Can a Condo Board force me to remove my cameras?

RonaldW10 (Missouri)
Posts: 15

Posted:

I hope this question is allowed. I am at a lost as to what to do.

I bought a condo in Lake of the Ozarks three years ago. I immediately installed some security devices in my condo and a Ring doorbell. My condo is on the third floor overlooking the lake. My family likes to look at the activity at the lake so I installed some cameras on my deck also to watch the lake activity, not easily seen from outside the condo. I also installed a camera that looks west of the condo to see the lake activity in that direction and it also shows the swimming pool. I also installed cameras "ON" my two boats to monitor the security around my boats.

The HOA Board recently published NEW rules saying NO CAMERA is allowed to be pointed towards the pool and all of the rest of the cameras must be approved by the Board. I have submitted an email to the Board requesting approval of all previous installed cameras under Grandfathering. There currently is no policy concerning Grandfathering policy.

Can you provide some ideas for me to look into so I can keep the cameras?

How can someone have "expectations of privacy" at the pool?

I will be happy to send copies of pictures taken from the cameras so you can understand what is able to be seen.

Some people have even indicated I should remove my Ring doorbell camera.

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

I might be off target here, but do your governing documents permit any items to be attached to your condo deck rails, or to your front door exterior (if that's how "ring" is installed)? It may be factors other than "privacy" at play are.

BillD16 (Texas)
Posts: 973

Posted:

It pains me to have to be the person to spell this out for you, but: a fair number of people have a sort of generalized, not-necessarily-true, uncritical belief that anyone taking pictures at a pool is probably a pervert who is using the pictures to satisfy their dark, twisted sexual desires. I personally don’t think it’s terribly common, but I have seen websites where people upload “beach photos”, so it *is* a thing. I’m going to guess this is the underlying reason for the ban on cameras pointed at the pool.

I’d be curious just what motivated these new rules. Was it hysteria? Or did they catch some dirty old man taking questionable photos at your pool?

BillD

HOA Board ex-President
Austin, Texas USA

“You can’t put too much water in a nuclear reactor”

BillD16 (Texas)
Posts: 973

Posted:

It pains me to have to be the person to spell this out for you, but: a fair number of people have a sort of generalized, not-necessarily-true, uncritical belief that anyone taking pictures at a pool is probably a pervert who is using the pictures to satisfy their dark, twisted sexual desires. I personally don’t think it’s terribly common, but I have seen websites where people upload “beach photos”, so it *is* a thing. I’m going to guess this is the underlying reason for the ban on cameras pointed at the pool.

I’d be curious just what motivated these new rules. Was it hysteria? Or did they catch some dirty old man taking questionable photos at your pool?

BillD

HOA Board ex-President
Austin, Texas USA

“You can’t put too much water in a nuclear reactor”

MichaelT21 (Arkansas)
Posts: 501

Posted:

I am with Bill. I really cannot fathom why someone would purposefully place a camera to watch the public pool for any type of reasonable use, which includes the OP. There is no reason for it. Yes, it's legal. No, it's not appropriate.

There are interesting videos of what goes on at the Lake of the Ozarks on the web. Might be worth Googling these. Just not on your work computer.

RonaldW10 (Missouri)
Posts: 15

Posted:

Here is a screenshot of my Amazon Alexa Show device. I use it to view the different cameras. My kids are scattered around the Country and they enjoy seeing what is happening here.

At the last Board the Board President was going over some changes to the Handbook. One change was to rewrite NO antennas on the decks. I like to ensure things are thought out carefully and I asked ALL antennas? I am sure they were think DISH TV type antennas, but I asked "Does this mean I can't put a FM antenna on my inside wall or the small network repeater antenna I have taped to my deck roof (they didn't even know about this antenna). They seemed confused and asked why I had a network repeater. I said to recieve the signal from the boat cameras. They said "What cameras?" I didn't lie and I told them. It went downhill from there.

One thing in my favor is the Association is LOW of funds. If necessary I will sure each Board Member and the Association for Harsh and Unreasonable HOA Rules. Until then I will be polite and give them every chances to change their minds.

Look at the attached screenshot. Tell me what Privacy I am Violating?

I am NOT able to upload a JPG or BMP.
Can someone tell me how to upload a picture?

BillD16 (Texas)
Posts: 973

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By MichaelT21 on 06/17/2022 5:45 PM
I am with Bill. I really cannot fathom why someone would purposefully place a camera to watch the public pool for any type of reasonable use, which includes the OP. There is no reason for it. Yes, it's legal. No, it's not appropriate.

There are interesting videos of what goes on at the Lake of the Ozarks on the web. Might be worth Googling these. Just not on your work computer.

Funny … just after I posted, my wife mentioned that, early on in COVID, there was a video of a large pool party in the Ozarks that turned out to be a superspreader event. I can wave my hands and say “liability concerns” but in truth I have no idea how that would apply. Maybe your HOA is distributing heroin at the pool?

It would help to see a capture of the camera feed in question. Most of the cameras OP describes are pretty obviously for security. The ‘pool cam’ doesn’t really sound like a pool cam so much as a ‘view of the lake cam’ that happens to include part of the pool? It doesn’t sound like it’s especially near the pool, either. Personally, I don’t see an issue with someone being interested in “what’s going on at the pool?” - is it crowded? Is it empty?

BillD

HOA Board ex-President
Austin, Texas USA

“You can’t put too much water in a nuclear reactor”

SheliaH (Indiana)
Posts: 6,964

Posted:

Why do you think the rule is unreasonable? Just because you don't like it? Sorry, that won't necessarily fly. I don't see a problem with a ring door bell camera and one capturing a view of the lake, but a community pool? Not necessary AT ALL in my opinion.

This is life in a HOA - as a homeowner, you agree to comply with the rules when you bought your home, including the ones you don't think make sense. If you read your documents, you may see language that gives the board the authority to enact additional rules to flesh out the CCRs and Bylaws. It may be someone else had a bunch of cameras set up and this issue came up, so the rule was enacted - did you even ask them?

Rules aren't necessarily set in stone - some do need to be tweaked or the problem it was to address isn't an issue anymore. Ideally, the board might propose rules to the homeowners, who give their opinion and then there could be rewrites. The final is approved through a board resolution and the homeowners are too when it goes into effect? Did all of this happen but you weren't paying attention?

If you sue, you can't go after individual board members, at least not initially. You'd have to sue the association and there might be a payout under the director and officer's coverage. That may also put the community insurance at risk and If they lose it, it will be very expensive to replace. That increases your assessments - you may have money to spare, but that may not be true of your neighbors.

Now before you get in your feelings about all this, why not calm yourself and consider a compromise? You aren't looking at these cameras all day, so you don't know if you're getting more than bees, things and flowers. Maybe you can take some footage from each and review it with the board so they can see if they were over reacting - or perhaps it did capture something that could be considered a privacy issue that might put YOU at risk of being sued

If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it. Marcus Aurelius

RonaldW10 (Missouri)
Posts: 15

Posted:

Can you send me the name of Facebook Group or the link?

BillD16 (Texas)
Posts: 973

Posted:

Ronald: try looking here for how to embed images:

https://www.hoatalk.com/Forum/tabid/55/forumid/1/postid/328795/view/topic/Default.aspx

Note that you’ll have to upload the image to a server somewhere, obtain its URL, and then (I think) post here with an HTML IMG tag.

Re your specific situation: I’d push on the Grandfather aspect. And again: try to find out why these new rules were added at all?

BillD

HOA Board ex-President
Austin, Texas USA

“You can’t put too much water in a nuclear reactor”

RonaldW10 (Missouri)
Posts: 15

Posted:

Bill, I can send you the picture via email. Write to me: LakeGuyMO at homemail.com

Remove the at and strip out the spaces.

BillH10 (Texas)
Posts: 1,217

Posted:

We manage a 15 unit condo in a very desirable neighborhood in Dallas (Park Cities) the Board is grappling with this exact issue.

The Board has agreed Ring and Ring type devices may be used to replace the existing doorbells, with the proviso that the camera mounting be set so it cannot see into or record the property of an adjacent unit. The rules of the association are being modified to incorporate this decision.

As for the other cameras listed by the OP:

1. Pool view--absolutely not

2. Cameras mounted on the exterior limited common elements--perhaps OK with Board approval and the stipulation they cannot see into and/record the property/premises of another owner and they cannot be seen from public areas on the property.

RonaldW10 (Missouri)
Posts: 15

Posted:

Bill I would like you to see the screenshot I submitted to the Board. Then I would like to ask you some questions.
I sent you my email earlier.

I tend to use common sense to solve problems.

I think my Board won't and doesn't want to listen to reason.

Ron

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

With billH, it's possible your declaration (CC&Rs, covenants) do not permit anything including cameras to be attached to limited use common areas' walls, railings, ceilings without a committee's approval or the Board's approval. this is very common in condo HOAs. Read your documents, Ronald.

RonaldW10 (Missouri)
Posts: 15

Posted:

The Board has begun to become Nazi's. They have started wanting EVERYTHING approved by them.

The cameras are in my deck area, mounted to the deck ceiling using Alien Tape (Neat stuff by the way). The camera is white and 2 x 2 inches.

Here is the BIG QUESTION: If the Board does not want cameras of any kind pointed at the pool, what about cell phones? I see a lot of people taking pictures and videos ALL the time. Why are they okay?

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

Is the deck your separate interest (private) property, or is it "limited use common area," which gives the Board certain power over it even though you have exclusive use of it. If limited use, most condo HOAs don't permit any penetration into the surfaces. But tape should be just fine. Still, I don't know what your CC&rs and Rules say.

Others can deal with your privacy argument if they wish--not my interest.

JohnC73 (Massachusetts)
Posts: 344

Posted:

Can a Board make rules by edict ? I would hope the owners of the association would have to vote to approve any new by-laws or regulations.

MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,836

Posted:

The difference is those whom take the pictures OWN that "property/picture". It is usually of the free choice of the person whom is having their picture taken. It's very very disturbing to know someone is filming people at a pool without their consent or knowledge. Plus I am not sure that Pool area counts as "Public" area. It's more exclusive use area or common area to the HOA.

Let's just take down the camera and stop acting like your rights are being violated. I am sure those who are being taped 100% agree theirs are. Oh and those people ARE the HOA...

Former HOA President

LoriM15 (Florida)
Posts: 1,009

Posted:

We have no idea what the OPs documents say. All we know is the board is trying to limit the use of the OPs cameras. But I think a big issue here is the purpose of the cameras. It's one thing to have a doorbell camera or one pointed at a door for security purposes. But the OP has cameras so he can check out "the view" and claims his kids want to watch the video and see what's happening at dad's condo. Besides the fact the idea that somebody's kids care about the view from dad's condo is laughable, what reasonable person needs three cameras, including one recording the pool, to check out the "view" 24 hours a day?

I think a homeowner could reasonably argue that security cameras are necessary, but they are going to have a hard time arguing that the other cameras are important. If I were on this board and getting push back about the no camera restriction, I might be persuaded by the security camera argument.

RonaldW10 (Missouri)
Posts: 15

Posted:

I wish I could upload a picture to show what the camera sees, but I haven't figured out a way yet. If the Admin can help me then I will send the pictures to the Admin and they can add them to the discussion.

BillD16 (Texas)
Posts: 973

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By LoriM15 on 06/19/2022 2:15 PM
We have no idea what the OPs documents say. All we know is the board is trying to limit the use of the OPs cameras. But I think a big issue here is the purpose of the cameras. It's one thing to have a doorbell camera or one pointed at a door for security purposes. But the OP has cameras so he can check out "the view" and claims his kids want to watch the video and see what's happening at dad's condo. Besides the fact the idea that somebody's kids care about the view from dad's condo is laughable, what reasonable person needs three cameras, including one recording the pool, to check out the "view" 24 hours a day?

I think a homeowner could reasonably argue that security cameras are necessary, but they are going to have a hard time arguing that the other cameras are important. If I were on this board and getting push back about the no camera restriction, I might be persuaded by the security camera argument.

Ronald, I'm sorry but I don't have the bandwidth to set up an email address right now.

With all due respect, asking "what reasonable person needs three cameras?" (or three {insert item name here}s) is rather presumptuous. It's like "Nobody will ever need more than 640K RAM" or "The patent office will soon go out of business because there are no more inventions" &c. Ronald's kids could be deployed in the military, and very much welcome checking in on the view (and their dad) on a regular basis. Or {insert scenario here}.

I personally think the entire "pool cam pervert" thing is largely a myth like unto "Satanic Ritual Abuse" back in the 1980s. I'm assuming Ronald has a fairly mundane Eufy or other consumer-grade camera, located 100ft or more away from the pool. Nobody's gonna perv out over the video from such a system. This is why I ask: what motivated these new rules about cameras?

If these people are truly concerned about pool pictures, they should perhaps focus their efforts on cellphone cameras. Which are essentially ubiquitous (FiveThirtyEight reported on this several years ago) and capable of rendering the kind of detail that perverts demand these days. I lose track - they're up to like 48 millions pixel images these days? Don'tcha wish they'd put that kind of effort into cancer research?

And perhaps I stand alone on this, but I really don't see the problem in someone wanting to have a kind of situational awareness about their environment: being aware that the pool is crowded today, or that the tennis courts are empty, etc. Some people tune into highway cams to try to figure the best time to leave for work. If it's legal and in public view, so what?

{If you've ever seen the movie Skyline, there's a party in a penthouse apartment and some guests are playing with a very high-end computer-controlled telescope/camera combo output to a big flatscreen television, attempting - to their dismay, successfully - to spy on sexual activity in neighboring buildings. Something like that, yeah, that's a problem}

In the end, it will probably come down to a matter of "rules are rules", even if Ronald supplies screencaps that are obviously 'non-controversial'. I'll be completely honest: in the face of such stupidity, I'd very likely hide the camera and just keep quiet about it. I mean, what's the penalty if you get "caught"?

BillD

HOA Board ex-President
Austin, Texas USA

“You can’t put too much water in a nuclear reactor”

BillD16 (Texas)
Posts: 973

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By MelissaP1 on 06/19/2022 9:19 AM
The difference is those whom take the pictures OWN that "property/picture".

*chuckle* this reminds me of one of Iain M Banks' Culture stories: an alien visiting Earth sees a sign that prohibits photography, and he's overcome by the presumptuousness of it: "They want to own the light!"

This is broad generalization, but in the USA it's relatively rare for the actual taking of a picture to be outright illegal. The law gets more involved with how a given photograph is used: if it's published in a magazine, or posted to social media, you start to run into issues of copyright etc. There may be local laws - that vary a lot - about using a camera to (for instance) take pictures of the inside of a house through the windows. Pragmatically, if the photographer never shares the photos with anyone, nobody will ever know about it. Like it or not, the realities of modern photography require that people put a bit of effort into protecting their privacy: shutting the curtains, etc.

BillD

HOA Board ex-President
Austin, Texas USA

“You can’t put too much water in a nuclear reactor”

RonaldW10 (Missouri)
Posts: 15

Posted:

I appreciate everything everyone has posted concerning this question. At this time I think it is best to wait to hear what the Board does with my request to leave the all of the cameras, including the West Camera. I sent them a screenshot of the device showing what the picture is. Something the Board has never asked for or seen.

I think the Board will be wrong if my request is denied. I feel strong enough about this to take them to court. I feel I have some logical questions they need to consider, which they won't, so a Judge will have to convince them.

I will keep everyone update one status of this problem.

Ron

MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,836

Posted:

Suing your HOA is suing yourself and your neighbors. Would you have the support of others in your pursuit to keep the cameras? Most likely not. I know for one anything outside of the "ring" camera or normal security view ones, I am out. Plus it's none of your business what goes on at common areas like the pool. That's just really creepy and rude.

Former HOA President

RonaldW10 (Missouri)
Posts: 15

Posted:

Hello Melissa,

Please don't take this wrong, but you did the same thing the Board did. You made a decision without the facts. If you will allow me to send an example of the picture the camera takes you would said "What is the big deal?". Please give me your email address if you want to see the picture.

Also, what is the difference between a camera that shows the pool and NO DETAIL about those at the pool and someone who uses the cell phone to take a picture, with MUCH HIGHER resolution, and post that on Facebook?

Just asking.

I know if I sue the Board, I am sue myself. But if something is WRONG, then it should be corrected.
Right now there are two wrongs:
1. The Rule
2. The Board not using commonsense

Ron

MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,836

Posted:

The fact is regardless of the "detail" it shows, it's still HOA property. Property that no one wants in a photo, camera, or video tape. Plus what if there was a crime committed there? Would you hand over your tape to the HOA or the victim to use for the police report and/or court?

The overall fact is that NO if you do not have permission to use a camera outside normal security survelliance, then it should go. None of which seems to fall into this catagory. A ring cam has a purpose. Camera's pointed directly around your property has a reason. Camera's pointed outside of that range is just not right.

Former HOA President

AlyS (Tennessee)
Posts: 6

Posted:

You said you installed the camera to see the lake activity. Anything inside your unit is your business (IMO) but you really should read your HOA by-laws to specifically define the verbiage regarding how a Ring doorbell fits into the equation (or talk to an attorney if the cameras are that important to you). My argument for the Ring is your personal safety. The outside cameras may very well be an invasion of others' privacy, especially the pool area. If I were wearing a swimsuit, I would certainly not want to be recorded on video or any camera and I would feel violated if I found out I was.

BillD16 (Texas)
Posts: 973

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By RonaldW10 on 06/19/2022 5:01 PM
I appreciate everything everyone has posted concerning this question. At this time I think it is best to wait to hear what the Board does with my request to leave the all of the cameras, including the West Camera. I sent them a screenshot of the device showing what the picture is. Something the Board has never asked for or seen.

I think the Board will be wrong if my request is denied. I feel strong enough about this to take them to court. I feel I have some logical questions they need to consider, which they won't, so a Judge will have to convince them.

I will keep everyone update one status of this problem.

Ron

Ron - thank you. I will be curious to hear how this turns out.

One thing: I urge you to try to resolve this matter in a friendly manner, without getting lawyers involved. The Board may indeed be a bunch of buffoons, but really, everyone would be happier if y'all can come to a friendly understanding about this issue. They might be jerks as well as buffoons and not be open to it; and that is their folly. But for yourself: please try to take the high road; it has benefits beyond the immediate issue.

Best regards,

BillD

HOA Board ex-President
Austin, Texas USA

“You can’t put too much water in a nuclear reactor”

JohnC46 (South Carolina)
Posts: 14,265

Posted:

A camera pointed at a pool for ones viewing pleasure could well be considered an invasion of privacy.

SheliaH (Indiana)
Posts: 6,964

Posted:

What AlyS said.

Even if you were able to upload a photo, that’s still inconclusive because that’s only ONE shot at a specific time of day. What does it see when you’re at work or somewhere else, or when you’re sleeping? Are you staring at the footage all day?

You say you feel the rule is unreasonable, but so far, I haven’t heard a specific reason why you feel that way and you haven’t addressed the privacy issue AT ALL. If you want to pursue this, you need to talk to an attorney to see what your options are – and if the cost and potential bad feelings by your neighbors towards you will be worth it.

If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it. Marcus Aurelius

RonaldW10 (Missouri)
Posts: 15

Posted:

Bill, I really wish I could take the "Friendly" path. The Board doesn't publish an agenda, they make decisions without HOA knowledge, and they don't follow up on things.
The rule about cameras was just changed and then an email sent out telling everyone about the change. NO discussion....

I know they are doing the best the can, but really?

Ron

JeffT2 (Iowa)
Posts: 880

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By RonaldW10 on 06/19/2022 5:01 PM
I appreciate everything everyone has posted concerning this question. At this time I think it is best to wait to hear what the Board does with my request to leave the all of the cameras, including the West Camera. I sent them a screenshot of the device showing what the picture is. Something the Board has never asked for or seen.

I think the Board will be wrong if my request is denied. I feel strong enough about this to take them to court. I feel I have some logical questions they need to consider, which they won't, so a Judge will have to convince them.

I will keep everyone update one status of this problem.

Ron

In regard to the board's decision, the biggest problem with a lawsuit is that the board can invoke the "business judgment rule." According to this legal principle, as long as the board is acting in good faith, a court will not substitute its judgment for the board's. It does not matter if you are right and the board is wrong. It's not the business of the court to second guess decisions of a board. I don't think your board is acting in bad faith (such as prejudice, malfeasance, etc.), so it is just their opinion vs yours. Your picture may show that you are right, but you will never get that far.

That said, you may (or may not) have a case for cameras that are inside your unit. Do you know the boundaries of your unit? Is the ring camera on an outside wall that is outside the boundaries of your unit? Is the deck a limited common element?

RonaldW10 (Missouri)
Posts: 15

Posted:

Shelia, maybe I am wrong, but how can someone have an expectation of privacy at a public pool? The picture I am trying to upload shows one person at the pool. It is hard to tell if it is male or female (if you look hard you can see there is no top so I am assuming a male).

From LawInsider.Com

Reasonable expectation of privacy means circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that the person could disrobe or partially disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that the person disrobing or partially disrobing was being viewed, photographed, or filmed when doing so.

A public swimming pool does not fit this definition. I will say pointing a camera at a neighbor's backyard to watch them swimming would be in invasion of privacy. Different than our pool though.

Ron

SheliaH (Indiana)
Posts: 6,964

Posted:

Who owns this swimming pool? If it’s the association, it’s not a “public pool” like what you’d have in a water park that charges admission, but an amenity for the residents and their families. That means the association can establish rules regarding its use.

Jeff makes some good points and you’d better consider them carefully if you want to pursue this. You do have a 50-50 chance of winning after all, but what will you do if a judge rules against you – keep this going on appeal? How important is this camera to you – or are you more interested in making a point?

I’d still try talking to the board about what you’re trying to do and perhaps negotiate a compromise. For example, do you NEED to have this on 24/7? Why not turn it off at night?

If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it. Marcus Aurelius

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

Jeff asks: "Do you know the boundaries of your unit? Is the ring camera on an outside wall that is outside the boundaries of your unit? Is the deck a limited common element?"
I've tried to ask that question too, Jeff, but, l silicone. Either Ronald doesn't understand the question or doesn't know the answer.

BillD16 (Texas)
Posts: 973

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By SheliaH on 06/20/2022 12:22 PM

Even if you were able to upload a photo, that’s still inconclusive because that’s only ONE shot at a specific time of day. What does it see when you’re at work or somewhere else, or when you’re sleeping? Are you staring at the footage all day?

You say you feel the rule is unreasonable, but so far, I haven’t heard a specific reason why you feel that way and you haven’t addressed the privacy issue AT ALL. If you want to pursue this, you need to talk to an attorney to see what your options are – and if the cost and potential bad feelings by your neighbors towards you will be worth it.

I think it's unfair for you to insinuate that Ron is perving over his camera feeds.

As for privacy etc: it might be a private community pool, but that does not mean that pool users have an expectation of privacy (unless they're in the changing area or bathroom). I've been unable to find actual Missouri law, but I haven't found a single state so far that legislates that a private community pool confers an expectation of privacy. I Am Not A Lawyer, etc. I'd be surprised but also very interested if anyone can point me at some actual law and prove me wrong, for any state in the USA.

On the other hand, I'll easily concede that it's probably completely legit for the HOA to try to control the use of cameras.

But it all just seems so silly to me, because if they are attempting to address pervert photography, they really need to focus (sorry) on cellphones.

There are limits to the kinds of protections that the law can reasonably provide. It does already provide certain protections regarding the publication and distribution of photos. I assume the reason that some people object to being photographed in a swimsuit is because they object to someone engaging in private erotic gratification with the photo? Yeah, it sounds ucky when I put it like that. But the simple fact is that people have memories, and the only way to prevent someone from adding the image of your swimsuited - or fully-dressed - body to their "spank bank" is to stay at home all day and out of sight.

{To be clear, I'm not a fan of this kind of 'erotic photography'. There used to be (possibly still is?) a nude beach here in Austin, I used to go there occasionally back when I was young and my nude body was not offensive to the eye. And there were bozos with large boats who cruised just barely outside of the limits of the beach area, and there'd be 20 or 30 guys on deck snapping away with film cameras and telephoto lenses. I thought it was pretty sleazy. And, I guess, cowardly: You could pay $5 and actually visit the beach and pretty easily strike up a conversation with an actual naked person if you wanted to. But I guess that was too 'scary')

BillD

HOA Board ex-President
Austin, Texas USA

“You can’t put too much water in a nuclear reactor”

RonaldW10 (Missouri)
Posts: 15

Posted:

Bill, I am glad you are on a Board. You think things through and have a good way of expressing yourself.

I said earlier that when my Board is wrong then things should be changed. This Board DOES NOT listen to the owners. It is their way or the highway. The condos are a great place, but the Board makes rules without owner input. Once they are in place I am sure they will not change their mind. Only option then is legal.

I like to use extremes at times to prove a point: So here goes. If they force me to take the camera down, how can they stop me from standing on my condo deck and use my cell phone to take videos or pictures? Remember I also said their are condo owners who take pictures of the Sunset and post them on our Facebook page. The pictures have the pool in the pictures also. So can I take videos and pictures to post on Facebook? BEFORE you say anything: I would NEVER do that. That is a statement for the Courtroom.

Because of our financial situation I am sure the Board does not want to spend money on a lawyer. Just saying....

For those of you who think I am totally wrong, think about this: This could have been prevented if the Board would have discussed the matter with me and asked to see an example of the what the camera sees.

Ron

MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,836

Posted:

So now it's just how far you can piss with your heels dug into the ground. Mature...

Former HOA President

RonaldW10 (Missouri)
Posts: 15

Posted:

NO Melisa....

Are you saying because the Board has made a Rule and if I feel I am right, I should drop it because the Board is always right?

I am sorry, but that is not the American Way. We are built to challenge things.

MelissaP1 (Alabama)
Posts: 13,836

Posted:

No one said the board is always right. We are saying that you could be wrong in having a camera aimed toward it's common property. A rule that exists so people don't be nosy into areas they don't need to monitor.

Former HOA President

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

Don't include me in Melissa's "we;" I've a said nothing about possible privacy issues

I, & now Jeff, have asked if the decks are limited exclusive use common area? Or the individually property of the d condo owner.

JeffT2 (Iowa)
Posts: 880

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By KerryL1 on 06/20/2022 4:24 PM
Don't include me in Melissa's "we;" I've a said nothing about possible privacy issues

I, & now Jeff, have asked if the decks are limited exclusive use common area? Or the individually property of the d condo owner.

Yep. I also am not arguing the privacy or where they are pointed. Just that you won't get to present your case in court. I agree with you to pursue it with the board before going to court.

The board usually has the authority to make rules concerning the common elements. My guess is that there already is a rule that you can't place anything in the common elements without the board's permission. Which is why first Kerry and now I are asking about the deck and the front door (ring camera location). What do your documents say about these locations?

RonaldW10 (Missouri)
Posts: 15

Posted:

I will have to check to be certain. But basically I have been told everything inside the railing is my business except for the color of the curtains. The curtains can be seen from the lake and they want them to be white.

I can hang what I want, except for things like Dish antennas. I have designs on the all of the walls of my deck. I am also on the third floor of a 5 floor building.

SheliaH (Indiana)
Posts: 6,964

Posted:

Quote:

Posted By BillD16 on 06/20/2022 2:21 PM

Posted By SheliaH on 06/20/2022 12:22 PM

Even if you were able to upload a photo, that’s still inconclusive because that’s only ONE shot at a specific time of day. What does it see when you’re at work or somewhere else, or when you’re sleeping? Are you staring at the footage all day?

You say you feel the rule is unreasonable, but so far, I haven’t heard a specific reason why you feel that way and you haven’t addressed the privacy issue AT ALL. If you want to pursue this, you need to talk to an attorney to see what your options are – and if the cost and potential bad feelings by your neighbors towards you will be worth it.

I think it's unfair for you to insinuate that Ron is perving over his camera feeds.

As for privacy etc: it might be a private community pool, but that does not mean that pool users have an expectation of privacy (unless they're in the changing area or bathroom). I've been unable to find actual Missouri law, but I haven't found a single state so far that legislates that a private community pool confers an expectation of privacy. I Am Not A Lawyer, etc. I'd be surprised but also very interested if anyone can point me at some actual law and prove me wrong, for any state in the USA.

On the other hand, I'll easily concede that it's probably completely legit for the HOA to try to control the use of cameras.

But it all just seems so silly to me, because if they are attempting to address pervert photography, they really need to focus (sorry) on cellphones.

There are limits to the kinds of protections that the law can reasonably provide. It does already provide certain protections regarding the publication and distribution of photos. I assume the reason that some people object to being photographed in a swimsuit is because they object to someone engaging in private erotic gratification with the photo? Yeah, it sounds ucky when I put it like that. But the simple fact is that people have memories, and the only way to prevent someone from adding the image of your swimsuited - or fully-dressed - body to their "spank bank" is to stay at home all day and out of sight.

{To be clear, I'm not a fan of this kind of 'erotic photography'. There used to be (possibly still is?) a nude beach here in Austin, I used to go there occasionally back when I was young and my nude body was not offensive to the eye. And there were bozos with large boats who cruised just barely outside of the limits of the beach area, and there'd be 20 or 30 guys on deck snapping away with film cameras and telephoto lenses. I thought it was pretty sleazy. And, I guess, cowardly: You could pay $5 and actually visit the beach and pretty easily strike up a conversation with an actual naked person if you wanted to. But I guess that was too 'scary')

BillD

I don't know where you got the notion I think Ronald is a perv - apparently, YOU'RE reading into stuff that isn't there (after all, you're the one who bought up this erotic privacy stuff).

Anyway, I STILL haven't heard an argument for keeping the camera aimed at the pool other than "it's not a private pool" or some such. If the camera happens to capture part of that, is there any reason it can't be turned away from that spot? Other than the security cameras for the house (which I don't object to at all), is there a reason the others have to be on 24/7. As I suggested earlier, turn it off at night - little things like that may resolve the "privacy issue."

All of that said, Ronald, if you really feel this way, take the thing to a court or informal dispute resolution and see what happens. I don't live in your community, so it doesn't make a difference to me, but right now, this is beginning to take on a "pissing match" vibe. The board could very well be overreacting, but the way you might fix that is to rally the homeowners around you and they might back down (y'all vote these people in after all, and you can vote them out or recall them). So go ahead - walk around the community and talk to the homeowners about this situation and see how they feel. Some might agree with you - and if now, you can make your argument and see how it flies. Good luck to you!

If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it. Marcus Aurelius

RonaldW10 (Missouri)
Posts: 15

Posted:

Shelia, please go back and read my original posting. I stated I have 4 cameras pointed at different locations on the lake. I live at Lake of the Ozarks at the intersection of three major branches of the lake. The camera in question is NOT pointed at the pool. It is pointed to the West of the lake. The main aimpoint is the lake. The pool just happens to be in the lower section of the camera view.

Plus, the are many people who live here that take pictures of the different views, a lot pointed to the Sunset (west direction again) and the pool is shown also. They post these pictures on our Facebook page. It seems to me that if my camera has to be taken down, then the Board will also have to BAN people taking pictures with the cell phones.

Shelia I hope this helps to explain my problem and reasoning.

Ron

KerryL1 (California)
Posts: 14,550

Posted:

The language about whether your deck is exclusive use limited common elements is in your CC&Rs. A definition might be at the very beginning of that document in sort of a little glossary.

LoriM15 (Florida)
Posts: 1,009

Posted:

Question - how did the board find out that you had cameras on your deck (which must be a balcony since you are on a higher floor of the building)? Was there a complaint from a neighbor? You say you have security cameras, including a ring doorbell, on the front of your condo. Is the board saying those have to go also? Or are they making a distinction between the front cameras and the rear cameras?