This is getting good. Sirhangover: when you move in read the deed restrictions and you would see that the rules are there for the overall benefit of the neighborhood.. if you do not like them then you have the right as the purchaser to not buy the house.. What the overall benefit is quite honestly is debateable. It seems to me that what benefits a neighborhood are safe and maintained streets, good sewers, decent schools and security patrols. Of course, I could choose not to buy but HOA's are now (according to US statistics) active in 60% of Texas neighborhoods. Some are more active than others, but that means my choices are becoming severely limited. If you can afford less, it limits your choices even further. Achebe: Every area has a different aesthetic and these associations tend to assume that they know how to best influence their resale value. When you buy into the collective, you agree w/ them. They assume it but they are incorrect most times as well. Houses in diverse neighborhoods with fewer deed restrictions have higher values across the board according to the American Homeowner Resource Center. In fact, strong deed restrictions are almost an inverse indicator when it comes to predicting home values. Collective? I don't buy "into a collective." I buy a home. If I wanted a collective, I'd move to a commune. It'd be great to find out what Texas law mandates as to an HOA changing one of its own laws. Laws in most states including Texas are extremely favorable to HOA's. Most HOA's require only a vote of their board to make unilateral changes in deed restrictions and covenants because there is the assumption that they were voted in by a majority of residents. The fact is that most board elections recieve fewer than 10 percent of the total population of the suburb to get elected. Also, unlike city, county, state and federal law, there are no laws or rules requiring waiting periods, open disclosure or posting of rule changes. The board can meet in a closed session, make the changes and they become law immediately. There are NO laws to govern that behavior because they are not considered significant enough to merit state legislation or civic ordinances. And the assumption that you and Jeff are going off of that you have to pay the HOA's legal fees is misleading at best. Actually, it is not misleading. Studies have shown that nearly 90% of cases against HOA's are either summarily dismissed or never make it to court because it is too costly to the homeowner and almost always a losing battle. State laws re-inforce the muscle of HOA's and restrictions, not limit them. In some cases, conflicting laws can create changes, but it is costly and near impossible to get to court in the first place. Few of us would argue against the rights of workers to demand better conditions in their workplace and most of us would say they deserve decent representation and a level playing field. However, we all know that doesn't exist because of the difference in the level of funding on each side. Battles between residents and HOA's are no different. These things pop up b/c they're effective at reigning in crappy neighbors and keeping property values high. Not necessarily. According to the American Homeowners Resource Center, property values are more likely to decrease than increase in strongly deed restricted neighborhoods. Why? Because these are relatively recent developments. Most older neighborhoods are unable to enforce restrictions because they have undergone so many changes over the years. However, increasingly, those are gaining and retaining much greater value. As for "crappy neighbors," that is truly debatable. You mean like the people who live near my in-laws in the richest area of Clear Lake but never come out of their houses except to complain the minute someone erects a fence? You mean them? Yeah, those are crappy neighbors. Or, do you mean the one's around here (the Heights) who walk their dogs, hang out at the park on weekends and actually stop to talk when you are out walking? All I know is that, in my experience, HOAs are the sum of usually rational people. You have TRULY had unique experiences. More and more, people are complaining about the existence of HOA's. Maybe they are just now beginning to really make their presence known. Maybe people are just less interested in that conformity. Whatever the reason, the tone between residents and HOA's is becoming increasingly hostile. According to that same group, the number of lawsuits involving HOA's has climbed dramatically over the past 10 years. Most of those suits are filed by the HOA against a resident. If I buy a car, I can't use it to traffic drugs from UT to AZ. And if you buy the condo next door no Celine Dion after 10, thanks. But, these are laws that are being broken. Loud music isn't the responsibility of the HOA any more than drug trafficing is the responsibility of the car dealer. Whatever happened to just talking to your neighbor about it? Knock on the door and ask nicely. If they don't cooperate, you call the cops. End of story. We are all adults. It's not that difficult. My real concern is for personal freedom. I don't want to spend my hard earned money on a home that restricts my behavior for debateable reasons. And, as more HOA's appear, the number of choices for homes outside of their jurisdiction becomes limited. That is my main concern. ------------------ So, I took the million dollars and bought a steam shovel...
This is from tomorrow's Chronicle and I think it underscores the issue mrpaige and I have with HOA's. In 1999, associations bitterly lobbied against a bill that would have required such groups to conduct open board meetings and improve their notice and due-process requirements before an association could take action against a homeowner. Homeowners have little recourse and often face sizable legal fees if they are targeted by their association for unpaid dues or other transgressions. The issue is particularly acute in Houston, where there is no zoning. Associations often function as de facto political subdivisions in the absence of meaningful standards imposed by city government. ------------------ So, I took the million dollars and bought a steam shovel...
I don't know that this is actually true. We've just seen examples of convenants that don't meet Federal Law. And, of course, I suspect many homes in my neighborhood have a "white's only" deed restriction that quite obviously violates Federal Law (and is unenforceable, but you said that when I buy my home, I buy only what the deed tells me.) So, what do we do if these covenants violate laws? Do we take the HOA to court. I would think we'd have to because if we just ignore the clauses that violate the law, the HOA is likely to take our home away (if they'll take a home away over $14.50. I suspect they'd attempt to do the same over a satellite dish). ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com
Mr Paige- Basically the way around it is to dig a hole in the ground somewhere around the house, concrete it it and install the dish on that, but for some reason none are suppose to be on the house (although there are some houses with them on it). I'm not sure what neat is (and actually i think it is worded differently than that. I guess asking me to define neat is like asking Willing about sexual relations!
mrpaige, like you said a race restriction in a deed is illegal and unenforceable. And you wouldn't have to take the HOA to court to prevent enforcement. The HOA has to take you to court to enforce any deed restriction, if you won't do it voluntarily. They don't have the right to seize your house because you put a sattelite dish on it, but they can sue to enforce the agreement and if the court finds that the restriction is legal, then the court will force you to remove it. That little old lady didn't lose her house by enforcement of a deed restriction. She lost her house because she was sued for a debt, was served by mail (after service in person had been attempted, even though the company did not need to so do) as to the court date, did not show at the trial, had a default judgment taken against her, and did not appear in court to contest that default judgment once it was issued. Once they had the judgment, the HOA was free to forclose on her property to satisfy that debt. Now that is not to say that those people who ran the HOA were nice folk. They refused partial payment for the money she owed. They could have attached her bank account and taken the cash, instead of selling her house. Selling her $150,000 house (for far under the market value) was definitely a low act, and might not have satisfied the requirements of fair debt collection. But all that stuff had nothing to do with the fact that it was a HOA. If she owed money to someone else and didn't pay it, that person or entity could have taken similar actions against her. ------------------ I'm about to boldly go where many men have gone before.
The "way around it" is to simply put the dish on your house and force the HOA to try and back up their potentially illegal restriction (which might be why some houses have dishes on them and the rule apparently isn't being enforced). Personally, I find the restriction to be out-of-bounds (the regs say the only way they can have a restriction is in regards to common areas, or if the restriction doesn't increase the cost of installation, maintenance, etc. or interfere with reception. One could make the case that having to properly install the dish in the ground (by digging a hole, buying a pole, buying the equipment to attach the dish to the pole, buying the cement, burying the cable, etc. would increase the cost of installation. It could also potentially hamper reception depending on things like tree coverage, etc.) The HOA rules would have to contain exceptions for those instances. It seems to me that the restriction on satellite dishes would be the same as restrictions on race. They're both illegal. HOAs should not attempt to enforce them. And thanks, Sam, for clearing up the differences between the satellite dish example and what happened with this lady. The whole concept of HOAs seems pointless to me. I've lived in several houses and neighborhoods in my life, none of which had an HOA or any significant deed restrictions (the last house my father built, though, had a restriction as to size. The house had to be above certain square footage). Yet I've never, ever had any problems with any neighbors over anything. And I can't imagine any situation where I would need to try and control my neighbors beyond the tools that the law already gives me. I guess that's why I have so much trouble with these concepts. Since I've never had problems without an HOA, I don't see the need to have any HOAs. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com
W/ 'fewer' deed restrictions but not 'no' deed restrictions. Build a place w/ no restrictions and you end up in crapville, USA. Great, noone's asking you to move into an HOA. Noone's forcing you to move into an HOA. I'm not sure if this is true. I was just told that most HOAs require member votes to amend or revoke a rule b/c many mortgage sources, VA, FHA, etc. won't fund a loan if it's otherwise. I'll check on this during healthy business hours. Is this your understanding of Texas law? It's not true for me at all. Where did you get this? How would an amendment not be considered significant enough to merit legislation? Are we discussing Texas law again? BTW, it amazes me that Texas could somehow possibly protect a homeowner less than UT does. I didn't say it was misleading b/c the homeowners were always in the wrong vs. an HOA. I said that in any court battle, the plaintiff can sue for legal fees. If you sell me your car tomorrow and have altered the odometer, I can sue you for fraud as well as my legal fees. How is a non-profit HOA filled w/ people breaking their asses for a bunch of lazy ****s like myself in anyway shape or form comparable to an evil corporation? I'd bet anyone complaining about their lack of representation in an HOA is just too lazy to wake up at 10 a.m. on a Saturday morning to attend the meetings. I mean the dog walkers. They suck. Conformity? HOAs aren't country clubs. They offer the ability to purchase a slice of a service. For me, I have no yardwork, no structural maintenance such as roofing, etc., a pool and hottub, etc. etc. I also doubt that I am in an incredibly unique experience b/c way over half of the people in my building are professionals or students. Most of the condos in Salt Lake are within a 5 mile radius of me... all downtown near the U and the business districts (I'm 2 blocks from the U). These HOAs aren't exclusively old women hanging out complaining about someone's shrubs and fence. They're made up of people that actually work for a living and actually get out at night. There's little time to worry about bs. Many people that choose to live in one of these associations are totally attracted to the fact that they won't have to deal w/ their neighbor's 20' boat or 50' Winnebago out on the street. Those aren't criminal issues, and if you said anything to your neighbor in a non-associated neighborhood I'm betting that you'd be told to bug off. I just don't see how you're truly being held down though Jeff. In the areas of Salt Lake that I'd actually live in (the aves., the 9th and 9th area, Harvard/Yale, Olympus Cove, etc.) there are either no restrictions or minimal restrictions. I'm actually not even sure some of those areas (other than Harvard/Yale) are actually in neighborhood associations merely b/c I see zero scaping everywhere. I personally think that a 3 m. dish in a .17 acre yard is kind of dumb, so I don't think that's probably a problem here either. Most of the homes are brick or stucco, so I don't know if there'd even be an opportunity to get wacky. So in other words, since Houston has a free for all as far as their HOAs go, and HOAs are taking up everything, you can always move to Salt Lake. BTW, I tried to find a funny photo that I saw last year (my search was unsuccessful). Basically, imagine a tri-level w/ a mobile home slammed into the top of the house. Imagine how excited you would be about that when it came time for you to move. Sometimes you can trust that a particular neighbor wouldn't do that just b/c of the homevalue (yeah, but I also saw a fly fisherman litter this weekend :sad: ), othertimes you can trust that s/he won't do it b/c it's in the bylaws. ------------------ women love me, fish fear me.
First off, Achebe, you are living in a condo which has a whole other set of rules. It is like living in an apartment. You are invariably attached (physically and otherwise) to your neighbors. I'm not talking about that type of situation. I'm talking about neighborhoods with single, detached family dwellings. W/ 'fewer' deed restrictions but not 'no' deed restrictions. Build a place w/ no restrictions and you end up in crapville, USA. Well, I guess I live in crapville, USA. My neighbor just sold his house for $220,000. No deed restrictions and no zoning. Great, noone's asking you to move into an HOA. Noone's forcing you to move into an HOA. No question. However, my concern is with the limitations. In Houston, 75% of neighborhoods are controlled by HOA's. If I don't want an HOA-controlled neighborhood but can't afford anything else, it is either move to another city or deal with it. I want as many home choices as possible when buying something I'll be paying for for at least the next 15 years. Is this your understanding of Texas law? It's not true for me at all. Board elections for HOA's aren't governed under Texas law. When an HOA holds an election, most people actually don't vote. I lived in a neigborhood growing up that had the same president for 30 years because the only people that voted were friends and family members of the board. That is all too common. Where did you get this? How would an amendment not be considered significant enough to merit legislation? Are we discussing Texas law again? BTW, it amazes me that Texas could somehow possibly protect a homeowner less than UT does. Laws don't govern HOA's. HOA's are private entities. There is almost NO legislation in the state of Texas (and little in other states) that govern the way HOA's can operate. In fact, most HOA's are set up by private consultants and attorneys. Because no one regulates them, they are free to follow whatever parlimentary procedures they have in place. I'm not saying they ALL do this, but it is not uncommon to find single deed restrictions that have been created as a way to single out one person in a neighborhood. I said that in any court battle, the plaintiff can sue for legal fees. If you sell me your car tomorrow and have altered the odometer, I can sue you for fraud as well as my legal fees. That's assuming you can afford it. Because the laws that do exist are so slanted in favor of HOA's (mainly do to extremely effective lobbying on their part), courts nearly always rule in favor of the HOA. In addition, lawyers for HOA's can keep battles going indefinately because they have nearly unlimited resources and individuals do not. Of course, if you win, you may be able to recover costs, but, again, you must be able to afford the battle in the first place. HOA's know that individuals can't afford protracted legal battles. That gives them a significant advantage. How is a non-profit HOA filled w/ people breaking their asses for a bunch of lazy ****s like myself in anyway shape or form comparable to an evil corporation? I'd bet anyone complaining about their lack of representation in an HOA is just too lazy to wake up at 10 a.m. on a Saturday morning to attend the meetings. First off, it is comparable because the argument is essentially the same. If a business or HOA has a ton of money and a worker or an individual does not, the business or HOA are afforded the opportunity to create and enforce rules that the worker or individual is subject to no matter what their disagreement. As for lazy, speak for yourself. There are plenty of stories of people spending not only hours arguing in front of HOA boards but thousands of dollars in court for nothing more than the right to do something like replace a hedge or change a paint color. It would be lazy if you just did nothing. Laziness has nothing to do with concerns over restriction of personal freedom on private property. Conformity? HOAs aren't country clubs. They offer the ability to purchase a slice of a service. For me, I have no yardwork, no structural maintenance such as roofing, etc., a pool and hottub, etc. etc. I also doubt that I am in an incredibly unique experience b/c way over half of the people in my building are professionals or students. These HOAs aren't exclusively old women hanging out complaining about someone's shrubs and fence. They're made up of people that actually work for a living and actually get out at night. There's little time to worry about bs. Yes, but you are dealing with a condo, not a house. There is a HUGE difference. Neighborhood associations don't fix your roof or cut your grass. They only mandate that your roof be the appropriate shingle or that your yard fit a specific asthetic. Many HOA's that are neighborhood based are exactly set up with older people who do complain about such things because the busy working people don't have the time to serve on the board. and if you said anything to your neighbor in a non-associated neighborhood I'm betting that you'd be told to bug off. You must have crappy neighbors. I've never lived in a place where my neighbors were so awful that I even had to resort to calling the police. That is why you live in a neighborhood in the first place - because it is a nice place to live. Again, it comes down to choice. As choices are narrowed, so are my freedoms. If you don't have a choice but to live in a neighborhood with deed restrictions you don't like because that is all you can afford that is worthwhile, you are stuck or forced to move out of the city. That is ridiculous. ------------------ So, I took the million dollars and bought a steam shovel...
FYI -- Since this subject did come up. One of the articles I saw yesterday said that there were two bidders -- the guy who bought the property, and the homeowners association itself. The guy bid $499, HOA $4500ish, then the guy $5000. The attourney for the widow was on the radio this morning, and said that she had not received any explanation as to why the HOA itself bid on the property. One thing that makes me curious -- does anyone know why her property and possessions were impounded? The property was worth MUCH more than the debt and associated legal expenses, and the $5000 should have covered this. Shouldn't her possessions be returned to her regardless of the housing situation? ------------------ Stay Cool...
I was really enjoying this debate till this assinine statement popped up. I live in a house with no deed restrictions. We bought this place a little over a year ago, and one of the many appealing qualities was the lack of deed restrictions. I live in League City, and for those who don't know the area, LC is dominated by subdivisions. Every subdivision has it's own HOA, and the horror stories about disputes with an HOA could fill a book. What is occuring here is a contest among the HOAs: who can get the closest to 100% conformity. What ever happened to individuality? Why must we all live in houses that all look the same? My neighborhood is beautiful, filled with old growth oak trees and tons of wildlife. However, those trees and that wildlife tends to drop *stuff* on my cars and patio, so I built a carport and a patio cover. I couldn't have done that in a deed restrictive area. The front of my house faces west and the afternoon sun is a problem, so I bought a 25' red maple and had it planted in my front yard. This also would not have been allowed. I guarantee you that these additions have had a two-fold financial affect: increasing my property value while reducing the cost of living in this house. But hey, according to you, Achebe, I live in crapsville. Lose the holier than thou attitude. ------------------ I always thought "With my talent, it's only a matter of time before I'm discovered". Now I think "With my talent, it's only a matter of time before I'm found out". [This message has been edited by Behad (edited May 04, 2001).]
In that particular quote I could have included the word 'could' end up in crapsville, but on rereading that entire post or any of my other posts Behad, I would have gathered that the context and my underlying sentiment about my idea of nice places came through. Is that not the case Behad? Did I not say that my ideal house doesn't have deed restrictions or minimal deed restrictions? Did I not say that? Oh wait, I did. Oh wait, I said that numerous times. Oh wait, I said that you tend to either have to rely on: a) trusting your neighbor. This is unequivocal. If your neighbor isn't a retired Vet w/ too much time on their hands (read: joke), then you could probably assume that their homevalue will keep them from destroying your homevalue -or- b) some set of covenants. Is that not the case Behad? It sounds as if there's alot of 'conformity' talk w/ people down in Texas. I guess that we're talking about some sort of suburbia that I would never live in.... so I honestly don't think what you guys are criticizing could ever be a place that I would live in anyway. In this thread I have tried to debunk numerous assertions: 1) HOAs are elitist secretive cults in which no homeowner has their say. This again isn't the case for me. But I live in a condo... and a little bit of research is starting to show that condos in some states have different restrictions than other neighborhood associations. I didn't realize that though when I read 'all' this and 'all' that. 2) If you have trouble w/ the HOA then you have to pay their legal fees. Sure, but that's not unique to any legal case. If the point is that you don't want to have trouble w/ your HOA... then just read the damn covenants before you buy. Meet your neighbors, etc. Sure, I live in happy state, USA, but my real estate agent and the Mrs. and I talked to a couple of homeowners here and asked questions about the maint., HOA president, current projects, assessments, etc. When we made the offer on the house we were handed the HOA's little guide book. Sorry if I'm turning into a Republican in my old age, but I just have to assume that if I can do the work and be held self accountable then everyone else can too. Since overall my reply tends to be: you don't have to live there; and others have the reply: Sure, but these things are taking over everywhere, I'll make one last comment... Talk to your legislator. Developers don't want to have to shed profit to start up an HOA.... they usually have to (upon further reading). In many of the 'tax concerned' states in the South or West or no tax incomed states such as Florida, Texas, etc. the fees to establish a new neighborhood's plumbing and streets don't hit the state coffers... they hit the association. Which when established, I assume can turn into a monster of little retired nosey bodies worried about your new solar panelling. So talk to your legislator about the preponderence of these places. Zoning laws can take care of most sane concerns (boats taking up the street, etc.)... and you can garden in peace. But in the meantime, I'm going up to the fortress of solitude (the HOA president's place) to take over my little wing's fire responsiblities. See, when you have non-crappy holier than thou neighbors that always bug you about your little doorjamb's aesthetics, you have to keep 'em alive... 'cause if they die you might end up w/ new members that don't pay their fees on time. And then... foreclosure. ------------------ women love me, fish fear me.
Sorry if I'm turning into a Republican in my old age, but I just have to assume that if I can do the work and be held self accountable then everyone else can too. That is probably a bad generalization. I have found that the more conservative the person, the less likely they are to approve of tight deed restrictions. I assume that Libertarians can't be big fans of HOA's because they represent another form of government rule and infringement upon personal freedom. Those in the Texas state legislature who are taking up the cause of restricting HOA's run from very liberal (Rodney Ellis) to very conservative (John Lindsay). I've seen this numerous times where conservatives and liberals line up against HOA's for different reasons - liberals for freedom of expression, conservatives for freedom from opressive government. ------------------ So, I took the million dollars and bought a steam shovel...
