Can HOA take away my yard?
 

Dear all,

I am a first-time homeowner who just purchased a condo in
Goleta (Santa Barbara area), California. The end unit condo
has fences that enclose a private yard between the unit and
the community fence.

There are about 130+ units in the community, 4 out of the 6 end units
have
such enclosed private yard, while 2 end units don't.

The previous owner told me these fences have been there for 15 years,
and about 4 years
ago, the HOA even replaced/remodeled the fences at HOA's expense.

We have not moved in the condo, but expect to move in by the end of
June.
Now the HOA is giving us notification that we should remove the fences
in 90 days, and restore
the landscape back to the original plan. All costs will be at owner's
expenses.

However, they don't have the original layout showing the enclosed yards
are not original design.
The board said they just know those yards are not original.

I think those private yards should have been grandfathered in. As a
naive fist-time homeowner, I don't
know what to do to protect my yard, or if the yard cannot be saved, to
protect myself from paying the
cost of yard removal and landscape restoration.

Please help me and advise me what to do.

Many thanks!

Bernie

"Bean" wrote in message
oups.com...
Dear all,

I am a first-time homeowner who just purchased a condo in
Goleta (Santa Barbara area), California. The end unit condo
has fences that enclose a private yard between the unit and
the community fence.

There are about 130+ units in the community, 4 out of the 6 end units
have
such enclosed private yard, while 2 end units don't.

The previous owner told me these fences have been there for 15 years,
and about 4 years
ago, the HOA even replaced/remodeled the fences at HOA's expense.

We have not moved in the condo, but expect to move in by the end of
June.
Now the HOA is giving us notification that we should remove the fences
in 90 days, and restore
the landscape back to the original plan. All costs will be at owner's
expenses.

However, they don't have the original layout showing the enclosed yards
are not original design.
The board said they just know those yards are not original.

I think those private yards should have been grandfathered in. As a
naive fist-time homeowner, I don't
know what to do to protect my yard, or if the yard cannot be saved, to
protect myself from paying the
cost of yard removal and landscape restoration.

Please help me and advise me what to do.

Many thanks!

Bernie


OK, yet one more reason that HOAs should be OUTLAWED, period. -Dave

Bean wrote:
Please help me and advise me what to do.

What does your title insurance company say about this?

The title company didn't say anything. During the escrow process, the
HOA was still discussing this fence issue. We were aware of the HOA's
attention, but the seller and realtor said it's unlikely they (HOA)
decide the remove the fences since they just replaced it at HOA's
expenses.

In article ws.net, Ted B.
says...


"Bean" wrote in message
roups.com...
Dear all,

I am a first-time homeowner who just purchased a condo in
Goleta (Santa Barbara area), California. The end unit condo
has fences that enclose a private yard between the unit and
the community fence.

There are about 130+ units in the community, 4 out of the 6 end units
have
such enclosed private yard, while 2 end units don't.

The previous owner told me these fences have been there for 15 years,
and about 4 years
ago, the HOA even replaced/remodeled the fences at HOA's expense.

We have not moved in the condo, but expect to move in by the end of
June.
Now the HOA is giving us notification that we should remove the fences
in 90 days, and restore
the landscape back to the original plan. All costs will be at owner's
expenses.

However, they don't have the original layout showing the enclosed yards
are not original design.
The board said they just know those yards are not original.

I think those private yards should have been grandfathered in. As a
naive fist-time homeowner, I don't
know what to do to protect my yard, or if the yard cannot be saved, to
protect myself from paying the
cost of yard removal and landscape restoration.

Please help me and advise me what to do.

Many thanks!

Bernie


OK, yet one more reason that HOAs should be OUTLAWED, period. -Dave




So there should be a rule made because HOA's make - too many rules?

??

Banty

"Bean" wrote:
I am a first-time homeowner who just purchased a condo in
Goleta (Santa Barbara area), California. The end unit condo
has fences that enclose a private yard between the unit and
the community fence.

There are about 130+ units in the community, 4 out of the 6 end units
have
such enclosed private yard, while 2 end units don't.

The previous owner told me these fences have been there for 15 years,
and about 4 years
ago, the HOA even replaced/remodeled the fences at HOA's expense.

We have not moved in the condo, but expect to move in by the end of
June.
Now the HOA is giving us notification that we should remove the fences
in 90 days, and restore
the landscape back to the original plan. All costs will be at owner's
expenses.

However, they don't have the original layout showing the enclosed yards
are not original design.
The board said they just know those yards are not original.

I think those private yards should have been grandfathered in. As a
naive fist-time homeowner, I don't
know what to do to protect my yard, or if the yard cannot be saved, to
protect myself from paying the
cost of yard removal and landscape restoration.

Please help me and advise me what to do.

Many thanks!

Bernie

Is the land all common area, or do you own the piece of land in question, in
addition to the dwelling unit (hint: that big stack of papers you signed at
closing should spell out exactly what you bought). If the latter, I sort've
doubt the HOA can do a whole lot. If the former, the HOA certainly can try to
take action, since you're basically trying to take over land that is held in
common. Their not doing anything at all risks the land eventually being
considered "yours" by adverse possession. Heck, it might already be "yours",
if the fence has been there 15+ years (but it'd take a good lawyer to make it
stick, and the rules vary by state). If it does come down to having to tear
down the fence and restore the landscape, I'd say it'd be a matter of
negotiation as to who pays the bill, given how long the fence has been standing,
and the fact that the fence has actually been repaired by the HOA in the past.

So there should be a rule made because HOA's make - too many rules?

??

Banty


Yup. In this case, one helpful law could do away with millions of petty
rules created by control freaks who want to dictate how their neighbors live
their lives on their privately owned property. And before someone states
"but they CHOSE to live in an HOA area", that isn't always the case.
Sometimes HOAs are created against the strenuous objections of landowners
because a simple majority of their neighbors voted on it. Oh, and moving
isn't a practical suggestion, either. How do you know that the area you are
moving into won't EVER have an HOA? The only solution is to make HOAs
illegal, period. -Dave

Bean wrote:
The title company didn't say anything. During the escrow process, the
HOA was still discussing this fence issue. We were aware of the HOA's
attention, but the seller and realtor said it's unlikely they (HOA)
decide the remove the fences since they just replaced it at HOA's
expenses.

Obviously, this is the seller's problem and not yours. However, if
there was no escrow for the fence removal and the title company won't
accept a claim of encroachment, then you'll probably have to go after
the seller to recover your costs.

Bean wrote:
The title company didn't say anything. During the escrow process, the
HOA was still discussing this fence issue. We were aware of the HOA's
attention, but the seller and realtor said it's unlikely they (HOA)
decide the remove the fences since they just replaced it at HOA's
expenses.

BTW, it certainly sounds like it isn't YOUR yard, it is a COMMON yard.

Ted B. wrote:
The only solution is to make HOAs illegal, period.

Not going to happen, Ted - Dave. The vast majority of residents who
live in HOA's wouldn't be without them. That is why they exist.

In article ,
"Travis Jordan" wrote:

Not going to happen, Ted - Dave. The vast majority of residents who
live in HOA's wouldn't be without them. That is why they exist.

Wow, you're making some big assumptions. Actually, some people are
naive about what they can do, and/or don't care (which isn't the same as
"wouldn't be without them" by a long shot).

Kendall

--
Kendall P. Bullen http://www.his.com/~kendall/
kendall@---^^^^^^^

Never e-mail me copies of Usenet postings, please.
I do read the groups to which I post!

The HOA must have written covenants. Look at them to see what is said
about the yards, fences, and similar items. Also look at what is said
about ordering an individual owner to do something on their own
property. And, look at the description of your unit. If it doesn't say
or show the yard is yours, you can ignore the yard (and, of course, not
be able to use it alone -- but also, be careful that the covenants
don't say you can be ordered to maintain certain portions of the area).
Of course, if the description of your unit doesn't incluse the yard,
along with ignoring it, you should write the HOA board to let them know
the yard is not yours (by certified mail, keeping a copy for yourself).
Also, remember that you yourself are part of the HOA. The covenants
should say whether the HOA board can give orders like this or whether
it must first be voted upon by the entire HOA. Basically, the
covenants are your condo bible.

Travis Jordan wrote:
Ted B. wrote:

The only solution is to make HOAs illegal, period.


Not going to happen, Ted - Dave. The vast majority of residents who
live in HOA's wouldn't be without them. That is why they exist.



I know I wouldnt mind having one. It helps when companies buy property
in your neighborhood of $300K homes and try to plop down a $100k home,
or vice versa. Or try to put condos in non-condo neighborhood. or and
apartment complex. or any other number of inconsiderate things.

perhaps they can go do far. Especially when populated with folks that
begin to make it their 'thing.' But its not all bad I don't think.

--
Respectfully,


CL Gilbert

I know I wouldnt mind having one. It helps when companies buy property in
your neighborhood of $300K homes and try to plop down a $100k home, or
vice versa. Or try to put condos in non-condo neighborhood. or and
apartment complex. or any other number of inconsiderate things.


Yeah, having a $300K home next to a $100K home or a (gasp) condo is a real
tragedy. Let's make a new law stating that all single-family houses should
cost no less than a half mill, and that the purchase of such single family
dwellings can not be subsidized in any manner. Oh wait . . . we've got HOAs
to take care of that. Never mind. -Dave (who has better things to worry
about than whether someone is going to build a BRAND NEW house on the empty
lot next to my lot that is worth half of what my house is worth)

On 9 Jun 2005 11:34:52 -0700, someone wrote:

....As a
naive fist-time homeowner, I don't
know what to do... to protect my yard, or if the yard cannot be saved, to
protect myself from

Call your attorney.


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 14:39:57 -0400, someone wrote:


OK, yet one more reason that HOAs should be OUTLAWED, period. -Dave

So that anyone can fence in any amount of common area that they
want????



Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 16:02:11 -0400, someone wrote:

.... How do you know that the area you are
moving into won't EVER have an HOA?

Uhh, because its not in my deed?

You don't seem to know how an HOA works. If they don't have a deeded
interest in my property before I buy it, they NEVER will.

Now, if people of any kind want to form a "neighborhood association"
or "block club" or "civic association" they can. But it would have no
more legal power over my property than the Elks or Masons. No
majority of neighbors can vote themselves that kind of legal interest
in my land.


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 20:57:43 GMT, someone wrote:


Obviously, this is the seller's problem and not yours.

Ohh really. Now it COULD be if the Buyer can convince the court that
the Seller said the fence would not need to be removed and the Buyer
legally "relied" upon that representation.

But looks to me that the Buyer KNEW this was an issue, and the Seller
gave his OPINION that it was "unlikely" but guess what - the unlikely
happened. If Buyer really depended on this issue, he should have
checked with the HOA or gotten something in his contract that survived
the closing (NOT LIKEY that any competent Seller would agree to
that!!!).

Buyer needs to comply or sue. As an inexperienced first time owner,
what makes him think it "should be" grandfathered? Whose land is it,
isn't it the Association's???


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

.... How do you know that the area you are
moving into won't EVER have an HOA?

Uhh, because its not in my deed?

You don't seem to know how an HOA works. If they don't have a deeded
interest in my property before I buy it, they NEVER will.

Now, if people of any kind want to form a "neighborhood association"
or "block club" or "civic association" they can. But it would have no
more legal power over my property than the Elks or Masons. No
majority of neighbors can vote themselves that kind of legal interest
in my land.

They don't have to. They can just fine you for not following the rules. If
you don't pay the fines or ignore them, they go to court. THEN they have
legal interest in your land, and will SELL IT to pay the fines that you
chose to ignore. -Dave

Ted B. wrote:
.... How do you know that the area you are
moving into won't EVER have an HOA?


Uhh, because its not in my deed?

You don't seem to know how an HOA works. If they don't have a deeded
interest in my property before I buy it, they NEVER will.

Now, if people of any kind want to form a "neighborhood association"
or "block club" or "civic association" they can. But it would have no
more legal power over my property than the Elks or Masons. No
majority of neighbors can vote themselves that kind of legal interest
in my land.


They don't have to. They can just fine you for not following the rules. If
you don't pay the fines or ignore them, they go to court. THEN they have
legal interest in your land, and will SELL IT to pay the fines that you
chose to ignore. -Dave



The point is that if you are not in HOA when you purchased the property,
you can't be forced to join the HOA.

Out HOA consists of 30 houses of 5 - 6 years old. There are 3 additional
houses mixed in that are not part of HOA. They enjoy all the HOA
benefits - hired common area clean up, street light, etc, w/o paying HOA
dues, and they don't need to abide the HOA rule - one of house only cut
grasses a few times a year, and full of the weed. But we can't force
them to do anything.

Ironically, one of the families subdivided his lot into 4 lots. He lives
in one. The 3 new hourses in the remaining lots will be in HOA, but the
old house will be out of HOA.

In article ws.net,
"Ted B." wrote:

Now, if people of any kind want to form a "neighborhood association"
or "block club" or "civic association" they can. But it would have no
more legal power over my property than the Elks or Masons. No
majority of neighbors can vote themselves that kind of legal interest
in my land.

They don't have to. They can just fine you for not following the rules. If
you don't pay the fines or ignore them, they go to court. THEN they have
legal interest in your land, and will SELL IT to pay the fines that you
chose to ignore. -Dave

Er, no, 'v' is right in this instance.

Some random org. (NOT AN HOA) cannot fine you anything. I suppose *IF*
you chose to join, and *IF* you signed something agreeing to be fined
for not following rules of an organization of random people that has no
legal standing...but only a moron would do that. (Oh, wait, people do
that why buying in an HOA community! ;-)

Cheers,
Kendall

--
Kendall P. Bullen http://www.his.com/~kendall/
kendall@---^^^^^^^

Never e-mail me copies of Usenet postings, please.
I do read the groups to which I post!

The point is that if you are not in HOA when you purchased the property,
you can't be forced to join the HOA.


That's not how all HOAs work. If a majority of your neighbors decide the
whole neighborhood should be HOA, then you are in the HOA whether you want
to be or not. -Dave

Er, no, 'v' is right in this instance.


Only in areas where HOA membership is optional. In many cases, a
neighborhood going HOA means that you are in the HOA whether you want to be
or not. So even if you didn't agree to it, the HOA can demand that you
follow the rules, and can fine you if you don't, and can sell your property
(legally) if you don't pay the fines. -Dave

Ted B. wrote:
That's not how all HOAs work. If a majority of your neighbors decide
the whole neighborhood should be HOA, then you are in the HOA whether
you want to be or not. -Dave

There is a big, big difference between HOA's and CC&Rs.

Ted B. wrote:

The point is that if you are not in HOA when you purchased the property,
you can't be forced to join the HOA.


That's not how all HOAs work. If a majority of your neighbors decide the
whole neighborhood should be HOA, then you are in the HOA whether you want
to be or not. -Dave

In which states? That sort of thing woulc clearly be a matter for
state law and I'd be surprised if it were so in all states.

It would not surprise me if all or nearly all HOAs _claimed_ it
was the law.

--

FF

Ted B. wrote:
.... How do you know that the area you are
moving into won't EVER have an HOA?

Uhh, because its not in my deed?

You don't seem to know how an HOA works. If they don't have a deeded
interest in my property before I buy it, they NEVER will.

Now, if people of any kind want to form a "neighborhood association"
or "block club" or "civic association" they can. But it would have no
more legal power over my property than the Elks or Masons. No
majority of neighbors can vote themselves that kind of legal interest
in my land.

They don't have to. They can just fine you for not following the rules. If
you don't pay the fines or ignore them, they go to court. THEN they have
legal interest in your land, and will SELL IT to pay the fines that you
chose to ignore. -Dave

Uh, if the HOA asserts to the court that your property is part of the
HOA, when in fact your property is not, they would be perpetrating
a fraud on the court. Similarly putting a lien on your propery
without a valid claim can be abuse of process, a tort in many
(possibly all) states.

OP should talk to a real estate attorney.

--

FF

In article ws.net,
"Ted B." wrote:

Only in areas where HOA membership is optional. In many cases, a
neighborhood going HOA means that you are in the HOA whether you want to be
or not. So even if you didn't agree to it, the HOA can demand that you
follow the rules, and can fine you if you don't, and can sell your property
(legally) if you don't pay the fines. -Dave

I honestly don't believe that. Although the previous e-mail was using
examples of other orgs. But I find it impossible to believe that folks
on my block can get together and, with no agreement from me, take out a
lien on my house. They can take out liens on each others' houses,
sure...they can claim that I'm 'within the HOA' whatever they think that
means...but I don't believe they can just get together and decide to
start a club that has the legal basis to fine me or repossess my house
if I don't agree to be part of that club. I don't think that would hold
up in court.

Kendall

--
Kendall P. Bullen http://www.his.com/~kendall/
kendall@---^^^^^^^

Never e-mail me copies of Usenet postings, please.
I do read the groups to which I post!

First, less address a general issue, that posters like Ted B, obviously
don't understand. This situation involves a condo. Condos must have
an association, because the property could not be run and managed
without one. Condos have property and maintenance issues which are
shared, ie roofs, walkways, snow removal, cutting grass, painting the
exterior, parking areas, etc. Without a condo association and board of
directors, there would be no one to make operational decisions
regarding the upkeep on the property. So, to simply say they should be
banned is silly.

Now for the specific problem, as someone already suggested, I would
first carefully read the master deed and bylaws. The master deed
should specify which areas are common and which are reserved for
private use by individual units. If these documents make it clear that
the area is not private to your unit, then I think you are in a pretty
poor position. I would then talk to the other 3 owners who have
fences, see how long they have been there, are they original owners,
what they know, have they been told to remove fences, etc. If you want
to fight it, having 4 to share the burden will help. I would then
meet with the board and find out exactly what their position is, how
they can prove the area was not originally that way, etc. If you can
find the builder who built the place, they should be able to shed some
light on the issue too. Try to find any original owners in the complex
who may remember how/when the fences came to be. One thing that stands
out, is that these fences sound like they are very obvious. It's hard
to imagine that some unit owners did this without the association
approving it, because when it happened, it would be very likely that
neighbors would be running to the association complaining or asking to
be allowed to put one up too.

What may be going on here is that the association, whether right or
not, believes these fences were placed there by owners over the years
without authorization and now they are trying to finally do something
about it. Clearly if this was how it happened, the fences should have
been addressed immeadiately. Now, the association may be trying to do
it when units are sold, hoping to avoid a big confrontation. Your
position should be that if yours has to go, they all have to go. I
think a court would find that reasonable. If the association can show
that the fences were in fact placed there by owners without
authorization, I think it very likely they will prevail in having them
removed if it goes to court. If it happened this way, what you have in
effect is 4 unit owners illegally taking property away from the other
130 owners. An interesting question here is whether adverse possession
law could be used, but I doubt it, even if the fences were there long
enough. The reason being you and the association are not totally
seperate parties. In fact, you are part owner of the area in question
through the association. And also adverse possession involves actually
taking title to the piece of disputed property, which isn't about to
happen here.

The final question is how far you want to pursue this and how much
money you are willing to spend. Another complicated question is
whether you have a reasonable case against the previous owner. He did
tell you the fence was there for 15 yrs and that several years ago the
homeowner assoc had repaired them. How did this even come up? Did he
just offer the info? If you can show the seller put the fence there or
was told by the assoc that the fence had to go, then I believe you have
an excellent case against him. If he had nothing to do with it and you
can't prove he knew the fence was not allowed, then I think you have a
poor case. And even if you do have a good case, the question is, how
much can you recover? If you incurr attorney fees fighting it, you
could sue for that. If you wind up removing it, then you also could
get an appraisal for what the property is worth minus the private
fenced area. The best benchmark for that is what similar units there
without the fence are selling for. If it's pretty much the same, which
would be my guess, then you don't have a good case for diminished
property value. You could put together the best case you can and take
it to small claims, but I doubt it's worth the legal fees of having an
attorney go after the seller, as the most you'll probably recover is a
few thousand bucks.

Hello trad..and all,

Thank you very much for the discussions.
We went to the complex and talked to the other end unit owner,
obviously, he is not aware of the HOA's action of removing the fences.
So it is true the association and the management company are trying to
avoid the confrontation by starting with us. (What a welcome from the
HOA!!!)

From what the other end-unit owner told us, the fences ( at least his)
were there for more than 20 years. At that time, some end unit owners
asked the HOA to enclose the common area from the unit to the cumminity
fence as a compensation for smaller floor footage and lack of front
patio, and the association allowed it. 2 end unit didn't take the
chance to enclose a private yard, and now the current owners of those
two units are asking to do the same, and the HOA won't let them. The
HOA said they make a mistake previously, and now they are going to
correct it.

It seems there will be some confrontation from other owners of end-unit
yards, we will hold the same position as theirs. Besides, there really
is no point of removing the fences, because the yard area is not
readily accessible even without the fences; others will have to pass
our carport to enter the yard area, and the other side of the yard is
blocked with bushes, no path from there.
Personally, i don't think removing the fences will be good for other
residents, just another attempt of the HOA board to control people's
life and make them suffer. (Of course, i am biased...^_^)

We would also like to talk to an attorney to discuss our options, if
any of you can recommend a good attorney in the Santa Barbara area,
that would be a great help!!!

Thank you!

Bernie

Ted B. wrote:
I know I wouldnt mind having one. It helps when companies buy property in
your neighborhood of $300K homes and try to plop down a $100k home, or
vice versa. Or try to put condos in non-condo neighborhood. or and
apartment complex. or any other number of inconsiderate things.



Yeah, having a $300K home next to a $100K home or a (gasp) condo is a real
tragedy. Let's make a new law stating that all single-family houses should
cost no less than a half mill, and that the purchase of such single family
dwellings can not be subsidized in any manner. Oh wait . . . we've got HOAs
to take care of that. Never mind. -Dave (who has better things to worry
about than whether someone is going to build a BRAND NEW house on the empty
lot next to my lot that is worth half of what my house is worth)



You contradict yourself. If you can put a house of any value next to a
home of any value, why subsidize? Their is a such thing called city
planning. Its how you maintain property values. Especially when your
city/county wants to tax said property.

A neighborhood has a look and feel to it that you bought into. You have
the right to protect that. Home value is very important, you act like
its meaningless.

I personally have better things to worry about. Thats why I would like
an HOA to worry about it for me. Take some time to consider why you
dont see blocks with wildly varying home values.


--
Respectfully,


CL Gilbert

I personally have better things to worry about. Thats why I would like an
HOA to worry about it for me. Take some time to consider why you dont see
blocks with wildly varying home values.


What are you talking about? We almost bought a $350K house right next to a
$120K house. I know, because both were for sale, and both were listed
pretty close to fair market value. It was a brand new ~3000SF contemporary
(just built) next to an older ~1600SF Ranch that needed a little TLC. Every
neighborhood I've ever SEEN (while shopping for houses) has houses of WILDLY
varying market values. It's not unusual at all to see the lowest market
value house on a block be some fraction of the highest market value house on
the block. But then, I'd never consider living in an area with an
OA. -Dave

"From what the other end-unit owner told us, the fences ( at least his)


were there for more than 20 years. At that time, some end unit owners
asked the HOA to enclose the common area from the unit to the cumminity

fence as a compensation for smaller floor footage and lack of front
patio, and the association allowed it. "


Based on this, I believe you have a very good case. Get together with
the other affected unit owners. You should send a letter to the board
asking for all documents that they have regarding the status of the
fences, when approval was granted, board minutes concerning the fences,
etc. Identify as best you can when you believe the fences were placed
there. Most states have sunshine laws where the board must provide
this, though most can charge reasonable fees to provide them. At the
very least, you should have the right to go look at the board records.
Before doing this, it might be a good idea to go talk to the board, or
at least some members and probe them for any info they will give up.
If you go with a witneess and can get them to fess up that the fences
were in fact approved, that would be excellent.

You should then collectively meet with the board and tell them you have
no intention of removing the fences, since they were placed there with
approval. Ask the board to reconsider, making it clear you intend to
fight this. IF they refuse, see if you can agree to share the cost of
an attorney with the other owners. Depending on how well you can
prove that the fences were approved prior, I think a tough letter from
an attorney making it clear you will sue if necessary may do the trick.
Going that far won't cost much. After that, if you decide to sue,
you have to figure out how much it may cost and if it's worth it.

i'd say it's a bit exaggerated to say "every" nieghborhood you've ever seen.
It's true that wild variations are not exactly uncommon in older mixed
neighborhoods (e.g., 1920s-era) where you'll have a mansion next door to a
small, simple house, but it's not common in newer neighborhoods, where most
of the houses are pretty much the same.

where i live (Atlanta), wide variations within a single neighborhood are one
of the surest signs of mortgage fraud (and we have the highest rates in the
country). There was an article in the paper about a year ago about a woman
who had wondered why there was so much variation in her neighborhood.... she
ended up uncovering a big ring.




I personally have better things to worry about. Thats why I would like
an
HOA to worry about it for me. Take some time to consider why you dont
see
blocks with wildly varying home values.


Every
neighborhood I've ever SEEN (while shopping for houses) has houses of
WILDLY
varying market values. It's not unusual at all to see the lowest market
value house on a block be some fraction of the highest market value house
on
the block.

anon wrote:
i'd say it's a bit exaggerated to say "every" nieghborhood you've ever seen.
It's true that wild variations are not exactly uncommon in older mixed
neighborhoods (e.g., 1920s-era) where you'll have a mansion next door to a
small, simple house, but it's not common in newer neighborhoods, where most
of the houses are pretty much the same.

where i live (Atlanta), wide variations within a single neighborhood are one
of the surest signs of mortgage fraud (and we have the highest rates in the
country). There was an article in the paper about a year ago about a woman
who had wondered why there was so much variation in her neighborhood.... she
ended up uncovering a big ring.





I personally have better things to worry about. Thats why I would like

an

HOA to worry about it for me. Take some time to consider why you dont

see

blocks with wildly varying home values.


Every
neighborhood I've ever SEEN (while shopping for houses) has houses of

WILDLY

varying market values. It's not unusual at all to see the lowest market
value house on a block be some fraction of the highest market value house

on

the block.




Well my point was that is not visibly pleasing. and detracts from the
feel of a neighborhood. In Detroit where there are tons of homes, they
always try to knock down a whole neighborhood at once and upgrade together.

Sure home values/sizes can vary when there is overpopulation and
everybody wants into a certain neighborhood. Also when older
neighborhoods are being updated due to changing times/industries.


All in all, the building of a home in your neighborhood, especially on
your block will certainly affect the value of your own home. you can
put $300K inside a home so that two homes that look the same from the
outside are $300K different in price. Thats not my complaint. I want a
theme, and I want it maintained. You can choose to live without these
things its a free country.




--
Respectfully,


CL Gilbert

On 06/13/05 01:24 pm CL (dnoyeB) Gilbert tossed the following
ingredients into the ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

Every
neighborhood I've ever SEEN (while shopping for houses) has houses of


WILDLY

varying market values. It's not unusual at all to see the lowest market
value house on a block be some fraction of the highest market value
house on the block.

Well my point was that is not visibly pleasing. and detracts from the
feel of a neighborhood. In Detroit where there are tons of homes, they
always try to knock down a whole neighborhood at once and upgrade together.

Sure home values/sizes can vary when there is overpopulation and
everybody wants into a certain neighborhood. Also when older
neighborhoods are being updated due to changing times/industries.

All in all, the building of a home in your neighborhood, especially on
your block will certainly affect the value of your own home. you can
put $300K inside a home so that two homes that look the same from the
outside are $300K different in price. Thats not my complaint. I want a
theme, and I want it maintained. You can choose to live without these
things its a free country.

That's the theory, but in practice it's difficult to find anything
recent without a HOA: we had to expand our criteria to include
properties more than 20 years old. Moreover, it's not always possible to
find out what one's letting oneself in for: I read one person's
complaint that when he asked to see the HOA rules he was told that they
were "confidential" and that he could not see them until he had agreed
to purchase the property and become a member of the HOA. He bought
elsewhere.

Again, developers will sometimes simply copy HOA rules from elsewhere
and, when asked about some specific provision, will say, "I didn't know
that was there; that doesn't make sense."

Perce

my parents built in 1979 in a neighborhood that had covenants that for
whatever reason expired in 20 yrs from the date they'd gone into effect,
~1976 or so. My dad said it wasn't a concern to him because he expected to
be out in 10 yrs. or so when we kids all had gone off to school.
Unfortunately my parents ended up there until 1997, and by that time they
had a white-trash dentist living next door who would've fit in perfectly in
any low-rent trailer park in the country. He was as white-trash as i've
ever met. He let his yard become a shambles, started putting up chain-link
fencing, piles of dirt, chopping down trees, etc.. all kinds of stuff. I
shudder to think at how much my parents lost in value because of him. It
costs my parents $140K to build in 1979, and they could sell it only for
~$180K 18 yrs. later. It was very nice -- custom cabinets in the kitchen
and all baths, nice brick fireplaces, lots of attention to detail.... but
those neighbors turned off too many buyers when buyers found they had no
recourse for dealing with it.

i'm a strong believer in strong HOAs. I have no complaints with tight
restrictions... it was one of the reasons i bought where i did.





All in all, the building of a home in your neighborhood, especially on
your block will certainly affect the value of your own home. you can
put $300K inside a home so that two homes that look the same from the
outside are $300K different in price. Thats not my complaint. I want a
theme, and I want it maintained. You can choose to live without these
things its a free country.

In article ,
CL (dnoyeB) Gilbert wrote:

Well my point was that is not visibly pleasing. and detracts from the
feel of a neighborhood. In Detroit where there are tons of homes, they
always try to knock down a whole neighborhood at once and upgrade together.


I find it visibly unpleasing when all of the houses are the same, as in
tract homes. A neighborhood with lots of houses of differing sizes
and shapes enhances the feel of a neighborhood from my point of view.
I wouldn't point to Detroit as a model for redevelopment, by the way! :)


Dimitri

On 06/13/05 02:40 pm D. Gerasimatos tossed the following ingredients
into the ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

Well my point was that is not visibly pleasing. and detracts from the
feel of a neighborhood. In Detroit where there are tons of homes, they
always try to knock down a whole neighborhood at once and upgrade together.

I find it visibly unpleasing when all of the houses are the same, as in
tract homes. A neighborhood with lots of houses of differing sizes
and shapes enhances the feel of a neighborhood from my point of view.
I wouldn't point to Detroit as a model for redevelopment, by the way! :)

When I was growing up in England, if we saw rows of houses all the same
(except maybe for front doors of different colors), we knew what they
we "Council houses," i.e., public housing.

In Brisbane, Australia the Housing Commission houses (low-income rental,
with an option to purchase after a few years) were more varied in design
and in color of brick, tile and paint than most of the recent
"up-market" housing developments I've seen in the USA.

Perce

D. Gerasimatos wrote:
In article ,
CL (dnoyeB) Gilbert wrote:

Well my point was that is not visibly pleasing. and detracts from the
feel of a neighborhood. In Detroit where there are tons of homes, they
always try to knock down a whole neighborhood at once and upgrade together.



I find it visibly unpleasing when all of the houses are the same, as in
tract homes. A neighborhood with lots of houses of differing sizes
and shapes enhances the feel of a neighborhood from my point of view.
I wouldn't point to Detroit as a model for redevelopment, by the way! :)


Dimitri


Nobody is saying that the houses should look the same in a neighbood. In
fact all decent sized builders let you choose from a number of models.
They can even make same model homes look very different if two
neighbours choose the same model.

The point is that a few $100,000 homes mixed in a $500,000 homes make
the community less appearing, and affect the property values. You also
feel more secure and comfortable when your neighbors are similar

In article ,
no mail wrote:

Nobody is saying that the houses should look the same in a neighbood. In
fact all decent sized builders let you choose from a number of models.
They can even make same model homes look very different if two
neighbours choose the same model.


Well, I am sorry to disagree. Tract homes are tract homes and always look
like tract homes.


The point is that a few $100,000 homes mixed in a $500,000 homes make
the community less appearing, and affect the property values. You also
feel more secure and comfortable when your neighbors are similar


Maybe a few $500K homes mixed in with lots of $100K homes makes the
community more appealing from the POV of the people who own the $100K
homes. Within a mile of my house, houses range from maybe $400K all the
way up to $2M. While the average house is by definition average, I don't
see what the problem is if there are some bigger houses sprinkled in. The
bigger houses tend to be on the bigger, estate-sized lots but that's not
universally true. Why would you want a cookie-cutter neighborhood where
everyone has 1.5 kids and a dog? Is it scary to live next door to someone
whose house is half as big (or 2x as big) as yours?


Personally, I really like a Tudor next to a Spanish next to an Italianate next
to a Colonial next to a Craftsman. It's a lot more interesting than 4 models
of houses with different elevations trying to look different from each
other by having their garages on opposite sides. As for values, obviously
the people in the cheaper houses like having the expensive houses nearby
and the people in the expensive houses don't mind too much either because
it means they can buy a big house for a bit less than they would've paid
for it in an estate area like, say, Beverly Hills where that $2M house
might cost $4M.


Dimitri