Use of assessments forbidden for cable TV?

Our CC&Rs say:
"The assessments levied by the Association shall be used exclusively to promote the improvement and maintenance of the Common Area and of the improvements situated upon the properties.” That's all.

Would this forbid using assessments for services, like cable TV? (My understanding is that the legal definition of real estate "improvements" are permanent physical structures, which increase value.)

If so, can the general powers typically given to HOAs in the Articles of Incorporation (e.g. to "make and perform any contracts," etc) still be used to justify overruling the CC&Rs specific restriction on the use of assessments?

Don,

Where is the cable TV being viewed at?
Is the TV being purchased as a method to lower the cost of internet service?

I have seen the statement you cite from your CC&Rs in many other CC&Rs. However, in addition to that statement, they include:

The assessments levied by the Association shall be used exclusively for the purpose of promoting the recreation, health, safety and welfare of the residents in the properties (including administrative and overhead expense) and in particular for the improvement and maintenance of the Common Areas, services and facilities devoted to this purpose and related to the use and enjoyment of the said Common Area and of the homes situated upon the properties and more particular the Association shall be responsible to carry out the following named functions in and about said Subdivision.

Do your documents have similar language?

This falls more into what the majority of the owners want their dues to pay for. Does a majority of the membership benefit from a mass offering of a cable service? For example: If they buy into the mass cable, does it average out to like $20 of their dues pays for it? That is versus paying for it on their own/having choice and paying $50?

That would be the argument I would present in deciding IF the HOA should pay for cable in the dues or not. Take a vote of opinion. It also may mean the understanding that one may be on their own if the majority votes to pay individually.

I don't think having cable is in any way a "Home Value" item. It's just nice to have the service available at a lower cost if shared amongst all. It's kind of like owning a pool. Not everyone swims but it does attract potential buyers to see one.

Don! Cable TV is not viewed anymore as a luxury. it is viewed as a necessity. Cable TV providers now offer internet and telephone services.

Should or could your assessments be used to install cable tv, perhaps. What options are available to the homeowners currently besides Dish & DirectTv?
Does your telephone provider offer internet & TV besides landline service?
Fiber Optic is the reasonable option, but in 10 years it will be obsolete, so you got to weigh the cost into looking way down the road.

Don raises an interesting subject. While I can see the benefit to many is it fair that those who do not want such should be paying for such.

Don,

It's highly likely that the Association receives, or received, funds from the cable company to be the exclusive provider for x number of years. You need to check into that possibility first.

HOLD your horses! You said the "Manager's" got a kick back. Are you run by a Management company? HOA board members are typically VOLUNTEER only positions. So if they got a "kick back" what form did it take? Personal checks to each HOA Board member or a check to the HOA? Or was the check to the Management company?

If the check was to the Management company, then it was NEVER a kick-back to the HOA board. The management company is a contractor to the HOA. Many HOA management companies do find/recommend certain vendors for the HOA to use. That is an arrangement the MC makes with their vendors. They most likely tell their vendors they can get them a HOA they manage to give them business. Which gives them the opportunity of kick back to them or other advantages. It does NOT reflect against the HOA board.

Now if the HOA board members' were getting personal checks splitting the money, then I would say that is a kick-back of the bad moral kind. If the check is being written directly to the HOA itself, then that money is to go back into the HOA's budget. Which may break it down to a $500 savings off the contract.

So don't jump to conclusion. Suing your HOA is suing yourself and your neighbors. So tread carefully...

Janet, we are detached townhomes, not condos.
Common areas are defined by the plat map as being the 10' area between the homes.
Limited common areas are the 10' behind each home, and the first 8' in from the street.

Not sure if this is what you're thinking, but the physical cables buried in the common area between homes 20 years ago could possibly be considered an improvement at that time, but I'm questioning the monthly services delivered through them now.

Two year old thread.

Nonsense.

Thank you, NpB. It is indeed even more relevant now, since cable TV is even more of a dying industry, and even more outrageous for those who insist on forcing the rest of us to subsidize the cost of their cable TV by including it in "assessments."
But they are still doing it. What am I going to do, take them to court, and spend a lot on attorney's fees? Problem is - it was included by the developer from the beginning in 1995, when cable was the "only game in town."

Thanks for your input. I certain have, and also sent out flyers with charts of the financial savings, along with a list of the FREE HD channels over the air with a cheap inside the attic antenna, and the various streaming Internet video options. I've compared it to using assessments to pay for weekly pizza delivery, etc.

The problem there is that the majority of owners are older, don't want change, and still want cable. That is the only litmus test for Board member election. Owners elect completely incompetent and known unethical people (who openly violate rules themselves) to the Board, just because they promise to keep cable TV. Owners recently approved a $25 increase in dues, rather than lose the cable TV subsidy from the rest of us. I think this voting attitude, in itself, is unethical.

I realize probably no one has an answer to that, but that's the dilemma. Probably what's needed is a turnover in age demographics of owners. Sorry to rant, but it ticks me off (as does socialism in general).