If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Arizona Star)   HOA to homeowners: Give us $8.5 million for a new rec center. Judge to HOA: Swallow it. HOA trifecta complete   (azstarnet.com) divider line 389
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

19076 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Sep 2007 at 1:44 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



389 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-09-13 02:05:48 PM
Office Ninja: "by the majority of the residential unit owners at a special election called and publicized for that specific purpose."

It's not very well worded. It could go either way. The judge felt that it meant one thing. The HOA's ball-washer felt that it went the other way.

Word the laws more clearly in the future, and you won't have that problem.
 
2007-09-13 02:06:21 PM
I have no idea why HOAs exist for single family detached homes (besides uber-rich gated communities or rural developments with no city funding). A condo complex or apartment building I can understand the need, otherwise they are simply a cash sink.

In Southern California basically any house built in the last 25 years is subject to HOA fees for associations that dont do a damn thing. The lack of a HOA was a prime factor in where I'm living now...although I'm a manditory member of a lake club for which I have to pay dues...I live more than a mile away from said lake, which you cannot go to without a membership card, which the system makes nigh impossible to get...for us sclubs that don't live on the lake itself.
 
2007-09-13 02:07:05 PM
rcain: Nice, but those monies should not be gone forever. It would be reasonable in this case to request attornies fees.

Generally, with pure contract disputes, absent an independent tort, attorney's fees can only be awarded if the contract specifically provides for them.
 
2007-09-13 02:08:14 PM
LocalCynic: Seriously, stop with the HOA hate. If it bugs you so much move elsewhere. And save the "b-b-but HOAs are everywhere" nonsense.

Try looking up what "property rights" are and why America is supposed to be the beacon of freedom because of it.
 
2007-09-13 02:08:49 PM
LocalCynic: There's a large difference between places that purport to be open to the public but racially discriminate, and land owners who only will sell to people if they agree to abide by the terms of a covenant. If the HOA prevented people of a certain race from living there, or constantly harassed people of a certain race but not those of another race, maybe you'd have an analogy.

Give it up, already.


I'm not talking terms of degree.

I'm addressing your attitude of "If you don't like it, go somewhere else."

That kind of attitude has, historically, been shown to be the wrong way to effect positive change.
 
2007-09-13 02:09:27 PM
onion13: I have no idea why HOAs exist for single family detached homes (besides uber-rich gated communities or rural developments with no city funding). A condo complex or apartment building I can understand the need, otherwise they are simply a cash sink.

In Southern California basically any house built in the last 25 years is subject to HOA fees for associations that dont do a damn thing. The lack of a HOA was a prime factor in where I'm living now...although I'm a manditory member of a lake club for which I have to pay dues...I live more than a mile away from said lake, which you cannot go to without a membership card, which the system makes nigh impossible to get...for us sclubs that don't live on the lake itself.


Westlake Village FTW!
 
KIA
2007-09-13 02:09:52 PM
How this HOA is NOT like Congress:

If Congress voted a one-time special assessment to cover this year's expected budget deficit of $158 billion (divide by 300 million citizens), then the assessment would be $526.00 for every man, woman, and child in the US.

If it were the national debt, on the other hand, at $9 trillion, it would be a $30,000.00 assessment.
 
2007-09-13 02:10:01 PM
BobtheFascist: HOA's are fine for little shiat like that, but I'm frikkin amazed at some of the other shiat they pull.

I suppose it's like anything else. HOA's started with all the right intentions & turned into something awful.


HOAs started with some of the worst intentions. They first became really popular and widespread during the civil rights era, as a way for home owners to contractually exclude blacks. They would still be used for that purpose today if not for Shelly v. Kramer.

HOAs are an institution that was founded on the worst of intentions, and only evolved over time into something with passable intentions.
 
2007-09-13 02:10:05 PM
Being a poor boy who rents, I guess I should count myself as lucky that I don't have to worry about this anal-retentive bullsh*t.
 
2007-09-13 02:10:11 PM
LocalCynic: If the HOA prevented people of a certain race from living there, or constantly harassed people of a certain race but not those of another race, maybe you'd have an analogy.

In 1980s and even into the 90s, some Houston suburb HOAs still had race requirements. How's that for an analogy?
 
2007-09-13 02:10:32 PM
Prof_Moriarity: We all kind of turn a blind eye to the 80 year old lady who keeps putting the damn ceramic frogs and rabbits in her flowerbeds.

Does that really seriously bother you? It's her property - why should you care how she decorates it? I mean, I'm glad your HOA is cool and they're not fining the crap out of that old woman, but if something like that really bothers you (and the rest of the HOA), you need to get a hobby.
 
2007-09-13 02:11:04 PM
LocalCynic: Seriously, stop with the HOA hate. If it bugs you so much move elsewhere. And save the "b-b-but HOAs are everywhere" nonsense.

B-b-b-but they are!

:-)
 
2007-09-13 02:11:35 PM
Manifest: Why do people even buy into HOA communities?
If you're going to spend upwards of 500k on a house, why would you want someone there who's going to charge you a fee on top of your mortgage and property taxes for the privilege of being told what you can and can't do with your own property?


I spent over $1M and my HOA is critical to ensure the rest of the neighborhood is built in a similar (but wide) price range and in a way that doesn't decimate the value of my home. e.g. You can't just buy one of these wooded lots and park a double-wide on it.

It has come in handy quite a few times during the development of this young neighborhood and people like me won't risk that kind of dough without one.

And as the saying goes, if you don't like it, build elsewhere since this HOA was founded by the owners of the entire development for the very purpose mentioned above.

Most HOA-haters don't have investment-level properties.
 
2007-09-13 02:11:38 PM
Nuuu - HOAs started with some of the worst intentions. They first became really popular and widespread during the civil rights era, as a way for home owners to contractually exclude blacks. They would still be used for that purpose today if not for Shelly v. Kramer

No shiat?!?!?!? Never been a fan of HOA's. Even less of one after reading that.
 
2007-09-13 02:12:06 PM
andrew131: Try looking up what "property rights" are and why America is supposed to be the beacon of freedom because of it.

Psh. America follows the English model of property rights, which was far more restrictive than say the continental European model. Your right to do what you wish with your property has been severely and intentionally hamstrung for the last 1000 years. If you really wanted more freedom to use and dispose of your property you'd move to France.
 
2007-09-13 02:13:03 PM
rcain: Nice, but those monies should not be gone forever. It would be reasonable in this case to request attorney's fees.

One would think that if an HOA won a lawsuit against the builder AFTER several special assessments were assessed, the monies won would go BACK to those individual owners.

But thats not the case, at least in Chicago.

Exact same scenario, our building was falling apart 2 years after it was built (rehabbed). 3 Special assessments - totaling over $10,000 were given to me personally. (in addidtion to the $412/mo.)
After the lawsuit was won, their lawyers (and mine confirmed) said that the monies DO NOT have to be returned.
I moved out shortly after, and now I hear they're sitting on $1 mil plus in reserve (which helped me sell).
 
2007-09-13 02:13:10 PM
This is exactly what I was talking about in the first HOA thread. HOAs aren't governments, but they do have to follow their own rules and applicable state laws or else risk the smackdown on something like this.

I'd be mildly suprised if the HOA board ran any of this past an attorney before attempting the special assessment, much less before the homeowners filed the lawsuit.

\lives in a HOA
\\with no appearance rules
\\\just keep the pool clean, jocko.
 
2007-09-13 02:14:23 PM
SpeedRacerX: Most HOA-haters don't have investment-level properties.

Who are you, Donald Trump?
 
2007-09-13 02:14:47 PM
FTA: Gary Linder, a Phoenix attorney representing the association, said the ruling would be appealed.

The HOA wins on appeal then the homeowners appeal and on and on until everyone runs out of money and the HOA builds their center and everyone else either pays of moves. OR you could vote in a new HOA and the old one sues to get back in.

/Either way the lawyers are happy!
 
2007-09-13 02:14:58 PM
Nuuu: Psh. America follows the English model of property rights, which was far more restrictive than say the continental European model. Your right to do what you wish with your property has been severely and intentionally hamstrung for the last 1000 years. If you really wanted more freedom to use and dispose of your property you'd move to France.

Eh, not really. Common law yes, property rights no. The Crown and Joint Stock Companies had to offer incentives to get English to come to the new world and settle. It is one of the primary reasons why the English beat out the Spanish and French in the settlement of North America. But just to be clear, it is ONE of the reasons, not the sole reason.
 
2007-09-13 02:15:16 PM
Nuuu: andrew131: ...Your right to do what you wish with your property has been severely and intentionally hamstrung for the last 1000 years...

um, not my rights, I'm in my 30's

/native american HOAs?
//seriously?
 
2007-09-13 02:15:54 PM
That must be a pleasant neighborhood to live in now since the vote was basically half and half...and it's old folks with nothing better to do but bicker about it all day.
 
2007-09-13 02:16:27 PM
Nuuu: If you really wanted more freedom to use and dispose of your property you'd move to France.

No you wouldn't. In the New World, the French had the most restrictive property rights of all the West European nations. It was essentially a feudal lord system. The English introduce the headright system and allowed the transfer of property, something that could not be done under the French system.
 
2007-09-13 02:17:04 PM
andrew131: In 1980s and even into the 90s, some Houston suburb HOAs still had race requirements. How's that for an analogy?

Really? You have a link handy? I'd like to forward that to somebody.
 
2007-09-13 02:17:08 PM
birdistasty: Prof_Moriarity: We all kind of turn a blind eye to the 80 year old lady who keeps putting the damn ceramic frogs and rabbits in her flowerbeds.

Does that really seriously bother you? It's her property - why should you care how she decorates it? I mean, I'm glad your HOA is cool and they're not fining the crap out of that old woman, but if something like that really bothers you (and the rest of the HOA), you need to get a hobby blowjob.


FTFY
 
2007-09-13 02:17:58 PM
SpeedRacerX: Manifest: Why do people even buy into HOA communities?
If you're going to spend upwards of 500k on a house, why would you want someone there who's going to charge you a fee on top of your mortgage and property taxes for the privilege of being told what you can and can't do with your own property?


I spent over $1M and my HOA is critical to ensure the rest of the neighborhood is built in a similar (but wide) price range and in a way that doesn't decimate the value of my home. e.g. You can't just buy one of these wooded lots and park a double-wide on it.

It has come in handy quite a few times during the development of this young neighborhood and people like me won't risk that kind of dough without one.

And as the saying goes, if you don't like it, build elsewhere since this HOA was founded by the owners of the entire development for the very purpose mentioned above.

Most HOA-haters don't have investment-level properties.


So, how's the view from atop Mt. Condescension today?

/I keed. I keed.
 
2007-09-13 02:18:16 PM
FTA: Gary Linder, a Phoenix attorney representing the association, said the ruling would be appealed.

And who's paying these lawyers to appeal? The ASSociation.

Who pays the association? The Homeowners.

So it's a lose-lose for those against this. Either pay a flat fee one time, or take over months, and maybe STILL have to pay that one time fee.
 
2007-09-13 02:19:11 PM
SpeedRacerX: Manifest: Why do people even buy into HOA communities?
If you're going to spend upwards of 500k on a house, why would you want someone there who's going to charge you a fee on top of your mortgage and property taxes for the privilege of being told what you can and can't do with your own property?


I spent over $1M and my HOA is critical to ensure the rest of the neighborhood is built in a similar (but wide) price range and in a way that doesn't decimate the value of my home. e.g. You can't just buy one of these wooded lots and park a double-wide on it.

It has come in handy quite a few times during the development of this young neighborhood and people like me won't risk that kind of dough without one.

And as the saying goes, if you don't like it, build elsewhere since this HOA was founded by the owners of the entire development for the very purpose mentioned above.

Most HOA-haters don't have investment-level properties.


Well once the bubble finishes off, you $1M property will be more like 500K. How again will the HOA protect against that?

Your property is overvalued.
 
2007-09-13 02:19:44 PM
Ditto: andrew131: In 1980s and even into the 90s, some Houston suburb HOAs still had race requirements. How's that for an analogy?

Really? You have a link handy? I'd like to forward that to somebody.


Shelly v. Kraemer (new window) thatnoocited.

I don't know if I can find documents online to prove about the Houston HOAs, it was the type of problem where they had those by-laws on the paper but never actually enforced it. The contracts had never been changed in the first place. See the problem?
 
2007-09-13 02:19:48 PM
SpeedRacerX: Most HOA-haters don't have investment-level properties.

And this justifies rigid rather fascistic policy...

...how?
 
2007-09-13 02:20:16 PM
My HOA tried something like this, not nearly as expensive of course but same thing. A small group of people want to build a Taj Mahal of a "community center" on everyone else's dime.

The vote failed miserably, but that small group of people is still bitter about it and keeps trying to roll regular maintenance items into a renewed effort into getting their playroom.
 
2007-09-13 02:20:44 PM
LocalCynic: SchlingFo: The same argument was brought up when people were opposing Jim Crow laws in stores and restaurants.

There's a large difference between places that purport to be open to the public but racially discriminate, and land owners who only will sell to people if they agree to abide by the terms of a covenant. If the HOA prevented people of a certain race from living there, or constantly harassed people of a certain race but not those of another race, maybe you'd have an analogy.

Give it up, already.


And you see nothing fundamentally wrong with attempting to hold onto some form of property right long after you've signed your name off the deed?

Attempting to control others long after your hands have been washed of any form of control is the ultimate in power grabs.

Furthermore, sellers can agree to not sale a parcel of land to a buyer unless they abide by certain rules the seller arbitrarily decided, but - technically speaking - there's very little the seller can do if the buyer choses not to abide by the 'agreement' once his name is on the deed.

HOAs have found various loopholes through this, but we're starting to see a trend, legally speaking, of judges siding in favor of land owners over HOAs and restricted-building sale agreements. And this is a good thing.

Cities and municipalities should zone and regulate the building of structures alone, not private citizens.
 
2007-09-13 02:21:15 PM
andrew131: Ditto: andrew131: In 1980s and even into the 90s, some Houston suburb HOAs still had race requirements. How's that for an analogy?

Really? You have a link handy? I'd like to forward that to somebody.

Shelly v. Kraemer (new window) thatnoocited.

I don't know if I can find documents online to prove about the Houston HOAs, it was the type of problem where they had those by-laws on the paper but never actually enforced it. The contracts had never been changed in the first place. See the problem?


The neighbors sued to have that enforced? Damn that's gonna make for an awkward 4th of July block party.
 
2007-09-13 02:21:16 PM
SpeedRacerX: I spent over $1M and my HOA is critical to ensure the rest of the neighborhood is built in a similar (but wide) price range and in a way that doesn't decimate the value of my home. e.g. You can't just buy one of these wooded lots and park a double-wide on it.

It has come in handy quite a few times during the development of this young neighborhood and people like me won't risk that kind of dough without one.

And as the saying goes, if you don't like it, build elsewhere since this HOA was founded by the owners of the entire development for the very purpose mentioned above.

Most HOA-haters don't have investment-level properties.


For future reference, it's easier to just submit a TF discussion thread saying, "I'm rich enough to afford a $1M dollar house."

The same purpose is served, and you're spared some typing.
 
2007-09-13 02:22:21 PM
Office Ninja: Can we use this same logic to overturn a Presidential election, that since not everyone voted there was no true majority. Or is it a majority of those that voted?

As much as I despise what the HOA was trying to pull, and I'm glad the judge overruled them, I disagree with the judge's logic.


You sir, have no comprehension of how our electoral system works. We do not directly elect a president as this country has never been and never will be the "democracy" everyone claims it to be. You do not have the right to vote, you may not pass go, you can not collect $200.

Voting priveleges are bestowed by the state, not by the federal government. The state can tell you you are not smart enough to vote, or that you are too short or tall, fat or skinny, etc, they just cannot limit it by race or sex or age once past 18. The state could also make it that you can only vote if a homeowner, or take away privelege if you live off of welfare, nothing can stop them from that.

/The more you know
 
2007-09-13 02:23:12 PM
Ditto: andrew131: In 1980s and even into the 90s, some Houston suburb HOAs still had race requirements. How's that for an analogy?

Really? You have a link handy? I'd like to forward that to somebody.


I had some racial exclusions when I lived in LA in a HOA agreement that was written sometime in the 40's. Of course it wasn't enforcable. The only reason why it wasn't taken off is because the bylaws required approval of 2/3rd's or greater to change a law and they could never get enough people to return ballots for that or any other vote.
 
2007-09-13 02:23:23 PM
tweekster: Well once the bubble finishes off, you $1M property will be more like 500K. How again will the HOA protect against that?

Your property is overvalued.


If I won the lottery (actually, if I played the lottery), I'd buy a house in SpeedRacerX's neighborhood.

Then, I'd turn around and sell it for $200k.

And, laugh as his property value plummets.
 
2007-09-13 02:23:26 PM
If HOA's are such a bed idea, how do you suggest handling the idiot who turns his house into a craphole that knocks $50k off the asking price for ten of his neighbors?

Seriously, how?
 
2007-09-13 02:23:54 PM
SchlingFo: For future reference, it's easier to just submit a TF discussion thread saying, "I'm rich enough to afford a $1M dollar house."

The same purpose is served, and you're spared some typing.


I wouldn't worry, SpeedRacerX has got one of those nifty sub-prime loans! We're paying for his house!
 
2007-09-13 02:25:12 PM
boobsrgood: If HOA's are such a bed idea, how do you suggest handling the idiot who turns his house into a craphole that knocks $50k off the asking price for ten of his neighbors?

Seriously, how?


Quit touting FreedomTM and then deny property rights to certain people.
 
2007-09-13 02:25:14 PM
birdistasty: Prof_Moriarity: We all kind of turn a blind eye to the 80 year old lady who keeps putting the damn ceramic frogs and rabbits in her flowerbeds.

Does that really seriously bother you? It's her property - why should you care how she decorates it?



Property values.

If you don't get that then you probably don't have that. You won't get it until you do.

Ever try to sell a home before? Every try to do it next to a neighbor that doesn't weed his beds, mow and weed his lawn, keep his house painted, properly landscape it, keep the junk out of the yard, keep the RV out of the street, etc etc etc?

Don't fark with _my_ home value and we will get a long just fine. :-)
 
2007-09-13 02:26:05 PM
SchlingFo: tweekster: Well once the bubble finishes off, you $1M property will be more like 500K. How again will the HOA protect against that?

Your property is overvalued.

If I won the lottery (actually, if I played the lottery), I'd buy a house in SpeedRacerX's neighborhood.

Then, I'd turn around and sell it for $200k.

And, laugh as his property value plummets.


Rack up violations that truly make the neighborhood ugly as soon as a neighbor puts a for sale sign up. Pay the fines in the end, but you can definitely impact the sale of their home by a greater extent.
 
2007-09-13 02:26:41 PM
boobsrgood: If HOA's are such a bed idea, how do you suggest handling the idiot who turns his house into a craphole that knocks $50k off the asking price for ten of his neighbors?

Seriously, how?


Furthermore, the market fairly good at Darwinism. What multi-millionaire do you know that is going to spend $1M on a home and turn it into a dump?
 
2007-09-13 02:26:41 PM
boobsrgood: If HOA's are such a bed idea, how do you suggest handling the idiot who turns his house into a craphole that knocks $50k off the asking price for ten of his neighbors?

Seriously, how?


As long as we are talking about myths, you could always deal with him by riding a rainbow-colored unicorn over to his house and wave a magic wand over his head, turning him into a frog.
 
2007-09-13 02:27:18 PM
SpeedRacerX: I spent over $1M and my HOA is critical to ensure the rest of the neighborhood is built in a similar (but wide) price range and in a way that doesn't decimate the value of my home. e.g. You can't just buy one of these wooded lots and park a double-wide on it.

It has come in handy quite a few times during the development of this young neighborhood and people like me won't risk that kind of dough without one.

And as the saying goes, if you don't like it, build elsewhere since this HOA was founded by the owners of the entire development for the very purpose mentioned above.

Most HOA-haters don't have investment-level properties.


If I have the money and I legally buy the lot, why shouldn't I be able to plot a double-wide down there? It's my land, not yours.

Your non-existent 'right to profit and increasing property value' doesn't trump my property rights. In fact, you have no right to profit.

Also, you're wrong. I have several investment-level properties and I'm anti-HOA because of their blatant abuse of power.
 
2007-09-13 02:27:25 PM
boobsrgood: If HOA's are such a bed idea, how do you suggest handling the idiot who turns his house into a craphole that knocks $50k off the asking price for ten of his neighbors?

Seriously, how?


The bigger, and much more common, issue is how to stop people from having their homes foreclosed on or selling their house on the cheap to try and get the hell out of it and avoid foreclosure.

That right there poses much more of a threat to your property values than any asshole neighbor ever will, and nobody seems to worry about that one bit.

When your house is worth $1M, and the sub-prime "flipper" has his identical $1M house next to you foreclosed on, which the bank then sells for $700k, your house value has now dropped by a couple of hundred thousand dollars.
 
2007-09-13 02:27:49 PM
SpeedRacerX: Don't fark with _my_ home value and we will get a long just fine. :-)

Don't use your home as an investment vehicle and you'll be fine.
 
2007-09-13 02:27:52 PM
boobsrgood: If HOA's are such a bed idea, how do you suggest handling the idiot who turns his house into a craphole that knocks $50k off the asking price for ten of his neighbors?

Seriously, how?


Except property values simply are not that fickle, people like to delude themselves into thinking that, but it just doesnt happen in real life.

(city ordinances would more than cover most problems anyways)
 
2007-09-13 02:28:46 PM
boobsrgoodIf HOA's are such a bed idea, how do you suggest handling the idiot who turns his house into a craphole that knocks $50k off the asking price for ten of his neighbors?

Seriously, how?


Step 1: Re-evaluate the situation to verify that said neighbor has actually knocked 50K off your 'value' and it wasn't just a correction to overpricing, etc.

Step 2: Talk to said homeowner in a polite manner outlining your concerns. Try and frame it so there is some incentive for them to change

Step 3: If step 1 turns out true, then most likely there is some city ordinance/health code/etc violation that can be handled by the law.

Step 4: If all else fails, grab your neighbors and pitchforks and torches and surround the house.
 
2007-09-13 02:28:55 PM
SpeedRacerX:
Property values.


The only people who should be worried about property values are speculators and people who are leveraged 100%+. For normal people, who buy their homes and live in them, a home is not an investment. They understand that the RE market is cyclical, and they're going to get what they get when they sell.
 
Displayed 50 of 389 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report