advice on small HOA's?
Doug Pearl
from others who've been invovled in small complexes, what your experiences
have been like.
Seems to me with a small complex, you are required to be heavily involved,
sort of by default. This could be good and bad I suppose. Both my
fiancee and I work a lot and are busy, and we're coming from living
situations where we didn't have much privacy. So we sort of want to be
left alone for a while. I don't mind being involved with my neighbors,
but it could be a drag if you're forced to be involved with everyone all
the time just due to small size of HOA.
Thanks,
Doug
San Jose,CA
Frederick L. Pilot
wrote:
>We're in escrow right now on a townhouse in an 8-unit complex. Wondering
>from others who've been invovled in small complexes, what your experiences
>have been like.
>
>Seems to me with a small complex, you are required to be heavily involved,
>sort of by default.
That's exactly right. The smaller the common interest development,
the greater the obligation placed upon each owner to participate in
its management. While you mention that you and your fiancee "work a
lot and are busy," you will have to make time to manage your
association for its best long term interests. This is the obligation
you are undertaking in this transaction; such is the nature of common
interest development housing.
Doug Pearl
> purchasing a home with an HOA, which, by definition, is composed
> of people who want to run other people's lives.
Unfortunately, due to the insane cost of housing here in Silicon Valley,
it was either this or continue renting an apartment. Only time will tell
if this was a mistake. Any HOA is only as good or bad as the members in
it, so could go either way...
-Doug
Frederick L. Pilot
wrote:
> Any HOA is only as good or bad as the members in
>it, so could go either way...
Interesting take on this from Nevada state Senator Mike Schneider,
D-Las Vegas, quoted in lvcitylife.com at
http://www.lvcitylife.com/News/stories/00022401n.htm
"We have quasi-governmental agencies that are out of control. Some do
work well. But I have a theory that every good homeowners association
will eventually go bad."
Kathy
Frederick L. Pilot wrote in message ...
Every HOA has that potential - no matter how many of us try to prevent
idiots from taking charge, unless and until those purchasing HOA residences
accept the responsibilities of running a multi-million dollar non-profit
corporation HOAs will not succeed, because the minority will rule - all to
often with an unfair biased agenda. Innocent consumers are currently
purchasing a product that they never sought, and are rejecting the concept,
and ignoring their responsibilities.
I find it appalling that Doug did not have the opportunity to purchase
housing outside of an association. The homes in HOAs should be separately
listed - that way the consumers will be in a better position to DEMAND that
their states approve the construction of non-association housing -
affordable non-HOA housing.
I find it hard to believe that there is no land available in Silicon Valley
for non-HOA residences - the area looks larger than our entire state! How
big is Silicon Valley, Doug? Does it concern you that you had no choice?
Kathy in Delaware
Kathy
Lorand Enterprises, LLC wrote in message ...
>
>My apathetic neighbors think there are so many jerks looking to buy
>homes in PUDs they'll have no problem selling their home, HOA problems
>and all. And they're probably right.
Maybe they are and maybe they're not ... Let them put their money, er homes,
where their mouths are ... place all HOA residences in a category which
clearly identifies the product as DIFFERENT than the traditional home -
separately labeled, listed, and advertised. Only then can they truly say
that the places are sought after - currently consumers are seeking
affordable housing PERIOD - just as they always have.
Not only your apathetic neighbors, Andrew, but also Erin Fuller of the
Community Associatons Institute asserted that, in her estimation based on
the poll conducted by Gallup at CAI's request over 37% of todays homebuyers
would CHOOSE the concept of mandatory membership housing over the
'traditional' homes. That is a lot of Moooolaaaaa .... and they therefore
have nothing to fear and everything to gain.
Call your Board Of Realtors, call your Legislature, call your local press.
Tell them that consumer are buying a product that they don't understand, and
are being harmed by their misunderstanding right along with their HOAs that
don't pay taxes, don't fund reserves, etc., etc., etc., etc.! Instill upon
the many who believe that HOAs are the best thing since sliced bread that
filling their associations with residents who don't accept the association
lifestyle will result in HOAs filled with apathy and animosity which
certainly isn't good for their associations.
>
>"And the stupid shall inherit the PUD."
Now, now Andrew - all who disagree with you aren't necessarily stupid -
ignorant perhpas, but give 'em a chance to wise up. Sounds as tho you might
be another educated-by-the-association-school-of-hard-knocks consumer; one
who will let them know what they're missing, er giving up voluntarily!
Those who wish to reliquish personal choices are perfectly free to do so and
can certainly seek HOA living - I see no shortage of units available. I
have however, seen a shortage of non-HOA residences on the marketplace.
Many areas, not unlike Doug's, have no non-HOA housing at all listed, even
in the mansion market!
That will change only when the consumers demand that it change - let's wise
'em up. First we need to separate the things from the traditional homes.
Only when home seekers find no homes on the market, and only HOA units will
they even begin to realize the magnitude of the problem of HOA infiltration.
>
>Andrew in SI, NY
>ex-Jerk-PUD-Homebuyer
>Certified Agitator and Troublemaker
Agitate away, Andrew - your countrymen need you! (for those "politically
correct" readers - countrywomen, too!)
Kathy Johnson, Delaware, a Consumer For Housing Choice
>
Doug Pearl
> idiots from taking charge, unless and until those purchasing HOA residences
> accept the responsibilities of running a multi-million dollar non-profit
> corporation HOAs will not succeed, because the minority will rule - all to
> often with an unfair biased agenda. Innocent consumers are currently
> purchasing a product that they never sought, and are rejecting the concept,
> and ignoring their responsibilities.
> I find it appalling that Doug did not have the opportunity to purchase
> housing outside of an association. The homes in HOAs should be separately
> listed - that way the consumers will be in a better position to DEMAND that
> their states approve the construction of non-association housing -
> affordable non-HOA housing.
>
> I find it hard to believe that there is no land available in Silicon Valley
> for non-HOA residences - the area looks larger than our entire state! How
> big is Silicon Valley, Doug? Does it concern you that you had no choice?
>
> Kathy in Delaware
Kathy, for clarification, there are many homes available in Silicon Valley
(or more generally, the San Francisco bay area) that are non-HOA. But
prices are so high that we had to settle for a townhouse to get something
that was acceptable to us. The only other alternatives are to continue
renting or leave the area.
The San Fran-San Jose area has the most expensive housing in the country.
It's completely out of control. There are too few houses and too many
people, brought here by limitless job opportunities and total lack of
growth control.
-Doug
Mister Gogolak
>Developers would sell non-HOA properties if they made more money than
>HOA properties. It is obvious that people prefer HOAs.
That's right, son. HOAs are with us and now and hopefully will be
forever. They've been encouraged and protected by law at all levels
of government, from the federal on down to the local level since
before you entered grade school. Anyone who'd want a home not subject
to the jurisdiction of an HOA must be crazy. A development without an
HOA is a development that will soon go downhill and become a haven to
the riffraff and other undesirables.
Mister Gogolak
President for Life
Falls at Arcadia HOA
Kathy
Mister Gogolak wrote in message
<7mbubssfjvc01dpfg...@4ax.com>...
To state that someone who's preference is to live without you (or another
President For Life or HOA President for a term specified in the
association's documents) is "crazy" is an opinion, not fact. Insanity is to
continue doing the same thing over and over again expecting different
results! Currently consumers are purchasing assoication property and do not
understand the differences between the HOAs and the non-HOA residences.
Some HOA residents actually believe that they are entitled to due process
for example, before being required to give up their property. The disclosure
laws have not protected consumers.
HOA livng is not a choice appropriate for all residents, Mr. President For
Life. Many communities do not have HOAs and they are doing just fine
without you. Some belive that they are perfectly capable of making their
own decisions, and don't feel a need to seek the approval of an association
President or Board of Directors before placing a coat of paint on their
front doors. Some do not trust their neighbors and prefer to relinquish
those personal choices and abide by the decision of their associations. Let
the consumer decide what is best for him/herself.
Kathy, a Consumer For Housing Choice
Kathy
Bruce wrote in message <38BF246B...@home.com>...
>Developers would sell non-HOA properties if they made more money than
>HOA properties.
Developers would not develop HOA nighborhoods if the consumers wouldn't buy
homes in them, they wouldn't make any money!
>It is obvious that people prefer HOAs.
It is not at all obvious, Bruce. Many current residents are unhappy with
the quality of life in their HOAs - not ALL but many. Each to his/her own.
(1) HOA living is not a choice appropriate for all residents.
(2) HOA residences are not the same product as traditional housing - they
are very DIFFERENT.
The largest HOA industry's trade organization called the Community
Associations Institute, agrees with (1) & (2) - do you?
With separate catagories and proper labeling those who prefer HOAs can
certainly choose to purchase in them. Those who do not believe HOA living
is a choice appropriate for them also deserve an opportunity to become
homeowners. Bruce, do you want those who DON't want to live in an HOA
puchasing in your neighborhood? I do not want to live among residents who
reject the concept - that creates animosity.
IF WHAT YOU STATE IS A FACT, and that HOAs ARE a preferred housing
alternative to traditional neighborhood subdivisions ... there is ovbiously
no reason NOT to separate the categories. STEERING all home seekers into a
product that they have not specifically requested, which is what is
currently happening since the "rest of the story" isn't "disclosed" until
after the decision to purchase a home is made is not evdence that people
prefer HOAs.
Let each consumer decide for him/herself - free from the pressure of a
closing date! Just let him ASK for HOAs - there are plenty availble. There
must be alternatives for those who choose non-HOA homes. And they shouldn't
require the financial independece of a gazzillionaire to enjoy choices.
Kathy, a Consumer For Housing Choice in The First State
Bruce
Kathy wrote:
>
> Frederick L. Pilot wrote in message ...
> >On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 19:04:33 -0800, pea...@apple.com (Doug Pearl)
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Any HOA is only as good or bad as the members in
> >>it, so could go either way...
> >
> >Interesting take on this from Nevada state Senator Mike Schneider,
> >D-Las Vegas, quoted in lvcitylife.com at
> >http://www.lvcitylife.com/News/stories/00022401n.htm
> >
> >"We have quasi-governmental agencies that are out of control. Some do
> >work well. But I have a theory that every good homeowners association
> >will eventually go bad."
>
Bruce
money=occasional shelter plus bridge, some money= flea bag hotel,
modicum of money= apartment, medium amount of money= non-HOA blighted
area, medium plus money=duplex or town home, good money=HOA or chain
link fence non-HOA, better money=nice HOA, real good money=HOA on golf
course, great money=HOA waterfront, tremendous amount of money=HOA along
harbor, obscene amount of money= HOA on top of hill overlooking harbor,
more money than god= Ritz Carlton or next to Bill Gates in an HOA.
Doug Pearl wrote:
>
> > Every HOA has that potential - no matter how many of us try to prevent
> > idiots from taking charge, unless and until those purchasing HOA residences
> > accept the responsibilities of running a multi-million dollar non-profit
> > corporation HOAs will not succeed, because the minority will rule - all to
> > often with an unfair biased agenda. Innocent consumers are currently
> > purchasing a product that they never sought, and are rejecting the concept,
> > and ignoring their responsibilities.
> > I find it appalling that Doug did not have the opportunity to purchase
> > housing outside of an association. The homes in HOAs should be separately
> > listed - that way the consumers will be in a better position to DEMAND that
> > their states approve the construction of non-association housing -
> > affordable non-HOA housing.
> >
> > I find it hard to believe that there is no land available in Silicon Valley
> > for non-HOA residences - the area looks larger than our entire state! How
> > big is Silicon Valley, Doug? Does it concern you that you had no choice?
> >
> > Kathy in Delaware
>
ROSS
Perhaps HOA's will be around for life - the only difference, the HOA
Police are getting bigger and wiser and soon, mandatory term limits and
mandatory secret written ballots will be in effect and you will then be
forced to step down from the presidential pulpit from which you preach.
Mister Gogolak wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 02:27:39 GMT, Bruce <bruc...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Developers would sell non-HOA properties if they made more money than
> >HOA properties. It is obvious that people prefer HOAs.
>
Doug Pearl
> Developers would sell non-HOA properties if they made more money than
> HOA properties. It is obvious that people prefer HOAs.
As a first time buyer, I am admittedly igorant, so maybe I'm missing
something. Why would anyone WANT to live in an HOA? If given the choice,
I can't imagine anyone choosing this over having a home where you are in
total control, and where you don't have to shell out monthly dues, and
attend meetings, etc, etc.
-Doug
Bruce
not be necessary. Why join a club when you don't want to be a member.
Kathy wrote:
>
> Bruce wrote in message <38BF246B...@home.com>...
> >Developers would sell non-HOA properties if they made more money than
> >HOA properties.
>
> Developers would not develop HOA nighborhoods if the consumers wouldn't buy
> homes in them, they wouldn't make any money!
>
> >It is obvious that people prefer HOAs.
>
Bruce
of non-HOA communitys;
Neighbor's ram kills
87-year-old woman
A neighbor's ram strayed into a back yard in Norco and killed an
87-year-old woman with a series of head butts that broke her legs,
ribs and arm.
Once the 60-pound animal got her on the ground, "it butted her
over, and over, and over again," fire Capt. Bob Franck said.
A neighbor reported the attack Thursday afternoon. The woman,
whose name was not released, died about 5:30 p.m. at Riverside
Community Hospital.
The ram that attacked the approximately 5-foot-tall, 120-pound
woman was known by neighbors as "the mean one," Riverside
County sheriff's Sgt. Perri Feinstein-Portales said.
The ram was impounded by Norco Animal Control.
Doug Pearl wrote:
>
> In article <38BF246B...@home.com>, Bruce <bruc...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > Developers would sell non-HOA properties if they made more money than
Mister Gogolak
>Following from the Orange County Register will illustrate the pitfalls
>of non-HOA communitys;
>
>Neighbor's ram kills
>
> 87-year-old woman
>
> A neighbor's ram strayed into a back yard in Norco and killed an
> 87-year-old woman with a series of head butts that broke her legs,
> ribs and arm.
>
> Once the 60-pound animal got her on the ground, "it butted her
> over, and over, and over again," fire Capt. Bob Franck said.
>
> A neighbor reported the attack Thursday afternoon. The woman,
> whose name was not released, died about 5:30 p.m. at Riverside
> Community Hospital.
>
> The ram that attacked the approximately 5-foot-tall, 120-pound
> woman was known by neighbors as "the mean one," Riverside
> County sheriff's Sgt. Perri Feinstein-Portales said.
>
> The ram was impounded by Norco Animal Control.
>
Son, that's the beauty of homeowners associations. If such a beast
were running wild in Falls at Arcadia HOA, it would be gone the next
day. And if the owners introduced any more unauthorized animals into
the community, we'd see to it that they too disappeared.
Mister Gogolak
President for Life
Falls At Arcadia HOA
"Go ahead, let them dig their own grave."
Kathy
Bruce wrote in message <38C170CA...@home.com>...
>If they made it possible to banish malcontents from HOAs this NG would
>not be necessary.
If it was possible to keep those HOA-concept rejecters (malcontents) from
purchasing -
fining and lawsuits might disappear, too!
>Why join a club when you don't want to be a member.
You shouldn't join a club if you don't want to be a member. You shouldn't
have to be a member of a club if you only want to buy a house, either.
I don't think any consumer should have to agree to purchase an home
requiring membership before knowing what it is. - give it a category - label
it clearly, and ONLY if they CHOOSE to join a association should they check
out the HOA market, see which one fits their needs. Associations residences
are different than just a house; they are not for everyone and everyone
should have a chance to choose what is right for themselves.
Kathy
>In article <38BF246B...@home.com>, Bruce <bruc...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> Developers would sell non-HOA properties if they made more money than
>> HOA properties. It is obvious that people prefer HOAs.
>
>As a first time buyer, I am admittedly igorant, so maybe I'm missing
>something. Why would anyone WANT to live in an HOA? If given the choice,
>I can't imagine anyone choosing this over having a home where you are in
>total control, and where you don't have to shell out monthly dues, and
>attend meetings, etc, etc.
>
>-Doug
You didn't have an equal opportunity to own a home - only the wealthiest are
availed housing outstayed of HOAs in Silicon Valley, am I understanding you
correctly? Have you just accepted that there are not ever going to be
choices in Silicon Valley? Do you care that all consumers do not have a
choice in housing?
Kathy
>
>Son, that's the beauty of homeowners associations. If such a beast
>were running wild in Falls at Arcadia HOA, it would be gone the next
>day. And if the owners introduced any more unauthorized animals into
>the community, we'd see to it that they too disappeared.
>
>Mister Gogolak
>President for Life
>Falls At Arcadia HOA
>
>"Go ahead, let them dig their own grave."
>>
I suppose you think the runaway ram would stop immediately at the sight of:
FAA HOA-PRIVATE PROPERTY
OWNERS AND INVITED GUESTS ONLY
And wouldn't dare butt an FAA resident to death in her backyard?
My son was shot in an HOA. Thanks for the shovel.
Kathy
Bruce
they buy a home and sign papers they have not read, and as a result of
this they ended up in an HOA. Furthermore, you want LAWS that protect
the "fools" from their own inpetuousness and folley...As time goes and
the ranks of CID owners swell your arguement loses its bite, for after
all, HOA members are not a small minority but soon to be the norm.
Bruce
have a goat running around in it./
Bruce
been HOAs. I have sighted example after example in this NG
DACTION708
is like joining an exclusive club!!!!!!!! But god help you if your not in the
clic!!!!!!!!!
ROSS
homeowners from rogue board of directors who feel that there is no 'association
police'. And don't just expect to get a seat on the board so easily to satisfy
your 'civil' duty (I thought these were private corps) as many HOA's have no
mandatory secret written ballot process collected and counted by an independent
third party and no mandatory term limits. In other words, IF the elections are
being swung all over the place like a swingset at recess - you won't be able to
change the board of directors.
ROSS
parks, etc.) before they are sold the 'bill of goods' (CCR's, Civil Code,
Corporate Code, Minutes of Meetings, Financials and Member Obligations!).
Expect to be very busy conducting business in an HOA instead of relaxing,
rejuvenating and spending time with the family in your new 'castle'.
ROSS
are documented cases of members who have dropped dead at HOA meetings. Most
recently there was one in Arizona? Anyone out there remember seeing that one?
The admiral story?
Bruce wrote:
> Following from the Orange County Register will illustrate the pitfalls
> of non-HOA communitys;
>
> Neighbor's ram kills
>
> 87-year-old woman
>
> A neighbor's ram strayed into a back yard in Norco and killed an
> 87-year-old woman with a series of head butts that broke her legs,
> ribs and arm.
>
> Once the 60-pound animal got her on the ground, "it butted her
> over, and over, and over again," fire Capt. Bob Franck said.
>
> A neighbor reported the attack Thursday afternoon. The woman,
> whose name was not released, died about 5:30 p.m. at Riverside
> Community Hospital.
>
> The ram that attacked the approximately 5-foot-tall, 120-pound
> woman was known by neighbors as "the mean one," Riverside
> County sheriff's Sgt. Perri Feinstein-Portales said.
>
> The ram was impounded by Norco Animal Control.
>
ROSS
trigger"
on me one night in front of my then eight year old daughter. It sent
her
running home in fear.
A board member threw a shoe at a member at the pool.
A board member swerved his cadillac towards a member trying to get into
a car
- three children were in the car.
There have been death threats, auto's egged and nails in tires.
A swim team parent of two children whispered in my ear when she snuck up
on me
at a PTA meeting "you better watch your back lady or you'll be dead" -
This
same person apparently threatened two other neighors. (We have been
fighting
for our right to reasonable access to our private pool facility during
prime
time hours 2-6pm as the board continues to allow a city swim league to
use our
pool during the heat of the day - the three of them have around 6-7
children on
the swim team.)
A board member physically shook his next door neighbor - an older
retired
woman. Threatened her repeatedly. She also had eggs on her auto and
damaged
private property.
A neighbor across the street has a recorded message from someone who
sounds
just like one of our board members "Hey________you old senile, old,
paranoid,
old man - why don't you just bug off..."
Another neighbor was recently told by a board member that she was a
crazy, old,
drunkard and that you only get your three minutes to speak but we don't
listen
to you, we just let all you people sound off and then we ignore you.
A fortyish board member told a seventyish member to meet him at the park
to
challlenge him to a dual....
A board member also told a member that he was going to vote against his
remodel
because he was an __________and he didn't like him .
A board members wife and swim team parent were caught passing out
hateful
flyers in the community that referred to senior citizens, ethnic
minorities and
non-christians.
Another neighbor had beer cans hurled at their car by a board member.
A board member was recently caught passing out a flyer that referred to
a
member as a 'litigious character' because the member filed a lawsuit
against
the association and started the process for a restraining order against
a board
member and had filed a small claims action some years ago for a
non-disclosure
issue on the roof of their home.
A board recently brought a restraining order against a homeowner on
behalf of
one of the board members for a civil matter that supposedly had nothing
to do
with board business and put thousands of dollars of hoa money at risk -
the
suit did not name the association at all.
We could go on and on and on........
This is all happening in the same community!! No secret ballots, No
mandatory
term limits - welcome to democracy.
Any movie producers out there want to do a movie on this? This is only
the
surface of what we could mention publicly....
Welcome to HOA life where you can be assured that you will be safe from
the
riff raff....right Mr. Gogoly.
Welcome to 'Clonevine, CA' (as our lovely city has been referred
to)......land
of beige suburban sprawl, white Suburbans (autos that is), and 'cookie
cutter'
suburbanites who threaten your life.....
ROSS
great job!
unid...@mindspring.com wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 17:30:24 GMT, ROSS <NoH...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Welcome to 'Clonevine, CA' (as our lovely city has been referred
> >to)......land
> >of beige suburban sprawl, white Suburbans (autos that is), and 'cookie
> >cutter'
> >suburbanites who threaten your life.....
> >
> Evidently also still a town that follows the lawless attitudes of the old
> west!
>
> Aint you people got no police department? It looks like you can get away
> with all kinds of threatening behavior, battery and assault in your lawless
> town - you got a situation like RJ has in Florida where the cops don't come
> across the HOA boarder?
Bruce
best misdemeanor conduct. Why don't you call the cops and have them
arrested, then seek relief in a civil court. Each HO is worth at least
$100,000 in his HO policy. I wouldn't take any behavior akin to what you
describe. If you ever want change you have to bite the bullet and go to
court.
> Welcome to 'Clonevine, CA' (as our lovely city has been referred
> to)......land
> of beige suburban sprawl, white Suburbans (autos that is), and 'cookie
> cutter'
> suburbanites who threaten your life.....
>
The tool man
Mister Gogolak <Mister.Gogolak@Falls_At_Arcadia.org> wrote:
> And if the owners introduced any more unauthorized animals into
> the community, we'd see to it that they too disappeared.
The owners, or the animals? Sorry, I couldn't resist :)
Regards,
John.
--
The right tool for the job is in your head.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Kathy
Mister Gogolak wrote in message ...
>On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 20:23:56 GMT, Bruce <bruc...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>Following from the Orange County Register will illustrate the pitfalls
>>of non-HOA communitys;
>>
>>Neighbor's ram kills
>>
>> 87-year-old woman
>>
>> A neighbor's ram strayed into a back yard in Norco and killed an
>> 87-year-old woman with a series of head butts that broke her legs,
>> ribs and arm.
>>
>> Once the 60-pound animal got her on the ground, "it butted her
>> over, and over, and over again," fire Capt. Bob Franck said.
>>
>> A neighbor reported the attack Thursday afternoon. The woman,
>> whose name was not released, died about 5:30 p.m. at Riverside
>> Community Hospital.
>>
>> The ram that attacked the approximately 5-foot-tall, 120-pound
>> woman was known by neighbors as "the mean one," Riverside
>> County sheriff's Sgt. Perri Feinstein-Portales said.
>>
>> The ram was impounded by Norco Animal Control.
>>
>
>were running wild in Falls at Arcadia HOA, it would be gone the next
>the community, we'd see to it that they too disappeared.
>
>President for Life
>Falls At Arcadia HOA
>
>"Go ahead, let them dig their own grave."
>>
>
>were running wild in Falls at Arcadia HOA, it would be gone the next
>the community, we'd see to it that they too disappeared.
>
>President for Life
>Falls At Arcadia HOA
>
>"Go ahead, let them dig their own grave."
>>
I suppose you think the runaway ram would stop immediately at the sight of:
FAA HOA-PRIVATE PROPERTY
OWNERS AND INVITED GUESTS ONLY
And wouldn't dare butt an FAA resident to death in her backyard?
My 8 year old son was shot in an HOA. Thanks for the shovel.
Kathy
Kathy
Bruce wrote in message <38C170CA...@home.com>...
>If they made it possible to banish malcontents from HOAs this NG would
>not be necessary.
If it was possible to keep those HOA-concept rejecters (malcontents) from
purchasing -
fining and lawsuits might disappear, too!
>Why join a club when you don't want to be a member.
You shouldn't join a club if you don't want to be a member. You shouldn't
have to be a member of a club if you only want to buy a house, either.
I don't think any consumer should have to agree to purchase an home
requiring membership before knowing what it is. - give it a category - label
it clearly, and ONLY if they CHOOSE to join a association should they check
out the HOA market, see which one fits their needs. Associations residences
are different than just a house; they are not for everyone and everyone
should have a chance to choose what is right for themselves.
>Kathy wrote:
>>
>> Bruce wrote in message <38BF246B...@home.com>...
>> >Developers would sell non-HOA properties if they made more money than
>> >HOA properties.
>>
>> Developers would not develop HOA nighborhoods if the consumers wouldn't
buy
>> homes in them, they wouldn't make any money!
>>
>> >It is obvious that people prefer HOAs.
>>
Kathy
Bruce wrote in message <38C2FFD8...@home.com>...
>Kathy, my point has always been that the choice by the idle rich has
>been HOAs. I have sighted example after example in this NG
>
You at least understand that HOA residences are different than non-HOA homes
since you have said that the rich choose one particular type.
What is an "idle" rich, anyway - someone with no concern about
where/how/when they spend their money?
HOA living is not for everyone - whether rich, poor, or of moderate income.
Do you think that filling HOAs with people who are not "HOA material" is
healthy for any association?
Everyone deserves a choice, Bruce ... don't ya' think? Do you have a
problem with separating the categories?
MY POINT is that each of us should make the important lifestyle decision for
ourselves and for our own personal reason(s). If you want to live in an
HOA - fine, it is your choice. Are you saying that because (IYO) the "idle
rich" choose HOAs we should all live in one? Do you believe EVERYONE should
do what you say the rich do, and not have a choice in the matter?
Most of us are all grown up, Bruce. I do understand, however, that some
adults don't think for themselves and seek approval from others before
making any decision. Are you able to ask your mother, Bruce, she probably
knows you better and cares about your happiness more than the idle rich do.
But if you are happy copying what you think is the choice of the idle rich -
that is up to you.
FYI - wealthy individuals also choose non-HOA residential real estate. I say
separate the categories and let each of us seek they type of product we
determine will best suit our needs before agreeing to become a member in the
first place.
It makes more sense to 'opt in' to the lifestyle and, only when and if you
find the association to be in good shape should you check out the units.
THEN if you want the unit, too, you should make an offer. To agree to
purchase a home mandating membership and then 'opt out' if you find the
associations affairs aren't in order is backwards - the association comes
first and should be marketed first.
Separate the listings - give the things a category. If people are making
the purchase who should not have done so because there are no alternatives
and/or perhaps the former residence is sold already the associations will be
full of unwilling members and apathy. With the association property
separately listed those "non-HOA choosers" will seek housing elsewhere and
not be put in such an unfair position. Let's give them a choice, shall we?
-Kathy Johnson, Consumers For Housing Choice
Bruce
are forewarned, they just use willful blindness and purchase anyway.
Furthermore, once they find out there is no reason to bring the whole
neighborhood down, just conform or move.
Bruce
Bruce
Where is your evidence to the contrary?
What's with the momma comment...
ROSS
being sold today might be HOA, doesn't necessarily mean people are choosing to buy
them by choice but by necessity. For example, work commutes, job, schools,
etc.etc. Many people read the docs before they buy. That is if they have time
and they aren't presented to them upon signing in escrow. It's called a 'pressure
sale' in the realtor lingo. It happens quite a bit and the homeowner, after
having placed a deposit, went through all the apps, approval, inspections, etc.
are stuck at signing facing a mountain of doc full of legalese!
Furthermore, even for those who have had PLENTY of time to read the docs and
secure expert opinion, it doesn't necessarily mean they docs will be followed by
the board. After all, they are 'only volunteers' running multi million dollar
real estate holdings (HA). Then, if you want to get on the board to make changes,
you are fought and the slam campaign starts and on top of it all - many HOA's have
no mandatory secret written ballots or term limits.
Sorry, the concept just doesn't fly, is a miserable failure (80% of HOAs have been
or are involved in litigation) and are nothing but the wet dreams of the vendors -
read attorneys, contractors, management companies, insurers- who make their living
off of the association - read homeowners.
Mister Gogolak
>Don't sign papers that indicate you know what you are buying. Consumers
>are forewarned, they just use willful blindness and purchase anyway.
>Furthermore, once they find out there is no reason to bring the whole
>neighborhood down, just conform or move.
That's right, son. There are those who refuse to play by the rules in
every HOA, and they knew exactly what they were getting into. In my
HOA, we don't put up with any whiners or rule-breakers. They comply
or they disappear.
Mister Gogolak
President for Life
Falls at Arcadia HOA
Kathy
Bruce wrote in message <38C2FF83...@home.com>...
>My condolences, but my point is that a controlled neighborhood would not
>have a goat running around in it./
Who is going to stop a runnaway animal from entering the development in the
first place? HOW? WHEN?
Runnaway animals can be pretty dangerous, is the President in your HOA
permitted to fire a weapon and kill the animal --- will he protect the
members from harm - do you trust his aim, is he ready and waiting to protect
all from harm?
And the people who purchase, are they not capable of being as dangerous if
not more so than a ram? At least if I shot a ram I wouldn't face murder
charges. There are no assurances that a runnaway animal won't run in here,
and there are no laws keeping a dangerous person from becoming a member -
perhpas even a President of the HOA.
Does your state have a law to keep the "undesirebles" out of HOAs?
How about pyromaniacs - are they forbidden? Burglars, can they purchase in
a HOA? And children with deadly weapons, the police can only do so much,
the shooter in my HOA was a juvenile, he now has a record - his grandparents
are members. What about convicted child molesters, can a purchaser of
association-controlled property be assured that there won't be any convicted
sex offenders moving nearby? Megan's Law says the convict has to tell us he
is living there - how comforting for the neighbors! Safer in a HOA, what a
blatant false statement! There are no promises of safety in those
disclosure documents, Bruce. And in your wildest dreams you cannot choose
your neighbors (I recall your wildest dreams - you told us about them last
year) Let your neighbors choose to obtain the complex bundle of rights and
obligations before deciding on a house.
And you cannot stop a ram any better than someone living outside of the
complex can.
Give HOAs their own category ... let all consumers have a "TOTAL" choice,
right up front.
-Kathy
Kathy
Bruce wrote in message <38C5295E...@home.com>...
>My point is KATHY, given a total choice, consumers prefer CID living.
>Where is your evidence to the contrary?
>
Evidence? ... Apathy, Bruce. Have you noticed it? If the consumers prefered
to live the HOA lifesyle they would do it - but they don't even understand
it, and few participate in the self-governing process. Apathy evidences the
consumer rejection and HOAs are ruled by a membership minority.
"given a total choice"? Don't you mean *IF* given total choice? Consumers
don't have a clear choice now since all the properties are mixed up in the
same bundle, some markets have no residences available outside of HOAs,
other areas actually require HOAs for all new subdivisions.
Separate the categories, when the consumer says "I want to purchase
membership in an association" whether to himself or to a Realtor, he is
choosing. As soon as he understands and CHOOSES the concept he can seek
mandatory membership property becasue they will be clearly labeled
separately from the traditional homes. THEN, and ONLY then, will we know
whether the consumer prefers HOAs or not. Some will, some won't - all will
have a clear choice with the categories separate.
Maybe this idea would be more acceptable to you, Bruce: Consumer can sign a
contract & a cut check as soon as he finds an association suited to his
needs, and at the settlement table he can see some pictures of the house
that goes along with it (appliances, warrenty information, type of roof,
size of rooms, etc.) If he doesn't like the house he can get his up front
money back without penatly and he doesn't have to execute the contract. Of
course if the seller (after recieving a signed contract from the buyer where
he agreed to become a member of the association) gives him the house info
five days earlier than the settlement date he has those five whole days to
change his mind about purchasing the association, if he doesn't say no
within five days, he agrees to the house and is bound by the contract he
already signed (remember, he already agreed to the assoicaion before he saw
the house). Is that OK? NO? ... well that is how people "choose" to
purchase association-controlled residences NOW. Give them a clear choice -
the things are different and deserve their own category. Let the consumer
decide which product he wants - if he doesn't understand HOAs he will learn
more before ever deciding to spend a large sum of money to become a member
of one.
>What's with the momma comment...
>
Because others have or haven't purchased membership property is irrelevant,
don't you have your own reasons for making a decision? You speak of the
'idle rich' as preferring HOA living and therefore people who purchase HOA
living must made the right choice. Apparently you don't trust yourself to
make up your own mind and are looking to see what others do. Leave the idle
rich be, ask your mother (wife, kids, best friend, anyone who loves you) if
you don't trust yourself. The reason for suggesting you speak with someone,
perhaps your mother if she is among the living is because mothers usually
love their children, and I trust yours loves you and would give you truer
information than some nameless "idle rich" with no personal knowledge of
your likes and dislikes.
Would you choose HOA as a preference? Why or why not?
Kathy
Bruce wrote in message <38C2FEF4...@home.com>...
>Kathy, just admit your predicate, that people act out of impulse when
>they buy a home and sign papers they have not read, and as a result of
>this they ended up in an HOA. Furthermore, you want LAWS that protect
>the "fools" from their own inpetuousness and folley...As time goes and
>the ranks of CID owners swell your arguement loses its bite, for after
>all, HOA members are not a small minority but soon to be the norm.
>
>
So you think we Americans won't want to choose ... how long will "NO, I
don't want to choose how I want to live" attitude become acceptable for
American consumers in your educated opinion, Bruce? Americans already are
demanding housing outside of HOAs, there is no stopping word of mouth, and
the horror stories make good copy. OR, do you think that soon there will be
so many HOA owners that the choice arguement will be moot ... there won't be
anything other than HOAs units standing - is that what you mean? 11 million
units are presently standing in this country, housing nearly 50 million
people. There are over 250 million Americans in this country - should all
of them live in HOAs? Will they all say - YES TO HOAs ? ... give 'em a
category, let's see. If HOA residences are a superior product why not fly
the HOA flag - FIRST? Consumers should know what they are before they agree
to buy them.
Those "LAWS" which require all those papers which are seldom read, rarely
understood, often incomplete and that don't even reveal the complete story
and are signed anyway at closing are called "DISCLOSURE LAWS, and were
adopted for the purpose of PROTECTING the consumer, Bruce. Obviously, you
are at least aware that they are not achieving the desired result.
Lew Stead
> Kathy, just admit your predicate, that people act out of impulse when
> they buy a home and sign papers they have not read, and as a result of
> this they ended up in an HOA. Furthermore, you want LAWS that protect
> the "fools" from their own inpetuousness and folley...As time goes and
> the ranks of CID owners swell your arguement loses its bite, for after
> all, HOA members are not a small minority but soon to be the norm.
I remember the communists on my college campus explaining the same thing
to me about communism. More people lived under it than under western
capitalist democracies. Therefore it must be a superior and acceptable
system since they all wanted to live that way.
Yeah right.
Bruce
opening,(billed as a "Planned Community") draws over 10,000 people and
sold 325 homes (values between $350,000 to $800,000) the first day.
Oh those poor stupid consumers, we must protect them from themselves.
Kathy wrote:
>
> Bruce wrote in message <38C2FEF4...@home.com>...
> >Kathy, just admit your predicate, that people act out of impulse when
> >they buy a home and sign papers they have not read, and as a result of
> >this they ended up in an HOA. Furthermore, you want LAWS that protect
> >the "fools" from their own inpetuousness and folley...As time goes and
> >the ranks of CID owners swell your arguement loses its bite, for after
> >all, HOA members are not a small minority but soon to be the norm.
> >
> >
>
Bruce
Lew Stead wrote:
>
> > Kathy, just admit your predicate, that people act out of impulse when
> > they buy a home and sign papers they have not read, and as a result of
> > this they ended up in an HOA. Furthermore, you want LAWS that protect
> > the "fools" from their own inpetuousness and folley...As time goes and
> > the ranks of CID owners swell your arguement loses its bite, for after
> > all, HOA members are not a small minority but soon to be the norm.
>
Bruce
Bruce
you make assumptions about neighborhoods that are populated by doctors,
lawyers, engineers, etc. We can read and understand documents.
ROSS
recent ad for Ladera Ranch Master Planned Community (that is the new word being
used these days because homeowners associations have become the big ugly secret)
had about 26 paragraphs. Went on and on about the fake lakes, fake rivers, fake
'botanicas' and 'riverine' system, (Is that like faux pearls?) pools, parks and
'pocket parks'. It never said anything about homeowers dues, corporate codes,
civil codes, CCR's , Bylaws, member obligations.
I went through a new development tour once and they go on and on for hours about
the 'amenities' and said nothing about the 'bill of goods' above and the fact that
you are about to purchase a home in a business. I left that place not ever even
realizing that it later turned into a huge HOA. I have heard that since then they
have been in and out of litigation for numerous things like construction defects.
A recent statement in OC metro "Reach 424,000 active homebuyers - Fact: 33% will
purchase a home in the next 12 months". That is a huge consumer group that is not
aware of what they are getting into. How can they be when there is no legislation
that requires them to receive applicable civil, corporate codes, financials and
minutes as well as a description of their membership obligations. Even health
clubs give a description of their membership obligations....go figure.
Bruce wrote:
> San Clemente, California. A CID called Talega has a grand
> opening,(billed as a "Planned Community") draws over 10,000 people and
> sold 325 homes (values between $350,000 to $800,000) the first day.
>
> Oh those poor stupid consumers, we must protect them from themselves.
>
> Kathy wrote:
> >
> > Bruce wrote in message <38C2FEF4...@home.com>...
> > >Kathy, just admit your predicate, that people act out of impulse when
> > >they buy a home and sign papers they have not read, and as a result of
> > >this they ended up in an HOA. Furthermore, you want LAWS that protect
> > >the "fools" from their own inpetuousness and folley...As time goes and
> > >the ranks of CID owners swell your arguement loses its bite, for after
> > >all, HOA members are not a small minority but soon to be the norm.
> > >
> > >
> >
ROSS
HOA cut their trees down without their permission. Rumour is the gentleman is a
lawyer. Many people besides doctors, lawyers and engineers read the documents -
the problem is that the board of directors hasn't read the documents and the less
than professional management companies who are not required to be licensed have
not read the docs' and they all know their is no HOA police and so the randomn and
uneducated enforcement of the docs tramples upon member rights.
Even if they have read the doc's the interpretation of the docs is left up to a
bunch of volunteers who have no problem repeating the same mantra over and over
for their mistakes "we are only volunteers".... Yet when you try to relieve them
of their demise by running for the board, they fight it.
Then, just try to get new bod's when the integrity of the elective process is
questionable because 1. it is not a secret written ballot 2. is is not collected
and counted by an independent third party 3. There are no mandatory term limits
and 4. they won't even give you the number of votes you received as a candidate.
Would any good honest group of 'volunteers' ever commit election fraud? Are HOA's
a business? Would any other 'municipality' operate their electoral process in
such a manner?
Didn't you just have problems in your election? Weren't you the one posting about
the elections recently?
Bruce wrote:
> Why do you think you are so much smarter than everyone else? How dare
> you make assumptions about neighborhoods that are populated by doctors,
> lawyers, engineers, etc. We can read and understand documents.
>
Kathy
Bruce wrote in message <38C66CC6...@home.com>...
>I was wondering how this would get twisted, now I know.
>
I just keep on point - consumer choice. You won't comment, just rave how
good HOAs are. SO WHAT if you think HOAs are great and full of people who
could never violate the laws of the land - they are different from property
without a mandatory associatoin and should be separately labeled because of
that FACT.
Bruce, for some unknown reason you just don't want to acknowledge the fact
that residences within home associations are DIFFERENT than residences which
do not include the mandatory membership in an association. EVERYONE will
not decide to choose the association as a preference just because you say
they are great. Each of us will certainly make that decision all by
ourselves and can do so easily when the product is separately listed.
It makes no difference whether you prefer HOAs, the idle rich prefer HOAs,
or whether I prefer the traditional homes or HOAs. You and I know that the
house controlled by home associations is DIFFERENT than the same exact copy
of that house outside of an association - I not only acknowledge that fact,
but I demand that they be properly labeled and advertised as a different
product, in a separate category. Do you think that our choice shouldn't be
clear? Why not put - HOAs here , non HOAs there - simple clean clear and
easy and separate. What is the problem?
Its the "HOA" "POA" PUD" "CID" or whatever your state wants to label it that
makes the difference - a home becomes a different product when it lies
within an association - do you think that the consumer will be availed an
opportunity to understand that the product requires a bit more investigation
than a traditional residence when it is in a separate category - I sure do.
Shouldn't people be availed the best consumer protection the law can
provide, or don't you care about consumer protection and the well being of
your fellow American citizens?
Some may choose traditional house, others may not. Perhaps everyone will
follow the lead of the idle rich (whoever they are) and do what they do.
Most Americans will think for themselves, I believe.
All deserve to know that the product is different - and as you also will
know if you'd bother to read the laws requiring disclosures, these
disclosure laws were lobbied for, drafted, and adopted for consumer
protection. The intent of the disclosure laws (you remember, no one reads
the documents as you so aptly noted) was for the purchaser to understand the
nature of the product in which he is purchasing - BUT, Bruce evidenced by
the apathy epidemic plaguing associations from coast to coast and the
desperate cries for "HELP - I dunno how to run the place!" and "HEY! That's
against the US Constitution" - CONSUMERS, who are now owners of units in
associations never did acquire an understanding of the unique nature of the
product they purchased.
The LAWS attempted to avail consumers an opportunity to understand
association ownership and have failed. Something else must be
implemented -I think they will get a better idea with a separate category.
If you want this newsgroup to go away, along with the fines, lawsuits and
disgruntled homeowners, consumers must choose, and the choice must be
clear - the category for association controlled property should be distinct.
No one should purchase a product that he doesn't want - he will not likely
be pleased after buying something he didn't want to buy when all he wanted
was a house!. Those who choose to live in a particular association will not
likely break the rules - they will understand what process is to be followed
to change the rules, and if they believe that the majority of members will
agree, instead of breaking the rule the owner will have it changed. No
fines, no suits, a harmonious happy community where everyone there made a
conscience choice to "join a club" as you put it.
Or do you find it more productive to blame the consumer for the inadequacy
of the consumer protection laws?
I heard a good one lately, Bruce, someone else said it's an old saying -
author unknown:
"If you always think the way you thought you will always get what you got."
-Kathy Johnson, Delaware
Kathy
Bruce wrote in message <38C66DC0...@home.com>...
>Why do you think you are so much smarter than everyone else? How dare
>you make assumptions about neighborhoods that are populated by doctors,
>lawyers, engineers, etc. We can read and understand documents.
Tough to dertimine which profession is truly best suited for HOA living -
didn't you say that you'd prefer strippers and lesbians to move into your
neighborhood? Or was it lesbian strippers? Whatever floats your boat, Bruce!
FYI, I know very successful doctors, lawyers and engineers who would not
choose to purchase in an association - from what they know about
associations I have been told that they prefer to avoid them. I also know
that a professional person is not exempt from being criminal, lawyers
doctors and engineers have been convicted of seroius crimes. HOAs
neighborhoods cannot guarantee that no criminals live in them.
I make no assumptions, one should never assume that lawyers doctors and
engineers are incapable of criminal behavior, or that just because they live
in an HOA that the accept the concept and would choose to if the chice was
clear. So what if professional people live in a neighborhood? Tom Capano
stuffed his lover in a cooler and dumped her in the Atlantic Ocean ...
Now you say what? ... because lawyers & engineers live in HOAs - America's
housing consumers shouldn't have a clear choice, there are only smart people
living in HOAs ... what? What is your point, Bruce?
Consumers still should have a clear choice and a separate category. The
disclosure documents are seldom read rarely understood and often incomplete,
they have not protected the consumers - most current housing consumers do
not choose HOAs, they choose houses and get HOAs - and a bunch of
unsolicited documents that they have no intention of reading and which don't
tell them what the lifestyle is all about anyway!
Did you choose to have all of your assets at risk based on the contracts of
the association over which you have little control and as to which you have
only a fractional interest or benefit? Is that what you considered a wise
decision, Bruce? Is that disclosed in the disclosure documents, byt the
way - so many havve been surprised when they find out?
How full are these neighborhoods of doctors and lawyers and engineers who
read the documents - and do they donate their time energy and expertise to
run the corporation government, or have do they spend money on a manager or
management company? Who determines which contracts to enter into on your
behalf, Bruce.
I also know that there are many professional people, lawyers doctors and
engineers, for instance (are they wiser than the idle rich, Bruce?) living
in HOAs who refuse to attend meetings or volunteer their expertise. I also
know that there are people with a great deal of expertise dontating time and
energy to their associatoins.
BUT, for some reason you still refuse to acknowledge that the property
inside an associatoin and the property outside an association is different,
not for everyone. Why?
Everyone should have a choice and the choice should be clear -- separate
the listings, let the consumer choose, wheter he is lawyer, doctor, or a
member of the "idle rich" clan (whoever they are). Give everyone a totoal
choice - one made without the pressure of a closing date. With such a
"superiour" in our opinion
ROSS
> true product - Homeowners Associations! The term homeowners associations has
> generated such bad feelings even among people who have never lived in one that
> they have to call it something else........
ROSS
health threatening situation. Some scientist for a pharmaceutical company was
connected to a shooting in front of the company offices and when police searched
his home in a very upper middle class HOA in Cookie Cutter Irvine - they found
"hazardous materials". Possiby bio-hazardous materials that he may have even
buried the waste of in his neighbors yards. A large part of the HOA is having
to move out and the police have literally closed a portion of the community -
including a soccer and baseball field adjacent to the community.
So, Welcome to HOA life where you will be free of the low lifes......Yeah Right!
People with money simply have the money to commit more sophisticated crimes
right?
Bruce
agreements between people that don't concern you. You sign a contract,
and then you conduct your life so as not to infringe upon the rights of
others, rights that you gave them. The government does not belong in the
midst of what private citizens agree to.
Kathy wrote:
>
> Bruce wrote in message <38C66CC6...@home.com>...
> >I was wondering how this would get twisted, now I know.
> >
>
> I just keep on point - consumer choice. You won't comment, just rave how
> good HOAs are. SO WHAT if you think HOAs are great and full of people who
> could never violate the laws of the land - they are different from property
> without a mandatory associatoin and should be separately labeled because of
> that FACT.
>
> Bruce, for some unknown reason you just don't want to acknowledge the fact
> that residences within home associations are DIFFERENT than residences which
> do not include the mandatory membership in an association. EVERYONE will
> not decide to choose the association as a preference just because you say
> they are great. Each of us will certainly make that decision all by
> ourselves and can do so easily when the product is separately listed.
>
> It makes no difference whether you prefer HOAs, the idle rich prefer HOAs,
> or whether I prefer the traditional homes or HOAs. You and I know that the
> house controlled by home associations is DIFFERENT than the same exact copy
> of that house outside of an association - I not only acknowledge that fact,
> but I demand that they be properly labeled and advertised as a different
> product, in a separate category. Do you think that our choice shouldn't be
> clear? Why not put - HOAs here , non HOAs there - simple clean clear and
> easy and separate. What is the problem?
>
Bruce
v. Lake Forest II Masters HOA 45 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1) If the election is a
fraud you have relief via Cal Corp. Code Section 7616, elections are run
by the disinterested 3d party (election committee), the number of votes
must be given, see Chantilly supra.
ouch, that smarts.
Bruce
live someplace as nice without the HOA. It boils down to allocation of
resources, i.e. there is 50 acres of beach front, one person is willing
to pay 100 million dollars for the property, also 200 people are willing
to pay 2 million dollars for a quarter acre...duh. I couldn't afford the
Gucci mansion in Laguna Beach so I made a CHOICE to live in a HOA near
the beach. According to you I should petition the government to
confiscate private property and give me property near the beach at the
market rate of the HOA...right.
Kathy wrote:
>
> Bruce wrote in message <38C66DC0...@home.com>...
> >Why do you think you are so much smarter than everyone else? How dare
> >you make assumptions about neighborhoods that are populated by doctors,
> >lawyers, engineers, etc. We can read and understand documents.
>
Bruce
on this planet.
ROSS wrote:
>
> We just heard a story that an HOA in Irvine is in the midst of a very serious,
> health threatening situation. Some scientist for a pharmaceutical company was
> connected to a shooting in front of the company offices and when police searched
> his home in a very upper middle class HOA in Cookie Cutter Irvine - they found
> "hazardous materials". Possiby bio-hazardous materials that he may have even
> buried the waste of in his neighbors yards. A large part of the HOA is having
> to move out and the police have literally closed a portion of the community -
> including a soccer and baseball field adjacent to the community.
>
> So, Welcome to HOA life where you will be free of the low lifes......Yeah Right!
>
> People with money simply have the money to commit more sophisticated crimes
> right?
>
Kathy
Bruce wrote in message <38C7BD87...@home.com>...
>I never said they are great.
Why mention the runnaway ram then - were you not saying that HOAs are safer
than traditional homes, what about the "occasional meth labs" - are these
not statements espousing a percieved benefit of association living?
My point is; why do you care about
>agreements between people that don't concern you.
The fact that Americans are losing choices in housing doesn't concern you,
Bruce? I care, it also concerns me directly when people buy in here and
refuse to particiapte in the process.
You sign a contract,
>and then you conduct your life so as not to infringe upon the rights of
>others, rights that you gave them.
You relinquish rights in an HOA, right, in a sence you GAVE them away, but
actually you are suposed to be getting some benefit in return in the deal,
it isn't supposed to be a GIFT on the part of the consumer. Government
should not stop anyone from agreeing to enter into a legal contract (some
have argued these contracts are not legal, but I have yet to know of any
Court ruling HOA illegal - but you never can tell).
Nonetheless, consumers should not be sold a product in disguise - HOA units
are different than houses, and should be listed separately.
The government does not belong in the
>midst of what private citizens agree to.
>
I am trying to get the government not to adopt a big law which is supposed
attempt to tell us how we associations should behave - we don't need it. So
far so good, but unless we associations take care of ourselves, the pressure
from current members to adopt some governmental oversight will be strong on
our various states - and when the number of complaints gets high enough, the
government will have to respond. Perhaps we can enlighten the masses with
the separate category and the associations will be able to truly self-govern
as a private democracy, rather than dictatorship by a minority. It
certainly will help associations if only willing participant sought to
purchase in them. Consumers deserve to have a CLEAR choice in the matter.
The "you didn't HAVE to go through with the deal" doesn't wash with me ...
any consumer unwilling to relinquish rights shouldn't even look at any unit,
let alone agree to purchase one! Especially if all he sought to purchase was
a house. He should say "HOA" first - the obligations of membership come
before personal obligations. Go ask any expert if a special assessment is
required regardless of your personal financial obligations, and if you can
risk a lien on your home if you cannot pay.
I only said that the product is different and consumers should clearly see
that there is a difference - HOA property should be in a different
category - a "HOAs only" category.
Again Bruce, what do you have a problem with?
-Kathy
Kathy
Bruce wrote in message <38C7C1CD...@home.com>...
>You don't get it. No one would live in a HOA if they could afford to
>live someplace as nice without the HOA. It boils down to allocation of
>resources, i.e. there is 50 acres of beach front, one person is willing
>to pay 100 million dollars for the property, also 200 people are willing
>to pay 2 million dollars for a quarter acre...duh. I couldn't afford the
>Gucci mansion in Laguna Beach so I made a CHOICE to live in a HOA near
>the beach.
You can always choose to purchase HOA when there is a category for then - I
didn't say you cannot choose to own a unit. No one will be forced to
purchase what they don't want to purchase when the categories are separated,
they just won't be surprised and discover suddenly that they don't have the
same rights as the nonHOA homeowners, that's all
According to you I should petition the government to
>confiscate private property and give me property near the beach at the
>market rate of the HOA...right.
NO, Bruce I never said anything of the sort - I said that the HOA units are
not the same as the nonHOA homes and shouldn't be bundled in the same
category - where did I say that the government should take over the beach?
What does any of this have to do with marketing? I did say that homeowners
nationwide are screaming for governmental oversight and that when the number
of complaints get to high the politicians will respond - they like to get
re-elected, they have a thing about their voters and actually respond to
their needs on occasion. I certainly do not want the gov't to take people's
property from them, and I do not want you to have to give up your HOA- but
what if the majority of your neighbors wanted to donate the common area to
the local municipality - would you be upset about it?
Bruce - who cares whether you or I like or dislike HOAs - we are all
entitled to decide for ourselves. I only said we should each have a clear
choice!
Don't you care about the fact that consumers are losing choices?
-Kathy
>
Bruce
French Riviera would have to stand on the shoulders of Tahiti just to
kiss south Orange County, CA's ass.
Rich wrote:
>
> On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 15:17:32 GMT, Bruce <bruc...@home.com> wrote:
> >Quit being so bitter. Irvine is one of the most desirable places to live
> >on this planet.
>
> That has got to be one of the *funniest* things I've ever read.
>
> You haven't traveled much, have you?
>
> - Rich
RJ
>
> I never said they are great. My point is; why do you care about
> agreements between people that don't concern you. You sign a contract,
> and then you conduct your life so as not to infringe upon the rights of
> midst of what private citizens agree to.>
Of course you're wrong as usual Bruce,
We could have a very long discussion about the role a government agency
should play regulating and insuring full disclosure is provided to
prospective purchasers, prior to contract for sale;
and...financial disclosure, afterwards.
Until disclosure is the law of the land you'll never find agreement from
me that deed restricted communities with mandatory HOA's don't reguire
regulation and appropriate scrutiny of government.
Like you, I agree, the less government we have in our lives the better.
However, there are instances when oversight is absolutely necessary. In
the case of CID's, commonly referred to as 'quasi-governments,'
oversight is required.
My experiences related to adult and residential communities in Florida
and how this state permits the stakeholders to conduct their business is
about all I have to offer.
The power and influence of state recognized stakeholders has prevented
our three branches of government to deal with violations of current
laws, the lack of enforcement and appropriate penalties for failure to
comply with statutory mandates. These are facts not a figment of my
imagination.
As long as full disclosure prior to contract for sale and afterwards
isn't the norm consumer advocates will insist upon appropriate scrutiny
to reign in the violators and the deception presented in sales brochures
and advertisements.
So, while all might be well where you live that isn't the case in other
parts of the nation. When developers fail to disclose and conduct
interstate advertisements to entice consumers to relocate, I believe
they are violating Federal law.
Now, if I can convince members of Congress and the FTC that I'm correct
there will be appropriate scrutiny at the Federal level.
City, county and state governments are unwilling to deal with real not
contrived issues because CID's are a cash cow! It's important to
remember; local government collects taxes from residents but they don't
provide any services residents might have been accustom when they didn't
reside in a CID.
That's a primary reason local governments, in collusion with the
stakeholders, continue to permit the proliferation of CID's in our
nation.
Obviously, I disagree with the view that government shouldn't become
more involved in the CID concept. I do agree, consumer advocates can't
protect people from themselves no matter how many laws are enacted. The
best we can do in that respect is to educate consumers and advocate
appropriate regulation.
If full disclosure prior to and after purchase becomes the norm in our
country advocates for change wouldn't have anything to complain about in
the future. Until that happens the industry partisans are going to have
to defend their position. No free ride for these folks!
If you want to stay on that side of the fence, Bruce, that's fine. Just
remember; your message isn't going to get a free ride, either.
The best to you and yours,
ONLY IN AMERICA!
Bob,
Ocala, FL
ROSS
Thanks.
ROSS
ROSS
advertisments in the paper and magazines - very few (and I mean very few) say
anything at all about the home being in an HOA. If anything we need to educate
prospective purchasers to ask the following questions before even wasting the
gas to go and look at a home
1. Is the home located in an association?
2. What are my rights and/or responsibilities if I join one of these
corporations?
3. Could I please get a copy of the CCR's, applicable Civil and Corporate
Codes, One years worth of minutes of business meetings and financial documents?
And, they should be entitled to see it!! If they are denied access to the
information and are told you need to put a deposit on the place first - then
they ought to look elsewhere.
Bruce
rest of the USA and should have a seperate NG for discussion.
By the way there is no wrong, just a different point of view.
Bruce
expected that a non-HOA property be listed as such, in bold print,
commanding a higher price than similarly situated properties that are
HOA encumbered, and the newspaper would be responding to such demand
with a separate classification titled NON-HOA, i.e. see Harley Davidson
under motorcycles.
Let the market find its own way.
Kathy
>According to the arguments posited in this thread, would it not be
>expected that a non-HOA property be listed as such, in bold print,
>commanding a higher price than similarly situated properties that are
>HOA encumbered, and the newspaper would be responding to such demand
>with a separate classification titled NON-HOA, i.e. see Harley Davidson
>under motorcycles.
>
>Let the market find its own way.
>
House already has a category, HOUSES FOR SALE and the traditional houses
will be found there, right where consumers always have found houses. There
is no obligation for a house to suddenly rename itself to "non-HOA". Should
your Harley be listed under non-Kawasaki?
These other things have to come up with their own name, because they are
different and don't have an established category - the understood product
"HOUSE" was already established under "HOUSE FOR SALE".
Don't sarcastically suggest these unique mandatory membership units be
listed under "non-HOUSES for Sale" Bruce. CIDs HOAs PUDs POAs would
probably be sufficient - but hey, 'non-House' would please some I have heard
from!
Just so those who want them ask - since so many IYO prefer HOAs you of all
people should be happy to wave the superior lifestyle ... just be sure you
can back it up. Weren't you the one who insinuated that purchasing and
living the HOA lifestyle was a good way to avoid a chemical-lab explosion?
I still don't know *where* you got that idea!
>Friday March 10 6:49 AM ET
>
> Irvine, Calif. Streets Evacuated
>
> By CHELSEA J. CARTER, Associated Press Writer
>
> IRVINE, Calif. (AP) - A botched hit, a suicide and now the
evacuation of a
> posh neighborhood.
>
> A murder conspiracy case being unraveled by investigators
forced neighbors
> of the suicide victim out of their homes this week because
of fears he may
> have hidden chemicals in his back yard.
>
> ``I have never seen anything this bizarre. Every day, it's something
new,'' police Lt. Sam
> Allevato said Thursday.
>
> The case has baffled residents of this $580,000-a-house community in the
heart of Orange
> County, better known for its University of California campus than for
crime.
>
> ``This really has revealed a false sense of security for us. You really
think this happens on the
> news, in other places. Not here,'' said Gloria Secore. ``Now, I find
myself looking at my
> neighbors a little differently.''
>
> The story began to unfold nearly two weeks ago when a masked gunman
dressed in black
> attacked Biofem Pharmaceutical Inc. chief James Riley in the company
parking lot. The gunman
> fired once, hitting Riley in the face. He was hospitalized for five days,
then released.
>
> Almost immediately, police focused on Riley's Biofem partner, Dr. Larry
Ford, a medical
> researcher. The two men were trying to market a vaginal suppository to
combat AIDS
> transmission and believed the product would make millions of dollars.
>
> Before police could question Ford, he committed suicide. Police have since
arrested Ford's
> longtime friend Dino D'Saachs, 56, as the getaway driver in the botched
hit on Riley. Police
> continue to search for the shooter.
>
> On Thursday, county fire officials and the FBI's hazardous materials and
bomb squad found
> three canisters of unidentified liquid buried in Ford's backyard, Allevato
said.
>
> A search of the house yielded thousands of rounds of rifle ammunition
hidden beneath a trap
> door, he said.
>
> More than 49 families were evacuated to a nearby hotel and a local
elementary school was
> closed for the week. Pink ``cleared'' signs were hung on doors, garages
and metal gates of
> empty homes.
>
> Another 50 families were told to be ready to leave if anything was found.
>
> ``It's scary,'' said Paul Chu, who has lived in the area since the houses
were built 15 years ago.
>
> Outside of Secore's house, she and two friends discussed the media and
police spectacle
> unfolding across the street.
>
> ``The news helicopters started at 5:30 this morning, and the `beep-beep'
of the (police
> emergency) trucks backing up went on all night. This morning, some guy
shoved a microphone
> in my face,'' Secore said. ``It's like we've been invaded.''
>
> All three said the case was a lesson about morals and neighbors.
>
> ``Try to have some morals. Stand up and be accountable for your actions,''
Secore said. ``It
> also goes to show, how well do you really know who's in your neighborhood?
I'm going to
> make more of an effort to know who's here.''
>
> Down the street, Martha Biemann sat in her car with three of her children.
>
> She said she's been honest with her children about what's happening -
about the attempted
> murder, the suicide and why the FBI is in their neighborhood.
>
> ``I can't hide it from them, even though I really want to,'' she said.
``They've heard on the news
> and from their friends, and now they are seeing it. My son is going across
the street to play
> basketball on his best friend's driveway and they've been evacuated ... I
tell them this is not
> normal.''
>Doctor at center of murder
> plot reportedly connected
> to weapons programs
>
> By CHELSEA J. CARTER
> Associated Press Writer
>
> IRVINE, Calif. (AP) -- A biomedical
> researcher who committed suicide after his
> partner was targeted by a gunman has left
> behind a cache of military-grade weapons
> hidden at his home and a secret past that
> reportedly included ties to military
> intelligence.
>
> Investigators removed six canisters
> containing military explosives Friday from
> the yard of Dr. Larry C. Ford, said Lt. Sam
> Allevato of the Irvine Police Department.
>
> Police and FBI agents also found 21
> canisters under a false floor in Ford's home,
> Allevato said. The containers in the house
> were filled with thousands of rounds of
> ammunition, including belted machine gun
> rounds.
>
> The six containers holding explosives were
> found buried in Ford's yard. When they
> were dug up Friday their contents were
> found to include C-4 plastic explosives,
> which Allevato described as "military-grade
> high explosives." Forty-nine homes and a
> school near Ford's home were evacuated
> before digging started.
>
> Ford's lawyer, Bryan Card, said Friday night
> he had been told by police they believe the
> doctor may have had enough bacteria at his
> disposal "to wipe out a country." He declined to
elaborate.
>
> The canisters and chemicals found last week at Ford's
home
> will be sent to the FBI's crime lab in Quantico, Va.,
for
> analysis.
>
> Investigators believe Ford held answers to a murder
> conspiracy plot for financial gain that unfolded two
weeks ago
> when a masked gunman shot and wounded Ford's partner,
> Biofem Pharmaceutical Inc. chief James Patrick Riley.
>
> Almost immediately, police focused on Ford. The two
men
> were trying to market a vaginal suppository to combat
AIDS
> transmission and believed the product would make
millions of
> dollars.
>
> But before police could question Ford, 49, he
committed
> suicide. He was buried Friday in his native Utah.
>
> Ford once worked for the federal government on
chemical
> weapons and served as a consultant to the South
African
> Defense Force, providing advice on protecting
military
> personnel against biological attacks, the Los Angeles
Times
> reported Friday.
>
> Ford worked for the Central Intelligence Agency for
20 years,
> Card said police told him, adding that not even
Ford's wife
> knew much about that.
>
> William Bollard, an attorney for Ford's family, said
that the
> doctor's wife, Diane, was shocked when she heard
about the
> CIA connection.
>
> As an infectious disease specialist on the cutting
edge of
> bacteria studies, Ford could have provided expertise
in the
> area of biological warfare, Card said.
>
> "The Irvine police made a comment to me that they
were told
> that he could have enough bacteria at his disposal --
and this
> was a quote -- to wipe out a country," Card said.
>
> The attorney added that Ford was compassionate,
> peace-loving and brilliant.
>
> "If anyone were to have in their possession something
that
> was very bad like the quote I just said, I would
personally
> want Larry Ford to have it," he said.
>
> Although the extent of Ford's involvement with the
South
> African military is unclear, Dr. Otto Muller, a
medical
> researcher, told the Times that Ford confided to him
that he
> was involved in military-led programs to develop
biological
> weapons.
>
> Dr. Neil Knobel told the newspaper Ford worked with
the
> military during the Persian Gulf War, giving advice
on
> chemical-warfare protection. Knobel also told the
Times that
> Ford was not involved in the development of
biological
> weapons.
>
> Card said Ford left a suicide note saying he was set
up in the
> ambush of his partner Riley.
>
> "He asked us to prove it," Card said. "If police
appropriately
> conduct their investigation, ultimately he will be
vindicated."
>
> Police have since arrested Ford's longtime friend,
Dino
> D'Saachs, 56, of Altadena, as the getaway driver in
the
> botched hit. They are still searching for the
shooter.
>
> Riley, who is in seclusion, issued a statement saying
Biofem
> had no involvement with toxic or hazardous chemicals.
>
> "I want to assure everyone that the work at Biofem
does not,
> nor has it ever in the past, involved the use of
toxic chemicals,"
> the statement said. "Additionally, there are no toxic
> substances of any type involved in the creation or
testing of
> our products."
>
> More than 200 Irvine residents were evacuated because
of
> concern over the canisters buried on Ford's property.
The
> residents may allowed back to their homes sometime
today,
> police said.
Bruce
you want to sell then list your "advantages". If you are adamant that
non-HOA is more desirable then list it as such, you don't say painting
for sale, you say Monet for sale. I just got done perusing the Sunday
Times and no such copy for non-HOA vs HOA. Obviously the public doesn't
seem to consider it important.
ROSS
Irvinites, Behind the Orange Curtain.....Hey I thought HOA's were supposed to
keep out the Riff Raff...Who said that??? Actually, I have heard a rumour that
Irvine is a great place to raise kids. Until the schools run out of money....
Fact of the matter is - HOA's do nothing to guarantee less crime. In fact,
crime is only elevated to a higher level as in "white collar crime". Wouldn't
people with more money simply have the ways and means to commit more
sophisticated crimes?
ROSS
Bruce wrote:
> You twist everything. No one is obligated, it just makes sense that if
> you want to sell then list your "advantages". If you are adamant that
> non-HOA is more desirable then list it as such, you don't say painting
> for sale, you say Monet for sale. I just got done perusing the Sunday
> Times and no such copy for non-HOA vs HOA. Obviously the public doesn't
> seem to consider it important.
That is because the public really doesn't realize what they are getting into until
it is too late. That is because the vendors are so busy selling the 'amenities'
before they sell the 'bill of goods' - CCR's, ByLaws, Corporate, Civil Code,
Minutes of Meetings, Financials and Member Obligations.
The only thing we got was the CCR's and Bylaws. They were outdated and revisions
were missing. I would consider our 'contract' with the HOA null and void because
we didn't even get the whole contract. Furthermore, many BOD's don't even know
what the CCR's say let alone the Civil and Corporate codes.
Nothing can prepare members for the fact that they might be at the mercy of a
volunteer board of directors with little or no training in handling the corporate
formalities and with no recourse but to resort to the courts to rectify a
problem. HOA members spend their money to pay the HOA dues that might defend
even a rogue board of directors against the homeowner.
Bruce
RJ
You DO have a different point of view and as usual it's wrong! Of coure,
I disagree that one can't be wrong. You've been wrong in several
discussions about CID's and I'm sure I've been wrong, too.
You're problem is; you're unwilling to admit when you're wrong. So,
being right is your belief. No problem! Just remember, when you're wrong
you'll be told you are. Whether you recognize that fact or not is your
problem.
You should know; not only are FL CID's different! So are, CID's in CA,
NV, GA, MD, TX, CO, AZ, WA, NY, DE, etc.,
Besides, you'd have never had any knowledge of FL CID's if you didn't
read about it in this newsgroup or would you?
So, divorcing one from the other as you've advocated is, again, a point
of view that is wrong. We need to discuss the CID concept as it applies
wherever it exists in the hope that folks like you would realize you're
wrong when you generalize about CID's.
Once you're specific and gain consensus you might consider moving along
and creating a Newsgroups dedicated to CID's in your state. This might
be the best suggestion you've had for a long time.
As each of you (believing CID's are the best thing since sliced bread)
peel off to espouse your views about the merits in your own Newsgroup,
those of us remaining can continue to educate prospective purchasers
concerning full disclosure prior to contract for sale.
So, if you haven't any problems and have nothing to add to the
discussion, I agree, your right...create your own Newsgroup. I'll bet
you'll never read a (wrong) different point of view....YEAH RITE!
The best to you and yours,
NOT ONLY IN FLORIDA!
Bob,
Ocala, FL
Bruce
"fix" a voluntary system. To inject yourself into a group and then come
off as the champion of the oppressed (ignorant) is laughable at best. I
worry about short sighted people demanding that laws be enacted that
will limit my freedom to make a private agreement, i.e. "I didn't read
it so it is not binding" BS.
Bob, you don't want the truth, you can't handle the truth. What sets you
up as Mr. Omnipotent, the oracle, the be all to end all to say anyone is
wrong.
No matter what goes on in a HOA, someone's ox is going to get gored and
they will undoubtedly stand up, resort to name calling and finish with
the guarantee that the whole HOA will get sued to the ends of the earth.
Gbrce
>I am not particularly fond of CIDs. My bitch is interlopers that want to
>"fix" a voluntary system. To inject yourself into a group and then come
>off as the champion of the oppressed (ignorant) is laughable at best. I
>worry about short sighted people demanding that laws be enacted that
>will limit my freedom to make a private agreement, i.e. "I didn't read
>it so it is not binding" BS.
My God! A comment from Bruce that is intelligent enough to warrant a reply!
Perhaps I'm dreaming.
Your comment WOULD be valid if people knew what they are getting into, but they
don't and in many cases the truth is deliberately withheld from them. Isn't
this the whole point of Kathy's campaign: disclosure of the facts and education
of the consumer?
As to people's reactions being laughable, well, perhaps human nature is
laughable. When people unpack a computer (especially us self-styled computer
literates), how many of us read the instructions?
Indeed, Bruce, are you sure you ALWAYS open and read that envelope that says
IMPORTANT: READ THIS FIRST?
A system which works would be one that accommodates human nature instead of
exploiting it.
Gerry
Kathy
Bruce wrote in message <38CD9D47...@home.com>...
>I am not particularly fond of CIDs. My bitch is interlopers that want to
>"fix" a voluntary system.
Are people getting harmed by HOAs? Are HOAs getting harmed by people? As
you said before, if HOAs were filled with all the good guys this NG wouldn't
be necessary, yet - here we are! Do you think things CIDs have any faults or
drawbacks or RISKS? DO they work well, are we "safer" because HOAs are
protecting us? What drawbacks would make you say that you are not
particlarly fond of them ... are they "broken" and in need of "fixing"?
When a consumer's choice to purchase any HOA unit is made before a home is
decided upon the argument that CIDs are "volunary" will have some merit.
Until the categories are separated and homeseekers make a clear choice
without the pressure of a closing date there is no way to prove that HOAs
are a voluntary choice ... the complicated obligations of membership are
currently assumed by default by homeseekers - not all HOA unit purchasers
are HOA lifestyle seekers.
The choice to purchase in an association is not appropriate for all
homeseekers, it is only appropriate for those who voluntarily agree to
obtain the obligations of self-govenrment and risk their assets based on the
decisions of those acting on behalf of their associations. Those who
purchase with their eyes wide open will not remain apathetic while their
funds are mismanaged or a neighbor is wronged, such negligence is foolish
and dangerous and can result in financial ruin of an owners investment and
stress on the lives of a family. - IF IN FACT current owners "volunarily"
agreed to assume these risks how can you explain the fact that most didn't
read the disclosures and don't understand their documents and don't
particiapte in the process of governing their associations?
Most just don't understand the nature of the HOA lifestyle, and many are
unhappy with their experiences with HOAs and would not choose to purchase in
one again - they may love the house but hate the HOA lifestyle.
When the category is separate the choice will be CLEAR, and the consumers
can "volunteer" to volunteer, if that is their voluntary choice.
Kathy
Gbrce wrote in message <20000314012512...@ng-fq1.aol.com>...
>
>Your comment WOULD be valid if people knew what they are getting into, but
they
>don't and in many cases the truth is deliberately withheld from them. Isn't
>this the whole point of Kathy's campaign: disclosure of the facts and
education
>of the consumer?
>
That is exactly right Gerry, and it doesn't take a great deal of research to
find that most consumers have little or no understanding of CIDs - even
those who own them! Most consumers don't seek out the info contained in the
current disclosure doc's because they are only interested in the residence.
All too often they are unpleasantly surprised. No one deserves to be
surprised about the most expensive purchase usually made. ALL eyes should
be wide open and the choice should be clear - it isn't that way YET ... !!
Inasmuch as CFHC's site is not yet ready we have been donated space by The
American Homeowners Resource Center http://www.ahrc.com/ click on Public
Interest - we are in AHRC's Database right now. We can be reached directly
via:
http://www.ahrc.com/HOAorg/HOAdata/CFHC.html
We are preparing a presentation to upload. Check the link
www.consumersforhousingchoice again, soon!
Kathy Jonhnson from the First Town in the First State; and founder, CFHC.
"If you always think the way you thought you will always get what you got."
(author unknown)
Bruce
in value, what possible relief could a court or piece of legislation
give you? Consumers that buy into the CID concept unaware of its
workings are not harmed. Annoyed maybe, but suffer no financial loss.
Kathy wrote:
>
> Bruce wrote in message <38CD9D47...@home.com>...
> >I am not particularly fond of CIDs. My bitch is interlopers that want to
> >"fix" a voluntary system.
>
Kathy
Bruce wrote in message <38D2675A...@home.com>...
>You are tilting at windmills. If you invest in something and it goes up
>in value, what possible relief could a court or piece of legislation
>give you? Consumers that buy into the CID concept unaware of its
>workings are not harmed. Annoyed maybe, but suffer no financial loss.
>
FALSE. Owners who are unaware of the workings of their associations can
suffer financial loss - and many are most certainly harmed! You apparently
subscribe to the "what they don't know can't harm them" theory,
Who PAYS for all "its workings", the consumer - you and I, do Bruce. HOAs
require money.
Advocating separate categories is simply to allow the consumer to easily
choose whether he wants to purchase the HOA concept or not. Consumer
chooses, then negotiates a price - market value. Capital gains on the unit
have nothing to do with separate categories.
As I said, no court remedy, no lobbying for big legislation - simply
separate categories as a means to raise consumer awareness - each of us can
make up our own mind, and choose before we commit on paper to buy the HOA
lifestyle.
But since many purchasers are still "unaware of the workings of the CID
concept" we cannot be considered as having had the best consumer protection
the law can provide. HOAs are widely misunderstood, and the consumers are
being harmed as a result.
Some think all it means is that you pay an assessment, gee what a
ROSS
> Bruce wrote in message <38D2675A...@home.com>...
> >You are tilting at windmills. If you invest in something and it goes up
> >in value, what possible relief could a court or piece of legislation
> >give you? Consumers that buy into the CID concept unaware of its
> >workings are not harmed. Annoyed maybe, but suffer no financial loss.
Bruce,
Just today I met with an 80 year old gentleman who lives in an association. He
is paying about 3885.00 per year in dues. He moved in thinking that the
'maintenance' dues would maintain his property. As he is getting on in years,
he does not want to have to do the work himself. He can't get any maintenance
done. A rusted fence post, burnt out light bulbs in the common areas, a
rotting patio cover, lifting sidewalks from the trees and on and on. I took a
look at the reserve analysis. For such a huge multi million dollar corporation
- they may as well be bankrupt! Several thousand dollars in reserves? They
just had a large special assessment to bring up the reserves. Still not
enough. In the meantime, common areas need work and are not being maintained.
Who's responsibility is it? The untrained BOD with little or no skills in
handling such corporate formalities? The management company who's only interest
is to get their management fees from month to month? MAYBE even skimming a
little cream off the top of every job? Maintenance people who are doing the
bare minimum in quality work because noone is really watching? It's not like a
homeowner who might be close at hand and able to keep an eye on the work being
done.
Not too long ago we had new sidewalks put in. Already, huge chunks of concrete
are crumbling out. We also had new asphalt put in and it had to be redone
shortly thereafter. A pool was replastered a few years ago and already, huge
holes in it with sharp edges are cutting children's feet. A recent tree
trimming looks like they did nothing more than shake off the leaves. A recent
wrought iron fence painting just painted over the old rusty areas and flaking
paint - how long will it last? and on and on and on.
If this isn't a looming financial risk and potential huge loss in value of the
property - then I will be elected the next BOD president......
Bruce
out dogma. If there are no damages there is no harm.
Kathy wrote:
>
> Bruce wrote in message <38D2675A...@home.com>...
> >You are tilting at windmills. If you invest in something and it goes up
> >in value, what possible relief could a court or piece of legislation
> >give you? Consumers that buy into the CID concept unaware of its
> >workings are not harmed. Annoyed maybe, but suffer no financial loss.
> >
>