.
I think you're confused about the one you're thinking about. That is not how HOAs work. UNLESS the place if full of foreclosures and abandoned properties so there ARE NO PEOPLE to pick up the difference and they are in the process of losing the house anyway. You can lose your house if you don't pay your HOA fees in a legal HOA.
I think the difference is loosely formed neighborhood association (in states I know they have restrictive covenants with the land records but not much and more general rather than bylaws and a board and a manager, etc.).....neighborhood association as opposed to incorporated Homeowner Association.
I've been in some neighborhood associations that got the benefit of pretty swift law enforcement in the city to enforce city ordinances....and others that were more laid back.
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.
I've been in many good ones, a few great ones and one terrible one. And, guess what. Never again for an actual HOA. Once burned holds true when it deals with the essentials of life...family, home and finances.
I will say, when you don't know going in how bad it could be...okay. But previously having had such great experiences it didn't seem to be a problem. Basically, we understood there was no reason to join a football team and expect to play baseball. We knew there were rules and expectations. It always worked out until that last one.
You have a lot to learn. You think an action has to be deliberate in order to cause harm to others? You ever hear about involuntary manslaughter? Hmm? Yep, that's people being punished for doing something stupid that they didn't intend to do.
So you now impose a requirement that a neighbor appease your aesthetic preference and equate a failure/refusal to do so with the crime of manslaughter? Sounds like a typical HOA corp board member.
"Property in a thing consists not merely in its ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted right of use, enjoyment, and disposal. Anything which destroys any of the elements of property, to that extent, destroys the property itself. The substantial value of property lies in its use. If the right of use be denied, the value of the property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren right."
Ackerman v. Port of Seattle, 55 Wn.2d 400, 409, 348 P.2d 664 (1960) (quoting from Spann v. City of Dallas, 111 Tex. 350, 355, 235 S.W. 513, 19 A.L.R. 1387 (1921)).
The injury or annoyance which warrants relief against an alleged nuisance must be of a real
and substantial character, and such as impairs the ordinary enjoyment, physically, of the property within its sphere; for if the injury or inconvenience be merely theoretical, or if it be slight or trivial, or fanciful, or one of mere delicacy or fastidiousness, there is no nuisance in a legal sense. Thus the law will not declare a thing a nuisance because it is unsightly or disfigured, because it is not in a proper or suitable condition, or because it is unpleasant to the eye and a violation of the rules of propriety and good taste, for the law does not cater to men's tastes or consult their convenience merely, but only guards and upholds their material rights, and shields them from unwarrantable invasion.
Shamburger v. Scheurrer, 198 S.W. 1069, 1071-1072 (Tex. Civ. App. - Fort Worth 1917, no writ)
[m]atters that annoy by being disagreeable, unsightly, and undesirable are not nuisances simply because they may to some extent affect the value of property
Dallas Land & Loan Co. v. Garrett, 276 S.W. 471, 474 (Tex. Civ. App. - Dallas 1925, no
writ)
Notice the pattern? Is there some concentration of anti-property rights delusionals in the Dallas area that believe other property owners need the permission of the deluded?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MckinneyOwnr
LOL So living next to barking dogs is annoying, but having to live next to a bright pink house isn't? Says who? You and your opinion? Congratulations, you are exactly the reason why HOAs had to be created in the first place.
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!
HOAs were not created for the benefit of any of the homeowners - they are created for the benefit of the developer, local government, and the vendors that feed off the HOA corp and homeowners - never the homeowner. Of course there are also the egos of HOA board members that need to be constantly satiated through threats and demands imposed on other property owners.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 11-10-2014 at 06:20 PM..
HOAs were not created for the benefit of any of the homeowners - they are created for the benefit of the developer, local government, and the vendors that feed off the HOA corp and homeowners - never the homeowner.
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 think the difference is loosely formed neighborhood association (in states I know they have restrictive covenants with the land records but not much and more general rather than bylaws and a board and a manager, etc.).....neighborhood association as opposed to incorporated Homeowner Association.
I've been in some neighborhood associations that got the benefit of pretty swift law enforcement in the city to enforce city ordinances....and others that were more laid back.
A "neighborhood association" can be incorporated.
In any event, regardless of whether the "association" is an incorporated entity or an unincorporated entity, it is an entity completely separate and apart from the homeowners and is not a reference to the homeowners themselves.
Whether or not the "association" is incorporated is an organizational structure issue and has nothing to do with whether there are restrictive covenants mandating involuntary membership in such an organization.
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.
