Re: HOA demands resident's web site come down
Kurt Ullman
"HeyBub" <heybub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20070921/NEWS/709210366
He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.
hollenback
they are using a trademarked name?
"HeyBub" <heybub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13f7mun...@news.supernews.com...
> "Last week, the association's property manager gave [the resident] until
> the end of the month to rename the Web site, dissolve it or face a
> $100-a-day fine, eventually resulting in a lien on his home."
>
> That'll teach the malcontent to mess with the HOA!
>
> http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20070921/NEWS/709210366
>
>
>
Charlie Bress
"HeyBub" <heybub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13f7mun...@news.supernews.com...
> "Last week, the association's property manager gave [the resident] until
> the end of the month to rename the Web site, dissolve it or face a
> $100-a-day fine, eventually resulting in a lien on his home."
>
> That'll teach the malcontent to mess with the HOA!
>
> http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20070921/NEWS/709210366
>
>
>
in Florida since 1982. In one place I was a board member for more than a
dozen years.
So when I give you my thoughts on the subject I am not just blowing smoke.
The Florida statutes has one section on Corporations Not for Profit. Under
Section 617.0808 Removal of directors.
"Any member of the board of directors may be removed From office with or
without cause by vote or agreement in writing by a majority of all votes of
the membership." It goes on from there and those really interested can find
it all on line.
So my take on this situation is that 1) things are not all that bad if he
cannot muster enough votes and 2) As he was once a board member and the
president, no less, he was negligent not being conversant with applicable
law.
I am not now involved with the HOA where I live. My wife contends that
involvement is grounds for divorce.
Charlie
big...@backpacker.com
service.rather than pay for lamp
On Sep 21, 12:19 pm, Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <13f7mun2i0b0...@news.supernews.com>,
Oren
<w_holle...@SPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>Are the Hamptons in Florida going to sue the Hamptons in New York because
>they are using a trademarked name?
Exactly! Has anyone even checked to see if there is a trademark owned
by this HOA?
A casinos in Las Vegas is currently having a dispute; regarding
similar names.
________
It's a hard-won reputation for value, one the Plaza's owners want to
protect when the company that owns the posh Plaza in New York City
opens a $5 billion version of their butler-hosting, tea-providing
hotel on the Strip.
That's why Tamares Las Vegas Properties filed a complaint Thursday in
Clark County District Court to block Elad Group of New York from using
the Plaza name in Sin City.
_________
>
>"HeyBub" <heybub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:13f7mun...@news.supernews.com...
>> "Last week, the association's property manager gave [the resident] until
>> the end of the month to rename the Web site, dissolve it or face a
>> $100-a-day fine, eventually resulting in a lien on his home."
>>
>> That'll teach the malcontent to mess with the HOA!
>>
>> http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20070921/NEWS/709210366
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Oren
Hofstadter's Law - It [a task] always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.
John Cochran
I don't have a copy of the convenant, but according to the news article
the phrasing is "a ban on any commercial use of the property name" then
immediately following there's a statement that the guy is violating this
by "trying to see an idea". Frankly that's a rather long stretch.
Oren
>The gas lamp is ridiculous. I'd go all electric and remove gas
>service.rather than pay for lamp
A link to the real lamp fire (s) ....
http://hamptonsnbc.com/Gas_Leaks___Fires.html
>
>On Sep 21, 12:19 pm, Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In article <13f7mun2i0b0...@news.supernews.com>,
>>
>> "HeyBub" <heybubNOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20070921/NEWS/709210366
>>
>> He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
>> within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.
>
Oren
wrote:
Owner web site disclamier.*
*
Copyright 2007. Hamptons NBC- Sarasota, Florida. All rights reserved.
Hamptons Neighbors for a Better Community (“HamptonsNBC”) is not
affiliated with and in no way represents “The Hamptons of Sarasota
Community Association, Inc,” or its Board of Directors or any of its
committees or organizational entities or contractors.
Kurt Ullman
Oren <Or...@home.yes.us> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:14:19 -0700, "hollenback"
> <w_holle...@SPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Are the Hamptons in Florida going to sue the Hamptons in New York because
> >they are using a trademarked name?
>
> Exactly! Has anyone even checked to see if there is a trademark owned
> by this HOA?
>
They could trademark a logo, for instance. Also although they use
the Hamptons as short hand, they might have a longer name the guy is
using. Also, aren't the Hamptons in NY a town and not a subdivision.
That might make a difference.
Steve Barker LT
s
another good reason to ban HOA's. They think they are God.
Steve Barker LT
thing.
s
"Kurt Ullman" <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-9D14C...@032-478-847.area7.spcsdns.net...
Oren
wrote:
INAL. I tried to do a TM search and found about 500 just using
"hamptons"
Many years ago the Miami Herald (IIRC) published a story about an
upset client of a law firm. He discovered the law firm did not have a
trademark for the firm, so he registered it. Supposedly, they paid
dearly to get it back.
Steve Barker LT
through.
http://www.nissan.com/Digest/The_Story.php
s
"Oren" <Or...@home.yes.us> wrote in message
news:omb8f35ik5b7ehb6n...@4ax.com...
Oren
<ichase...@not.yahoo.com> wrote:
>what trademark? His site is hamptonsnbc. not "the hamptons" or other such
>thing.
>
>s
Paris Hilton TM 'ed "That's Hot" or some such. Now I'm afraid to pick
up a frying pan. Moms can't tell the children - that's hot! :-)
>
>
>"Kurt Ullman" <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:kurtullman-9D14C...@032-478-847.area7.spcsdns.net...
>> In article <13f7mun...@news.supernews.com>,
>> "HeyBub" <heybub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20070921/NEWS/709210366
>>
>> He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
>> within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.
>
Nick Danger
"John Cochran" <j...@smof.fiawol.org> wrote in message
news:fd19p8$i72$1...@smof.fiawol.org...
> I don't have a copy of the convenant, but according to the news article
> the phrasing is "a ban on any commercial use of the property name" then
> immediately following there's a statement that the guy is violating this
> by "trying to see an idea". Frankly that's a rather long stretch.
"a ban on any commercial use of the property name"
"trying to sell an idea"
How much profit does he expect to get selling his idea?
How much revenue does he expect to get selling his idea?
If no profit and no revenue, how can this be considered commercial use?
I don't know all the laws - maybe the HOA can write into the covenant
something about residents not being allowed to say unkind things about the
HOA on their website. But it appears that the best argument they were able
to come up with was the one about commercial use.
He might be able to go to his insurance company with the fire issue and try
to get them to cancel his policy or raise the premiums because of the risk.
Presumably when they do this to him, they and other companies will follow
suit and do the same for everyone else in the community. That might be
legally possible but it doesn't do anything to move things closer to a
harmonious state.
The real issue is what the members of the HOA want. When he bought the
house, he must have known there was an HOA, and he should have known that
HOAs function, more or less, as a democracy and can make whatever rules they
want within whatever restrictions the law applies. If the members are well
informed about the dangers of the gas lights and a majority of them agree to
keep them and no law is being violated, then the HOA can keep that rule in
place. If he believes the members are not properly informed or are just
being apathetic, then he can start his website or use other legal means to
keep them informed and interested. If he decides to go off on a crusade and
find legal means or get an insurance company to take action (and apparently
he has not done this), this is probably legal, but then he really is
"stirring the pot" and would make life a lot better for everyone, including
himself, if he just moved. But given that a simple move, including selling a
house and buying another, can cost tens of thousands of dollars, it's not
such a simple solution.
I would really like to know how such a moronic idea as putting gas lights in
front of every house ever got implemented, much less written into the HOA
bylaws. I kind of imagine that during the construction phase, someone
happened to watch a movie about olde England that showed houses with gas
lights, and they thought that was so romantic and decided their community
had to have that too. Now they don't want to accept the realization that it
was a stupid idea, so they're using the HOA to block any reconsideration.
John Gilmer
"Steve Barker LT" <ichase...@not.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:-ZSdnQyra4qPsmnb...@giganews.com...
> The HOA doesn't have leg to stand on. Jeeeeze what a waste of time.
>
Frankly, the game isn't worth the candle. He should contact the attorney
who wrote the letter and say he is changing the name on his site. It's
just not hard to burn up several $1000 in legal bills is a pissing contest
with a HoA. I believe the story mentioned a $10k figure.
> s
>
> another good reason to ban HOA's. They think they are God.
>
>
Governments LOVE HoA just because the HoA's can do things governments can't.
They tend to be run by folks without much in the way of common sense.
When we were in the house search and ended up with us being where we are the
FIRST criteria we told the agent was NO Home Owners Association of the type
that can actually impose rules. Neighborhood associations are OK, of
course.
Phil-In-Mich.
My take: Let the buyer beware. Simple and short.
You are required to be provided notice and documentation that you are moving
into a HOA property and house. You agree to the arrangement (and property
lien documents) when you purchase the land and house. Period. You are
assumed to be an adult at the time of purchase.
I have no tears to shed for anyone who purchases into an HOA, and later
decides they don't like the HOA because it is a bunch of busy bodies. Why
do you think the states allowed HOA's in the first place. So the states
could concentrate all the busy bodies together and then they would leave the
rest of us alone.
I am totally in favor of HOA's. I like not having busy bodies bothering me
where I live.
Phil
Oren
wrote:
>He should contact the attorney
>who wrote the letter and say he is changing the name on his site.
Against the smart advice of his attorney? (see site) The owner hasn't
done anything wrong....
He should not contact anybody, but let his attorney do that!
--
Oren
"If things get any worse, I'll have to ask you to stop helping me."
Oren
<nospam...@not-want-spam.net> wrote:
>I am totally in favor of HOA's. I like not having busy bodies bothering me
>where I live.
Coming soon to an area near you, "busy bodies".
Edwin Pawlowski
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:56:28 -0500, "Steve Barker LT"
> <ichase...@not.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>what trademark? His site is hamptonsnbc. not "the hamptons" or other
>>such
>>thing.
>>
>>s
>
> Paris Hilton TM 'ed "That's Hot" or some such. Now I'm afraid to pick
> up a frying pan. Moms can't tell the children - that's hot! :-)
>
You can trademark an otherwise generic word in certain context. Many of us
use trademarked names for noncommercial purposes all the time. It can be
a Ford Owner Club, or Star Trek Fan Club. Using the work Hamptons is not
necessarily an infringement.
Google give over 4,610,000 hits for the word Hamptons and is it used by
Hamptons Vodka, Nuke the Hamptons, and many others. I'd never live where
there was an HOA though.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/
Edwin Pawlowski
"Phil-In-Mich." <nospam...@not-want-spam.net> wrote in message
news:13f8gm4...@corp.supernews.com...
>I lived for 9 years in Columbia, MD which is layers upon layers of HOA's.
>
> My take: Let the buyer beware. Simple and short.
> You are required to be provided notice and documentation that you are
> moving into a HOA property and house. You agree to the arrangement (and
> property lien documents) when you purchase the land and house. Period.
> You are assumed to be an adult at the time of purchase.
>
> I have no tears to shed for anyone who purchases into an HOA, and later
> decides they don't like the HOA because it is a bunch of busy bodies.
While I agree with what you say, the HOA in this case still has no right to
stop his web site. We still have freedom of speech in this country.
SteveB
"HeyBub" <heybub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:13f7mun...@news.supernews.com...
> "Last week, the association's property manager gave [the resident] until
> the end of the month to rename the Web site, dissolve it or face a
> $100-a-day fine, eventually resulting in a lien on his home."
>
> That'll teach the malcontent to mess with the HOA!
>
> http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20070921/NEWS/709210366
The HOA is ridiculous in its claim on trademark infringement. There have to
be thousands of "Hamptons" type names around. The original, IIRC, describes
a geographical area in New England.
Zaki's position on the gas lights is spot on. We do field investigations
for HOA reserve audit studies. Gas lights are about as inefficient a way
you can go to light an area that there is. Plus, they run 24/7 and that
costs a lot. And that doesn't include the replacement cost of parts, and
whole lights that are destroyed by various means.
And then, there's the safety issue re: gas. Anyone with a room temperature
IQ has to agree that it is dangerous.
All the HOA stuff historically started in Florida, where retirees went, and
the HOA situation evolved.
I hope Zaki countersues for infringement on his freedom of speech.
Trouble is, the lawyers are the ones who profit. People have won all sorts
of judgments against HOAs, but they are costly.
Steve
SteveB
"Nick Danger" <your...@yourdomain.com> wrote
> The real issue is what the members of the HOA want. When he bought the
> house, he must have known there was an HOA, and he should have known that
> HOAs function, more or less, as a democracy and can make whatever rules
> they want within whatever restrictions the law applies.
Say what? They are about as totalitarian as you can get. The boards are
full of people who have too much time on their hands, and have no idea how
things work. People who do know how things work either don't have the time,
or can't get the committee government to implement basic common sense logic.
Like reassessing costly dangerous lighting situations.
Steve
Kurt Ullman
"Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>
> While I agree with what you say, the HOA in this case still has no right to
> stop his web site. We still have freedom of speech in this country.
I never have understood why people can't seem to recall that the first
words of the first amendment are "Congress shall not".. For the most
part, the first amendment covers only what government does. Thus, if I
want to leaflet at a Mall, they can toss me out of the door barring a
state law to the contrary because it is private property. Even then it
would be a state law and not federal or constitutional question.
AZ Nomad
>"Last week, the association's property manager gave [the resident] until the
>end of the month to rename the Web site, dissolve it or face a $100-a-day
>fine, eventually resulting in a lien on his home."
good! Maybe they'll stop you from being such a scumbag spammer.
Don Klipstein
Kurt Ullman wrote:
Another amendment, I believe the 14th, extends these restrictions to the
states - and it has been understood that this includes all lower lwvels of
government.
And I have heard of court cases restricting HOA rulemaking, I believe on
basis that HOAs are a level of government - nad have to obey the Bill of
Rights. (IIRC - it has been years since I read the newspaper article
saying that.)
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Jim Yanik
> In article <mV_Ii.3375$4J3....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> While I agree with what you say, the HOA in this case still has no
>> right to stop his web site. We still have freedom of speech in this
>> country.
>
> I never have understood why people can't seem to recall that the
> first
> words of the first amendment are "Congress shall not".. For the most
> part, the first amendment covers only what government does.
ALL of the Constitution is a limitation *on government*.
NOT any limit on the People.
> Thus, if I
> want to leaflet at a Mall, they can toss me out of the door barring a
> state law to the contrary because it is private property. Even then it
> would be a state law and not federal or constitutional question.
>
Even on such "private property" -open to the public-,you still retain
certain rights,and they are still subject to certain government
regulations,such as health,safety regs,both state and Federal.
As people are so quick to say;"no right is absolute".
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Caesar Romano
Klipstein) wrote Re Re: HOA demands resident's web site come down:
> And I have heard of court cases restricting HOA rulemaking, I believe on
>basis that HOAs are a level of government - nad have to obey the Bill of
>Rights. (IIRC - it has been years since I read the newspaper article
>saying that.)
Precisely. Watch what happens to a HOA that tries to include racial
restrictions.
Kurt Ullman
d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
> In <kurtullman-B85AF...@032-478-847.area7.spcsdns.net>,
> Kurt Ullman wrote:
>
> >In article <mV_Ii.3375$4J3....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
> > "Edwin Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote:
> >
> >> While I agree with what you say, the HOA in this case still has no right
> >> to
> >> stop his web site. We still have freedom of speech in this country.
> >
> > I never have understood why people can't seem to recall that the first
> >words of the first amendment are "Congress shall not".. For the most
> >part, the first amendment covers only what government does. Thus, if I
> >want to leaflet at a Mall, they can toss me out of the door barring a
> >state law to the contrary because it is private property. Even then it
> >would be a state law and not federal or constitutional question.
>
> Another amendment, I believe the 14th, extends these restrictions to the
> states - and it has been understood that this includes all lower lwvels of
> government.
Yeah. Although my point (which I missed rather badly from the looks of
things) is that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to private entities.
>
> And I have heard of court cases restricting HOA rulemaking, I believe on
> basis that HOAs are a level of government - nad have to obey the Bill of
> Rights. (IIRC - it has been years since I read the newspaper article
> saying that.)
That would probably be state-specific depending on how they are
set-up, assuming that what you read wasn't later overturned.
Kurt Ullman
Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
> Even on such "private property" -open to the public-,you still retain
> certain rights,and they are still subject to certain government
> regulations,such as health,safety regs,both state and Federal.
Even in the public areas, absent a state law to the contrary, there
is no right of assembly, you have no right of free speech in that they
can toss your behind for leafleting, etc. Even under this theory, it
is a long stretch to suggest that the HOA is public.
Kurt Ullman
Caesar Romano <Sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
But that isn't constitutional. That is related to the Civil
Right Act. You don't have to be remotely conceived as a level of
government to run afoul of that.
SteveB
<gfre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:m0b9f3h3k8ng9lm5c...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:57:08 -0700, "SteveB"
> <desertt...@hi-speed.us> wrote:
>
>>> HOAs function, more or less, as a democracy and can make whatever rules
>>> they want within whatever restrictions the law applies.
>>
>>Say what? They are about as totalitarian as you can get. The boards are
>>full of people who have too much time on their hands, and have no idea how
>>things work. People who do know how things work either don't have the
>>time,
>>or can't get the committee government to implement basic common sense
>>logic.
>
> of people who are as pissed as you about the current officers and mob
> the annual meeting.
> All it takes is a little shoe leather and knocking on doors. It is
> somewhat like hearding cats but it can be done. I did it at my HOA. We
> ended up gertting the votes to let the deed restrictions die a
> peaceful death after they expired. We still have an HOA chartered
> under article 617 but we don't have the 720 deed restricted (liens,
> fines etc) community.
> Most HOA deed restrictions DO expire if the members don't show up to
> vote against renewal. They were running our community on about a 17%
> turnout at the annual meeting. We had 66% at the last meeting and the
> vote reflected that. It went two to one against the the establishment.
What you did was admirable. It is difficult to find enough owners who are
residing there, find enough interested people, and find enough people who
are willing to miss a TV program or two. I've had all sorts of experiences
with HOAs on all levels, and it is quite a demonstration of the governing
process, from the good to the bad.
Most people are unaware of even their CC&Rs, let alone how the laws and
rules actually do work.
Steve
Jim Yanik
> In article <Xns99B377B49C...@64.209.0.87>,
> Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
You should include this part you snipped;
> Thus, if I
> want to leaflet at a Mall, they can toss me out of the door barring a
> state law to the contrary because it is private property. Even then it
> would be a state law and not federal or constitutional question.
>
>>
>> Even on such "private property" -open to the public-,you still retain
>> certain rights,and they are still subject to certain government
>> regulations,such as health,safety regs,both state and Federal.
> Even in the public areas, absent a state law to the contrary, there
> is no right of assembly, you have no right of free speech in that they
> can toss your behind for leafleting, etc. Even under this theory, it
> is a long stretch to suggest that the HOA is public.
>
I didn't claim any HOA was "open to the public".I was referring to a MALL.
jJim McLaughlin
Given that most Florida HOAs purport to exercise quasi governmental
functions,
and do so under authority provided them by state law, theres a real good
argment that a Florida HOA is subject to the First Amendment and cannot
restrict whats on that web site.
Your mall analogy is not at all applicable.
Kurt Ullman
Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
> Kurt Ullman <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:kurtullman-
> 5724CD.090...@032-478-847.area7.spcsdns.net:
>
> > In article <Xns99B377B49C...@64.209.0.87>,
> > Jim Yanik <jya...@abuse.gov> wrote:
> >
>
> You should include this part you snipped;
> > Thus, if I
> > want to leaflet at a Mall, they can toss me out of the door barring a
> > state law to the contrary because it is private property. Even then it
> > would be a state law and not federal or constitutional question.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Even on such "private property" -open to the public-,you still retain
> >> certain rights,and they are still subject to certain government
> >> regulations,such as health,safety regs,both state and Federal.
> > Even in the public areas, absent a state law to the contrary, there
> > is no right of assembly, you have no right of free speech in that they
> > can toss your behind for leafleting, etc. Even under this theory, it
> > is a long stretch to suggest that the HOA is public.
> >
>
> I didn't claim any HOA was "open to the public".I was referring to a MALL.
Okay, thread drift gets a little confusing to me at intervals. But
then life gets a little confusing to me at intervals... But as I
said, absent state laws to the contrary the Supremes have said that even
the public spaces in malls are private property and no constitutional
protections extend there to.
jJim McLaughlin
Wrong.
Kurt Ullman
jJim McLaughlin <jimm.cl...@comcast.com> wrote:
>
> Given that most Florida HOAs purport to exercise quasi governmental
> functions,
> and do so under authority provided them by state law, theres a real good
> argment that a Florida HOA is subject to the First Amendment and cannot
> restrict whats on that web site.
Looks like we'll see unless the dude chickens out. If that is
how it works out then it means the HOA is NOT a private entity.
> Your mall analogy is not at all applicable.
It is until the decision is made on whether or not the HOA is a
private entity. If it is indeed a private entity, then it is not
beholden to the First Amendment.
Kurt Ullman
jJim McLaughlin <jimm.cl...@comcast.com> wrote:
Right, although it might be some other law. After I sent this, I
thought it was more likely Fair Housing Act or something similar.
Actually I was both right and wrong. From HUD's website:
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as
amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of
dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race,
color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including
children under the age of 18 living with parents of legal custodians,
pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of
18), and handicap (disability).
Larry Bud
> In article <13f7mun2i0b0...@news.supernews.com>,
>
> "HeyBub" <heybubNOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20070921/NEWS/709210366
>
> He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
> within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.
What trademark?
Larry Bud
> >> HOAs function, more or less, as a democracy and can make whatever rules
> >> they want within whatever restrictions the law applies.
>
> >Say what? They are about as totalitarian as you can get. The boards are
> >full of people who have too much time on their hands, and have no idea how
> >things work. People who do know how things work either don't have the time,
> >or can't get the committee government to implement basic common sense logic.
>
> of people who are as pissed as you about the current officers and mob
> the annual meeting.
That's assuming the vote isn't rigged in the first place.
Kurt Ullman
Larry Bud <larryb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
From the story above.
"Grievances and propaganda" is how the association's attorney described
the Web site's content, in a certified letter Aug. 9 demanding that Zaki
cease any use therein of the trademarked name The Hamptons.
Larry Bud
> "Steve Barker LT" <ichasetra...@not.yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:-ZSdnQyra4qPsmnb...@giganews.com...> The HOA doesn't have leg to stand on. Jeeeeze what a waste of time.
>
> I would tend to agree. The web site should have "fair use" of the name.
>
> Frankly, the game isn't worth the candle. He should contact the attorney
> who wrote the letter and say he is changing the name on his site. It's
> just not hard to burn up several $1000 in legal bills is a pissing contest
> with a HoA. I believe the story mentioned a $10k figure.
>
> > s
>
> > another good reason to ban HOA's. They think they are God.
>
> Governments LOVE HoA just because the HoA's can do things governments can't.
More than that: HOAs often have private roads paid by the residents,
private trash pickup, and private snow removal. The local government
still gets their 100% of the property tax, but doesn't have to pay for
the above mentioned items.
Larry Bud
> where I live.
Except that eventually, the only place you'll be able to buy is into a
neighborhood with an HOA, unless you want to live 3 hours from your
work.
Larry Bud
> In article <mV_Ii.3375$4J3.3...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
The Constitution limits what the Government CAN do. People are free
to do anything they please, as long as they don't violate the rights
of others. In your above example, you've violating the property
rights of the mall owners because you'd be doing something they don't
want done on their property. In the web site example, the owner isn't
violating any rights of anybody.
willshak
> In article <13f7mun...@news.supernews.com>,
> "HeyBub" <heybub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20070921/NEWS/709210366
>>
>
> He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
> within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.
>
They can't copyright the word 'Hamptons'. They might even be on shaky
grounds copywriting "The Hamptons"
"The Hamptons" is a common reference for the region in Suffolk County,
Long Island NY that is a summer home to many of the elite and famous.
See also this site:
http://www.thehamptons.com/toc.html (TheHamptons.com)
The association's lawyer's letter to the web site owner stated that it
is forbidden to use the logos, trademarks, or designs of the community.
"19.3 Promotional Events: ... All logos, trademarks, and designs used in
connection with The Hamptons are the property of Developer, and the
Association shall have no right to use the same after the Community
Completion Date except with the express written permission of
Developer.
--------------------------------
Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 495.15 1, the Association has the
right to bring a suit for injunction to defend its logos, trademarks,
and designs against anyone who wrongfully uses the same or similar
logos, trademarks and designs. That Section states as follows:
The owner of a mark that is famous in this state shall be entitled,
subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court
deems reasonable, to an injunction and to obtain such other relief
against another person' commercial use of a mark or trade name if such
use begins after the mark has become famous and is likely to cause
dilution of the distinctive quality of the famous mark, as provided in
this section."
It does not state anything about using the name 'The Hamptons', or
Hamptons.
Unless the website owner uses any of the logos, trademarks, or designs
of the developer, he is not in violation of the covenant.
This is just a feeble attempt to scare the website owner into taking the
site down.
Coincidentally, look at my sig....
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
SteveB
"Larry Bud" <larryb...@yahoo.com> wrote
> That's assuming the vote isn't rigged in the first place.
paraphrasing ..........
The one who controls the ballot box controls the outcome of any election.
Joseph Stalin
SteveB
<gfre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b6jbf3pqhe71ntvsp...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:12:14 -0700, "SteveB"
> <desertt...@hi-speed.us> wrote:
>
>>
>>> That's assuming the vote isn't rigged in the first place.
>>
>>paraphrasing ..........
>>
>>The one who controls the ballot box controls the outcome of any election.
>>
>>Joseph Stalin
>
>
> watching the count you deserve to be oppressed. The biggest
> opportunity for fraud is in the proxy count but any member has the
> right to examine the proxies.
My life experiences have been different than yours.
And let's not even get into public elections. Does LBJ ring a bell?
Steve
Don Klipstein
IIRC, the way I remember a bit going in the courts is that an HOA is
a level of government, and therefore subject to the restrictions on
government by the Bill of Rights (1st 10 amendments to the USA
Constitution, especially the 1st), as extended to non-Federal governments
in the USA by another constitutional amendment (I believe the 14th).
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
I do feel the urge to add:
A mall is usually property owned privately or maybe by a corporation
whose shares trade on a "public" stock exchange - which is still "private
sector".
An HOA IIRC has some case law as being to some extent a level of
government.
That leads me to suspect that usually HOAs are more subject to "Bill of
Rights" restrictions than shopping malls are.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
>On Sep 21, 6:14 pm, "John Gilmer" <nni/gil...@nni.com> wrote:
>> "Steve Barker LT" <ichasetra...@not.yahoo.com> wrote in
>>messagenews:-ZSdnQyra4qPsmnb...@giganews.com...> The HOA
>>doesn't have leg to stand on. Jeeeeze what a waste of time.
>>
>> I would tend to agree. The web site should have "fair use" of the name.
>>
>> Frankly, the game isn't worth the candle. He should contact the attorney
>> who wrote the letter and say he is changing the name on his site. It's
>> just not hard to burn up several $1000 in legal bills is a pissing contest
>> with a HoA. I believe the story mentioned a $10k figure.
>>
>> > s
>>
>> > another good reason to ban HOA's. They think they are God.
>>
>> Governments LOVE HoA just because the HoA's can do things governments
>> can't.
>
>More than that: HOAs often have private roads paid by the residents,
It appears to me that they can be driven upon by anyone if they connect
to public roads and are not marked "No Trespassing - Not A Public
Thoroughfare" or something along these lines.
>private trash pickup, and private snow removal.
Sounds to me at least arguably functions of a sub-municipal level of
government! (A level below often "township", which has a bit of case
history being 36 square miles IIRC and is usually at least a few square
miles).
> The local government still gets their 100% of the property tax, but
>doesn't have to pay for the above mentioned items.
The next-lower level of government gets their tax that is called an HOA
fee!
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
Bud wrote:
I am finding plenty of areas lacking HOAs in "inner ring suburbs" of
Philadelphia. By this I mean most residences in municipalities bordering
Philadelphia, and most residences in municipalities that border ones that
border Philadelphia. I see HOAs in the Philadelphia area being more
common in municipalities 3-4 or so removed from Philadelphia, often in a
county that does not border Philadelphia or over 10 miles (often over
20 miles) from Philadelphia city limits or both!
I also see high lack of HOAs within Philadelphia's city limits, though I
am low on nice things to say about the municipal level of government
there, as well as on the PA "state" government! And I see NJ as being
minor improvement!
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Kurt Ullman
willshak <will...@00hvc.rr.com> wrote:
> on 9/21/2007 12:19 PM Kurt Ullman said the following:
> > In article <13f7mun...@news.supernews.com>,
> > "HeyBub" <heybub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20070921/NEWS/709210366
> >>
> >
> > He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
> > within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.
> >
>
> They can't copyright the word 'Hamptons'. They might even be on shaky
> grounds copywriting "The Hamptons"
They are trademarking it. Maybe, maybe not. They could TM The
Hamptoms in the context of a FL subdivision as long as it hadn't been by
another. They are for a specific service or range of services (or
products). There might be some attempt under the "passing off" part of
the regs, but I find it hard to believe that a Sarasota houing
development could be confused with a section of Long Island by too many
people.
> "The Hamptons" is a common reference for the region in Suffolk County,
> Long Island NY that is a summer home to many of the elite and famous.
> See also this site:
> http://www.thehamptons.com/toc.html (TheHamptons.com)
Yep. Which would have little to do with the trademarking of the name
for a Florida Subdivision. Although a quick search through the trademark
registry finds none for FL (Although I did find that apparently Racine,
WI holds the Hamptons of the Midwest, BTW a community).
>
Kurt Ullman
d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>
> IIRC, the way I remember a bit going in the courts is that an HOA is
> a level of government, and therefore subject to the restrictions on
> government by the Bill of Rights (1st 10 amendments to the USA
> Constitution, especially the 1st), as extended to non-Federal governments
> in the USA by another constitutional amendment (I believe the 14th).
>
Interesting. I guess we'll see what happens. If you happen to recall,
was this based on specifics on a state law or where they attempting to
get it declared that way on some other way that might be applicable to
all 50?
Kurt Ullman
d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
> It appears to me that they can be driven upon by anyone if they connect
> to public roads and are not marked "No Trespassing - Not A Public
> Thoroughfare" or something along these lines.
Probably depends on the original set-up. The developers around here
put in the roads, get them inspected by the city and then they are given
to the city or county. They are public roads.
>
> >private trash pickup, and private snow removal.
>
> Sounds to me at least arguably functions of a sub-municipal level of
> government! (A level below often "township", which has a bit of case
> history being 36 square miles IIRC and is usually at least a few square
> miles).
>
That might depend on the state if it is applicable at all. In Indiana,
for instance, many cities (and even more towns and no townships or
below) don't do trash pick-up. In those areas, it is up to the
individual. Our HOA decided to contract for trash pick-up because we got
a good deal and got tired of having one or two garbage cans out every
day.
SteveB
<gfre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:740cf3h1118m457d6...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 05:12:06 +0000 (UTC), d...@manx.misty.com (Don
> Klipstein) wrote:
>
>> It appears to me that they can be driven upon by anyone if they connect
>>to public roads and are not marked "No Trespassing - Not A Public
>>Thoroughfare" or something along these lines.
>
>
Those kind of gates that stay open as long as a line of cars keep passing
over it? The first guy presses his remote, and you could drive a semi truck
in after him as long as you get to the coils before the auto close mode
starts. And even then, some gates are set to open if another car comes
within the loops before the gate is closed.
I hear what you're saying, but gates are an item that provides a low level
of security.
Guards are a different matter. At some HOAs, they only have a day shift.
And they have only one guard. So, if he goes on rounds, no one to watch the
gate. And nine times out of ten, the guard can't run 100 feet or scale a
six foot fence. And are unarmed.
Fences, gates, and guards do not keep out the riff raff. They're like
monkeys. If they want in, they will just come in any way they can.
Steve
SteveB
"Kurt Ullman" <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> Probably depends on the original set-up. The developers around here
> put in the roads, get them inspected by the city and then they are given
> to the city or county. They are public roads.
>
That varies with each locality just like the weather. Asphalt replacement
is $ .95 per square foot, and has a life span of twenty to thirty years.
Seal coating is $ .20 per square foot, and a good sealcoat job lasts five
years. And that varies with the area, too.
I have houses on a county street in that location. When there's an issue,
they send out a patch team, but I have yet to see them entirely seal coat
the entire cul de sac in five years. It needs it. We do get gypsies who
leave flyers, but we haven't and won't take them up on it. In a HOA, they
will do small patch jobs, but they usually do sealcoating more frequently
than cities or counties.
The asphalt area in most HOAs is one of the biggest areas, in there with
landscaping. I have seen landscape percentages from 11 to 47 percent of the
total property, usually dictated by the age. The new ones are higher
density. Streets don't vary in percentages as much as you need a certain
amount of streets for a certain property. Also, you can kill landscape
areas and xeriscape or pave over, and you can't do that with asphalt.
Apply the math with asphalt areas running up to a million square feet of
asphalt, and that's a good chunk of the monthly assessment, along with the
landscaping.
HTH. Just little tidbit of info.
Steve
Jim Yanik
news:slrnffbu6...@manx.misty.com:
Older areas often don't have HOAs. (built before the advent of HOAs)
Many people value that.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Don Klipstein
<SNIP stuff said before>
>Some communities have 24/7 guards but more to the point, they all say
>they are private on signs and you would be tresspassing if you went
>in. The community my wife manages also has a very sophistocated camera
>setup that can zoom in on the tag number. It might be possible to
>"tailgate" someone through the gate if the guard was not there but you
>would also have the resident you are tailgating to deal with. Bear in
>mind, they know you are on camera too so your assault/tresspassing
>charge will be a slam dunk in court. These people are serious about
>security. That is why they pay all that money for gates, guards and
>the cost of maintaining their private roads. Occasionally they do have
>someone ram the gate, if it is a small car, that is where you will
>find them. A big truck will get through. The last one at my wife's
>place got a $12,000 bill for the gate, delivered by the sheriff, along
>with the handcuffs for the tresspassing charge. They had excellent
>pictures of the truck, the tag and the driver when he got out to see
>what he could to to get his truck going again.
>
>They also had someone break into the guard shack, trying to steal the
>tapes. OOPS, it was on a LAN and the real pictures were on a hard
>drive in the server room up in the club house. A felony
>burglary/larceny charge went with that one. The guy stole the wrong
>computer so they had him coming and going on camera.
>
>BTW this is the "Gunshine" state, you can't count on anyone being
>unarmed. Over half the guards I know pack "concealed". We just passed
>a law that says you do not have the "obligation of retreat" anywhere
>"you have a legal right to be".
More power to them!
Cameras with recording in a different location, preferably more than one
camera so that a perp gets recorded unless destroying all cameras before
being recorded (with recordings going to remote locations) by any of
the cameras. May as well have plenty of trees to stash a couple extra
cameras in!
And if I have to live in a country where any Joe can have a gun, then I
things are "less-bad" if there is a system allowing concealed-carry by
law-abiding citizens. (Whether by having a permit requirement and
application process, or otherwise by targeting arrestees and persons
producing "adequately suspicious behavior" and probationers and parolees
and persons-subject-to-protection-from-abuse-orders for personal searching
for weapons that they legally must not have and that everyone else is
allowed to have).
One comment of mine: Washington DC - it appears to me that they are
trying too hard to disarm those that would obey a municipal law to be
disarmed in a country where outlaws merely have to go out of town
(possibly by only a few miles into Virginia) to get guns that only outlaws
have in Washington DC. I see gun control working well on a national
scale, hardly on a provincial ("USA "state") scale, and negatively on a
municipal scale.
Another comment of mine: Philadelphia trying for municipal gun control,
and trying to add restrictions to getting "concealed carry" permits.
What I would like to say there: What percentage of Philadelphians that
have concealed carry permits are committing gun crimes? What percentage
of Philadelphians that do not have concealed carry permits are committing
gun crimes?
The statistics: In Philadelphia, people without concealed-carry-permits
are more likely to unlawfully/unjustly shoot you (or anyone) than people
with concealed-carry permits - despite the "fact" that those with
concealed-carry perits are supposed to be more likely to be armed!
In Philadelphia, gun crimes tend to be committed with handguns - many by
persons of age under 21, though USA Federal law does not allow persons
under 21 to posess a handgun. Legally in the USA, someone using or
handling a handgun while under age 21 is supposed to be under supervision
by someone of age at least 21 that "is in charge of the handgun in
question" and "adequately" supervising its use/handling.
This means "No Problem" if I let my hypothetical 12-year-old nephew or
niece operate my hypothetical handgun while I adequately supervise such at
a shooting range or my backyard in Berks County PA.
But a teenager with saggy pants in an inner-city Philadelphia
neighborhood has no business "packing heat". If approached by police
officers requesting ID and search, then:
* - Approached-person produces ID with proof of age at least 21, then if
that person is not on probation or parole then maybe constitutionally or
morally-by-USA-Constitution that person maybe should be "free from that
point".
* - Person is unable to prove when approached by patrolling cops that such
approached person is allowed on basis of age and lack of probation/parole
status to be allowed to carry a handgun: Such person better not be
carrying one. However, evidence of being a criminal other than such gets
to being a matter of "warrantless search", and penalties could easily be
limited to confiscation of what the questionee is barred by law to posess
if this process occurs on public property or a "public easement" such as a
sidewalk or in or on grounds owned/leased by a "public accomodation" (such
as a business open to the public as opposed to something being to at least
some arguable extent a "private club").
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Caesar Romano
demands resident's web site come down:
>BTW this is the "Gunshine" state, you can't count on anyone being
>unarmed. Over half the guards I know pack "concealed". We just passed
>a law that says you do not have the "obligation of retreat" anywhere
>"you have a legal right to be".
As it should be.