HOAs foreclose on big banks

[Blake]

Specifically how?

How what?

[coyotes_geek]

False assumption.

if you want to get more specific, and it's obvious you do, what you offered was a false choice for the dilemma.

Again, specifically speaking.


Correct. If you think that's a false dilemma, please state the additional options at your disposal.

Be specific.

[Wild Cobra]

How what?
How am I wrong:

You've never dealt with an HOA. No claims you make in this thread contain merit.

And that's aside from your history of being a pure ass talker.
Please be specific.

[Blake]

words

What you proposed is a logical fallacy based on my original premise.

it's a shame you don't get it. Specifically, I'm sorry you don't.

[Blake]

How am I wrong:

Please be specific.

I don't care to prove you wrong.

You're an ass talker because you rarely ever care to prove yourself right.

This thread contains a specific example of your ass talking which I very specifically pointed out already.

[coyotes_geek]

What you proposed is a logical fallacy based on my original premise.

it's a shame you don't get it. Specifically, I'm sorry you don't.

Your "original premise" seems to change every time someone shoots a hole in it. Just to set the record straight, mind re-stating what that "original premise" is for the moment?

[Blake]

Your "original premise" seems to change every time someone shoots a hole in it.

you aren't sure what my original premise is, but you can see holes in it.

Neat.



Just to set the record straight, mind re-stating what that "original premise" is for the moment?

Page 1:


.. an HOA being able to take control of the property and ultimately sell it because the owner failed to live up to the contract is pure evil, imo.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://tribalinsight.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/i-want-to-believe.jpg

You know what vy: fuck you.

Have they or have they not been consolidated 80% of the new construction market?

Have their lobbies pushed legislation into title law in 16 states?

Do they have a coordinating lobbying group?

This is not conspiracy. Its out in the open.

All I said is that it bears to reason that they will further these activities and I was curious as to where they were able to influence their power in the new construction industry. They have to have some influence at some point. Conspiracy would be me asserting some speculation as true.

Why are you going so sophist in order to defend the HOA industry? And yes when they have their own trade association it is an industry.

[coyotes_geek]

you aren't sure what my original premise is, but you can see holes in it.

Neat.




Page 1:

Interesting. Because on page 9 it sure looked to me like we were talking about something different.


Plenty of ” old” neighborhoods have those amenities with voluntary membership to be clear.

You cannot get those amenities in a new subdivision without being forced to join the HOA.

round and round.


Right. The only thing forcing anyone into joining an HOA is their own decision to limit their options to a newer community with amenities provided by an HOA. Non issue. Anyone who doesn't want an HOA doesn't have to have one.


What an awesome false dilemma.

America! Love it or gtfo!


What's false about it?

Be specific.


Specifically, you are implying I have two options regarding this issue: take it or leave it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Throwing stones... Coming from you that's a riot. What's wrong. Cant take your own medicine?

LOL...

Tract House...

LOL...

I would never... I mean never... buy or rent a tract house. Too fucking ticky tacky...

ahmxbNzxgdU

As for the girl. She moved in March. Came back for a couple weeks recently and treated me so damn good sexually. I don't think you understand such things, or how much she missed me.

:lol

[Blake]

Interesting. Because on page 9 it sure looked to me like we were talking about something different.

Clarification of sub points and running off of on tangents that other posters bring up will happen.

It took several pages just for some to get that evil != illegal.

And even then, I'm not sure it has fully sunken in for them.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't care to prove you wrong.

You're an ass talker because you rarely ever care to prove yourself right.

This thread contains a specific example of your ass talking which I very specifically pointed out already.
Liar.

[Blake]

Liar.

Prove it.

[Useruser666]

My two cents:

While the basic principle that HOA can help maintain neighborhood property values may have started out with good honest intentions, but I feel that today they are overused by new developers and home builders to keep the profit margins high long enough for them to complete their projects and bail. It is easy to tell people that do not wish to live in a HOA governed neighborhood to simply avoid them. The problem with that is it can be extremely difficult to do. I have lived in four neighborhoods in the last 20 years. Three out of the four had HOAs. The one that didn’t was an area that was developed in the ‘50s, while the three HOA run developments were built in the ‘90s or later. With such saturation of these organizations, it is important to look closely at them to determine if they are causing more harm than good.

One troubling aspect is that these HOA are often governed by private companies that make a business out of managing neighborhoods. Now every business needs to profit to survive, so it’s in the managing company’s best interests if they do foreclose, as this can be a cash windfall them once they sell the property. I mean, who wouldn’t trade a few hundred dollars for a home worth a few hundred thousand? The HOAs that are run by these companies are not residents of the neighborhood, they are not voted in by the constituents. They have no incentive to succeed their power, as this would mean losing a revenue stream.

I have read stories about HOA rule enforcement, and even seen in my own neighborhood a house that the HOA wanted to seize because it was painted a color (a dark green) that the HOA didn’t approve of. The contract that the homeowners signed only stipulated something along the lines of “no gaudy or flamboyant house colors”, and there was no preapproval required. The ability of the HOA to seize a person’s house using a vague rule that is highly open to interpretation is what scares me. This is not the only example of rules like this or instances where they are enforced. The other scary aspect is that in many contracts, the HOA have added clauses that allow them to change and modify the contract as they see fit. So even if you are comfortable with the terms of the contract at signing, the terms can change later on, with no recourse available to you. Now of course, if you saw such a clause, you wouldn’t sign right?

Lastly, I feel that in general, that the growth of HOA and the power they wield are just another example of the erosion of private property rights. If the colors you paint your house or the pink flamingos you put in your yard do not endanger your neighbors in any way, then it is none of their business and certainly not the business of an HOA. The city or county government is the already existing, elected governing body who holds these responsibilities.

[leemajors]

My two cents:

While the basic principle that HOA can help maintain neighborhood property values may have started out with good honest intentions, but I feel that today they are overused by new developers and home builders to keep the profit margins high long enough for them to complete their projects and bail. It is easy to tell people that do not wish to live in a HOA governed neighborhood to simply avoid them. The problem with that is it can be extremely difficult to do. I have lived in four neighborhoods in the last 20 years. Three out of the four had HOAs. The one that didn’t was an area that was developed in the ‘50s, while the three HOA run developments were built in the ‘90s or later. With such saturation of these organizations, it is important to look closely at them to determine if they are causing more harm than good.

One troubling aspect is that these HOA are often governed by private companies that make a business out of managing neighborhoods. Now every business needs to profit to survive, so it’s in the managing company’s best interests if they do foreclose, as this can be a cash windfall them once they sell the property. I mean, who wouldn’t trade a few hundred dollars for a home worth a few hundred thousand? The HOAs that are run by these companies are not residents of the neighborhood, they are not voted in by the constituents. They have no incentive to succeed their power, as this would mean losing a revenue stream.

I have read stories about HOA rule enforcement, and even seen in my own neighborhood a house that the HOA wanted to seize because it was painted a color (a dark green) that the HOA didn’t approve of. The contract that the homeowners signed only stipulated something along the lines of “no gaudy or flamboyant house colors”, and there was no preapproval required. The ability of the HOA to seize a person’s house using a vague rule that is highly open to interpretation is what scares me. This is not the only example of rules like this or instances where they are enforced. The other scary aspect is that in many contracts, the HOA have added clauses that allow them to change and modify the contract as they see fit. So even if you are comfortable with the terms of the contract at signing, the terms can change later on, with no recourse available to you. Now of course, if you saw such a clause, you wouldn’t sign right?

Lastly, I feel that in general, that the growth of HOA and the power they wield are just another example of the erosion of private property rights. If the colors you paint your house or the pink flamingos you put in your yard do not endanger your neighbors in any way, then it is none of their business and certainly not the business of an HOA. The city or county government is the already existing, elected governing body who holds these responsibilities.

:tu

[vy65]

...

[vy65]

Edit. Nvm.

[coyotes_geek]

One troubling aspect is that these HOA are often governed by private companies that make a business out of managing neighborhoods. Now every business needs to profit to survive, so it’s in the managing company’s best interests if they do foreclose, as this can be a cash windfall them once they sell the property. I mean, who wouldn’t trade a few hundred dollars for a home worth a few hundred thousand? The HOAs that are run by these companies are not residents of the neighborhood, they are not voted in by the constituents. They have no incentive to succeed their power, as this would mean losing a revenue stream.

Lots of inaccuracies in here.

HOA's aren't governed by a management company, they're governed by a board that's elected by the property owners. The management company is hired by the board.

HOA's can foreclose on someone, management companies can't. Management companies don't really care one way or the other if an HOA forecloses on someone. They get paid by the HOA. Someone not paying their dues to the HOA is the HOA's problem, not theirs.

While it's true that those employed by the management company probably aren't going to be residents of the community, the management company still has plenty of incentive to succeed because the board that hired them can fire them just as easily.

[Useruser666]

Lots of inaccuracies in here.

HOA's aren't governed by a management company, they're governed by a board that's elected by the property owners. The management company is hired by the board.

HOA's can foreclose on someone, management companies can't. Management companies don't really care one way or the other if an HOA forecloses on someone. They get paid by the HOA. Someone not paying their dues to the HOA is the HOA's problem, not theirs.

While it's true that those employed by the management company probably aren't going to be residents of the community, the management company still has plenty of incentive to succeed because the board that hired them can fire them just as easily.

I'm not inaccurate in what I said. Have you ever had dealings with a property management company or HOA? Do you know people who work for them? Have you read about their lobbying efforts? I have and do. In many cases the management company is the HOA, their employees are even on the board of the HOA in some cases or control the board (board president). I have seen several where HOA cannot be dissolved without the management company’s approval, even if there is a resident elected board that is made up entirely of residents. Not all HOAs have elected boards either. I think the line between the HOA and the management company is thin, in many cases, to say the least. It is very similar to how home builders create their own developers, so as to not expose the builder to liabilities that the “shell” development company can incur. For example, a neighborhood I lived in had a restriction that your front lawn grass could not reach 15” or more in height. If you allowed it to grow taller you would get warned, fined, and this could eventually lead to foreclosure. Now that is all fine and good, but scattered throughout the neighborhood, were still vacant lots waiting to have houses built on them. This was just after the housing bubble bust, so these lots sat for months to years without any development. On these lots there was no “lawn” but wild grass, weeds and scrubland vegetation that was many feet tall. Because the developer owns the unsold property and not the builder, they weren’t responsible for maintaining the 15” max lawn height. In this case the developer WAS the property management company. That is both a conflict of interest, and an unfair practice to the residents who are held to the contract's covenants.

I won’t say names, but an example would be “Smith Builders (home builder), Smith Developers (development company), and Smith Property Management (property management and HOA controlling principle)”. Behind the scenes they are all really the builder. And if the builder thinks that you are somehow causing him to not sell houses, he can easily force you out under the guise of protecting property values.

I am not really arguing against holding people to signed contracts, but the way that HOAs have choked the market feels like this more of a racket than anything else.

[coyotes_geek]

I'm not inaccurate in what I said. Have you ever had dealings with a property management company or HOA? Do you know people who work for them? Have you read about their lobbying efforts? I have and do. In many cases the management company is the HOA, their employees are even on the board of the HOA in some cases or control the board (board president). I have seen several where HOA cannot be dissolved without the management company’s approval, even if there is a resident elected board that is made up entirely of residents. Not all HOAs have elected boards either. I think the line between the HOA and the management company is thin, in many cases, to say the least. It is very similar to how home builders create their own developers, so as to not expose the builder to liabilities that the “shell” development company can incur. For example, a neighborhood I lived in had a restriction that your front lawn grass could not reach 15” or more in height. If you allowed it to grow taller you would get warned, fined, and this could eventually lead to foreclosure. Now that is all fine and good, but scattered throughout the neighborhood, were still vacant lots waiting to have houses built on them. This was just after the housing bubble bust, so these lots sat for months to years without any development. On these lots there was no “lawn” but wild grass, weeds and scrubland vegetation that was many feet tall. Because the developer owns the unsold property and not the builder, they weren’t responsible for maintaining the 15” max lawn height. In this case the developer WAS the property management company. That is both a conflict of interest, and an unfair practice to the residents who are held to the contract's covenants.

I won’t say names, but an example would be “Smith Builders (home builder), Smith Developers (development company), and Smith Property Management (property management and HOA controlling principle)”. Behind the scenes they are all really the builder. And if the builder thinks that you are somehow causing him to not sell houses, he can easily force you out under the guise of protecting property values.

I am not really arguing against holding people to signed contracts, but the way that HOAs have choked the market feels like this more of a racket than anything else.

When a community is under development, yeah, the developer is going to be running the whole show simply due to the fact that they own all the lots. The fact that the developer votes themselves onto the board and the board votes to hire themselves as the mgmt co doesn't change the fact that it's still a board elected by residents picking a mgmt co. Eventually the developer goes away and the residents are the ones calling the shots.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lots of inaccuracies in here.

HOA's aren't governed by a management company, they're governed by a board that's elected by the property owners. The management company is hired by the board.

HOA's can foreclose on someone, management companies can't. Management companies don't really care one way or the other if an HOA forecloses on someone. They get paid by the HOA. Someone not paying their dues to the HOA is the HOA's problem, not theirs.

While it's true that those employed by the management company probably aren't going to be residents of the community, the management company still has plenty of incentive to succeed because the board that hired them can fire them just as easily.

Sorry but all a HOA is is a corporate entity with contractually granted powers which homeowners are made beholden to as part of the title agreement.

There is absolutely no requirement for them to be governed by the owners themselves.

This should be obvious. When HOA are first created that is when lots are being sold. It is run by the developer. Typically at some point --when enough lets are sold-- the governance of the HOA is transferred. There is no legal requirement that it be that the governance be passed to the the homeowners.

It's a contract and as such it can be arbitrarily constructed as long as it is within the framework of the law. There is no law with the requirements you claim and they have a lobbying group. What do you think that the lobbying group lobbies for? What do you think they would do if such legislation was presented?

[coyotes_geek]

Sorry but all a HOA is is a corporate entity with contractually granted powers which homeowners are made beholden to as part of the title agreement.

There is absolutely no requirement for them to be governed by the owners themselves.

This should be obvious. When HOA are first created that is when lots are being sold. It is run by the developer. Typically at some point --when enough lets are sold-- the governance of the HOA is transferred. There is no legal requirement that it be that the governance be passed to the the homeowners.

It's a contract and as such it can be arbitrarily constructed as long as it is within the framework of the law. There is no law with the requirements you claim and they have a lobbying group. What do you think that the lobbying group lobbies for? What do you think they would do if such legislation was presented?

Can you help me find a case where a developer transferred control of an HOA to someone other than the residents?

Honest question.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Can you help me find a case where a developer transferred control of an HOA to someone other than the residents?

Honest question.

http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20101117/ARTICLES/11174000

http://freerealestatelaw.com/HOAssocLaw.html

Here is a document outlining WA's HOA statutes. You will note in the bylaw requirements that there is no requirement that members be owners nor what the amendment procedures actually be.

http://www.lvrj.com/real_estate/hoa-directors-should-be-held-accountable-160106875.html

Las Vegas apparently has laws governing board selection but indicates how they can be circumvented.


Now, this is a touchy subject as this proposed law would be used improperly by HOA boards that could try and block homeowners from sitting on the board. This objection could be addressed by giving the Nevada Real Estate Commission the ability to access a fine on the board if abuse of this law were proven.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Here's a description of how CA handles HOA management.

You can read how boards are setup typically by the developers and they can then hide behind quorum rules, term limits, disclsure etc.

http://www.calassoc-hoa.com/Homeowners-Association/General-Information/HOAs-are-Corporations.aspx

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Association Structure


What is the difference between an incorporated HOA and an unincorporated HOA?

The law allows a homeowners association to be either incorporated or unincorporated. An incorporated association has a legal identity that is separate from that of its members, just as Micorsoft has a legal identity that is separate from its shareholders. Unlike Microsoft, which is a for profit corporation, an incorporated homeowners association is a non-profit mutual benefit corporation which means that its powers are limited to those normally associated with a homeowners association, and it is exempt from certain governmental fees and taxes.

Traditionally, homeowners associations have been incorporated to protect owners from responsibility for association debts, losses and liabilities. But recent laws have extended most of these protections to owners of unincorporated associations provided the associations have proper insurance. (For additional information on these protections, see Civil Code §§1365.7 and 1365.9, and Corporations Code §21100.) Under current law, the advantages of incorporation are some (very limited) additional protection from owner liability, ease of opening association accounts with certain banks and vendors, and qualification of the units or lots for mortgage loans from lenders that require an incorporated association. Balanced against these advantages are the costs of forming the corporation, the burden of annually filing a form with the Secretary of State, and additional procedural formalities such as having officers and directors, and conducting formal meetings.

An unincorporated association can be incorporated by its owners at any time. The process of incorporation involves amending the governing documents, preparing Articles of Incorporation, and filing with the Secretary of State.

Another article describing how the corporate entity can be separate from the owners.

http://www.andysirkin.com/HTMLArticle.cfm?Article=17

[coyotes_geek]

First off, thanks for the research. :toast

Specific to Texas, no arguement that when the developer is there, he's running the show. Post-developer, I've never heard of a case where residents didn't elect their board. That being said, my research dug up the below and if it wasn't until 2011 that Texas passed a law guaranteeing residents right to vote in HOA elections I suppose it was possible. But given the below, I don't see how it is anymore.


New Laws Impacting HOAs – Numerous laws were enacted by the 2011 Texas legislature that provided good-governance provisions for HOA homeowners. These include HB 2761, SB 472, HB 1228, and HB 362. The new Texas HOA legislation:

Mandates open records.
Mandates standards for (1) records retention and (2) records production.
Allows homeowners to sue in local justice of the peace courts for remedies if the HOA does not produce records.
Mandates that key governance documents must be (1) filed with the County and (2) posted on the HOA web site.
Allows all owners to (1) vote in HOA elections and (2) run for the HOA board (unless convicted of a felony or crime of moral turpitude).
Provides for an independent election recount mechanism.
Establishes a priority of payments (i.e. assessments = first; fines/legal fees = last).
Allows solar devices on private property, given certain provisions.
Mandates various voting techniques, including proxy voting.
Mandates that the HOA board must have at least one-third control by residents once the HOA is 75% built-out.
Mandates that HOAs must allow rain harvesting devices, flag poles, and religious displays on front doors – all under certain conditions.

http://hoareformcoalition.org/pending-bills/

[Blake]

Those state laws should be federal laws, imo

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's only one third control . Further it gives no requirement ofr what ti takes to initiate a vote. Further relating to the link is it gives no power for the homeowners to call meetings.

This clearly allows boards to entrench themselves.

Further, as a continued up yours to vy, I thought these portions of your links were cogent:


Opponents of HOA Legislation – The key opponents of Texas HOA legislation have been builders, professional HOA managers, Lawyers, and their lobbyists. One of the primary opponents of most HOA legislation has been TCAA (Texas Community Association Advocates). The TCAA board is almost totally comprised of lobbyists, lawyers, and others who sell services to HOA managers.


Fear of Openness – One of the HOA governance laws that the 2011 Texas legislature did not pass was a good open meetings bill. The open meetings bill that did pass was weak and primarily applies only to HOAs that are not under developer control. Under the new laws, there are a few open meetings laws for all HOAs, including those still under developer control. The lobbyists for the builders and professional HOA managers put up strong resistance regarding open meetings legislation. Interestingly, there have been very detailed open meetings laws in place for two HOAs in the Houston area for several years – with no major concerns.

I am glad to see people are doing something about HOA's but I do not think that means we can just forget about it now.

[vy65]

Keep digging Fuzzy. The truth is out there.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Keep digging Fuzzy. The truth is out there.

Very compelling point, counselor. I have said it before but I truly do hope that you are better at constructing arguments for your legal work.

[Wild Cobra]

Prove it.
Why?

Every one sees it.

[Blake]

Why?

Every one sees it.

Prove anyone but you sees it.

[Useruser666]

When a community is under development, yeah, the developer is going to be running the whole show simply due to the fact that they own all the lots. The fact that the developer votes themselves onto the board and the board votes to hire themselves as the mgmt co doesn't change the fact that it's still a board elected by residents picking a mgmt co. Eventually the developer goes away and the residents are the ones calling the shots.

I'm sorry but you are wrong about the shift of power once the builder leaves. I have been a resident of a post-builder neighborhood that was controlled by a management company and only had partial representation from residents. Even if 100% of the residence wanted to dissolve the HOA, they couldn’t because the management company had that power written in the contract/HOA bylaws. The people who were elected to the “board” could not officially change anything without the consent of the management company. The builder/developer only contracts the professional management company after they have completed their work in the neighborhood. This may not be the case with every HOA, but like other corporations, once one puts wording into their contracts others are soon to follow.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm sorry but you are wrong about the shift of power once the builder leaves. I have been a resident of a post-builder neighborhood that was controlled by a management company and only had partial representation from residents. Even if 100% of the residence wanted to dissolve the HOA, they couldn’t because the management company had that power written in the contract/HOA bylaws. The people who were elected to the “board” could not officially change anything without the consent of the management company. The builder/developer only contracts the professional management company after they have completed their work in the neighborhood. This may not be the case with every HOA, but like other corporations, once one puts wording into their contracts others are soon to follow.
Didn't you read and understand the contract before you signed it?

[Useruser666]

Didn't you read and understand the contract before you signed it?


Yes I did, but that's not the point of anything I stated in this thread. I would wager that you would not feel so comfortable doling out such a petty statement if you suddenly found yourself on the business end of an HOA.

[coyotes_geek]

I'm sorry but you are wrong about the shift of power once the builder leaves. I have been a resident of a post-builder neighborhood that was controlled by a management company and only had partial representation from residents. Even if 100% of the residence wanted to dissolve the HOA, they couldn’t because the management company had that power written in the contract/HOA bylaws. The people who were elected to the “board” could not officially change anything without the consent of the management company. The builder/developer only contracts the professional management company after they have completed their work in the neighborhood. This may not be the case with every HOA, but like other corporations, once one puts wording into their contracts others are soon to follow.

I've lived in multiple HOA communities, I've worked on a couple of land development project for developers, I've even talked about this to a coworker of mine who's been doing land development for almost 30 years. He's worked for developers doing design and construction of new neighborhoods and he's worked for HOA's in mature communities who just wanted to add a playground.

According to him he's never seen a developer have any interest in exerting any kind of control over a built out community. They've made their money, they want to move on. All sticking around does is increase their costs and increase their exposure to lawsuits because HOA's get sued a lot.

As for management companies, he's seen management companies get buddy-buddy with a board to the point where a board would be pretty much a rubber stamp for the management company, but he's never seen anything written into bylaws about the management company having any kind of official authority over property owners. He's not even sure that would be legal. Even if it was it would be beyond stupid to do so. They certainly don't want to give a property manager any control over them while they're still around, and ceding control to someone other than the residents after they're gone would be bad PR and an invitation for lawsuits.

As for an HOA wanting to dissolve itself, if it owns property (it does), then legally it can't dissolve itself without having someone lined up to take ownership of the property. That's not a property manager thing, it's a government thing. Somebody needs to be around to pay property taxes.

I'm certainly not going to say that me or my co-worker know your specific HOA better than you, so if that's really how it was, that certainly sucks for you. I do feel confident though in saying that situation has got to be pretty rare.

HOA's can definitely be a pain in the arse, but I've never seen one where residents didn't have the ability to make changes. No doubt changes are still hard to come by, but that's because most residents in HOA communities are either happy with the HOA or are simply apathetic to the whole thing.

[Blake]

As for an HOA wanting to dissolve itself, if it owns property (it does), then legally it can't dissolve itself without having someone lined up to take ownership of the property. That's not a property manager thing, it's a government thing. Somebody needs to be around to pay property taxes.

Fyi, it doesn't always own property. I know mine doesn't.

They do for sure in planned unit developments where they own and maintain the streets.

on a sidebar, PUDs are great for cities/municipalities. Just that many less homes and streets to service for street repairs and in many cases, garbage pick up.....with no property tax break.



HOA's can definitely be a pain in the arse, but I've never seen one where residents didn't have the ability to make changes. No doubt changes are still hard to come by, but that's because most residents in HOA communities are either happy with the HOA or are simply apathetic to the whole thing.

No doubt that's the truth.

It's a shame, imo, that more people don't realize just how worthless most HOAs and HOA management companies are.

[coyotes_geek]

Fyi, it doesn't always own property. I know mine doesn't.

They do for sure in planned unit developments where they own and maintain the streets.

on a sidebar, PUDs are great for cities/municipalities. Just that many less homes and streets to service for street repairs and in many cases, garbage pick up.

You're right. I should have specified that if you've got a community pool, park or greenbelt the HOA almost certainly own property, but not all communities do.


No doubt that's the truth.

It's a shame, imo, that more people don't realize just how worthless most HOAs and HOA management companies are.

Agreed. It's pretty sad. I'm in a pretty big community, probably 3,000 homes. If we get 200 people at the annual meeting, that's a lot. Most people just mail in their proxies letting the board make their vote for them.

[Useruser666]

I've lived in multiple HOA communities, I've worked on a couple of land development project for developers, I've even talked about this to a coworker of mine who's been doing land development for almost 30 years. He's worked for developers doing design and construction of new neighborhoods and he's worked for HOA's in mature communities who just wanted to add a playground.

According to him he's never seen a developer have any interest in exerting any kind of control over a built out community. They've made their money, they want to move on. All sticking around does is increase their costs and increase their exposure to lawsuits because HOA's get sued a lot.

As for management companies, he's seen management companies get buddy-buddy with a board to the point where a board would be pretty much a rubber stamp for the management company, but he's never seen anything written into bylaws about the management company having any kind of official authority over property owners. He's not even sure that would be legal. Even if it was it would be beyond stupid to do so. They certainly don't want to give a property manager any control over them while they're still around, and ceding control to someone other than the residents after they're gone would be bad PR and an invitation for lawsuits.

As for an HOA wanting to dissolve itself, if it owns property (it does), then legally it can't dissolve itself without having someone lined up to take ownership of the property. That's not a property manager thing, it's a government thing. Somebody needs to be around to pay property taxes.

I'm certainly not going to say that me or my co-worker know your specific HOA better than you, so if that's really how it was, that certainly sucks for you. I do feel confident though in saying that situation has got to be pretty rare.

HOA's can definitely be a pain in the arse, but I've never seen one where residents didn't have the ability to make changes. No doubt changes are still hard to come by, but that's because most residents in HOA communities are either happy with the HOA or are simply apathetic to the whole thing.

What I stated is just the experience that I have had in 2 out of 3 HOA neighborhoods. I think you mistook what I said about the post-builder/developer statements that I made. I didn’t (or did not want to) imply that the developer/home builder wanted post-neighborhood completion control. But have just absolute control until that time. They then pass it off to the management company. It’s the management company that doesn’t want to lose control then, as it is their business model to manage as many developments as they can. They have no motivation to lose control (income) from a development by allowing the residents to run it free and clear from them.

As to the property issue, one of the HOAs/developers were trying to get the local city to take over road maintenance. The city was willing, but refused due to the below code construction of the neighborhood’s roads and drainage systems. The developer puts some bandaids here and there to comply. The property was just some green belt areas, with roads and drainage system. These are common infrastructures that cities maintain regularly. Once the city took control of these areas, what responsibilities does the HOA have left? Why did the amount paid for dues not also drop?

As far as apathy toward HOA, I agree somewhat, but the problem is most people are just too busy working and living to see the issue much less take any action. (Example: 5:30PM HOA board meetings)

[Wild Cobra]

Yes I did, but that's not the point of anything I stated in this thread. I would wager that you would not feel so comfortable doling out such a petty statement if you suddenly found yourself on the business end of an HOA.
I'm not stupid enough to sign a contract that I feel is a bad one.

[RandomGuy]

Right, but my hypothetical presumed you don't pay for the car.

Maybe a better hypothetical would be: you drop your car off (which you own outright) for service, but refuse to pay the mechanic. Does the mechanic have to give you your car back? Is there anything wrong with the mechanic selling your car to satisfy its lien if you don't follow up on your car for a year?

Still can't get your fucking head aroudn the question of whether it is morally the right thing to do to sell a $300,000 dollar house to settle a $600 dollar fee, without so much as a court hearing.


Keep dodging that little question.

The NASDAP passed all sorts of laws and followed them to the letter.

I genuinely, 100% straight up believe that if you had been alive in germany at that time, you would have been righ there goosestepping with them, and saying "but its legal".

It is moral to take $299,400 from someone, because they owe you $600?

Yes or no, will do.

[RandomGuy]

She would have to have been formally served with a process server (assuming she hadn't already lawyered up) - so she would also have had to known that a court was ready to take her house away.

But she was :cry so she shouldn't have to pay.

Dude, there was no court case. No judge. No jury. They just took the house and sold it to one of their buddies.

Extra judicial seizure. The HOA lobbyist wrote that bit into the law.

If you had done any research on this, you might have glommed on to that tidbit.

[RandomGuy]

I think that it's immoral to compare the holocaust to some dumb bitch failing to pay her HOA. And I think it's totally moral to gas anyone who draws such an analogy.

Dipshit.

It wasn't the people siezing the house I was comparing to Nazis, it was you, arguing about what is legal, and missing the wider picture of what is right.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157557

Vy, if you want to educate your dumb evil ass, it is all there.

Post 73 is where the legal basis is. Have fun with that.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4463508&postcount=73

[vy65]

Still can't get your fucking head aroudn the question of whether it is morally the right thing to do to sell a $300,000 dollar house to settle a $600 dollar fee, without so much as a court hearing.


Keep dodging that little question.

The NASDAP passed all sorts of laws and followed them to the letter.

I genuinely, 100% straight up believe that if you had been alive in germany at that time, you would have been righ there goosestepping with them, and saying "but its legal".

It is moral to take $299,400 from someone, because they owe you $600?

Yes or no, will do.

The question was whether HOAs are evil. This particular example doesn't prove they are.

Aside from your facile and ridiculous comparisons to the Nazis, I don't think this particular instance of foreclosure is immoral. The legal requirements seem to have been met, and this case resulted from dumb Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_'s irresponsibility. But then again, I don't presume to pompously browbeat other people about my morals -- kinda like the nazi's, you know, did.

[vy65]

Dude, there was no court case. No judge. No jury. They just took the house and sold it to one of their buddies.

Extra judicial seizure. The HOA lobbyist wrote that bit into the law.

If you had done any research on this, you might have glommed on to that tidbit.

Link?

And before you get to it, saying that something in the property code *might* suggest non-judicial foreclosure doesn't mean that there was a non-judicial foreclosure in this case. And, *even if* there was, it would have to comply with the numerous notice provisions in Chapter 51 of the Property Code. But you knew all that, right?

[vy65]

Dipshit.

It wasn't the people siezing the house I was comparing to Nazis, it was you, arguing about what is legal, and missing the wider picture of what is right.

Dipshit.

You don't get the ridiculousness of comparing some dumb Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_'s negligence to the Nazis.

[RandomGuy]

Link?

And before you get to it, saying that something in the property code *might* suggest non-judicial foreclosure doesn't mean that there was a non-judicial foreclosure in this case. And, *even if* there was, it would have to comply with the numerous notice provisions in Chapter 51 of the Property Code. But you knew all that, right?

Yes, actually.

I looked into this pretty thoroughly when it happend, jackboot.

[RandomGuy]

The question was whether HOAs are evil. This particular example doesn't prove they are.

Aside from your facile and ridiculous comparisons to the Nazis, I don't think this particular instance of foreclosure is immoral. The legal requirements seem to have been met, and this case resulted from dumb Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_'s irresponsibility. But then again, I don't presume to pompously browbeat other people about my morals -- kinda like the nazi's, you know, did.

You have assigned all sorts of moral culpability to the woman, and ignored the wider picture.

Blame the victim. Ignore the moral ramifications of what is legal.

I stand by my assertion, jackboot. You are part and parcel of the rot pervading this country, and morally bankrupt, if you want to say that this was the right thing to do.

[Blake]

lol @ jackboot

[vy65]

Yes, actually.

I looked into this pretty thoroughly when it happend, jackboot.

Great. So you don't mid sharing the link to this having been a non-judicial foreclosure then?

[vy65]

You have assigned all sorts of moral culpability to the woman, and ignored the wider picture.

Blame the victim. Ignore the moral ramifications of what is legal.

I stand by my assertion, jackboot. You are part and parcel of the rot pervading this country, and morally bankrupt, if you want to say that this was the right thing to do.

The only culpability I've assigned is to the fact that this bitch was negligent and irresponsible. You're making excuses for a pathetic waste of a vagina, who didn't pay her bills, was given plenty of notice and suffered the consequences.

And the only rot in here is the putrid rank in your overly irritated vagina.

[vy65]

Lol @ cuckold

[Blake]

Lol @ cuckold

lmao any sucker that hires you