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!

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)

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

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 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