Security Camera - Tenant

IMO, if it is a common area, the HOA is within its rights to remove and replace it back to original. The person that modified this should have had prior approval from the HOA.

HOA Board is what I meant. Thanks KerryL1! {embarrassed}

The HOA has to go after the OWNER and NOT the tenant. Unfortunately, the tenant is NOT a member of the HOA and NOT subject to it's restrictions UNLESS written in the lease agreement. They are basically a "3rd party" to the HOA. The HOA will have to contact the owner of the unit and inform them of their tenant's actions. The owner is the one that can evict the tenant NOT the HOA.

The HOA is in it's right to remove the camera and then send the owner the bill for it's removal. Which is something your HOA can use as it's action against the owner. It was HOA property that was removed and camera installed on common area. Now how your HOA goes about removing it is a bit on the legal ground. Which I would consult your HOA attorney about any possible concerns about trespassing and such. However, these costs can be part of the bill sent to the owner IF they are NOT co-operative.

Not sure why a rather simple matter becomes this difficult.

You write the OWNER a letter informing them their TENANT removed a light which they had not authority or right to do.

You explain they replaced it with a security camera that they had right, authority or permission to install in common property.

You explain that after 3 days, 4 days, pick a timeframe the camera will be removed and the light will be replaced and the owner will be billed for the costs along with a fine for modifying common property.

Sone less than desirable folks like cameras to see who is coming to visit. You might have bigger problems than the camera being installed.

Kerry - camera is at the front of the garage and taping the area of the driveway and entrance roadway of the community.

JonD1 - did just that. Letter to homeowner, 7 days to remove it, etc. etc. responsible for damage and all that. And YES, we DO have a much bigger problem than the security camera with these tenants. Guy and baby mama and guy is son of homeowner. :-( They are on our radar big time.

I appreciate all of the responses. We know the protocol for dealing with this - my question was whether or not we would be taking away a homeowner or tenant's rights by not allowing security cameras. Obviously, they can't install them outside because the decks, patios, and exterior siding are Common Area. What they could do is install them inside the townhome if they choose - nothing in our rules addressing security cameras indoors and/or facing outside.

Are you serious? Our local police department are watching these people and we are working in conjunction with them in regards to illegal activity.

What is the pc term these days for a male with a live in female with multiple illegitimate kids with different fathers?

I'm talking about if they install it within their townhouse.

:-) I better not comment. Someone might turn me in.

You're right and it doesn't matter, Kerry. I made that comment out of frustration for the situation. And, of course, said comment and my personal feelings are just that. I don't share these particular feelings with the board. Just felt a need to vent. My apologies.

Linda

Running the risk of violating federal laws sounds to me like you have a garbage problem. Now in today's world of PC and not hurting people's feelings many have lost the ability to as my Grandmother would say " call a spade a spade".

Over time people show you who and what they are. And continuos bad choices and behavior is not excused by the Pope's directive as to his own ability to judge. My guess the Pope doesn't have similar neighbors.
L
And if these folks have peeked the interest of the police for illegal activity well I guess they too have judged these folks as trouble.

We had a problem several years ago. A couple and their three sons moved in renting. Quickly their behavior became an issue. Noise, damage to common property, vehicle break ins, visitors coming all hours of the day and night. Common sense would tell you these folks were in my view garbage. I hear the federal authorities coming.

Long story short the owner was fined repeatedly. Fines rose to over $20,000. We went out on a limb and decided these folks were undesirables.

In a meeting, which I requested, with the owner I explained to him his two choices 1) they move 2) he prepare himself for more fines.
Sort a a come to Jesus meeting.

Now he wasn't happy because the state was paying their rent. And that steady flow of money was more important than renting to decent people. in the end he evicted them. Some on the board at the time expressed their opinions I had not right or reason to work to force them out. Well this is my home and investment. I did not wish to live with such garbage.

Now after leaving this "family" moved to a local neighborhood. One night the parents invited some "friends" or "business associates" over to engage in what some might see as illegal behavior. Drug dealing. Not being the Pope I view that behavior as undesirable and judge them. Well business for some reason went south. The two "friends" decided their only recourse was to kill the parents and the three kids. They stabbed and beat the family to death and slit the throats of the kids. Then in an attempt to cover their crimes they set the house on fire. Subsequent autopsies would show some of the kids were not dead when the house was set on fire they died as a result of the fire.

The owner settled on paying $10,000 in fines.

So while some might dispute the need or legal ability to judge and treat accordingly the behavior of some people I find it necessary, useful, and productive.
People show you what and who they are. Federal laws against discrimination don't force you to accept bad behavior. Nor does the Pope's idea we are not in the position to judge.

Good luck with your situation. Here's hoping you avoid federal time and condemnation from the Vatican for trying to protect your community and setting certain standards for acceptable behavior. I have and will accept that risk.

Assuming you meant: ".... and setting certain contractual (ie. the Covenant) standards for acceptable behavior.", else behavior becomes very subjective.

I am in full agreement with Covenant compliance.

Using whatever level of force is necessary. Up to and including Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson as a last resort for 'self defense'.

HOWEVER

Federal law specifically bars selecting or 'screening' one's neighbors based upon 'familial status'.

You are free to disagree and free to vocalize said disagreement.

You are free to relocate if your neighbors 'annoy' you with their lifestyle.

You are free to call law enforcement when laws are violated.

You are free to enforce contractual obligations via the court system.

BUT

You are NOT free to trample upon another person's Federally guaranteed rights.

ps. my 'judgment' statement was referring to the 'family status' of the tenants

suppose they were NOT tenants but actual owners/members ?

DITTO

The use of the (unqualified) word 'they' is problematic at best.

You used it in the context of 'The guy and his baby mama...'

Slam - dunk ammunition for a potential discrimination case.

I am just as guilty of having the almost subliminal discrimination and bias taught me all my life.

They are .......

Them darn .......

Most xxxx ......

etc.

We need to carefully watch BOTH our words AND our actions.

We can not change what we are, but, we can control what we do and say.

E PLURIBUS UNUM

from many, one

Let us continue the battle to ACTUALLY 'make it so'.

That was gas leak, not has leak.

Linda

I am quite certain you have the ability to decide what is appropriate for posting on an anonymous website versus what you might express in public, at a board meeting, in writing, or in a court of law.

And no one really believes there have been civil rights violations in this circumstance.

They altered common property. That is not permitted. The OWNER will be notified and held responsible.

In most cases the federal authorities won't involve themselves in such serious matters. Nor are there any Constitutional tests you need to satisfy.

I find myself concerned more about the rights of those neighbors and other residents more than the rights of someone acting in a manner that disrupts peace and quiet. What about their rights?

Good luck.

PERFECT

That's true, Kerry. In the instance of rules, it doesn't matter. Early on in my post, I was venting my frustration because the mom is trying to keep her son here, no matter how many rules they break. Increased fines seem to be our only solution right now unless the police intervene .

I'm in fairly regular contact with our PD on this because of complaints about unusual ad suspicious activity. Also in contact with narcotics. The police are aware of these folks, but I guess they just haven't slipped up enough to get caught yet. I check the police logs ... assault, other stuff. I hope the increasing work for the sake of the community. I was out of town last week and asked the other Board members to get a pic of the camera and confirm its there. None would do it out of fear. Isn't that unbelievable to have someone in your community that creates fear like that? When you drive by and they and their friends are hanging around in front and on the road, they stare at you and try to invoke fear. I'm pretty aggressive with my response to that kind of behavior, but I don't live their either.

Sent the certified letter. They have 7 days. Said if they wouldn't take it down, we will at their expense.

It may be written in the CC&Rs. This is from CA lawyers:
"CC&Rs will sometimes have a broad statement that the document is binding upon "each member, tenant, resident, and occupant" and each has a duty to follow the association’s governing documents. If so, penalties may be levied against tenants as well as owners for rules violations. "

http://www.davis-stirling.com/tabid/1742/Default.aspx#axzz1fh8LjznT

Some states also have laws that allow the HOA to fine tenants.

Aside from your judging in the absence of guilt on many other topics, exactly what are they in violation of when it comes to your rules, restrictions, and covenants? Can you cite a specific rule that has been violated? And how do you know that it was the tenants that violated such and not the owner? Do you have proof that would stand up in court? And is your issue that these people allegedly modified a common element, or that they installed a camera? The title of your thread suggests you're concerned about the camera and not the common area modification.

They have a right to a security camera.

They do NOT have the right to install same in / on a common element.

They also have the right to quiet and peaceful enjoyment of their domicile w/o prejudice or discrimination.

Have you sent letters to EVERYONE who has modified a common element?

Are you sure the exact same procedure was followed?

Y'all had best not 'single out' the 'baby mama'

PitA .. I feel that you are stuck on this singling out and prejudice thing.

Hi currently have 5 other letters to homeowners for violations. Doesn't sound like prejudice to me.

The owner sent an email yesterday saying a Board member said to put the camera in. Not true. This is the same person who lied about the service dog.

Agree with Tim. And, also, if you suspect that a director DID "give permission,' remind them all without singling any director out, that individual directors have no such authority.

Or, do they in your HOA?? (Bad idea)

? Did you EVER, in whatever medium, spoken or written, refer to any of the other 5 as 'baby mamas' ?