On Sep 22, 1:54 am, wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:57:08 -0700, "SteveB"

wrote:
HOAs function, more or less, as a democracy and can make whatever rules
they want within whatever restrictions the law applies.

Say what? They are about as totalitarian as you can get. The boards are
full of people who have too much time on their hands, and have no idea how
things work. People who do know how things work either don't have the time,
or can't get the committee government to implement basic common sense logic.

You can usually throw the bums out. All it takes is to round up a gang
of people who are as ****ed as you about the current officers and mob
the annual meeting.

That's assuming the vote isn't rigged in the first place.

In article . com,
Larry Bud wrote:

On Sep 21, 12:19 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

"HeyBub" wrote:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366

He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.

What trademark?

From the story above.
"Grievances and propaganda" is how the association's attorney described
the Web site's content, in a certified letter Aug. 9 demanding that Zaki
cease any use therein of the trademarked name The Hamptons.

On Sep 21, 6:14 pm, "John Gilmer" wrote:
"Steve Barker LT" wrote in ... The HOA doesn't have leg to stand on. Jeeeeze what a waste of time.

I would tend to agree. The web site should have "fair use" of the name.

Frankly, the game isn't worth the candle. He should contact the attorney
who wrote the letter and say he is changing the name on his site. It's
just not hard to burn up several $1000 in legal bills is a ****ing contest
with a HoA. I believe the story mentioned a $10k figure.

s

another good reason to ban HOA's. They think they are God.

Governments LOVE HoA just because the HoA's can do things governments can't.

More than that: HOAs often have private roads paid by the residents,
private trash pickup, and private snow removal. The local government
still gets their 100% of the property tax, but doesn't have to pay for
the above mentioned items.

I am totally in favor of HOA's. I like not having busy bodies bothering me
where I live.

Except that eventually, the only place you'll be able to buy is into a
neighborhood with an HOA, unless you want to live 3 hours from your
work.

On Sep 21, 11:21 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:



While I agree with what you say, the HOA in this case still has no right to
stop his web site. We still have freedom of speech in this country.

I never have understood why people can't seem to recall that the first
words of the first amendment are "Congress shall not".. For the most
part, the first amendment covers only what government does. Thus, if I
want to leaflet at a Mall, they can toss me out of the door barring a
state law to the contrary because it is private property. Even then it
would be a state law and not federal or constitutional question.

The Constitution limits what the Government CAN do. People are free
to do anything they please, as long as they don't violate the rights
of others. In your above example, you've violating the property
rights of the mall owners because you'd be doing something they don't
want done on their property. In the web site example, the owner isn't
violating any rights of anybody.

on 9/21/2007 12:19 PM Kurt Ullman said the following:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366


He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.


They can't copyright the word 'Hamptons'. They might even be on shaky
grounds copywriting "The Hamptons"
"The Hamptons" is a common reference for the region in Suffolk County,
Long Island NY that is a summer home to many of the elite and famous.
See also this site:
http://www.thehamptons.com/toc.html (TheHamptons.com)

The association's lawyer's letter to the web site owner stated that it
is forbidden to use the logos, trademarks, or designs of the community.

"19.3 Promotional Events: ... All logos, trademarks, and designs used in
connection with The Hamptons are the property of Developer, and the
Association shall have no right to use the same after the Community
Completion Date except with the express written permission of
Developer.
--------------------------------
Pursuant to Florida Statutes Section 495.15 1, the Association has the
right to bring a suit for injunction to defend its logos, trademarks,
and designs against anyone who wrongfully uses the same or similar
logos, trademarks and designs. That Section states as follows:

The owner of a mark that is famous in this state shall be entitled,
subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court
deems reasonable, to an injunction and to obtain such other relief
against another person' commercial use of a mark or trade name if such
use begins after the mark has become famous and is likely to cause
dilution of the distinctive quality of the famous mark, as provided in
this section."

It does not state anything about using the name 'The Hamptons', or
Hamptons.
Unless the website owner uses any of the logos, trademarks, or designs
of the developer, he is not in violation of the covenant.

This is just a feeble attempt to scare the website owner into taking the
site down.

Coincidentally, look at my sig....

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

"Larry Bud" wrote

That's assuming the vote isn't rigged in the first place.

paraphrasing ..........

The one who controls the ballot box controls the outcome of any election.

Joseph Stalin

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:12:14 -0700, "SteveB"
wrote:


That's assuming the vote isn't rigged in the first place.

paraphrasing ..........

The one who controls the ballot box controls the outcome of any election.

Joseph Stalin


If you can assure there is no election fraud when all the voters are
watching the count you deserve to be oppressed. The biggest
opportunity for fraud is in the proxy count but any member has the
right to examine the proxies.

My life experiences have been different than yours.

And let's not even get into public elections. Does LBJ ring a bell?

Steve

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

Even on such "private property" -open to the public-,you still retain
certain rights,and they are still subject to certain government
regulations,such as health,safety regs,both state and Federal.
Even in the public areas, absent a state law to the contrary, there
is no right of assembly, you have no right of free speech in that they
can toss your behind for leafleting, etc. Even under this theory, it
is a long stretch to suggest that the HOA is public.

IIRC, the way I remember a bit going in the courts is that an HOA is
a level of government, and therefore subject to the restrictions on
government by the Bill of Rights (1st 10 amendments to the USA
Constitution, especially the 1st), as extended to non-Federal governments
in the USA by another constitutional amendment (I believe the 14th).

- Don Klipstein )

In article , Jim Yanik wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

You should include this part you snipped;
Thus, if I
want to leaflet at a Mall, they can toss me out of the door barring a
state law to the contrary because it is private property. Even then it
would be a state law and not federal or constitutional question.



Even on such "private property" -open to the public-,you still retain
certain rights,and they are still subject to certain government
regulations,such as health,safety regs,both state and Federal.
Even in the public areas, absent a state law to the contrary, there
is no right of assembly, you have no right of free speech in that they
can toss your behind for leafleting, etc. Even under this theory, it
is a long stretch to suggest that the HOA is public.

I didn't claim any HOA was "open to the public".I was referring to a MALL.

I do feel the urge to add:

A mall is usually property owned privately or maybe by a corporation
whose shares trade on a "public" stock exchange - which is still "private
sector".
An HOA IIRC has some case law as being to some extent a level of
government.

That leads me to suspect that usually HOAs are more subject to "Bill of
Rights" restrictions than shopping malls are.

- Don Klipstein )

In article . com, Larry
Bud wrote:
On Sep 21, 6:14 pm, "John Gilmer" wrote:
"Steve Barker LT" wrote in
... The HOA
doesn't have leg to stand on. Jeeeeze what a waste of time.

I would tend to agree. The web site should have "fair use" of the name.

Frankly, the game isn't worth the candle. He should contact the attorney
who wrote the letter and say he is changing the name on his site. It's
just not hard to burn up several $1000 in legal bills is a ****ing contest
with a HoA. I believe the story mentioned a $10k figure.

s

another good reason to ban HOA's. They think they are God.

Governments LOVE HoA just because the HoA's can do things governments
can't.

More than that: HOAs often have private roads paid by the residents,

It appears to me that they can be driven upon by anyone if they connect
to public roads and are not marked "No Trespassing - Not A Public
Thoroughfare" or something along these lines.

private trash pickup, and private snow removal.

Sounds to me at least arguably functions of a sub-municipal level of
government! (A level below often "township", which has a bit of case
history being 36 square miles IIRC and is usually at least a few square
miles).

The local government still gets their 100% of the property tax, but
doesn't have to pay for the above mentioned items.

The next-lower level of government gets their tax that is called an HOA
fee!

- Don Klipstein )

In article .com, Larry
Bud wrote:

I am totally in favor of HOA's. I like not having busy bodies
bothering me where I live.

Except that eventually, the only place you'll be able to buy is into a
neighborhood with an HOA, unless you want to live 3 hours from your
work.

I am finding plenty of areas lacking HOAs in "inner ring suburbs" of
Philadelphia. By this I mean most residences in municipalities bordering
Philadelphia, and most residences in municipalities that border ones that
border Philadelphia. I see HOAs in the Philadelphia area being more
common in municipalities 3-4 or so removed from Philadelphia, often in a
county that does not border Philadelphia or over 10 miles (often over
20 miles) from Philadelphia city limits or both!
I also see high lack of HOAs within Philadelphia's city limits, though I
am low on nice things to say about the municipal level of government
there, as well as on the PA "state" government! And I see NJ as being
minor improvement!

- Don Klipstein )

In article ,
willshak wrote:

on 9/21/2007 12:19 PM Kurt Ullman said the following:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...NEWS/709210366


He is infringing on a trademark, let alone the convenants. The HOA is
within its rights on the first, maybe on the second.


They can't copyright the word 'Hamptons'. They might even be on shaky
grounds copywriting "The Hamptons"
They are trademarking it. Maybe, maybe not. They could TM The
Hamptoms in the context of a FL subdivision as long as it hadn't been by
another. They are for a specific service or range of services (or
products). There might be some attempt under the "passing off" part of
the regs, but I find it hard to believe that a Sarasota houing
development could be confused with a section of Long Island by too many
people.



"The Hamptons" is a common reference for the region in Suffolk County,
Long Island NY that is a summer home to many of the elite and famous.
See also this site:
http://www.thehamptons.com/toc.html (TheHamptons.com)

Yep. Which would have little to do with the trademarking of the name
for a Florida Subdivision. Although a quick search through the trademark
registry finds none for FL (Although I did find that apparently Racine,
WI holds the Hamptons of the Midwest, BTW a community).

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:


IIRC, the way I remember a bit going in the courts is that an HOA is
a level of government, and therefore subject to the restrictions on
government by the Bill of Rights (1st 10 amendments to the USA
Constitution, especially the 1st), as extended to non-Federal governments
in the USA by another constitutional amendment (I believe the 14th).

Interesting. I guess we'll see what happens. If you happen to recall,
was this based on specifics on a state law or where they attempting to
get it declared that way on some other way that might be applicable to
all 50?

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

It appears to me that they can be driven upon by anyone if they connect
to public roads and are not marked "No Trespassing - Not A Public
Thoroughfare" or something along these lines.

Probably depends on the original set-up. The developers around here
put in the roads, get them inspected by the city and then they are given
to the city or county. They are public roads.



private trash pickup, and private snow removal.

Sounds to me at least arguably functions of a sub-municipal level of
government! (A level below often "township", which has a bit of case
history being 36 square miles IIRC and is usually at least a few square
miles).


That might depend on the state if it is applicable at all. In Indiana,
for instance, many cities (and even more towns and no townships or
below) don't do trash pick-up. In those areas, it is up to the
individual. Our HOA decided to contract for trash pick-up because we got
a good deal and got tired of having one or two garbage cans out every
day.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 05:12:06 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

It appears to me that they can be driven upon by anyone if they connect
to public roads and are not marked "No Trespassing - Not A Public
Thoroughfare" or something along these lines.


They usually have gates and a guard that keeps out the riff raff

Those kind of gates that stay open as long as a line of cars keep passing
over it? The first guy presses his remote, and you could drive a semi truck
in after him as long as you get to the coils before the auto close mode
starts. And even then, some gates are set to open if another car comes
within the loops before the gate is closed.

I hear what you're saying, but gates are an item that provides a low level
of security.

Guards are a different matter. At some HOAs, they only have a day shift.
And they have only one guard. So, if he goes on rounds, no one to watch the
gate. And nine times out of ten, the guard can't run 100 feet or scale a
six foot fence. And are unarmed.

Fences, gates, and guards do not keep out the riff raff. They're like
monkeys. If they want in, they will just come in any way they can.

Steve

"Kurt Ullman" wrote


Probably depends on the original set-up. The developers around here
put in the roads, get them inspected by the city and then they are given
to the city or county. They are public roads.


That varies with each locality just like the weather. Asphalt replacement
is $ .95 per square foot, and has a life span of twenty to thirty years.
Seal coating is $ .20 per square foot, and a good sealcoat job lasts five
years. And that varies with the area, too.

I have houses on a county street in that location. When there's an issue,
they send out a patch team, but I have yet to see them entirely seal coat
the entire cul de sac in five years. It needs it. We do get gypsies who
leave flyers, but we haven't and won't take them up on it. In a HOA, they
will do small patch jobs, but they usually do sealcoating more frequently
than cities or counties.

The asphalt area in most HOAs is one of the biggest areas, in there with
landscaping. I have seen landscape percentages from 11 to 47 percent of the
total property, usually dictated by the age. The new ones are higher
density. Streets don't vary in percentages as much as you need a certain
amount of streets for a certain property. Also, you can kill landscape
areas and xeriscape or pave over, and you can't do that with asphalt.

Apply the math with asphalt areas running up to a million square feet of
asphalt, and that's a good chunk of the monthly assessment, along with the
landscaping.

HTH. Just little tidbit of info.

Steve

(Don Klipstein) wrote in
:

In article .com,
Larry Bud wrote:

I am totally in favor of HOA's. I like not having busy bodies
bothering me where I live.

Except that eventually, the only place you'll be able to buy is into a
neighborhood with an HOA, unless you want to live 3 hours from your
work.

I am finding plenty of areas lacking HOAs in "inner ring suburbs" of
Philadelphia. By this I mean most residences in municipalities
bordering Philadelphia, and most residences in municipalities that
border ones that border Philadelphia. I see HOAs in the Philadelphia
area being more common in municipalities 3-4 or so removed from
Philadelphia, often in a county that does not border Philadelphia or
over 10 miles (often over 20 miles) from Philadelphia city limits or
both!
I also see high lack of HOAs within Philadelphia's city limits,
though I
am low on nice things to say about the municipal level of government
there, as well as on the PA "state" government! And I see NJ as being
minor improvement!

- Don Klipstein )


Older areas often don't have HOAs. (built before the advent of HOAs)
Many people value that.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

In , wrote:

SNIP stuff said before

Some communities have 24/7 guards but more to the point, they all say
they are private on signs and you would be tresspassing if you went
in. The community my wife manages also has a very sophistocated camera
setup that can zoom in on the tag number. It might be possible to
"tailgate" someone through the gate if the guard was not there but you
would also have the resident you are tailgating to deal with. Bear in
mind, they know you are on camera too so your assault/tresspassing
charge will be a slam dunk in court. These people are serious about
security. That is why they pay all that money for gates, guards and
the cost of maintaining their private roads. Occasionally they do have
someone ram the gate, if it is a small car, that is where you will
find them. A big truck will get through. The last one at my wife's
place got a $12,000 bill for the gate, delivered by the sheriff, along
with the handcuffs for the tresspassing charge. They had excellent
pictures of the truck, the tag and the driver when he got out to see
what he could to to get his truck going again.

They also had someone break into the guard shack, trying to steal the
tapes. OOPS, it was on a LAN and the real pictures were on a hard
drive in the server room up in the club house. A felony
burglary/larceny charge went with that one. The guy stole the wrong
computer so they had him coming and going on camera.

BTW this is the "Gunshine" state, you can't count on anyone being
unarmed. Over half the guards I know pack "concealed". We just passed
a law that says you do not have the "obligation of retreat" anywhere
"you have a legal right to be".

More power to them!

Cameras with recording in a different location, preferably more than one
camera so that a perp gets recorded unless destroying all cameras before
being recorded (with recordings going to remote locations) by any of
the cameras. May as well have plenty of trees to stash a couple extra
cameras in!

And if I have to live in a country where any Joe can have a gun, then I
things are "less-bad" if there is a system allowing concealed-carry by
law-abiding citizens. (Whether by having a permit requirement and
application process, or otherwise by targeting arrestees and persons
producing "adequately suspicious behavior" and probationers and parolees
and persons-subject-to-protection-from-abuse-orders for personal searching
for weapons that they legally must not have and that everyone else is
allowed to have).

One comment of mine: Washington DC - it appears to me that they are
trying too hard to disarm those that would obey a municipal law to be
disarmed in a country where outlaws merely have to go out of town
(possibly by only a few miles into Virginia) to get guns that only outlaws
have in Washington DC. I see gun control working well on a national
scale, hardly on a provincial ("USA "state") scale, and negatively on a
municipal scale.

Another comment of mine: Philadelphia trying for municipal gun control,
and trying to add restrictions to getting "concealed carry" permits.
What I would like to say the What percentage of Philadelphians that
have concealed carry permits are committing gun crimes? What percentage
of Philadelphians that do not have concealed carry permits are committing
gun crimes?
The statistics: In Philadelphia, people without concealed-carry-permits
are more likely to unlawfully/unjustly shoot you (or anyone) than people
with concealed-carry permits - despite the "fact" that those with
concealed-carry perits are supposed to be more likely to be armed!

In Philadelphia, gun crimes tend to be committed with handguns - many by
persons of age under 21, though USA Federal law does not allow persons
under 21 to posess a handgun. Legally in the USA, someone using or
handling a handgun while under age 21 is supposed to be under supervision
by someone of age at least 21 that "is in charge of the handgun in
question" and "adequately" supervising its use/handling.

This means "No Problem" if I let my hypothetical 12-year-old nephew or
niece operate my hypothetical handgun while I adequately supervise such at
a shooting range or my backyard in Berks County PA.

But a teenager with saggy pants in an inner-city Philadelphia
neighborhood has no business "packing heat". If approached by police
officers requesting ID and search, then:

* - Approached-person produces ID with proof of age at least 21, then if
that person is not on probation or parole then maybe constitutionally or
morally-by-USA-Constitution that person maybe should be "free from that
point".

* - Person is unable to prove when approached by patrolling cops that such
approached person is allowed on basis of age and lack of probation/parole
status to be allowed to carry a handgun: Such person better not be
carrying one. However, evidence of being a criminal other than such gets
to being a matter of "warrantless search", and penalties could easily be
limited to confiscation of what the questionee is barred by law to posess
if this process occurs on public property or a "public easement" such as a
sidewalk or in or on grounds owned/leased by a "public accomodation" (such
as a business open to the public as opposed to something being to at least
some arguable extent a "private club").

- Don Klipstein )

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 22:05:56 -0400, wrote Re HOA
demands resident's web site come down:

BTW this is the "Gunshine" state, you can't count on anyone being
unarmed. Over half the guards I know pack "concealed". We just passed
a law that says you do not have the "obligation of retreat" anywhere
"you have a legal right to be".

As it should be.