Posted on 02/11/2013 12:50:46 PM PST by OKRA2012
A confrontation over a political sign and a community's Home Owners Association has occupied four years and nearly half a million dollars in legal fees.
(Excerpt) Read more at global.christianpost.com ...
Last place to go to on a covenant violation is the cops ~ you really need to go to court first ~ after consulting with the miscreant.
The pigeon guy actually went to the cops about neighbors killing his birds ~ which is how we found out about the flock.
I'm not sure what a POA is, but in any event, I'm glad to hear that rights are going back to the property owners.
The private property owner who owned the land that was subdivided into the lots. Anyone opposed to HOAs is basically opposed to private property rights.
You are kidding right?
Your premise is completely false.
The developer applies rules to all the lots, each both burdened and benefited. He selects the rules based on what will enhance the value the most for the buyers (maximizing his profits. It might be limitations on outdoor pets, or basketball hoops, or setbacks, or color schemes. Or an agreement to pay to maintain a pool or clubhouse, or airstrip, or gun range. That is all his right as a private property owner.
Then, he sells to willing buyers, who agree to abide by the rules, while benefiting from neighbors’ following the rules.
It is the sovereign power of a person over his own property. Anyone who thinks that they’d be enslaved by such dictatorial tyranny is free to buy elsewhere.
Whatever you do don't do that one ~ BTW, the proponents of those standards will whip fire safety, snow accumulation, and a couple of dozen other things on you so you can't win!
Surprised the architect didn't check his clearances!
I just had a poster here tell me if I didn't support HOA's I wasn't for property rights.
See post #18
“...The private property owner who owned the land that was subdivided into the lots. Anyone opposed to HOAs is basically opposed to private property rights.”
Anyone who is opposed to hoa, should simply exercise private property rights elsewhere.
“...Ya pays yer money and ye takes yer choice...” (unknown carnival barker?)
.02
HOA rules should be very basic only. No trash in the yards, no unchained wild dogs, no loud music during sleeping hours etc...otherwise homeowners (as taxpayers) can decorate as they wish unless a few neighbors complain about something then it can be addressed individually. Glad my home isnt in an HOA district. We do just fine without the lil dictators.
Funny things is, when some outsider (like you, or the government) tries to tell an owner what’s best for the property they intend to sell, they inevitably end up screwing it up. Just like the Soviet Union.
And if the eventual owners decide they don’t like the rules, they can change them, or disband the HOA.
Absolutely correct ~ you don’t like rules, go somewhere else. BTW, about 99% of the condos and HOAs around here involve clustering of the dwelling units on the buildable property and the consolidation of the less buildable property into a common property owned by the HOA, That way, theoretically, you get a woodland/park situation, with just a bit tighter residential section. The result is that just about everywhere you go in Fairfax County you have forests and clustered housing.
Can’t afford a lawyer and the covenant violation was firearms. The deputy who we consulted said they can go after reckless discharge but not any old discharge.
Correct me if I am wrong but aren't most of these covered in the Doctrines and Covenants that people sign when they purchase condos or homes in gated communities?
I could see if they change something with out telling you after you sign but if you have given your consent to abide by the rules the only recourse would be to sell and move.
Sounds like the system worked. A private owner who did a bad job setting the rules was corrected by the subsequent owners.
In Florida its nearly impossible to buy a new home that is not in an HOA. The developers like it that way.
Free-for-all developments are low value.
Buy an existing home.
Seriously, you can choose to be in one or not, that’s your choice, but you have to understand that you’re voluntarily accepting yet another layer of government over what you can do with your property,
and people at this level of government tend to join “the board” because they LIKE controlling other people’s property.
And they didn’t get it torn down. The system worked.
In the case at hand I still don't see where the violation occurred ~ every HOA allows 1 sign ~ as does county ordinance and state law. There's not really anything they could take to court to get a judgment on.
“...I could see if they change something with out telling you after you sign but if you have given your consent to abide by the rules the only recourse would be to sell and move.”
And if an HOA ever tries to raise its ugly head over the current neighborhood, we will not sign on the dotted line. There are enough layers of government intrusion into American life without adding that of our neighbors.
If it is working in other neighborhoods, great.
Single Family Dwelling
Depends on what you mean worked. The private developer had rules that all of us agreed to live by. The HOA kept trying to pass new rules, far more restrictive. 50% of the BODs quit to avoid being recalled...which mean we had recall elections petitioned for and approved about every other year.
I’ve never met anyone who objected to the rules from the CC&Rs - rules like “no barbed wire”! It was the rules we kept being threatened with, and kept needing to organize and hold recall elections to prevent, that made people mad.
If you didn’t go to the monthly meetings, you wouldn’t know what rules they were developing and trying to approve. And most of us didn’t want to go to monthly HOA meetings just to say, “Leave us alone!”
I was on the final BOD. If we hadn’t won approval to disband the HOA, I was going to try to get an amendment to the CC&Rs preventing any fines or assessments other than for failure to pay normal dues. That would have pulled the teeth out of any new rules. I was also going to try to pass an amendment requiring a public vote by the homeowners before adoption of any rule not in the CC&Rs. But happily, the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of disbanding, and our CC&Rs allowed it to be done by majority vote. Some places require a 100% vote...
If you go to the top right-hand side of the ad, you can click on a line and return to the article.
Agree with you 100%. Today it's a choice, 30 years from now?
and people at this level of government tend to join “the board” because they LIKE controlling other people’s property.
I agree with that too, but my main question in my original post was who grants them the power?
For example, if you miss a few HOA dues payment, they can seize your property, auction it, and keep 100% of the proceeds.
Who or what gives them that power?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.