|
Homeowner's Associations suck!
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:29:24 -0400, BAR penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Gene Kearns wrote: On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:02:26 -0700, penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Your suggestion to buy somewhere that doesn't have an HOA sounds really good, except that most people don't have the money to buy the kind of home they would REALLY like. In other words, not everyone is rich, or lives in an area that the housing cost are reasonable compared to wages. For us working folks, HOAs can be a necessary evil, if we want to buy SOME kind of home. It must be nice to have lots of $$. It is unfortunate that for many, it really warps their comprehension of the reality of life for for regular working folks. That is odd! Here in NC, it is the high end neighborhoods where HOAs are all the rage. Many HOAs seem to exist, in part, to enforce rules where it gives the illusion that no one in the neighborhood must either work for a living or do any personal manual labor (winterize the boat, for example). Its all about keeping you from putting that single wide in the backyard for mama and making sure that you don't have that old Chevy up on blocks in the front yard fro a couple of years. Simply a straw man. Cities and towns have ordinances governing these practices and there really is no need to create an umbrella of civil litigation over the existing laws.... unless you are an attorney, then it probably seems like a great idea! Most covenants are written such that you can keep a boat on the property if it is housed within a garage..... and many covenants prohibit an unattached garage. So.... you can have your boat if you can afford a house/garage big enough to house both. Go figure....... Its all about resale value. I think there is more to it than that. -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats ----------------- www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed* Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road ----------------- |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:24:12 -0400, BAR penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Gene Kearns wrote: On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:50:25 -0500, lid penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Gene Kearns wrote: My guess is that nothing is binding, if they didn't also assent to and sign the restrictive covenants prior to purchase. I don't know about your state, but in mine it's as binding as any other deed restriction. And deed restrictions are very much binding. Rick Even if you don't sign it? If you buy the property you agree to the deed restrictions and covenants. Thank you. That was my point. -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats ----------------- www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed* Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road ----------------- |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:55:52 -0500, lid penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Phantman: I don't know about your state, but in mine it's as binding as any other deed restriction. And deed restrictions are very much binding. Gene Kearns wrote: Even if you don't sign it? Yep. A deed restriction runs with the land. It's one of the reasons you get a Title Opinion before buying property. To uncover these sorts of things. Nope. You miss the point. Wisest, IMHO, course is to walk away and look for a property that doesn't beg for civil litigation...... That is my comfort level. YMMV. -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats ----------------- www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed* Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road ----------------- |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:33:41 -0400, BAR penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Gene Kearns wrote: On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:54:28 -0400, "JimH" ask penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: We have a HOA in our development. The Association officers are responsible for contracting out the care and upkeep of the main entrance to the development (landscaping and sidewalk snow removal) as well as enforcing Association bylaws. They also review and approve fence and shed installations. Annual cost to each homeowner is $80. That is pretty cheap compared to most HOAs. Folks purchasing houses in the developement are told up front of the Association and are given a copy of the bylaws. My guess is that nothing is binding, if they didn't also assent to and sign the restrictive covenants prior to purchase. The covenants come with the land. There is no option to dissent from the covenants. Sure there is! Look down and I'll bet you'll see a couple of shoes... which probably conceal feet. Use them and walk away from the excess restrictions on your freedom to use your property as you see fit... and away from the very real possibility of frivolous (or not) civil litigation. You have choices. Make a bad one and your neighbors will make your decisions for you concerning what type of boat you can own, where you shall keep it, and how it will be maintained. Maybe you are comfortable with that. I'm not. -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats ----------------- www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed* Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road ----------------- |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:15:43 -0400, Eisboch penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 05:50:46 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:45:24 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: We almost closed on a house. One of the conditions was no restrictions or "associations" or anything like that. I want to put up a tower for my radio hobby and I like to keep my trailer boats close to my residence. Better also check local ordinances about that tower. But maybe you did. Local ordinaces are superceded by Federal guidelines regarding towers. As long as I stay within the Federal guidelines, I'm fine. That's what I thought. I suppose it depends on what part of the country you live in, but here in the People's Republic of Duxbury, local ordinances supersede Federal guidelines as long as the local ordinances are equal to or exceed (more restrictive) those of the Fed. You are allowed to purchase your property, pay the taxes and the upkeep, but the town determines what you can do and not do with it for the most part. Here's how you get yourself in deep doo-doo signing these covenants. The FCC has an established policy of limited preemption of state and local regulations governing amateur station facilities..... protection from local laws that attempt to preempt Federal Statutes. However, when you sign a CC&R you have *agreed* to be limited by these covenants and the FCC isn't going to protect you from yourself. http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/ind...amateur&page=4 -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats ----------------- www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed* Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road ----------------- |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:15:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
You are allowed to purchase your property, pay the taxes and the upkeep, but the town determines what you can do and not do with it for the most part. I got into a bit of a tussle with my town's zoning board over the three 150+ towers I wanted to put up when I was actively contesting. All it took was one 'phone call from an attorney explaining the site process, the Federal rules regarding height/safety, etc., all of which I was well within the guidelines and the problem went away. The BOZ then tried to pass a local ordinance requiring excessive safety requirements and they found themselves in a court suit from another ham in town which cost them a ton of money - poof - away went the ordinance. In my case it wouldn't be much of a tower compared to what I had, but still.... |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:15:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: You are allowed to purchase your property, pay the taxes and the upkeep, but the town determines what you can do and not do with it for the most part. I got into a bit of a tussle with my town's zoning board over the three 150+ towers I wanted to put up when I was actively contesting. All it took was one 'phone call from an attorney explaining the site process, the Federal rules regarding height/safety, etc., all of which I was well within the guidelines and the problem went away. The BOZ then tried to pass a local ordinance requiring excessive safety requirements and they found themselves in a court suit from another ham in town which cost them a ton of money - poof - away went the ordinance. In my case it wouldn't be much of a tower compared to what I had, but still.... The various town boards here would have a fit and I am sure they would try every angle to block it despite the Federal rules. I'd love to try putting up a ham radio tower on my property, just to watch the reactions. I'd tell them I need to put it in a wetland area to establish a good ground plane. Eisboch |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
Phantman:
I don't know about your state, but in mine it's as binding as any other deed restriction. And deed restrictions are very much binding. Gene Kearns wrote: Even if you don't sign it? Phantman: Yep. A deed restriction runs with the land. It's one of the reasons you get a Title Opinion before buying property. To uncover these sorts of things. Gene Kearns: Nope. You miss the point. Wisest, IMHO, course is to walk away and look for a property that doesn't beg for civil litigation...... That is my comfort level. YMMV. Nope. I get your point ("look for a property that doesn't beg for civil litigation") and personally, I agree with that. But different strokes for different folks. Many people are willing to give up certain property rights in exchange for security or other perceived advantages. My point was, make sure you know what you're buying before you buy it, deed restrictions included, and hope your neighbors did the same. That's the best way to avoid disappointments, surprises, and litigation later, IMHO. Rick |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
On Aug 20, 11:16 pm, (Bob) wrote:
In article "No boats, trucks, automobiles, or other vehicles, or trailers may be stored in the open within view of the public street within this subdivision for more than twenty-four (24) hours, nor may they be repaired except in an emergency within said twenty-four (24) hour period on any of the streets within this subdivision." To me, this technically sounds like you could work on your boat in the DRIVEWAY as long as it was an "emergency" AND you did it within the 24 hour period. But I get the feeling that they mean "within view" like they mention in the first part talking about storage. To me, this means you can do whatever you want on the boat in a private driveway or yard, emergency or no, as long as it is not in view of the public street for more than 24 hours. The "emergency" clause refers to working on it in a "street", as might happen if the vehicle got a flat tire and moving it from the street to a private driveway was not practical without first effecting the repair. Could it be argued that "any of the streets within this subdivision" includes private "driveways"? Possibly. It could also be argued that if the framers meant it to include driveways, they would have written "any of the streets or driveways within this subdivision." I note there is no prohibition from storing or effecting non-emergency repair on a vehicle in a private yard. The framers could have easily foreseen such occurring and written a prohibition in the form of "nor may they be stored or repaired except in an emergency within said twenty-four (24) hour period on any of the streets, driveways or yards within this subdivision." "Said twenty-four (24) hour period" sounds very official and scary but it merely refers again to the period that a vehicle may be "within view of the public street." It does not a priori mean that non- emergency repair cannot be performed on a private drive or yard. On the whole, it seems to me that the framers most likely just wanted to keep the work out of the public streets (read: thoroughfares), and to keep it reasonably brief. A private driveway is not typically considered to be as much a part of the "common space" as a public street. So there is ample reason to have a distinction between streets and driveways. Repairing a vehicle in the public street could be a problem if lots of people did it even for short periods. People don't tend to care as much what happens in a neighbor's driveway if it's temporary. I am not a lawyer, but I have extensive experience interpreting zoning codes. |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
it seems that neighborhood/development "associations" are the norm. And that real estate agents will lie about it. That agent's license is very much at risk. Rick |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:29:19 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
The various town boards here would have a fit and I am sure they would try every angle to block it despite the Federal rules. I'd love to try putting up a ham radio tower on my property, just to watch the reactions. I'd tell them I need to put it in a wetland area to establish a good ground plane. ROTFL!!! Hey, you were looking for something new to do. :) |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
Gene Kearns wrote:
(1) I wouldn't buy a property that came with a deed restriction If you had added "that I can't live with" to that statement, I'd say "Amen". But all property is restricted in some fashion or another (i.e. you can't even dump nuclear waste in your own backyard anymore!) and (2) my position was that NO agreement is binding unless you sign indicating assent. A deed restriction can be binding and enforceable even if you didn't have a clue it existed. Hypothetical Example: A blacksmith in 1930, ticked off at the automobile boom, sells his shop and writes into the deed "this property shall never be used for the purpose of commercial gasoline sales". The property changes hands 10 times over the next 77 years with no further mention of that deed restriction. Then in 2007 an entrepreneur buys the property with plans to build a gas station. He's got a problem. That old deed restriction, that almost everybody has forgotten about, is still binding and enforceable. I've seen people spend more money in legal fees trying to get around something like that than they paid for the property to begin with. So you're right. If you don't like the restrictions, walk away from the deal. But you don't have to agree or even know about a deed restriction to make it enforcable. A Title Opinion by a good Abstractor or Lawyer, to find these things before you buy, can be worth it's weight in gold. Rick |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:56:01 -0500, lid penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: snips A Title Opinion by a good Abstractor or Lawyer, to find these things before you buy, can be worth it's weight in gold. Very True..... ditto protective steps taking prior to boat purchase or any other big ticket item.... -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats ----------------- www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed* Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road ----------------- |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:29:19 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: The various town boards here would have a fit and I am sure they would try every angle to block it despite the Federal rules. I'd love to try putting up a ham radio tower on my property, just to watch the reactions. I'd tell them I need to put it in a wetland area to establish a good ground plane. ROTFL!!! Hey, you were looking for something new to do. :) yup. In fact, the '46 Ford is being picked up this afternoon by Horseless Carriage for shipment to the new owner in Texas. Down to two "special" cars now .... the 67 GTO and the Porsche 911. Lately, my time has been taken up giving Grand Banks tours. Lotsa keel kickers out there, but no buyers yet. Eisboch |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
Gene Kearns wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:24:12 -0400, BAR penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Gene Kearns wrote: On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:50:25 -0500, lid penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Gene Kearns wrote: My guess is that nothing is binding, if they didn't also assent to and sign the restrictive covenants prior to purchase. I don't know about your state, but in mine it's as binding as any other deed restriction. And deed restrictions are very much binding. Rick Even if you don't sign it? If you buy the property you agree to the deed restrictions and covenants. Thank you. That was my point. Well of course if you didn't own the property you would not have to obey the covenants. |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
On Aug 22, 12:32 pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in messagenews:u9loc3prpdd3kcrgjhugkkd1380qqaofnd@4ax .com... On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:29:19 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: The various town boards here would have a fit and I am sure they would try every angle to block it despite the Federal rules. I'd love to try putting up a ham radio tower on my property, just to watch the reactions. I'd tell them I need to put it in a wetland area to establish a good ground plane. ROTFL!!! Hey, you were looking for something new to do. :) yup. In fact, the '46 Ford is being picked up this afternoon by Horseless Carriage for shipment to the new owner in Texas. Down to two "special" cars now .... the 67 GTO and the Porsche 911. Lately, my time has been taken up giving Grand Banks tours. Lotsa keel kickers out there, but no buyers yet. Eisboch My neighbor has a mint, origional stock, early 70's elcamino, garaged, low miles, etc, if anyone is interested email me for pics and details... We are in CT USA. since we are talking cars and storage of boats and cars etc.. |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:32:38 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
Lately, my time has been taken up giving Grand Banks tours. Lotsa keel kickers out there, but no buyers yet. Are you selling the GB36 as well? |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:32:38 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Lately, my time has been taken up giving Grand Banks tours. Lotsa keel kickers out there, but no buyers yet. Are you selling the GB36 as well? We have both boats on the block. If one sells, we'll most likely keep the other. I like them both, for different reasons. If both should sell this season, it presents a new dilemma .... what to look for next. Maybe a GB 49? I am just tired of worrying about two of them. Eisboch |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:32:38 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Lately, my time has been taken up giving Grand Banks tours. Lotsa keel kickers out there, but no buyers yet. Are you selling the GB36 as well? We have both boats on the block. If one sells, we'll most likely keep the other. I like them both, for different reasons. If both should sell this season, it presents a new dilemma .... what to look for next. Maybe a GB 49? I am just tired of worrying about two of them. Eisboch Good strategy. I take it that you alone do not maintain both boats as that alone seems like it would be a full time job. ;-) |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
Gene Kearns wrote in
: Either I didn't make myself clear or you guys need to read again for content..... (1) I wouldn't buy a property that came with a deed restriction and (2) my position was that NO agreement is binding unless you sign indicating assent. Check your mortgage paperwork and you will find that you have a copy of some sort of protective or restrictive covenant or CC&R, designed by the developer, that gave the HOA the power to tax you and determine how you will use your property. You will probably, also, find a rider on your deed that says you are aware of the covenant and will abide by its restrictions (which include all of its penalties). You signed all that didn't you? I still feel that if you didn't sign the paperwork covering the deed restriction.... you are not bound by what you didn't agree to.... (of course that means you probably (wisely) walked away from the deal). You couldn't be more wrong. It's not even not even open to debate. Take it from me, I'm a real estate attorney. To borrow a line from the movie "War of the Roses," when someone who gets paid $400/hour wants to give you free advice, you should listen. You don't sign a deed. It is delivered to you, signed by the seller, who is referred to in the deed as the grantor. You are the grantee. Brokers and others may have you sign something saying you are aware of the covenants, but that's just so you don't sue them saying they should have told you. Regardless, if you buy property subject to a restrictive covenant, then as long as you own that property, you are subject to that covenant. Some covenants turn out to be unenforcible for varous reasons, but not because you didn't sign something. As was previously pointed out, racial covenants cannot be enforced. There are other covenants that aren't enforcible either, but that would take years and costs thousand of lives (another movie line;-) to explain. Suffice it to say, you buy property subject to an HOA and your stuck with it whether you signed anything or even knew about. You are charged with researching the title all the way back to the time the government first deeded the property to the first owner. Since that is not practical for you to do, you get an opinion of an abstractor, or in many states, title insurance, or both. Caveat Emptor! |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
|
Homeowner's Associations suck!
Gene Kearns wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:29:24 -0400, BAR penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Gene Kearns wrote: On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:02:26 -0700, penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Your suggestion to buy somewhere that doesn't have an HOA sounds really good, except that most people don't have the money to buy the kind of home they would REALLY like. In other words, not everyone is rich, or lives in an area that the housing cost are reasonable compared to wages. For us working folks, HOAs can be a necessary evil, if we want to buy SOME kind of home. It must be nice to have lots of $$. It is unfortunate that for many, it really warps their comprehension of the reality of life for for regular working folks. That is odd! Here in NC, it is the high end neighborhoods where HOAs are all the rage. Many HOAs seem to exist, in part, to enforce rules where it gives the illusion that no one in the neighborhood must either work for a living or do any personal manual labor (winterize the boat, for example). Its all about keeping you from putting that single wide in the backyard for mama and making sure that you don't have that old Chevy up on blocks in the front yard fro a couple of years. Simply a straw man. Cities and towns have ordinances governing these practices and there really is no need to create an umbrella of civil litigation over the existing laws.... unless you are an attorney, then it probably seems like a great idea! Most covenants are written such that you can keep a boat on the property if it is housed within a garage..... and many covenants prohibit an unattached garage. So.... you can have your boat if you can afford a house/garage big enough to house both. Go figure....... Its all about resale value. I think there is more to it than that. No, it really is all about the resale value. When you drive through my neighborhood you see that every yard is clean and well kept, the paint is not peeling off the trim, the garage doors all work and look good. There are no paved over front yards, although one or two owners would do it if they could, and houses sell rather quickly with deals that don't fall through at the closing table. |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
BAR wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote: On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 19:29:24 -0400, BAR penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Gene Kearns wrote: On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:02:26 -0700, penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Your suggestion to buy somewhere that doesn't have an HOA sounds really good, except that most people don't have the money to buy the kind of home they would REALLY like. In other words, not everyone is rich, or lives in an area that the housing cost are reasonable compared to wages. For us working folks, HOAs can be a necessary evil, if we want to buy SOME kind of home. It must be nice to have lots of $$. It is unfortunate that for many, it really warps their comprehension of the reality of life for for regular working folks. That is odd! Here in NC, it is the high end neighborhoods where HOAs are all the rage. Many HOAs seem to exist, in part, to enforce rules where it gives the illusion that no one in the neighborhood must either work for a living or do any personal manual labor (winterize the boat, for example). Its all about keeping you from putting that single wide in the backyard for mama and making sure that you don't have that old Chevy up on blocks in the front yard fro a couple of years. Simply a straw man. Cities and towns have ordinances governing these practices and there really is no need to create an umbrella of civil litigation over the existing laws.... unless you are an attorney, then it probably seems like a great idea! Most covenants are written such that you can keep a boat on the property if it is housed within a garage..... and many covenants prohibit an unattached garage. So.... you can have your boat if you can afford a house/garage big enough to house both. Go figure....... Its all about resale value. I think there is more to it than that. No, it really is all about the resale value. When you drive through my neighborhood you see that every yard is clean and well kept, the paint is not peeling off the trim, the garage doors all work and look good. There are no paved over front yards, although one or two owners would do it if they could, and houses sell rather quickly with deals that don't fall through at the closing table. The developers put together the restrictive covenants and the HOA because it helps them sell the homes initially. If the homeowners and the HOA enforce the covenants it does make the neighborhood have much better curb appeal and homes will sell much quicker. Nothing worse than a yard with cars parked all over. with half the cars torn apart and not working, it to destroy the resale value of all the homes close by. Most HOA would not worry if someone was working on a boat for a day, but if the boat was out in the street, or torn apart in the driveway or yard, they would enforce the covenants. That being said, they will be some HOA Nazi's, but if the homeowners don't like their enforcement style, they will vote them out quickly. |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 07:27:57 -0400, BAR wrote:
No, it really is all about the resale value. When you drive through my neighborhood you see that every yard is clean and well kept, the paint is not peeling off the trim, the garage doors all work and look good. There are no paved over front yards, although one or two owners would do it if they could, and houses sell rather quickly with deals that don't fall through at the closing table. My neighborhood is no different and there is no HOA. When homes reach a certain price range people take care of them. The village imposes some fencing restrictions and they'll ticket you if your grass gets too shaggy. Had a warning on my door when we got back from vacation once because my son had let it go for more than a week. But I found this on the village website: "FENCES Fences are not permitted on any part of a front yard. Fences are not permitted on any side yards that face an intersecting street. Fences may be built up to a height of six feet from ground level, and the finished side”of the fence must face outward. A permit is required before installing or replacing a fence. PROPERTY & LAWN MAINTENANCE Each property owner is responsible for the minimum maintenance requirements established by ordinance. Code enforcement personnel routinely monitor compliance. Using the Village’s Minimum Housing Standards Ordinance that establish the minimum standards to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the public, code enforcement officers review exterior and interior maintenance, drainage, sanitary facilities, rodent infestation and other aesthetic, health and safety considerations. Deficiencies include peeling paint, improper storage on property, abandoned automobiles, and overgrown vegetation. Residents are notified if their homes fall below these standards. No person may permit weeds, grass or plants other than trees, bushes or other ornamental shrubs to grow to a height exceeding six inches. All landscape debris must be properly disposed. Please review the Yard Waste information in the Garbage and Recycling section. Violators of property maintenance codes are subject to a code enforcement ticket and a fine between $75 and $750. VEHICLE & BOAT STORAGE Boats, commercial vehicles and other recreational vehicles may not be parked or placed in front yard driveways (front yard driveways are defined as the area between the curb and the front building line). They must be parked behind the building line on a hard surface, screened from view or garaged. No vehicle may be parked on unpaved surfaces in front yards. Vehicles not garaged must be licensed and operable." That boat part is even more restrictive than the HOA we're talking about here. As a matter of fact, I've never seen a boat anywhere around here. Oh oh. Better tell my wife we have to move to Florida. I'm thinking there's nothing wrong with HOA's per se so long as you know what you're getting into. In fact, you better be aware of local ordinances too. It's like that old Holiday Inn commercial about surprises. --Vic |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 07:27:57 -0400, BAR penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: No, it really is all about the resale value. When you drive through my neighborhood you see that every yard is clean and well kept, the paint is not peeling off the trim, the garage doors all work and look good. There are no paved over front yards, although one or two owners would do it if they could, and houses sell rather quickly with deals that don't fall through at the closing table. None of the properties I own have a deed restriction. All of them sound like your description.... except I can't conceive of a paved yard.... we have real lawns. One neighboring house that just sold was never even listed. It sold within an hour, the morning it went on the market. Apparently, there are many exceptions to your rule! -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats ----------------- www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed* Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road ----------------- |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
Gene Kearns wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 07:27:57 -0400, BAR penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: No, it really is all about the resale value. When you drive through my neighborhood you see that every yard is clean and well kept, the paint is not peeling off the trim, the garage doors all work and look good. There are no paved over front yards, although one or two owners would do it if they could, and houses sell rather quickly with deals that don't fall through at the closing table. None of the properties I own have a deed restriction. All of them sound like your description.... except I can't conceive of a paved yard.... we have real lawns. One neighboring house that just sold was never even listed. It sold within an hour, the morning it went on the market. Apparently, there are many exceptions to your rule! Gene, Of course there are, but if you are one of the people who live next to someone who has destroyed the value of your home, you would wish there were restrictive covenants. For what it is worth, most homes do have some restrictive covenants enforced by the local or county goverements (ie zoning, sanitary etc.) |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
akheel wrote:
The OP should point that out to the busy buddy and tell him or her to pound sand. The busy buddy won't even bother listening to the OP's opinion. He's not the property owner. The busy buddy is the girlfriend's problem. And she's the one that'll have to put up with the busy buddy as well as the rest of her neighbors day in and day out in the future. Not sure why so many here are missing that point. Rick |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. Nothing worse than a yard with cars parked all over. with half the cars torn apart and not working, it to destroy the resale value of all the homes close by. Our properties are private (heh) and not subject to HOA restrictions, but *are* subject to town ordinances, conservation, etc. I had a go-a-round with the town because I was clearing some ditches of old branches, leaves, etc. so the water would flow better. Long story short, it took 2 years, lawyer fees and a environmental scientist consultant to accomplish what I could have done in an afternoon. During this experience I got so ticked off that I started reviewing some of the town ordinances. One, common to many towns, permits only one unregistered vehicle to be on any property. We happen to own three adjacent but irregularly shaped lots, all three of which meet at one point at the end of our driveway. I seriously considered purchasing three old, rusty "clunker" type cars and parking them next to each other where the lots meet, each on a separate lot, just to **** the town administrators off. My wife convinced me to be a little more rational. Eisboch |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:24:05 -0500, John H. penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 08:35:53 -0400, Gene Kearns wrote: On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:55:52 -0500, lid penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Phantman: I don't know about your state, but in mine it's as binding as any other deed restriction. And deed restrictions are very much binding. Gene Kearns wrote: Even if you don't sign it? Yep. A deed restriction runs with the land. It's one of the reasons you get a Title Opinion before buying property. To uncover these sorts of things. Nope. You miss the point. Wisest, IMHO, course is to walk away and look for a property that doesn't beg for civil litigation...... That is my comfort level. YMMV. Gene, I'd defy you to do that within an hour's drive of downtown D.C. The new stuff going up here is all in developments, all with HOA's. Almost all of the older (less than 20 years) is the same way. Some, like mine, built in 1987, escaped the HOA covenants, etc. But, within two blocks there are five houses with more than ten Mexican adults in each. This is why I'm in a semi-rush to move. Don't blame you for that. My experience with that area is all old... thankfully. My aunt and uncle owned 13 acres in Lanham, which is certainly with an hours drive.... it was secluded by a deep woods and had deer, rabbits, squirrels, etc. on the property. They both were research scientists at the DoA and the landscaping on the property was varied and beautiful. I've spent many days on that property sitting against a tree next to the spring reading good books. It was a great place to spend time. They sold in the early 90's. I'm sure that property is now raped of trees and planted with cookie cutter tract homes ruled over by an HOA and all of the intrinsic citizen-enforcers that it inevitably creates. The development(s) in that area are why I no longer have any interest in going back... other than, perhaps, a short trip to the museums, etc. Do you have any points of interest in the Carolinas on your short list, yet? -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats ----------------- www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed* Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road ----------------- |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
Eisboch wrote:
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. Nothing worse than a yard with cars parked all over. with half the cars torn apart and not working, it to destroy the resale value of all the homes close by. Our properties are private (heh) and not subject to HOA restrictions, but *are* subject to town ordinances, conservation, etc. I had a go-a-round with the town because I was clearing some ditches of old branches, leaves, etc. so the water would flow better. Long story short, it took 2 years, lawyer fees and a environmental scientist consultant to accomplish what I could have done in an afternoon. During this experience I got so ticked off that I started reviewing some of the town ordinances. One, common to many towns, permits only one unregistered vehicle to be on any property. We happen to own three adjacent but irregularly shaped lots, all three of which meet at one point at the end of our driveway. I seriously considered purchasing three old, rusty "clunker" type cars and parking them next to each other where the lots meet, each on a separate lot, just to **** the town administrators off. My wife convinced me to be a little more rational. Eisboch Eisboch, You are an impetuous individual, I am sure you wife is used to "convincing you to be a little more rational". ;) |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 07:44:52 GMT, akheel penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Gene Kearns wrote in : Either I didn't make myself clear or you guys need to read again for content..... (1) I wouldn't buy a property that came with a deed restriction and (2) my position was that NO agreement is binding unless you sign indicating assent. Check your mortgage paperwork and you will find that you have a copy of some sort of protective or restrictive covenant or CC&R, designed by the developer, that gave the HOA the power to tax you and determine how you will use your property. You will probably, also, find a rider on your deed that says you are aware of the covenant and will abide by its restrictions (which include all of its penalties). You signed all that didn't you? I still feel that if you didn't sign the paperwork covering the deed restriction.... you are not bound by what you didn't agree to.... (of course that means you probably (wisely) walked away from the deal). You couldn't be more wrong. It's not even not even open to debate. Take it from me, I'm a real estate attorney. To borrow a line from the movie "War of the Roses," when someone who gets paid $400/hour wants to give you free advice, you should listen. You don't sign a deed. It is delivered to you, signed by the seller, who is referred to in the deed as the grantor. You are the grantee. Brokers and others may have you sign something saying you are aware of the covenants, but that's just so you don't sue them saying they should have told you. Regardless, if you buy property subject to a restrictive covenant, then as long as you own that property, you are subject to that covenant. Some covenants turn out to be unenforcible for varous reasons, but not because you didn't sign something. As was previously pointed out, racial covenants cannot be enforced. There are other covenants that aren't enforcible either, but that would take years and costs thousand of lives (another movie line;-) to explain. Suffice it to say, you buy property subject to an HOA and your stuck with it whether you signed anything or even knew about. You are charged with researching the title all the way back to the time the government first deeded the property to the first owner. Since that is not practical for you to do, you get an opinion of an abstractor, or in many states, title insurance, or both. Caveat Emptor! You are correct. My point was that I didn't know why anybody would willing assent to such an agreement. My point assumed that the grantee had done their homework and *knew* about the restrictive covenant(s). The paperwork I was thinking of that didn't have to be signed was the deed. As in, just walk away.... as SWS did in his instance. The scary point, as you point out, is that an unwary grantee may unwittingly find themselves subject to these screwy agreements by not doing their homework. In my state: one should NEVER buy anything without (1) a Title Search, (2) Title Insurance, AND (3) written assurances of clear title from a duly qualified and licensed real estate attorney. In my state, not even a Title Search guarantees clear title..... only an attorney can advise on the actual status of the title. Personally, I'm amazed at the freedoms some people are willing to relinquish (for whatever reason) to make sure that other people behave in a particular way. I'm glad to see that you, an attorney, don't see these covenants as personally desirable.... -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats ----------------- www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed* Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road ----------------- |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
Gene Kearns wrote:
Personally, I'm amazed at the freedoms some people are willing to relinquish What's worse is when they don't do it willingly. i.e. a city ordinance enacted *after* the owner has bought his property. Or a city that takes in areas, against the will of its residents, and imposes its taxes and ordinances on those property owners. They can do it without a vote by the residents of the area being taken. And not even a vote by the citizens of the city. The city administration can just do it with no agreement from anyone and no recourse for anyone .... that's what really sucks. Rick |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:33:47 -0400, Reginald P. Smithers III penned
the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Gene, Of course there are, but if you are one of the people who live next to someone who has destroyed the value of your home, you would wish there were restrictive covenants. For what it is worth, most homes do have some restrictive covenants enforced by the local or county goverements (ie zoning, sanitary etc.) Ok.... again..... here is my point. Local or county governments are free to pass *LAWS* (no taxation without representation and all of that stuff), but they don't do restrictive covenants. Restrictive covenants are legal obligations imposed in a deed by the seller upon the buyer of real estate to do or not do something. (And likely supplement and supercede any laws that don't violate police powers..... such as SWS's example of the FCC.) Violate a restrictive covenant and you have not violated a law..... you have (unnecessarily, IMHO) exposed yourself to civil litigation and forfeiture of your home, possessions, and property (protected by an all too eager group of people that want to shape your behavior in some manner that they find acceptable). Anybody note any contradiction there? If someone has destroyed the value of your home, they have most likely violated existing safety and/or zoning LAWS and the nice guys in blue suits are likely to take care of the problem for you (with your already collected tax money).... you don't need to pay a virtually uncontrollable band of vigilantes to guard your interests (picture Barney Fife screaming, "Citizens arrest!, Citizens arrest!"). However, if YOU decide that a HOA is the way to protect your investment and THEY decide, as part of the deal, to shape you, the conduct of your affairs, and/or how to pursue your hobbies...... well, that is between YOU, THEM, and everyone's respective attorneys. Have at it, just include me out..... -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats ----------------- www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed* Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road ----------------- |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:45:09 -0500, lid penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Gene Kearns wrote: Personally, I'm amazed at the freedoms some people are willing to relinquish What's worse is when they don't do it willingly. i.e. a city ordinance enacted *after* the owner has bought his property. Or a city that takes in areas, against the will of its residents, and imposes its taxes and ordinances on those property owners. They can do it without a vote by the residents of the area being taken. And not even a vote by the citizens of the city. The city administration can just do it with no agreement from anyone and no recourse for anyone .... that's what really sucks. Rick Agreed. And with the recent rulings that condemnation can be undertaken for the purpose of commercial gain and augmentation of the tax base..... ...... well, I'll just stop with saying, "That's just wrong." -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats ----------------- www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed* Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road ----------------- |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
Gene Kearns wrote:
Agreed. Yabutt, now I've worked meself into a frenzy an'll be ****ed off the rest of the week. Who the hell started this #%*&! thread?!?! Rick -------aarrgghh!! ..... (back later, gone for a boat ride). |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:26:21 -0500, lid penned the
following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: Gene Kearns wrote: Agreed. Yabutt, now I've worked meself into a frenzy an'll be ****ed off the rest of the week. Who the hell started this #%*&! thread?!?! Rick -------aarrgghh!! ..... (back later, gone for a boat ride). Now, now..... there IS a cure....... float the boat and leave the cares ashore! -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage http://pamandgene.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats ----------------- www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed* Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road ----------------- |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:14:07 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
We have both boats on the block. If one sells, we'll most likely keep the other. I like them both, for different reasons. If both should sell this season, it presents a new dilemma .... what to look for next. Maybe a GB 49? I am just tired of worrying about two of them. As we both know there is no such thing as the perfect boat. If you are really going to cut back to one you have to think long and hard about how you want to use it, and how much maintenance you are comfortable with. The larger GBs like the 46, 49 and up are great liveaboard/cruising boats but slow and high maintenance. If we ever give up on long distance cruising I'd seriously think about going back to a mid-30s sportfish. They are big enough to be sea worthy and halfway comfortable in bad weather, big enough for weekend cruising, as well as being reasonably fast and fun for just zipping around.. |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 19:34:24 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote: Try something smaller and faster. If you are not going to cruise north/south, and spend a lot of time RV'ing through the waterways, why bother with anything more than 30 feet? I've already got a 27 ft Searay for running around in moderate to flat conditions. It's a good day boat for where we live, running mostly in the river and on Pine Island Sound. It's been my experience however that you really need something up in the 30s to get a consistently good ride (running on plane) in the Gulf of Mexico. I have several neighbors with light weight 34s and they do OK most of the time as long as the waves are 3 ft or less. Above that and they get beat up and have to slow down. Our old Bertram 33 would go OK in 3 to 5 ft waves but even that would get tiresome after a while, and it was a fuel guzzler because of the weight and deep V bottom. |
Homeowner's Associations suck!
Gene Kearns wrote:
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 07:27:57 -0400, BAR penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: No, it really is all about the resale value. When you drive through my neighborhood you see that every yard is clean and well kept, the paint is not peeling off the trim, the garage doors all work and look good. There are no paved over front yards, although one or two owners would do it if they could, and houses sell rather quickly with deals that don't fall through at the closing table. None of the properties I own have a deed restriction. All of them sound like your description.... except I can't conceive of a paved yard.... we have real lawns. In the Wash. DC area it is becoming a real problem. Somebody buys the house next door and rents individual rooms and to accomodate all of the cars the front yard is paved over, removing the need for lawn maintenance. One neighboring house that just sold was never even listed. It sold within an hour, the morning it went on the market. How did it go "on the market?" Usually real estate agents delay the posting of the listing trying to get the sale themselves or keeping it with the brokerage family. Apparently, there are many exceptions to your rule! All over the country. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:05 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com