Fines for Rubbish/messes or mowing

There exists a neighbor who doesn't keep up their house -- they have tires stacked in front of their garage (all winter), often have trash bags sitting beside their trash can, and in summer are known for not mowing until grass gets to be about 9" tall, and is seeding.

We're wondering how to best deal with a repeat offender. If each time there is a new mess, should we send out a notice each time, giving them a week to clean it up, before we fine them. Then it can just become an ongoing annoying game where they escape without consequence.

We were wondering if there is a way to approach this where 1st offense gets the warning with time frame, but then after that... at some point just issuing a fine each time for each next offense when it occurs.

Note, the neighborhood has been lax in the past, but this doesn't mean that we don't intend to enforce the rules against those who are pushing the envelope too far. We're looking to impose consequences for the more extreme deviant behavior, which stands out from the rest.

Advice anyone?

Just to be consistent, I guess I should ask what should be done if we have "volunteers" get fined, maybe we can just forgive them the fine in return for more HOA volunteer work?

==
OK, I'm kidding here.

Sheila, thanks for the advice. We're not planning a significant change from previous board members, actually. And we will continue to ignore some covenants even if they aren't amended. For example, "no trash cans in plain site of the road" has long been abandoned, but we've informally modified it to be "not in front of your house", as if on the side of the house, at least it's partially concealed, and that has become our standard.

The covenants clearly state that to enforce one covenant does not require enforcement of ALL covenants. The covenants themselves permit this power of choice. And our attorney from last year indicated that courts here approve lawsuits all the time, without ANY consideration given to the argument "but not ALL covenants are enforced" or even "but some of my neighbors also have this offense and aren't being sued" -- the HOA wins all clear cut cases, without any consideration given to those other defenses, unless it can be blatantly proven that the HOA is being biased against only certain members.

However, the HOA members could counter-sue the HOA for being unfair in how it administers enforcement only for some households but not others. But the HOA members have NO GROUNDS to sue the HOA for non-enforcement of most restrictions... the covenants themselves vehemently declares that no one can be sued for non-enforcement. But biased enforcement, is another matter entirely.

In short, AFAIK, and as stated clearly in our covenants, we don't have to take the approach of All vs. Nothing, to enforce only the covenants that garner majority support, while ignoring those that the majority want us to ignore.

===
We're trying to access popular opinion on various covenants now, and then are aiming to establish a course of action to fulfill that mission. And it probably won't be much different than the previous board, but hopefully will make a small improvement. Baby steps and slow changes is the goal. Mostly we're trying to maintain status quo for our 1st year in office.

So, your CCRs say to enforce one CCR doesn't require enforcement of all CCRS - I have to wonder what the author was thinking (or smoking?) when this was written. If you have three CCRs, but will only enforce #2 and #3 and ignore #1 altogether, why is #1 even there?

I understand not wanting major changes at first and of course, you want people to cooperate, but I think it's best to start with a poll or perhaps a townhall meeting to get a sense of what homeowners want done regarding rules enforcement. Before you decide the board will focus on rubbish and dandelions, maybe you need to ask everyone about rule enforcement in general, like: What areas do you think require more enforcement than others (you may think it's rubbish and dandelions, but others may think of something else). What should be done regarding appeal rights or against homeowners who refuse to follow the rules, despite two or three letters?

And so on. Sometimes it's best to start with a broad view and then narrow it down to the areas that really need work. From there, the community can revisit CCRs every 7-10 years to see what's working, what needs to be tweaked or added - and what can be dropped. Communities do change as homeowners change and what was important 5 years ago may not be an issue today. The reverse may also be true. You will also find you don't have to enforce certain CCRs because there aren't any violations. That's different from just ignoring them - in fact, not needing to enforce that specific CCR would be great (100% compliance is a good thing.). Even so, it would be good to have it available in case something does happen. Put another way, you don't have to take everything in the cafeteria line, but it's nice to know that the chocolate cake will still be available if you want it.

Sheila, I hope you can see the genius in adding that "right of non-enforcement" clause. It prevents HOA's like mine from being at severe risk of bankruptcy, because ONE person might decide to file lawsuit for non-enforcement. Many HOA's in fact would then become at risk, because most HOA's aren't perfect. And ours has been far from perfect for many years... and we're mostly OK with that. And there's nothing wrong with that, so long as the board is generally aligned to this majority opinion.

Things get ugly when boards fall out of alignment with majority opinion - which results is hate, spite, dissensions, etc... and huge oscillations in board membership.

Our previous board was ousted because they were too zealous, trying to enforce stuff that nobody wanted to be enforced. As a result, everyone ignored all their attempts to enforce, and although they threatened abundant lawsuits, they didn't follow through -- probably because of their sense that they were in the minority and didn't want to take the risks of retaliation.

The new board is trying to only send out notices of enforcement that the majority wants, and maintain majority support. With more support, it also makes it easier for us to take action. It's the #1 rule of policing -- the police need to have the support of those being policed, else the efforts become much more difficult or even futile.

We will make improvements. We're the ones who set up the website and have solicited HOA involvement. The previous board wanted nothing of the sort, and made themselves fully unreachable, and believed as many do here that "all covenants MUST be enforced", which is what got them ousted by a landslide (4:1 voted out).

It is NOT the smartest way to do it.

One can rationalize away anything - and, you are doing a top notch job in this regard.

Arguably the smartest way is to amend the covenants. But in the absence of that, the 2nd best alternative is to simply not enforce the ones that the HOA no longer wants. It's better than the alternative -- because the alternative of enforcing things the HOA doesn't want, results in HUGE FAILURE. The scant minority who tries to do this will not stay elected. Period. And in the past, as a result, do-nothing boards were elected who enforced nothing.

Better to hit the right amount of enforcement upfront, giving due consideration to majority opinion.

I take it that in your HOA, "full enforcement" matches majority opinion. And so it is appropriate for your HOA. I won't argue that.

I find it kinda offensive that with people dying from a currently untreatable virus, the economy going to shit, almost 17 million trying to file unemployment claims that people here are discussing are how to fine someone for whatever, Is this what leaders do when they have too much time on their hands?

My wife and I are a great example. We moved in 2 years ago, and bought here because the house was PERFECT, and in a neighborhood with a HOA that was 24 years old, and apparently relaxed, which is what we prefer. The state of the neighborhood is more important than what is written in the covenants. Rarely does a neighborhood downturn reverse itself... we all know that. So rarely would you expect it to "get more compliant" over time. And that was OK with my wife and I - -and after talking to dozens of neighbors -- we found out what we suspected -- this is the general mindset of the HOA.

So, there's your answer -- we moved here because of the "state of the HOA/houses" and it was pleasing to us.

Our HOA will remain relaxed based on popular opinion. This is not a popularity contest at all -- it's about fulfilling a mission, to serve the interests of the majority, where feasible. And if we don't then we'll get voted out and replaced with do-nothings, or if we don't enforce enough, will be replaced with zealots -- and the pendulum swinging will continue.

Example rules are that EVERY SINGLE CHANGE you make to your home requires Advanced Approval from 3 random board members who are no more qualified to judge your plans than you are. And in many cases, these 3 board members were elected by < 10% of the HOA. Almost nobody here likes this requirement, and got annoyed every time they got a threat letter from the old board telling them that they did it wrong. As a result, one house who was putting on new siding to their house, stopped HALFWAY -- and it's still like that today -- half of the front of their house has new siding color, and half old siding color! If the HOA had left them alone, it would be fully sided! Same goes for mailboxes -- folks pissed about the "you gotta buy our $400 mailbox" letter -- decide to NEVER fix their mailbox... and the result is dozens of dented, rusted, leaning, and broken mailboxes.... and angry neighbors.

This is the neighborhood we moved into. We moved out of a neighborhood without a HOA. No HOA is fine with us. No HOA is fine with about half of our residents here. And so a relaxed HOA is what they'll get -- one that provides the benefits that you can't have without a HOA -- which means that if someone does something that is grotesque and offend many, then the HOA can take action.

We're trying to decide now if dandelions falls into that category or not. And if we say dandelions are not permitted, we're trying to come up with a way to make it "easy to handle" (thus the volunteer idea I had).

So, we are in the mode of trying to figure out what our HOA really wants from the board, and let this influence our decisions and actions. IMO, it's the "right way to do it". For those who think it should be full-force enforcement -- you'd never stay elected. And you'd be scared to enforce things, because we also have our fair share of people who might actually retaliate. Besides, those who are of your legalistic mindset would never buy a home here, once they saw the state of mailboxes, trashcans, upkeep, lawns, and dandelions. It's mostly a blue collar neighborhood here, comprised of average priced homes.

Thank you John. Strong rational thought is something we should all strive for, including the ability to rationally conclude that most often, there isn't just "one right way" of looking at things. Those who aren't good at rational thought usually increase polarity, with the assumption that anyone who doesn't agree with them must be stupid and wrong. IMO, most Americans are guilty of this.

.. says the man who thinks inside of a box.

Now we just need to close up the box, tape it and send it on it merry way.

I actually like this approach Walter. I have posted here in the past but not for a very long time. I am not surprised by some of the negative responses you have received here and those folks will not be surprised by my support of your approach. No plan is perfect but it sounds like your HOA has come up with a way to manage old covenants that no one is interested in enforcing.

Does your county have ordinances that address the garbage, tires, and tall grass issues? Can you make a complaint to code enforcement? That would keep the HOA out of that situation if code enforcement will address the issue with the homeowner. However, my experience with any code enforcement was to ignore the complaint and put it off on the HOA to address.

My recommendation is to start with code enforcement then go from there. Stress that the garbage is a health issue and the tires and tall grass an insect and/or snake and critter issue. Those things are important enough not to ignore. Better yet start with the homeowner and stress those things.

Good luck with your approach.

BancsS - thanks for the support.

This site is a GREAT place to come for advice. But 90%+ of it is usually "inside the box" advice, which is good advice -- it truly is. It's important to know what is "inside the box" as for most things, unless there is good cause for it, inside the box is often the best place to be. However, not all situations fit that model, like our neighborhood I'd say.

As I've said, we previously had 3 "very inside the box board members" for several years straight before they were voted out (they weren't voted out before because no one else wanted to be on the board). This previous board was just getting the guts to start filing lawsuits against mailboxes (after having threatened it for a couple years). But we preempted them, when they were voted out by 4:1. Incumbents usually have the advantage, and should never lose by that big of a landslide. But that's what strict inside-the-box thinking did to them. Even so, they were good people (like those on this site); they just had very little ability to flex their thinking to adapt it to the current HOA membership (as, IMO, they should have done).

We're in a healing phase now. Good things are happening, and enemies are becoming friends. I'll let y'all know how it works out a year from now, as we go for re-election.