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.
If I were buying I would want a home in a nice area with no HOA. Here in slower/lower Delaware the HOAs seem to be in newer developments. There are plenty of homes in nice suburban areas , They have the right to enter your home?? How about if your dog bite them??
That is strange. I've never heard that before.
In AZ the HOA does not have the right to enter your yard. Of course a member of the HOA board can walk up to your door, but I mean they cannot do anything to your yard, or your house. They have no more right on your property than anyone else has.
In AZ the HOA does not have the right to enter your yard. Of course a member of the HOA board can walk up to your door, but I mean they cannot do anything to your yard, or your house. They have no more right on your property than anyone else has.
Captain Bill I was quoting that from an earlier post stating that. I too think it is very strange.
When one neighbor goes to another and complains about what bothers them, it usually starts an ongoing conflict.
...so using the HOA corporation as a corporate shield to do the same thing somehow avoids conflict? The HOA corporation is in the business of creating the conflict. Some resident is asking the corporation to get involved in a dispute and to pick sides ... and to use involuntary assessments to pay for the legal battle. Do you really think that this approach somehow "creates harmony" or "eliminates conflict"? Some conflicts are better left alone because there are always people that won't be happy with what someone else is doing on that someone else's property. The reality is those "unhappy" people are the ones that would not spend a dime of their own money to turn things into a legal battle. Using the HOA corporation as a proxy for one of the neighbors only creates bigger problems.
Quote:
From my experience as a board member for the past 6 years it is extremely difficult to get people to participate, to come to meetings, or to vote. In a community with 150 homes when we send out ballots for the annual election of board members, that require 10% of the members to constitute a quorum, we usually get no more than 20 ballots returned, including the board members ballots.
Sounds like most people don't want anything to do with the HOA corporation.
Quote:
Changes in a covenant will require around 75% of members to vote. That is virtually impossible to achieve. When we needed to get that many votes once, we had to send out several letters explaining the reasons and the savings to the community, then we had to go door to door asking people to vote (not how to vote) but just asking them read the information and vote.
I was also on the board of our master community, with 2000 homes. At an annual meeting there is never more than 50-60 people. For the board member election, there would be no more than 300 votes mailed in.
"master community"? Hello, slave.
Sounds like homeowners there are burdened with involuntary membership in two corporations for the same property.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 01-15-2013 at 10:50 AM..
The CC&R's for a home I bought has and I quote... "Specific prohibition against anyone from the negroid or mongoloid race unless in the capacity of a domestic" The HOA on this development dates from 1945 and was wartime construction... it has been defunct for decades... yet the CC&R's still exist.
The best tack if one is serious is to become involved in your HOA... hold office or volunteer for a committee.
This way you can be part of the solution... just remember feelings will get hurt along the way and it is good to have a thick skin...
Law trumps CC&Rs when in conflict.
It's rare that CC&Rs violate federal law. Most states allow the board to amend the CC&Rs to make them compliant with law and do so without a super majority of approval. My own association ( 45+ years old) did this, last year. It ran us about $2K in legal fees.
Law trumps CC&Rs when in conflict.
It's rare that CC&Rs violate federal law. Most states allow the board to amend the CC&Rs to make them compliant with law and do so without a super majority of approval. My own association ( 45+ years old) did this, last year. It ran us about $2K in legal fees.
I have seen very, very few CC&Rs that comply with federal (or state) law. Lack of compliance is not rare at all.
For example, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits HOA corporations from prohibiting satellite dishes of a certain size, TV antennas less than a certain height above the house, and wireless relay antennas. Despite this, I've seen many, many CC&Rs drafted since 1996 that still attempt to prohibit such things, require a "fee" for "consideration" to install such things, or require "pre-approval" - none of which are permitted by law.
Re-writing restrictive covenants is usually a pretext for changing something else to the detriment of property owners. I recently dealt with an HOA attorney providing proposed amendments to a section relating to the ability of an HOA board to impose "special charges" for conduct, etc. that the board did not approve of on "common property". The HOA attorney wanted to substitute "the Property" for "common property" because Property was defined as the aggregate of all the real estate in the subdivision. In other words, the HOA attorney was now trying to extend board control over the "common area" to the homeowners' individual properties and to purportedly empower the board with the ability to "fine" homeowners for conduct that board members did not approve of on the homeowner's property. This was guaranteed to provide more business for the HOA attorney and create a regime any third world dictator would envy. The attorney already had a playbook of rules she would recommend to the board which would govern whether "conduct" was "approved". The sleight of hand was obscured from the residents in part by not revealing the "before" and "after" versions of the proposed amendment. (This scheme is used quite regularly by HOA trade group attorneys).
Perhaps a more appropriate option to address restrictive covenants that are void by operation of law is to adopt a resolution recognizing that a particular provision is void and in violation of Federal or state law and that the HOA corporation will not seek to enforce such void restrictive covenants. Of course all of this begs the silliness of blind obedience to "rules" without thinking about the substance of the rule. The substance and the fact that people believed in blindly following such rules is the reason that additional legislation had to be adopted to expressly void them.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 01-15-2013 at 11:43 AM..
Law trumps CC&Rs when in conflict.
It's rare that CC&Rs violate federal law. Most states allow the board to amend the CC&Rs to make them compliant with law and do so without a super majority of approval. My own association ( 45+ years old) did this, last year. It ran us about $2K in legal fees.
Exactly... just my experience is some people serving may be well intentioned even if they lack the knowledge to do the job.
Almost everything the HOA does costs money... even sending out notices or paying rent for meeting space.
For over 50 years, the meetings were held in board members homes... some newcomers said they felt uncomfortable and wanted the meetings held at the multipurpose room at the local school... so now we pay $75 a month to rent the space for 2 hours once a month.
The examples I previously cited were if full compliance with the latest city laws... it still didn't prevent notices of violations going out... the explanation is the violation stands until the board acts on it and some cases... the can take months or longer.
I'm not bashing HOA's... no one is forced to buy property in a HOA.
Only saying the buyer needs to really know what is involved to minimize surprises down the road.
.Sounds like most people don't want anything to do with the HOA corporation.
It's that people want to leave the work to others, and don't want to do anything for the community themselves. The same people who don't bother to vote for their board members are the ones who complain the loudest when something happens they don't like and decided to call the board members nazis.
Quote:
quote=IC_deLight;..."master community"? Hello, slave.
Sounds like homeowners there are burdened with involuntary membership in two corporations for the same property.
Slave -- burdened ---I like that.
You know that people buy into HOA communities voluntarily. No one is forced to live in one.
In the community I mentioned, the Master community takes care of managing 4 lakes, a clubhouse with tennis courts, weight room, cardio room, raquetball courts, 3 swimming pools, large spa, and all of the common grounds in a 2000 home community, with dues of only 87.20 per month.
The sub-community I live in is a gated community so we have to maintain everything from the gates to inside, including streets, street lights, sidewalks and common grounds, for only an extra fee of $57/mot.
In my opinion both are a bargain. But everyone has a choice. If one doesn't like HOA's, I have no problem with that. Be happy living in a non HOA area. There are many great areas without HOA's.
It's that people want to leave the work to others, and don't want to do anything for the community themselves. The same people who don't bother to vote for their board members are the ones who complain the loudest when something happens they don't like and decided to call the board members nazis.
There are so many presumptions here, where to start?
Again you are assuming that other residents want anything to do with the HOA to begin with. That "something happens" is usually when the board or its agents start messing with the aforementioned individuals. As to "voting" - in most states members don't have a right to vote. The board and vendors choose whose votes count. What a joke. Another fallacy is the suggestion that there is a "right person" or "right group" in control to begin with. There is no such person or group.
Quote:
Slave -- burdened ---I like that.
You might also like the term "regime". "Burden" and "regime" are terms of art in the legal community for involuntary membership corporations and the terms are apropos. "Slave" is appropriate for anyone subservient to a "master".
Quote:
You know that people buy into HOA communities voluntarily. No one is forced to live in one.
Hogwash. Local governments have been mandating them for decades. People need housing relatively near where they work.
You know what? Your argument would fall on flat ears elsewhere as well. Tell those folks that breathed in the polluted air that they "chose" to breath the polluted air - after all it was "voluntary".
Quote:
In the community I mentioned, the Master community takes care of managing 4 lakes, a clubhouse with tennis courts, weight room, cardio room, raquetball courts, 3 swimming pools, large spa, and all of the common grounds in a 2000 home community, with dues of only 87.20 per month.
You are confusing the corporation with the involuntary members. The "master" corporation is not the "community". I have no doubt that the "master corporation" does not limit its "business" to tending to its property.
Quote:
The sub-community I live in is a gated community so we have to maintain everything from the gates to inside, including streets, street lights, sidewalks and common grounds, for only an extra fee of $57/mot.
"sub-community"? - well that was your choice of words.
Again, I suspect that the board of the "sub-community" tends to expand its control beyond taking care of property owned by the sub-HOA corporation. Also those "common grounds" are not owned in common or at all by the homeowners are they? That property is the property of the sub-HOA corporation. Calling it "common grounds" is a misnomer.
Taking care of these things could be handled with a district or other legitimate government. None of the things that you have identified justifies a private government nor the claim that homeowners left individual and property rights at the gate.
Quote:
In my opinion both are a bargain. But everyone has a choice. If one doesn't like HOA's, I have no problem with that. Be happy living in a non HOA area. There are many great areas without HOA's.
Difficult to find and even harder to remain free of them. As far as "happy" living in an HOA area, I have no doubt that the board members enjoy the control and the immunity of being the subject of their own actions. However, not so great for the 99.9% of the homeowners that aren't the board members.
....Difficult to find and even harder to remain free of them.
If you want HOA's to go away then you need to begin a lobbying effort with your local and state governments.
I understand your disdain for HOA's and respect your right to your opinion, but if you choose to live in an HOA community , then I suggest you get involved in helping your community, and make a difference. One cannot make a difference in a community by venting on a public forum.
I suspect that with your dedication to your beliefs that you could make a difference if you were to get involved in a positive manner.
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.
Captain Bill I was quoting that from an earlier post stating that. I too think it is very strange.
