Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Camp Driveway' started by dbhost, Apr 26, 2019.
Yeah, stop charging them rent to live on their own property.
The no sheds rule is just silly... our shed looks just as nice as our house. Same goes with fences... you don't need to have a rusty chain link fence but there are some very nice fence materials, and many people rely on them for pet or kid containment.
No fences would be a HUGE deal breaker for me. Part of the reason I bought into my neighborhood is 6' privacy fences are required. Helps me keep the dog where he needs to be...
Our outbuildings are allowed, but VERY size limited. Footprint no greater than 10x12 with a 9' maximum height.
After several neighbors, including the HOA president installed pool screen enclosures with a screen roof that massively passed that size, we were able to get written waivers on those limits. I am planning on a 16x20' 16' gambrel roof barn for a workshop down the road a ways so I can free up my garage... Materials must match the house, no problem, and must compliment the style of the houses and neighborhood, again, no problem...
My biggest issue is with the remodelling going on, I have a LOT of recycling, and trash coming out of the house on a fairly consistent basis, I get a lot of complaints about my cans being out from behind the fence...
That's not really how foreclosure works. The house and property are required to be sold in a public sale. The HOA can only take what it's owed, after the primary mortgage holder is paid off. The rest of the proceeds go to the ex-homeowner. It's never actually come to that, though, because even recalcitrant people tend to not want to go through that.
As to fences, I chose the neighborhood because fences aren't allowed. It makes the greenspace feel much larger. And most of us want sheds, too, but they're prohibited in the CC&R's, and we can only change those every ten years. Luckily my deck is quite high, so it works in lieu of a shed for me.
The point is, our rules are virtually non-existent, and it's something we all agree to prior to moving in. I would never agree to move to some place that requires a special mailbox, color approval, painting the bare aluminum on my hood, etc.
Still, the house and property are TAKEN from the owner. How can anyone justify this type of theft?
That's not theft. What do you do if your boss doesn't pay you? You go to the state, and they take it from your employer. That's not theft.
Yeah but the state doesn’t force your boss to sell his business.
Besides businesses fall under completely different laws. You’re talking about a public entity forcing a private citizen to sell his private property to pay a levy imposed on them by your public entity. Aka theft
By not paying the legally required, voluntarily-agreed-to levy, that homeowner is a thief, by stealing service. No one's forcing anyone to sell his private property; he can simply pay the arrears, and stop being a thief himself. If he voluntarily chooses not to pay the arrears, then he is voluntarily offering his home for foreclosure. This is a contract to which we are all parties. Contracts are the basis of property rights, rule of law, and civil society. People who break contracts in bad faith are enemies of society. Are you really suggesting that honoring an agreed-to contract is the same as theft?
I can see both sides of that to an extent.
HOA - the person agrees to pay the fee when they purchase their home, the HOA has to sue them to get their money, if the person remains in ownership of the home, there will be other problems that require more legal expenses due to that person. So, by going for the foreclosure, the HOA stops the issue with the one lawsuit.
Homeowner - the fees should not force the foreclosure of the home any more than failure to pay for car insurance should force foreclosure on a vehicle. As long as the owner is paying/has paid for the house and property, then an HOA shouldn't be able to take that house away. If HOA gets a court ruling that the homeowner has to pay back the fees, it should come out of a wage garnishment not a home foreclosure.
If you don't pay your car insurance they cancel the car insurance. I don't see the analogy. The HOA isn't going to cancel the HOA agreement because you don't pay. I would not like to live in a HOA environment. City and town zoning also has rules and penalties. They will also put a lien on your house.
The Horrorzzz! Trash cans, visible!
Plain and simple, if you don't want to live in an HOA, don't buy a property within one. I get bugged when people buy into an HOA property and then try to get around the rules (not paying dues, bitching about restrictions, etc). I hear this across various groups and forums I"m part of (camping, Christmas decorating, woodworking...)
That is a LOT easier said than done. Many cities and towns have absolutely zero real estate available without an HOA...
I must admit mine is fairly decent, but there are nightmare HOAs out there that abuse their authority, and there are plenty of people that try all they can to skirt the HOA.
The point is simply that there is some logic to both sides as well as some non-logic.
I keep hearing this. I'm not sure I believe it though. I think it's more like "we want to live in the new, trendy neighborhoods... and they all have HOAs"
We live in a wonderful neighborhood of homes built in the 70s and 80s. No HOA, neighbors that all care for their properties, and a city with reasonable city code (e.g. I can't park on my lawn, or build a shed bigger than 10x12) that covers the whole city, HOA or not.
In any case, in the Minneapolis area there are many, many properties outside of HOAs, and many, many within them. Maybe we're just unique, but I doubt it.
I wonder, though, if the newer housing stock is free of HOA's? Local governments love HOA's because it takes a lot of burden off of the city. In my little township, you could build a spec home on a non-deed-restricted lot without problems, but if you were a developer putting a new sub on 80 acres, the township will all but force you to implement an association as part of the CC&R's.
My neighborhood feel into that transition period. Sub 1 was built without an association in 1974 or so, but Sub 2 and Sub 3 (my sub) were built as required having an association. We have the opportunity to abandon the association and change the deed restrictions every 10 years, but like I said upthread, we're not one of the evil associations, and our restrictions are very few. In fact, the only restrictions are in the deed. The only bylaws (outside of the deed) have to do with meeting schedules and late fees.
What does this township get out of this? They're not responsible for our Commons (landscaping, forest management). Our forest is now taxable, and assessed against each homes' value (tax income!). They don't have to invest as much time in variance meetings, because, "hey, we'd love to consider your setback variance, but your deed restrictions don't allow it!" And more.
Where I live, and the 4 suburbs near me, there are literally no neighborhoods that are post WW2 construction that do not have an HOA. The pre WW2 construction areas are more rural and the price tag on those properties is well out of reach of most people.
My house was built in 1856. My deed has an old right of way down my driveway and across the back of my property for horses and wagons to reach the back of my neighbors properties. Even though there are roads back there now I can't get rid of the right of way.
It depends on where you are / live. Rights of way in many states however, once established, are impossible to eliminate.
My first jury duty was on a right of way case in Arizona decades ago. The property owner of the land closest to the highway put a gate with a lock accross the private road that lead through his property to the properties behind his effectively stopping the other property owners from accessing their land. They sued, he lost, and had to pay damages and legal fees. Overall not nice...