Roses *banned* in our neighborhood!!!
Jolene K. Adams
Get the 3 local rose societies in your area involved also.
They can refute "spurious" landscaping views and provide
technical support for you in your fight.
Try to contact Mel Hulse and Tom Liggett, they'll have some
good advice for you!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jolene K. Adams Hayward, CA
jol...@cchem.berkeley.edu zone 9+
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sriram Sankar
Hi,
I live in the Ardenwood area of Fremont, California. About 5 months
ago, the Board of Directors of our homeowners' association made a
decision that rose bushes do not go with the general decor of our
development and other neighboring developments. They have also stated
that rose bushes do not look good throughout the year (like in winter
months) as part of their reasoning.
As a consequence to this, they have asked all homeowners with rose
bushes in their front yards to remove them. I have spent the past 5
months fighting this ruling and the issue has yet to be resolved.
(Well, obviously, I am a rose lover and I do have rose bushes in my
front yard.)
If one reads the rules of the homeowners' association carefully, it
seems the board does have the power to do what they have done. To
veto their ruling, we would require votes from 67% of the homeowners -
a nearly impossible task. So far (in 3 months) I have obtained about
signatures from 40% of the homeowners.
It seems like all of this started when a local landscaping company
informed the Board of Directors that roses are difficult to grow in
the Ardenwood area of Fremont since the soil is bad and since there is
a lot of wind.
I finally decided to post to this newsgroup. I'm looking for any
suggestions, whatsoever that will help me fight the Board on this
ruling.
Thanks,
Sriram.
SherLor95
you'd find some allies there.
Wish I could help, but I'm in the Chicago area. I can't believe that
anyone would ban roses. What fools!
Good luck with your fight!
Sheryl Willey
Sher...@aol.com
"The world is a wonderful place. Let's try to leave it a little better
than we found it."
Bethgj
would make your homeowner's association look as petty as they really are?
A few years back a neighborhood in a nearby town circulated a petition to
have a resident remove his Christmas lights. The only thing he had was 6
long strands of colored lights strung from a flag pole, which gave the
illusion of a tree. The neighborhood, being quite stuffy, all had single
white lights in the windows; no outdoor lights at all. I don't know the
outcome, but his neighbors sure looked pretty foolish to the rest of the
readership.
Perhaps you should go out an buy a really old, ugly, beatup RV and leave
it proudly parked in the driveway. Then the roses won't seem so bad!
Joe Seven
association?
Judy Pineda
surely has the largest selection of roses in the Bay Area. I was
there today in fact, and they have over one thousand varieties! Best
of luck to you in your battle. How amazing that the flower that is
good enough for kings and presidents is too unsightly in winter for
Fremont home owners.
Charles Bigelow
(Sriram Sankar) wrote:
> I live in the Ardenwood area of Fremont, California. About 5 months
> ago, the Board of Directors of our homeowners' association made a
> decision that rose bushes do not go with the general decor of our
> development and other neighboring developments.
>
> As a consequence to this, they have asked all homeowners with rose
> bushes in their front yards to remove them. I have spent the past 5
> months fighting this ruling and the issue has yet to be resolved.
> (Well, obviously, I am a rose lover and I do have rose bushes in my
> front yard.)
>
> It seems like all of this started when a local landscaping company
> informed the Board of Directors that roses are difficult to grow in
> the Ardenwood area of Fremont since the soil is bad and since there is
> a lot of wind.
Arbitrary and ill-considered decisions of the boards of homeowners
associations are frequently the subject news articles and even advice
columns; New York City and California seem to have the most such problems,
but perhaps I think that only because I read papers from those parts of
the country. Most articles point out that the boards usually have a lot of
arbitrary power, and that individual homeowners have difficulty fighting
the decisions.
That having been said, let me say also that Fremont is an odd place for
such a problem, because it is a good rose growing area and has one of the
largest rose nurseries in California or the west coast. You probably know
it:
Regan Nursery, 4268 Decoto Road, Fremont, CA 94555 (510) 797-3222
You might ask Regan's rose expert to support you by providing some
testimony as to how well roses do in Fremont, how many roses they sell,
and how happy their customers are with roses, how roses beautify a
landscape in the summer, and so on. They certainly wouldn't want this
anti-rose sentiment to spread across the state! Another place to look for
help is Sunset magazine, down in Menlo Park. They have very nice rose
gardens, climbing roses along fences, and so on, all in the tasteful
California style. Indeed, the Bay Area is full of beautiful rose gardens,
from the San Jose municipal garden to Filoli. As you know, in the Bay
Area, roses can bloom as late as Christmas, and can start reblooming as
early as late March, depending on the variety, when they were pruned, and
weather conditions. So, there are only three or at most four months when
the bushes will be bare in your area. That doesn't seem like a long time.
The rose is the U.S. National Flower, too, so it seems unpatriotic to ban
it from your community. Moreover, there are native california roses, Rosa
californica and Rosa woodsii, so the rose genus is not unknown to the Bay
Area. It is possible that with sufficient re-education, your association
board would relent, or, with sufficient lobbying, you could get the other
residents on your side.
I suppose that there could be objections to the spraying needed to keep
down fungus diseases and aphids on roses, but one could respond to that
objection by planting proven disease-resistant varieties and using organic
pest management, such as lady-bugs, or mild, botanically derived insect
fighting sprays, such as Neem spray, to reduce the aphid problem. I never
sprayed for aphids, and my 600 roses in Atherton were seldom troubled by
them after the first flush. In an unsprayed garden, the first "bloom" of
aphids attracts plenty of natural aphid predators, and the problem abates
within a month or so. It might be harder to avoid sprays if you are trying
to grow prize winning blooms for exhibition. (In mentioning this, I am not
trying to incite a "chemical vs. organic" battle, but simply speculating
on the kinds of objections one might encounter, and how one might
respond.)
Does the ban apply to the back yard as well? Maybe you could plant
something else in the front for your homeowner's board, like poison oak, a
vigorous native shrub that grows well in the soil of your area, is
perfectly adapted to the climate, was used by the native Californias for
useful crafts like basketmaking, never needs fertilizing or chemical
sprays (except in the opinion of philistines who spray it with Round-up or
other herbicides) and has beautiful glossy green foliage that turns
charmingly red in the fall season - it is of course extremely irritating
if you touch it, but it *looks* nice - and put your roses in the backyard.
Perhaps in the back you could plant not only rose bushes, but also some
vigorous ramblers like Rosa filipes 'Kiftsgate' which will climb up nearby
trees and smother your garage, but still technically be planted in the
back yard. Mermaid is another that will form an immense mounding hedge
some 10 or 12 feet high and easily as wide, and grow even higher up a
tree.
Also, you could try the climbing Rosa banksia, Lady Banks Rose, in your
front. It is evergreen, disease free, pest resistant, and has a beautiful
spring bloom. Many people plant it to climb over arbors. There are yellow
and white varieties. After the profuse one-time per year bloom, it is a
mass of rich, healthy, green foliage. It has no thorns, and the flowers do
not look like hybrid tea flowers, so your association will probably never
figure out that your beautiful vine is actually a rose. A Banks rose in
Arizona is believed to be the largest rose plant in the rose. It covers
almost an entire block.
Good luck.
Cathy E Beyer
: How amazing that the flower that is
: good enough for kings and presidents is too unsightly in winter for
: Fremont home owners.
And don't forget that the rose is our national flower, recognized by an
act of Congress. Wouldn't that make a great headline?
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION BANS NATIONAL FLOWER
Cathy in MA z/5
Sunspot422
this before. In some places you can get ticketed if your grass is longer
than an inch.
Shannon
believe this though. In my area, I was told that my trees were not
harmonious to the neighborhood!
Good luck!!
----------------------------
Shannon the Obsessive Gardener
Zone 4
Idaho
" ... Know the enduring happiness that the love of a garden gives." - G.
Jekyll
Patrick Dear
Did you sign some kind of contract when you bought your home?
Perhaps you'd better consult an attorney. I've heard of deed
restrictions, which we have in Houston because there is no zoning, but
you'd better check the local ordinances in your area. Call a local law
school and talk to someone familiar with property law to get you started.
Or, talk to a real estate agent familiar with your property area.
Run4DRoses
its hands. Hopefully, some of the wonderful suggestions offered on this
thread will be of help to you.
Hang tough!!
M. Counides
for my husband to park his new clean shiny grey undented truck in the
parking lot. Only cars were permitted and I noticed some real rusted out
old junkers on the premises.
I like the policy and practice where we live now. You can talk about your
neighbors for amusement but you pretty much let them do as they please
with what is theirs.
Naomi Counides
Associated Beefalo of Idaho
Alan Fraser
sher...@aol.com writes:
>I'd sure try posting your message to rec.gardens.roses as well. I'll bet
>you'd find some allies there.
>
>Wish I could help, but I'm in the Chicago area. I can't believe that
>anyone would ban roses. What fools!
>
>Good luck with your fight!
>
etc. Who knows, maybe one of them would pick it up. If you send it
enough places, someone will go with it.
Alan Fraser
E-mail: a_fr...@one.net
Home Page: http://w3.one.net/~a_fraser
Orchid Conservatory: http://w3.one.net/~a_fraser/orchids.html
ss...@netvoyage.net
which seems to have a few real estate lawyers willing to give free
advice on all kinds of questions.Also, I think banding up with your
fellow homeowners and getting a story on your plight in the local paper
might put some pressure on your Association Board.
Randy
>
>Hi,
>
>I live in the Ardenwood area of Fremont, California. About 5 months
>ago, the Board of Directors of our homeowners' association made a
>decision that rose bushes do not go with the general decor of our
>that rose bushes do not look good throughout the year (like in winter
>months) as part of their reasoning.
>
>bushes in their front yards to remove them.
Sriram,
Some how the phrase, "When rose bushes are outlawed, only outlaws will
have rose bushes" seems applicable.
No doubt there is a lawyer willing to help you on this obvious intrusion
on your personal life. If rose bushes were an objectional plant, would
all of the major botanical gardens of the world devote major portions of
their efforts toward the plant?
If the Berlin Wall fell, so can the iron rule of your neighborhood Board
of Directors. Fight on. This is insanity in its purist form. (Does the
local press know of your plight. This is the stuff movies of the week
are made of.)
Randy
John Woodworth
suggest working with the association rather than fighting it,
or worse, calling in outsiders (press and, ugh, lawyers).
People need to remember they live a community of people who
*choose* conformity. This is unfathomable to individualist
types, but the fact remains. Also, if is a signed agreement
with the association upon the purchase of the house, it may
have the legal right. Associations often have a lot of
authority, esppcially if the local city or township has given
it to them.
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of 3M.
Susan Murie
trip! Get a life....
What could add more timeless beauty and color and magic to a neighborhood
than roses?
I'm gonna plant more roses in my yard to balance this out. : )
Susan
--
You will do foolish things, but do them with enthusiasm.
Colette
Allyn Weaks
wrote:
> I'm alarmed at the combatative tone of the responses here. I
> suggest working with the association rather than fighting it,
> or worse, calling in outsiders (press and, ugh, lawyers).
The originial poster already tried working with them to no avail.
> People need to remember they live a community of people who
> *choose* conformity.
It's sometimes difficult to know that an association exists until long
after you move in and the membership changes and does something silly and
draconian. Or, as in this case, the original rules weren't so bad, but
suddenly became inexcusable. Associations should have at _least_ as many
checks and balances and obstacles in the way of creating new laws as the
government does, since they are trying to rule people's lives, but how
many do?
> This is unfathomable to individualist types, but the fact remains.
Which is the type of person who founded the country and wrote the
constitution....why just roll over and throw it all away to the control
freaks?
> Also, if is a signed agreement
> with the association upon the purchase of the house, it may
> have the legal right.
And quite possibly not. Association 'esthetic' rules have fallen in court
as being unconstitutional.
> Associations often have a lot of
> authority, esppcially if the local city or township has given
> it to them.
And if they're abusing that authority, it's time to take it away from
them, by court battles if necessary. Everyone I've personally known who
has been in favor of that kind of strict esthetic control has been using
it more as a class barrier than an esthetic tool. "We only want people
exactly like us; there is no room for personal preference that differs
from my social class, defined by having every single one of my values from
landscaping preferences to house color to economic, religious and racial
background. I don't want _my_ kids to grow up near anyone with a
different point of view." Tolerance isn't something that there is an
overabundance of in the world or in the US; do you really want to
encourange an atmospere that outlaws it?
--
Allyn Weaks
al...@u.washington.edu
PNW Native Wildlife Gardening: (under construction)
http://chemwww.chem.washington.edu/natives/
Frits v/d Laan
>(Sriram Sankar) wrote:
>
> I live in the Ardenwood area of Fremont, California. About 5 months
> ago, the Board of Directors of our homeowners' association made a
> decision that rose bushes do not go with the general decor of our
> development and other neighboring developments.
I have heard about intolerance in the US but I do hope this even to
American standards goes to far.
Succes!
Frits v/d Laan
Holland
Travis Saling
> >> ago, the Board of Directors of our homeowners' association made a
> >> decision that rose bushes do not go with the general decor of our
> >> development and other neighboring developments.
>
> these restrictions are dictatorial and totalitarian. They would never be
> tolerated in Britain (I hope). Good luck in fighting them!
Some people in America don't want neighbors leaving junk cars in their
driveway, or letting their grass get two feet high, or having the house next
door get shabby or fall apart. Others are so afraid that, in America, random
violence is out of control (if they'd just read the whole paper, instead of
only the front page or -worse- getting their news off TV, they'd know it's
not near as bad as one is led to believe*). So they move into these little
enclaves, and pass what initially seem to be sensible covenants against such
things. And they set up neighborhood councils to "protect" their values
(maybe just their property values). But Lord Acton was right, and these
penny-ante little dictators get carried away; for some reason people get
surprised.
I think, in addition to the current fight, it's worth contacting your
legislator and telling him/her that you want the legal right to know about
covenants before you buy a house (in many states, including ours, you DON'T
have that right). This may not work, as many of our legislators (of both
parties) live in gated, restrictive communities.
This doesn't help you now, but when buying a house in the future, ask
about covenants, and make disclosure of all covenants a written term of
your offer.
As I have done before: I apologize that this isn't gardening.
Trav
*We have a horrible crime rate in our country, but the vast majority of them
are not random, and do not go unsolved. But the capture of a killer, or
rapist, or whoever, is rarely a page 1 item like the crime was. I usually
find the "criminal caught" items in tiny stories in the middle of section B
or C of the paper; and they're almost never on the TV news. The especially
gruesome crimes are almost invariably done by a family member, but it takes
months or years for the police to build their case, and no one pays attention
then. They just remember the "random murder in that nice neighborhood in
Bellevue", or Sumner, or wherever, and worry that they're next.
Tristan Hatton-Ellis
>In article <4dojdm$e...@Radon.Stanford.EDU>, san...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
>(Sriram Sankar) wrote:
>
>> I live in the Ardenwood area of Fremont, California. About 5 months
>> ago, the Board of Directors of our homeowners' association made a
>> decision that rose bushes do not go with the general decor of our
>> development and other neighboring developments.
I find this incredible! America prides itself on being a free country, yet
these restrictions are dictatorial and totalitarian. They would never be
tolerated in Britain (I hope). Good luck in fighting them!
Tristan
kdlfaber
>>ago, the Board of Directors of our homeowners' association made a
>>decision that rose bushes do not go with the general decor of our
>>that rose bushes do not look good throughout the year (like in winter
>>months) as part of their reasoning.
>>
>>As a consequence to this, they have asked all homeowners with rose
>>bushes in their front yards to remove them.
>
>Sriram,
>
>Some how the phrase, "When rose bushes are outlawed, only outlaws will
>have rose bushes" seems applicable.
>
>No doubt there is a lawyer willing to help you on this obvious intrusion
>on your personal life. If rose bushes were an objectional plant, would
>all of the major botanical gardens of the world devote major portions of
>their efforts toward the plant?
>
>If the Berlin Wall fell, so can the iron rule of your neighborhood Board
>of Directors. Fight on. This is insanity in its purist form. (Does the
>local press know of your plight. This is the stuff movies of the week
>are made of.)
>
>Randy
>
Hi, I understand your plight of banning roses. We too had something like
that in our "CC&R's" when I lived in Fresno, CA to get around it we asked
permission ----yes permission to plant our "offending" plants roses etc.
in moveable containers terra cotta etc so as to enjoy the plants when
flowering, moving them out of sight to the back yard when not producing
ie. winter months. Hope this helps. Good Luck.
Now gardening in NM.
John Woodworth
al...@u.washington.edu (Allyn Weaks) wrote:
>The originial poster already tried working with them to no avail.
I have yet to see the original post, only pieces of it in the responses of
others.
>It's sometimes difficult to know that an association exists until long
>after you move in and the membership changes and does something silly and
>draconian. Or, as in this case, the original rules weren't so bad, but
>suddenly became inexcusable.
There is no excuse for not knowing if you belong to an association. The
paperwork is there at closing. In this case, I suspect your later point
is the case: a handful of individuals (or possibly one person as in the
case of our association) made a cavalier decision.
> Associations should have at _least_ as many
>checks and balances and obstacles in the way of creating new laws as the
>government does, since they are trying to rule people's lives, but how
>many do?
Almost all do. People who do not attend assocation meetings are the ones
caught off guard. Associations have bylaws and checks on arbitrary
decisions. Board members can be recalled or voted down.
>
>> This is unfathomable to individualist types, but the fact remains.
>
>Which is the type of person who founded the country and wrote the
>constitution....why just roll over and throw it all away to the control
>freaks?
You don't. You try to make amends. All I was suggesting was to approach
this in a rational way by NOT bringing in the press and attorneys. Emotions
escalate and people wind up being martyrs over silly things like rose
bushes. People may evoke the constitution and the founding fathers. They
may even be correct. They may even win. But they could split the community
they live in or isolate their themselves and their children. The best
solution is mediation and a sincere effort to listen to each other.
By the way, I always get a chuckle about the high and mighty founding
fathers and the "rights" they strove to protect. These guys were mostly
slave owners, the ultimate control freaks.
>And quite possibly not. Association 'esthetic' rules have fallen in court
>as being unconstitutional.
And many have stood under civil court.
>And if they're abusing that authority, it's time to take it away from
>them, by court battles if necessary. Everyone I've personally known who
>has been in favor of that kind of strict esthetic control has been using
>it more as a class barrier than an esthetic tool. "We only want people
>exactly like us; there is no room for personal preference that differs
>from my social class, defined by having every single one of my values from
>landscaping preferences to house color to economic, religious and racial
>background. I don't want _my_ kids to grow up near anyone with a
>different point of view." Tolerance isn't something that there is an
>overabundance of in the world or in the US; do you really want to
>encourange an atmospere that outlaws it?
Tolerance works both ways. Why should a community have to tolerate a slob?
A hobbiest who raises livestock, erects 75 ft radio antennae and whirlygigs
or repairs motorcylces in the driveway? Sometimes an individual is the
tyrant.
Associations are not bad. There is nothing wrong with wanting to live in a
nice place. People want to protect their property values as well. If
associations were so loathsome, why do they flourish in the US? The problem
is when one of these organizations is dominated by an clique or individual
who does not represent the community at large. This can be remedied.
--
John
"Stupidity is like nuclear power; it can be used for good or
evil."
"And you don't want to get any on you"
-- Wally and Dilbert
Mel Hulse
rkeley.edu> writes:
>
> Sriram -
>
> Get the 3 local rose societies in your area involved also.
> They can refute "spurious" landscaping views and provide
> technical support for you in your fight.
>
> Try to contact Mel Hulse and Tom Liggett, they'll have some
> good advice for you!
>
Thanks for the confidence Jolene!
Not sure I can do any better than others who have responded here. I will
certainly debunk any statement that roses can't grow in your area. Most any
soil will work if roses get water and fertilizer. There are roses that can
live under almost any conditions. The San Jose Heritage Rose Garden is off
the end of the San Jose International airport and gets plenty of wind, but
roses there are happy and in some cases are still blooming. As to
compatbility with the theme of the community, There are so many varieties
with so many different growth habits, colors, types of bloom, etc. that I
cant imagine a community that someone could live in that is out of step with
roses. Finally, I think the national flower argument is a good one.
If you can get your association to listen, I suspect I could get Tom Liggett
to speak to them about appropriate roses for your area. A note to Joan
Jackson, Garden editor of the SJ Mercury News might not be remisss, either!!!
Let me know if I can help more.
Good luck!
--
+---------------------------------+
| Have a great day! |
| MelH...@Netcom.com |
| Silicon Valley |
| Triple Teamer:Roses, TSE & OS/2 |
+---------------------------------+
Marilyn Berry
color curtains you put in your windows.
Carol Moholt
You said you believe your homeowners board does have the power to do what
they have done about the roses. I don't think so. What governs a
homeowners' group are the CC&R's. These are the primary binding rules for
an association and THOSE require a 67& majority vote to change. Read the
CC&R's carefully about landscaping (they usually cover primarily hardscape
and trees and often say that if other material is taken out it must be
replaced by something "similar" -- which can be interpreted many ways.)
For your group to make such a drastic change sounds like a CC&R change to
me, and not something a board could vote in on their own. Then, they would
have to be the group trying to get the 67% vote.
If you'd like to get more information on this, please send me an email and
I'll dig out some resource phone numbers for you. (I was on our
homeowners' board for a long time and involved in litgation against a
developer and learned more than I want about this area. I'm also on our
city's planning commission.)
I read most of the postings and think that contacting Joan Jackson of the
Mercury News is an excellent idea - I know she's a member of the Santa
Clara Valley Rose Society and a lover of roses. Tom Liggett toils hard (no
pun intended) to educate people about growing roses that are right for our
climate and I concur he's a good resource. And of course, having Regan's
Nursery a stone's throw away makes your situation more ironic.
Carol Moholt
moh...@gardens.com
Carol S. Brueggemeier
their hands. I'm pretty fortunate that my homeowners association is
pretty laid back. My monthly fees get me snow removal, which was quite
useful with the 33 inches we got 2 weeks ago, general lawn care, trees,
and lighting. For those who wonder why we move into neighborhoods with
associations, if you really want the house the association is a part of
the deal. You don't have a choice if you want the house. Anyway, Sriram
best of luck with your fight. I think there have been some great
suggestions posted.
*************************************************************************
* Carol S. Brueggemeier *
* brue...@umbc8.umbc.edu *
* University of Maryland Baltimore County *
* Albin O. Kuhn Library & Gallery *
*************************************************************************
Karen Palmer
can't grown in your own yard? Rusting cars are one thing, but beautiful
roses are another. I am angry and it's not even my yard!
Karen
Patricia Ryan
(Bruce M. Marshall) wrote:
> My suggestion is to ignore the homeowners association. They may choose
> not to inforce their decision.Someone in the neighborhood is probably
> the intended target of their decision. If your yard is well kept and
> otherwise attractive it may not become an issue. If it does become an
> issue insist that they are NOT roses. Drag it out as long as possible
> and they may get tired of you.
> --
> Bruce M. Marshall bm...@freenet.fsu.edu voice 423 481 0990 fax 423 481 8039
About six months ago in San Jose, CA, someone published a list of homes in
a neighborhood that he considered 'eyesores' - it seems he had been on
such a list before and had an axe to grind. One of the homes was
inhabited by a woman who had only moved into the house to care for her
elderly, ill parents until they died, which they recently had. Of course,
caring for the house was the last thing she had time and thought for.
This was picked up by some local radio stations who *really* made a big,
embarrassing thing about it. One of them even made up a work party of
listeners who came out and, using donated materials, repaired and improved
the property. So getting community involvement can be a powerful thing.
But there is also a housing development in San Leandro, CA with a
homeowner's covenant that has to be signed and agreed to that severely
restricts the colors of paint that can be used. I remember reading that
someone reversed the order of paint - using the main color for trim and
vice versa or something - and they were ordered to repaint or be sued.
(Don't know the outcome of this).
Anyway, my main questions was whether *all* roses were banned, or just
from the front yard - not that it makes that much difference when you have
to dig up established plants. And the fact that the decision was made
*after* the signing of the contract - just exactly what did the contract
say that allows this kind of late development? It's one thing to sign a
contract after reading and agreeing to it; but where does it say that
contracts can change *after* signing?
Marilyn Berry
SusanKFord
believe this though. In my area, I was told that my trees were not
harmonious to the neighborhood!
Good luck!! <<<<
Your TREES were not harmonious. What did you do? I hope you left them
exactly where they were...
I would immediately go into bioligical warefare mode, and plant some
blooming trees and shrubs.. all of which clashed with the house and each
other... it can be done! :) Then there is always the plastic
flamingoes... :)
One thing we looked for when we bought this house was that there NOT BE
any neighborhood association. I left town in order to be further removed
from neighbors... !!!
Unsociably,
Susan Ford
Norman, Oklahoma
USDA Zone 7a
Bryce Grevemeyer
Everyone has a different idea of beauty.
Some folks like to have everything the same. They want
everybody=92s house painted the same color, they want
everybody=92s landscape to look the same. The same kind of
hedges, cut the same height. To them beauty is in
uniformity.
Some folks like to have a subdivision, where no one
parks junk cars in their back (or front) lawn.
Some folks would prefer not to have a neighbor who
raises hogs.
Other folks want the freedom to park and repair
whatever they want, where ever they want.
Others want to be able to raise livestock around
their house.
Cities have zoning laws. They very from city to
city. There is little difference between a City
government passing a zoning ordnance, and a
homeowners association handing down one of their
rulings. They are both written by elected
officials. The people in that area have agreed
(one way or another) to be governed by these
officials. Surely the people who are denied
the right to raise their livestock in their
postage stamp sized yard, or build a backyard
foundry, feel that their freedoms are being
impinged on.
My own feeling is that everyone is entitled to
live the way they want. This includes the folks
who want mind numbing regularity.
If you believe that the City government of Chicago
(or Detroit, or New York or ...) is corrupt (or
misguided or incompetent) don't buy a house there.
If there is a Homeowners association in an area
they you are looking at, it is YOUR responsibility
to check them out before you buy.
The homeowners association is an elected body.
They represent the will of your neighbors. If
more than half of the neighborhood objects to
their actions, then they will be voted out on
the next election.
If they are insane, then maybe the bulk of your
neighbors are also insane.
This from a person who does NOT have to deal with
a homeowners association.
Good luck
Bryce
--
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
| Bryce Grevemeyer | Phone: (313) 845-5589 |
| Ford ETC C370 | FAX: (313) 845 3799 |
| 17000 Rotunda Drive | EMail: BGRE...@etcv01.eld.ford.com |
| Dearborn, MI 48121-6010 | Internal Ford PROFS: IBMMAIL(I1483006) |
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Bruce M. Marshall
Jane Beckman
>
>> *choose* conformity.
Welcome to the wonderful modern world of trade-offs. I
remember one of my co-workers, who was on an association
board, talking about how there was this one person who needed
to be regulated, because "It's just one ugly flower after
another!" In planned communities, you don't really control
the ground around you, just the *interior* of your dwelling,
and that only within certain bounds. A lot of people like
this, because they don't have to deal with grounds
maintenance. If this is a "starter" home, you just put up
with the limitations. If not, this is the case for purchasing
an older, unplanned community, home, where you have control of
your yard and your house.
I lived in a mobile home park, at one point in my life. The
management was always complaining about my yard, because I had
herbs, flowers, and a magnificent climbing Sutters Gold that
took over most of my porch, and a Salet moss rose that was
planted square in front of the unit. "Why can't you put in tam
junipers and gravel like everyone else?" they groused. "Why
do you have to have all these ugly plants?" When I had the
audacity to grow a tomato plant, they hired a gardener to rip
it out and billed me, saying "We can't have this place looking
like Tobacco Road!" As an avid gardener, I swore I would
never live in a managed community again.
You might try having roses in pots. If it's not in the
ground, it might be more acceptable. You never know. Good
luck.
--
Jilara the Exile [ja...@swdc.stratus.com]
That's how freedom will end: not with a bang, but with a rustle of file
folders. If you love any of your rights, defend all of them!
-Joe Chew, on the net
Travis Saling
> There is no excuse for not knowing if you belong to an association. The
> paperwork is there at closing. In this case, I suspect your later point
> is the case: a handful of individuals (or possibly one person as in the
> case of our association) made a cavalier decision.
But you should have the right to know all these things, including what the
covenant restrictions are, BEFORE you get to closing, and have to forfeit
your earnest money. In our state, at least, this isn't the case.
> By the way, I always get a chuckle about the high and mighty founding
> fathers and the "rights" they strove to protect. These guys were mostly
> slave owners, the ultimate control freaks.
This is the weakest part of your argument. It's the same as saying the
Greeks didn't invent democracy, even though it was a very imperfect form
(applying to maybe 30000 people, and leaving out hundreds of thousands).
Great people try to reach beyond themselves, and strive for a greater
good. Do you abdicate your right to make rules for your children, if
you've even once not lived up to the standards you're trying to establish
for them? If you've ever lied, can you never tell someone it's wrong?
> Tolerance works both ways. Why should a community have to tolerate a slob?
> A hobbiest who raises livestock, erects 75 ft radio antennae and whirlygigs
> or repairs motorcylces in the driveway? Sometimes an individual is the
> tyrant.
>
> Associations are not bad. There is nothing wrong with wanting to live in a
> nice place. People want to protect their property values as well. If
> associations were so loathsome, why do they flourish in the US? The problem
> is when one of these organizations is dominated by an clique or individual
> who does not represent the community at large. This can be remedied.
I pretty much totally disagree with you, but I do respect your right to
hold that point of view.
I think forcing conformity would detract from the quality of my life. But
then, I have a ryegrass lawn (better environmentally and practically)
which would be outlawed by many homeowner associations. I like the fact
that my neighbor is a hobbyist who raises livestock (their cattle, which
we have bought in the past, isn't fed antibiotics daily like most
factory-farm beef you purchase at the grocery store). Another neighbor has
worked on his car in his driveway, as have I; neither of us leave them
standing for months up on blocks. I don't believe it's my business what
color my neighbors paint their houses, or what type of plants they put in
their front yards (many of them could be cited for boring landscaping, if
nothing else!). You would do better to find more extreme examples; I
doubt the majority of people would find anything you've listed to be an
example of "tyranny by an individual".
Travis
Ed Allan
Good luck to you!! Given that you obviously already HAVE roses growing, it
seems rather absurd for the neighborhood association to claim that they don't
grow well -- and at the encouragement of a landscape company which may
possibly have its own motivations. (Of course, absurdity and Californians in
positions of authority are by no means mutually exclusive.) I wonder whether
they would suggest that vines in the Napa Valley also be taken down in
winter because they don't look splendid (and I also wonder what the decor is
that roses don't enhance~~~).
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that: Given the number of signatures
that you already have, you probably have ample ammunition to suggest to the
governing board (a) that there are clearly more than enough people interested
for this to become a class action suit, (b) that it is not clear whether the
association would be, or should be, liable for the costs of a lawsuit, (c)
that at the least the association would be liable for the value of the roses,
and (d) that given the inherent nature of shrubs, you would probably have
little difficulty in getting an injunction barring the association from
having the roses taken out. (Although removal would not cause "permanent and
irreparable harm," in that they could be planted again, there is no harm in
leaving them in place pending trial, whereas should the roses come out and
you then win in court, the association -- of which you are a member -- would
presumably have to cough up to replace them.)
Good luck, again.
Ed Allan
Education Development Center 55 Chapel St. Newton Mass 02158
(617) 969-7100 Fax: (617) 332-6405 e-mail eda...@edc.org
(The opinions expressed here are my own -- but it looks like those of a lot
of other people on the group too.)
AtheneMM
willing to take the time to get involved, perhaps you could rally some of
your neighbors to attend the next board meeting with you and get behind
your pro rose stand. I imagine that the board is less likely to implement
such a meausre if a group of its homeowners put up a fuss.
Sounds a little like our own political system in microcosm. After all, it
is the squeaky wheel, etc. etc.
Athene
Michael Rosencrantz
: My suggestion is to ignore the homeowners association. They may choose
Better yet, send a short letter to the assn. stating that you are
pro-life, and as removing the bushes from your property would risk their
death, you are religiously opposed to their removal. If you want, you can
bring up the Constitutional rights of speech and religion in this
letter as well.
Cassi Ann Donahue
Ah, but there is the rub. "Rusting cars are one thing, but beautiful
roses are another." Beauty, in case you hadn't heard, is in the eye of
the beholder and as soon as you agree to live under some sort of
homeowners association rules in order to not have to look at rusty cars
or anything else that *you* might find offensive you open yourself up to
any bizarre twist that might be put on "harmonious" or "beautiful" or
"aestheticly pleasing" (or whatever the wording of the rules might be).
Now if this person can prove that the rules as written did not appear to
that mythical "reasonable man" to include roses they might have a good
shot at winning in court, but I think they'd have a better chance of
using the media to create peer pressure to get the association to back
off. Fighting fire with fire, if you will.
I am fairly horrified at the idea that there are no laws requiring full
and early disclosure of these sorts of rules (actually, I'm horrified by
the very exsitence of the rules, but that's my own little eccentricity).
Coming originally from the UK and living my adult life in New England, I
never would have thought to investigate the rules having never even
*heard* of such a thing before. I've delt with zoning laws and the
occasional home that was on a historic list, but nothing that wasn't on
file at my local library. Well, now I know the first question to ask
should I ever buy a new home.
Cassi
Amy Rupp
why not sic them and their lawyers on your homeowners association?
Banning a product which employs lots of local folks is invariably met
with great outcry, even when it's health-threatening (ie don't try to
ban smoking in North Carolina!)
--
Amy Moseley Rupp
am...@mpd.tandem.com
(512) 432-7144
Cassi Ann Donahue
>Homeowner associations have their place.
>Everyone has a different idea of beauty.
True and Bryce makes several good points about the way various cities,
towns or neighbourhoods are run, but I must disagree on at least
one point.
>If you believe that the City government of Chicago
>(or Detroit, or New York or ...) is corrupt (or
>misguided or incompetent) don't buy a house there.
If we all simply walk (or move) away each time we see corruption
or incompetence we're going to have big problems. If I move to
a town (in the US) that has unconstatutional laws I will not just
shrug and say, "oh well, I guess that's how the people here want
it." I will fight, in court if necessary, to change them.
Even elected bodies carrying out the wishes of the people should
not be allowed to *unduly* restrict freedoms. A backyard foundry
(Bryce's example from a deleted section) might be restricted on
grounds of public safety, hardly the same as restricting something
so as not to offend peoples aesthetic sensabilities.
>The homeowners association is an elected body.
>They represent the will of your neighbors. If
>more than half of the neighborhood objects to
>their actions, then they will be voted out on
>the next election.
But just because more than half of your neighbours agree
with something doesn't necessarily make it right. Many town
ordinances against things like wildflower lawns (far more
ecologically sound than manicured bluegrass) have been over-
turned by the courts in the US. Hell, many state and federal
laws have been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court,
the fact that the people's duly elected officials voted for
those laws not withstanding.
Cassi
Katherine Yngve
iversity, Evanston, IL. USA
kyn...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Mack Stephenson
>aa10...@dasher.csd.sc.edu (Karen Palmer) writes:
>
>>That is horrible. What right do they have to tell you what you can or
>>can't grown in your own yard? Rusting cars are one thing, but beautiful
>>roses are another.
In Albuquerque this past week a guy has made the news with his
petition that would give a homeowner the legal right to change the
antifreeze in his car in his driveway, or install a car stereo,
or fix a flat tire, or ANYthing else that has to do with fixing,
modifying, working on, etc., a motor vehicle. As unbelievable as
this may sound, it is nonetheless true. A law was enacted 40
or so years ago that disallows any of this associated activity.
Their intent was probably noble and obvious (junk cars piling up,
etc.), but the fact remains that tens of thousands of lawbreakers
are loose on the streets of ABQ. I saw 'em on TV. BUD owners
(that's big ugly dish) have long been fighting this battle, people
ruling on them all over the country, and I know for sure they have
won some hard battles. And lost some. For instance, my wife
thinks they're ugly. I don't, I think they're beautiful. I had
to move mine. That sort of thing, only a larger scale. You just
might stir this pot in that newsgroup (there are several, actually),
or even check out the Ultimate Satellite TV Home Page
(it's not called this, just do a search from Netscape, etc., and
you will very quickly find the one I'm talking about).
Maybe you can find something of help there. There's
probably even a FAQ, I wouldn't doubt it. I've heard horror
stories, I used to keep up with them. You know, a contract is a
contract, but there is such a thing as Truth, Justice, and the
American Way.
lms
Jill Morgan
at closing. This is not necessarily true. We have a homeowner's association for
our subdivision and we knew that it existed when we closed on our house, the
dues showed up on the closing statements. But we still don't have a list of the
restrictions a year and a half later. I've been to several meetings and have
been promised a copy of it several times to no avail. Luckily there have been
no problems and our neighborhood seems to be made up of very reasonable people!
--
Jill Morgan
Jeffrey K. Bounds
In article <4dtqoc$i...@dawn.mmm.com> jrwoo...@mmm.com (John
Woodworth) writes:
I'm alarmed at the combatative tone of the responses here. I
suggest working with the association rather than fighting it,
or worse, calling in outsiders (press and, ugh, lawyers).
John,
I'll agree that generally you get better results by soft-pedaling and
looking for non-confrontational approaches, but surely you must admit
that banning a fairly broad class of plants is a bit provocative! At
the least it gives the appearance of a very small-minded bunch issuing
imperious dictates, not to mention being a bit capricious. What's
next--banning plants whose species names contain the letter 's'?
Still, I'd probably try reasoning with them first. If you reasonably
suggest that the issue should be aesthetic appearance rather than an
approved plant list, I think a reasonable person would have a hard
time disagreeing with you. And when you've exhausted the friendly
alternatives, let 'em have it with both barrels: lawyers and
journalists.
Jeff
--
Patricia Ryan
(Amy Rupp) wrote:
I did not see the original post, so don't know exactly how much detail was
included. I happened to be talking to a co-worker the other day about
this discussion and she said, "I live in that housing development!" (I
work in Union City, CA which abuts Fremont, CA) I asked her about the
covenant they signed, as to whether it could be changed at any time; and
she told me that it could. The board of directors can change any rule
they want! And since you have agreed to go along with these decisions by
signing the contract..... Scary, and I wonder how legal it truly is. I
guess the only way to have any control is to be a member of the board of
directors, and of course this is so realistic in terms of time
availability to most people. <s>
Ed Ruf
I find it truly amazing one would make this type of investment and not have
*ALL* the fact in hand before closing. There is aboslutely nowhere on this I
want to live so badly, I would ever so blindly enter into a contract.
Ed
Leigh Anne Dear
American way (whatever that means anymore) but do-it-your-selfers pollute
just as much as large corporations do and it can cause problems for the
neighbors. For instance, changing antifreeze: some people have the
tendency to let the old antifreeze drain out onto the street: they wash
it off the driveway where it collects, with water, and puddles.
Unfortunately, antifreeze is very sweet tasting (don't ask me how the
vets figured that one out, probably due to chemical composition) and dogs
LOVE to drink it. Once they do, it produces a long, slow, agonizing
death as the antifreeze emulates the Ebola virus and eats away at the
interior organs. Unfortunately, dogs aren't the only critters taking
sips.
So, for every restriction, there might be a positive note on the other
side. Not that I'm for restrictions - just enlightenment.
Leigh Anne
Houston
Leigh Anne Dear
a thing) in order to find out your rights as a homeowner under the
homeowners agreement....In no way should that suggestion be taken as
advice to initiate a costly (combative) legal battle. When faced
with unclear rights it's his duty to ferret out all avenues of redress
and then decide what he wants to do next (which of course, in this case,
depends upon how he feels about his neighbors). Otherwise, he becomes a
victim.
I'm all for persuasive tactics to reach an agreement but one needs
leverage to fall back on particularly when faced with unreasonable
standards to begin with.
Leigh Anne
Houston
Alice
Leigh Anne Dear <pd...@hal-pc.org> writes:
>
>I don't want to stir up a hornets nest, what with truth, justice, and the
>American way (whatever that means anymore) but do-it-your-selfers pollute
>just as much as large corporations do and it can cause problems for the
>neighbors. For instance, changing antifreeze: some people have the
>tendency to let the old antifreeze drain out onto the street: they wash
>it off the driveway where it collects, with water, and puddles.
>Unfortunately, antifreeze is very sweet tasting (don't ask me how the
>vets figured that one out, probably due to chemical composition) and dogs
>LOVE to drink it. Once they do, it produces a long, slow, agonizing
>death as the antifreeze emulates the Ebola virus and eats away at the
>interior organs. Unfortunately, dogs aren't the only critters taking
>sips.
>
with gardening, but antifreeze does not emulate the ebola virus. it
causes crystal deposition in the kidneys, which fairly quickly will
cause kidney failure. this is not even remotely similar to how the
ebola virus works, except that both end in death. and for a cat, the
dosage is very small: one lick of undiluted antifreeze will kill the
cat unless treatment is initiaited immediately
that having been said, i am a former vet who *does* change her own
antifreeze, in her own driveway. i am meticulous about the disposal.
and i am the *only* person i know who does this themself anymore...
everyone else just takes the car to the mechanic. not for safety
reasons, of course....rather, convienence is the motive.
and i realize you weren't advocating restrictions, but let's face
it: none of the ones i've ever heard about were put in place because
people were worried about pet safety. they are purely "aesthetically"
motivated, and often are petty and silly.....
oh yeah, i garden, too. :)
alice
cal...@icon.net
>Hi,
>I live in the Ardenwood area of Fremont, California. About 5 months
>ago, the Board of Directors of our homeowners' association made a
>decision that rose bushes do not go with the general decor of our
>development and other neighboring developments. They have also stated
>that rose bushes do not look good throughout the year (like in winter
>months) as part of their reasoning.
This is absurb...just another reason not to live in California.
John Woodworth
>I'll agree that generally you get better results by soft-pedaling and
>looking for non-confrontational approaches, but surely you must admit
>that banning a fairly broad class of plants is a bit provocative!
Oh it's provocative, all right. The original request for useful information
and suggestions provoked indignation, outrage, pointless side discussions
and very little in the way of anything useful. Of course, when asking for
free advice, you get what you pay for, I suppose. And the Usenet is a very
imperfect medium for thoughtful consideration.
Having been in the same shoes as the original poster, and having witnessed
others' fight with associations, I *know* confrontation with an association
is unproductive. Remember what the literal definition of the term
association means -- it's a small society, a cluster of like-minded people.
Associations help to form neighborhood identity. Ours publishes monthly
newsletters and babysitter lists. It cuts the grass and maintains public
plantings. It makes sure the mailboxes are painted and the pool cleaned.
And if its people are involved, it serves as a place to *resolve* conflicts
in taste.
Stupid recommendations of alerting the media helps us to express our
righteousness. Inviting legal warriors vindicates a sense rights violated.
But it's also an expression of cowardice. People will go to great lengths
to avoid actually *talking* the issue through. Face it, it's hard to look
people in the eye. Associations publish edicts without interviewing
households. Members rent lawyers without inviting the board members over
for coffee. It's not softpedaling. It's hard work. It's called diplomacy.
It takes a while and will not result in 100% satisfaction. But it promotes
harmony and courtesy.
As gardeners, I would think we were a peaceful lot. We are patient. We seek
and enjoy the challenge of trying the new. We create beauty. We are
productive. For these reasons, I was alarmed at the contradictory tone of
the resposes.
And to all, this is my last response on the subject. This thread has little
to do with gardening. I apologize for helping to sidetrack the pleasant
tenor of thess newsgroups.
--
John
"Stupidity is like nuclear power; it can be used for good or
evil."
"And you don't want to get any on you"
-- Wally and Dilbert
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of 3M.
stlo...@cnsvax.uwec.edu
As I follow this thread, I keep wondering: the fact that some landscapers
set off this whole brouhaha in the first place sets off all sorts of
bells for me: who on the Board of Directors stands to get a rakeoff from
the elimination of roses and replacement with lawn and/or prostrate cedar?
Dina--sitting out the second Big Snowstorm in 9 days
Travis Saling
No! Stay in California. STAY!!!
Travis in Washington
Leigh Anne Dear
are just expressing opinions, which is the purvue of this type of
communication. You certainly don't need to pay any attention to them let
alone be publicly condenscending in your attitude. I shudder to think of
what you think of the rest of us who engage in friendly banter on various
subtopics stemming from rose discussions.
Speaking of ethical behavior, I notice your internet ID is 3M. Do they
know you're engaged in private discussions on their terminal?
L.A. Dear
Internal Auditor
Houston, Texas