harry wrote:

When I read things like this that I thank God I’m living in the USA
where real estate is relatively cheaper so that we don’t have to live
with a HOA unless we want to.

Some people in the USA have to live in tents these days.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnnOOo6tRs8
We haven't got that in the UK . Yet.

Yep. The sheriff in Phoenix has about a thousand in tents.

"If tents were good enough in the desert for Moses ..."

On 8/1/2010 2:20 AM, harry wrote:
On Jul 31, 9:19 pm, Molly wrote:
On Jul 31, 9:06 am, wrote:

It's in the UK, but still...

"You may think a large pool of water is a useful thing to have around in the
event of a fire. But officials at a block of flats have banned children from
playing in [wading] pools because they present a ‘fire risk’. "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...safety-officia...

Somebody in the US is going to read this and we're doomed.

When I read things like this that I thank God I’m living in the USA
where real estate is relatively cheaper so that we don’t have to live
with a HOA unless we want to.

Some people in the USA have to live in tents these days.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnnOOo6tRs8
We haven't got that in the UK . Yet.

Where are those FEMA camps when you need them?

TDD

Don Klipstein wrote:
In ,
Larry Fishel wrote:

On Jul 31, 1:18 pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
But this wasn't an HOA. It was the local government bureaucracy. You
take the idiocy of an HOA and concentrate it one hundred fold and you
are still not nearing the idiocy of a bureaucrat.
If HOA members are anything like condo board members, I'm not so sure.
Most condo board members are people who want to be bureaucrats so bad
they will do it for free in their spare time...

The way I hear it, a condo board is a board of an HOA. As in, condo
unit owners are homeowners governed by an HOA. Condo owners have as
much right to vote in and run for office in their HOA elections as
Mc-mansion owners that bought into their respective HOAs have.

In Florida, HOAs and condos are entirely different animals with their
own sets of statutes.

I would rather have a landlord than an HOA. At least my experience so
far is that landlords are lazier, and they hire and pay for only enough
staff to do what needs to be done, sometimes even less. Their hired help
have a tendency to prefer enjoying their evenings and weekends of whatever
time-off over making enemies with the tenants. (Though I have known a few
to be "Bah-Humbug, bug-off!" - but those in my experience usually don't
spy on tenants beyond checking for unreported in-unit plumbing leaks,
unreported vermin infestations, unreported sparking-sputtering light
switches and electrical fixtures, and similarly serious ilk.)

Our condo has attics above the second floor units, some of which were
infested with rats years ago. When a renter called city code
enforcement folks about animal noises in attic, the inspector determined
only that there was a dust-ball in the AC duct. He didn't check the
attic.

We had sewer backups three times...our unit is closest to the street, so
our commodes backed up first. One time, bad enough that sewage
saturated about half the carpet in master bedroom. I called the city,
they ran a camera up the sewer line, determined it was "in bad shape"
and installed a cleanout at the edge of our property. Condo assn. also
did a video; no repair yet. The official name for our code enforcement
folks is "Community Response Team"....yep, they respond but they don't
do anything.

On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 08:15:47 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Jim Elbrecht" wrote

You are kind. The word that pops in my head is "bull****".


The world *is* a very big place, but I'd have to see the cite about
the part of the world with such large firehoses, such kind pumps, and
such lucky little boys.

Jim

The word that popped into my mind was wry humor.


Now that you mention it--- and after I consider that mm has been
posting here a while & I haven't noted any flaming net-nuttiness about
previous postings. . . . maybe that was the loud 'zoom' I heard this
morning.

Jim
[if mm is British that would explain a lot-- I never get their humor]

In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

In , Kurt Ullman wrote:


What I hear from family members and friends is that HOAS tend to be
worse because their busybodies are not lazy. While municipal governments
have more of a tendency to be lazy.
Sorta depends. I have known bureaucrats to get a bug up their ass
about things and, with the police powers available to the government,
have made life miserable.


I have yet to hear of municipal governments forbidding people from
parking trucks on their driveways, regulating house paint colors and color
schemes to such extent as sometimes effectively specifying a particular
brand, forbidding people from working on their own cars on their own
driveways, forbidding above-ground pools where in-ground pools are
allowed, forbidding outdoor solar/wind drying of laundry, or forbidding
someone from romantically kissing a date in front of the home before going
in for the night.
There are a couple that come close. Things like driveways,
regulation of colors and in-ground pools have been included in the
zoning variances for subdivisions around here. Height is another biggy.
And then there are the restrictions on historic houses, but that is more
self-inflicted since you have to apply for them or know the status when
you buy them.


That gets harder to enforce, since cops don't tour homes the way I hear
HOA busybodies often get to do one way or another.

That is largely self-inflicted, again. You should know the
neighborhood busy-bodies and just don't invite them into your house.


And as much as Americans like to bash lawyers, why do Americans vote for
so many of them for state government legislative offices and for both
houses of US Congress?
Lawyers are the only ones who can take the time off from actually
doing work to run.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
(Don Klipstein) wrote:

In , Kurt Ullman wrote:


What I hear from family members and friends is that HOAS tend to be
worse because their busybodies are not lazy. While municipal governments
have more of a tendency to be lazy.
Sorta depends. I have known bureaucrats to get a bug up their ass
about things and, with the police powers available to the government,
have made life miserable.

I have yet to hear of municipal governments forbidding people from
parking trucks on their driveways, regulating house paint colors and color
schemes to such extent as sometimes effectively specifying a particular
brand, forbidding people from working on their own cars on their own
driveways, forbidding above-ground pools where in-ground pools are
allowed, forbidding outdoor solar/wind drying of laundry, or forbidding
someone from romantically kissing a date in front of the home before going
in for the night.
There are a couple that come close. Things like driveways,
regulation of colors and in-ground pools have been included in the
zoning variances for subdivisions around here. Height is another biggy.
And then there are the restrictions on historic houses, but that is more
self-inflicted since you have to apply for them or know the status when
you buy them.

That gets harder to enforce, since cops don't tour homes the way I hear
HOA busybodies often get to do one way or another.

That is largely self-inflicted, again. You should know the
neighborhood busy-bodies and just don't invite them into your house.

And as much as Americans like to bash lawyers, why do Americans vote for
so many of them for state government legislative offices and for both
houses of US Congress?
Lawyers are the only ones who can take the time off from actually
doing work to run.


Florida passed a new condo law in, I believe, 2009, that bans board
members from serving on boards if they are in arrears with their
maintenance assessment. That would have saved a lot of grief for my
condo a few years back. Imagine condo owners wanting and needing
repairs, like new roof, and a deadbeat on the board voting it down. It
gets really, really nasty. There aren't any professional standards or
ethics in my area....

On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 05:40:50 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
wrote:

In ,
wrote:

Robert Neville wrote:
" wrote:

Must be a plush HOA to spend that kind of money

Most property covenants state that the homeowner is responsible for all
fines and collection costs. Presumably if the HOA prevails the
homeowner will be required to reimburse the HOA. Doesn't work in
reverse though...

In Florida the loser pays. This HOA lost. I think the homeowner spent
around $100K, but perhaps that was included in the $850.

Cost to the HOA is cost to the homeowners that the HOA has jurisdiction
over.

A few posts back, KRW claimed that the HOA is still in place, although

Correction: I exclaimed shock that they were still in place. That is, the
board stupidly spent upwards of $1M of their homeowners money, without said
homeowners so much as tar and feathering them, is shocking.

I have yet to see a cite of the responsible (or irresponsible) members of
the HOA board in question surviving re-election.

They were there long enough to spend $850K! That's the homeowner's fault.

I hope the HOA board members in question here get thrown out and land on
their kiesters on hard pavement. I hope the homeowners care enough to
replace the board members in question at soonest-available election time.

One would hope so, but they were there long enough to spend $850K.

Or are the homeowners that have votes going to be like Philadelphian
voters often are - voting for experience over "not being part of the
problem", or not lift their rumps on election day and allow the problematic
incumbents to be re-elected by themselves, each other and their buddies?

Who's fault is that?

On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 05:45:52 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
wrote:

In article , Oren wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:52:36 -0400, "
wrote:

Newspapers in Florida this week were full of news of $850k legal fees
over a several-year battle about parking a truck in the driveway. The
homeowner (so far) prevailed. Must be a plush HOA to spend that kind of
money )

Other associations in FL, have spent plenty of dollars. They lost so
far and the homeowner can fly his American flag. (maybe a couple of
cases).

The legal fees incurred by the HOA are the problem of all homeowners
governed by the HOA.

I would hope that at soonest-available election time the homeowners
replace HOA board members that incurred big-ticket legal fees in court
battles poorly chosen by busybody HOA board members.

....and disband the HOA, as a bad idea.

On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 04:57:11 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
wrote:

In , Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:

See the words "common sense"? That is not a phrase I am in the habit of
using in the same sentence as the term "HOA" -- unless the sentence also
includes a negative.

But this wasn't an HOA. It was the local government bureaucracy. You
take the idiocy of an HOA and concentrate it one hundred fold and you
are still not nearing the idiocy of a bureaucrat.

What I hear from family members and friends is that HOAS tend to be
worse because their busybodies are not lazy. While municipal governments
have more of a tendency to be lazy.

I have yet to hear of municipal governments forbidding people from
parking trucks on their driveways, regulating house paint colors and color
schemes to such extent as sometimes effectively specifying a particular
brand, forbidding people from working on their own cars on their own
driveways, forbidding above-ground pools where in-ground pools are
allowed, forbidding outdoor solar/wind drying of laundry, or forbidding
someone from romantically kissing a date in front of the home before going
in for the night.

That gets me thinking that in comparison, NYC is more reasonable despite
banning specific breeds of dogs and a cat hybrid, and CA is more
reasonable by banning sale of paraboloidal microphones and .50-BMG rifles.
That gets harder to enforce, since cops don't tour homes the way I hear
HOA busybodies often get to do one way or another. A cop needs a
warrant to look for my .50-BMG rifle or my paraboloidal microphone. Heck,
my experience is that landlords are not busybodies the way HOA board
members are said to be.

One laziness of some municipal governments: Make HOAs responsible for
maintenance of the sewer utility (if any) and
neighborhood-level/street-level water distribution, local roads, things like
that... Make the developer build those and write deeds ordaining
existence of an HOA whose duties include in part maintaining these...
The municipal government then gets to brag about its taxes being lower...
The HOA busybodies get to hire their buddies to do the maintenance on
the roads and the under-street water lines and any sewer lines there...

Do enough homeowners that have HOAs go to their HOA meetings to hold
to the fire the feet of "that level of government"? So that, for example,
road maintenance is performed at a reasonable frequency and to a
reasonable extent by the winner of a reasonable competitive bidding
process? (Of course, I wish people also held municipal gubmint feet to
their respective fires.)

Do enough homeowners who are not "busybodies" run for election to their
HOA boards? It's hard enough to get good-honest people to run for
municipal, county and state government offices for that matter!

And as much as Americans like to bash lawyers, why do Americans vote for
so many of them for state government legislative offices and for both
houses of US Congress?

Note that fewer than half of the congresscritters are lawyers.

On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 06:34:35 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
wrote:

In , Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote
When I read things like this that I thank God I’m living in the USA
where real estate is relatively cheaper so that we don’t have to live
with a HOA unless we want to.

... as long as you don't want anything reasonably modern and reasonably
close to civilization.

Perce

I know Florida and CA are overrun with HOAs, but here in New England they
are a rarity. I'd never move to a place that has one.

I'd turn down a job offer that effectively requires me to move into an
an area where my home choice options are effectively limited to ones that
have HOAs. (I have heard that such areas in USA do exist.)

I've tuned down job offers to many places, mostly because there were too many
lefties living there (with the inherent astronomical cost of living and
taxes), but...

Unless the prospective employer can tell me where I can replace an
ignition coil or a timing belt in my car close to my home, and where
I have complete lack of problem with operating a soldering iron, let
alone high power UV lamps of any wavelength or a Class IIIb laser in my
living room or my bedroom at any moment that my scaredy-cat boyfriend is
somewhere else...

How about in your garage?

(Unless a career move includes a raise sufficient to rent or otherwise
acquire a separate business property for use of UV lamps, Class IIIb
lasers, soldering irons, heat guns, maybe a drill press, and-the-like...)

You do all that in the street?

On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 07:16:14 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

harry wrote:

When I read things like this that I thank God I’m living in the USA
where real estate is relatively cheaper so that we don’t have to live
with a HOA unless we want to.

Some people in the USA have to live in tents these days.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnnOOo6tRs8
We haven't got that in the UK . Yet.

Yep. The sheriff in Phoenix has about a thousand in tents.

"If tents were good enough in the desert for Moses ..."

"If 10% is good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for Uncle Sam."

On Aug 1, 1:55*pm, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 08:15:47 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:



"Jim Elbrecht" wrote

You are kind. *The word that pops in my head is "bull****".

The world *is* a very big place, but I'd have to see the cite about
the part of the world with such large firehoses, such kind pumps, and
such lucky little boys.

Jim

The word that popped into my mind was wry humor.

Now that you mention it--- and after I consider that mm has been
posting here a while & I haven't noted any flaming net-nuttiness about
previous postings. . . . *maybe that was the loud 'zoom' I heard this
morning.

Jim
[if mm is British that would explain a lot-- *I never get their humor]

We only rarely get yours.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 05:40:50 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
wrote:

In ,
wrote:

Robert Neville wrote:
" wrote:

Must be a plush HOA to spend that kind of money
Most property covenants state that the homeowner is responsible for all
fines and collection costs. Presumably if the HOA prevails the
homeowner will be required to reimburse the HOA. Doesn't work in
reverse though...
In Florida the loser pays. This HOA lost. I think the homeowner spent
around $100K, but perhaps that was included in the $850.
Cost to the HOA is cost to the homeowners that the HOA has jurisdiction
over.

A few posts back, KRW claimed that the HOA is still in place, although

Correction: I exclaimed shock that they were still in place. That is, the
board stupidly spent upwards of $1M of their homeowners money, without said
homeowners so much as tar and feathering them, is shocking.

I have yet to see a cite of the responsible (or irresponsible) members of
the HOA board in question surviving re-election.

They were there long enough to spend $850K! That's the homeowner's fault.

I hope the HOA board members in question here get thrown out and land on
their kiesters on hard pavement. I hope the homeowners care enough to
replace the board members in question at soonest-available election time.

One would hope so, but they were there long enough to spend $850K.

Or are the homeowners that have votes going to be like Philadelphian
voters often are - voting for experience over "not being part of the
problem", or not lift their rumps on election day and allow the problematic
incumbents to be re-elected by themselves, each other and their buddies?

Who's fault is that?

I believe the case in Florida was result of an appeal, and that doesn't
mean the judgement was correct. The truck was a ?Ford 350 something??
So, if the board allowed parking in the drive because a truck doesn't
fit the garage, it would have set a precedent. Sounded like a very
large org., several HOA's under a master HOA. Probably an expensive
community, so I can see the logic in the board fighting as far as they
have.

Florida had many battles over flags until a statute was passed that
allows each unit to display the American (and a state or military
service flag?). Many of the more publicized battles are because some
people think they are more special than others....hubby in Iraq or
handicapped kid. Sorry, but I'm no more or less special than all the
other "special" cases. I sure don't ever want to live in a condo or HOA
again, but I'd be more comfortable with clear rules known in advance. I
would also want to review their records that pertain to violations and
how they are handled.

On 08/01/10 10:58 am, wrote:

Florida passed a new condo law in, I believe, 2009, that bans board
members from serving on boards if they are in arrears with their
maintenance assessment. That would have saved a lot of grief for my
condo a few years back. Imagine condo owners wanting and needing
repairs, like new roof, and a deadbeat on the board voting it down. It
gets really, really nasty. There aren't any professional standards or
ethics in my area....

Somebody told me that a condo/HOA board member will sometimes vote
against necessary maintenance because then s/he will have to pay an
assessment -- "I'm planning to move anyway, so let the people who come
later pay the assessment."

Perce

wrote

And as much as Americans like to bash lawyers, why do Americans vote for
so many of them for state government legislative offices and for both
houses of US Congress?

Note that fewer than half of the congresscritters are lawyers.

If there are two garter snakes and a cobra in a cage, are you saying it is
safe because less than half are poisonous? Less that half of congress
still leave about 200.

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 08/01/10 10:58 am, wrote:

Florida passed a new condo law in, I believe, 2009, that bans board
members from serving on boards if they are in arrears with their
maintenance assessment. That would have saved a lot of grief for my
condo a few years back. Imagine condo owners wanting and needing
repairs, like new roof, and a deadbeat on the board voting it down. It
gets really, really nasty. There aren't any professional standards or
ethics in my area....

Somebody told me that a condo/HOA board member will sometimes vote
against necessary maintenance because then s/he will have to pay an
assessment -- "I'm planning to move anyway, so let the people who come
later pay the assessment."

Perce

I still have footprints on my face from former neighbors. After about
three years of really, really hostile turmoil between those who wanted
maintenance and those who didn't, a couple of owners sold and moved. We
were desparate to get things back to at least civil relationships and a
fairly responsible level of maintenance. Then comes a new owner who
bought two units to remodel without building permits and flip them.
They were pretty crass and didn't much know when to keep their mouths
shut....told us from git-go that they only planned on staying about two
years. OF COURSE they weren't going to ok large projects (like fixing
sagging roof) and they doubled their money. It's "Lets make a deal"
every day...go along and you are free to do anything you please."

On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:54:10 -0400, "
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 05:40:50 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
wrote:

In ,
wrote:

Robert Neville wrote:
" wrote:

Must be a plush HOA to spend that kind of money
Most property covenants state that the homeowner is responsible for all
fines and collection costs. Presumably if the HOA prevails the
homeowner will be required to reimburse the HOA. Doesn't work in
reverse though...
In Florida the loser pays. This HOA lost. I think the homeowner spent
around $100K, but perhaps that was included in the $850.
Cost to the HOA is cost to the homeowners that the HOA has jurisdiction
over.

A few posts back, KRW claimed that the HOA is still in place, although

Correction: I exclaimed shock that they were still in place. That is, the
board stupidly spent upwards of $1M of their homeowners money, without said
homeowners so much as tar and feathering them, is shocking.

I have yet to see a cite of the responsible (or irresponsible) members of
the HOA board in question surviving re-election.

They were there long enough to spend $850K! That's the homeowner's fault.

I hope the HOA board members in question here get thrown out and land on
their kiesters on hard pavement. I hope the homeowners care enough to
replace the board members in question at soonest-available election time.

One would hope so, but they were there long enough to spend $850K.

Or are the homeowners that have votes going to be like Philadelphian
voters often are - voting for experience over "not being part of the
problem", or not lift their rumps on election day and allow the problematic
incumbents to be re-elected by themselves, each other and their buddies?

Who's fault is that?

I believe the case in Florida was result of an appeal, and that doesn't
mean the judgement was correct. The truck was a ?Ford 350 something??
So, if the board allowed parking in the drive because a truck doesn't
fit the garage, it would have set a precedent. Sounded like a very
large org., several HOA's under a master HOA. Probably an expensive
community, so I can see the logic in the board fighting as far as they
have.

I really don't care about these details. Any HOA board that put that kind of
money at risk for a "truck in the driveway" should be taken out and tarred and
feathered, if not shot. Governments are bad enough, but this is stupid beyond
words.

Florida had many battles over flags until a statute was passed that
allows each unit to display the American (and a state or military
service flag?). Many of the more publicized battles are because some
people think they are more special than others....hubby in Iraq or
handicapped kid. Sorry, but I'm no more or less special than all the
other "special" cases. I sure don't ever want to live in a condo or HOA
again, but I'd be more comfortable with clear rules known in advance. I
would also want to review their records that pertain to violations and
how they are handled.

Fair enough. Such should be available on request. However, past performance
is no guaranty of...

On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 14:30:32 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:


wrote

And as much as Americans like to bash lawyers, why do Americans vote for
so many of them for state government legislative offices and for both
houses of US Congress?

Note that fewer than half of the congresscritters are lawyers.

If there are two garter snakes and a cobra in a cage, are you saying it is
safe because less than half are poisonous?

I said nothing of the kind. Over half are Demonicrats.

Less that half of congress still leave about 200.

54/100 Senators
162/441 Congressmen (including non-voting)
-------
216/541 = 40%

clipped

I really don't care about these details. Any HOA board that put that kind of
money at risk for a "truck in the driveway" should be taken out and tarred and
feathered, if not shot. Governments are bad enough, but this is stupid beyond
words.

It's very likely that bylaws disallow parking vehicles in driveways.
Okay, so this probably isn't a community of plumbers and electricians
parking their livelihood. So, community standards (meaning everyone who
spent a pile of dough to live there) are such that most store their
campers and boats elsewhere. Lots of neighborhoods don't allow parking
long-term in drives. If the board doesn't enforce the bylaws in this
guys case they might lose the next and then it's campers and boats up
and down the street, in yards, etc. They could also be sued for
discrimination if they don't enforce consistently. Board members can
also be held PERSONALLY responsible if they don't act in fiduciary
interest of property owners...so people start parking stuff all over,
property values drop and Joe Blow gets sued because he didn't enforce
the bylaws. No, thank you.

Florida had many battles over flags until a statute was passed that
allows each unit to display the American (and a state or military
service flag?). Many of the more publicized battles are because some
people think they are more special than others....hubby in Iraq or
handicapped kid. Sorry, but I'm no more or less special than all the
other "special" cases. I sure don't ever want to live in a condo or HOA
again, but I'd be more comfortable with clear rules known in advance. I
would also want to review their records that pertain to violations and
how they are handled.

Fair enough. Such should be available on request. However, past performance
is no guaranty of...

If there are a lot of violations actions on board meeting minutes, or if
the neighborhood doesn't match the standards in the bylaws it is a sign
of serious problems.

I remember an X-Files episode about HOA's...wish I had seen it before I
moved to a condo.....on X-Files, the HOA enforcer was a monster that
tunnelled underground and disposed of rules violators )

On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 16:30:25 -0400, "
wrote:

clipped

I really don't care about these details. Any HOA board that put that kind of
money at risk for a "truck in the driveway" should be taken out and tarred and
feathered, if not shot. Governments are bad enough, but this is stupid beyond
words.

It's very likely that bylaws disallow parking vehicles in driveways.
Okay, so this probably isn't a community of plumbers and electricians
parking their livelihood. So, community standards (meaning everyone who
spent a pile of dough to live there) are such that most store their
campers and boats elsewhere. Lots of neighborhoods don't allow parking
long-term in drives. If the board doesn't enforce the bylaws in this
guys case they might lose the next and then it's campers and boats up
and down the street, in yards, etc. They could also be sued for
discrimination if they don't enforce consistently. Board members can
also be held PERSONALLY responsible if they don't act in fiduciary
interest of property owners...so people start parking stuff all over,
property values drop and Joe Blow gets sued because he didn't enforce
the bylaws. No, thank you.

They obviously got their head handed to them more than once about this. $850K
isn't a small-claims legal bill. Give it up, already.

Florida had many battles over flags until a statute was passed that
allows each unit to display the American (and a state or military
service flag?). Many of the more publicized battles are because some
people think they are more special than others....hubby in Iraq or
handicapped kid. Sorry, but I'm no more or less special than all the
other "special" cases. I sure don't ever want to live in a condo or HOA
again, but I'd be more comfortable with clear rules known in advance. I
would also want to review their records that pertain to violations and
how they are handled.

Fair enough. Such should be available on request. However, past performance
is no guaranty of...

If there are a lot of violations actions on board meeting minutes, or if
the neighborhood doesn't match the standards in the bylaws it is a sign
of serious problems.

Of course, but again; past performance... Not sure I'd trust any
documentation from an HOA, either. The best bet may be to buy a round of
beers at the local watering hole. ;-)

I remember an X-Files episode about HOA's...wish I had seen it before I
moved to a condo.....on X-Files, the HOA enforcer was a monster that
tunnelled underground and disposed of rules violators )

Never watched the program, but that's funny. Humor takes at least a bit of
truth. ;-)

The Daring Dufas wrote:

Where are those FEMA camps when you need them?


If you mean the infamous trailers, they're parked somewhere.

But you have given me an idea...

HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
Where are those FEMA camps when you need them?


If you mean the infamous trailers, they're parked somewhere.

But you have given me an idea...


No, he is talking about the OTHER FEMA camps, the ones the black
helicopter crowds were crying about a few years ago.

(Those conspiracy folks give me a laugh- I work for the Gummint. They
can't find their collective ass with both hands, and spend most of their
time and energy- and your tax dollars- in turf fights with each other.
The idea that there is some vast conspiracy with multiple agencies and
thousands of players that hasn't been plastered across a 60 Minutes
screen, is beyond rationality.)

As to the Katrina/Rita trailers. that kept the Elkhart IN RV companies
in business for a couple years- the usable ones have been mostly sold.
The remaining ones that don't still have people living in them, are
mostly being sold for scrap, since they are either beat to death, and/or
red-tagged for the insulation not being human-safe, and/or they are not
wind-rated for the part of the country they are parked in, and aren't
worth hauling (for anyone but the government) to a less-windy part of
the country. These are no fancy trailers- no circus stripes, no holding
tanks, left-over el-cheapo 1970s style interiors. The RV companies saw
FEMA coming from a mile away on that deal. A lot of the trailers never
got used, but FEMA said 'keep 'em coming!', and the vendors said 'Sure
thing, Boss.'

--
aem sends...

On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 21:15:38 -0400, aemeijers wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
Where are those FEMA camps when you need them?


If you mean the infamous trailers, they're parked somewhere.

But you have given me an idea...


No, he is talking about the OTHER FEMA camps, the ones the black
helicopter crowds were crying about a few years ago.

(Those conspiracy folks give me a laugh- I work for the Gummint. They
can't find their collective ass with both hands, and spend most of their
time and energy- and your tax dollars- in turf fights with each other.
The idea that there is some vast conspiracy with multiple agencies and
thousands of players that hasn't been plastered across a 60 Minutes
screen, is beyond rationality.)

As to the Katrina/Rita trailers. that kept the Elkhart IN RV companies
in business for a couple years- the usable ones have been mostly sold.
The remaining ones that don't still have people living in them, are
mostly being sold for scrap, since they are either beat to death, and/or
red-tagged for the insulation not being human-safe, and/or they are not
wind-rated for the part of the country they are parked in, and aren't
worth hauling (for anyone but the government) to a less-windy part of
the country. These are no fancy trailers- no circus stripes, no holding
tanks, left-over el-cheapo 1970s style interiors. The RV companies saw
FEMA coming from a mile away on that deal. A lot of the trailers never
got used, but FEMA said 'keep 'em coming!', and the vendors said 'Sure
thing, Boss.'

Why do the nuts need to dream up a conspiracy when they can just point to the
federal government in action?

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
(snip)
Why do the nuts need to dream up a conspiracy when they can just point to the
federal government in action?

Oft expressed as 'never assume malice when stupidity is an adequate
explanation'.

There are those who say 'Be glad we AREN'T getting all the government we
are paying for'...

--
aem sends...

On 8/1/2010 7:54 PM, HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

Where are those FEMA camps when you need them?


If you mean the infamous trailers, they're parked somewhere.

But you have given me an idea...



I was referring to the concentration camps with the stacks of coffins
and bales of body bags.

TDD

On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 08:55:11 -0400, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 08:15:47 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Jim Elbrecht" wrote

You are kind. The word that pops in my head is "bull****".


The world *is* a very big place, but I'd have to see the cite about
the part of the world with such large firehoses, such kind pumps, and
such lucky little boys.

Well, I guess I was confused by all the Looney-Tunes cartons I've
seen.

Jim

The word that popped into my mind was wry humor.

Now that you mention it--- and after I consider that mm has been
posting here a while & I haven't noted any flaming net-nuttiness about
previous postings. . . . maybe that was the loud 'zoom' I heard this
morning.

Yes, I must confess, I was trying to be humorous. AFAIC, when there's
a smiley it ruins the joke.

Jim
[if mm is British that would explain a lot-- I never get their humor]

No, American. I started making up stories when I was in the 7th or
9th grade, to see if I could fool my mother and older brother at
dinner.

I hope you all don't mind too much.

mm wrote:


Yes, I must confess, I was trying to be humorous. AFAIC, when there's
a smiley it ruins the joke.


I'm with you. As one wag said: "Emoticons are for inarticulate ****ers."

The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 8/1/2010 7:54 PM, HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

Where are those FEMA camps when you need them?


If you mean the infamous trailers, they're parked somewhere.

But you have given me an idea...



I was referring to the concentration camps with the stacks of coffins
and bales of body bags.


Oh. It's well known that they are so secret not even the government knows
where they are.

I am reliably informed (via an expose written on a Pierre, South Dakota
truckstop restroom wall) that a confidential photo-reconnaissance team,
seconded from the Air Force to Homeland Security, is poring over Google
Earth images looking for them.

Best comment I've read, in years.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...

Why do the nuts need to dream up a conspiracy
when they can just point to the federal government
in action?

Of course, with the FEMA concentration camps. Comes the "red list" and
"blue list". Aparently, a few of us fruits and nuts are scheduled for
either immediate death, or being moved to a concentration camp for our
soon to be execution. Must be true. I read it in an email.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

In article ,
aemeijers wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
(snip)
Why do the nuts need to dream up a conspiracy when they can just point to
the
federal government in action?

Oft expressed as 'never assume malice when stupidity is an adequate
explanation'.

There are those who say 'Be glad we AREN'T getting all the government we
are paying for'...

Tom Clancy has a great line (in

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
aemeijers wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
(snip)
Why do the nuts need to dream up a conspiracy when they can just point to
the
federal government in action?

Oft expressed as 'never assume malice when stupidity is an adequate
explanation'.

There are those who say 'Be glad we AREN'T getting all the government we
are paying for'...

Tom Clancy has a great line (in

Premature send syndrome... any TC said something about how the voters
take comfort in the fact that the government is so inefficient since a
truly efficient government would scare the heck out of them.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 11:06:57 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

It's in the UK, but still...

"You may think a large pool of water is a useful thing to have around in the
event of a fire. But officials at a block of flats have banned children from
playing in [wading] pools because they present a ‘fire risk’. "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0vHDJWXcS

Somebody in the US is going to read this and we're doomed.

This is NOT about a homeowners association. Read the article.

This is about Council housing. Council housing is the same as our
government subsidized public housing.

Council housing tenants, like our public housing tenants, can be difficult
if not almost impossible to deal with. Their IQs are so low they can't let
them install swimming pools because they don't know where to put them.

That's why they have to have rules that sound silly to normal people.

Kuskokwim wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 11:06:57 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

It's in the UK, but still...

"You may think a large pool of water is a useful thing to have
around in the event of a fire. But officials at a block of flats
have banned children from playing in [wading] pools because they
present a 'fire risk'. "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0vHDJWXcS

Somebody in the US is going to read this and we're doomed.

This is NOT about a homeowners association. Read the article.

This is about Council housing. Council housing is the same as our
government subsidized public housing.

Council housing tenants, like our public housing tenants, can be
difficult if not almost impossible to deal with. Their IQs are so low
they can't let them install swimming pools because they don't know
where to put them.

That's why they have to have rules that sound silly to normal people.

Ah, okay. Thanks for the explanation.

So a Council Housing authority is the spawn of government plus HOAs? That
way you get the worst of both worlds.

Without even a reach-around.

On 08/02/10 09:58 am, Kuskokwim wrote:

"You may think a large pool of water is a useful thing to have around in the
event of a fire. But officials at a block of flats have banned children from
playing in [wading] pools because they present a ‘fire risk’. "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0vHDJWXcS

Somebody in the US is going to read this and we're doomed.

This is NOT about a homeowners association. Read the article.

This is about Council housing. Council housing is the same as our
government subsidized public housing.

Yes, it does appear to be "council housing", but I Googled the name and
found that "Homes in Havering" is some kind of management organization
(private, AFAICT) that manages the complex on behalf of the local
government body.

Perce

On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 16:57:08 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

Yes, it does appear to be "council housing", but I Googled the name and
found that "Homes in Havering" is some kind of management organization
(private, AFAICT) that manages the complex on behalf of the local
government body.

Hence HOA?

Oren wrote:
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 16:57:08 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

Yes, it does appear to be "council housing", but I Googled the name and
found that "Homes in Havering" is some kind of management organization
(private, AFAICT) that manages the complex on behalf of the local
government body.

Hence HOA?

More like the outsourced HUD complexes, where some local group signs up
to run the place for the government. All the rage a few years ago, and
apparently did a lot to clean up some of the hellholes. Haven't seen any
press on them lately.

--
aem sends...

On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:22:11 -0400, aemeijers
wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 16:57:08 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

Yes, it does appear to be "council housing", but I Googled the name and
found that "Homes in Havering" is some kind of management organization
(private, AFAICT) that manages the complex on behalf of the local
government body.

Hence HOA?

More like the outsourced HUD complexes, where some local group signs up
to run the place for the government. All the rage a few years ago, and
apparently did a lot to clean up some of the hellholes. Haven't seen any
press on them lately.

Are you speaking of ACORN -- it sure sounds like it....?

On Aug 3, 12:22*am, aemeijers wrote:
Oren wrote:
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 16:57:08 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

Yes, it does appear to be "council housing", but I Googled the name and
found that "Homes in Havering" is some kind of management organization
(private, AFAICT) that manages the complex on behalf of the local
government body.

Hence HOA?

More like the outsourced HUD complexes, where some local group signs up
to run the place for the government. All the rage a few years ago, and
apparently did a lot to clean up some of the hellholes. Haven't seen any
press on them lately.

--
aem sends...

All seen as bad news now. Rip off outfits.

Oren wrote:
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:22:11 -0400, aemeijers
wrote:

Oren wrote:
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 16:57:08 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

Yes, it does appear to be "council housing", but I Googled the name and
found that "Homes in Havering" is some kind of management organization
(private, AFAICT) that manages the complex on behalf of the local
government body.
Hence HOA?
More like the outsourced HUD complexes, where some local group signs up
to run the place for the government. All the rage a few years ago, and
apparently did a lot to clean up some of the hellholes. Haven't seen any
press on them lately.

Are you speaking of ACORN -- it sure sounds like it....?

I didn't remember ACORN being one of the players- ISTR most of them were
local do-gooder groups and associations, most of them only one notch
away from being faith-based organizations. (ie, most of the board
members were preachers and church elders and such.) HUD signed a
contract with them to manage certain properties, and gave them the
authority to boot troublemakers and druggies and non-payers. (the latter
not being a big issue, since most of these places are section 8, and the
tenant never actually sees the money.) They also threw defensible
perimeters around most of the places, or at least made them into
cul-de-sacs by blocking most of the street entry points, and arranged
with the cops to have a heavy presence with mini-stations and such.

A place like that would feel like a prison to me, but to a young mama
with 10 year old kids, who heretofore was afraid to let them play
outside, it might look pretty good.

--
aem sends...