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