Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
HOAs: "No solar panels for you"
36 views
Skip to first unread message
HeyBub
Apr 25, 2012, 7:47:34 AM4/25/12
to
"The government wants you to install solar panels at your house, and will
even give you a tax break to do it. But your neighbors? Maybe not. It's a
lesson Angel and David Dobs discovered when their homeowners association
north of Atlanta denied their request to install solar panels on their roof.
Neighborhood officials said the panels would look out of place and might
lower home values..."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/solar-panels-clashes-homeowner-groups-16208070#.T5e33vWDl8E
even give you a tax break to do it. But your neighbors? Maybe not. It's a
lesson Angel and David Dobs discovered when their homeowners association
north of Atlanta denied their request to install solar panels on their roof.
Neighborhood officials said the panels would look out of place and might
lower home values..."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/solar-panels-clashes-homeowner-groups-16208070#.T5e33vWDl8E
tra...@optonline.net
Apr 25, 2012, 8:49:12 AM4/25/12
to
"They're just afraid that someone's going to put up this big, honking
ugly thing that reflects light and just looks ugly," he said.
Which sounds like a legitimate concern to me. I've
yet to see one installed that didn't look ugly. If you
put it on the back side of your house where no one
else can see it, then it has no effect on neighbors.
But I've seen them put right on the front of houses.
And IMO it does lower the property value.
John Gilmer
Apr 25, 2012, 8:58:56 AM4/25/12
to
and even On-the-Air TV antennae (as well as Amateur/CB stuff.)
My understanding is that the FCC passed a special rule that said that
HOA's could NOT block communications based stuff. (Owners can; thus
renters are stuck).
Perhaps in the fullness of time, the feds will cause a similar rule in
regard to solar heat and solar electric panels.
I wouldn't get too upset, were I you.
Back in the days of Jimmy Who, lots of folks put up solar water heating
panels. Within a decade almost all of them had been bypassed and most
of them completely removed.
Message has been deleted
Kurt Ullman
Apr 25, 2012, 9:15:02 AM4/25/12
to
In article <NeednQmivYSTaArS...@posted.localnet>,
because the FCC (and thus the Feds) had pre-empted the field and could
do so under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. In other
words because Congress had given the FCC sole authority over the care
and feeding of radio and TV in the US. There is no similar agency in the
US for solar panels.
>
> Perhaps in the fullness of time, the feds will cause a similar rule in
> regard to solar heat and solar electric panels.
I am not sure they can, at least using the same legal idea as was
used in the FCC.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
John Gilmer <jlgi...@localnet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> There is a parallel with folks under a HOA putting up Satellite Dishes
> and even On-the-Air TV antennae (as well as Amateur/CB stuff.)
>
> My understanding is that the FCC passed a special rule that said that
> HOA's could NOT block communications based stuff. (Owners can; thus
> renters are stuck).
The FCC did only after SCOTUS had weighed in and said it could only
>
> >
> There is a parallel with folks under a HOA putting up Satellite Dishes
> and even On-the-Air TV antennae (as well as Amateur/CB stuff.)
>
> My understanding is that the FCC passed a special rule that said that
> HOA's could NOT block communications based stuff. (Owners can; thus
> renters are stuck).
because the FCC (and thus the Feds) had pre-empted the field and could
do so under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. In other
words because Congress had given the FCC sole authority over the care
and feeding of radio and TV in the US. There is no similar agency in the
US for solar panels.
>
> Perhaps in the fullness of time, the feds will cause a similar rule in
> regard to solar heat and solar electric panels.
used in the FCC.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
Tomsic
Apr 25, 2012, 9:51:54 AM4/25/12
to
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1b2512f4-516e-42ad...@m7g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
I can enjoy lower energy bills. Maybe the hand-wringers in Atlanta should
just mandate the use of the type of solar cells that look like roof shingles
so their aesthetic sensibilities aren't compromised.
Tomsic
notbob
Apr 25, 2012, 10:27:29 AM4/25/12
to
On 2012-04-25, John Gilmer <jlgi...@localnet.com> wrote:
> Back in the days of Jimmy Who, lots of folks put up solar water heating
> panels. Within a decade almost all of them had been bypassed and most
> of them completely removed.
I think a lot of this was due to old technology. PVC, which most of
> Back in the days of Jimmy Who, lots of folks put up solar water heating
> panels. Within a decade almost all of them had been bypassed and most
> of them completely removed.
those early systems were made of, was not UV resistant and in a short
span of a few years most of it broke down and fell apart. Those early
systems were jes not reliable. I also don't think they were very cost
effective in the long run, so didn't get rebuilt when newer material
technology appeared. Jes a guess.
nb
--
vi --the heart of evil!
gonjah
Apr 25, 2012, 10:56:24 AM4/25/12
to
shredded during the last hail storm. He didn't reinstall it.
tra...@optonline.net
Apr 25, 2012, 11:54:12 AM4/25/12
to
On Apr 25, 9:51 am, "Tomsic" <N...@no.net> wrote:
> <trad...@optonline.net> wrote in message
going to shell out a hell of a lot of money upfront to
hopefully recover it over decades. And it only
makes economic sense at all if the installation is heavily
subsidized. Meaning someone else is then paying
for your enjoyment.
And if you want them, why wait for a new house?
They go on an existing house just as well as a new
one.
> <trad...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1b2512f4-516e-42ad...@m7g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 25, 7:47 am, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "The government wants you to install solar panels at your house, and will
> > even give you a tax break to do it. But your neighbors? Maybe not. It's a
> > lesson Angel and David Dobs discovered when their homeowners association
> > north of Atlanta denied their request to install solar panels on their
> > roof.
> > Neighborhood officials said the panels would look out of place and might
> > lower home values..."
>
> >http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/solar-panels-clashes-homeowner-gro...
>
> "They're just afraid that someone's going to put up this big, honking
> ugly thing that reflects light and just looks ugly," he said.
>
> Which sounds like a legitimate concern to me. I've
> yet to see one installed that didn't look ugly. If you
> put it on the back side of your house where no one
> else can see it, then it has no effect on neighbors.
> But I've seen them put right on the front of houses.
> And IMO it does lower the property value.
>
> For my next house, I'll pay extra to have solar panels already installed so
> I can enjoy lower energy bills.
Only problem with that is that for the enjoyment you're
> news:1b2512f4-516e-42ad...@m7g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 25, 7:47 am, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "The government wants you to install solar panels at your house, and will
> > even give you a tax break to do it. But your neighbors? Maybe not. It's a
> > lesson Angel and David Dobs discovered when their homeowners association
> > north of Atlanta denied their request to install solar panels on their
> > roof.
> > Neighborhood officials said the panels would look out of place and might
> > lower home values..."
>
> >http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/solar-panels-clashes-homeowner-gro...
>
> "They're just afraid that someone's going to put up this big, honking
> ugly thing that reflects light and just looks ugly," he said.
>
> Which sounds like a legitimate concern to me. I've
> yet to see one installed that didn't look ugly. If you
> put it on the back side of your house where no one
> else can see it, then it has no effect on neighbors.
> But I've seen them put right on the front of houses.
> And IMO it does lower the property value.
>
> For my next house, I'll pay extra to have solar panels already installed so
> I can enjoy lower energy bills.
going to shell out a hell of a lot of money upfront to
hopefully recover it over decades. And it only
makes economic sense at all if the installation is heavily
subsidized. Meaning someone else is then paying
for your enjoyment.
And if you want them, why wait for a new house?
They go on an existing house just as well as a new
one.
Ed Pawlowski
Apr 25, 2012, 1:21:29 PM4/25/12
to
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:1b2512f4-516e-42ad...@m7g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
"They're just afraid that someone's going to put up this big, honking
ugly thing that reflects light and just looks ugly," he said.
Which sounds like a legitimate concern to me. I've
yet to see one installed that didn't look ugly. If you
put it on the back side of your house where no one
else can see it, then it has no effect on neighbors.
But I've seen them put right on the front of houses.
And IMO it does lower the property value.
Eye of the beholder. The lower utility bill is more important to me. I'd
not object to them. I may even pay more for a house with them.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Apr 25, 2012, 9:33:55 PM4/25/12
to
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 09:51:54 -0400, "Tomsic" <N...@no.net> wrote:
>
><tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:1b2512f4-516e-42ad...@m7g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
>On Apr 25, 7:47 am, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>> "The government wants you to install solar panels at your house, and will
>> even give you a tax break to do it. But your neighbors? Maybe not. It's a
>> lesson Angel and David Dobs discovered when their homeowners association
>> north of Atlanta denied their request to install solar panels on their
>> roof.
>> Neighborhood officials said the panels would look out of place and might
>> lower home values..."
>>
>> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/solar-panels-clashes-homeowner-gro...
>
>
>
>"They're just afraid that someone's going to put up this big, honking
>ugly thing that reflects light and just looks ugly," he said.
>
>Which sounds like a legitimate concern to me. I've
>yet to see one installed that didn't look ugly. If you
>put it on the back side of your house where no one
>else can see it, then it has no effect on neighbors.
>But I've seen them put right on the front of houses.
>And IMO it does lower the property value.
>
>For my next house, I'll pay extra to have solar panels already installed so
>I can enjoy lower energy bills.
You can pay extra right now.
>
><tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:1b2512f4-516e-42ad...@m7g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
>On Apr 25, 7:47 am, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>> "The government wants you to install solar panels at your house, and will
>> even give you a tax break to do it. But your neighbors? Maybe not. It's a
>> lesson Angel and David Dobs discovered when their homeowners association
>> north of Atlanta denied their request to install solar panels on their
>> roof.
>> Neighborhood officials said the panels would look out of place and might
>> lower home values..."
>>
>> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/solar-panels-clashes-homeowner-gro...
>
>
>
>"They're just afraid that someone's going to put up this big, honking
>ugly thing that reflects light and just looks ugly," he said.
>
>Which sounds like a legitimate concern to me. I've
>yet to see one installed that didn't look ugly. If you
>put it on the back side of your house where no one
>else can see it, then it has no effect on neighbors.
>But I've seen them put right on the front of houses.
>And IMO it does lower the property value.
>
>For my next house, I'll pay extra to have solar panels already installed so
>I can enjoy lower energy bills.
>Maybe the hand-wringers in Atlanta should
>just mandate the use of the type of solar cells that look like roof shingles
>so their aesthetic sensibilities aren't compromised.
impact on them.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Apr 25, 2012, 9:34:31 PM4/25/12
to
Ed Pawlowski
Apr 25, 2012, 11:37:15 PM4/25/12
to
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:34:31 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>>Eye of the beholder. The lower utility bill is more important to me. I'd
>>not object to them. I may even pay more for a house with them.
>>
>Except that it's not your house that is being depreciated because of them.
But as the price of energy goes up and up, it may be Appreciated.
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>>Eye of the beholder. The lower utility bill is more important to me. I'd
>>not object to them. I may even pay more for a house with them.
>>
>Except that it's not your house that is being depreciated because of them.
I've seen some installations that don't look bad at all, black panels
on a black roof.
bob haller
Apr 26, 2012, 7:50:42 AM4/26/12
to
Randy333
Apr 26, 2012, 9:15:15 AM4/26/12
to
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 06:47:34 -0500, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
The biggest thing that lowers home value is a HOA.
Remove 333 to reply.
Randy
wrote:
Remove 333 to reply.
Randy
Tomsic
Apr 26, 2012, 10:48:04 AM4/26/12
to
"bob haller" <hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d380e908-fb1c-4b1a...@f5g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
to achieve their goal of building mostly zero energy homes by 2020, that's
a lot of roof panels.
Tomsic
Red Green
Apr 26, 2012, 7:30:02 PM4/26/12
to
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in
news:O7mdnXeiJcfKeQrS...@earthlink.com:
At a higher level than solar panels, a home having an HOA lowers home
values.
news:O7mdnXeiJcfKeQrS...@earthlink.com:
values.
Red Green
Apr 26, 2012, 7:30:41 PM4/26/12
to
notbob
Apr 26, 2012, 8:46:58 PM4/26/12
to
On 2012-04-26, Randy333 <rbra...@enter.net> wrote:
> The biggest thing that lowers home value is a HOA.
Seems to me, HOA wields their power thru litigation. Comply or be
> The biggest thing that lowers home value is a HOA.
sued. Turn it around.
If solar pwr actually will save you money, sue the HOA on the grounds
of how much money you will lose by not converting to solar power.
IOW, sue based on how much $$$ the HOA is costing you!
nb
--
vi --the heart of evil!
tra...@optonline.net
Apr 26, 2012, 9:00:06 PM4/26/12
to
On Apr 26, 8:46 pm, notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:
home in a HOA community, you know and agree to
the HOA having control over certain aspects of what
you can do with your property. If you don't want that
arrangement, then you simply buy somewhere else.
If you do buy, then you are bound by the convenants
imposed and if they include control over what the
exterior looks like, then too bad, so sad, but you're
gonna lose.
> On 2012-04-26, Randy333 <rbraun...@enter.net> wrote:
>
> > The biggest thing that lowers home value is a HOA.
>
> Seems to me, HOA wields their power thru litigation. Comply or be
> sued. Turn it around.
>
> If solar pwr actually will save you money, sue the HOA on the grounds
> of how much money you will lose by not converting to solar power.
> IOW, sue based on how much $$$ the HOA is costing you!
>
> nb
Ridiculous suit that has no merit. When you buy a
>
> > The biggest thing that lowers home value is a HOA.
>
> Seems to me, HOA wields their power thru litigation. Comply or be
> sued. Turn it around.
>
> If solar pwr actually will save you money, sue the HOA on the grounds
> of how much money you will lose by not converting to solar power.
> IOW, sue based on how much $$$ the HOA is costing you!
>
> nb
home in a HOA community, you know and agree to
the HOA having control over certain aspects of what
you can do with your property. If you don't want that
arrangement, then you simply buy somewhere else.
If you do buy, then you are bound by the convenants
imposed and if they include control over what the
exterior looks like, then too bad, so sad, but you're
gonna lose.
HeyBub
Apr 26, 2012, 9:26:16 PM4/26/12
to
You, and no more than five of your neighbors can probably take over the HOA
governance at the next election.
Then, as another great worthy once said, "Payback's a bitch."
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Apr 26, 2012, 9:59:01 PM4/26/12
to
renovations (which weren't getting done). The covenants required 50% of the
*members* (not just those in attendance) for any elections and 60% for a
change to the bylaws.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Apr 26, 2012, 10:00:00 PM4/26/12
to
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 23:30:02 +0000 (UTC), Red Green <postm...@127.0.0.1>
wrote:
Not buying that. There are as many, or more, who like some control over their
neighborhoods than not.
wrote:
neighborhoods than not.
Percival P. Cassidy
Apr 26, 2012, 11:17:56 PM4/26/12
to
On 04/26/12 09:00 pm, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>>> The biggest thing that lowers home value is a HOA.
>>
>> Seems to me, HOA wields their power thru litigation. Comply or be
>> sued. Turn it around.
>>
>> If solar pwr actually will save you money, sue the HOA on the grounds
>> of how much money you will lose by not converting to solar power.
>> IOW, sue based on how much $$$ the HOA is costing you!
>>> The biggest thing that lowers home value is a HOA.
>>
>> Seems to me, HOA wields their power thru litigation. Comply or be
>> sued. Turn it around.
>>
>> If solar pwr actually will save you money, sue the HOA on the grounds
>> of how much money you will lose by not converting to solar power.
>> IOW, sue based on how much $$$ the HOA is costing you!
> Ridiculous suit that has no merit. When you buy a
> home in a HOA community, you know and agree to
> the HOA having control over certain aspects of what
> you can do with your property. If you don't want that
> arrangement, then you simply buy somewhere else.
> If you do buy, then you are bound by the convenants
> imposed and if they include control over what the
> exterior looks like, then too bad, so sad, but you're
> gonna lose.
Several years ago I read a report that somebody asked to see the HOA
> home in a HOA community, you know and agree to
> the HOA having control over certain aspects of what
> you can do with your property. If you don't want that
> arrangement, then you simply buy somewhere else.
> If you do buy, then you are bound by the convenants
> imposed and if they include control over what the
> exterior looks like, then too bad, so sad, but you're
> gonna lose.
rules for a subdivision in which he was thinking of buying a property
but was told that they were proprietary information and that he wouldn't
be allowed to see them until he had bought the property and become a member.
In addition, HOA rules often outlaw "radio transmitting equipment,"
which logically means no cell phones, cordless phones, baby monitors,
wiFi, garage door openers, etc.
Perce
HeyBub
Apr 27, 2012, 8:13:04 AM4/27/12
to
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>
>> Somebody (Woody Allen?) said "Ninety percent of success is just
>> showing up!" You, and no more than five of your neighbors can
>> probably take over the HOA governance at the next election.
>>
>> Then, as another great worthy once said, "Payback's a bitch."
>
> A good friend tried that after their HOA president was hiring himself
> for renovations (which weren't getting done). The covenants required
> 50% of the *members* (not just those in attendance) for any elections
> and 60% for a change to the bylaws.
Possible, but I wasn't referring to a change in the by-laws; I meant a
>>
>> Somebody (Woody Allen?) said "Ninety percent of success is just
>> showing up!" You, and no more than five of your neighbors can
>> probably take over the HOA governance at the next election.
>>
>> Then, as another great worthy once said, "Payback's a bitch."
>
> A good friend tried that after their HOA president was hiring himself
> for renovations (which weren't getting done). The covenants required
> 50% of the *members* (not just those in attendance) for any elections
> and 60% for a change to the bylaws.
change in the board.
To elect a board member or president, the by-laws can't require a vote of
half the property owners! Such a rule would be tantamount to "President for
Life." Once you control the board, you control the enforcement (or
non-enforcement) mechanism.
I've been to campaign management schools, run political campaigns, and held
public office. Trust me: taking control of a meeting is trivial with a
little planning.
notbob
Apr 27, 2012, 8:15:40 AM4/27/12
to
On 2012-04-27, Percival P. Cassidy <Nob...@NotMyISP.net> wrote:
>
> In addition, HOA rules often outlaw "radio transmitting equipment,"
> which logically means no cell phones, cordless phones, baby monitors,
> wiFi, garage door openers, etc.
....and amateur radio (ham) or TV antennas. Ham magazines often have
>
> In addition, HOA rules often outlaw "radio transmitting equipment,"
> which logically means no cell phones, cordless phones, baby monitors,
> wiFi, garage door openers, etc.
articles on howto make disguised or construct hidden antennas.
bob haller
Apr 27, 2012, 9:05:57 AM4/27/12
to
antennas
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Apr 27, 2012, 9:13:08 AM4/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:13:04 -0500, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>
>>> Somebody (Woody Allen?) said "Ninety percent of success is just
>>> showing up!" You, and no more than five of your neighbors can
>>> probably take over the HOA governance at the next election.
>>>
>>> Then, as another great worthy once said, "Payback's a bitch."
>>
>> A good friend tried that after their HOA president was hiring himself
>> for renovations (which weren't getting done). The covenants required
>> 50% of the *members* (not just those in attendance) for any elections
>> and 60% for a change to the bylaws.
>
>Possible, but I wasn't referring to a change in the by-laws; I meant a
>change in the board.
>
>To elect a board member or president, the by-laws can't require a vote of
>half the property owners! Such a rule would be tantamount to "President for
>Life." Once you control the board, you control the enforcement (or
>non-enforcement) mechanism.
They do. According to their bylaws, it took 50% of the members for a quorum.
>k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>
>>> Somebody (Woody Allen?) said "Ninety percent of success is just
>>> showing up!" You, and no more than five of your neighbors can
>>> probably take over the HOA governance at the next election.
>>>
>>> Then, as another great worthy once said, "Payback's a bitch."
>>
>> A good friend tried that after their HOA president was hiring himself
>> for renovations (which weren't getting done). The covenants required
>> 50% of the *members* (not just those in attendance) for any elections
>> and 60% for a change to the bylaws.
>
>Possible, but I wasn't referring to a change in the by-laws; I meant a
>change in the board.
>
>To elect a board member or president, the by-laws can't require a vote of
>half the property owners! Such a rule would be tantamount to "President for
>Life." Once you control the board, you control the enforcement (or
>non-enforcement) mechanism.
Can't have a vote without a quorum; board for life.
>I've been to campaign management schools, run political campaigns, and held
>public office. Trust me: taking control of a meeting is trivial with a
>little planning.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Apr 27, 2012, 9:14:59 AM4/27/12
to
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 23:17:56 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
<Nob...@NotMyISP.net> wrote:
>On 04/26/12 09:00 pm, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>
>>>> The biggest thing that lowers home value is a HOA.
>>>
>>> Seems to me, HOA wields their power thru litigation. Comply or be
>>> sued. Turn it around.
>>>
>>> If solar pwr actually will save you money, sue the HOA on the grounds
>>> of how much money you will lose by not converting to solar power.
>>> IOW, sue based on how much $$$ the HOA is costing you!
>
>> Ridiculous suit that has no merit. When you buy a
>> home in a HOA community, you know and agree to
>> the HOA having control over certain aspects of what
>> you can do with your property. If you don't want that
>> arrangement, then you simply buy somewhere else.
>> If you do buy, then you are bound by the convenants
>> imposed and if they include control over what the
>> exterior looks like, then too bad, so sad, but you're
>> gonna lose.
>
>Several years ago I read a report that somebody asked to see the HOA
>rules for a subdivision in which he was thinking of buying a property
>but was told that they were proprietary information and that he wouldn't
>be allowed to see them until he had bought the property and become a member.
We've all heard that before; "we have to pass this law before we can see what
<Nob...@NotMyISP.net> wrote:
>On 04/26/12 09:00 pm, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>
>>>> The biggest thing that lowers home value is a HOA.
>>>
>>> Seems to me, HOA wields their power thru litigation. Comply or be
>>> sued. Turn it around.
>>>
>>> If solar pwr actually will save you money, sue the HOA on the grounds
>>> of how much money you will lose by not converting to solar power.
>>> IOW, sue based on how much $$$ the HOA is costing you!
>
>> Ridiculous suit that has no merit. When you buy a
>> home in a HOA community, you know and agree to
>> the HOA having control over certain aspects of what
>> you can do with your property. If you don't want that
>> arrangement, then you simply buy somewhere else.
>> If you do buy, then you are bound by the convenants
>> imposed and if they include control over what the
>> exterior looks like, then too bad, so sad, but you're
>> gonna lose.
>
>Several years ago I read a report that somebody asked to see the HOA
>rules for a subdivision in which he was thinking of buying a property
>but was told that they were proprietary information and that he wouldn't
>be allowed to see them until he had bought the property and become a member.
is in it".
>In addition, HOA rules often outlaw "radio transmitting equipment,"
>which logically means no cell phones, cordless phones, baby monitors,
>wiFi, garage door openers, etc.
allow slavery, too?
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Apr 27, 2012, 9:15:16 AM4/27/12
to
On 27 Apr 2012 12:15:40 GMT, notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:
>On 2012-04-27, Percival P. Cassidy <Nob...@NotMyISP.net> wrote:
>>
>> In addition, HOA rules often outlaw "radio transmitting equipment,"
>> which logically means no cell phones, cordless phones, baby monitors,
>> wiFi, garage door openers, etc.
>
>....and amateur radio (ham) or TV antennas. Ham magazines often have
>articles on howto make disguised or construct hidden antennas.
Why?
>On 2012-04-27, Percival P. Cassidy <Nob...@NotMyISP.net> wrote:
>>
>> In addition, HOA rules often outlaw "radio transmitting equipment,"
>> which logically means no cell phones, cordless phones, baby monitors,
>> wiFi, garage door openers, etc.
>
>....and amateur radio (ham) or TV antennas. Ham magazines often have
>articles on howto make disguised or construct hidden antennas.
dgk
Apr 27, 2012, 9:45:56 AM4/27/12
to
shielded properly, a powerful ham rig will cause interference on
things like TV and radio reception. So hiding them makes it difficult
to find the culprit.
dgk
Apr 27, 2012, 9:49:04 AM4/27/12
to
requirements. I don't want someone ripping down the house next door
and building a slaughterhouse. You probably don't either. And many
homeowners in retirement communities don't want kids pounding a
basketball next to their window all day long.
My mother's community maintains all the outside of the houses
(landscaping and so on). That keeps things nice and property values
up. Nothing like a neighbor who decides that it's too much work to
paint or mow the lawn.
Percival P. Cassidy
Apr 27, 2012, 9:53:55 AM4/27/12
to
On 04/27/12 08:15 am, notbob wrote:
>> In addition, HOA rules often outlaw "radio transmitting equipment,"
>> which logically means no cell phones, cordless phones, baby monitors,
>> wiFi, garage door openers, etc.
>
> ....and amateur radio (ham) or TV antennas. Ham magazines often have
> articles on how to make disguised or construct hidden antennas.
>> In addition, HOA rules often outlaw "radio transmitting equipment,"
>> which logically means no cell phones, cordless phones, baby monitors,
>> wiFi, garage door openers, etc.
>
> ....and amateur radio (ham) or TV antennas. Ham magazines often have
It's no doubt the amateur radio and CB transmitters at which the rules
were aiming, but their wording is much too broad.
Perce
Percival P. Cassidy
Apr 27, 2012, 10:00:17 AM4/27/12
to
On 04/27/12 09:45 am, dgk wrote:
>>>> In addition, HOA rules often outlaw "radio transmitting equipment,"
>>>> which logically means no cell phones, cordless phones, baby monitors,
>>>> wiFi, garage door openers, etc.
>>>
>>> ....and amateur radio (ham) or TV antennas. Ham magazines often have
>>> articles on howto make disguised or construct hidden antennas.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Having lived near a ham I think I can answer that. Unless they are
> shielded properly, a powerful ham rig will cause interference on
> things like TV and radio reception. So hiding them makes it difficult
> to find the culprit.
Mostly, it's not the fault of the amateur radio equipment but of poorly
>>>> In addition, HOA rules often outlaw "radio transmitting equipment,"
>>>> which logically means no cell phones, cordless phones, baby monitors,
>>>> wiFi, garage door openers, etc.
>>>
>>> ....and amateur radio (ham) or TV antennas. Ham magazines often have
>>> articles on howto make disguised or construct hidden antennas.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Having lived near a ham I think I can answer that. Unless they are
> shielded properly, a powerful ham rig will cause interference on
> things like TV and radio reception. So hiding them makes it difficult
> to find the culprit.
designed radio or TV receivers ("We'll save 50 cents on each set, and
most people will never know the difference; if somebody does experience
interference from an amateur radio transmitter, we'll send the set owner
at no charge the parts we omitted, but s/he'll have to pay a local
service person $xx to install them").
Cable TV systems are supposed to be immune to outside interference, but
installations aren't always up to standard, especially if Joe Homeowner
decides to extend the wiring.
Perce
Percival P. Cassidy
Apr 27, 2012, 10:04:08 AM4/27/12
to
by the rules: it's considered to be a private contract entered into
freely that governments will not overrule. What about the ex-Marine
whose HOA took him to court and won because he was flying a US flag
larger than the rules permitted?
Perce
Grumpy
Apr 27, 2012, 10:24:41 AM4/27/12
to
"Percival P. Cassidy" <Nob...@NotMyISP.net> wrote in message news:jne90o$as6$1...@dont-email.me...
"YOU HAVE PURCHASE AS IS" as man siad you most abied by community rule
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
Apr 27, 2012, 3:42:31 PM4/27/12
to
In article <jne90o$as6$1...@dont-email.me>,
otest-of-homeowners-association/
"Percival P. Cassidy" <Nob...@NotMyISP.net> wrote:
> When one agrees to join a(n) HOA (by buying the property), one is bound
> by the rules: it's considered to be a private contract entered into
> freely that governments will not overrule. What about the ex-Marine
> whose HOA took him to court and won because he was flying a US flag
> larger than the rules permitted?
http://bentcorner.com/someone-supposedly-paints-house-like-an-american-flag-in-pr
> by the rules: it's considered to be a private contract entered into
> freely that governments will not overrule. What about the ex-Marine
> whose HOA took him to court and won because he was flying a US flag
> larger than the rules permitted?
otest-of-homeowners-association/
HeyBub
Apr 28, 2012, 8:42:42 PM4/28/12
to
dgk wrote:
>>
>> Not buying that. There are as many, or more, who like some control
>> over their neighborhoods than not.
>
> We all do to some extent. I have no HOA, but we do have zoning
> requirements. I don't want someone ripping down the house next door
> and building a slaughterhouse. You probably don't either. And many
> homeowners in retirement communities don't want kids pounding a
> basketball next to their window all day long.
>
> My mother's community maintains all the outside of the houses
> (landscaping and so on). That keeps things nice and property values
> up. Nothing like a neighbor who decides that it's too much work to
> paint or mow the lawn.
On the other hand, if I own a piece of property I should be able to do with
>>
>> Not buying that. There are as many, or more, who like some control
>> over their neighborhoods than not.
>
> We all do to some extent. I have no HOA, but we do have zoning
> requirements. I don't want someone ripping down the house next door
> and building a slaughterhouse. You probably don't either. And many
> homeowners in retirement communities don't want kids pounding a
> basketball next to their window all day long.
>
> My mother's community maintains all the outside of the houses
> (landscaping and so on). That keeps things nice and property values
> up. Nothing like a neighbor who decides that it's too much work to
> paint or mow the lawn.
it whatever I want. If I decide to do something not in keeping with the
neighborhood, I have to be prepared for a not-pleasant response..
Here's a true story.
In my town, there is no zoning. Some years back, Shell Oil bought a corner
lot in the ritziest part of town (by far). They announced plans to build a
gas station.
The neighbors didn't like the idea. They cut up their Shell credit cards and
mailed them to the company with notes that this was only the first step in
retaliation for such rascally behavior on the part of Shell.
Those who vowed retribution included John Connally (Sec of the Navy,
Governor of Texas, Sec of the Treasury, and wounded while riding with JFK in
Dallas) and the sitting Secretary of Commerce, Robert Mossbacher.
Shell donated the corner lot to the city for a pocket park.
We have our ways...
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Apr 29, 2012, 12:38:09 AM4/29/12
to
it fixed.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Apr 29, 2012, 12:39:31 AM4/29/12
to
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Apr 29, 2012, 12:40:13 AM4/29/12
to
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Apr 29, 2012, 12:42:52 AM4/29/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:49:04 -0400, dgk <d...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 22:00:00 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 23:30:02 +0000 (UTC), Red Green <postm...@127.0.0.1>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:O7mdnXeiJcfKeQrS...@earthlink.com:
>>>
>>>> "The government wants you to install solar panels at your house, and
>>>> will even give you a tax break to do it. But your neighbors? Maybe
>>>> not. It's a lesson Angel and David Dobs discovered when their
>>>> homeowners association north of Atlanta denied their request to
>>>> install solar panels on their roof. Neighborhood officials said the
>>>> panels would look out of place and might lower home values..."
>>>>
>>>> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/solar-panels-clashes-homeowner-group
>>>> s-16208070#.T5e33vWDl8E
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>At a higher level than solar panels, a home having an HOA lowers home
>>>values.
>>
>>Not buying that. There are as many, or more, who like some control over their
>>neighborhoods than not.
>
>We all do to some extent. I have no HOA, but we do have zoning
>requirements. I don't want someone ripping down the house next door
>and building a slaughterhouse. You probably don't either. And many
>homeowners in retirement communities don't want kids pounding a
>basketball next to their window all day long.
Um, I'm on your side, more or less. I challenged the silly assumption that
>On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 22:00:00 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 23:30:02 +0000 (UTC), Red Green <postm...@127.0.0.1>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:O7mdnXeiJcfKeQrS...@earthlink.com:
>>>
>>>> "The government wants you to install solar panels at your house, and
>>>> will even give you a tax break to do it. But your neighbors? Maybe
>>>> not. It's a lesson Angel and David Dobs discovered when their
>>>> homeowners association north of Atlanta denied their request to
>>>> install solar panels on their roof. Neighborhood officials said the
>>>> panels would look out of place and might lower home values..."
>>>>
>>>> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/solar-panels-clashes-homeowner-group
>>>> s-16208070#.T5e33vWDl8E
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>At a higher level than solar panels, a home having an HOA lowers home
>>>values.
>>
>>Not buying that. There are as many, or more, who like some control over their
>>neighborhoods than not.
>
>We all do to some extent. I have no HOA, but we do have zoning
>requirements. I don't want someone ripping down the house next door
>and building a slaughterhouse. You probably don't either. And many
>homeowners in retirement communities don't want kids pounding a
>basketball next to their window all day long.
HOAs, in general, lower property values. If that were true, builders wouldn't
start them.
>My mother's community maintains all the outside of the houses
>(landscaping and so on). That keeps things nice and property values
>up. Nothing like a neighbor who decides that it's too much work to
>paint or mow the lawn.
bud--
Apr 29, 2012, 12:53:41 PM4/29/12
to
HOAs regulate antennas that are visible (like solar panels). Long
distance transmissions are below 30MHz, often far below. The antennas
are large and likely to be visible on the outside. Those visible
antennas would an eyesore that would strain the sensibility of
neighbors (just like the solar panels) and thus HOAs might restrict them.
You might hide antennas (as notbob suggests) as something that is
permitted, maybe a flag pole.
Municipal zoning may try to limit ham antennas. Courts have said
antennas are the jurisdiction of the FCC, not municipal zoning.
HOAs get away with it because there is a contract that is extorted from
potential residents.
--
bud--
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Apr 29, 2012, 12:26:38 PM4/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:53:41 -0600, bud-- <remove....@isp.com> wrote:
>On 4/27/2012 7:15 AM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> On 27 Apr 2012 12:15:40 GMT, notbob<not...@nothome.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-04-27, Percival P. Cassidy<Nob...@NotMyISP.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In addition, HOA rules often outlaw "radio transmitting equipment,"
>>>> which logically means no cell phones, cordless phones, baby monitors,
>>>> wiFi, garage door openers, etc.
>>>
>>> ....and amateur radio (ham) or TV antennas. Ham magazines often have
>>> articles on howto make disguised or construct hidden antennas.
>>
>> Why?
>
>I don't believe you can regulate "radio transmitting equipment".
Me? You mean the HOA. That was my point; why disguise the antenna?
>On 4/27/2012 7:15 AM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> On 27 Apr 2012 12:15:40 GMT, notbob<not...@nothome.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2012-04-27, Percival P. Cassidy<Nob...@NotMyISP.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In addition, HOA rules often outlaw "radio transmitting equipment,"
>>>> which logically means no cell phones, cordless phones, baby monitors,
>>>> wiFi, garage door openers, etc.
>>>
>>> ....and amateur radio (ham) or TV antennas. Ham magazines often have
>>> articles on howto make disguised or construct hidden antennas.
>>
>> Why?
>
>I don't believe you can regulate "radio transmitting equipment".
>HOAs regulate antennas that are visible (like solar panels). Long
>distance transmissions are below 30MHz, often far below. The antennas
>are large and likely to be visible on the outside. Those visible
>antennas would an eyesore that would strain the sensibility of
>neighbors (just like the solar panels) and thus HOAs might restrict them.
the power of the FCC, which has jurisdiction here.
>You might hide antennas (as notbob suggests) as something that is
>permitted, maybe a flag pole.
>Municipal zoning may try to limit ham antennas. Courts have said
>antennas are the jurisdiction of the FCC, not municipal zoning.
>HOAs get away with it because there is a contract that is extorted from
>potential residents.
Percival P. Cassidy
Apr 29, 2012, 3:23:39 PM4/29/12
to
declined to make rules that override CC&Rs and HOA rules.
Perce
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Apr 29, 2012, 7:39:59 PM4/29/12
to
for commercial telecommunication services are included in the ban, ban. Dumb.
RonB
Apr 29, 2012, 8:03:12 PM4/29/12
to
On Apr 25, 9:27 am, notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:
>
> I think a lot of this was due to old technology.
>
Might be. But just as likely it could be the Gestapo attitude a lot
of associations adopt. Several years ago the city of Wichita, in an
attempt to suck up to an "exclusive" neighborhood went way out of its
way to dress up a water pumping facility on the edge but OUTSIDE of
the neighborhood. They designed the facility to look like one of the
high-end homes inside of the neighborhood, right down to landscaping
and shake cedar roofing. If you were not aware of the fact that the
structure was full of pumping equipment you would not have guessed it
was not another expensive home.
A few years ago the structure was needing a new roof. In order to
save some very tight funds they decided to put an attractive dark
colored metal roof on the building. Not only did it save taxpayers
installation money, it reduced insurance rates for the structure, the
city and taxpayers. As a show of appreciation for the city having
sucked their tit for 20+ years the adjacent neighborhood sued the city
and won. Remember, this plant is outside of the walled boundaries of
the neighborhood. The city was forced to remove a perfectly good and
economical roof and put shakes on the house. Why? They played
footsie with the snobs for years and it proved to be a precedent.
RonB
>
> I think a lot of this was due to old technology.
>
Might be. But just as likely it could be the Gestapo attitude a lot
of associations adopt. Several years ago the city of Wichita, in an
attempt to suck up to an "exclusive" neighborhood went way out of its
way to dress up a water pumping facility on the edge but OUTSIDE of
the neighborhood. They designed the facility to look like one of the
high-end homes inside of the neighborhood, right down to landscaping
and shake cedar roofing. If you were not aware of the fact that the
structure was full of pumping equipment you would not have guessed it
was not another expensive home.
A few years ago the structure was needing a new roof. In order to
save some very tight funds they decided to put an attractive dark
colored metal roof on the building. Not only did it save taxpayers
installation money, it reduced insurance rates for the structure, the
city and taxpayers. As a show of appreciation for the city having
sucked their tit for 20+ years the adjacent neighborhood sued the city
and won. Remember, this plant is outside of the walled boundaries of
the neighborhood. The city was forced to remove a perfectly good and
economical roof and put shakes on the house. Why? They played
footsie with the snobs for years and it proved to be a precedent.
RonB
bob haller
Apr 29, 2012, 8:58:33 PM4/29/12
to
I used to sell dish network and had the following experience with a
HOA. My customer was ready to buy a unit but wanted Cricket.
I met with the HOA sales group and took along the FCC federal law that
allowed Dishes.
The HOA people said our rules overide the federal standard. CONGRESS?
I laughed and suggested they were about to lose not only a court
case:) but their customer who refused to buy the high end unit.......
Eventually a compromise was reached but the HOA people despised me:)
HOA. My customer was ready to buy a unit but wanted Cricket.
I met with the HOA sales group and took along the FCC federal law that
allowed Dishes.
The HOA people said our rules overide the federal standard. CONGRESS?
I laughed and suggested they were about to lose not only a court
case:) but their customer who refused to buy the high end unit.......
Eventually a compromise was reached but the HOA people despised me:)
AJL
Apr 30, 2012, 1:14:55 AM4/30/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 19:39:59 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>I didn't realize that ham antennas were excluded. Apparently only antennas
>for commercial telecommunication services are included in the ban, ban.
>Dumb.
Smart IMO.
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>I didn't realize that ham antennas were excluded. Apparently only antennas
>for commercial telecommunication services are included in the ban, ban.
>Dumb.
While satellite dishes are small and unobtrusive, ham antennas can be
very very large and quite ugly (though most hams see them as quite
beautiful). However I'll bet most people here don't really want a 50
foot ham tower next door. And as was previously mentioned even though
the ham interference is usually caused by poorly designed consumer
electronics, that doesn't help the poor guy who is trying to use his
expensive flatscreen.
BTW I am a ham and have had those towers in the past at previous
houses. Quite frankly it was a hassle to me just hearing all the
neighbors complaints. Some as you might imagine got nasty. I was
blamed for every sort of interference, some even when I wasn't home.
It kind of took the enjoyment out of the hobby.
So when I bought this house, I didn't worry about the HOA antenna
restrictions. I decided to go with stealth antennas. I am still able
to work the world. Course it's not as easy as when I had the big
antenna, but it just takes a little more operator skill. I've been
here over ten years now and none of my neighbors is the wiser.
But I digress. I bought in a neighborhood protected by an HOA. I knew
when I signed the papers what the rules were. For those who hate HOAs
just don't buy into one. In my area (Phoenix) you can tell the HOA
free neighborhoods just by looking...
BTW2 my HOA allows solar panels...
dgk
Apr 30, 2012, 11:06:31 AM4/30/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 00:42:52 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
I don't know the structure, it's one of those Florida things. Each
person owns their house but it's all part of a planned community. I
really like it and wouldn't mind moving there in a few years.
person owns their house but it's all part of a planned community. I
really like it and wouldn't mind moving there in a few years.
bud--
Apr 30, 2012, 1:18:28 PM4/30/12
to
On 4/29/2012 10:26 AM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:53:41 -0600, bud--<remove....@isp.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/27/2012 7:15 AM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>> On 27 Apr 2012 12:15:40 GMT, notbob<not...@nothome.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2012-04-27, Percival P. Cassidy<Nob...@NotMyISP.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition, HOA rules often outlaw "radio transmitting equipment,"
>>>>> which logically means no cell phones, cordless phones, baby monitors,
>>>>> wiFi, garage door openers, etc.
>>>>
>>>> ....and amateur radio (ham) or TV antennas. Ham magazines often have
>>>> articles on howto make disguised or construct hidden antennas.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> I don't believe you can regulate "radio transmitting equipment".
>
> Me? You mean the HOA. That was my point; why disguise the antenna?
The comment should have been to Percival Cassidy a couple levels up.
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:53:41 -0600, bud--<remove....@isp.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/27/2012 7:15 AM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>> On 27 Apr 2012 12:15:40 GMT, notbob<not...@nothome.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2012-04-27, Percival P. Cassidy<Nob...@NotMyISP.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition, HOA rules often outlaw "radio transmitting equipment,"
>>>>> which logically means no cell phones, cordless phones, baby monitors,
>>>>> wiFi, garage door openers, etc.
>>>>
>>>> ....and amateur radio (ham) or TV antennas. Ham magazines often have
>>>> articles on howto make disguised or construct hidden antennas.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> I don't believe you can regulate "radio transmitting equipment".
>
> Me? You mean the HOA. That was my point; why disguise the antenna?
<...>
>
>> Municipal zoning may try to limit ham antennas. Courts have said
>> antennas are the jurisdiction of the FCC, not municipal zoning.
The ARRL is the major association of hams in the US.
>> Municipal zoning may try to limit ham antennas. Courts have said
>> antennas are the jurisdiction of the FCC, not municipal zoning.
From a link on antenna restrictions at the ARRL website (QST, May 2007):
The FCC made a "declaratory ruling requiring that local zoning laws must
reasonably accommodate amateur antennas and support structures with
minimal regulation and without unreasonable restrictions. Any
regulations must constitute the minimum practical regulation to
accomplish the state or local authority’s legitimate purpose of
protecting public safety."
Hams can not erect "anything" they want to. But the power of
governmental entities to limit what a ham can build is limited.
>
> SO you think HOAs have some power that municipal governments don't? Odd.
>
>> HOAs get away with it because there is a contract that is extorted from
>> potential residents.
>
> Nonsense. Federal laws supercede contracts.
"The FCC has been very clear that [the FCC limited preemption on
antennas] does not cover [covenants, conditions and restrictions], as
they are a private contract, not public policy issues."
HOAs are among the restrictions a ham may encounter building an antenna.
--
bud--
Nate Nagel
May 1, 2012, 10:21:13 AM5/1/12
to
On 04/30/2012 01:14 AM, AJL wrote:
> For those who hate HOAs
> just don't buy into one.
Sadly, in some areas easier said than done. Yet another reason I don't
> For those who hate HOAs
> just don't buy into one.
see myself staying in NoVA forever...
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
denni...@gmail.com
May 1, 2012, 10:58:35 AM5/1/12
to
On Thursday, April 26, 2012 10:00:00 PM UTC-4, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
> Not buying that. There are as many, or more, who like some control over their
> neighborhoods than not.
Until that control comes around and bites them in the ass by preventing them from doing something THEY want to do...
> Not buying that. There are as many, or more, who like some control over their
> neighborhoods than not.
AJL
May 1, 2012, 4:18:29 PM5/1/12
to
On Tue, 01 May 2012 10:21:13 -0400, Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net>
wrote:
>On 04/30/2012 01:14 AM, AJL wrote:
>
>> For those who hate HOAs
>> just don't buy into one.
>
>Sadly, in some areas easier said than done. Yet another reason I don't
>see myself staying in NoVA forever...
Come to Phoenix. Large areas are HOA free. I lived in one for 30+
years (Maryvale for anyone familiar with the area). And as I
previously said, you can mostly tell the HOA-free areas by just
looking at them. Trouble is many people want to have their cake (be
HOA-free) and to eat it too (live in a nice well kept up
neighborhood). In my experience that seldom seems to happen...
wrote:
>On 04/30/2012 01:14 AM, AJL wrote:
>
>> For those who hate HOAs
>> just don't buy into one.
>
>Sadly, in some areas easier said than done. Yet another reason I don't
>see myself staying in NoVA forever...
years (Maryvale for anyone familiar with the area). And as I
previously said, you can mostly tell the HOA-free areas by just
looking at them. Trouble is many people want to have their cake (be
HOA-free) and to eat it too (live in a nice well kept up
neighborhood). In my experience that seldom seems to happen...
AJL
May 1, 2012, 4:24:31 PM5/1/12
to
can imagine there are a lot of gripes and grumbles when citations are
issued. But as I said, I (and the grumblers) knew the rules when I
signed the papers. In my case I view the HOA as a protection from my
neighbors rather than as a hindrance to myself...
HeyBub
May 1, 2012, 6:01:01 PM5/1/12
to
AJL wrote:
>
> Come to Phoenix. Large areas are HOA free. I lived in one for 30+
> years (Maryvale for anyone familiar with the area). And as I
> previously said, you can mostly tell the HOA-free areas by just
> looking at them. Trouble is many people want to have their cake (be
> HOA-free) and to eat it too (live in a nice well kept up
> neighborhood). In my experience that seldom seems to happen...
Those neighborhoods in your town which are obviously not HOA supervised are
>
> Come to Phoenix. Large areas are HOA free. I lived in one for 30+
> years (Maryvale for anyone familiar with the area). And as I
> previously said, you can mostly tell the HOA-free areas by just
> looking at them. Trouble is many people want to have their cake (be
> HOA-free) and to eat it too (live in a nice well kept up
> neighborhood). In my experience that seldom seems to happen...
run exactly as the people in the neighborhood want them run. If you like
living next door to a bodega or a tire-repair shop, you'll gravitate to
locations where you have all those types of conveniences.
If, on the other hand, you prefer pristine and pretty places, you'll pick
those with HOAs or strict zoning.
The excitement arises when you like freshly-mowed lawns - and your neighbors
do as well - but some rascal in your unregulated area tries to take
advantage by opening a mini-abattoir. In that case, several options are
available to you, few of them legal but all of them effective.
Aside: I don't know why so many preach "Somebody ought to do something!"
when taking matters into one's own hands is so much easier...
AJL
May 1, 2012, 10:49:35 PM5/1/12
to
On Tue, 1 May 2012 17:01:01 -0500, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
>AJL wrote:
>>
>> Come to Phoenix. Large areas are HOA free. I lived in one for 30+
>> years (Maryvale for anyone familiar with the area). And as I
>> previously said, you can mostly tell the HOA-free areas by just
>> looking at them. Trouble is many people want to have their cake (be
>> HOA-free) and to eat it too (live in a nice well kept up
>> neighborhood). In my experience that seldom seems to happen...
>
>Those neighborhoods in your town which are obviously not HOA supervised are
>run exactly as the people in the neighborhood want them run. If you like
>living next door to a bodega or a tire-repair shop, you'll gravitate to
>locations where you have all those types of conveniences.
It's not quite that bad since there are still zoning regulations in
the HOA free areas. They are usually enforced by complaint though
there are zoning officers that roam when they're not busy. First is
usually a warning and then if there is no compliance, a citation.
Phoenix makes it easy, you can make a zoning complaint by phone, net,
or text.
>some rascal in your unregulated area tries to take
>advantage by opening a mini-abattoir. In that case, several options are
>available to you, few of them legal but all of them effective.
Just remember that if you decide to self-enforce, and you live in the
same neighborhood, turn about may be fair (foul?) play...
wrote:
>AJL wrote:
>>
>> Come to Phoenix. Large areas are HOA free. I lived in one for 30+
>> years (Maryvale for anyone familiar with the area). And as I
>> previously said, you can mostly tell the HOA-free areas by just
>> looking at them. Trouble is many people want to have their cake (be
>> HOA-free) and to eat it too (live in a nice well kept up
>> neighborhood). In my experience that seldom seems to happen...
>
>Those neighborhoods in your town which are obviously not HOA supervised are
>run exactly as the people in the neighborhood want them run. If you like
>living next door to a bodega or a tire-repair shop, you'll gravitate to
>locations where you have all those types of conveniences.
the HOA free areas. They are usually enforced by complaint though
there are zoning officers that roam when they're not busy. First is
usually a warning and then if there is no compliance, a citation.
Phoenix makes it easy, you can make a zoning complaint by phone, net,
or text.
>some rascal in your unregulated area tries to take
>advantage by opening a mini-abattoir. In that case, several options are
>available to you, few of them legal but all of them effective.
same neighborhood, turn about may be fair (foul?) play...
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
May 1, 2012, 11:33:59 PM5/1/12
to
bob haller
May 2, 2012, 2:01:40 AM5/2/12
to
> Come to Phoenix. Large areas are HOA free. I lived in one for 30+
> years (Maryvale for anyone familiar with the area). And as I
> previously said, you can mostly tell the HOA-free areas by just
> looking at them. Trouble is many people want to have their cake (be
> HOA-free) and to eat it too (live in a nice well kept up
> neighborhood). In my experience that seldom seems to happen...
colored mexican painted homes.
my dad moved to a HOA area with strict rules, the place turned into a
dump, homes in foreclosure didnt need to meet HOA rules.
my dads new home is very nice but I prefered his old home.......
the outside colors are tightly regulated and returning after a walk
one day i tried to get in his next door neighbors home. I thought my
jokester brother had locked me out....
Maryvale has crime issues:( whatever happened about the maryvale
cluster? high cancer rate in that area.....
AJL
May 2, 2012, 4:03:20 AM5/2/12
to
On Tue, 1 May 2012 23:01:40 -0700 (PDT), bob haller <hal...@aol.com>
wrote:
>> Come to Phoenix. Large areas are HOA free. I lived in one for 30+
>> years (Maryvale for anyone familiar with the area).
large cities the neighborhoods change over time. When I lived there
(68-2000) it started out as a normal reasonably well kept up middle
class neighborhood and slowly deteriorated, mostly toward the end of
my stay. But it still has no HOA... ;)
>Maryvale has crime issues:
Yes. I think it could almost be classed as a ghetto now. A lot of the
violent crime on the evening news seems to be in that area.
>whatever happened about the maryvale
>cluster? high cancer rate in that area.....
They never could prove anything definite as to a cause and the
controversy silently went away. I drank the water all those years and
am still here. Course I've had a little skin cancer but I think that's
more due to the Arizona sun than the Maryvale sun... ;)
wrote:
>> Come to Phoenix. Large areas are HOA free. I lived in one for 30+
>> years (Maryvale for anyone familiar with the area).
>I had family who lived in maryvale. frankly i liked the brightly
>colored mexican painted homes.
The Mexican flavor only arrived in the past 15 years or so. As in many
>colored mexican painted homes.
large cities the neighborhoods change over time. When I lived there
(68-2000) it started out as a normal reasonably well kept up middle
class neighborhood and slowly deteriorated, mostly toward the end of
my stay. But it still has no HOA... ;)
>Maryvale has crime issues:
Yes. I think it could almost be classed as a ghetto now. A lot of the
violent crime on the evening news seems to be in that area.
>whatever happened about the maryvale
>cluster? high cancer rate in that area.....
controversy silently went away. I drank the water all those years and
am still here. Course I've had a little skin cancer but I think that's
more due to the Arizona sun than the Maryvale sun... ;)
HeyBub
May 2, 2012, 7:32:29 AM5/2/12
to
AJL wrote:
>>
>> Those neighborhoods in your town which are obviously not HOA
>> supervised are run exactly as the people in the neighborhood want
>> them run. If you like living next door to a bodega or a tire-repair
>> shop, you'll gravitate to locations where you have all those types
>> of conveniences.
>
> It's not quite that bad since there are still zoning regulations in
> the HOA free areas. They are usually enforced by complaint though
> there are zoning officers that roam when they're not busy. First is
> usually a warning and then if there is no compliance, a citation.
> Phoenix makes it easy, you can make a zoning complaint by phone, net,
> or text.
>
I'm in Houston. We don't have zoning.
>>
>> Those neighborhoods in your town which are obviously not HOA
>> supervised are run exactly as the people in the neighborhood want
>> them run. If you like living next door to a bodega or a tire-repair
>> shop, you'll gravitate to locations where you have all those types
>> of conveniences.
>
> It's not quite that bad since there are still zoning regulations in
> the HOA free areas. They are usually enforced by complaint though
> there are zoning officers that roam when they're not busy. First is
> usually a warning and then if there is no compliance, a citation.
> Phoenix makes it easy, you can make a zoning complaint by phone, net,
> or text.
>
>> some rascal in your unregulated area tries to take
>> advantage by opening a mini-abattoir. In that case, several options
>> are available to you, few of them legal but all of them effective.
>
> Just remember that if you decide to self-enforce, and you live in the
> same neighborhood, turn about may be fair (foul?) play...
overwhelming force as to absolutely remove both the desire and the ability
of the miscreant to respond. That is, what can we throw at his house other
than an egg?
Hmm. Here's a bottle of a flammable liquid with a rag stuffed in the spout.
Wonder if that would work?
Nate Nagel
May 2, 2012, 10:20:54 AM5/2/12
to
- which I am - but don't allow you to do normal everyday stuff like work
on a project car in your own driveway/garage, etc.
I actually bought a pickup truck from a coworker whose neighbor kind of
pressed the deal by asking "when are you going to do something about
that unsightly vehicle" presumably with a straight face. I don't think
I could ever live with neighbors like that. (it wasn't that bad,
really, it's just a plain white Ford pickup. I don't love it, but I
don't think it's that much of an eyesore, either.)
Percival P. Cassidy
May 2, 2012, 11:17:18 AM5/2/12
to
On 05/02/12 10:20 am, Nate Nagel wrote:
> In my case it's more that the HOAs expect you to be a professional sort
> - which I am - but don't allow you to do normal everyday stuff like work
> on a project car in your own driveway/garage, etc.
>
> I actually bought a pickup truck from a coworker whose neighbor kind of
> pressed the deal by asking "when are you going to do something about
> that unsightly vehicle" presumably with a straight face. I don't think I
> could ever live with neighbors like that. (it wasn't that bad, really,
> it's just a plain white Ford pickup. I don't love it, but I don't think
> it's that much of an eyesore, either.)
I've read of two cases concerning HOAs and motor vehicles:
> In my case it's more that the HOAs expect you to be a professional sort
> - which I am - but don't allow you to do normal everyday stuff like work
> on a project car in your own driveway/garage, etc.
>
> I actually bought a pickup truck from a coworker whose neighbor kind of
> pressed the deal by asking "when are you going to do something about
> that unsightly vehicle" presumably with a straight face. I don't think I
> could ever live with neighbors like that. (it wasn't that bad, really,
> it's just a plain white Ford pickup. I don't love it, but I don't think
> it's that much of an eyesore, either.)
1. Resident got cited for changing the windshield wipers while the car
was standing in the driveway.
2. Guy bought used car and parked it in his driveway, took off old
plates, and went to the DMV (or whatever it's called there) to
re-register it and get new plates. Arrived back home with new plates to
find that his car had been towed away -- "A vehicle without plates is an
undriveable vehicle, and undriveable vehicles are prohibited by the HOA
rules from being left where they may be seen."
Perce
AJL
May 2, 2012, 11:26:42 AM5/2/12
to
On Wed, 2 May 2012 06:32:29 -0500, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
>AJL wrote:
>>>
>>> Those neighborhoods in your town which are obviously not HOA
>>> supervised are run exactly as the people in the neighborhood want
>>> them run.
no zoning laws.
>> Just remember that if you decide to self-enforce, and you live in the
>> same neighborhood, turn about may be fair (foul?) play...
>
>Good point! That's exactly why your first response has to be of such
>overwhelming force as to absolutely remove both the desire and the ability
>of the miscreant to respond. That is, what can we throw at his house other
>than an egg?
>
>Hmm. Here's a bottle of a flammable liquid with a rag stuffed in the spout.
>Wonder if that would work?
I now can better understand your attitude. In my case I'd rather
switch than fight. My neck is getting just too old and stiff to have
to keep looking over my shoulder... ;)
wrote:
>AJL wrote:
>>>
>>> Those neighborhoods in your town which are obviously not HOA
>>> supervised are run exactly as the people in the neighborhood want
>>> them run.
>> It's not quite that bad since there are still zoning regulations in
>> the HOA free areas.
>> the HOA free areas.
>I'm in Houston. We don't have zoning.
Wow. I had no idea that there was any place as large as Houston with
no zoning laws.
>> Just remember that if you decide to self-enforce, and you live in the
>> same neighborhood, turn about may be fair (foul?) play...
>
>Good point! That's exactly why your first response has to be of such
>overwhelming force as to absolutely remove both the desire and the ability
>of the miscreant to respond. That is, what can we throw at his house other
>than an egg?
>
>Hmm. Here's a bottle of a flammable liquid with a rag stuffed in the spout.
>Wonder if that would work?
switch than fight. My neck is getting just too old and stiff to have
to keep looking over my shoulder... ;)
AJL
May 2, 2012, 11:45:35 AM5/2/12
to
On Wed, 02 May 2012 11:17:18 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
<Nob...@NotMyISP.net> wrote:
>I've read of two cases concerning HOAs and motor vehicles:
>
>1. Resident got cited for changing the windshield wipers while the car
>was standing in the driveway.
>
>2. Guy bought used car and parked it in his driveway, took off old
>plates, and went to the DMV (or whatever it's called there) to
>re-register it and get new plates. Arrived back home with new plates to
>find that his car had been towed away -- "A vehicle without plates is an
>undriveable vehicle, and undriveable vehicles are prohibited by the HOA
>rules from being left where they may be seen."
Sure there are lots of horror stories about HOAs. But then there are
<Nob...@NotMyISP.net> wrote:
>I've read of two cases concerning HOAs and motor vehicles:
>
>1. Resident got cited for changing the windshield wipers while the car
>was standing in the driveway.
>
>2. Guy bought used car and parked it in his driveway, took off old
>plates, and went to the DMV (or whatever it's called there) to
>re-register it and get new plates. Arrived back home with new plates to
>find that his car had been towed away -- "A vehicle without plates is an
>undriveable vehicle, and undriveable vehicles are prohibited by the HOA
>rules from being left where they may be seen."
lots of zoning enforcement horror stories too. (Google "zoning horror
stories") Sometimes you just can't avoid bad judgement in HOAs,
zoning, governments, ect...
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
May 2, 2012, 9:57:08 PM5/2/12
to
>> Come to Phoenix. Large areas are HOA free. I lived in one for 30+
>> years (Maryvale for anyone familiar with the area). And as I
>> previously said, you can mostly tell the HOA-free areas by just
>> looking at them. Trouble is many people want to have their cake (be
>> HOA-free) and to eat it too (live in a nice well kept up
>> neighborhood). In my experience that seldom seems to happen...
>
>I had family who lived in maryvale. frankly i liked the brightly
>colored mexican painted homes.
>
>my dad moved to a HOA area with strict rules, the place turned into a
>dump, homes in foreclosure didnt need to meet HOA rules.
That's dumb. Force the bank to keep up the homes to the same standards as the
>> years (Maryvale for anyone familiar with the area). And as I
>> previously said, you can mostly tell the HOA-free areas by just
>> looking at them. Trouble is many people want to have their cake (be
>> HOA-free) and to eat it too (live in a nice well kept up
>> neighborhood). In my experience that seldom seems to happen...
>
>I had family who lived in maryvale. frankly i liked the brightly
>colored mexican painted homes.
>
>my dad moved to a HOA area with strict rules, the place turned into a
>dump, homes in foreclosure didnt need to meet HOA rules.
homeowners.
>my dads new home is very nice but I prefered his old home.......
>
>the outside colors are tightly regulated and returning after a walk
>one day i tried to get in his next door neighbors home. I thought my
>jokester brother had locked me out....
around for some time it hit me, all the hoses are the same color. Not just
the houses in one subdivision (no problem with that, if that's what they
decide). Every subdivision looked the same, too.
>Maryvale has crime issues:( whatever happened about the maryvale
>cluster? high cancer rate in that area.....
gregz
May 2, 2012, 10:54:29 PM5/2/12
to
restrictions on road, restricted parking of boats, rvs, can't park on lawn.
I can do it all now. I got houses from $75k to $350k on my street. Love
it. There are eyesores, up the road, hoarder and needing cleaning up. I
don't mind the caterpillars and dump truck either.
Yes, I have seen boring communities in other states.
Greg
gregz
May 2, 2012, 11:00:42 PM5/2/12
to
coaxes going into window. I'm a ham but not erected anything yet. Too busy.
Greg
gregz
May 2, 2012, 11:04:01 PM5/2/12
to
acre. It works here.
Greg
Ed Pawlowski
May 2, 2012, 11:23:20 PM5/2/12
to
"AJL" <1312...@nomail.com> wrote
> Sure there are lots of horror stories about HOAs. But then there are
> lots of zoning enforcement horror stories too. (Google "zoning horror
> stories") Sometimes you just can't avoid bad judgement in HOAs,
> zoning, governments, ect...
At least most zoning boards are a bit more professional than a bunch of busy
> lots of zoning enforcement horror stories too. (Google "zoning horror
> stories") Sometimes you just can't avoid bad judgement in HOAs,
> zoning, governments, ect...
bodies on the HOA. I'd rather fight city hall than the self appointed
guardians of society.
dgk
May 3, 2012, 10:07:54 AM5/3/12
to
On Wed, 2 May 2012 06:32:29 -0500, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
wrote:
have some interesting land use regulations that take the place of
zoning, apparently with worse results than zoning in some cases:
http://www.planetizen.com/node/109
AJL
May 3, 2012, 12:23:35 PM5/3/12
to
On Wed, 2 May 2012 23:23:20 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net>
wrote:
>most zoning boards are a bit more professional than a bunch of busy
>bodies on the HOA.
Maybe. But I'm not sure how you would prove that. In many places both
HOA board members (mine - homeowners elected by homeowners) and zoning
boards (mine - ordinary people appointed by the city council) are
regular people with ordinary foibles. But even professional people can
sometimes do some non-sensible things.
>I'd rather fight city hall than the self appointed
>guardians of society.
In my area neither board is 'self appointed'.
wrote:
>most zoning boards are a bit more professional than a bunch of busy
>bodies on the HOA.
HOA board members (mine - homeowners elected by homeowners) and zoning
boards (mine - ordinary people appointed by the city council) are
regular people with ordinary foibles. But even professional people can
sometimes do some non-sensible things.
>I'd rather fight city hall than the self appointed
>guardians of society.
Nate Nagel
May 3, 2012, 12:27:38 PM5/3/12
to
newer communities around here - and all of the newer communities are
developments, and all of the developments have a HOA - is definitely
like that.
I'd far rather deal with the potential that some of my neighbors are
going to be less than scrupulously neat - land values are such that
nobody can afford to buy a place and actually let it get run down, an
acceptable detached home, even a tiny one, starts upwards of $400K -
than deal with the possibility that someone's going to get a hair up
their butt about my doing a normal everyday activity like changing my
oil in the driveway, doing a tuneup, etc. Why would I want to live in a
place where someone could complain about things like that and
technically be in the right?
The only downside is that to avoid HOAs you're limited to very old
houses, but the good news (for me) is that I actually prefer the
character and sturdy construction of an older home, although there have
been times where I might have considered trading some of that charm for
not having to deal with, say, pulling new wiring through plaster walls,
or freezing in the winter because the exterior walls are uninsulated and
I don't want to get insulation blown in until I'm completely done with
pulling wire (to give two completely random examples.)
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
May 3, 2012, 10:33:14 PM5/3/12
to
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
May 3, 2012, 10:38:23 PM5/3/12
to
totally bonkers but the idea isn't a bad one. Both of my houses are in
subdivision that have HOAs. Unfortunately the builder runs both of them (one
isn't built out and the other, he has houses he's renting so doesn't believe
he has to give it up because they aren't "sold"). This can be good and bad.
No busybodies to worry about but also there is no meaningful vote.
>The only downside is that to avoid HOAs you're limited to very old
>houses, but the good news (for me) is that I actually prefer the
>character and sturdy construction of an older home, although there have
>been times where I might have considered trading some of that charm for
>not having to deal with, say, pulling new wiring through plaster walls,
>or freezing in the winter because the exterior walls are uninsulated and
>I don't want to get insulation blown in until I'm completely done with
>pulling wire (to give two completely random examples.)
for more.
AJL
May 3, 2012, 10:54:07 PM5/3/12
to
for city council members.
Or both boards at the same time since the mayor is in my HOA... ;)
But in reality my vote is really pretty much worthless, 1 out of 4000+
for the HOA and 1 out of 60K+ in the city, so I save time by staying
home.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
May 3, 2012, 11:20:46 PM5/3/12
to
On Thu, 03 May 2012 19:54:07 -0700, AJL <24w...@pleasenomail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 03 May 2012 22:33:14 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 09:23:35 -0700, AJL <24w...@pleasenomail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 2 May 2012 23:23:20 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>most zoning boards are a bit more professional than a bunch of busy
>>>>bodies on the HOA.
>>>
>>>Maybe. But I'm not sure how you would prove that. In many places both
>>>HOA board members (mine - homeowners elected by homeowners) and zoning
>>>boards (mine - ordinary people appointed by the city council) are
>>>regular people with ordinary foibles. But even professional people can
>>>sometimes do some non-sensible things.
>>>
>>>>I'd rather fight city hall than the self appointed
>>>>guardians of society.
>>>
>>>In my area neither board is 'self appointed'.
>>
>>At least you can vote for the members of the HOA board.
>
>And of course I can vote indirectly for the zoning board by voting
>for city council members.
Every level of indirection means less control. There are also more issues
>On Thu, 03 May 2012 22:33:14 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 09:23:35 -0700, AJL <24w...@pleasenomail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 2 May 2012 23:23:20 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>most zoning boards are a bit more professional than a bunch of busy
>>>>bodies on the HOA.
>>>
>>>Maybe. But I'm not sure how you would prove that. In many places both
>>>HOA board members (mine - homeowners elected by homeowners) and zoning
>>>boards (mine - ordinary people appointed by the city council) are
>>>regular people with ordinary foibles. But even professional people can
>>>sometimes do some non-sensible things.
>>>
>>>>I'd rather fight city hall than the self appointed
>>>>guardians of society.
>>>
>>>In my area neither board is 'self appointed'.
>>
>>At least you can vote for the members of the HOA board.
>
>And of course I can vote indirectly for the zoning board by voting
>for city council members.
involved in city government.
>Or both boards at the same time since the mayor is in my HOA... ;)
>But in reality my vote is really pretty much worthless, 1 out of 4000+
>for the HOA and 1 out of 60K+ in the city, so I save time by staying
>home.
dgk
May 4, 2012, 9:18:49 AM5/4/12
to
On Thu, 03 May 2012 23:20:46 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
Ah, but it means that my vote is more important.
AJL
May 4, 2012, 5:44:28 PM5/4/12
to
Message has been deleted
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
May 4, 2012, 9:28:01 PM5/4/12
to
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
May 4, 2012, 10:35:38 PM5/4/12
to
everyone else.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
May 4, 2012, 11:14:31 PM5/4/12
to
On Fri, 04 May 2012 22:35:38 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
argument and since I couldn't figure a way to refute it I degraded to
name calling. Now I know that it doesn't take much intelligence to
name call and perhaps that's why I do it so much here, but I now want
to turn over a new leaf. I just want the group to know how much I love
and appreciate you guys and I'll try to clean up my act from now on.
Love and xxx
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>On Fri, 04 May 2012 14:44:28 -0700, AJL <24w...@pleasenomail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 23:20:46 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 19:54:07 -0700, AJL <24w...@pleasenomail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>But in reality my vote is really pretty much worthless, 1 out of 4000+
>>>>for the HOA and 1 out of 60K+ in the city, so I save time by staying
>>>>home.
>>>
>>>Then you're part of the problem.
>>
>>What problem? The outcome is always the same whether I vote or not...
>
>Please don't. The more morons there are like you, the better it is for
>everyone else.
I want to apologize to AJL. He has a perfectly good and logical
>On Fri, 04 May 2012 14:44:28 -0700, AJL <24w...@pleasenomail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 23:20:46 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 03 May 2012 19:54:07 -0700, AJL <24w...@pleasenomail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>But in reality my vote is really pretty much worthless, 1 out of 4000+
>>>>for the HOA and 1 out of 60K+ in the city, so I save time by staying
>>>>home.
>>>
>>>Then you're part of the problem.
>>
>>What problem? The outcome is always the same whether I vote or not...
>
>Please don't. The more morons there are like you, the better it is for
>everyone else.
argument and since I couldn't figure a way to refute it I degraded to
name calling. Now I know that it doesn't take much intelligence to
name call and perhaps that's why I do it so much here, but I now want
to turn over a new leaf. I just want the group to know how much I love
and appreciate you guys and I'll try to clean up my act from now on.
Love and xxx
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
May 5, 2012, 12:14:47 AM5/5/12
to
On Fri, 04 May 2012 20:14:31 -0700, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
Only a total moron would even attempt such a fraud.
k...@att.jizzzzzzzzzzzz
May 5, 2012, 4:12:44 AM5/5/12
to
On Sat, 05 May 2012 00:14:47 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
It's no attempt, it's real fraud... ;)
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
May 5, 2012, 9:09:35 AM5/5/12
to
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
May 5, 2012, 12:19:07 PM5/5/12
to
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
May 5, 2012, 8:55:46 PM5/5/12
to
On Sat, 05 May 2012 09:19:07 -0700, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
Because you're illiterate, Malformed, doesn't mean everyone else here is.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
May 5, 2012, 9:32:14 PM5/5/12
to
On Sat, 05 May 2012 20:55:46 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
made sure that it couldn't be missed.
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>On Sat, 05 May 2012 09:19:07 -0700, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 May 2012 09:09:35 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 05 May 2012 01:12:44 -0700, "k...@att.Jizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>><k...@att.Jizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>>>>It's no attempt, it's real fraud... ;)
>>>
>>>English isn't your first language, right?
>>
>>You appear to be trying to insult yourself...
>
>Because you're illiterate, Malformed, doesn't mean everyone else here is.
You don't need to demonstrate your single-digit IQ. You've already
>On Sat, 05 May 2012 09:19:07 -0700, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 May 2012 09:09:35 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 05 May 2012 01:12:44 -0700, "k...@att.Jizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>><k...@att.Jizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>>>>It's no attempt, it's real fraud... ;)
>>>
>>>English isn't your first language, right?
>>
>>You appear to be trying to insult yourself...
>
>Because you're illiterate, Malformed, doesn't mean everyone else here is.
made sure that it couldn't be missed.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
May 6, 2012, 12:49:12 AM5/6/12
to
know you're using her computer again?
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
May 6, 2012, 1:53:12 AM5/6/12
to
On Sun, 06 May 2012 00:49:12 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>On Sat, 05 May 2012 18:32:14 -0700, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"
><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 May 2012 20:55:46 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 05 May 2012 09:19:07 -0700, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 05 May 2012 09:09:35 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>>><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 05 May 2012 01:12:44 -0700, "k...@att.Jizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>>>><k...@att.Jizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>It's no attempt, it's real fraud... ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>English isn't your first language, right?
>>>>
>>>>You appear to be trying to insult yourself...
>>>
>On Sat, 05 May 2012 18:32:14 -0700, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"
><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 05 May 2012 20:55:46 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 05 May 2012 09:19:07 -0700, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 05 May 2012 09:09:35 -0400, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>>><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 05 May 2012 01:12:44 -0700, "k...@att.Jizzzzzzzzzzzz"
>>>>><k...@att.Jizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>It's no attempt, it's real fraud... ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>English isn't your first language, right?
>>>>
>>>>You appear to be trying to insult yourself...
>>>
0 new messages