Posted on 08/17/2015 10:27:05 AM PDT by NRx
My experience would suggest a different explanation.
I was President of an HOA for several years because somebody had to do it and nobody else wanted the job.
The same held for the other Board members.
We would be pretty lax about enforcement if nobody complained.
If somebody did complain, then we were compelled by the CC&Rs to act. This happened with respect to signage, dog leash requirements, and visitor parking policies. The Board was compelled to enact policies which a majority of the membership would support and that were consistent with the CC&Rs.
Failure to respond to a legitimate complaint would open up the HOA to litigation which could have crippled the organization financially if we lost the case. We had to be very careful to understand the CC&Rs and to protect the unit owners' rights to have them enforced.
To this day I believe that there are widespread violations of the pet policy and that nobody has ever complained. At any time a disgruntled unit owner could complain about pets and the Board would be forced to act.
I pity any new owner who relies on past practices with respect to pets and later finds himself on the losing side of a fight with the HOA. If a person buys into an HOA with CC&Rs, the person needs to read them carefully and expect them to be enforced.
That wouldn't have happened on my watch. That is, I would never have used the tolerance for ongoing violations to coerce compliance with a different violation. The CC&Rs should be adequate for enforcement.
Some CC&Rs allow judgments on the part of the Board, either on a case-by-case basis or in adopting supporting regulations.
I would advise you to correct ALL violations of the CC&Rs. Violating them only makes you subject to arbitrary enforcement at a later time. You might be able to strengthen your case in front of a future Board if you get a letter from the present Board expressing their judgement that you are in compliance.
As for consequences, I would never expect to face anything beyond a warning for an initial infraction. Fines should be reserved for those who are deliberately flouting the legitimacy of the CC&Rs, to which the unit owner already agreed by purchasing a unit, or to cover actual damages caused by an infraction.
Mitch McConnell will not allow that!
Verrrrrrry interesting! It would seem to mean that any state or local body that imposes restrictions on content will be declared unconstitutional.
Practical ramifications: renting a school auditorium for a religious service, renting a town center for a gun show. Having a “draw mohammed” contest at a city park.
Understood in theory, impractical in practice. I’d actually taken the decoration down the day before receiving the notice. There were other things to do than fight the usually sensible HOA over an after-the-fact citation (though I did, IIRC, leave the other two minor violations in place - no reaction once the main one was resolved). I’ll see about bringing “two week allowance” up during the annual homeowner’s meeting (once ensuring ALL potential issues are resolved).
I do have to wonder if someone thought it resembled a roadside memorial to an automotive fatality, and was creeped out by it. I’d actually put it somewhere less conspicuous, but my 5yo moved it to the roadside, and would rather he enjoy the satisfaction of doing so.
Once again, “selective incorporation” rears its ugly head at the expense of the 10th Amendment.
The main reason the NYT is so afraid of strict scrutiny is a) it limits what the government can do to you, and b) strict scrutiny as applied to the 2nd Amendment would overturn 99.9...% of the gun laws in America.
bump
HOA’s are evil
getting an HOA removed from a deed should be easy and free too
Agreed, but unfortunately sometimes a necessary evil. I need mine since they cut my grass and shovel my snow for a whole lot less than I could afford otherwise. I am too gimpy to do that on my own.
This is so awesome. Thank you for posting it. I read two sites a day— Drudge and right here. Can you imagine the impact of Reed on political correctness on a state sponsored college campus. It’s over baby— Fly that Rebel flag !! Put a sign up that Water buffalo not allowed!! GEt it on 9 to 0 baby. The government can’t regulate content any more!! Strict Scrutiny !! This is so deadly to political Correctness on college campuses.
It means that the U.S.A. is heading in the opposite direction of Canada on the matter of free speech.
The author criticizes its impact on "consumer protection" (read: government control on speech). Looks like a very good ruling.
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.