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.
I hate HOA's that limit the number of pets to only 2 cats or 2 dogs. I am running into this pet limit in many of newer neighborhoods where I'm finding homes I like.
If animals are not causing a noise or pollution nuisance, running around outside, or being kept in an inhumane manner, I don't feel that having such a low limit is reasonable to those who are responsible multi-pet owners/foster volunteers like myself.
Anyone ever have any issues with "pet limit" covenants?
My come back is always that who needs an HOA? Every city has zoning laws. If the neighbor parks his junk box outside on the lawn then one call to zoning usually does the trick. Why do we need yet another agency that happens to be more powerfull with more pull and clout then the Federal Government to tell us how to run OUR homes?
Not particularly in favor of HOAs myself, but NOT every city has zoning laws. The City of Houston certainly doesn't. Every city does have a code department and that does help some but it doesn't stop a used car business from moving into the residence next door (if there is no zoning). In addition, not every home is in a city. In Texas, if you are not in a city or an HOA, you are just out of luck because county authorities have very limited ability to enact codes and if there is not a state law addressing the problem...you are out of luck.
I hate HOA's that limit the number of pets to only 2 cats or 2 dogs. I am running into this pet limit in many of newer neighborhoods where I'm finding homes I like.
If animals are not causing a noise or pollution nuisance, running around outside, or being kept in an inhumane manner, I don't feel that having such a low limit is reasonable to those who are responsible multi-pet owners/foster volunteers like myself.
Anyone ever have any issues with "pet limit" covenants?
Jin, I don't think there is a problem with responsible multi-pet owners. The problem is when you have an irresponsible one. I think many HOAs look at it as being easier to limit the number of pets than to get involved in a legal battle over whether or not someone is irresponsible. I'm a dog owner so I think I know how you feel.
Actually desertsun, the system works. We have a choice to live in an area without an HOA or live in one with an HOA. I've lived in five houses over the past thirty-five years. Four of those houses and twenty nine of those years have been in developments with HOAs. I have never had a problem with any of them. That doesn't mean there are not bad ones out there. However, before I buy a house I do my due diligence on the HOA in terms of it's effectiveness, it's response to it's members, and it success in meeting it's overall mission.
I personally like developments that have well run and effective HOAs. Property values do well and the area is well maintained, attractive, and safe.
If no HOAs were allowed then we really wouldn't have a choice.
Yikes !! No matter how bad something is, there is always some one who likes it. Im not making fun of you there. Im speaking as a whole.
You have never had a problem with an HOA. Well if one follows anyones rules, even Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin then one would never have a problem either. But does that make it right?
As far as well run HOAs? Since so many of them are so corrupt I guess I have no precedence for you. Does "well run" mean throwing 20% of your monthly mortgage payment to them? Sorta like the Teachers Union. "Throw more money at us and we will do a better job". And of course you know that the HOA board members never ever get one of those little red door hangers indicating a violation. That is sorta like cops dont get speeding tickets because they are immune from the very silly laws they jamb down our throats.
As far as maintaining value better. I will agree with you there, because you are right. But the fact that HOAs are successfull go back to the old Americans have become "Sheep" issue. People dont want to have to think. They want the government or in this case the HOA to dictate to them how to run their lives and what color flower they can and cant plant in their yard.
I don't think there is any real choice but to learn to like them. The cities in the Vegas Valley basically force developers to have an HOA. If you have any common wall or gate or landscaping you basically have to have an HOA. As soon as you have to have one the detailed rules appear.
The only way out is to buy a piece of vacant land and build on it. Even there most developed lots will turn out to have CC&Rs.
Location: Halfway between Number 4 Privet Drive and Forks, WA
1,516 posts, read 4,590,742 times
Reputation: 677
We have CC&R's and a no-fee HOA. I've never had any complaints with them or by them. I don't think I'd ever live in a place where I had to pay an HOA unless I was getting great neighborhood ammenities (pool, gym, etc)....
Yikes !! No matter how bad something is, there is always some one who likes it. Im not making fun of you there. Im speaking as a whole.
You have never had a problem with an HOA. Well if one follows anyones rules, even Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin then one would never have a problem either. But does that make it right?
As far as well run HOAs? Since so many of them are so corrupt I guess I have no precedence for you. Does "well run" mean throwing 20% of your monthly mortgage payment to them? Sorta like the Teachers Union. "Throw more money at us and we will do a better job". And of course you know that the HOA board members never ever get one of those little red door hangers indicating a violation. That is sorta like cops dont get speeding tickets because they are immune from the very silly laws they jamb down our throats.
As far as maintaining value better. I will agree with you there, because you are right. But the fact that HOAs are successfull go back to the old Americans have become "Sheep" issue. People dont want to have to think. They want the government or in this case the HOA to dictate to them how to run their lives and what color flower they can and cant plant in their yard.
I just find that so offending.
Desertsun, what is so offending about a group of people democratically voting to set minimum standards for their development? As far as cost, our fees were $270 per year in 1990 and they are now $360 per year. Pretty reasonable in a development with 102 homes with the least expensive house valued at over 500k. I think that it is quite democratic that people are allowed to choose whether or not they live in an HOA development. I would consider not being able to choose as being offending. And here's what we get for our $360 per year: increasing property values, even in today's market; well maintained and beautiful environment; and a safe area with no crime. Like I said in a previous post, the key is to do your due diligence on the HOA before you buy. Additionally, it helps to get involved with the HOA to make sure that it does what it is supposed to do and not become onerous.
Ain't choice great!!!!!
Desertsun, what is so offending about a group of people democratically voting to set minimum standards for their development? As far as cost, our fees were $270 per year in 1990 and they are now $360 per year. Pretty reasonable in a development with 102 homes with the least expensive house valued at over 500k. I think that it is quite democratic that people are allowed to choose whether or not they live in an HOA development. I would consider not being able to choose as being offending. And here's what we get for our $360 per year: increasing property values, even in today's market; well maintained and beautiful environment; and a safe area with no crime. Like I said in a previous post, the key is to do your due diligence on the HOA before you buy. Additionally, it helps to get involved with the HOA to make sure that it does what it is supposed to do and not become onerous.
Ain't choice great!!!!!
Ah you do have some good points. Perhaps our differences lie in where we live. I have no idea what Nashville is like (although I would love to visit your beautiful city) but in Las Vegas where everything is expensive, the annual dollars you quoted are equall to any monthly HOA fee here, even for some of the smaller tracts. On top of that they force you, you have no choice, to purchase the HOA book for around $400. (thats how much I paid in Snoberlin)The seller can not give you theirs even though they never even broke the binding. The buyer must buy a new one. It's just a revenue raiser.
Well it does sound like you have a great little community where people stick together and vote for things for the better. I sure did not mean to insult where you live but I am against HOAsl.....period !
That being said allow me to be a 2 faced hypocrite for a moment. My place down in south Texas has an HOA. I researched what kind of power they rule with before I bought my lake front property there. They dont really seem to hassle anyone with what color roses they plant or not letting us have vegetable gardens. Worst of all, telling me what color to paint my house. Instead for $25 a month I get my third acre mowed and the rest goes to maintaining our community marina. So I get a lighted dock, a boat launch, fish cleaning station and a sandy beach, and a free place to park my boat and RV for that money. We have no gate but anytime a car comes into our tract you can see all the curtians moving.
I like that. Probably the same kind of community pride you have there gbone.
Other then a swimming pool and some times a tennis court, I beg to ask who gets more then that for $200-300-500 a month HOA fee in Vegas.
Good day to you gbone ! I did pass through Nashville some years ago and forever wished I had more time to spend there. I will.
The problem I have with HOAs is that it has been adopted as tool of the cities to abandon their responsibilities, yet they do not lower the property taxes. Let me explain.
It always was the responsibility of city, town, or county governments to care for the common areas in their area. They cared for the roadways, they landscaped and watered the medians, they provided parkland and maintained them, and they provided community swimming pools and other recreation facilities like tennis courts. With the creation and growth of HOAs, these duties have become the responsibility of the HOA and ultimately the homeowners. The local governments have been able to walk away from the expenses.
It's effectively created a dual layer of taxation. Property taxes that used to pay for all these things no longer do so. Instead, the taxes remain (or have increased) and a new taxation layer has been added to the burden of the property owner through their HOA dues.
As an aside, I have yet to fully understand what has changed in society to require oversight by the neighbors. For example, I grew up in new neighborhoods throughout my youth. In all cases, nobody had to be told what color to paint their house, how often to cut their lawns, or what plants they could put in their front yards. People cared for their homes. It was the nature of people to have respect for themselves and respect for their neighbors.
Today, it seems like that respect has disappeared. That's why I can understand to some degree why some find HOAs and CCRs necessary. It seems that people no longer have any respect in themselves and how they present themselves to the community through the outward appearance of their property. Too often the first thought is, "to heck with everyone else, it's my right to park on my lawn/store my broken down car in the driveway/not paint my flaking trim/leave junk out/etc" rather than "I can do what I want, but is it the right thing to do and how will it affect the community of which I am a part?" I find that sad.
I think much of it has to do with the increased congestion found in neighborhoods that we didn't have years ago. Unlike in years past, people often do not have the room to provide for things that they want in their lives. People used to have room for their own pools, a yard big enough for their kids to play ball in their backyards, or space for them to work on family projects outside of the sight of their neighbors. There was space and trees to shield them from their neighbors.
Today, that doesn't exist. Instead, there's 5' from the house to the property line and it's the old rats in the box issue. The rats are forced into a space too small for them to get along, so rules have been put in place to legislate behavior, and amenities have become communal because there's no longer any room for people to have their own.
That's another problem that I have with the HOA concept, the forced paying for amenities that benefit me in no way. For example, I have no use for a community pool, tennis court, or whatever. I certainly don't want to swim in a pool previously occupied by the neighbors children with leaky diapers or adults with questionable hygene or lifestyle habits. Yet, I have to pay for them as a member of an HOA. Again, it has to do with the fact that people no longer have the space to build their own amenity as we did years ago and are now taking advantage of spreading the cost amongst the neighbors.
Some might answer that people don't have to buy a home in a community with an HOA and therefore not be subject to such things. However, I would counter that it's nearly, if not totally, impossible to buy a new home in many areas of the Country without HOAs, effective double taxation, and amenities that they find of no value. In those circumstances, why should people not desiring an HOA community be limited to old-styled or outdated properties where HOAs don't exist? IMO, they shouldn't, but that's what is happening in many places. In some places the HOA just can't be avoided.
So this is what it comes down to me. If an HOA can't be avoided, I would expect that the property taxes properly reflect the additional responsibilities accepted by the homeowner. As is often the case, the burden can be significant, such as a $400/mo HOA fee that is no longer being spent by the government. Under that case, the property taxes should be lowered by $4800/yr to accomodate the expense that the government is no longer laying out.
I know I'm just dreaming, but it's not exactly a foreign concept. Years ago, a tax revolt in my old state dramaticly lowered property taxes. It was forcing people out of their houses. The same thing can happen with HOA fees if people were to realize what has actually happened and what potential remains for future increases. I have yet to see one HOA fee that has any kind of cap on future increases.
Again, they were just a way to get around property tax increase caps and for the city to dump what had always been their responsibility. That's the part of HOAs and HOA fees that many people don't realize.
Enough of my soapbox . . . bye, all.
Last edited by garth; 01-18-2008 at 12:24 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.
