I heard this story on the news and stuff like this always pisses me off. I wondered when the Chron would run it. I recently read an article online from a man who said that if neighborhood associations didn't exists, people might actually paint their houses odd colors or keep 5 cats in their houses! Good GOD, NOOOOOOO!!!! Well, I keep well more than 5 but my house isn't orange, so one out of two ain't bad I guess. What bugs me the most is the kind of unreal power these organizations have legally. If you want the deed restrictions, great, but there are becoming fewer and fewer options when it comes to buying a house in a nice neighborhood with regard to getting around those restrictions. I want my house to be MY HOUSE. Those "weeds" in my front yard cost me $3000 in native Texas landscape architect fees. I've even read where some neighborhoods are forcing families to agree to have no more than 2 kids. HUH??? Is this America? I digress... An $800 bill costs woman her home Neighbors help widow fight community association By DALE LEZON and S.K. BARDWELL Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle Wenonah Blevins, an 82-year-old widow, had lived alone in her Champions subdivision house for 15 years with the fear of opening her door at night. On April 10, she opened her door during the day to discover what she never would have imagined -- a constable with an eviction order and a moving van to take her away from her $150,000 home, which was paid in full. "It has been just like a hideous nightmare," Blevins said of the past month. She now is staying with a friend. Over the next few days, Blevins would discover that a check for more than $800 she wrote to the Champions Community Improvement Association in August, for two years' worth of dues, had never been cashed. Instead, the association had gone to court over the $814.50 in dues, won a default judgment against Blevins, and sold her house at an auction for $5,000. All without her knowledge. "I was just devastated," Blevins said. "I didn't know what to think." Tuesday night, hundreds of angry and confused Champions subdivision residents jammed a neighborhood church meeting hall demanding to know why one of their neighbors lost her home for unpaid homeowners' association fees. Association president Al Brooks said the governing body followed proper procedures to auction the home. However, Blevins' supporters said the nine-member board was morally wrong to seize and auction the home, and the neighbors want to get Blevins' house back. Dozens of people accused the association of insensitivity and callousness. "On the surface, it's appalling," said Ed Terry, a Champions resident for 27 years. He said the incident made him embarrassed to say he lived in the upscale subdivision in north Harris County. Brooks said Blevins filed a lawsuit against the association, and it may cost a great deal of money to satisfy the company that bought the home. "If we're going to do anything as an association, as a neighborhood, the question is how much money will it cost?" Brooks said. Susan Arkell, a Champions resident, said she hoped the community could buy back the house for $7,000 under a state statute that allows people to recover foreclosed property. The courts, however, will have to decide the case, said Marian S. Rosen, Blevins' attorney. "We just need some answers," said Arkell. "A lot of people want to do everything, as a neighborhood, to correct the mistake that has been made." The association assesses dues of a little more than $400 a year for garbage collection and other services, Rosen said. In August, Blevins took a check for more than $800 to the association's offices in the 14500 block of Wunderlich and dropped it in the mail slot to pay two years' worth of dues, Rosen said. She said the association never cashed the check because it had already begun proceedings against Blevins. Correspondence about the property was mailed to "Mr. W.L. Blevins," and was mistaken for junk mail, Rosen said. A process server looking for a man repeatedly visited Blevins' home between 7 and 9:15 p.m. when Blevins does not answer her door, she said. "She is an 82-year-old widow," said Rosen. "She has no children, no family. She and her cat live in this lovely $150,000 house, fully paid for. "They took her home for a bill of $814.50. They filed suit and took a default judgment against her. With penalties and interest, it was close to $5,000, and that's what the home was sold for at auction," Rosen said. The house was purchased by Danny Hilal, of First Capital Interests. Neither the association nor First Capital could be reached for comment Tuesday. Rosen was granted a restraining order preventing the association, Hilal and First Capital, and Marc Seymour, whose Security Storage business took all of Blevins' possessions, from disposing of any of Blevins' property pending a hearing in a state district court scheduled for Friday. The association's attorney told Rosen the association wanted to resolve the problem fairly. "There is hope," Blevins said Tuesday. "The response of my neighbors and everybody has just been overwhelming." ------------------ So, I took the million dollars and bought a steam shovel...
To add insult to injury, this woman will likely never see her possessions again since they've gone to Security Storage (check out the Houston Press to get the scoop on that company). It's just hard for me to believe that people are so hostile to property rights (actually, they are usually hostile to other people's property rights. People tend to stand up for their own property rights) in the United States. I have a friend who works for the McKinney Courier-Gazette. As part of his job, he covers the city's Planning and Zoning Commission. It's really amazing to what lengths people will go to try and prevent others from exercising their property rights. After every meeting, my friend comes out looking so defeated because he can't believe how selfish people are and how controlling they try to be. (And McKinney is especially bad. They're going out of their way to make it unattractive for businesses to move to the city. The requirements for everything are outrageous). But at least with the P&Z Board, you have a shot. The members don't usually have a vested interest in the properties. They can sometimes be persuaded to be reasonable. With a neighborhood association, there is generally no reasoning with them. I'm still mad about something that happened back in Amarillo. A company wanted to put up some apartments near a subdivision. The land was even zoned for apartments. Because of the costs involved in putting up an apartment complex in a city the size of Amarillo, the builders decided they would apply for grants fromt he state and make a certain number of their units available as "low income" housing (though that's really a misnomer. The rents were going to be barely below market rate. As a matter of fact, the rents at this new complex were going to be higher than the rent I paid on an apartment I keep in Amarillo). Needless to say, the people with houses kind of near the planned apartment complex had a fit. They even managed to get the state to disapprove the grants. These people felt they had a right to dictate what was done with a property kind-of near their homes. In my opinion, if they want to dictate usage on that site, they are more than welcome to buy that land and do whatever they want with it. The thing that got me the most, though, were the horrible quotes from the homeowners. They tried to paint it as if they were doing poor kids a favor by not allowing "low income" apartments to be built in a nice neighborhood with one of the best schools in town. They talked about how horrible it would be for these kids to have to go to school and see what all the wealthier classmates had as far as clothes and shoes and cars and whatever else. Yeah, that would really suck. (here's the actual quote from the newspaper: "What concerns me most is the self-esteem of the children that would live in the apartments once they begin school." Here's another quote: "I think a lot of people here worked hard to get to this point (of living)," Cook said, including himself in the example. "That's why people here resent their nearness." Yeah, how dare those poor people come to live in OUR neighborhood after we worked so hard to get relatively rich.) They also had many stereotypical quotes about the crime rate and cars being put up on blocks. It was ridiculous. And it still hacks me off to this day. It makes me wish I had the money to build an apartment complex on the site (the land is already zoned for apartments. The fascists can't prevent a complex from being built there). And I'd make sure we had plenty of less-fortunate people living there (I'm sure the people who lived there would be just as responsible neighbors as everyone else.) ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com [This message has been edited by mrpaige (edited May 02, 2001).]
What a crock! That is truly a story that shows how evil people can be. Mr. Paige- I can understand why some people don't want low income apartments around their houses. I know only some will be low income, but I bet that would lower property values. The whole game is about politics. If one of the homeowners knows someone they can easily hold up the system or the grants, but I don't blame the people for fighting it. Lot of folks, probably myself included have a NIMBY attitude. NIMBY stands for not in my back yard. It may be good to have low income housing but don't put it close to me.
An apartment complex that isn't even adjacent to the bulk of these people's homes isn't going to lower property values. And many people who signed the petition that convinced the state to not give the builders the grants lived more than 2 miles away from the complex property. I guess my family should've protested to keep those houses from being built. They are significantly smaller than the houses in my Dad's neighborhood. Having those relatively poor people building near us might well have lowered out property values (building their crappy $75,000 to $150,000 houses within 2 miles of Dad's $1.3 million house surely lowered our property values). For the record, the definition of "low income" under these guidelines is a family that makes $43,000 per year or less (which, by the way, would mean that many people who own houses in that neighborhood would qualify as "low income" under the state rules. This isn't a neighborhood with $1 million houses in it. These are houses in teh $150,000 range at the upper end, with some worth as little as around $75,000). And the rents at these apartments were very close to market rate (As a matter of fact, the rents would've been about the same as an existing complex near the development). If these people were worried that an apartment complex was going to lower their property values, they shouldn't have bought property near a strip of land that was zoned for apartments (Although some of these people weren't even anywhere near the complex anyway. Like I said, some of the complaintants were more than 2 miles away, and only four homes were within 200 feet of where the complex would've been. And the people who were close would be separated by a wall and a buffer zone). Your contention is that we should protect people from something that may or may not happen (slightly lower property values - something that will happen in Amarillo anyway because of overbuilding - perhaps we shoud allow these homeowners to prevent any new houses being built in the entire city. Having a glut of houses affects property values) because they were too lazy to take the time to 1. notice that they were buying a house relatively near a site zoned for apartments, and 2. take the time to find out the definition of "low income" and see that the apartment rents would be virtually the same as other complexes in the neighborhood? If we accept that people should be allowed to dictate what other people do with their own property because of the potential effects on property values, then we have to accept that neighborhood associations are a great thing because they prevent homeowners from doing things to their homes that might (or might not) cause a decline in property values. And we should let rich people declide how many people are allowed to build houses in any given city because oversaturation certainly causes property values to go down (I'd venture to guess that property values are sinking there as we speak. The last time I drove through the neighborhood, about half the homes were for sale. People overextended themselves and now realize they can't afford these homes they bought. The neighbors who didn't overextend themselves should've had the right to prevent these other people from overextending themselves because it's bringing their property values down. Either that or they should be able to prevent these poorer people from selling their homes and driving down property values. I mean, we all think that homeowners should have the right to control other property owners when those other property owner's action cause harm to property values. And these people selling their homes all at once has a more measurable effect than building an apartment complex sort-of near the development). ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com
I'm not saying it was right or wrong, but everyone has a right to have their voice heard. Apparently in this circumstance someone agreed with the homeowners. I know the community I live in just had an adjacent peice of land bought by a grocery store. It was promised to the residents to be a park for another 5 years before it was sold. Granted it wasn't a contract bud it was verbally stated to many buyers. Personally I didn't care if it bacame a grocery store, I knew it would be more convenient & know that the new Krogers are very well built stores. But the folks that backed up to the store had a gripe. They called in the press and contacted both the home builder & Krogers and finally got Krogers to reimburse their lot premioms they paid to the home builder. My ppoint is your opinion may be more PC, but I don't care. I would complain as well if someone tried to put in low income housing in my backyard. It's my right to voice my opinion, right or wrong. ------------------
People generally don't give a d*mn about each other anyway . . .why should these folx be any different Hell . . .didn't hospitals turn people away who didn't have insurance. . . If someone is homeless and dies because someone doesn't want homes they can afford near them . . . SO WHAT . . . LET THEM EAT CAKE@!!!!! Rocket River ------------------
The situation with the grocery store is very different in that the people there were given a promise. The people in Amarillo were given no such promise. And it's not PC to be pro-property rights in this country these days. It's simply hypocritical to say that I can do what I want with my property, but I'm going to prevent you from doing what you want with your property. They have a right to speak out against land being used by its owners. But they then shouldn't complain when someone tells them what they can and cannot do with their property (yet they do). If we're for property rights, we should be for property rights. We don't get to pick and choose when are for them and when we are against them. And if we are against property rights, we shouldn't get to pick and choose at what levels we oppose property rights. It's a pretty clear issue. You're either for it, or you're against it. This picking and choosing times when people are or aren't for or against an issue is sickening. Pick a position and stick with it. If you're made a promise (like the 5 year thing on the grocery store), then by all means, make the effort to get people to stick to that promise. If we're talking about changing the zoning of a parcel of land, feel free to speak out against it at the P&Z Board meetings and make your voice heard. But don't build a house next to a plot of land designated for apartments and then decide you don't want apartments on that land. You knew going in that there were going to be apartments there at some point (if you did your homework. If not, then it's your own fault). And the State was wrong to deny the grants to build the apartments based on these stupid petitions where most of the signatures were from people who lived over two miles away. Of course, these people are mostly worked up about two words more than anything else anyway. The company that was going to build the apartments has more recently come back and said they may still build the complex, but without the state grants. They would charge the same amount for rent and target families with the same financial background as before. The very same people who would've lived there before would live there now. It just won't officially be a "low income" property. No word of complaints yet. (And the people never complained about moving into a neighborhood with several existing apartment complexes in the vicinity that charged market rates and targeted people in the same income brackets. These people were afraid of two words. They'll apparently accept the apartment complex. They just won't accept the very same apartment complex, with teh same design and with the same people living in it if it is officially designated as "low income".) You may well be a NIMBY, but keep in mind that eventually, you're going to do something that the other NIMBYs don't like. Are you still going to stand up for their right to make life hard on you when you are the enemy? Are you going to bow down to whatever the NIMBYs want you to do with your property? ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com
When I lived in Houston, I painted my house gray and the trim in a rose color. It looked quite nice and was the only house that was recently painted (although others certainly needed painting). Much to my suprise I received a notice from the HOA indicating that the rose trim was not an "approved" color and I must repaint. I decided to fight them and attended the next board meeting. Antoher person was there to observe the proceedings as well and she asked me where I lived. I pointed out my house and she said "I love the paint job you just did, especially the trim". I then explained why I was there and she was amazed. I told the board that if anyone in the neighborhood is unable to sell their house or can provide documentation as to why their house has declined in value due to my paint job, I would repaint the same day, but until then, I would not do it. They eventually agreed with me. Incidentally, I bought my house for around 95,000 back in the early 80's. At the time of the repainting it had depreciated in value to around 50,000. Meanwhile they had a binder at least 4 inches thick with "violations" which included the fact that someone did not have a net on their basketball goal. The HOA would also go peer over folk's fences to see if they had added anything to the back yard without "permission". We were cited for adding a fence which divided out yard in half. They claimed that it may violate the city's easement. My claim was, "so what, if it does and the city needs to work in that area, then it is my sole responsibility to resolve it with the city and my own expense." They also complained that I had not received approval to build a deck. My deck was only visible if you were inthe back yard or were flying over my house with a helicopter. It also was built over an existing patio. I could go on about the HOA at the condo I once lived in but that is a whole story within itself. One of my favorite things about Minnesota is that there are few if any HOAs. ------------------
Another thing, the folks who work so hard to keep things like apartment complexes and retail outlets and the like away from their neighborhoods are also often the people who sit and complain about their property taxes, apparently not realizing that one of the reasons their property taxes are so high is because they keep apartment complexes and retail outlets and the like out of their neighborhoods. Speaking of paint jobs on houses and things like that, I was in Amarillo a few weeks ago, and I happened to drive by a house that my mother and I used to live in when I was in elementary school. The people who owned it now have painted it this really ugly green AND they've put these horrible-looking green fake spanish tiles on the roof. It looks really, really bad. Since this house is within three or four miles of a property that I own in Amarillo, I'm going to start protesting these people's right to have their house look really ugly. They're probably driving my property values down by having such an ugly house. I should be able to prevent their house looking like that. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com
The only Home Owners Association we have in my neighborhood in Astoria is the Greek Mafia. They pretty much keep everything in line. If you know what I mean. ------------------ Everything you do, effects everything that is.
Jeff that story is definitely on the extreme end, but I tend to like neighborhood associations. Otherwise, you always get some jerk parking their 20' boat on the street across from your house or some huge Winnebago. There's also my personal favorite where your neighbor buys 3 broken down cars to fix up one... and leaves the parts all over his front yard. Here in my condo building, we've had 3-5 homeowners that just will not pay their HOA fees. Since this is a community I care about, my entire intuition is to have all of these bozos thrown out... and I have no idea what the extinuating circumstances are for these individuals. I honestly don't give a ****. I just know that in a building w/ 78 units, 73 of the homeowners are paying their bills, the other 5 are holding up improvements... literally holding up improvements (it doesn't help that one of the delinquent homeowners imprinted my hatchback w/ the shape of his Jeep's tire and says "uhhhh... I don't think I did it"). In the defense of the assocation that harrassed that old lady... they did go through normal earthling methods of contact: Correspondence about the property was mailed to "Mr. W.L. Blevins," and was mistaken for junk mail, Rosen said. A process server looking for a man repeatedly visited Blevins' home between 7 and 9:15 p.m. when Blevins does not answer her door, she said. Obviously an 82 year old lady is going to have compelling extinuating circumstances. But... this is merely an unfortunate situation. She was notified by mail and someone came to her home 'repeatedly' to inform her of the process. 'Repeatedly'. I'm not sure what exactly, in your opinion, the neighborhood association was supposed to do to come out on top here. ------------------ women love me, fish fear me.
Wow...depending on your perspective, this is a great argument for or against gun control. Myself, if someone took my house and my belongings.....welllll.....perhaps I should just keep these thoughts to myself. ------------------ stop posting my damn signature
Speaking of, my mother and her husband had trouble with their neighbors. Some of the neighbors didn't like it that my mother had been putting in new gardens around her house and doing some renovation work on the house (making it temporarily messy). They also didn't like the color my mother painted the shutters on the house. They didn't have a homeowners' association to complain to, so they just left nasty notes on my mother's front door. My step-father suggested that since they were in Arkansas, the people were just not used to seeing rusted-out cars up on blocks in the front yards and were thrown by that. (He's from Massachusetts and usually thinks himself quite superior to Southerners). He toyed with the idea of buying a rusted out car and putting it on the lawn. Had my mother not stopped him, he likely would've done it. (They solved the problem by selling the house and moving, by the way). ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com
It's great to see activism for the covenant challenged. Your step-father thought he was superior to Southerners and wanted to prove it by putting a rusted out car in his front yard? Your step-father is an idiot. BTW, it's great that it all worked out in the end. ------------------ women love me, fish fear me.
They probably went through the normal legal hurdles, but I wonder if they really made a good faith effort to contact her. It sounds like they may have misled the judge a little. They could have sent a letter registerd mail. They could have called her on the telephone, put a notice on her door or sent someone during the day (and I thought they did have to try varied times of day, in case someone normally works in the evening). They could have even been good neighbors, and had a constable go by and check on the 82 y/o lady who wasn't answering her door. Then there's the obvious -- suspend garbage pickup, which she wasn't paying for. That would have gotten her attention. Two interesting points -- 1) She did pay them, but they wouldn't cash the check. (So she did recieve notice, and responded.) I don't think you can have the auction if the person pays before it. It's not like she paid right before the auction either -- she paid in August, 2000, and evicted her on April, 2001. Even if you assume eviction proceedings took 3 months, they held the check for at least 5 months before the auction. 2) She opened the door for the constable and moving company, which makes me wonder how hard they really tried to contact her. ------------------ Stay Cool...
dc, her opening the door for the constable and the moving company makes me wonder if an 82 year old woman was playing the media. But I'm trying to look for the good. I certainly don't understand the fact that the assoc. didn't cash her check and stop the processing though. Our HOA pres. stopped a foreclosure immediately following payment. ------------------ women love me, fish fear me.
I never claimed he wasn't an idiot, though I think his desire to put a rusted-out car in the front yard was more of an effort to aggravate the neighbors (and to show them that they could be worse neighbors) rather that to show his superiority to Southerners. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com
who bought the house? Do they have ties to anyone in the association? A 150K house for 5K . . . that is quite a come up Rocket River ------------------
That's what I was thinking, but surely they'd know better than to pull something like that. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com
On this topic, the cover story for the Houston Press this week is about property rights/HOAs, etc. in relation to historic districts in Houston. I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I figured since we're kind of talking about some of the same issues here, people might be interested in reading that article as well. http://www.houstonpress.com/issues/2001-05-03/feature.html/page1.html ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com
