OT-Homeowners' Associations

[felix.]

Lee, you seem pretty open-minded, but there is still a tinge of predjudice against people with money in your posts.

 

I guess I don't subscribe to the "rich people are all snobs" rule. I don't think anyone's coolness factor is by default related to their net worth.

 

As it relates to the thread, I also believe that anyone has the ability to tidy up their yard and keep up their house. Whether they choose to or not is another matter entirely.

[Steve Force]

Originally posted by RDuke:

I live in small development that has an association. The city requires the development to have a retention pond. The retention pond actually serves more than just our development due to the drainage network. The pond must be dredged every ten years to remove accumulated silt. That's expensive and guess who foots the bill? Guess how that money's collected? There are also comman areas that get maintained and lighting and that cost money. So in my situation, it's a matter of economics due to city mandate for new neighborhoods. Other advantages can be local political representation. An HOA has tons more clout than a single citizen at city hall and town councils.

 

But yeah, these things overboard.

Hello Rduke!

 

Sorry, but even after re-reading your post 4 times still cannot grasp what your point is. Is the retention pond the issue, the dredging, or..?

 

Regards.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by felix.:

Lee, you seem pretty open-minded, but there is still a tinge of predjudice against people with money in your posts.

 

I guess I don't subscribe to the "rich people are all snobs" rule. I don't think anyone's coolness factor is by default related to their net worth.

Me either - I have quite a few friends with money who don't behave the way I described. I don't see how that relates to what I said though. The problem is usually people who (knowingly or not) use the argument of "property value" to make life difficult for those who may not have as much money as they do nor the wish to live in the same way. Having money doesn't put you into that category by default, nor is everybody in that group rich. In fact my former neighbor I mentioned was not rich at all - she just wanted to live according to a certain social standard and was willing to try to exert control over the whole neighborhood to do it. If she'd actually been rich she could've bought a big enough piece of property for it not to matter, or moved someplace where they already had covenants that pleased her.

 

As it relates to the thread, I also believe that anyone has the ability to tidy up their yard and keep up their house. Whether they choose to or not is another matter entirely.

Well that's just it. If it's their property they have the right to choose not to. It's one thing if it poses a hazard to the neighborhood, but otherwise, IMO it's nobody's business.

[videoeditor1]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

If it's their property they have the right to choose not to. It's one thing if it poses a hazard to the neighborhood, but otherwise, IMO it's nobody's business.

...and that's where we digress in viewpoints Lee.

 

What of the scenarios with the same "investor/landlords" where a house, rated for single family occupancy (ie - 1-5 persons) has it's basement and attic and everything in between rented out....

 

For the most part, here in NY (Mt. Vernon, Yonkers), tenants seem to treat their residences much worse than homeowners. Why is this?

 

Think about the strain on

a) the sewer systems (if there are no septic wells)

 

b) the school district - given that these types of residences pay a disproportionately smaller portion of what's considered "fair"

 

c) if & where the house / community gets its drinking water from.

 

d) demand for electricity

 

e) other demands on the infrastructure / environment...

 

f) garbage collection

 

g) services by the fire dept, law enforcement, EMS.

 

Yes, it's the govt's job to requlate a lot of things, but local govt's are already swamped.

 

My neighbor that decides to clean and align his/her rifles in their back yard is a danger to me on my own property.

 

the question is, how do we co-exist, with MINIMAL infringements on each others rights?

 

Regards,

NYC Drew

a prospective future card carrying association member - because then I'd have a chance to shape local politics as it affects me.

[Lee Flier]

Drew, those are all actual, legitimate hazards and burdens to the neighborhood as a whole. I've already said I don't oppose regulations on those, and most of them are covered under city or county ordinances anyway. What I oppose is rules that are imposed only because something is "an eyesore which will devalue my property." What color you paint your house or how old your car is, or having an RV parked in the driveway, or having weeds in your yard, or not fixing your fence, or building a shed that your neighbor thinks is ugly, or renting out a spare bedroom or two... these are not causing anyone a legitimate problem. Yet those are the kinds of things that homeowners' associations tend to start meddling in.

[videoeditor1]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

...or building a shed that your neighbor thinks is ugly, or renting out a spare bedroom or two... these are not causing anyone a legitimate problem. Yet those are the kinds of things that homeowners' associations tend to start meddling in.

Where I live, "renting out a spare bedroom or two" is problem - especially in winter, when a house with a 200AMP feed has 6-8 space heaters going at the same time, becasue there are 12 people in a space designed for 5. [Example only].

 

There's a nozy old guy in my building - the president of the board...always asking where I was, where I'm going, what am I unloading, move my truck out of the no parking (fire) zone, etc etc.

 

This is the same guy that noticed a potentially expensive leak, that got the neighbors to chop down a tree COMPLETELY in their property (the roots was causing our outdoor paved garage to buckle.

 

I too am against the stupid bullshit that many of these associations cough up. However, as I get older (but hopefully not crankier) I can understand why they want lawns to be less than 6".

- why garbage should not be on the curb daily for a weekly pickup; why houses should not be painted bright red and fuschia...etc etc

 

Many malls across the country have these same types of rules that make them so predictable, bland, sometimes boring, but hey, they're predictable.

 

If you don't like associations, get involved! That's the best way to equalize and neutralize.

 

NYC Drew

[ViLo]

WHen you have to have somebody that tells you how to run your house,manage your property, etc.. you are really messed up go live in an aparment then

[daddyelmis]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Well that's just it. If it's their property they have the right to choose not to. It's one thing if it poses a hazard to the neighborhood, but otherwise, IMO it's nobody's business.

I don't think it's as simple as, "I can do what I want with my property." I think there are "communal standards," whether they are expressed through a HOA or not.

 

If someone chooses to live in an urban environment, they presumably do so to avail themselves of the benefits of an urban environment: proximity to shopping, work; engaging other humans on a frequent basis; the "buzz" of a community living close together.

 

Therefore (IMHO), there is a certain "price" for these benefits, and that is understanding that what you do affects those around you -- and a lot more than someone living on 20 acres in the country.

 

If you want the room to work on 10 cars at all times (and I agree with the prior post that we're not talking about an oil change or brake job that might take one weekend), or have 10 dogs or roosters or whatever, that's GREAT! More power to you -- buy property somewhere where you can do that. But that isn't ANY property Anywhere. City and county zoning ordinances are basically large scale HOA's -- for the perceived good of all we don't allow anyone to use their property for any purpose they wish.

 

I just don't think lack of care has to rise to the "hazard" level before it's unacceptable.

 

And I do agree that having the rules changed by the imposition of an HOA where there was none before is tough . . . but if it's democratically installed, how is that different than having a City Councilperson (or, senator or President) I may abhor installed against my personal wishes? And believe me, the city council does more to affect your life day-in-and-day-out than any President.

 

Having said that, the biggest problem with HOA's in my actual, real life experience is that most homeowners don't get involved, and as Lord Acton said, "The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to to govern. Every class is unfit to govern...Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by NYC Drew:

Where I live, "renting out a spare bedroom or two" is problem - especially in winter, when a house with a 200AMP feed has 6-8 space heaters going at the same time, becasue there are 12 people in a space designed for 5.

I don't get it. If an apartment is X square feet it will X amount of power to heat it whether there are 5 people in it or 12. In fact the extra body heat would probably make it require less power.

 

But again... if there is a burden being placed on a particular building because there are too many people drawing electricity or using other services, then cite the owner or tenant for the overuse violation, don't just make a law that says you can't have more than X people. Either the 12 people will start using less power and recycling their garbage, or some of them will have to move.

 

Again a little common sense goes a long way here. One of my next door neighbors has an approximately 2500 square foot house. She converted the basement into an apartment that she rents out to an older guy, and rents another room upstairs to a friend. Her 3 kids also live with her. So 6 people in the house total, and it's a big house, but technically she could be busted (and the former owner WAS busted) because city ordinance says this is supposed to be a "single family neighborhood" and there are people living in the house and paying rent who are not related to her. You are considered to be "running a boardinghouse" if you rent to anybody not in your family. Come to think of it I could probably be busted too if a neighbor decided they didn't like me, seeing as I rent my spare bedroom to a friend (even though my house is 1400 square feet and we're the only two people living in it). Sorry but it's none of anybody's damn business who I live with. If a married couple with 10 kids moved in nobody would complain.

 

However, as I get older (but hopefully not crankier) I can understand why they want lawns to be less than 6".

- why garbage should not be on the curb daily for a weekly pickup; why houses should not be painted bright red and fuschia...etc etc

OK then, explain it to me: why do they want this? What's so desirable about controlling other people's lives? And more importantly what gives them any right to dictate what they want to other people who want something different and have bought their property and pay their taxes like anybody else?

 

Many malls across the country have these same types of rules that make them so predictable, bland, sometimes boring, but hey, they're predictable.

Malls are intended to be public spaces, and I don't like the boringness so I don't go to them. My house is my house, I bought it because I want it to reflect who *I* am, not what is the least offensive to everybody else. Your home is where you spend most of your time and the one place in the world where you can conduct your private business and not care what anybody thinks. And I happen to find blandness offensive. I LIKE things like bright red houses, and wildflower gardens instead of manicured lawns. If I see one more "perfectly manicured" house I'm going to hurl, but that doesn't mean I go around telling everybody else they must paint their houses bright red just because it's what I like.

 

If you don't like associations, get involved! That's the best way to equalize and neutralize.

Oh, I AM involved, trust me. Like I said, I don't oppose neighborhood organizations if they are going to do positive things like have potlucks, do neighborhood watch and maintain parks. That's pretty much all ours does. The minute anybody starts talking about mandating other people's house trim colors, I and quite a lot of other neighbors are always around to tell them where they can stick that idea. But we must remain ever vigilant.

[Geetar]

Originally posted by forceman:

Geetar , get a copy of the rules and read them yourself. Then you have the facts.

I'll forgive you, as I guess you're not getting the point of what I was trying to say. As a Limey, I've got used to this here in Florida (it's funny how all my friends in Texas understand me just fine- I guess it's the water in Sarasota County.... ).

 

Anyway, once again, it's IN THE BUILDING CHARTER.

 

It says:

 

"Motor Cycles may not be kept by residents in the car parking spaces allocated in the car park either at purchase or subsequent to purchase."

 

No further explanation. On further enquiry, I was told that those bikes I could see (and was able to see when we moved in) were "grandfathered in" as a sales incentive when apartments were being sold in the early days of this block.

 

And this would explain just what, precisely................?

[Gabriel E.]

There are also "Neighborhood Associations" in some areas. Here in N.O. there are a bunch and they vary in power and size.

 

While they have no direct power or enforcement capabilities, the stronger ones have been able to have their neighborhoods declared "historic districts" which results in a ton of municipal bylaws coming into effect.

 

My current neighborhood association covers a large geographic area and is poorly organized. I don't participate.

 

I was an active participant in my last neighborhood association. It was quite effective in pressuring the city to increase police patrols and direct more money towards street improvements. Unfortunately, property prices were so high that we had to look elsewhere when we decided to buy.

 

There were also a number of busybodies who complained about stuff like a woman painting her door an interesting shade of green, or a couple who restored a victorian house but didn't use "period correct" wrought iron on the balcony.

 

There are always people like that - there are a few in this neighborhood too.

[Jason Poff]

I can't read the whole thread right now, but I will say this...

If you want to be able to control all the property around your house, BUY all the property around your house. Pretty simple.

 

Jason

[linwood]

I just moved from a neighborhood where there was no HOA and my nextdoor neighbor had an old junk car that sat next to his driveway for the past 12 years. A real piece of shit that everyone leaving my house from the side had to walk around. Weeds were growing through the motor and out of the hood. Stray cats were living in it. He kept his trash in uncovered cans out front and when the wind blew it would go all over my lawn and gather at my front door. The family at the end of the street painted their house baby shit yellow with pink accents. The guy across the street had an old junk 4 door that sat next to his driveway for the past 15 years that he used as a tool shed. He kept tools and crap in it. It was filled to the top with useless shit. His swimming pool was full of slim and hadn't been used for decades. He never bothered with his lawn and I could see all of this everyday for 20 years out of my living room windows.Around the corner some nut decorated his front lawn with, say maybe 50 bowling balls. I've got photos I can post of this yard if you don't believe me. None of this ever bothered me. Not one bit. I'm pretty easy goin'. I just moved into a new house and we have a HOA. It's a nice gated neighborhood. My house is around 625k. It's much nicer here with the HOA.

[whitefang]

Most of the crap I see about homeowner's associations handling, or at least being given the upside about, can be handled through most suburban city councils. Such as garbage at curbside for a week at a time(a common ordinance) or foot high lawns(Dept. of health, as high grass attracts rats.)and even junked up backyards(see the high grass part.). Basically, a homeowner's association isn't needed for those kinds of things.

 

But around here, sometimes a "local interest" news story will hit the air about a homeowner's association griping about what color someone painted their porch! MY take is, if this group is willing to cover my mortgage and tax bills, I'll paint my porch any flippin' color they want. Otherwise, piss off!

 

Whitefang

[Franknputer]

I gotta say that my reaction is mixed, & I've seen both sides where I live. We bought our house from the VA - we saw nor signed nothing about a covenant nor a HOA, but we discovered that there's one here - we met a lady walking, who was in the HOA and told us a few things, most notably about an old lady who lived in the neighborhood who had a carport added on to her house, that "was perfectly nice, well-built" according to Ms. HOA, but that they made her tear it down because of a rule that you couldn't build out towards the street. (Oh my...there goes the neighborhood! )

 

Incidentally, there are sizeable front yards in this subdivision, which was built in the 1960s/70s...but no sidewalks - which is utterly stupid, except that this area was a bit more rural-ish back then...but I digress; point is, it wasn't like her carport was anywhere near the street.

 

There is a newsletter that goes around periodically, that talks about who's doing what...there is some good stuff, like clearing an unofficial cut-through from the shopping center nearby of trash & such & putting up a fence...I can get with that, it's a safety thing.

 

But then, there are comments about the "ugly" shade of green that "somebody" in the neighborhood painted their trim (my wife & I found the house, and it was bold but far from ugly).

 

My wife is an urban naturalist. She can tell you a ton about the native plants of this area, and prefers to use them in her gardening to enrich the natural balance & preserve the land from erosion & poisoning. Fine by me, I just like hearty plant life - but she's gotten some negative comments from a few people whose idea of landscaping is 1" grass and a tiny flowerbed at the bottom of the mailbox - while she's out there tending the plants!

 

I'm glad they asked the County to clean up the graffitti on the playground benches - that was a big plus. But then, this spring we get a notice dropped in our mailbox, with a sort-of "official"-looking label from the HOA (with no return address) telling us that we are being warned that our grass is too long & they are going to report us to the County for violating this & that code...never mind that Audrey is taking care of 3 young children - one being our infant son born in January - and keeping up with a huge house AND keeping in touch with our eldest daughter whose away at school in another part of the state...while I work longer & longer days to try to make ends meet (which they weren't)...never mind that we spend any spare moment & money not used for the education of our kids on making the eyesore of a house that we bought a liveable environment (and thereby RAISING the property values a good bit higher than if this dump was still abandoned) - no, we should be chastised for not having the time & energy to push the lawnmower every f*cking 2 weeks...(oh, and no, we're NOT going to rake up the yard afterwards. It's called "mulching", and it happens to be better for the grass and the water table than calling ChemLawn to come out every few weeks...)

 

So, screw 'em. I don't care anymore since we're leaving, but my attitude is this: I didn't sign anything that says they get to tell me how to run my household. If you have a problem with your neighbor (and we've told them this as well) then you should go talk to your neighbor first & find out what's up instead of bad-mouthing people anonymously in a newsletter & leaving threatening notes in your mailbox.

 

I think that the problem with these HOAs is that some people get a little authority & get filled with self-righteousness, and they get so wrapped up in running their little world of authority that they forget how to show humility & compassion to their neighbors - and I can tell you this: I would rather live where my neighbors treated each other with respect & caring than worry about who got their cans off the street last on garbage day.

[Franknputer]

You know, I'm starting to have an idea here...maybe some of us should get together, buy & build up a tract of land, & create our own little community where you're allowed to express yourselves with your houses?

 

We could have a community rehearsal & jam-space instead of tennis courts, and special parking for motorcycles & alt-fueled vehicles.

 

"If you were home right now, you'd be here. Welcome To Funky Hills".

[Tedster]

Originally posted by NYC Drew:

In a lot of instances, it's retirees with too much time on their hands.

Bingo.

[Tedster]

Originally posted by NYC Drew:

In a lot of instances, it's retirees with too much time on their hands.

Bingo.

[Tedster]

Originally posted by zeronyne:

My house sits on about an acre of land. The back 1/4 of it is old growth oak trees, as is the back 1/4 of the neighbor behind me, and between them is a dry creek that thankfully serves as drainage for rain, since this entire area is hard, hard clay. It's REALLY nice. There are a ton of deer, coyote, and really neat birds and small mammals in there. Our covenant states that you cannot cut down any three that's over 3" in diameter unless it poses a danger to existing property due to disease, age, or damage.

 

Well, Zero, I guess that's just it. You and I actually agree...from different sides of the coin. What if your homeowner association advocated changes that you didn't like...cutting down the trees...cementing up the river, putting bright blinding streetlights up and down the streets...?

 

I can't be against an organization that wants things to look "nice". But, problems arise when your definition of "nice" differs from your neighbors'. I would say Abnorm's bit about micromanaging everyone else's lives is right on. I think the main thing I object to is how restrictive some of these things are...you can't park cars in the driveway, garage doors have to be kept down, houses may be painted from a selection of three colors. I'd like to think I kept my living space looking nice without anyone else who's business it WASN'T riding my ass.

 

Obviously, people have a choice here. No one is forcing folks to buy into an association-held neighborhood...but non-association areas are getting more and more rare.

[Tedster]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

I tried to be nice and we'd go for walks together with my dog and her baby, and the whole way she'd be checking out people's houses and yards and bitching about the color of this person's trim or the age of that person's car.

 

And this is exactly what I'm talking about. Not so much that folks start up organizations to keep things tidy, but that it's left up to certain individuals' tastes as to what is and isn't acceptable. That and those stories about some neighborhood "enforcer" who thinks he's king of the hill because someone gave him the citation book.

 

It's like, I work my job...the boss tells me what to do, what not to do...this, that, these rules, those rules. I come home to a place I bought to escape that...and then there are some nosy jerks there too.

 

The horror stories of micromanagement are what I'm talking about. But, I'm glad it has caused some interesting discussion. Whew...this thread really ballooned while I was sleeping.

 

Oh, BTW...I only have 10 acres. I wouldn't know what to do with 20.

[felix.]

My wife and I were watching the Summer Olympics, and after seeing the sweeping views of Greece (you know, the postcard-type views of all of the white-building communities), I wondered out loud whether they have a homeowner's association - how else do they keep from someone painting one of those houses something other than white? Probably some kind of historic district.

 

There are now building codes in Fort Lauderdale that dictate the height and shape of a building near the beach, the idea being that taller buildings were putting the beach in shade in the afternoon. But if a developer bought the property, then shouldn't they be able to do what they want with it?

 

It seems like much of what HOA's enforce could be enforced through existing city codes. Unfortunately, the stuff just doesn't get enforced. And left-out garbage, unsafe structures, overgrown weed/insect/rodent infested yards, rusting leaking remnants of vehicles etc. are real safety and health problems that affect more than the property that they're on.

 

And as much as everyone should have the choice to live in an eclectic neighborhood, they should have the choice to live in a cookie-cutter ultra-manicured neighborhood too. Some people like that, whether you share their tastes or not.

[Gabriel E.]

Originally posted by felix.:

But if a developer bought the property, then shouldn't they be able to do what they want with it?

No.

 

If developers were allowed to do whatever they wanted with their land, we'd all be living in a concrete wasteland punctuated by the Golden Arches and millions of billboards. That's why zoning laws came into effect back in the 60s - development was out of control and America was becoming very ugly, very quickly. Nothing wrong with people owning property but they should develop it in a manner that's appropriate to the local environment and adjoining properties.

 

How would you like it if your neighbor built a 7 story building that cast a permanent shadow on your property?

[ViLo]

Originally posted by Christopher Kemp:

You know, I'm starting to have an idea here...maybe some of us should get together, buy & build up a tract of land, & create our own little community where you're allowed to express yourselves with your houses?

 

We could have a community rehearsal & jam-space instead of tennis courts, and special parking for motorcycles & alt-fueled vehicles.

 

"If you were home right now, you'd be here. Welcome To Funky Hills".

[felix.]

Originally posted by Gabriel E.:

Originally posted by felix.:

But if a developer bought the property, then shouldn't they be able to do what they want with it?

No.

 

If developers were allowed to do whatever they wanted with their land, we'd all be living in a concrete wasteland punctuated by the Golden Arches and millions of billboards. That's why zoning laws came into effect back in the 60s - development was out of control and America was becoming very ugly, very quickly. Nothing wrong with people owning property but they should develop it in a manner that's appropriate to the local environment and adjoining properties.

 

How would you like it if your neighbor built a 7 story building that cast a permanent shadow on your property?

I wouldn't. But then, I've lived in several HOA neighborhoods and I always agreed with the rules of the community. Kind of falls into "they should develop it in a manner that's appropriate to the local environment and adjoining properties..."

 

My point was just because you're a property owner shouldn't necessarily mean that you can do (or not do) whatever you want with your property.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Gabriel E.:

If developers were allowed to do whatever they wanted with their land, we'd all be living in a concrete wasteland punctuated by the Golden Arches and millions of billboards.

You mean we don't already? That's the thing that cracks me up about all this... it is VERY difficult to stop a developer from doing whatever they want on whatever property they buy - in some cases even if local governments oppose a particular development. Wal-Mart seems to be able to build whereever they like whether or not the residents oppose them, and a Wal-Mart has a HUGE effect on the economy and infrastructure in a community... yet in a lot of places if I paint the trim on my own measly little house the wrong shade or don't cut my lawn for a few weeks it's a crime that could get me forced off my property if I don't mend my evil ways.

[ViLo]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Originally posted by Gabriel E.:

If developers were allowed to do whatever they wanted with their land, we'd all be living in a concrete wasteland punctuated by the Golden Arches and millions of billboards.

You mean we don't already? That's the thing that cracks me up about all this... it is VERY difficult to stop a developer from doing whatever they want on whatever property they buy - in some cases even if local governments oppose a particular development. Wal-Mart seems to be able to build whereever they like whether or not the residents oppose them, and a Wal-Mart has a HUGE effect on the economy and infrastructure in a community... yet in a lot of places if I paint the trim on my own measly little house the wrong shade or don't cut my lawn for a few weeks it's a crime that could get me forced off my property if I don't mend my evil ways.

I pay $1400.00 year for city taxes, the city should mantain my propterty....

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by felix.:

My wife and I were watching the Summer Olympics, and after seeing the sweeping views of Greece (you know, the postcard-type views of all of the white-building communities), I wondered out loud whether they have a homeowner's association - how else do they keep from someone painting one of those houses something other than white? Probably some kind of historic district.

 

There are now building codes in Fort Lauderdale that dictate the height and shape of a building near the beach, the idea being that taller buildings were putting the beach in shade in the afternoon. But if a developer bought the property, then shouldn't they be able to do what they want with it?

I've already said several times that I don't oppose zoning laws and other building codes, OR HOA's, if they address legitimate concerns such as safety hazards. Historic preservation and/or environmental protection could be considered legitimate public concerns too, because if we lose old buildings or old growth forests we can't just put them back as easily as someone can replant a lawn or repaint their trim.

 

What I oppose specifically are any "laws" (whether they are city ordinances or HOA covenants, it really makes no difference to me) that dictate what someone can do on own property that are strictly based on the way that property looks. If something is causing a safety hazard, or otherwise affecting neighbors such as casting a shadow over their house or causing excessive noise or odor that neighbors can't escape even inside their homes, that's a problem (and ironically lawn mower noise and lawn chemicals do fall into that category, yet nobody prohibits those). But if it has to do with what color you paint your house (where there is no historic preservation agenda in effect), whether you leave your car in the driveway instead of the garage, how well you maintain your lawn or your hedges or whatever... that's just beyond the bounds of ridiculous.

 

And as much as everyone should have the choice to live in an eclectic neighborhood, they should have the choice to live in a cookie-cutter ultra-manicured neighborhood too. Some people like that, whether you share their tastes or not.

Well, if you want an ultra-manicured property, have one. My next door neighbors do, and I don't bitch to them about it even though it's not my taste and I could do without the smell and noise of their yard maintenance. I would love it too if I could live in a world without strip malls and lots of other things I consider a daily assault on my senses. But this isn't about what we like or don't like, it's about whether we have the right to force those tastes on other people whose property we don't own. Like Jason said, if you want to control the property around your house, BUY the property around your house. If you don't have the money to do that or have other priorities, then you have no right to hassle your neighbors about how to decorate what little property THEY own.

[Lee Flier]

LOL well here's a synchronistic moment... just yesterday I received my newsletter from the neighborhood association here. We don't have a formal HOA with dues and covenants at all, just an informal association that gets together to talk about and do improvement projects, have block parties or whatever. It's mostly the city council who is a pain in our ass.

 

Here is a direct quote from this month's newsletter:

 

A handful of residents have taken it upon themselves to "help" the police chief by sniffing out "violations" such as homeowners using a towel as a temporary curtain.

 

Now, clearly there is no ordinance against having a towel over one's window and so we have a dilemma. Should the city government write enough ordinances to criminalize everything that could possibly be offensive to this tiny group of self-sworn deputies, or should we leave the police out of interior (or exterior) decorating issues and let them enforce actual laws?

 

Tromping through neighbors' yards to deliver written warnings is not only rude but trespassing, which is itself a violation more damaging to the peace of the neighborhood than a couple of draped towels.

Thank you, o ye neighbors of good common sense!

[ViLo]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

LOL well here's a synchronistic moment... just yesterday I received my newsletter from the neighborhood association here. We don't have a formal HOA with dues and covenants at all, just an informal association that gets together to talk about and do improvement projects, have block parties or whatever. It's mostly the city council who is a pain in our ass.

 

Here is a direct quote from this month's newsletter:

 

A handful of residents have taken it upon themselves to "help" the police chief by sniffing out "violations" such as homeowners using a towel as a temporary curtain.

 

Now, clearly there is no ordinance against having a towel over one's window and so we have a dilemma. Should the city government write enough ordinances to criminalize everything that could possibly be offensive to this tiny group of self-sworn deputies, or should we leave the police out of interior (or exterior) decorating issues and let them enforce actual laws?

 

Tromping through neighbors' yards to deliver written warnings is not only rude but trespassing, which is itself a violation more damaging to the peace of the neighborhood than a couple of draped towels.

Thank you, o ye neighbors of good common sense!

LOL+LOL W/Delay EFX!! THAT"S's funny