Utopia
Frank R Short
HOA's should be stripped of any "quasi-judicial" power. To the extent that
an HOA seeks to enforce its rights under the CCR's against a Homeowner, the
HOA should be required to seek relief in a court of competent jurisdiction.
That's the only way to insure "due process" for the Homeowner.
By forcing HOA's to use real courts, the burden of proof in a hearing will
be placed where it SHOULD be placed: on the HOA.
When HOA's are permitted to establish "Kangaroo Courts," the burden--as a
practical matter--shifts to the Homeowner. This, in turn, affects the
scope of what the "court" is trying to determine. Instead of asking whether
the HOA's Board of Director's had authority to enact the rule that the
Homeowner is accused of violating, and whether that rule is uniformly
enforced, the Kangaroo Court gets to "assume" that the HOA is within its
rights, and the issue now becomes "how much remorse does the homeowner
show," and "how large a "fine" should be imposed.
Imagine for a moment that the members of a HOA's handpicked "Kangaroo Court"
showed up in a REAL court for adjudication of the same "offense" against the
HOA. This time, though, the members of the Kangaroo Court are prospective
jurors in a case. How long do you think they'd stay in the jury pool?
Jack Tavolario
Bruce,
It isn't the rules that suck. Its those who profess to be the "keepers"
of those rules and set themselves up as the ultimate authorities while
never understanding the scope of the responsibility of what they signed
on for.
I haven't seen anyone "bitching" about reasonable rules that were
enforced equitably. What seems to be more on point is, "bitching" about
authorities who only see things through their own eyes and even do
things substancially against the very rules they beat everyone over the
head with.
I have seen many folks say the big problem is apathy. I agree apathy is
a problem but the reasons for it are many and varied. So I have tended
to lean toward ignorance as being the big problem with greed and apathy
running close behind.
Jack
Jan
Frank,
I agree with you that CID HOA BODs should be forced to use "real
courts" to prove their case against a homeowner, altho I'm very
skeptical
that any justice for the homeowner can be found there (for lots of diff
reasons)!
Re a CID HOA BOD "Kangaroo court" being picked to sit on a jury...
The "O.J." trial comes to mind. If the Kangaroo court BOD members
played their cards right during the selection process and trial ... and
if
there's a 'sympathetic' judge ... and if the power of money
(*homeowner's
money!) is on the side of the BOD (all of which happens in our courts
today), well, I guess we all have seen what can, and does, happen. :(
Perhaps there's no justice to be found for honest, law-abiding home-
owners (or any other average citizen) anymore?
Frank R Short
Jan:
No court system is perfect, as you aptly point out with reference to OJ.
However, the rules of "due process" mean something completely differerent
when you're in a REAL court than when you're in an HOA's Kangaroo Court.
That's one of the reasons the CAI lobby worked so hard to get HOA's the
authority to impose "fines" on Homeowners.
Another aspect of Kangaroo Courts is their secrecy. I know, from your
posts, that you understand the power of the press. That power can work very
well when coupled with an open hearing on a controversial issue. Press
noteriety about a draconian HOA can help "hit them in the pocket book" over
the long term by dissuading potential buyers. In this way, market forces
can be brought to bear to the benefit of consumers (Homeowners). Fred has
made this point very well, and I think he's right.
Finally, court rulings establish precedent. Too often these days, the
precedents are going the wrong way, as you note. But I'm more confident
that (especially in the short-term) judges, particularly at the appellate
level, will refuse to accept the CAI "party line" than that legislatures
will be able to resist CAI's legislative agenda.
CAI's party line would be seriously undermined by a line of decisions
against HOA's and protective of the rights of individual homeowners.
Moreover, the appeal of a Kangaroo Court system that allows HOA's to shift
the burden of proof, make a joke of due process, and allow a BOD to
intimidate Homeowners is exactly what they seem to want.
Frederick L. Pilot
>I have seen many folks say the big problem is apathy. I agree apathy is
>a problem but the reasons for it are many and varied. So I have tended
>to lean toward ignorance as being the big problem with greed and apathy
>running close behind.
I see the ignorance and apathy as manifestations of market rejection
of the CID concept. Consumers generally do not want CIDs; they only
want the housing situated within them. It's no wonder they are
ignorant and apathetic about CIDs; people don't invest time and energy
in something they do not accept or support.
Bruce Johnson
Frank R Short wrote:
>
> Jan:
>
> No court system is perfect, as you aptly point out with reference to OJ.
> However, the rules of "due process" mean something completely differerent
> That's one of the reasons the CAI lobby worked so hard to get HOA's the
> authority to impose "fines" on Homeowners.
>
> Another aspect of Kangaroo Courts is their secrecy.
Illegal in CA.
I know, from your
> posts, that you understand the power of the press. That power can work very
> well when coupled with an open hearing on a controversial issue. Press
> noteriety about a draconian HOA can help "hit them in the pocket book" over
> the long term by dissuading potential buyers. In this way, market forces
> can be brought to bear to the benefit of consumers (Homeowners). Fred has
> made this point very well, and I think he's right.
>
> Finally, court rulings establish precedent. Too often these days, the
> precedents are going the wrong way, as you note. But I'm more confident
> that (especially in the short-term) judges, particularly at the appellate
> level, will refuse to accept the CAI "party line" than that legislatures
> will be able to resist CAI's legislative agenda.
>
> CAI's party line would be seriously undermined by a line of decisions
> against HOA's and protective of the rights of individual homeowners.
The pendulum has swung the other way; note CA. supreme court boy scout
decision on "private org"
> Moreover, the appeal of a Kangaroo Court system that allows HOA's to shift
> the burden of proof, make a joke of due process, and allow a BOD to
> intimidate Homeowners is exactly what they seem to want.
Due process only applies to a state run tribunal, not to a private
decision making process like job promotion or the NBA Sprewell incident,
or contractual property owners resolving a dispute.
The courts love HOAs since the work load is more than marginally
reduced. The political ramifications of screwing a HOA (i.e. letting one
member collect from the whole) are severe. When one member wins in an
HOA, especially monetary awards, he essentially feeds on the others.
Like the first person at the door on a bank run, only he wins. Thus, the
apathetic group will resist and applaud the "rogues' loss.
CC&Rs have withstood these attacks for over 500 years, and I see no chin
ks in their armor.
Jan
Frank R Short wrote:
> Jan:
> No court system is perfect, as you aptly point out with reference to
> OJ.
> However, the rules of "due process" mean something completely
> differerent
> when you're in a REAL court than when you're in an HOA's Kangaroo
> Court.
> That's one of the reasons the CAI lobby worked so hard to get HOA's
> the
> authority to impose "fines" on Homeowners.
Understood. I just wonder how much *real* "due process"
we have left in this country. Did you read that DIRT case
summary about private property rights I emailed? Prime
example!!
> Another aspect of Kangaroo Courts is their secrecy. I know, from your
>
> posts, that you understand the power of the press. That power can
> work very
> well when coupled with an open hearing on a controversial issue.
> Press
> noteriety about a draconian HOA can help "hit them in the pocket book"
> over
> the long term by dissuading potential buyers. In this way, market
> forces
> can be brought to bear to the benefit of consumers (Homeowners). Fred
> has
> made this point very well, and I think he's right.
I do too. Right now, tho, I'm wondering how I 'tell it like it is' in
the
newspapers and still stay out of the clutch of a lebel suit. }:>
> Finally, court rulings establish precedent. Too often these days, the
>
> precedents are going the wrong way, as you note. But I'm more
> confident
> that (especially in the short-term) judges, particularly at the
> appellate
> level, will refuse to accept the CAI "party line" than that
> legislatures
> will be able to resist CAI's legislative agenda.
I have no faith whatsoever in legislative action. <sigh> Do we
have lots of case law (at the appellate level) confirming that home-
owners are winning cases against HOA BODs?
> CAI's party line would be seriously undermined by a line of decisions
> against HOA's and protective of the rights of individual homeowners.
Agreed, but is that happening?
> Moreover, the appeal of a Kangaroo Court system that allows HOA's to
> shift
> the burden of proof, make a joke of due process, and allow a BOD to
> intimidate Homeowners is exactly what they seem to want.
I agree! I also believe that the *CAI* wants it that
way, too!!
Jan
Jan
Bruce Johnson wrote:
> Frank R Short wrote:
> >
> > Jan:
> >
> > No court system is perfect, as you aptly point out with reference to
> OJ.
> We only showed the entire world that we stand behind our Constitution.
And exactly how did we do THAT????
> > However, the rules of "due process" mean something completely
> differerent
> > when you're in a REAL court than when you're in an HOA's Kangaroo
> Court.
> No different than a binding arbitration agreement.
When we talk about a "Kangaroo Court", we're talking about*corruption*
(on the part of the BOD), Bruce. Not honest and
fully informed people making honest and fully informed contracts.
> > That's one of the reasons the CAI lobby worked so hard to get HOA's
> the
> > authority to impose "fines" on Homeowners.
> >
> > Another aspect of Kangaroo Courts is their secrecy.
>
> Illegal in CA.
It's illegal *everywhere*, as far as I know, Bruce. That certainly
doesn't stop any HOA BOD from *doing* it, tho!
> > Finally, court rulings establish precedent. Too often these days,
> the
> > precedents are going the wrong way, as you note. But I'm more
> confident
> > that (especially in the short-term) judges, particularly at the
> appellate
> > level, will refuse to accept the CAI "party line" than that
> legislatures
> > will be able to resist CAI's legislative agenda.
> >
> > CAI's party line would be seriously undermined by a line of
> decisions
> > against HOA's and protective of the rights of individual homeowners.
>
> The pendulum has swung the other way; note CA. supreme court boy scout
>
> decision on "private org"
Understood, however, my understanding of corporate law, ie,
an HOA, is that when we buy into an HOA, we are legally bound
by the 'contract' known as CC&Rs. Many who buy into HOAs
don't have any idea what they're signing when they say "I do" to
all those HOA covenants and bylaws (which is no excuse, under
the law, it appears). Add to that the apparently widespread corrup-
tion of BODs, and the homeowner is in one big heap of trouble --
legally, socially, and financially. :(
> > Moreover, the appeal of a Kangaroo Court system that allows HOA's to
> shift
> > the burden of proof, make a joke of due process, and allow a BOD to
> > intimidate Homeowners is exactly what they seem to want.
> Due process only applies to a state run tribunal, not to a private
> decision making process like job promotion or the NBA Sprewell
> incident,
> or contractual property owners resolving a dispute.
That's my understanding, too (altho I've read some about "stateaction"
and that may turn out to be something in the homeowner's
favor, down the line).
> The courts love HOAs since the work load is more than
> marginally
> reduced.
Makes sense (for the courts) but doesn't help my feelings and
concerns about what appears to be the rapid disintegration of our
current system of 'justice'.. :(
> The political ramifications of screwing a HOA (i.e. letting one
> member collect from the whole) are severe. When one member wins in an
> HOA, especially monetary awards, he essentially feeds on the others.
> Like the first person at the door on a bank run, only he wins. Thus,
> the
> apathetic group will resist and applaud the "rogues' loss.
hmmm... Not sure what you're saying here. Are you sayingthat
apathetic homeowners will be *for* the one member who
"collects from the whole", or *against* him? I believe that
apathetic homeowners know "right" from "wrong", they just
don't *do* anything about it. Therefore, they would likely feel
some/a lot of guilt about not being on the "right" side and take
their 'punishment' (the loss of money) gracefully. OTOH, the
corrupt followers/supporters of a corrupt BOD *will* be very
angry that their corruption has not only been exposed, but
*punished* by the courts and in many cases retaliates against
the winning homeowner with a vengeance! That's why, even
tho a homeowner wins in court, they almost always move out
of the HOA afterward.
> CC&Rs have withstood these attacks for over 500 years, and I see no
> chin
> ks in their armor.
Five hundred years!!! CIDs and HOAs have been around
for FIVE HUNDRED YEARS??!!
Jan
Bruce
I can always count on you to use this argument but is of no moment. The
converse should be true also i.e. if they didn't know what they signed
then they should not be heard when I put a third story on my house and
block their view. However, these "emotional" buyers always seem to know
what they got coming "When do I get the key to the rec room" and sound
like scalded dogs when you pull a perk, but asked to live up to the
burdens imposed they all fall back on it, TFS
The proper analysis is externalization vs internalization of costs.
Are you sayingthat
> apathetic homeowners will be *for* the one member who
> "collects from the whole", or *against* him? I believe that
> apathetic homeowners know "right" from "wrong", they just
> don't *do* anything about it. Therefore, they would likely feel
> some/a lot of guilt about not being on the "right" side and take
> their 'punishment' (the loss of money) gracefully. OTOH, the
> corrupt followers/supporters of a corrupt BOD *will* be very
> angry that their corruption has not only been exposed, but
> *punished* by the courts and in many cases retaliates against
> the winning homeowner with a vengeance! That's why, even
> tho a homeowner wins in court, they almost always move out
> of the HOA afterward.
I don't know where you live but bad faith suits are a dream come true
with a BOD member having a million dollar policy in place
>
> > CC&Rs have withstood these attacks for over 500 years, and I see no
> > chin
> > ks in their armor.
>
> Five hundred years!!! CIDs and HOAs have been around
> for FIVE HUNDRED YEARS??!!
English common law, at least that is what they said in law school.
>
> Jan
Bruce
Jan wrote:
>
> Bruce Johnson wrote:
>
> > Frank R Short wrote:
> > >
> > > Jan:
> > >
> > > No court system is perfect, as you aptly point out with reference to
> > OJ.
>
> > We only showed the entire world that we stand behind our Constitution.
>
> And exactly how did we do THAT????
>
Wiwle68235
Bruce <bruc...@home.com> wrote:
>Jan wrote:
>> Understood, however, my understanding of corporate law, ie,
>> an HOA, is that when we buy into an HOA, we are legally bound
>> by the 'contract' known as CC&Rs. Many who buy into HOAs
>> don't have any idea what they're signing when they say "I do" to
>> all those HOA covenants and bylaws (which is no excuse, under
>> the law, it appears).
>
>I can always count on you to use this argument but is of no moment.
It may well be of "no moment" to YOU, but it
certainly appears to be *factual*.
> The
>converse should be true also i.e. if they didn't know what they signed
>then they should not be heard when I put a third story on my house and
>block their view.
I believe that most CID homebuyers do not realize how a CID HOA bastardizes
their idea of home ownership. Most homebuyers appear to be well aware of their
private property rights. That is, when it's *not* in a CID with it's attendant
HOA. And, it appears, that's all the homebuyer *wants* to know. The "common
areas" they're told about (IF they're told, or IF they get to read the CC&Rs)
are seen as potential perks that really don't have anything to do with them.
They are vaguely aware that they are paying something called "assessments" for
these perks but, as long as the cost of these "assessments" are more or less
within their budget, they just tack that cost onto their monthly mortgage
payment (in their heads) and forget about it.
In terms of their neighbor adding a 3rd story to their house and blocking
their view... Remember, these unaware CID homeowners still think of *their*
home as *their private property* with all that entails -- legally. And even
the most naive of them know (these days) that a next door neighbor can't do
certain things on their property that might interfere with your enjoyment of
your's. At least they *think* they know that. They don't realize that, in a
CID, they can sign away (and probably have already signed away!) one or more of
their Constitutional rights. And what's worse, they don't realize that if they
go to court about it, they will *lose*! <sigh>
>However, these "emotional" buyers always seem to know
>what they got coming "When do I get the key to the rec room" and sound
>like scalded dogs when you pull a perk, but asked to live up to the
>burdens imposed they all fall back on it, TFS
See above.
>> > The political ramifications of screwing a HOA (i.e. letting one
>> > member collect from the whole) are severe. When one member wins in an
>> > HOA, especially monetary awards, he essentially feeds on the others.
>> > Like the first person at the door on a bank run, only he wins. Thus,
>> > the
>> > apathetic group will resist and applaud the "rogues' loss.
>>
>> hmmm... Not sure what you're saying here.
>
>The proper analysis is externalization vs internalization of costs.
English please?
>> Are you sayingthat
>> apathetic homeowners will be *for* the one member who
>> "collects from the whole", or *against* him? I believe that
>> apathetic homeowners know "right" from "wrong", they just
>> don't *do* anything about it. Therefore, they would likely feel
>> some/a lot of guilt about not being on the "right" side and take
>> their 'punishment' (the loss of money) gracefully. OTOH, the
>> corrupt followers/supporters of a corrupt BOD *will* be very
>> angry that their corruption has not only been exposed, but
>> *punished* by the courts and in many cases retaliates against
>> the winning homeowner with a vengeance! That's why, even
>> tho a homeowner wins in court, they almost always move out
>> of the HOA afterward.
>
>I don't know where you live but bad faith suits are a dream come true
>with a BOD member having a million dollar policy in place
If the BOD has a million dollar policy in place,
then the association homeowners wouldn't be
biting the bullet and hating the one that caused
it.
>> > CC&Rs have withstood these attacks for over 500 years, and I see no
>> > chinks in their armor.
>>
>> Five hundred years!!! CIDs and HOAs have been around
>> for FIVE HUNDRED YEARS??!!
>
>English common law, at least that is what they said in law school.
Tell us more about this "English common law," and
how it worked ... 500 years ago.
Jan
Wiwle68235
That's not what I remember hearing at the termination of the O.J. criminal
trial. The entire civi.ized world seemed to agree that O.J. was guilty as
hell. They also saw the verdict of the jury for exactly what it was -- racist.
This country's justice system was then, and continues to be, the laughing
stock of the world -- along with it's current political leaders. The rest of
the world apparently already knows what we have yet to admit to ourselves --
our political and judicial systems seem to be corrupt to the core, and the
American people appear to be too lazy/apathetic to do a damned thing about it.
<sigh>
Jan
Bruce
> their view... Remember, these unaware CID homeowners still think of *their*
> home as *their private property* with all that entails -- legally. And even
> the most naive of them know (these days) that a next door neighbor can't do
> certain things on their property that might interfere with your enjoyment of
> your's. At least they *think* they know that. They don't realize that, in a
> CID, they can sign away (and probably have already signed away!) one or more of
> their Constitutional rights. And what's worse, they don't realize that if they
> go to court about it, they will *lose*! <sigh>
>
restrictive covenant there is no right to a view.
> >However, these "emotional" buyers always seem to know
> >what they got coming "When do I get the key to the rec room" and sound
> >like scalded dogs when you pull a perk, but asked to live up to the
> >burdens imposed they all fall back on it, TFS
>
> See above.
>
> >> > The political ramifications of screwing a HOA (i.e. letting one
> >> > member collect from the whole) are severe. When one member wins in an
> >> > HOA, especially monetary awards, he essentially feeds on the others.
> >> > Like the first person at the door on a bank run, only he wins. Thus,
> >> > the
> >> > apathetic group will resist and applaud the "rogues' loss.
> >>
> >> hmmm... Not sure what you're saying here.
> >
> >The proper analysis is externalization vs internalization of costs.
>
> English please?
>
> >> Are you sayingthat
> >> apathetic homeowners will be *for* the one member who
> >> "collects from the whole", or *against* him? I believe that
> >> apathetic homeowners know "right" from "wrong", they just
> >> don't *do* anything about it. Therefore, they would likely feel
> >> some/a lot of guilt about not being on the "right" side and take
> >> their 'punishment' (the loss of money) gracefully. OTOH, the
> >> corrupt followers/supporters of a corrupt BOD *will* be very
> >> angry that their corruption has not only been exposed, but
> >> *punished* by the courts and in many cases retaliates against
> >> the winning homeowner with a vengeance! That's why, even
> >> tho a homeowner wins in court, they almost always move out
> >> of the HOA afterward.
> >
> >I don't know where you live but bad faith suits are a dream come true
> >with a BOD member having a million dollar policy in place
>
> If the BOD has a million dollar policy in place,
> then the association homeowners wouldn't be
> biting the bullet and hating the one that caused
> it.
>
> >> > CC&Rs have withstood these attacks for over 500 years, and I see no
> >> > chinks in their armor.
> >>
> >> Five hundred years!!! CIDs and HOAs have been around
> >> for FIVE HUNDRED YEARS??!!
> >
> >English common law, at least that is what they said in law school.
>
> Tell us more about this "English common law," and
> how it worked ... 500 years ago.
It could say on the deed "the land is yours and your heirs as long as it
is farmed and if not then to B and his heirs" well that property could
be in your family for 200 years and the minute someone forgot to plant a
crop Bs heirs would own it, and you thought a CID was bad
>
> Jan
Jan, I am willing to make a bet, a small one that if oil were
discovered on your property that someone else besides you would reap the
profit, because most plots for houses exclude mineral rights. You buy
not the property but a bundle of rights that applies to the property.
Its just like buying cable T.V. the more you spend the more stuff you
get. A lease is considered an estate, that would be your basic cable,
and after that you can have a life estate,(you basically own it as long
as you are alive, but you can't pick the new owner).
This would be deluxe cable, finally there is a freehold estate, this is
your land subject to any covenants and easements, cable with premium
channels. If you really are interested, look for a bar exam prep course
and spend the money on a property outline. Look up and study a little
bit about recording statutes and then talk about not knowing what you
were signing, you would think that you were in North Korea and it is all
based on English common law
Frank R Short
Anybody out there learn THIS in law school: "Restictive covenants are not
favored by the law and will be narrowly construed." ????
RJ
OR This:
"The mere recording of governing documents is sufficient notice to
prospective purchasers."
NOT ONLY IN FLORIDA?
Bob,
Ocala, FL
Jan
Frank R Short wrote:
> Anybody out there learn THIS in law school: "Restictive covenants are
> not
> favored by the law and will be narrowly construed." ????
hmmmm.... In-ter-es-ting!! Where did you read *that*,
Frank? The CAI lawyers sure don't appear to know anything
about it!
Jan
Wiwle68235
Bruce <bruc...@home.com> wrote:
>Wiwle68235 wrote:
>> Bruce <bruc...@home.com> wrote:
>> >Jan wrote:
>> >
>> In terms of their neighbor adding a 3rd story to their house and blocking
>> their view... Remember, these unaware CID homeowners still think of
>*their*
>> home as *their private property* with all that entails -- legally. And
>even
>> the most naive of them know (these days) that a next door neighbor can't do
>> certain things on their property that might interfere with your enjoyment
>of
>> your's. At least they *think* they know that. They don't realize that, in
>a
>> CID, they can sign away (and probably have already signed away!) one or
>more of
>> their Constitutional rights. And what's worse, they don't realize that if
>they
>> go to court about it, they will *lose*! <sigh>
>>
>Bingo, the only place you have a right to a view is in a CID. Without a
>restrictive covenant there is no right to a view.
On the contrary, Bruce. Read what I said again, please. In a CID YOU CAN
SIGN AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO A VIEW. Not so in a non-CID. Here along the front
range in Colorado, it's especially true!
>> Tell us more about this "English common law," and
>> how it worked ... 500 years ago.
>It could say on the deed "the land is yours and your heirs as long as it
>is farmed and if not then to B and his heirs" well that property could
>be in your family for 200 years and the minute someone forgot to plant a
>crop Bs heirs would own it, and you thought a CID was bad
I wasn't asking what it "could" say on a deed, 500 years ago. I'm asking for
an example of what the deed's *did* say.
> Jan, I am willing to make a bet, a small one that if oil were
>discovered on your property that someone else besides you would reap the
>profit, because most plots for houses exclude mineral rights. You buy
>not the property but a bundle of rights that applies to the property.
>Its just like buying cable T.V. the more you spend the more stuff you
>get. A lease is considered an estate, that would be your basic cable,
>and after that you can have a life estate,(you basically own it as long
>as you are alive, but you can't pick the new owner).
>This would be deluxe cable, finally there is a freehold estate, this is
>your land subject to any covenants and easements, cable with premium
>channels. If you really are interested, look for a bar exam prep course
>and spend the money on a property outline. Look up and study a little
>bit about recording statutes and then talk about not knowing what you
>were signing, you would think that you were in North Korea and it is all
>based on English common law
Bruce, what you just said (directly above) is *exactly* why the average
homeowner has absolutely no idea what he's buying when he buys into a CID with
an HOA. <sigh>
Jan
Bruce
are buying into
Susan Brown
Bruce,
You wrote,
"Bingo, the only place you have a right to a view is in a CID. Without
a restrictive covenant there is no right to a view."
Here's our situation. Live in a CID without a convenant giving a right
to a water view to any of the unit owners. The reason the original
documents don't contain a view easement is because the Town' Site Plan
Approval did not allow cutting along the shoreland area. When the
association BOD took over from the developer, the BOD applied to the
Planning Board and got a variance to cut the the maximum aloud by DEP
law. Tis was for view enhancement. They carry ot this work with common
monies from the condo fees.
There are 8 different buildings going up the hill. The landscaping was
being cut to water view appropriate height below all of the buildings
except ours. We asked the BOD to vote on a motion to maitain water
views for all units. They voted it down as did the individual unit
owners whe we put it on the floor as a motion at the annual meeting.
There contention is that without a water view easement we have no right
to a water view bt rather the BOD has a right to maintain the
landscaping in a manor they see fit.
COMMENTS?
Susie
Bruce
What I meant, was that if you don't have a restrictive covenant giving
you a view (CC&Rs or their ilk), then you could buy the nicest property
in the world and if someone bought below you and wanted to put up a
building blocking your view and ruining the property value there is
nothing that you can do. Laguna Beach, CA. is the first city in the
country to fiddle with this kind of state interference and they more or
less backed away. What people do here is get copper arrows and shoot the
trees, never complain and never explain.
Wiwle68235
Bruce <bruc...@home.com> wrote:
<snip>
>What people do here is get copper arrows and shoot the
>trees, never complain and never explain.
Whaaaaatttt???!!! Do copper arrows kill the trees????
Jan
Wiwle68235
Hi Susie!
Welcome to the news group! We look forward to reading all of your real-life
HOA experiences! :>
Jan
--------------------------------------------------
Bruce
found copper nails and homade arrowheads made of copper. The paper said
that it combines with the sap to form cupric sulfide and eventually
poisons the tree. Same thing in Laguna Beach. Not sure if it works, but
it is uncanny how trees blocking views disappear.
Jan
Bruce wrote:
<heehee>
Where there's a will, there's a way. CID HOA BODs be damned! }:>
Jan
Bruce
Jan
unid...@mindspring.com wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 21:26:44 GMT, Bruce <bruc...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Jan wrote:
> >>
> >> Where there's a will, there's a way. CID HOA BODs be damned!
> }:>
> >>
> >> Jan
> >Why stop there, get a rifle and vote from the rooftops
Now why didn't *I* think of that! }:>
> The same techniques could be used to get rid of your neighbors
> annoying
> shrubs too! Why stop there go for broke and clear cut all of the
> landscaped
> areas of the CID too!
If the CID HOA is not abiding by the CC&Rs, state laws, or the
Constitution,
then perhaps we should take a page from our country's Declaration of
Independence
for an answer. It says (in part) ...
"Governments are instituted among men, DERIVING THEIR JUST POWERS
FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. That whenever ANY FORM
OF GOVERNMENT, laying its foundation on such principals and organizing
its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
safety and
happiness. Prudence, indeed will dictate that governments long
established should
not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
experience hath
shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
sufferable, than
to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed. But
when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same object
evinces a desgin to reduce them under absolute despotism, IT IS THEIR
RIGHT,
IT IS THEIR DUTY, TO THROW OFF SUCH GOVERNMENT, AND TO
PROVIDE NEW GUARDS FOR THEIR FUTURE SECURITY."
CID HOA BODs appear to have become just another form of (petty)
government.
A form that should be abolished because of their "long train of abuses
and usurpations,"
and their "absolute despotism". Therefore, according to our Declaration
of Independence,
it is not only my "right", but my "duty" to get rid of such petty
governments and replace
them with what our forefathers died for: "life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness."
Jan
Bruce
Jan wrote:
>
> unid...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 21:26:44 GMT, Bruce <bruc...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Jan wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Where there's a will, there's a way. CID HOA BODs be damned!
> > }:>
> > >>
> > >> Jan
>
> > >Why stop there, get a rifle and vote from the rooftops
>
> Now why didn't *I* think of that! }:>
>
Wiwle68235
>> > >Why stop there, get a rifle and vote from the rooftops
>>
>> Now why didn't *I* think of that! }:>
>>
>> There was a CID like that. it was in the news for years; it was called
>Bosnia.
And who but our powermongering, zipperless Prez got us into it! It appears
that he is pathologically driven by power and money, just like the CID HOA BOD
petty powermongers. :(
Jan
Bruce
Sorry if I caused any inconveinence. It might stem from the fact that I
changed my preferences to allow that "all quoted text starting with a
">" be in a different color, thus allowing me to differentiate with ease
what is new and what is old. I am new to this, and I never read my own
posts, but I will start. thank you
unid...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> Bruce please make an attempt to get your attributions right when you play
> with quoted text - if you are deleting something a previous poster included
> please have the courtesy to also delete the references to their comments in
> your cut of the post- also it would be better form if you didn't slip your
> meretricious comments into the article hidden behind the quoted text so
> that it looks like you were just forwarding an unedited copy of a previous
> article - unless you can compare the article that you are replying to with
> the one you post it is impossible to tell what you are adding to the
> discussion!
>
> On Sat, 25 Apr 1998 14:45:18 GMT, Bruce <bruc...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Jan wrote:
> >>
> >> unid...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 21:26:44 GMT, Bruce <bruc...@home.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Jan wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Where there's a will, there's a way. CID HOA BODs be damned!
> >> > }:>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Jan
> >>
> >> > >Why stop there, get a rifle and vote from the rooftops
> >>
> >> Now why didn't *I* think of that! }:>
> >>
> >> There was a CID like that. it was in the news for years; it was called Bosnia.
Jan
unid...@mindspring.com wrote:
> On 26 Apr 1998 04:48:21 GMT, wiwle...@aol.com (Wiwle68235) wrote:
>
> >Bruce <bruc...@home.com> wrote:
> >>Jan wrote:
> >> unid...@mindspring.com wrote:
> >>> > >Why stop there, get a rifle and vote from the rooftops
> >>>
> >>> Now why didn't *I* think of that! }:>
> >>>
> >>> There was a CID like that. it was in the news for years; it was
> called
> >>Bosnia.
> >
> > And who but our powermongering, zipperless Prez got us into it! It
> appears
> >that he is pathologically driven by power and money, just like the
> CID HOA BOD
> >petty powermongers. :(
> >
> >Jan
>
> Gosh, I've never know of George B. to have been referred to in this
> manner
> before?
<heehee>
Where ya been? We have what certainly appears to be a sociopath
sitting in the White House these days. }:> He claims to be doing
good deeds ("humanitarianism"), with U.S. troops, all over the world.
His next stop, I hear, is to head up the U.N. Then he can visit his
sociopathic thinking and behavior *on the whole world*! Hopefully, the
people of this country will wise up and involve themselves in a cultural
revolution before that ever happens.
Getting rid of socialistic, corrupt CID HOAs is just part of that
cultural change for the better. :>
Jan
Jan
No prob, Bruce. We're all learning new ways to do things all the
time. Only way we can know if it isn't working (for others) is for
them to tell us. :)
Jan
-----------------------------------------------
Bruce wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Apr 1998 14:45:18 GMT, Bruce <bruc...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Jan wrote:
> > >>
> > >> unid...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 21:26:44 GMT, Bruce <bruc...@home.com>
> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > >Jan wrote:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Where there's a will, there's a way. CID HOA BODs be
> damned!
> > >> > }:>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Jan
> > >>
> > >> > >Why stop there, get a rifle and vote from the rooftops
> > >>
> > >> Now why didn't *I* think of that! }:>
> > >>
> > >> There was a CID like that. it was in the news for years; it was
> called Bosnia.