How what?
How am I wrong:
Please be specific.
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.
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.
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?
you aren't sure what my original premise is, but you can see holes in it.
Neat.
Page 1:Just to set the record straight, mind re-stating what that "original premise" is for the moment?
You know what vy: you.
Have they or have they not been consolidated 80% of the new construction market?
Have their lobbies pushed legislation into le 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.
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.
Prove it.
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 cons uents. 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.
...
Last edited by vy65; 08-17-2012 at 10:11 AM.
Edit. Nvm.
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 “s ” 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.
Sorry but all a HOA is is a corporate en y with contractually granted powers which homeowners are made beholden to as part of the le 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.
http://www.starnewsonline.com/articl...ICLES/11174000
http://freerealestatelaw.com/HOAssocLaw.html
Here is a do ent 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-...160106875.html
Las Vegas apparently has laws governing board selection but indicates how they can be cir vented.
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.
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/Homeowne...porations.aspx
Another article describing how the corporate en y can be separate from the owners.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 iden y that is separate from that of its members, just as Micorsoft has a legal iden y 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 do ents, preparing Articles of Incorporation, and filing with the Secretary of State.
http://www.andysirkin.com/HTMLArticle.cfm?Article=17
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
