Reply With Quote
Those state laws should be federal laws, imo
First off, thanks for the research.
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 do ents 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/
Those state laws should be federal laws, imo
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.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.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.
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.
Why?
Every one sees it.
Prove anyone but you sees it.
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?
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'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.
Last edited by coyotes_geek; 08-20-2012 at 10:01 AM.
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.
No doubt that's the truth.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.
It's a shame, imo, that more people don't realize just how worthless most HOAs and HOA management companies are.
Last edited by Blake; 08-20-2012 at 10:38 AM.
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.
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.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.
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)
I'm not stupid enough to sign a contract that I feel is a bad one.
Still can't get your ing 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.
Dude, there was no court case. No judge. No jury. They just took the house and sold it to one of their buddies.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 wasso she shouldn't have to pay.
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.
Dip .
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.
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/show...8&postcount=73
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.
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?
Dip .
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.
Yes, actually.
I looked into this pretty thoroughly when it happend, jackboot.
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.
lol @ jackboot
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
