Couple lose their home over $120 debt

The Sacramento Bee ^ | January 24, 2004 | Michael Kolber -- Bee Staff Writer

[DelaWhere]

Couple lose their home over $120 debt By Michael Kolber -- Bee Staff Writer Published 2:15 a.m. PST Saturday, January 24, 2004 Get weekday updates of Sacramento Bee headlines and breaking news. Sign up here.

COPPEROPOLIS -- A retired couple's dispute with their homeowners association has spiraled out of control in this Calaveras County community -- and now they have lost their home less than a year after failing to pay $120 in annual dues.

[Lazamataz]

forestation = firestation

Ah, I see. So when I was circumsized, I lost my fireskin.

[Mark was here]

Ah, I see. So when I was circumcised, I lost my fireskin.

A while ago there was a radio station in Detroit that had the call letters WWWW or W-4 for short.

They called their softball team the W-4-Skins.

Someone complained.

[Lazamataz]

Someone complained.

I would have renamed them the Purple Turgid Members.

But, of course, I'm a bit of a wisea&&.

[tahiti]

"Let's remove the property aspect and insert the life aspect, or the liberty aspect. (Life, liberty or property..."

The essence of liberty is to be able to freely enter into a contract for mutual benefit and have it enforced by a government when one party is in default.

Otherwise, if contracts are not protected no one will have property, free and clear, in which they can live their life on.

[Mark was here]

But, of course, I'm a bit of a wisea&&.

me too...

[ovrtaxt]

the Purple Turgid Members.

Hey! Turgid is my word! I bought it under contract. ;)

[ovrtaxt]

You cant sign them away ...

Exactly my point.

[ovrtaxt]

We're in a bit of a 'chicken and egg' thing here. I contracts are to protect such rights, can you enforce a contract that limits those rights? Catch 22.

I say that the contract is flawed and the rights are unabridgeable. (I think I made that up.)

So if we follow that logic, the HOA contract here is a violation of private property rights under the Constitution. Yes, I know it happens all the time, but why doesn't anyone question it?

[13foxtrot]

How about refusing to buy a home covered by HOA encumberance?

[tahiti]

"...the HOA contract here is a violation of private property rights under the Constitution."

This is where you are making an incorrect assumption and thus come to conclusions that you espouse.

The Constitution is a document to limit the power of "government" only, not HOA's or any other private organization.

The private property right under the Constitution that you refer to appears to be related to Amendment V, "...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

If that is the case than this amendment restricts and limits "government" only.

[ovrtaxt]

I understand that aspect completely. But how can you enter into a contract which abridges inherent, intrinsic rights given by God and recognized under the Constitution? How can government justly enforce such contracts?

Are you saying that you can contractually sign away your rights? I was always told you can't, but it happens all the time.

[tahiti]

"Are you saying that you can contractually sign away your rights?"

Yes, free people do that everyday.

Have you ever bought or sold an automobile "as is?"

[ArmstedFragg]

I did so for the express purpose of reigning in these weenies.

I did so for a similar purpose and spent the next fifteen years going to meetings in which the majority made decisions about what "we" should do about things. Unfortunately, nothing ever actually got done because nobody was willing to either volunteer or pay to do it. When we finally got a majority of like-minded folks on the board, we adopted a "no unfunded mandate" code that put an end to that.

I have a particularly fond memory of one guy who wanted to pull out a diseased tree in the common area. He was opposed by several folks who "liked the way the tree looked". We went through them one by one, assigning the responsibility for future maintenance of the tree to them. When all declined, we told the guy to go ahead and pull it out.

HOA's are just little exercises in democracy, full of all the same flaws that resulted in the founding fathers chosing a republic as our form of government.

[ovrtaxt]

I'll bite. What right does that abridge?

[Johnny_Cipher]

Are you saying that you can contractually sign away your rights?

You can take a job that requires you to sign a confidentiality clause. While you still have the right to free speech, in some cases you get canned and/or sued if you exercise it.

[ovrtaxt]

I know. That's the kind of stuff that I'm questioning.

[ovrtaxt]

Let me also say that I uphold the employer's right to fire the employee for ANY REASON. The business is his property.

But I question how the government can logically enforce such contracts.

[Johnny_Cipher]

That's the kind of stuff that I'm questioning.

Well, the point I see is that, if you don't want to give up your free speech rights, then don't take the job. And, if you don't want to be subject to the local Mrs. Grundy nazi brownshirt HOA's rules, then don't buy into the neighborhood.

[sauropod]

"When all declined, we told the guy to go ahead and pull it out."

I love that story!

[ovrtaxt]

Well. yes!

I'm just stirring up trouble trying to get people to think. Plus, I really do want to know what logic was used to get us to this point.