A letter from the homeowner's association is rarely good, but this time, the thick envelope may have brought some good news. The board is proposing changes to our CCRs (Covenants, Codes, & Restrictions) that seem basically worthwhile.
A letter from the homeowner's association is rarely good, but this time, the thick envelope may have brought some good news. The board is proposing changes to our CCRs (Covenants, Codes, & Restrictions) that seem basically worthwhile.
Posted on December 14, 2008 in Privatopia | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Whenever an hoa story hits the news, no matter how brainless the hoa's action, no matter how innocent and legal or even praiseworthy the homeowner's action, no matter how liberal or conservative the website, a bunch of commenters will say the same thing:
"Well, that person CHOSE to live in an hoa. If you don't want to do whatever the hoa says, you shouldn't buy the house."
Let's set aside, for this post anyway, the idiotic belief that rules should be enforced simply because they exist, whether or not they are unnecessary or harmful. Let's talk about "choice." This article, The Myth of 'Privatopia', echoes what I've been saying for a long time: very few people actually CHOOSE to live in an hoa. To wit:
[M]ore than 80 percent of new housing in the country is being built within CIDs [common-interest developments]. [snip]
Why would cities allow developers to circumvent planning ordinances and create communities that may not be up to the task of maintaining their own infrastructure?
"The cities get something for nothing," says [Evan] McKenzie. "They still get the property taxes without building or maintaining the infrastructure, the pipes, the streets, the parks. Essentially, it's a form of double taxation."
Exactly. Where I live, municipalities have actually required developers to create hoas for at least the past decade. Since that's when most of the area's growth occurred, hoa-less homes are scarce, especially for those who don't have $500,000+ to spend. Read the whole article for an enlightening history of hoa creep.
Even if you somehow manage to locate and purchase a non-hoa property (increasingly tough to do unless you custom-build on property located 90 mins from anywhere)--apparently you can be forced into an hoa anyway! Kudos to one courageous Floridian who refuses to be bullied. I'm sure he is getting all kinds of grief from his "neighbors."
By the way, I'm not posting this to complain about my own hoa--our board right now (afaik) consists of well-meaning, nice people. It's the hoa system that cries out for reform.
If you live in Florida, do join the Cyber Citizens for Justice hoa reform organization (or at least, fill out their survey).
Posted on August 12, 2008 in Privatopia | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Posted on May 09, 2007 in Privatopia | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Posted on September 28, 2006 in Privatopia | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Your heart will bleed for this young married couple. They purchased their new home in 2002 for $169,000, and are dismayed to discover that it didn't more than double its value in four years, despite the addition of tile floors and a backyard koi pond. Not only that, but the real estate market's failure to perform to expectations is costing them their future, CNN reports:
"We're planning on starting a family someday," says the 30-year-old Young [no relation], who builds simulation software for a defense contractor. "We wanted a bigger home - with a pool."
After all, their current home is only a tiny four-bedroom, two-and-a-half bath, 2,861 square feet. No one could possibly squeeze more than two people into it. Especially when there's no pool.
Posted on September 27, 2006 in Privatopia | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
Gulf coast residents are moving into tiny houses! I love tiny houses. Since I have small kids, though, it's more likely that I would indulge in one of these even tinier doors. Though so far, the local woodland, forest and flower fairies have shown no signs of being displaced by urban sprawl, perhaps they have just been scared away by our procrustean homeowner's association.
Posted on May 19, 2006 in Privatopia | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

This confusing slogan was left on our doorknob the other day: "We Take Care of Your Lawn. Not Your Neighbor!" Huh? The flyer arrived shortly after one of our neighbors sold his lawn care business, but we don't think these expensive-looking glossy door-hangers were printed just for our block.
My best guess is that the company means to imply its service will make our lawn look so good, our neighbors will be jealous.
I don't really need any more negative vibes coming from my neighbors, thank you.
Posted on May 17, 2006 in Grammar, Privatopia | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)
Gosh I hope this bill passes. I've already written to my legislators about it. Among other things, the bill would limit terms of board members and ban associations from filing liens and foreclosures for amounts under $2500. But after reading this Sun Sentinel article about it, I think it'll be a tough battle:
Representing boards again this year is the Community Association Leadership Lobby, or CALL, an arm of the Fort Lauderdale-based Becker & Poliakoff law firm.
On the other side is Cyber Citizens for Justice, or CCFJ, a grassroots organization for unit owners.
Generally, I think professional lobby groups with dedicted lawyers tend to fare better in the legislative arena than grassroots organizations. But since that newspaper article was written, an identical bill was introduced in the state senate. Maybe there is hope.
It would be a bit tougher to manage a hoa without being able to sue people for assessments (our community assessment is less than $265 a year, so it would take nine years of delinquency before the hoa could collect). However, most people pay their assessments because most people recognize the services they get in return (e.g., common area maintenance). And when boards must mind their pennies, they are less likely to embark on expensive legal actions against homeowners for trivial reasons--and attorneys have much less to gain by encouraging them.
Homeowners associations with less power to make people miserable? Sounds good to me.
Posted on March 29, 2006 in Privatopia | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
I really feel for this woman, stuck in a community where the management appears to be, umm, not well educated in one of their areas of responsibility. She writes:
No one that I spoke to at the Board of Directors or Manager level was concerned about the replacement of our trees which were lost in 2005. They admit that they do not know what the native trees and plants are for SE Florida. They are completely unaware that trees control the water table, prevent flooding around the retention pond, give shade and cool relief to the unit owners, increase the value of the property up to 20%, reduce Co2 levels, oxygenate the air and are beautiful to look upon as the seasons change; if native are planted in the right location. . . . And no one can give me an answer on how much money there is for landscaping, only that the budget has a $10,000. line item for tree removal and none for replacement.
Desiring to do the right thing, this woman set out to educate herself, attending plant shows, reading books, talking to experts, even buying a few small plants to donate to her community. Alas, her efforts were quashed by the "chairwoman of the beautification committee":
We don’t need any more trees, where would we put them, won’t they block the view, oh, they are too big. No we won’t be buying trees. There is no money for trees, who told you there was any money for your building. No, you can’t plant trees even if the money is donated. We are planting bougainvilla (non-native). Would you like to plant crotons (non-native).
I ran into the same anti-tree attitude from a few people when I was coordinating our neighborhood tree project (funded by a county grant). One woman attended a neighborhood meeting and complained constantly about "leaf trash"; she was from NY, she told us repeatedly, so she knew how ugly leaf trash would be even if the rest of us didn't, and was the hoa going to rake her leaves? Why couldn't she get the kind of shade tree that didn't ever drop its leaves or need to be watered? And who was going to pay the bill when the tree roots destroyed our sidewalks? etc. This is the woman who uprooted her "Yard of the Month" sign during a screaming episode while we were planting trees. A few other neighbors were convinced that trees would lower their property values by blocking the view of their houses from the street. Bear in mind that these trees were planted a year ago and their trunks are still only a few inches in diameter.
Fortunately, our hoa board at the time was enlightened, so I had the ok to gather neighborhood support. Also fortunately, it's easier to manage such projects in an hoa than a condo because individual homeowners can opt out. Even good things should not be forced on people who don't want them, and people who worked hard to achieve a certain look to their landscapes understandably might not want a streetside tree. Condo owners have less autonomy.
I don't know what I would have done if the board had the same attitude as the chairwoman of the Lakeside Village beautification committee. Maybe I'd have tried to organize the project anyway--but it would have been a lot harder.
Don't get me wrong--having served on my hoa board, I fully appreciate the fact that not every idea from a homeowner can be supported. Plus there might be some aspect to this decision that I don't know. However, when someone is willing to work this hard, and when she has evidence that her efforts will benefit the community, a board would do better to encourage her rather than issuing an autocratic "no."
Posted on March 28, 2006 in Privatopia | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Boy am I glad I don't live in this community (via Privatopia):
The condo complex was damaged in the Ventura earthquake of 1994. The HOA made a (first party) claim under their State Farm property insurance policy. State Farm paid out $4.9 million that the HOA was supposed to pay to the repair contractor, ECC. But the HOA kept a "substantial portion" of the money. ECC sued the HOA for non-payment. That case went to jury trial and ECC won a judgment of about $7.5 million that the judge reduced to $7.1 million. The HOA then made another claim (a third party claim) against State Farm to pay that judgment. State Farm refused, saying the claim was not covered because the policy insured the HOA against liability to third parties caused by the HOA's negligence, but not against intentional or contractual liability. So the HOA sued State Farm. State Farm won (the HOA is now 0-2). The HOA appealed, and in the opinion linked above, State Farm won again. The HOA has to pay the judgment--there is no insurance coverage for any of it.
I started wondering why the board of directors got into that situation. Why didn't they pay their bills to ECC? And how could they have expected their insurance company to pay their judgement? Could they have been getting terrible legal advice, or did they make these choices on their own? A 2002 news report suggests that the condo association stopped paying the contractor because they weren't happy with the work being done. That reminds me a bit of the actions of homeowners who stop paying their assessments because they don't like what their hoas are doing . . . and who end up losing their homes (also via Privatopia).
I also wonder what will happen to the homeowners in this community. If the condo association has 268 members, then will homeowners have to cough up $26,500 apiece? Ouch.
Posted on March 17, 2006 in Privatopia | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)


Recent Comments