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.
Maybe had we been given some information by our management company (that conducted the election) that this was a possibility we could have informed the homeowners that we needed to concentrate our votes on the five candidates (homeowners) that we wanted instead of spreading votes across all the candidates that ran. The six hundred actual homeowners could have defeated the 300 investment company votes had we all voted and voted for the five candidates we wanted and didn't spread the votes around and allow their 300 votes to win. We simply were not aware that one group held the power to potentially decide the election and could/would vote in non community members (homeowners).
^^^^^^^ This. A bad management company = A bad HOA.
^^^^^^^ This. A bad management company = A bad HOA.
I bet 100:1 nearly all HOA's start out that way. I have not read all of our details of our HOA but I fully expect them to maintain complete control until they exit. Currently in our situation only one person is on the HOA and the developer has 100% control. Eventually more and more home owners will be involved but as of now, there isn't a vote. The developers makes all decisions but have open monthly meetings for people to comment. If building goes as planned, about 3 years it will turn into a true "HOA" (with votes).
Think about it... If you were the developer and invested millions to develop a property, would you allow the HOA to put in rules like "no new construction noises before 10AM or after 3PM and only on Monday through Friday"? I could come up with 20 other rules that the HOA could install. So it's completely logical that they wrote that into the rules. I sure the H_ll would if I was the developer. Additionally, if a stupid HOA passed dumb rules before it was sold out, it would be a poison pill to sell their remaining development. Hence, they are going to protect their own interest.
At the end of the day, the developer has one goal in mind. To make $$'s while generation a good reputation so they can make MORE money on future developments. If they do something stupid, someone will fight them in court and attempt to influence them by bad public opinion. 99% of the time, the developer really only wants to sell lots and make money. The rules have merit most of the time and it's going to be tough to find people who want to legally pressure them to relinquish control. If someone started a campaign to not allow them to get their 300 votes, I'd be too busy to worry about helping. It's completely logical to me at least...
Last edited by MN-Born-n-Raised; 03-26-2013 at 05:42 AM..
Having the option of a non-resident board member is a good thing. There may be an occasion where there is a really good board member, who for some reason, decides to relocate to a community nearby; the community is losing a good board member; this person likes the community and is willing to continue working for them. So, with the non-resident board member covenant, the community has the ability to continue to use his/her services.
And what if no one in the community will volunteer to run for the board?
Now there are two options:
The court will take over and appoint someone to run it, and that person will have assistants, and they will all be paid. Now these court appointed board members are costing the community a lot of money; several thousand dollars a month.
The other option is to use non-resident volunteers, if you can find them, to serve on the board until the community wises up and realizes that someone needs to get off their butt and volunteer.
Who buys in an HOA? Only about 75% of the people in the Phoenix metro.
Well, maybe I was naive to think that the candidates on the ballot were the actual candidates that were running and who we were picking from. This is the first HOA election I had been part of and based off of the reaction at the meeting no other homeowners seen this coming.
The investment company only pays 25% of assessments on each undeveloped lot, it doesn't make sense they would get a full vote for each lot just as a homeowner who pays 100% of the assessment.
Captain Bill: Is that normal to get a whole vote on an undeveloped residential lot when the investment company is only paying 25% of assessments on each lot? Thanks for your informed input!
Well, it sounds like 25% of Phoenix (using your numbers) knows the best kept secret.
Anyway, why wouldn't you get a full vote for vacant land? You should have the same voting rights, considering others will impact your parcel of land, and what you can and can't do with it. If that wasn't the logic, then you would have to weigh the individual home values as against market prices to see who gets what percentage of votes. That would be a nightmare and to an extent unfair.
On the other hand, when it comes to consumption based services (HOA) that are far easier to predict, then that is why undeveloped land gets a huge break. They don't have any of the needs a furnished, completed house has in the form of maintenance and needs.
You'd literally have to give me the house and pay for the HOA fees for me to even considered one, but I will say that sounds 100% fair how the HOA is doing it.
Lastly, I'd love to see how you figure HOA homes are more valuable than non-HOA. When you extrapolate the guaranteed HOA fees out over the time you own the home I can assure you it outweighs any perceived increase and value and pigeon holes your buyers.
(Off topic)
Last edited by observer53; 03-26-2013 at 09:13 PM..
Not surprised in the least. Go over your CC&R's with a fine tooth comb, it may or may not be in accordance.
In my experience builders tend to view homeowners as ignorant, unconcerned fools to be fast talked and run over if needed.
Worst case get some of the homeowners together and seek out legal advice.
On edit:
One question popped into my mind and that is "is there something the current BOD or the past BOD (builders) did or are doing that is making the homeowners unhappy or is it just the fact the builder is still in control?
Originally Posted by LBTRS Who buys in an HOA? Only about 75% of the people in the Phoenix metro.
Well, maybe I was naive to think that the candidates on the ballot were the actual candidates that were running and who we were picking from. This is the first HOA election I had been part of and based off of the reaction at the meeting no other homeowners seen this coming.
The investment company only pays 25% of assessments on each undeveloped lot, it doesn't make sense they would get a full vote for each lot just as a homeowner who pays 100% of the assessment.
Captain Bill: Is that normal to get a whole vote on an undeveloped residential lot when the investment company is only paying 25% of assessments on each lot? Thanks for your informed input!
Yes, in Val Vista Lakes, and in the sub community, Lakeside at Val Vista Lakes, both only have a 25% assessment on undeveloped lots, and the lot owner has one vote.
In the beginning, that's fine. However, the person who buys the lot from the developer should have a finite time in which to either build on the lot, or begin to pay 100% of the assessments, because the lot owner still enjoys all of the amenities of the community.
Forcing a lot owner to develop within a certain amount of time may not be fair, but to pay 100% dues if it isn't developed with a certain time, say two years, is fair.
Our community is 25 years old, and there are still three undeveloped residential lots. Unfortunately, our CC&R's still allow them to pay only 25% dues.
We also have some commercial lots on the waterfront that were supposed to be developed into shops and restaurants, with a dock. The people who bought the lots from the developer decided to do nothing with them. They just let them sit vacant. And until the CC&R's are amended, they will continue to pay 25% dues and have one vote per lot.
Having a builder on the board is not necessarily a bad thing imo. The builder has a big interest in keeping the neighbourhood in tip top shape and the existing residents happy so they can market and make more sales. Many residents may fear that when the builder leaves, the focus will be on decreasing hoa fees by taking out the exact things that made us buy there in the first place.
OTH, when the builder controls where money is being spent, it may be utilized to serve their needs more than the communities'.
I think in most cases, its not the end of the world and I sure would not pay money out of my hoa or pocket to get rid of the builder on principle. Now if something went really wrong, maybe I'd change my mind.
(mod cut-- response to deleted post)
Last edited by observer53; 03-26-2013 at 09:16 PM..
I bet 100:1 nearly all HOA's start out that way. I have not read all of our details of our HOA but I fully expect them to maintain complete control until they exit. Currently in our situation only one person is on the HOA and the developer has 100% control. Eventually more and more home owners will be involved but as of now, there isn't a vote. The developers makes all decisions but have open monthly meetings for people to comment. If building goes as planned, about 3 years it will turn into a true "HOA" (with votes).
Think about it... If you were the developer and invested millions to develop a property, would you allow the HOA to put in rules like "no new construction noises before 10AM or after 3PM and only on Monday through Friday"? I could come up with 20 other rules that the HOA could install. So it's completely logical that they wrote that into the rules. I sure the H_ll would if I was the developer. Additionally, if a stupid HOA passed dumb rules before it was sold out, it would be a poison pill to sell their remaining development. Hence, they are going to protect their own interest.
At the end of the day, the developer has one goal in mind. To make $$'s while generation a good reputation so they can make MORE money on future developments. If they do something stupid, someone will fight them in court and attempt to influence them by bad public opinion. 99% of the time, the developer really only wants to sell lots and make money. The rules have merit most of the time and it's going to be tough to find people who want to legally pressure them to relinquish control. If someone started a campaign to not allow them to get their 300 votes, I'd be too busy to worry about helping. It's completely logical to me at least...
This issue is they QUIT building...this development started in 2005 and they should have been done long ago. Our HOA documents state that if it was still in developers control in 2013 it must be turned over to the homeowners. It is their fault they quit building, not ours.
ETA: read my below post as to why this is a problem for the homeowners.
Not surprised in the least. Go over your CC&R's with a fine tooth comb, it may or may not be in accordance.
In my experience builders tend to view homeowners as ignorant, unconcerned fools to be fast talked and run over if needed.
Worst case get some of the homeowners together and seek out legal advice.
On edit: One question popped into my mind and that is "is there something the current BOD or the past BOD (builders) did or are doing that is making the homeowners unhappy or is it just the fact the builder is still in control?
The problem is they have DONE NOTHING for the last seven years. The "current BOD" doesn't have meetings and have never been seen. When we have our annual HOA meeting the "current BOD" doesn't show up. The HOA has been ran and ruled by the management company up until this point and the management company is doing a poor job. The management company is in downtown Phoenix and the community is in Goodyear, they never know anything that is going on in the community due to never being out here. Our Reserve Fund is way over funded (supposed to be $200k and we have $500k in reserves) so my assessment money is sitting in the bank making money for someone else and they are only getting .15% on it. The "green belts" are always brown year round because they don't water in the summer or overseed in the winter. There is NO enforcement of CC&R violations because they are never here due to the distance from the community.
At our annual meeting the management company's answer to every question is "that is up to the board" yet we've never seen a board member nor does the current BOD have meetings. She says she "emails them when she needs something".
Last edited by LBTRS; 03-26-2013 at 11:45 AM..
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.
