Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Thought this would be of interest to the folks fighting HOA/CCR's  (Read 16974 times)
AD5TD
Member

Posts: 112




Ignore
« on: December 16, 2012, 12:08:50 PM »

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-state-of-nova/post/restons-shadowood-condominiums-make-new-va-case-law-cant-impose-fees-on-rule-violators/2012/12/13/52fb582c-4554-11e2-9648-a2c323a991d6_blog.html
Logged
KS4VT
Member

Posts: 141




Ignore
« Reply #1 on: December 16, 2012, 02:14:54 PM »


Only In VA though...it was the State Supreme Court and not Federal.
Logged
W0MT
Member

Posts: 172




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: December 16, 2012, 04:46:09 PM »

Even if it was the US Supreme Court, it wouldn’t do much for Hams wanting to put up an antenna in a community with CC&Rs. The holding was that the HOA can’t make up rules and fines for the homeowners.

Most CC&Rs that prohibit antennas include a clause that says if the HOA takes legal action to get compliance and the homeowner loses, the homeowner has to pay the HOA’s legal fees. So the HOA sues for an injunction to get the antenna removed. The Ham will almost surely lose. The Ham now owes legal fees for both sides and has an injunction to remove the antenna. In some cases if the HOA has its attorney write a letter and the Ham decides to remove the antenna, the Ham still has to pay the fee for the HOA’s attorney to write the letter.
Logged
AC7DX
Member

Posts: 77




Ignore
« Reply #3 on: January 01, 2013, 03:57:10 PM »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7kirdtdI1c&feature=related
Logged
N4UP
Member

Posts: 23




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: May 06, 2013, 12:32:19 PM »

In North Carolina we have a state Statute 47-F ( Planned Community Act ), some provisions of which apply to all subdivisions with HOAs, while most provisions apply only to newer HOAs that are not grand-fathered.  Among other things, it gives most HOAs the power to assess fines of up to $100 a day for each violation of the covenants.

I served on the BOD of my HOA for several years.  Antenna restrictions and other architectural provisions were rigidly enforced, while most of the covenants were not enforced.
Logged

73, peter N4UP
ZENKI
Member

Posts: 916




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: May 20, 2013, 06:04:20 AM »

I wonder when the HOA is going to start telling people what color and of brand car they can drive. Next will come how you should dress and finally they will tell you when you should die so you can make room for someone who wants your house. Dont worry its coming to a place near you, just give it time. The HOA will soon tell you that they dont like the look of your wife and that you should get rid of her. Like sheeple to the slaughter!
Logged
W0MT
Member

Posts: 172




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: May 20, 2013, 05:29:07 PM »

I wonder when the HOA is going to start telling people what color and of brand car they can drive. Next will come how you should dress and finally they will tell you when you should die so you can make room for someone who wants your house. Dont worry its coming to a place near you, just give it time. The HOA will soon tell you that they dont like the look of your wife and that you should get rid of her. Like sheeple to the slaughter!
Ridicules rants such as this do nothing to assist anyone in solving antenna problems and they clearly show you don’t understand the powers and limitations of CC&Rs and HOAs.
Logged
KF6QEX
Member

Posts: 599




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: May 20, 2013, 06:36:13 PM »

Hold on a minute:

Quote
I wonder when the HOA is going to start telling people what color and of brand car they can drive.
We have "friends" for that.

Quote
Next will come how you should dress
That's what employers are for Smiley

Quote
will soon tell you that they dont like the look of your wife and that you should get rid of he

I didn't want to bring mothers into this, but it does happen! Smiley


Every person living in such a property is part of the problem.
"Those who trade freedom for security end up losing both."
Logged
KF6QEX
Member

Posts: 599




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: May 20, 2013, 06:38:18 PM »

I wonder when the HOA is going to start telling people what color and of brand car they can drive. Next will come how you should dress and finally they will tell you when you should die so you can make room for someone who wants your house. Dont worry its coming to a place near you, just give it time. The HOA will soon tell you that they dont like the look of your wife and that you should get rid of her. Like sheeple to the slaughter!
Ridicules rants such as this do nothing to assist anyone in solving antenna problems and they clearly show you don’t understand the powers and limitations of CC&Rs and HOAs.

It's called venting and if it doesn't happen here, then where ? Cartainly not at the next HOA meeting Smiley
Logged
KD5GR
Member

Posts: 94




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: May 21, 2013, 05:27:26 PM »

It's easy to avoid HOA rules; don't move into a neighborhood with an HOA.  It amazes me that some people move to such a neighborhood, then start complaining about the HOA rules and deed restrictions.  That would make as much sense as developing a subdivision next to a ham's home in the incorporated area of a county, then seeking to force him to take down his tower.  

We have an excellent HOA for our neighborhood and the benefits are great.  Our neighborhood is very nice, property/homes are well maintained, and property values remain high.  The same cannot be said for our former neighborhood that didn't have an HOA.  Unlike many, our antenna restrictions aren't an absolute bar, but antenna height is limited to no more than 10 feet above the main structure and for me that would be 37 feet.  That said, there are no ham antennas visible.  I'm working on a system that will allow me to raise a trolley and then lower it to ground level.  The end result is no antenna will extend above the eave of the house on the second floor, when it is in the retracted position and it will not be visible to anyone.  The rules don't require me to go to this trouble and expense, but I respect the goals of the HOA rules, my neighbors' wishes and I too want the neighborhood to look nice to everyone, not just we hams.  If our rules prohibited antennas, then I'd go the stealth route.

Chas.

« Last Edit: May 21, 2013, 05:29:43 PM by KD5GR » Logged
KF7CG
Member

Posts: 832




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: May 22, 2013, 10:59:55 AM »

Simple matter of fact is: You can't avoid HOAs unless you are indepedently wealthy. Most areas have now succumbed to the if it is good in the big city it is good here philosophy. Many jurisdictions allow a majority of neighbors to form an HOA and force encompassed home owners into the HOA. In some areas the courts have ruled that is correct as the encompassed homes gain a benefit from the HOA and therefore must pay dues and abide by the HOA rules. Unless you have a very large parcel of land you may be sued by a consortium of neighbors for destroy the aesthetic value of their property. In Tennessee your property may even be annexed into a city without your consent,

Therefore, the HOA problem is not one that can be totally avoided. You may only do your best to avoid it and sometime the choice boils down to living in a "safe" neighbor, driving 40 miles one way to work, or being without a livelyhood. You just make you choice. Sometimes (frequency varies) you just accept the HOA under extreme duress.

KF7CG
Logged
W1AJO
Member

Posts: 108




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: May 22, 2013, 01:00:11 PM »

Every subdivision we looked in the Newnan area for a new home had CCRs.  Not a single one was HOA free.  As I was deploying to Iraq in less that 45 days I had no choice but to buy in an HOA sub-division.  Living out in the country was not an option as my wife can not drive at night due to her eyes.

While these are considered 'contracts' undertsand that the buyer has no ability to negotiate the terms of the contract.  This seems to me to be Unconscionability.  From Nolo.com:

Unconscionability means that a term in the contract or something inherent in or about the agreement was so shockingly unfair that the contract simply cannot be allowed to stand as is. The idea here again is to ensure fairness, so a court will consider:

•whether one side has grossly unequal bargaining power
•whether one side had difficulty understanding the terms of the agreement (due to language or literacy issues, for example), or
•whether the terms themselves were unfair (like sky-high arbitration costs; read more in Nolo's article Arbitration Clauses in Contracts).
If a court does find a contract unconscionable, it has options other than just voiding the agreement altogether. It may instead choose to enforce the conscionable parts of the contract and rewrite the unconscionable term or clause, for example.

I wish a court would rule on that CCRs are unconscionable.
Logged
KD5GR
Member

Posts: 94




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: May 22, 2013, 05:59:18 PM »

Simple matter of fact is: You can't avoid HOAs unless you are independently wealthy. Most areas have now succumbed to the if it is good in the big city it is good here philosophy. Many jurisdictions allow a majority of neighbors to form an HOA and force encompassed home owners into the HOA. In some areas the courts have ruled that is correct as the encompassed homes gain a benefit from the HOA and therefore must pay dues and abide by the HOA rules. Unless you have a very large parcel of land you may be sued by a consortium of neighbors for destroy the aesthetic value of their property. In Tennessee your property may even be annexed into a city without your consent,

Therefore, the HOA problem is not one that can be totally avoided. You may only do your best to avoid it and sometime the choice boils down to living in a "safe" neighbor, driving 40 miles one way to work, or being without a livelyhood. You just make you choice. Sometimes (frequency varies) you just accept the HOA under extreme duress.

KF7CG

That's not the case here in Texas, not by a long shot.  It's quite easy to find subdivisions in cites and in unincorporated areas of counties that do not have HOA or deed restrictions.  They are often far less desirable precisely because there are no protections that come from an HOA.

Also in Texas, HOA's cannot be created after the fact, at least not with any regulatory authority over homeowners.  If deed restrictions are not created, including authority to create a HOA, when the subdivision is platted, they cannot be added later.  Again, not with any regulatory authority.  Getting 100% of the current property owners to agree is an exception, but that isn't forcing anything on any property owners.

Perhaps it's different in other states, but if so, this is further reason not to have the federal government getting involved.  Doing so might be fair to people in some states, but grossly unfair to people in other states like Texas.  The only way to avoid this unequal impact on homeowners is to deal with the issue in your state legislature, not Washington.

Chas.
Logged
K0JEG
Member

Posts: 648




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: May 23, 2013, 10:48:16 AM »

Simple matter of fact is: You can't avoid HOAs unless you are indepedently wealthy. Most areas have now succumbed to the if it is good in the big city it is good here philosophy. Many jurisdictions allow a majority of neighbors to form an HOA and force encompassed home owners into the HOA. In some areas the courts have ruled that is correct as the encompassed homes gain a benefit from the HOA and therefore must pay dues and abide by the HOA rules. Unless you have a very large parcel of land you may be sued by a consortium of neighbors for destroy the aesthetic value of their property. In Tennessee your property may even be annexed into a city without your consent,

Therefore, the HOA problem is not one that can be totally avoided. You may only do your best to avoid it and sometime the choice boils down to living in a "safe" neighbor, driving 40 miles one way to work, or being without a livelyhood. You just make you choice. Sometimes (frequency varies) you just accept the HOA under extreme duress.

KF7CG

Exactly. And believe it or not, there's more to life than ham radio. I recently bought a home in a covenant protected community (no active HOA, but the whole town falls under the covenants). The former owner was a ham, although I don't know how active, and the attic peak is 9 feet off the attic floor. I have a 144/440 collinear and a fan dipole up there now, just put up last weekend, so I haven't done much testing yet, but it was fairly easy to do and no one is going to complain.

But the advantages of the neighborhood outweigh the lack of antennas, so I bought it. And I can still see if the Architectural committee is OK with a simple antenna, hiding wires in tress, etc. And instead of worrying about a septic tank and well (and fixing up the damage from the previous owner after he was foreclosed on), I can get on with my life.
Logged
W0MT
Member

Posts: 172




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: May 24, 2013, 03:34:49 PM »

Every subdivision we looked in the Newnan area for a new home had CCRs.  Not a single one was HOA free.  As I was deploying to Iraq in less that 45 days I had no choice but to buy in an HOA sub-division.  Living out in the country was not an option as my wife can not drive at night due to her eyes.

While these are considered 'contracts' undertsand that the buyer has no ability to negotiate the terms of the contract.  This seems to me to be Unconscionability.  From Nolo.com:

Unconscionability means that a term in the contract or something inherent in or about the agreement was so shockingly unfair that the contract simply cannot be allowed to stand as is. The idea here again is to ensure fairness, so a court will consider:

•whether one side has grossly unequal bargaining power
•whether one side had difficulty understanding the terms of the agreement (due to language or literacy issues, for example), or
•whether the terms themselves were unfair (like sky-high arbitration costs; read more in Nolo's article Arbitration Clauses in Contracts).
If a court does find a contract unconscionable, it has options other than just voiding the agreement altogether. It may instead choose to enforce the conscionable parts of the contract and rewrite the unconscionable term or clause, for example.

I wish a court would rule on that CCRs are unconscionable.

Just one thing wrong with your argument--CC&Rs are not a contract. They are however enforced based on contract law. In simple terms they are a restriction on the use of real property. There are other restrictions on real property such as easements, zoning, and mineral rights. If you purchase property with an easement such as for power lines, your probability of success in having them removed as you think they are unconscionable is virtually zero. Same for zoning and mineral rights. There are some ways to overcome CC&Rs but I wouldn't bet on the basis of them ruled as unconscionable.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!