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.
Wrongo travelguy_73. These "strong civic club/HOAs" act like the KKK terrorizing homeowners and extorting money from them. The currency of exchange for board members is ego and sometimes money. The currency of exchange for the attorneys and management companies is the money.
Once they become involuntary membership organizations is when the trouble starts. As far as deed restrictions are concerned, any homeowner can enforce them. In addition, the city has a deed enforcement program which purports to allow the city to enforce the deed restrictions.
The people behind this ARE going to dictate every aspect of your life. That's why they are seeking all the authority of 204 which was written by the HOA attorneys for the HOA attorneys and management companies. 204 allows them to create "rules" (not deed restrictions) at the whim of the board which were never deed restrictions. This board of this "civic association" is seeking to have extraordinary control over the property that does not belong to the civic association. The civic association will justify any conduct under the pre-text of aesthetics. Anything this group decides is "ugly" will be deemed undesirable and offensive without regard to the property owners rights in his/her own property.
If this was such a beneficient organization, they wouldn't be seeking the power to foreclose judicially on homeowners property. Note they are also seeking the power to foreclose nonjudicially. Hey why bother with the courts, right?
The all powerful board will declare what the "rules" will be, what constitutes a violation, and who is in violation, regardless of whether you agree and regardless of whether they are correct. The board alleges an offense, demands payment for the offense, and has the constable escort the homeowner from their own home when the HOA forecloses because the owner refused. Once caught in this trap the subdivision will become a foreclosure mill for the HOA attorneys who profit from the accusations of violations and all the ensuing litigation. The HOA attorneys and management companies will be constantly suggesting ways to "improve" properties by proposing new restrictions, rules, etc. that restrict what the owners can do with their properties. This creates more opportunities for fines, lawsuits, etc. for accusations of violations which is why the management companies and HOA attorneys are there in the first place.
They aren't following the law and those attorneys (and the city of Houston) have been seeking to find ways to skirt the requirements for several years. Guess what? If the HOA gets sued, the board members are indemnified for their actions, the HOA has an insurance policy paying for its defense, and any other financial resources are simply extracted from the involuntary members under threat of foreclosure of their homes. Exactly what would your proposed cause of action against the law firm be? They were representing the HOA corporation, not you.
It's interesting that you expect the homeowners defending against an involuntary membership organization to bear their own expenses, but you expect them to be forced to fund a litigious HOA that will be targeting them.
The people pushing this petition aren't interested in limiting their powers to enforcing existing deed restrictions. If homeowners really wanted this "civic association" they can voluntarily support it. A voluntary organization must keep its members happy to keep the members. An involuntary organization tends to prey upon its members. The fact that this group wants membership to be involuntary automatically implies that it won't be in the best interests of the property owners.
Westbury is the subdivision and will not be dictating anything. The HOA corporation is a private person under the law. Don't confuse the HOA corporation with the subdivision or the people that live in the subdivision. The distinction is often masked by people that like to use the word "association" or "club" rather than HOA corporation. If you read the petition, it is quite clear that the board of this wanna be HOA corporation absolutely wants to control every aspect of property that doesn't belong to them or the corporation. If they weren't planning to exercise such authority then they wouldn't be seeking such authority with this petition.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 01-05-2010 at 06:39 PM..
The purpose of a forum is for sharing different views. Neither you nor travelguy can offer any facts or documents to support your viewpoint. I have, I can, and I will. Anyone else reading the forum can decide for themselves the value of opinions, yours included. Maybe readers like the OP would question the unsubstantiated logic of commenters who "believe" perpetual liens that can never be paid off, ever-increasing assessments, constant litigation, etc. would "improve" property values or quality of life for the property owners who will be the target of that litigation. They might also want to consider whether an HOA could ever "improve" property values or whether a false promise regarding property values is fair trade for foregoing their primary purpose for purchasing a home.
At the very least, perhaps to the extent prospective purchasers can avoid property burdened with an involuntary association, people will think twice before risking their home and their life savings prior purchasing a home in one. They can only make a choice if a) a choice is available, and b) they have reliable information. They won't get the latter from Realtors, the city of Houston, or sellers that live in an HOA. You see it's difficult to sell a defective product when you have to advertise the problems.
In that general geographic area, the residents of Willowbend recently thwarted an attempt by a similar group that tried to subject their property to involuntary associations. The "pro-HOA" despots (of course with themselves in charge) could only come up with the same tired, untrue myths about the "values" of HOAs. It didn't take long to dispel the myths. Property values in Willowbend rose because they did not have an HOA. Neighboring HOA burdened properties fell dramatically. Of course, "property values" as a sole metric also fails to reveal the significantly increased cost of ownership to homeowners, the liability that the HOA represents, and the decreased quality of life they will experience as a result of the HOA and its vendors. Not exactly the environment the OP was seeking.
So far the residents of Westbury have been able to avoid the loss of their property but the tricksters never stop trying to take it. The tactic in the current approach is to promise existing homeowners something for nothing - "only future owners will have to be members and pay". You can read the document for yourself since I provided it for you.
Look at Southampton Civic Club in the Rice area. The "club" decided to adopt "rules" because the club's president didn't like certain things. Based upon this, the "club" began threatening residents. That club is a voluntary one and now apparently less than half the residents participate - because the club does not operate in the interests of any owners other than the board members and their cabal. So what if the voluntary club board adopts a "rule". The club is at best a "private person" under the law. No other private person can just decide to create their own rule and then insist that their rule be treated as a law punishable by private fines, etc. Yet that is what these HOA boards do and the actions of both of the voluntary clubs illustrate that they do not operate in the interests of the property owner. No wonder people don't want to be members - that's why both clubs are trying to force involuntary membership.
As for whether these HOAs/clubs often act like the KKK threatening to destroy property owners, just ask Sanchez (the target of the Southampton club's litigation). The "club" believes it is entitled to collect $200/day for a harm that the club never incurred, over property that the club does not own, from people who are not members of the club. The club brags in its newsletters about the current state of the law that permits the club to collect attorney fees if it wins but not having any liability to the property owner if it loses. This IS provoking the lawsuits and the HOA attorneys are more than happy to encourage such litigation. In fact there are a number in the area (Gammon for one) that offer to represent the HOA on contingencies because the property owners home (the target) will be the security for the attorneys fees.
One observation regarding Southampton is that their club's insurance will go up dramatically due to the litigation and that will likely drive even more people away from having their money thrown away on the board members' personal agendas. Of course the club would need to share financial information with its contributors for the contributors to find out how their money was spent. The boards of both of the civic clubs and many others in the Houston area are seeking to take that choice away from the property owners by pursuing involuntary membership.
Southampton, Willowbend, Woodbury, (and there are many more) are just a few examples of older neighborhoods that are presently free from mandatory HOAs where the city and other organized groups are trying to impose mandatory membership HOAs. The homeowners are not the beneficiaries of these organizations.
Prospective purchasers might want to be aware of what is going on in the subdivisions they are considering purchasing in and research the true nature of HOAs as well as the HOA litigation racket in the Houston area. Out-of-state potential residents such as the OP would likely be shocked at the HOA racket in the Houston area. You have your opinion and I have mine. However, isn't the only opinion that counts ultimately that of the OP who is looking to purchase real estate in the area? Maybe she values comments supported by evidence rather than unsubstantiated myths about the virtues (none) of involuntary membership corporations.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 01-06-2010 at 10:02 AM..
Sure, somewhat, but goodness when you throw around the name of groups like the KKK, you lose ALL credibility, no matter how strong your position is--you are on the fringe, case closed.
As in life, both extremes typically go a bit overboard, with the answers somewhere in the middle. IC deLight makes some good points, and raises good questions that all homeowners need to ask, and not just blindly think that HOA board members have their best interest at heart. Like the political arena, a typical board is filled with members who have (1) a genuine interest in their community, (2) an axe to grind, (3) control issues, (4) or higher aspirations. You always hope for number one, but invariably get two, three, and four as well. In my 12 years of home ownership, I have served on two civic club boards (the Westbury board being one of them, though this was about 10 years ago), and generally we have been lucky to have worked with a good mix of people who wanted to do the best job they could for the neighborhood (keep in mind that Westbury civic club is responsible for more than 5,000 homes, so this is no small task).
I have worked the deed restriction update process twice now, and in a city neighborhood of eclectic homes and people, it is hard to strike a balance between too tough and too lenient. And then there is always the issue of how to pay to enforce violations, because yes, at times you actually do have to take legal action to get someone to clean up their pool to stop breeding mosquitoes, or to repair their fence which was knocked over during a storm. It happens, and residents expect the civic club or HOA to take care of the matter quickly and efficiently.
If the WCC isn't going about deed restriction or by-law updates in a transparent way, then it is up to the members of the community to get involved/elected and fix the problem. So in that sense I applaud IC_deLight for being interested enough to speak on the matter. But there is a right way and a wrong way, and IMO launching on long diatribes isn't going to convince anyone to do anything but tune out.
Sure, somewhat, but goodness when you throw around the name of groups like the KKK, you lose ALL credibility, no matter how strong your position is--you are on the fringe, case closed.
Yet the boards of both organizations like to wear "hoods" to avoid personal responsibility for their actions. Residents can enforce a restrictive covenant on their own but board member wannabes dare not do that. That's why they want to be on a board. While wearing the hood of the association, board members can "enforce" restrictive covenants without worrying about personal financial liability. Now they just claim they are "following the rules" and bear no responsibility for their actions, right? This is the same type of defense used by Nazi war criminals to try to justify their actions. Do some research on Stanley Milgram. As to a different three letter acronym, try "CAI". It stands for Community Associations Institute. The members of CAI tend to profit economically through imposition of authoritarian private regimes and pursuit of ever more limitations on what the homeowner can do with his/her own property. More restrictions = more violations = more fines, late fees, collection fees, litigation, etc.
Quote:
As in life, both extremes typically go a bit overboard, with the answers somewhere in the middle. IC deLight makes some good points, and raises good questions that all homeowners need to ask, and not just blindly think that HOA board members have their best interest at heart. Like the political arena, a typical board is filled with members who have (1) a genuine interest in their community, (2) an axe to grind, (3) control issues, (4) or higher aspirations. You always hope for number one, but invariably get two, three, and four as well.
Not quite. An HOA corporation is a private corporation that is not subject to concepts of democracy. The purpose of using a corporate form is to avoid requirements for open meetings, open records, open elections, due process, equal protection, etc. Certainly such concepts would not be promoted by the regime defined by the previously posted petition. As to points 2-4, there is often great difficulty in removing such board members because of a complete lack of protections for the homeowners. However, the arguments still miss the point. One of us is arguing that the boards should have unlimited powers and that the homeowners should simply elect the "right" board. The other of us is arguing against any board having such power over the homeowners in the first place regardless of the composition of the board.
Quote:
In my 12 years of home ownership, I have served on two civic club boards (the Westbury board being one of them, though this was about 10 years ago), and generally we have been lucky to have worked with a good mix of people who wanted to do the best job they could for the neighborhood (keep in mind that Westbury civic club is responsible for more than 5,000 homes, so this is no small task).
The Westbury Civic Club isn't responsible for any homes. It is a voluntary club and does not own any of the properties, streets, etc. No offense intended to travelguy but don't board members always think they did a great job? Volunteerism is not without sociopaths. Don't forget that thugs, embezzlers, etc. are also volunteers.
Quote:
I have worked the deed restriction update process twice now, and in a city neighborhood of eclectic homes and people, it is hard to strike a balance between too tough and too lenient. And then there is always the issue of how to pay to enforce violations, because yes, at times you actually do have to take legal action to get someone to clean up their pool to stop breeding mosquitoes, or to repair their fence which was knocked over during a storm. It happens, and residents expect the civic club or HOA to take care of the matter quickly and efficiently.
If the homeowners really want a club to do such things then they can choose to financially support the club, right? Obviously the board members' problem is that the homeowners do NOT want to support a private entity going around provoking litigation or threatening them. Perhaps the homeowners want to use their monies to support causes of their individual choices. The board wants to disenfranchise the homeowners by simply taking the choice away from them via involuntary membership.
The offended residents (if they actually exist) can take action on their own. In the HOA Board's world, "quick" and "efficient" usually means through "private fining", threats of litigation, actual litigation, threats of foreclosure, or actual foreclosure. Note §1.8 of the previously posted document where the WCC is seeking nonjudicial foreclosure power. This allows the WCC Board (or their agents) to just allege a debt and foreclose on homeowners' property without court intervention. Some might think that's just "quick and efficient" - others recognize it as despotism.
Quote:
If the WCC isn't going about deed restriction or by-law updates in a transparent way, then it is up to the members of the community to get involved/elected and fix the problem. So in that sense I applaud IC_deLight for being interested enough to speak on the matter. But there is a right way and a wrong way, and IMO launching on long diatribes isn't going to convince anyone to do anything but tune out.
The "tuning out" comment is noted, however, the messages are primarily intended for the prospective purchaser - not the entrenched groups that believe they should have the power to privately fine or simply dispossess homeowners of their houses when something displeases the board members. Board members and their cohorts are inherently immune from such threats, but all other homeowners are not. The OP should be aware that HOA boards engage in such conduct and perhaps avoid risking such threats to her home, investments, and quality of life by avoiding purchasing in such areas.
The WCC is a club separate and apart from the individuals that live in the subdivision. The "majority rule" concept ignores the individual ownership rights of property owners. To the extent there is a choice, individual homeowners chose to have property free from an HOA. Regardless of what a perceived majority of their neighbors "want", the neighbors' wants do not justify a private taking of what the other homeowners have. Existing homeowners have property that is not burdened by an HOA and not burdened by perpetual liens that can never be paid off and all the ills that automatically accompany involuntary membership HOA corporations. If they don't want to be part of an involuntary membership HOA it doesn't matter how the remaining homeowners allegedly vote.
People such as the OP that come from out of state should be made aware of what a racket HOAs are in the Houston area.
Also look up the "priority of payment" scam whereby these boards re-characterize your assessment payments to prevent you from applying payments to assessments. Through this mechanism they threaten you with foreclosure to extort fines, collection fees, etc. from you based upon accusations of violations without any legitimate court judgment. This practice is unlawful in many states - possibly the state of the OP's origin. However, this unscrupulous practice is prevalent in Houston area involuntary HOA corporations that use CAI member management companies. So beware of purchases in such neighborhoods and inquire about "resolutions regarding the application of payment" and "fining policies" if you are considering a house burdened with an HOA corporation. It's easy to see the house, but the legal entanglement that comes with it in the form of an involuntary membership HOA corporation is not always so easy to see.
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.
