Norminn wrote:
AZ Nomad wrote:

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 09:10:07 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

(snip)
Why should someone spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for a home and
have the value decline
ONLY because those vested with the responsibility for maintenance refuse
to do their jobs?
Any time you live someplace where others do the upkeep, and you don't
have the power/money/time/knowledge to hire and fire the work crews, you
are at risk. IMHO, attached/stacked condos are little better than
renting an apartment, with the same general level of upkeep. Sure, you
get equity, assuming the place remains salable, but along with making
normal-sized house payments, you are also making association payments.
In many cases, those equal or exceed the upkeep costs on a house, and
all you gain is the free time. For those that are not able to do their
own upkeep on a house, the alternative to a condo is to buy a house and
try to have a long-term arrangement with a competent and trustworthy
fixit guy. (Or your kids, if they didn't move far away. I did a lot of
repairs to my Grandparent's house...)

But having ranted all that- yes, if you have chosen to live in a condo,
and the association (and/or the management company they hired to do the
nuts and bolts of daily upkeep) falls down on the job, court is about
the only stick you have. They didn't hold up their end of the contracts
involved.

--
aem sends...