In article ,
(D. Gerasimatos) wrote:

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.

I'm with you...the 'different models' I've seen seem to be the same
thing with very small cosmetic differences or (as you say) rearrangings.
That's not (IMHO) variety...that's sameness. Dull. But hey, whatever.

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!

In article ,
"anon" wrote:

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.

This kind of anecdote doesn't really prove much without location
info...and/or info on what houses a block or two away, not next to Mr.
White Trash, are going for.

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!

In article ,
"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:

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.

We wanted something either recent (10-20 years old would be nice, 30
okay) or something older that had decent upgrades (kitchen esp.; bath
also). We wound up lucking out totally by finding something in a very
small, roughly 20-year-old neighborhood that looks like it was just
carved out of parkland...and NO HOA! :-)

Moreover, it's not always possible to find out what one's letting
oneself in for:

[I'm skeptical of this. Not your story, just that it wasn't actually
possible one way or another.]

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.

Sounds bogus...and I'm skeptical that they're not available elsewhere
(e.g. local [real] government)...heck, it seems like it would have to be
a requirement to show the rules before purchase. Probably a good
lawyer...ah, but why bother since obviously this is one of the [many]
evil HOAs. ;-) I can see why the person skipped that area...even if I
could get the rules from a friendly neighbor, why live in an area where
the HOA is THAT controlling.

Reminds me of our local citizens' association (not HOA). Friends of
ours moved in and wanted to get involved...found the prez very
controlling and very down on any new ideas or new blood...they asked to
see the by-laws and articles of incorporation, and she said they weren't
allowed. HAH! They went and got them from the county. (I'm not sure
if it's 'cuz it's a non-profit, or 'cuz it's incorporated, that they
were on file there...but I know that only the copies on file were legal,
not any 'amendments' they passed by never registered.) Anyway, the prez
sure wasn't happy when they showed up at the next meeting with copies
and knowing exactly how things were SUPPOSED to work (versus how SHE was
running things). Years of trouble. We bought our friends' house & they
moved to another state (job-related move). Fortunately, the revolution
was long over and both sides pretty dormant by the time we moved in....

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!

In article , Kendall P. Bullen
says...

In article ,
(D. Gerasimatos) wrote:

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.

I'm with you...the 'different models' I've seen seem to be the same
thing with very small cosmetic differences or (as you say) rearrangings.
That's not (IMHO) variety...that's sameness. Dull. But hey, whatever.


Well, OK, but not all of us can commission custom homes. Especially smaller
homes.

But what you're describing is a fairly new development - right?

Remember those pictures of late '40s Levittown, New York? Rows of the same kind
of Cape Cods, different only in color, that were so often used in various news
pieces decrying the sameness of suburban life? I've seen a picture of the same
neighborhood now. What with decks, garages and other additions, dormers or full
second floors, and fifty years' worth of different siding choices and
landscaping growth, one has to look closely to notice that all the houses are
Capes of the same vintage.

Banty

"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."


Maybe? Of course it does. It would be nice for the person with the
$100K house to have it sitting together with $500K homes. Howver, as
has been pointed out, it's almost always a detraction from the value of
the $500K homes. If you have a neighborhood of $500K homes and
someone then built a $100K house in the middle of it, there is no
question it would detract from the property values and look out of
place. And it would be unfair to those with the $500K homes, as it
would decrease the value of their property and the asthetic appeal of
the area.

Like most people, I see nothing wrong with using zoning or HOA's to
maintain some consistency within a defined neighborhood. That's one
of the main purposes of zoning, to regulate what you can build and
where. It keeps commercial, industrial, and residential areas
seperate. And within residential areas, it keeps apartments and small
homes seperate from larger single family homes. You can still have a
wide variety of styles of homes, but it maintains the property value
and keeps the nieghborhood from becoming a hodgepodge of crap.

In article .com,
says...

"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."


Maybe? Of course it does. It would be nice for the person with the
$100K house to have it sitting together with $500K homes. Howver, as
has been pointed out, it's almost always a detraction from the value of
the $500K homes. If you have a neighborhood of $500K homes and
someone then built a $100K house in the middle of it, there is no
question it would detract from the property values and look out of
place. And it would be unfair to those with the $500K homes, as it
would decrease the value of their property and the asthetic appeal of
the area.

Like most people, I see nothing wrong with using zoning or HOA's to
maintain some consistency within a defined neighborhood. That's one
of the main purposes of zoning, to regulate what you can build and
where. It keeps commercial, industrial, and residential areas
seperate. And within residential areas, it keeps apartments and small
homes seperate from larger single family homes. You can still have a
wide variety of styles of homes, but it maintains the property value
and keeps the nieghborhood from becoming a hodgepodge of crap.



Here in upstate NY, it isn't such a big deal. Except for certain developments
of McMansions, house vintages are pretty mixed, and turnover is slower than in
west or Texas where I grew up and my father sold residential real estate. So
there's not so much looking to what the house values will be just 5 years down
the road...

I'm talking small town and exurban upstate NY. But there are cases like in NYC
outer boroughs and close-in suburbs, where this thing about housing values has a
pretty nasty history of intentional racial block-busting. In Manhattan, on the
other hand, high-priced spaces exist quite knowingly next to more run-down
spaces.

In all cases, it's all about perception and expectations and speculation.

There's no *essential* reason why house sizes/prices can't mix. In many places,
they do.

Banty (who is glad of her history of having lived in Burkburnett and in the
Bronx - one learns certain things)

"Here in upstate NY, it isn't such a big deal. Except for certain
developments
of McMansions, house vintages are pretty mixed, and turnover is slower
than in
west or Texas where I grew up and my father sold residential real
estate. So
there's not so much looking to what the house values will be just 5
years down
the road... "

And one of the reasons turnover is slower and houses aren't
appreciating as fast is becaue ,amy people are choosing to live in
areas where they don't have to worry about the cheap inter-mixed homes
that lower property values. And those that don't expect to pay less
for any house in an area that's a hodgepodge jumble of nice homes and
run down ones.


"I'm talking small town and exurban upstate NY. But there are cases
like in NYC
outer boroughs and close-in suburbs, where this thing about housing
values has a
pretty nasty history of intentional racial block-busting. "

I think the racial block busting thing is more talk and urban myth than
reality. I'm sure it occurred long ago in some areas, but I don't
believe it was ever very common. Certainly not a factor now.


"In Manhattan, on the other hand, high-priced spaces exist quite
knowingly next to more run-down
spaces. "

Not true there either. High price is relative. If you look at areas
where all the properties are first class and expensive, eg park ave,
5th ave, the property values are considerably higher than if you look
at a similar building in an area not far away that has much lower price
buildings and/or tenants mixed in. You could still say the other
building is high price, but it's not as high as the building in the
nice, premier neighborhood, where you can't just build anything you
want.


"There's no *essential* reason why house sizes/prices can't mix. In
many places,
they do. "

No, I agree there isn't. Nor is there any reason areas that choose to
limit what kind and/or price range homes can built shouldn't be free to
do it so they can keep their area the way they want it to be.

In article .com,
says...

"Here in upstate NY, it isn't such a big deal. Except for certain
developments
of McMansions, house vintages are pretty mixed, and turnover is slower
than in
west or Texas where I grew up and my father sold residential real
estate. So
there's not so much looking to what the house values will be just 5
years down
the road... "

And one of the reasons turnover is slower and houses aren't
appreciating as fast is becaue ,amy people are choosing to live in
areas where they don't have to worry about the cheap inter-mixed homes
that lower property values. And those that don't expect to pay less
for any house in an area that's a hodgepodge jumble of nice homes and
run down ones.

You're asserting that people are moving to the West and Florida from here to get
away from the '40s Cape Cods they had bought houses next to?

You're not making sense and really seem to be hung up over this.

I've spoken out that HOA's aren't necessarily a Bad Thing. But that I'd rather
not live in them. One reason is that the rules are made by folks like you who
put a lot of import on nitty-picky things, imagining that the rest of the world
thinks like you.

As to the rest of your post, block busting is real (seen it personally) and the
Manhattan situation is much more complex than you describe.

Banty

Call your lawyer! Have you closed yet?

On 06/14/05 10:31 am tossed the following
ingredients into the ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

"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."

Maybe? Of course it does. It would be nice for the person with the
$100K house to have it sitting together with $500K homes. Howver, as
has been pointed out, it's almost always a detraction from the value of
the $500K homes. If you have a neighborhood of $500K homes and
someone then built a $100K house in the middle of it, there is no
question it would detract from the property values and look out of
place. And it would be unfair to those with the $500K homes, as it
would decrease the value of their property and the asthetic appeal of
the area.

Like most people, I see nothing wrong with using zoning or HOA's to
maintain some consistency within a defined neighborhood. That's one
of the main purposes of zoning, to regulate what you can build and
where. It keeps commercial, industrial, and residential areas
seperate. And within residential areas, it keeps apartments and small
homes seperate from larger single family homes. You can still have a
wide variety of styles of homes, but it maintains the property value
and keeps the nieghborhood from becoming a hodgepodge of crap.

I can't recall the exact location, but somewhere around Washington DC we
visited people who live in an area where the zoning or other regulations
*require* a mixture of styles and sizes of houses, together with
apartments. It all looked just fine to us.

Perce

In article ,
"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:

I can't recall the exact location, but somewhere around Washington DC we
visited people who live in an area where the zoning or other regulations
*require* a mixture of styles and sizes of houses, together with
apartments. It all looked just fine to us.

My neighbor bought a house in a new community out in the boondocks with
an HOA, but as a new community with very large tracts of land, everyone
has their own architects (maybe even their own builders?). :-) So
everyone has different styles.... Woo-hoo!

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!

Kendall P. Bullen wrote:
My neighbor bought a house in a new community out in the boondocks
with an HOA, but as a new community with very large tracts of land,
everyone has their own architects (maybe even their own builders?).
:-) So everyone has different styles.... Woo-hoo!

Not at all unusual. Having an HOA doesn't mean the designs have to be
"cookie cutter". Virtually every home in our neighborhood was custom
built by different builders, over a long (40 year) period of time.
There aren't two homes that are alike, but they all do have some deed
restricted traits in common such as setback, enclosed garages, paved
driveways, tile roofs, etc.

"As to the rest of your post, block busting is real (seen it
personally) and the
Manhattan situation is much more complex than you describe. "

I'm sure you've seen it and it must have upset you greatly. What some
people call "block busting" and object to, most people call equal
opportunity housing and not discriminating based on race.

In article .com,
says...

"As to the rest of your post, block busting is real (seen it
personally) and the
Manhattan situation is much more complex than you describe. "

I'm sure you've seen it and it must have upset you greatly. What some
people call "block busting" and object to, most people call equal
opportunity housing and not discriminating based on race.


The *point* is - that this thing about home value based on neighbors is
completely based on perception. Nasty ones, like racial, too. The move out was
largely based, not on a desire to avoid a minority, rather, it was a desire to
get out before overall housing values decrease based on the perceptions of
future property values.

So this over-concern about neighbors and propoperty values isn't overall a good
thing. It's largely a matter of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Banty

"Travis Jordan" wrote in news:fqUre.432334$Yr4.48000
@fe07.news.easynews.com:

Kendall P. Bullen wrote:
My neighbor bought a house in a new community out in the boondocks
with an HOA, but as a new community with very large tracts of land,
everyone has their own architects (maybe even their own builders?).
:-) So everyone has different styles.... Woo-hoo!

Not at all unusual. Having an HOA doesn't mean the designs have to be
"cookie cutter". Virtually every home in our neighborhood was custom
built by different builders, over a long (40 year) period of time.
There aren't two homes that are alike, but they all do have some deed
restricted traits in common such as setback, enclosed garages, paved
driveways, tile roofs, etc.

But many HOA's force their idea of style down the homeowner's throats. Some
friends owned a townhome with an HOA. They were told, "Next month you will
hire firm XXX to paint your exterior THIS color." Naturally, the color
sucked. And when their windows (and those of many of the townhomes) failed
at about 5 years old, all the owners were told they had X amount of time to
have them replaced (at the homeowners expense) with essentially the same
window from the same manufacturer. Needless to say, there was enough
protest over that stupid decision that they managed to get it changed (with
the threat of a lawsuit).

David W. wrote:
(snip)
But many HOA's force their idea of style down the homeowner's throats. Some
friends owned a townhome with an HOA. They were told, "Next month you will
hire firm XXX to paint your exterior THIS color." Naturally, the color
sucked. And when their windows (and those of many of the townhomes) failed
at about 5 years old, all the owners were told they had X amount of time to
have them replaced (at the homeowners expense) with essentially the same
window from the same manufacturer. Needless to say, there was enough
protest over that stupid decision that they managed to get it changed (with
the threat of a lawsuit).

As far as I know most HOA positions are not inherited by blood line. If
enough people consider the HOA was way too out of line, there is a way
to replace those who sit on the HOA. Those who chose not to participate
and let their HOA got out of hand may deserve what they got, IMHO.

FC

"As far as I know most HOA positions are not inherited by blood line.
If
enough people consider the HOA was way too out of line, there is a way
to replace those who sit on the HOA. Those who chose not to participate

and let their HOA got out of hand may deserve what they got, IMHO. "

So very true. In my experience, those that complain the most, do the
least and usually don't even bother to vote on elections or other
important matters. The people serving in these positions are elected
and in almost all cases unpaid. They put in a lot of time doing public
service. Then when they make a decision that some people don't like,
these folks show up as hostile as can be and bitch to no end, berating
the board. I know there are exceptions and some boards do get out of
control. But, as you pointed out, they can be replaced through
election if people want to do something other than complain.

In article ,
FC wrote:

Those who chose not to participate and let their HOA got out of hand
may deserve what they got, IMHO.

But for those who do, they can only be replaced if enough people can get
motivated. Sometimes the combination of evil people + unmotivated
neighbors = you're stuck with a crappy board. (This doesn't just apply
to HOAs, of course, but to other orgs, even less intrusive ones like our
local Citizens Association.)

Kendall, outgoing several-year secretary of our citizens association ;-)

--
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!

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 16:02:11 -0400, "Ted B."
wrote:

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



Might not be their privately owned property. One reason the HOA might
be requiring this is that they found out someone had enclosed
common-area land for their own use. I think it's called "conversion".

The deed for each unit should list in detail whether there is a yard
and if so what size and so on..this is very important. The CC&R
should discuss any fencing issues, if it doesn't and there is no place
else with relevant rules or restrcitions, I'd say the hOA won't have a
fencepost to stand on provided the fence meets applicable codes in
your area.

Now if they are objecting to the fences as fences and those fences
have been there for years, they are pretty much going to be SOL. Now
I'm most definitely not a lawyer but there's a principal called
"laches" in law that requires timely action when there is a known
problem, you can't just notice something and then years later come
along and make someone take it down.

If these folk have not yet closed, I'd give some thought to backing
out as this could turn into something ugly even if you win. You may
have recourse to the prior owner depending on disclousre rules in yoru
state, I'd talk to a condo lawyer for an opinion on the whole mess
before you get too far into it.

One thing an HOA can't do legally is suddenly start enforcing
something like this if they have allowed it to be openly done for
years.

When I became president of our hOA, I found out one unit had enclosed
an upstairs patio many years ago without getting permission..since
they had to modify exterior walls and roof to do this, they should
have and the then board should have dealt with it at the time. But
it's been there for about a decade in full view so as far as I am
concerned it stays, a legal action would be both moot and silly at
this point.

They do have to disclose to future buyers that the addtiion was done
illegally and apparently without permits but that's the homeowner's
problem, not the HOA.

Jim P.

I'm a Heinleinian libertarian, call me a nazi or a socialist and I'll
fly out to your home and shove a copy of Ayn Rand's collected works up
your snout. HOAs are justified as contracts among consenting adults,
you don't like the game, don't sit down at the table and buy chips.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 09:58:59 -0400, "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)



How about if he builds a tar paper shack or hauls in some old double
wides?

You think you won't mind now, but when the time comes you want to sell
and you find your house ins't worth what you thought it was due to
someone putting in high rise apartments to either side of you and then
tell me you don't want to see some regulation of land use. Or when
you can't find a parking space because the 50 unit condo across the
street doesn't offer garage space.

Jim P.

On 06/19/05 04:37 am tossed the following
ingredients into the ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

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)

How about if he builds a tar paper shack or hauls in some old double
wides?

Isn't the land cost going to be much higher in an area of $300K homes
than in an area of $100K homes? Why is anyone going to pay a huge amount
of money for a vacant lot and then put a shack on it? The building code
woudl probably prohibit the tar-paper shack anyway, and probably the
double-wide as well.

You think you won't mind now, but when the time comes you want to sell
and you find your house ins't worth what you thought it was due to
someone putting in high rise apartments to either side of you and then
tell me you don't want to see some regulation of land use. Or when
you can't find a parking space because the 50 unit condo across the
street doesn't offer garage space.

But these situations too are normally taken care of by municipal zoning
laws that define low-density, medium-density and high-density
residential areas, and often specify a minimum amount of parking space.
E.g., our township requires a minimum of two parking spaces (don't have
to be garage spaces, just spaces) per residence (which would include an
apartment). So we don't need HOAs to regulate such things.

It may be that there are already too many levels of government (Federal,
State, County, City or Town(ship) -- and, at least on Long Island,
"Incorporated Villages" within the Towns), all making laws requiring or
prohibiting this, that and the other. And now you want to enable, and
even encourage, yet another level of "government," i.e., Home Owner's
Associations!?

Perce

Kendall P. Bullen wrote:
In article ,
FC wrote:


Those who chose not to participate and let their HOA got out of hand
may deserve what they got, IMHO.


But for those who do, they can only be replaced if enough people can get
motivated. Sometimes the combination of evil people + unmotivated
neighbors = you're stuck with a crappy board. (This doesn't just apply
to HOAs, of course, but to other orgs, even less intrusive ones like our
local Citizens Association.)

Not that I disagree what you described may happen but there may be a
flip side of the view. It's totally possible that the person who is
complaining the loudest (or motivated to change his/her community) has
the crappy taste and therefore can't get his/her neighbor motivated to
agree with him/her to replace the HOA.

FC

In article ,
FC wrote:

Not that I disagree what you described may happen but there may be a
flip side of the view. It's totally possible that the person who is
complaining the loudest (or motivated to change his/her community) has
the crappy taste and therefore can't get his/her neighbor motivated to
agree with him/her to replace the HOA.

True! Though of course, I think that everyone's taste is different and
I'm sure everyone's is crappy and mine's the best.... Problem #36 with
HOAs, "taste" varies.

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!