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.
1. Because they won't let me park my cars on my yard
2. Because I couldn't have a clothes line in my front yard.
This is a satirical look at the HOA vs Non-HOA question. Others may have some good photos and humorous antidotes.
On the serious side, there are many non-HOA communities that are excellent communities, so I'm not knocking them. I just think we should have a little humor.
I want to have a clothes line in my front yard just to hang my underwear on. HOA? Non-HOA? You be the judge.
In the launch phases of CICs the HOA communities easily held their own.
But you are correct the local governments love HOAs. And they are not going away. So we need to perfect the design.
They did not "hold their own". One of the reasons CAI was formed was to try to put lipstick on a pig. The concept was failing miserably. Since then it's been a marketing sham. "HOAs preserve property values" is equivocal at best and an outright lie otherwise.
Quote:
The Well agreement runs with the land as they generally do. The inclusion of a de facto HOA in such a document was unusual. Note that the document established a board and an architectural review committee though it had no corporate embodiment. Was it all legal? I expect so. Was it an HOA known to the government of NV? I doubt it
If it has no legal "life" then it cannot be operating as a corporation in the state of Nevada.
Quote:
Your example is typical. The Association clearly existed and does exist. It attempted to expand the scope of its CC&Rs and lost. What does that have to do with absorbing unwilling homeowners into an Association? It in fact preaches the opposite. A light duty Association can't go heavy duty simply because it wants to.
If you mean typical in that the HOA board tried ruling over everyone else's property - I agree. HOA corporations inevitably "go bad" - it is only a question of when, not if. The process is accelerated by the "professional" HOA management companies and HOA attorneys. These vendors profit from the chaos. So do Realtors. The churn in HOA-burdened subdivisions means constant sellers.
The Corporation very nearly did get to do what it wanted. First of all, most folks don't have $80,000 to spend on HOA litigation. This economic imbalance is one reason the HOAs typically win - not because the board is correct. Second, the Armstrongs actually lost at every step of the way until their Supreme Court used its discretionary review to hear the case. Thankfully, the NC Supreme Court heard the case and overturned the lower courts. Not many homeowners could have waited that many years and borne the costs. The trade lobby groups that make their money off the misery induced by HOAs has since been trying to amend the NC Planned Community Act. The goal of the trade groups is to enable the imposition of involuntary membership HOA corporations in subdivisions that did not have them and without the consent of the lot owners - in other words to try to undo the holding of the Armstrong case.
Quote:
So again...some real examples of the problem you are preaching about.
Real...not folk lore.
Which of the vast array of problems are you talking about? Embezzlement, extortion, defalcation, foreclosure, harassment, .... where do you want the list of bad acts by HOA boards and their vendors to stop? You only need to read the paper in your own state on occasion.
As to transfer fees the couple of real examples of which I am aware simply shove them into their reserve fund. These are both Sun Cities and the larger at least has no management company involved.
Check out the FHFA.GOV website and all the comments on the August 16, 2010 proposal to eliminate investing in properties with transfer fees. The commenters are overwhelmingly directors, officers, and employees of HOA management companies (or affiliates of developer controlled "foundations") who expect a windfall every time a property they have no ownership interest in is sold. As to your flippant disregard for these transfer fees, since when is an entity that has absolutely no ownership interest in the property entitled to take a percentage of the sales price of the property every time the property is sold? There is no valid excuse for these transfer fees, none.
Last edited by IC_deLight; 01-31-2011 at 09:51 AM..
They did not "hold their own". One of the reasons CAI was formed was to try to put lipstick on a pig. The concept was failing miserably. Since then it's been a marketing sham. "HOAs preserve property values" is equivocal at best and an outright lie otherwise.
If it has no legal "life" then it cannot be operating as a corporation in the state of Nevada.
The contract exists and runs with the home. No corporation is needed.
Quote:
If you mean typical in that the HOA board tried ruling over everyone else's property - I agree. HOA corporations inevitably "go bad" - it is only a question of when, not if. The process is accelerated by the "professional" HOA management companies and HOA attorneys. These vendors profit from the chaos. So do Realtors. The churn in HOA-burdened subdivisions means constant sellers.
The Corporation very nearly did get to do what it wanted. First of all, most folks don't have $80,000 to spend on HOA litigation. This economic imbalance is one reason the HOAs typically win - not because the board is correct. Second, the Armstrongs actually lost at every step of the way until their Supreme Court used its discretionary review to hear the case. Thankfully, the NC Supreme Court heard the case and overturned the lower courts. Not many homeowners could have waited that many years and borne the costs. The trade lobby groups that make their money off the misery induced by HOAs has since been trying to amend the NC Planned Community Act. The goal of the trade groups is to enable the imposition of involuntary membership HOA corporations in subdivisions that did not have them and without the consent of the lot owners - in other words to try to undo the holding of the Armstrong case.
Which of the vast array of problems are you talking about? Embezzlement, extortion, defalcation, foreclosure, harassment, .... where do you want the list of bad acts by HOA boards and their vendors to stop? You only need to read the paper in your own state on occasion.
You continue to pump smoke. You are failing at the simple task of listing a few examples of homes which were incorporated into an HOA without the owners permission. Now cite or agree that it is a very rare thing.
A wonderful example of people taking advantage of the lack of participation by the owners in the operation of their HOA. At this point no one has shown that any money was lost. The target of the operation was in fact the developers and their insurance companies. It is however a great story so I recommend it to all. A whole mess of ex-cops, a construction company and a lawyer...
Quote:
Check out the FHFA.GOV website and all the comments on the August 16, 2010 proposal to eliminate investing in properties with transfer fees. The commenters are overwhelmingly directors, officers, and employees of HOA management companies (or affiliates of developer controlled "foundations") who expect a windfall every time a property they have no ownership interest in is sold. As to your flippant disregard for these transfer fees, since when is an entity that has absolutely no ownership interest in the property entitled to take a percentage of the sales price of the property every time the property is sold? There is no valid excuse for these transfer fees, none.
Actually the last time I looked the HOA and its assets...which can be a really big deal in some cases such as a Sun City....are owned by the residents who have a vested interest in maintaining those facilities. The use of a transfer fee for the purpose of contribution to the reserves for the maintenance of those facilities does not cause me any great concern.
[quote=olecapt;17660686] You are failing at the simple task of listing a few examples of homes which were incorporated into an HOA without the owners permission. "
Stone Oak POA, in north San Antonio, was involuntarily incorporated into the City of San Antonio in 1999. The Stone Oak Master Plan authorities EXPIRED on December 31, 2007. On Jan 3, 2008 the mafia in charge of the collections racket incorporated ~10,000 "properties" into the new Stone Oak POA without the permission of the owners.
These 10,000 owners were involuntarily forced into the new, re-written "perpetuity" without ANY written permission by the owners.
This is just one of thousands of similar incidents by this form of government that knows no constitutional boundaries and is as un-American as it gets, they are literally fascist states where the rules are dictated by the mafia bosses who are not required to be elected by State Election Codes.
Is this example sufficient to convince you we're under a fascist occupation? There's more, if necessary!
You are failing at the simple task of listing a few examples of homes which were incorporated into an HOA without the owners permission. "
Stone Oak POA, in north San Antonio, was involuntarily incorporated into the City of San Antonio in 1999. The Stone Oak Master Plan authorities EXPIRED on December 31, 2007. On Jan 3, 2008 the mafia in charge of the collections racket incorporated ~10,000 "properties" into the new Stone Oak POA without the permission of the owners.
These 10,000 owners were involuntarily forced into the new, re-written "perpetuity" without ANY written permission by the owners.
This is just one of thousands of similar incidents by this form of government that knows no constitutional boundaries and is as un-American as it gets, they are literally fascist states where the rules are dictated by the mafia bosses who are not required to be elected by State Election Codes.
Is this example sufficient to convince you we're under a fascist occupation? There's more, if necessary!
Rich
Source? Off hand sounds like a large Master Plan with large assets was restructured. Probably including some municipal involvement. But it does not appear to have been very contentious from the lack of reports.
Source? Off hand sounds like a large Master Plan with large assets was restructured. Probably including some municipal involvement. But it does not appear to have been very contentious from the lack of reports.
Stone Oak is a large "master planned development" where the developer has completed his project, and there are NO ASSETS (the assets for this POA are the 10,000 accounts to collect "dues" (unconstitutional taxes) and fleece the consumers in perpetuity).
The city has no dog in this hunt to renew this contract government, except to collect taxes and enforce codes because the city annexed my property in 1999 and performs all the services this POA allegedly provides. There are no pools nor parks nor services of any benefit to homeowners that this POA provides.
Stone Oak POA, the powers to govern expired on Dec 31, 2007. "The Stone Oak Master Plan" was re-written and changed in 2005, so any reference to "a contract I agreed to when I bought my home" pertains to an expired agreement that was changed WITHOUT MY CONSENT.
The reincarnation of this POA Corporation was fraudulently, by secret meeting, done on Jan 4, 2008.
The developer-appointed board modified the alleged "contract" and "unanimously approved" their modified "contract" on Jan 4, 2008 where the developer's 1,347 votes give the appearance of a large meeting.
See page 17 of the Articles of Incorporation for details about this - I've considered filing suit to declare this renewal of the POA to be fraudulent, but don't have the money or the time to spend the next 7 years taking this to the Supreme Court.
I can email a copy of this if you cannot get it at this link - see Page 17 for the details:
There was an "annual meeting" in late January 2008 with fewer than 50 people in attendance (including the managers and lawyers and vendors for the association) but this renewal of a contract was never voted on by the 9,051 "members" - thus it was in no way a "mutual agreement", thus the contract theory fails (not a mutual agreement).
Stone Oak is a large "master planned development" where the developer has completed his project, and there are NO ASSETS (the assets for this POA are the 10,000 accounts to collect "dues" (unconstitutional taxes) and fleece the consumers in perpetuity).
The city has no dog in this hunt to renew this contract government, except to collect taxes and enforce codes because the city annexed my property in 1999 and performs all the services this POA allegedly provides. There are no pools nor parks nor services of any benefit to homeowners that this POA provides.
Stone Oak POA, the powers to govern expired on Dec 31, 2007. "The Stone Oak Master Plan" was re-written and changed in 2005, so any reference to "a contract I agreed to when I bought my home" pertains to an expired agreement that was changed WITHOUT MY CONSENT.
The reincarnation of this POA Corporation was fraudulently, by secret meeting, done on Jan 4, 2008.
The developer-appointed board modified the alleged "contract" and "unanimously approved" their modified "contract" on Jan 4, 2008 where the developer's 1,347 votes give the appearance of a large meeting.
See page 17 of the Articles of Incorporation for details about this - I've considered filing suit to declare this renewal of the POA to be fraudulent, but don't have the money or the time to spend the next 7 years taking this to the Supreme Court.
I can email a copy of this if you cannot get it at this link - see Page 17 for the details:
There was an "annual meeting" in late January 2008 with fewer than 50 people in attendance (including the managers and lawyers and vendors for the association) but this renewal of a contract was never voted on by the 9,051 "members" - thus it was in no way a "mutual agreement", thus the contract theory fails (not a mutual agreement).
Sorry but as far as can be seen by one not versed in TX CIC law this appears to be simply the transistion from developer ownership to ownership by the community. There also appears to be no public objection or legal action opposing the change.
It appears to have been approved as done to TX law.
So again I await a non-voluntary association formation.
Their Bad Because Their Bad Because Their Bad Because their Bad ....
Their Bad Because Their Bad Because Their Bad Because their Bad.
(sung to the tune of Auld Lang Syne)
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.
HOAs are INVOLUNTARY servitudes
