Post by iammalcolmx on Nov 18, 2013 13:33:25 GMT -5
In Atlanta they will not pick up your trash if your street is private. Our neighborhood considered closing off our streets from the surrounding areas and this became a concern.
Basically, these areas that preach about how freaking low their property taxes are contract all that shit out to an HOA who gets to tell them what color their mailbox should be and what type of bushes they can plant. But hey! Someone gets the trash weekly!
Did you miss the discussions upthread about what HOAs do and where they are often located? Some of them are bush nazis, yes. But that's not their primary function.
Basically, these areas that preach about how freaking low their property taxes are contract all that shit out to an HOA who gets to tell them what color their mailbox should be and what type of bushes they can plant. But hey! Someone gets the trash weekly!
Did you miss the discussions upthread about what HOAs do and where they are often located? Some of them are bush nazis, yes. But that's not their primary function.
Yes, I am well aware that some are "not" bush nazis. Again, don't really care. Why are we so incapable of taking care of our own homes that we have to farm it out to some committee?
Yes, I am well aware that some are "not" bush nazis. Again, don't really care. Why are we so incapable of taking care of our own homes that we have to farm it out to some committee?
The community center, pool, tennis courts, and other common areas are not my home.
Yes, I am well aware that some are "not" bush nazis. Again, don't really care. Why are we so incapable of taking care of our own homes that we have to farm it out to some committee?
The community center, pool, tennis courts, and other common areas are not my home.
And why should someone have to pay for something they don't use just so you can have it AND, be forced to pay for them at the risk of their home? If I cannot play tennis, why should I pay for your tennis court?
And i am sure that those non-mowing, Christmas decoration-leaving people do exist. But I just don't see that they exist in SO many places and that their effect on property value is so dire that its worth this sacrifice of rights to ensure your neighbor doesn't do that. It's not as though non HOA neighborhoods are necessarily horrible and cheap because an HOA is the only thing standing between a civilized neighborhood and total anarchic lawn apocalypse.
We have some of those neighbors, and no HOA, and you know what? No one cares! And you know why? Because our non-HOA neighborhood isn't filled with busy-body-know-it-alls who gripe about what everyone else does with their property. They actually took down some of their Christmas lights (or possibly they died from being exposed to the elements for years). I kind of miss the easter bunny in the basketball hoop actually, it was festive.
And why should someone have to pay for something they don't use just so you can have it AND, be forced to pay for them at the risk of their home? If I cannot play tennis, why should I pay for your tennis court?
The community center, pool, tennis courts, and other common areas are not my home.
And why should someone have to pay for something they don't use just so you can have it AND, be forced to pay for them at the risk of their home? If I cannot play tennis, why should I pay for your tennis court?
Are you shitting me with this? You do realize that many jurisdictions require developers to provide community green space in large subdivisions? Who exactly should maintain those areas? HOAs are created when the subdivision is planned with the express purpose of managing community space (whether that's just cutting the grass around the main sign or dealing with a pool/community center/tennis courts/stable/dock and hiking trails). Yes, many of them also have rules about what you can do with your house, but it's not like some assholes moved in and decided to build a tennis court and make up mailbox rules because that's how they get their rocks off.
I do agree that an HOA should not be permitted to foreclose. Place a lien - sure. Take a homeowner to small claims? Definitely. Foreclose? No fucking way. But I'm getting really tired of the bizarre insistence that HOAs are uniformly the devil and everybody who doesn't hate theirs is some sort of asshole with a matching house fetish.
Yes, I am well aware that some are "not" bush nazis. Again, don't really care. Why are we so incapable of taking care of our own homes that we have to farm it out to some committee?
The community center, pool, tennis courts, and other common areas are not my home.
But many HOA communities don't have any of these. Or it costs extra to join them (with that fee money presumably going to the upkeep of those facilities). So the HOA exists just to enforce rules.
Post by ChillyMcFreeze on Nov 18, 2013 14:34:42 GMT -5
The righteous indignation against HOAs here is worthy of an eyebrow-raise. You know no one will ever force you to move into an HOA community, right? I chose to live in my neighborhood for a variety of reasons--a pool, clubhouse, and lawn care included. I didn't have a gun to my head. And if you don't live in an HOA neighborhood and love it, that's great! I don't wonder "what the hell is wrong with you" for that.
Nov 18, 2013 13:50:32 GMT -5 helenabonhamcarter said: The community center, pool, tennis courts, and other common areas are not my home.
But many HOA communities don't have any of these. Or it costs extra to join them (with that fee money presumably going to the upkeep of those facilities). So the HOA exists just to enforce rules.
in those cases, yes, they serve no real purpose. I agree...in many cases HOAs suck. Particularly when the people who get elected to the board suck because nobody ever bothers actually GOING to the meetings so the only people who vote are the people who are fucking rabid about the mailbox planting rules. (this should remind you of something...)
But what is your suggested method for managing community amenities? Should developers shoving subdivisions into former farmland in unincorporated areas just stop building tot lots and clubhouses?
I agree that this woman got hosed. Partly due to her own stupidity - but mostly because her HOA is shitty. They didn't follow proper notification procedure and it's ridiculous that this state allows foreclosure at all in this kind of situation. But to go from that to "HOAs are the devil and shouldn't exist!" is ridiculous.
While we're at it - tree size requirements aren't stupid. If people could get away with fulfilling tree bonds by planting little tiny saplings we'd have a lot less trees in the suburbs. Everybody likes street trees, yes? That dude tried to plant a fucking street twig. You don't get to just be all, "but I was in the war! I can't pay for a decent sized tree!" just because you wanted to be able to buy the really cheap baby saplings. Fuck off dude.
Aaaaaaand, I'm mad at myself for even reading this entire stupid thread. 6 pages of just pissing myself off on a topic where I knew perfectly what everybody was going to say. It just kept popping up and I couldn't resist.
So it's good to share maternity coverage but not good to share pool costs or the maintenance of common areas in the community you've chosen to live? Pay taxes for educating someone else's children but not for the upkeep of your neighborhood?
Exactly. Our HOA works hard to ensure our home stays looking fabulous without neighbors filling their balconies with crap and parking rvs all over the place. Their work increases my property values.
I'm sorry, but you seem like a reasonably intelligent and capable person, are you somehow not capable of doing this, and hence have to pay someone else to tell you what you are and are not allowed to do to your own property?
They took this woman's home over $288. Are you kidding me? I don't care if they had the right to or not, that is vindictive and punitive. It was designed to be a threat: " YOU WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE SPRING FREAKING DAISIES WE PLANT AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE COMMUNITY FROM THE FREAKING STREET OR WE WILL TAKE YOUR HOME." Say fucking what?
They could have just liened the property. They did not need to do this.
Well, our condo has 10 pools, hot tubs, a gym, a restaurant, a bunch of fountains, a club house....so uhmmm, no. And I am happy that no one is allowed to park their dead cars in the parking lot, hang a bunch of crap from their balconies, and trash the place. A lot of people use their condos as rental income so it is important that the place looks resort-like.
At my regular home, I do not pay HOA and live next to a commercial street.
She had a contract to pay that everyone else pays and she blew it off. How do we know the HOA did not put a lien on the property? More to that story...
We, as closing attorneys, are not required to get anything signed by a purchaser consenting to join the HOA. The purchase of the property consents to the HOA, if there is one.
So it's very possible that she had no clue about the HOA because there was no requirement to even tell her about it.
That appalls me. And it's indicative of the power that these HOA companies have over state legislatures that they're able to get such favorable laws.
They did everything they were required to do-nothing shady. As a practical matter, foreclosure is the most practical way to get someone else into the property to pay the HOA dues.
And that's really all that matters right? Someone who pays dues. I mean, fuck the person who bought the house and thought it was their home. As long as the HOA gets its money, who cares about anything else?
To be fair, I'm far my disturbed by this fact more so than anything else.
If the Association didn't think anyone lived at the house, it tells me their records of her membership (and obligation to pay) were highly suspect. They may not have had any signed paperwork from her. The bills might not have had this woman's name on them, making it look more like a generic invite than an actual legal responsibility to pay.
Even if they knew she owned the house, they didn't take necessary steps to notify her. Why was the certified letter returned? Why didn't they go to her house to talk to her? Why didn't they try to mail the letter again or run a search for the owner's name through the NCOA database to find a better mailing address? The rush to foreclose (far worse to the neighborhood than being shorted $280) screams to me that there was major paperwork mischief here.
I'm curious if this fact changes the minds of people who think this absolutely must be her fault.
Lurker joining in because, you know, the internet meme "Someone is wrong on the internet...."
I actually practice real estate and foreclosures in Kentucky and I'm team HOA. We, as closing attorneys, are not required to get anything signed by a purchaser consenting to join the HOA. The purchase of the property consents to the HOA, if there is one. The HOA keeps track, via land records/transfers of who owns the property. In order to foreclose, they would have placed a lien on the property and then go through the foreclosure process to enforce the lien.
As far as I can tell through the court records, nothing was "shady" about the foreclosure. In Kentucky you can choose service by sheriff or certified mail. It appears the foreclosing attorney tried service through certified mail. If the certified mail comes back unclaimed, the proper process is to ask the court to appoint a warning order attorney to represent the interests of the defendant. All the warning order attorney has to do is send a letter to the defendant telling them they are the subject of legal action and they should contact an attorney. (Whether that is really sufficient is a different issue but, it is legally sufficient.) Essentially, she was constructively summoned which is permitted. We are not required to take any further action to track the person down-period. The only situation where you would even really want to, in a foreclosure situation, is if you know think there will be a deficiency and you want personal service in order to attach judgment liens or garnish them.
They did everything they were required to do-nothing shady. As a practical matter, foreclosure is the most practical way to get someone else into the property to pay the HOA dues.
As someone who lives in an area where HOAs are pretty much non-existent the fact that I could lose my house over a less than $300 bill I wasn't aware was mandatory is appalling. So the paperwork doesn't require that someone inform you about the requirements of an HOA but allows it to be the reason you lose a paid-in-full home? And that doesn't bother you?
I understand that in some areas HOAs are a given or are at least very common, so most people moving into that type of community would know to expect that, but if we moved to an area with them I wouldn't have known that prior to being on this board over the past few years. I can't imagine not knowing to look into that (which would have been the case) and having that cost me my home.
But many HOA communities don't have any of these. Or it costs extra to join them (with that fee money presumably going to the upkeep of those facilities). So the HOA exists just to enforce rules.
in those cases, yes, they serve no real purpose. I agree...in many cases HOAs suck. Particularly when the people who get elected to the board suck because nobody ever bothers actually GOING to the meetings so the only people who vote are the people who are fucking rabid about the mailbox planting rules. (this should remind you of something...)
But what is your suggested method for managing community amenities? Should developers shoving subdivisions into former farmland in unincorporated areas just stop building tot lots and clubhouses?
I agree that this woman got hosed. Partly due to her own stupidity - but mostly because her HOA is shitty. They didn't follow proper notification procedure and it's ridiculous that this state allows foreclosure at all in this kind of situation. But to go from that to "HOAs are the devil and shouldn't exist!" is ridiculous.
While we're at it - tree size requirements aren't stupid. If people could get away with fulfilling tree bonds by planting little tiny saplings we'd have a lot less trees in the suburbs. Everybody likes street trees, yes? That dude tried to plant a fucking street twig. You don't get to just be all, "but I was in the war! I can't pay for a decent sized tree!" just because you wanted to be able to buy the really cheap baby saplings. Fuck off dude.
Aaaaaaand, I'm mad at myself for even reading this entire stupid thread. 6 pages of just pissing myself off on a topic where I knew perfectly what everybody was going to say. It just kept popping up and I couldn't resist.
In regards to the saplings, it might be cheapness, but you also get a better root structure when you plant small. Less likely to have long term problems with blowing over and such. Also, here native trees are much easier to find as twigs. So there can be a good reason, but without flexibility you'll lose out on those potential benefits as well as avoiding significant negatives.
I do think HOAs make sense for common property, but maybe the city or county should be more involved and the HOA less necessary. What happens when the 50 year mark passes? Do they tear down the clubhouses and pools?
Marie Brown, a 77-year-old widow in Arizona, was evicted from her home of 18 years after it was foreclosed when she failed to pay her association dues and fines levied for failing to keep up her property. In Sea Ranch, a managed community in Northern California, a widower had his home foreclosed on in 1995 when he didn't pay $600 in owed association dues. The house, worth more than $300,000 at the time, was auctioned and sold to someone for $2,000, according to his attorney. After a protracted legal battle, he got his home back. Even a small amount of money can get homeowners in big trouble. Just ask Tom and Anita Radcliff, a retired couple in Copperopolis, Calif., who had their home foreclosed by their HOA in 2002. They were late paying $120 in annual dues when Tom Radcliff became ill. Until then, they had paid dues on time for five years straight.
"They didn't even know about the foreclosure until someone came and gave them a 30-day notice to vacate the property," says their attorney, Michael Macomber, who filed a suit on their behalf and was able to get their home back. "Why didn't someone just pick up the phone and call them?"
edited to try and fix formatting... in those cases, yes, they serve no real purpose. I agree...in many cases HOAs suck. Particularly when the people who get elected to the board suck because nobody ever bothers actually GOING to the meetings so the only people who vote are the people who are fucking rabid about the mailbox planting rules. (this should remind you of something...)
But what is your suggested method for managing community amenities? Should developers shoving subdivisions into former farmland in unincorporated areas just stop building tot lots and clubhouses?
I agree that this woman got hosed. Partly due to her own stupidity - but mostly because her HOA is shitty. They didn't follow proper notification procedure and it's ridiculous that this state allows foreclosure at all in this kind of situation. But to go from that to "HOAs are the devil and shouldn't exist!" is ridiculous.
While we're at it - tree size requirements aren't stupid. If people could get away with fulfilling tree bonds by planting little tiny saplings we'd have a lot less trees in the suburbs. Everybody likes street trees, yes? That dude tried to plant a fucking street twig. You don't get to just be all, "but I was in the war! I can't pay for a decent sized tree!" just because you wanted to be able to buy the really cheap baby saplings. Fuck off dude.
Aaaaaaand, I'm mad at myself for even reading this entire stupid thread. 6 pages of just pissing myself off on a topic where I knew perfectly what everybody was going to say. It just kept popping up and I couldn't resist.
In regards to the saplings, it might be cheapness, but you also get a better root structure when you plant small. Less likely to have long term problems with blowing over and such. Also, here native trees are much easier to find as twigs. So there can be a good reason, but without flexibility you'll lose out on those potential benefits as well as avoiding significant negatives.
I do think HOAs make sense for common property, but maybe the city or county should be more involved and the HOA less necessary. What happens when the 50 year mark passes? Do they tear down the clubhouses and pools?
You do get a better root structure IF (and this is a big old if) the tree is protected from damage from deer and dogs and humans and squirrels and everything else. A sapling that small could get stepped on by a normal sized human and break in half. From what I've gathered talking to my ASLA cube neighbors - best practice with street trees is such a hairy topic anyway - i mean - have they provided enough space in the tree well to grow decent roots anyway? Where are the sewer/comm/electrical lines? How long till the tree dies anyway from trying to grow through that shitty compacted soil while being doused with road salt? But all that aside - my point was just that a height/diameter requirement in a vacuum is not necessarily some crazy thing. I know the county where my IL's live have really strict caliper requirement on their bonded plantings.
As for the 50 year mark...a lot of 50 year old pools need to be torn out and get replaced anyway don't they? Or at least seriously overhauled. But I think the standard is that they become optional HOAs. And in some cases they no longer have enough money for proper maintenance and yeah, stuff gets torn down.
I agree that it would probably be ideal for the city/town to manage these amenities themselves. It'd be awesome if every town was able to afford to fund parks and walking trails and a lovely community center for every neighborhood with a reasonable tax rate. But that's just not the case. And a lot of subdivisions are in unincorporated areas, so we're talking about counties, not towns. And around where I live - it's very much possible. I know of some cases where that's exactly what has happened. Our counties have strong parks and recs departments that could likely take on these additional properties as long as they're a decent size. Other more rural or poorer counties? Maybe not so much.
HOAs have issues. States that allow shit like the story in the OP fucking suck. But the concept of an HOA, especially with how they've evolved in tandem with zoning requirements that include mandatory public green space for large subdivisions, is not all bad.
Post by StrawberryBlondie on Nov 18, 2013 16:22:21 GMT -5
You know, I think I'd be on team hoa if the amount in question wasn't less than $300. While I don't do real estate, I've done a fair amount of foreclosure work and nothing will convince me it was worth it to foreclose on a home over $288. Foreclosure in kind of a pain in the ass.
So it's good to share maternity coverage but not good to share pool costs or the maintenance of common areas in the community you've chosen to live? Pay taxes for educating someone else's children but not for the upkeep of your neighborhood?
In regards to the saplings, it might be cheapness, but you also get a better root structure when you plant small. Less likely to have long term problems with blowing over and such. Also, here native trees are much easier to find as twigs. So there can be a good reason, but without flexibility you'll lose out on those potential benefits as well as avoiding significant negatives.
I do think HOAs make sense for common property, but maybe the city or county should be more involved and the HOA less necessary. What happens when the 50 year mark passes? Do they tear down the clubhouses and pools?
You do get a better root structure IF (and this is a big old if) the tree is protected from damage from deer and dogs and humans and squirrels and everything else. A sapling that small could get stepped on by a normal sized human and break in half. From what I've gathered talking to my ASLA cube neighbors - best practice with street trees is such a hairy topic anyway - i mean - have they provided enough space in the tree well to grow decent roots anyway? Where are the sewer/comm/electrical lines? How long till the tree dies anyway from trying to grow through that shitty compacted soil while being doused with road salt? But all that aside - my point was just that a height/diameter requirement in a vacuum is not necessarily some crazy thing. I know the county where my IL's live have really strict caliper requirement on their bonded plantings.
As for the 50 year mark...a lot of 50 year old pools need to be torn out and get replaced anyway don't they? Or at least seriously overhauled. But I think the standard is that they become optional HOAs. And in some cases they no longer have enough money for proper maintenance and yeah, stuff gets torn down.
I agree that it would probably be ideal for the city/town to manage these amenities themselves. It'd be awesome if every town was able to afford to fund parks and walking trails and a lovely community center for every neighborhood with a reasonable tax rate. But that's just not the case. And a lot of subdivisions are in unincorporated areas, so we're talking about counties, not towns. And around where I live - it's very much possible. I know of some cases where that's exactly what has happened. Our counties have strong parks and recs departments that could likely take on these additional properties as long as they're a decent size. Other more rural or poorer counties? Maybe not so much.
HOAs have issues. States that allow shit like the story in the OP fucking suck. But the concept of an HOA, especially with how they've evolved in tandem with zoning requirements that include mandatory public green space for large subdivisions, is not all bad.
Yeah, I have to admit a bias against developers moving into unincorporated areas where there are no amenities. In my non-expert observation it too easily leads to shitty planning.
Other than visibility, aren't those sapling problems compounded with a more mature tree? But non-HOA communities can have awful, inflexible rules too. (Illegal veggie gardens, etc)
You know, I think I'd be on team hoa if the amount in question wasn't less than $300. While I don't do real estate, I've done a fair amount of foreclosure work and nothing will convince me it was worth it to foreclose on a home over $288. Foreclosure in kind of a pain in the ass.
You know, I think I'd be on team hoa if the amount in question wasn't less than $300. While I don't do real estate, I've done a fair amount of foreclosure work and nothing will convince me it was worth it to foreclose on a home over $288. Foreclosure in kind of a pain in the ass.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using proboards
This is six years of HOA fees.
It's still $288. That's like one hour of attorney fees.