• Text Only
cherry3m said:   Crazytree said:   geo123 said:   Have you ever served on a HOA board?7 years, Treasurer.

You?
I have never served on a HOA board, but I have served an HOA board with a large dollar amount lawsuit on behalf of one of my clients.

FinancialAnalyst said:   riznick said:   I suspect the Farrans dues also increased. If the settlement is just to pay legal fees, then the Farrans were also out money.

So what? I'll pay an extra $100 per month to get a $70,000 settlement any day.

In a way, you're correct - they're "cutting off their nose to spite their face". But in this case it's more like "trimming your fingernails to get a massive windfall of money".

Didn't the whole settlement go towards legal fees?

+1 on hatred of HOAs, universal scum of the earth, like any other form of involuntary, force-based coercion. (ie. the power of the HOA where it exists stems from their ability to get people in uniforms to come to your house and inflict violence upon you.)

a voluntary non-coercion based HOA (call it a VOA) could be a value adder though

Then get on the board and change things

What I can't stand is people who just complain and bitch and do nothing about it

When I saw impropriety on my Hoa board I didn't sit and whine about it , I got involved

It's said that HOA rules protect property values. Is it possible that in some cases they might actually be limiting them? I'm wondering about situations where people might wish to do something to improve their property but are prevented by HOA rules.

kranky said:   It's said that HOA rules protect property values. Is it possible that in some cases they might actually be limiting them? I'm wondering about situations where people might wish to do something to improve their property but are prevented by HOA rules.

More concerning for property prices are potential buyers that would never consider buying a home in an HOA.

In the area where my rentals are in this Hoa, the community looks much nicer and well kept than similar price range developments without an Hoa .

I believe this leads to higher rents as the area is gorgeous looks better and safer

These are entry level homes (low $100ks) so the neighborhood easily has the potential to decay without the Hoa making sure things look good

dcg9381 said:   
First, if you're on the board of an HOA you should know that political signs are protected speech and that the HOA cannot enforce against them, especially around election time.
If the board didn't know, the management company should know.
If the management company didn't know, then the attorneys should know, as there is already existing caselaw.


I don't know where you live, but this is not true in NJ or PA. http://www.caionline.org/info/publications/commonground/2008/sep....

I'm another one who joined his HOA's Board just to keep the busybodies off. This topic has come up numerous times in our neighborhood, so we researched it thoroughly. We've tried to get the restriction removed, but we can't get enough votes to amend the policy, so it stands.

jb

kranky said:   It's said that HOA rules protect property values. Is it possible that in some cases they might actually be limiting them? I'm wondering about situations where people might wish to do something to improve their property but are prevented by HOA rules.

There is data supporting both ways.
HOAs may keep the neighborhood looking nicer. Above that, some amenities are valuable.
The value-loss is that people know HOAs can cause trouble... At least those of us have lived in one. And the HOA fee can add a very real cost to the home which makes it look more expensive against a non-HOA home.

(Ref: Hoa's can't remove political signs)

jamzfive said:   
I don't know where you live, but this is not true in NJ or PA. http://www.caionline.org/info/publications/commonground/2008/sep...


I think your link is broken.
Just checking a few references, it's definitely true in NJ. I didn't check PA.
Reference: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/06/nj_supreme_court_homeow...

Just to be clear, HOA's can put "reasonable" limits on signs - IE prohibiting during non-election times, etc. Come election time, courts have ruled very broadly on protecting this type of speech.

Just as a side, HOAs can't restrict many types of antennas.. (federal law)


Don't let your board be a bunch of dummies... I'm available for consultation!

This thread got me thinking and I pulled out my CC&Rs and HOA bylaws to refresh. I immediately found a couple of rules that I am blatantly breaking. Example- I am supposed to keep my trash cans screened off so they aren't directly visible from the street.

Of course I found several things that my neighbors are violating as well, but nobody here is a real stickler.

dcg9381 said:   (Ref: Hoa's can't remove political signs)
I think your link is broken.


Fixed the link. Just a stray period at the end of the URL.

The NJ link you posted is interesting because the decision was made just last year and I was unaware of it until now. Doesn't change my situation in PA, of course.

Just to make this post more interesting, I'll summarize the PA Supreme Court's applicable decision: A) HOAs are not governmental institutions, but private entities, such that B) an HOA's covenants/restrictions are a contract between two private parties, and that C) an individual has a right to enter into a contract by which he/she chooses to restrict their activities in various ways, even in ways that would normally be Constitutionally protected. The choice to enter into that contract is made when one chooses to purchase a house in an HOA which is governed by such a restriction.

It would be interesting to see how the case would have panned out if the particular HOA in question had implemented such a restriction after a homeowner had moved into the neighborhood. Perhaps not very differently, but it would have opened an whole new angle of argumentation.

I was aware of the antenna thing. My HOA does have such restrictions regarding placement and quantity of such antennae and satellite dishes. We simply do not enforce it (again, because we can't get enough votes to "officially" get it removed.)

Someone please explain this to me. The HOA is only responsible for common areas. In the event of a natural disaster, my HOA is not responsible for rebuilding the interior of my unit. However, I recently discovered something disturbing. The bylaws state that the HOA has the right to make repairs to the interior of the unit if it is not properly maintained. That would mean they have the right to fix a broken heater, AC, or light fixture and then bill me for it. WTF?

qcumber98 said:   Someone please explain this to me. The HOA is only responsible for common areas. In the event of a natural disaster, my HOA is not responsible for rebuilding the interior of my unit. However, I recently discovered something disturbing. The bylaws state that the HOA has the right to make repairs to the interior of the unit if it is not properly maintained. That would mean they have the right to fix a broken heater, AC, or light fixture and then bill me for it. WTF?

Hmm. It could be possible that the developer cut and pasted elemented from a condo association? I could see them possibly doing that in a condo if not repairing the problem (like plumbing) would cause damage to other units.

If you live in Florida, contact your state senator:

Proposed Law allows to foreclose fast if dues unpaid
Homeowners behind on their community-association dues would have to make good on the full amount before fighting the charges, under proposed legislation that would also bring state oversight to Florida's homeowner associations.

Sen. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, filed a bill this week that would essentially fast-track community associations' ability to foreclose on houses or condo units with unpaid dues. If a homeowner did not deposit the unpaid balance in a special registry as directed by a court, the association could foreclose immediately on the house. Currently, owners can contest associations' charges in a process that can stretch out for years.
...
The bill calls for homeowners in an association to pay $4 annually to cover the costs of state regulation and oversight, including a government ombudsman for associations. The bill also calls for associations to have secret-ballot elections for board members. Homeowners now can show up for their first association meeting and find themselves elected to their board with a simple raising of hands.

The bill would also prohibit board members from serving if they have been charged with a felony related to association business.


EDIT: Found the bill

jamzfive said:   
Just to make this post more interesting, I'll summarize the PA Supreme Court's applicable decision: A) HOAs are not governmental institutions, but private entities, such that B) an HOA's covenants/restrictions are a contract between two private parties, and that C) an individual has a right to enter into a contract by which he/she chooses to restrict their activities in various ways, even in ways that would normally be Constitutionally protected. The choice to enter into that contract is made when one chooses to purchase a house in an HOA which is governed by such a restriction.

It would be interesting to see how the case would have panned out if the particular HOA in question had implemented such a restriction after a homeowner had moved into the neighborhood. Perhaps not very differently, but it would have opened an whole new angle of argumentation.

I was aware of the antenna thing. My HOA does have such restrictions regarding placement and quantity of such antennae and satellite dishes. We simply do not enforce it (again, because we can't get enough votes to "officially" get it removed.)


It's interesting because almost every other state in the union has seen these cases and their courts have ruled in favor of the constitution.. I found what you've sited though, that in PA you can choose to give up your constitutional rights to a private party contract. I wonder if you could give up your right to freedom and essentially sell yourself into slavery in that state also? IMHO, PA got it very wrong!

A poorly managed HOA is massively dangerous as it has the power of everyone's checkbook up to the value of the homes... And in most cases, the people wielding the power are indemnified for their jack-assery.
I don't think that all HOAs are bad... We've got a great local POA that is excellent - low cost, lost of common property - and entirely self-managed.
And certainly in the condo situation some type of group government is necessary...

qcumber98 said:   Someone please explain this to me. The HOA is only responsible for common areas. In the event of a natural disaster, my HOA is not responsible for rebuilding the interior of my unit. However, I recently discovered something disturbing. The bylaws state that the HOA has the right to make repairs to the interior of the unit if it is not properly maintained. That would mean they have the right to fix a broken heater, AC, or light fixture and then bill me for it. WTF?

It more likely means that they'd choose to act to fix an obvious drywall issue (as seen from the outside) or collapsed ceiling in the garage. Technically, they might be able to fix your AC unit, but it's not very likely.
Don't sweat what they "could do". Worry about what they are doing. And if you don't know, get involved.

ThomasPaine said:   If you live in Florida, contact your state senator:

Proposed Law allows to foreclose fast if dues unpaid
Homeowners behind on their community-association dues would have to make good on the full amount before fighting the charges, under proposed legislation that would also bring state oversight to Florida's homeowner associations.

Sen. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, filed a bill this week that would essentially fast-track community associations' ability to foreclose on houses or condo units with unpaid dues. If a homeowner did not deposit the unpaid balance in a special registry as directed by a court, the association could foreclose immediately on the house. Currently, owners can contest associations' charges in a process that can stretch out for years.
...
The bill calls for homeowners in an association to pay $4 annually to cover the costs of state regulation and oversight, including a government ombudsman for associations. The bill also calls for associations to have secret-ballot elections for board members. Homeowners now can show up for their first association meeting and find themselves elected to their board with a simple raising of hands.

The bill would also prohibit board members from serving if they have been charged with a felony related to association business.


Personally, I wouldn't sweat either of these, because essentially this is how it's already being done currently. This legislation won't change much:
1) If you're going to fight a fine from the HOA, you're going to need to pay it up front and fight it second. If you don't, what happens is the HOA can start applying your assessment toward your fine. This leaves your assessment unpaid. When your assessment is unpaid, they can take your home. Requiring that the home owner deposit with the court is actually better, as the HOA doesn't get to keep the money. Saying that HOAs can't take your house due to fines is generally incorrect as they simply apply your dues to fines.

2) An Ombudsman with teeth - enforcement teeth - that isn't a puppet for special interests would be a win for home owners.

I would sweat anything that allows "secret elections" - but this sounds spun to me and I'd need to see the details.

Maybe this is why you need HOA (frontpage on CNN today):
http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c2#/video/us/2013/02/13/dnt-mo-...

Like politics and religion, it's up to individual preferences whether they like a HOA or not. Not all HOAs are easy going, and not all HOAs are hostile. This is why there are differences of opinion on this topic.

Personally, the most irritating thing about HOAs is the inability to do proper due diligence in the purchase process. Minutes of meetings, budgets, financial stability, etc. are often not disclosed until the earnest money deposit is made. Going door to door and talking to residents may not provide an accurate picture because of the small sample size.

Fortunately in Southern California there are a lot of quality older neighborhoods where HOAs are not present. For a rental property, I would support the HOA because of the added maintenance that they provide and ability to enforce things, which I could make my tenants comply (if I had any). For a property that I live in, there is no HOA there. Yes the lawn may have some weeds in it and may not be mowed as frequently as the retired neighbors, but it is not excessive and the difference in property values as a result is negligible. There are many historic districts where they enforce architectural standards, and that is better because of the transparency involved and the due process of the historic commission, which is appointed by a city council which is the ultimate arbiter. Public meetings are better than closed door affairs.

dcg9381 said:   jamzfive said:   
Just to make this post more interesting, I'll summarize the PA Supreme Court's applicable decision: A) HOAs are not governmental institutions, but private entities, such that B) an HOA's covenants/restrictions are a contract between two private parties, and that C) an individual has a right to enter into a contract by which he/she chooses to restrict their activities in various ways, even in ways that would normally be Constitutionally protected. The choice to enter into that contract is made when one chooses to purchase a house in an HOA which is governed by such a restriction.


It's interesting because almost every other state in the union has seen these cases and their courts have ruled in favor of the constitution.. I found what you've sited though, that in PA you can choose to give up your constitutional rights to a private party contract. I wonder if you could give up your right to freedom and essentially sell yourself into slavery in that state also? IMHO, PA got it very wrong!


There's nothing special about PA regarding a right to give up rights in a contract. There are plenty of times when people enter into contracts in which they agree to not express certain rights in certain ways, at certain times, or on certain topics. One common one I can think of off the top of my head is signing non-disclosure agreements in order to pursue employment with a particular company, or to settle legal cases (often tied to receiving a payment as settlement). Oh, and a second one would be giving up the right to sue when you enter into a contract that requires binding arbitration to solve problems between the agreeing parties. In that respect, I think PA got it right.

calwatch said:   Personally, the most irritating thing about HOAs is the inability to do proper due diligence in the purchase process. Minutes of meetings, budgets, financial stability, etc. are often not disclosed until the earnest money deposit is made. Going door to door and talking to residents may not provide an accurate picture because of the small sample size.

I realize it would be nice to read this stuff in advance, but if one likes the house enough, is it that problematic to put the offer in, but with a contingency on review of HOA docs? If it were a sellers' market, I can see how this might lead to losing out on property, but in most places, that isn't the case at all.

Placing this contingency in our recent home purchase was one of the best things we did, for a variety of reasons.

DoctorDeals said:   calwatch said:   Personally, the most irritating thing about HOAs is the inability to do proper due diligence in the purchase process. Minutes of meetings, budgets, financial stability, etc. are often not disclosed until the earnest money deposit is made. Going door to door and talking to residents may not provide an accurate picture because of the small sample size.

I realize it would be nice to read this stuff in advance, but if one likes the house enough, is it that problematic to put the offer in, but with a contingency on review of HOA docs? If it were a sellers' market, I can see how this might lead to losing out on property, but in most places, that isn't the case at all.

Placing this contingency in our recent home purchase was one of the best things we did, for a variety of reasons.

Unfortunately, putting that in the contingency affects the timeline which many sellers are unwilling to budge on. Also, you need to pay to get that information. I refuse to play that game, which is probably why I am still renting.

woowoo2 said:   Where we live, we do not have a HOA.
But we do have a lady that goes around writing down on post it notes what's wrong with your property and leaving them in your mailbox.


Honestly? I think that's pretty neighborly. She is telling you up front what her concerns are instead of letting a grievance fester over time. And if you don't agree, you don't have to do a thing.

calwatch said:   Personally, the most irritating thing about HOAs is the inability to do proper due diligence in the purchase process. Minutes of meetings, budgets, financial stability, etc. are often not disclosed until the earnest money deposit is made. Going door to door and talking to residents may not provide an accurate picture because of the small sample size. [/quote]

There are some general rules of thumbs you can refer to. I'd be weary of HOAs in smaller communities where there are only 30-40 homes, or less. Larger communities, especially mixed development with hundreds of families, are typically very easy going. Also, ones that are run by an outside management company are also fairly safe. You can also just walk the neighborhood and ask the neighbors. Say you are thinking of buying into the community and was wondering what the HOA takes care of in terms of maintenance, then casually ask "are these nice folks on the board pretty easy going?"

enc0re said:   woowoo2 said:   Where we live, we do not have a HOA.
But we do have a lady that goes around writing down on post it notes what's wrong with your property and leaving them in your mailbox.


Honestly? I think that's pretty neighborly. She is telling you up front what her concerns are instead of letting a grievance fester over time. And if you don't agree, you don't have to do a thing.


We have those too in our community, a few of us has put up tall vinyl fencing around their properties to keep the snoopers out. At one point, someone complained to the city that I had too many cars in my driveway and it was causing traffic issues. I asked the city if it was illegal to own many vehicles, the city said as long as they are registered and insured, no problems.

DaGimp said:   enc0re said:   woowoo2 said:   Where we live, we do not have a HOA.
But we do have a lady that goes around writing down on post it notes what's wrong with your property and leaving them in your mailbox.


Honestly? I think that's pretty neighborly. She is telling you up front what her concerns are instead of letting a grievance fester over time. And if you don't agree, you don't have to do a thing.


We have those too in our community, a few of us has put up tall vinyl fencing around their properties to keep the snoopers out. At one point, someone complained to the city that I had too many cars in my driveway and it was causing traffic issues. I asked the city if it was illegal to own many vehicles, the city said as long as they are registered and insured, no problems.


You must have been talking to a lowly employee, because I'm pretty sure they don't need to be registered/insured except to drive on the public roads.

DoctorDeals said:   
I realize it would be nice to read this stuff in advance, but if one likes the house enough, is it that problematic to put the offer in, but with a contingency on review of HOA docs? If it were a sellers' market, I can see how this might lead to losing out on property, but in most places, that isn't the case at all.

Placing this contingency in our recent home purchase was one of the best things we did, for a variety of reasons.


In PA, state law requires
A) delivery of HOA docs to the buyer by the seller
B) the HOA to reply to a seller's request for the docs (including providing something called a "resale certificate", which provides specific information about finances, future planned expenditures, HOA liens on the seller's property, annual dues, and other things, to a prospective buyer) within a certain amount of time, and
C) a 5-day window of opportunity for the potential buyer to cancel a sales contract following delivery of this information, no special contingency required.

From reading, I would guess this is not the case in other states?

Al3xK said:   DaGimp said:   enc0re said:   woowoo2 said:   Where we live, we do not have a HOA.
But we do have a lady that goes around writing down on post it notes what's wrong with your property and leaving them in your mailbox.


Honestly? I think that's pretty neighborly. She is telling you up front what her concerns are instead of letting a grievance fester over time. And if you don't agree, you don't have to do a thing.


We have those too in our community, a few of us has put up tall vinyl fencing around their properties to keep the snoopers out. At one point, someone complained to the city that I had too many cars in my driveway and it was causing traffic issues. I asked the city if it was illegal to own many vehicles, the city said as long as they are registered and insured, no problems.


You must have been talking to a lowly employee, because I'm pretty sure they don't need to be registered/insured except to drive on the public roads.


I actually looked this up, but here in my city you cannot have unregistered/uninsured cars out in plain view. You can store them in a storage place out of sight w/o issue. My garage holds 2 cars and my driveway on a good day can do 10 cars. It's not that I have to have so many cars but I fix them and flip them from craigslist.

^^^Same in VA. A co-worker took his BMW 2002 off the road for a bit for some repairs and removed the plates. He got a ticket in his driveway for it not being registered

DaGimp said:   Al3xK said:   DaGimp said:   enc0re said:   woowoo2 said:   Where we live, we do not have a HOA.
But we do have a lady that goes around writing down on post it notes what's wrong with your property and leaving them in your mailbox.


Honestly? I think that's pretty neighborly. She is telling you up front what her concerns are instead of letting a grievance fester over time. And if you don't agree, you don't have to do a thing.


We have those too in our community, a few of us has put up tall vinyl fencing around their properties to keep the snoopers out. At one point, someone complained to the city that I had too many cars in my driveway and it was causing traffic issues. I asked the city if it was illegal to own many vehicles, the city said as long as they are registered and insured, no problems.


You must have been talking to a lowly employee, because I'm pretty sure they don't need to be registered/insured except to drive on the public roads.


I actually looked this up, but here in my city you cannot have unregistered/uninsured cars out in plain view. You can store them in a storage place out of sight w/o issue. My garage holds 2 cars and my driveway on a good day can do 10 cars. It's not that I have to have so many cars but I fix them and flip them from craigslist.


Same here...

dcg9381 said:   ThomasPaine said:   If you live in Florida, contact your state senator:

Proposed Law allows to foreclose fast if dues unpaid
Homeowners behind on their community-association dues would have to make good on the full amount before fighting the charges, under proposed legislation that would also bring state oversight to Florida's homeowner associations.

Sen. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, filed a bill this week that would essentially fast-track community associations' ability to foreclose on houses or condo units with unpaid dues. If a homeowner did not deposit the unpaid balance in a special registry as directed by a court, the association could foreclose immediately on the house. Currently, owners can contest associations' charges in a process that can stretch out for years.
...
The bill calls for homeowners in an association to pay $4 annually to cover the costs of state regulation and oversight, including a government ombudsman for associations. The bill also calls for associations to have secret-ballot elections for board members. Homeowners now can show up for their first association meeting and find themselves elected to their board with a simple raising of hands.

The bill would also prohibit board members from serving if they have been charged with a felony related to association business.
Yes they do... That is so fuk,d up. They created these quasi governmental entities bc they don't want to deal with it and then are giving them powers with no oversight. So you get a fine from some a,hole with a complaint and a neighbor who gives two shits about, on the committee, fines you... And now your being foreclosed on.. That's not oversight... Its empowering the wrong people.

Personally, I wouldn't sweat either of these, because essentially this is how it's already being done currently. This legislation won't change much:
1) If you're going to fight a fine from the HOA, you're going to need to pay it up front and fight it second. If you don't, what happens is the HOA can start applying your assessment toward your fine. This leaves your assessment unpaid. When your assessment is unpaid, they can take your home. Requiring that the home owner deposit with the court is actually better, as the HOA doesn't get to keep the money. Saying that HOAs can't take your house due to fines is generally incorrect as they simply apply your dues to fines.

2) An Ombudsman with teeth - enforcement teeth - that isn't a puppet for special interests would be a win for home owners.

I would sweat anything that allows "secret elections" - but this sounds spun to me and I'd need to see the details.

Al3xK said:   DaGimp said:   enc0re said:   woowoo2 said:   Where we live, we do not have a HOA.
But we do have a lady that goes around writing down on post it notes what's wrong with your property and leaving them in your mailbox.


Honestly? I think that's pretty neighborly. She is telling you up front what her concerns are instead of letting a grievance fester over time. And if you don't agree, you don't have to do a thing.


We have those too in our community, a few of us has put up tall vinyl fencing around their properties to keep the snoopers out. At one point, someone complained to the city that I had too many cars in my driveway and it was causing traffic issues. I asked the city if it was illegal to own many vehicles, the city said as long as they are registered and insured, no problems.


You must have been talking to a lowly employee, because I'm pretty sure they don't need to be registered/insured except to drive on the public roads.


Pretty much every city has local ordinances to prevent people from having junk cars all over. Usually need insurance and registration. (you can get cheap insurance for non-op cars, had it once when I was overseas and left my truck at my parents)

First, the couple asked for a community vote on the fines because that's what the CCRs required. Board said Nah and spent 200K in two years and lost. Board got a little wobbly and then agreed to settle but demanded a community vote on the architectural stuff. This was after the board souped up the meeting minutes with letters from their friends calling the couple "blackmailers" etc. etc. Think that couple was going to get a fair shake? Nah. This couple followed the rules. Requested the board to do so and board refused and went bat crazy. No one could get them off because they would pick hardliners for the nominating committe who nominated hardliners to run. Would yell at members who advocated stopping the spending. That worked real well. Ever been yelled at in a public place? This couple won. They were heroes. I know. I'm one of them.

rshaslam said:   I am currently on my HOA board. Have been for 4 years ... Our HOA is purely for CC&R (HOA code) enforcement to ensure that peoples yards are well kept and approval of property additions (fences, sheds, additions, etc.) to ensure a uniform look to the area. We also work with our city, who owns the 40+ acres of open space and trails in the community to provide improvements to our parks, front entry, etc.

A "uniform look" is overrated. Soviet-style apartment blocks have a uniform look, but they're not anywhere you'd want to live.

In fact, it is the freedom to be bold in the appearance of one's personal residence that leads to some of the best and most interesting neighborhoods.

The guy who goes all out with Christmas tree decorations every winter...the lady who paints her house all pink and white...the one-upmanship over gardens and lawns...the artist with the junk car who creates masterpieces with an oxy-acetelyne torch. THESE are the people who make the neighborhood special, who give you those moments that put a smile on your face and whose very actions invite conversation and helpfulness throughout the year. These are the folks who I'd want as my neighbors. What a sad day it will be when they are regulated out of existence by an HOA.

Hmm I don't read this as an HOA power grab.

I read it as a bully wanted the Obama signs down and exercised his right as a HOA President to take them down and instead cost his HOA and himself $$$$ over it.

mariafarran said:   First, the couple asked for a community vote on the fines because that's what the CCRs required. Board said Nah and spent 200K in two years and lost. Board got a little wobbly and then agreed to settle but demanded a community vote on the architectural stuff. This was after the board souped up the meeting minutes with letters from their friends calling the couple "blackmailers" etc. etc. Think that couple was going to get a fair shake? Nah. This couple followed the rules. Requested the board to do so and board refused and went bat crazy. No one could get them off because they would pick hardliners for the nominating committe who nominated hardliners to run. Would yell at members who advocated stopping the spending. That worked real well. Ever been yelled at in a public place? This couple won. They were heroes. I know. I'm one of them.Congrats. The only thing left to do is buy the community square and invite your neighbors to a picnic in your personal square.

mariafarran said:   First, the couple asked for a community vote on the fines because that's what the CCRs required. Board said Nah and spent 200K in two years and lost. Board got a little wobbly and then agreed to settle but demanded a community vote on the architectural stuff. This was after the board souped up the meeting minutes with letters from their friends calling the couple "blackmailers" etc. etc. Think that couple was going to get a fair shake? Nah. This couple followed the rules. Requested the board to do so and board refused and went bat crazy. No one could get them off because they would pick hardliners for the nominating committe who nominated hardliners to run. Would yell at members who advocated stopping the spending. That worked real well. Ever been yelled at in a public place? This couple won. They were heroes. I know. I'm one of them.where is the eating popcorn gif? This is going to get good.

mariafarran said:   First, the couple asked for a community vote on the fines because that's what the CCRs required. Board said Nah and spent 200K in two years and lost. Board got a little wobbly and then agreed to settle but demanded a community vote on the architectural stuff. This was after the board souped up the meeting minutes with letters from their friends calling the couple "blackmailers" etc. etc. Think that couple was going to get a fair shake? Nah. This couple followed the rules. Requested the board to do so and board refused and went bat crazy. No one could get them off because they would pick hardliners for the nominating committe who nominated hardliners to run. Would yell at members who advocated stopping the spending. That worked real well. Ever been yelled at in a public place? This couple won. They were heroes. I know. I'm one of them.

........ interesting.



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014