Evidence from Texas indicates homeowners associations lead to reduced home values

This news report from Houston is worth watching.

http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/khou090205_tnt_homeowners-associations.210534d6.html

George, I watched the video. It is correct that forclosures reduce property values; but to infer this is created by the HOA is usually false propaganda. Normally it is the mortgage company which initiates foreclosure. Meanwhile, it is important during periods when owners are not able to pay their assessments for the HOA's Board to become creative so they do not exascerbate the foreclosure problem.

Sorry, I forgot to add. The headline reads " COULD HOAs Hurt the Value of your home" This is journalism at its best. The key word in the title is "COULD" Many people will do just what I did and that is to assume that HOAs WILL hurt the value of your home. Remember our discussions on "can, will, may and shall?" Totally different meanings.

George, you're taking a beating you don't deserve.

I thought for a while before posting this to CAN's news feed (which HOATalk picks up on it's home page). Normally something that is this one-sided is found on the op-ed page, or on a Fox station, and I don't post it as news. However, when it is presented as "news", I post it so that people can see what is being written about community associations. This is part of the reason community associations have had problems in the past, and why it is getting worse. The angry person tells there story, and they're always portrayed as the underdog, while the association usually says No comment" while hiding behind their attorney. If anything's (besides the economy) is driving value's down, it is because of the way they are looking on TV and in print.

Beanie has been battering HOA's for years now, she' know's what she's doing in her ongoing efforts to put the worst possible light on anything related to them. The LWV woman doesn't have a clue about what she's saying.

The points to take away from this post/story/ is that the news, especially TV news, rarely tells anything close to a complete story; that anyone, and often everyone, can use selective data to make their point, and that community associations as a group, as well as the so-called professionals that work with them, are extraordinarily bad at PR.

Joe

I don't know, haven't we seen equal claims that HOA's protect and enhance property values. Do those people also have an agenda. I've been reading more and more of the headlines on HOA Talk that seem to indicate there are definitely issues with the collective impact a HOA can have on HO's. Ie. the article yesterday someone posted about the lady who along with 20+ other HO's has paid her water bill of ~160 or so, and she may have to move.

Nope, totally disagree with the statement in bold.

It's a looooong way from people claiming or of the OPINION that HOAs increase value, or TEND to increase value, or at the very least MAINTAIN value, and then to state unequivicobly that EVIDENCE INDICATES.

EVIDENCE does NOT indicate.

This is NOT about other reports that are fairly presented and fairly promoted. No one is claiming there are no issues with HOAs.

But, again, at the risk of redundancy, that's still a far cry from purposely reframing. Which is what I believe that "George" has done.

And, DJ, I'm so sorry that you will continue to have issues with verbiage, like the red shed issue, but that is your own personal problem.

The governing documents that give the board the right to interpret the inevitable ambiguous language in almost all, or at least in a great majority of HOAs, addresses your hair-splitting propensities!

No one claims their docs or anyone else's are free from ambiguity or poorly constructed verbiage. But that unfortunate situation does not negate the documents themselves, nor does it paralyze boards from working to address the language errors.

There you go again!

Don't get into a word war with a Spin Doctor.

Try as you might, you just won't win!

His subject line was dogmatic and purposefully misleading.

There is no "evidence" of the kind.

Come on, now, grab some tea and a good book and relax.

Of COURSE we all have some bias, that's human nature, and obviously, since this board is SUPPOSED to be a "positive place for community association leaders to share ideas and learn," many of us will have a pro-association slant, for the most part.

Which makes someone with "George's" particular point of view that much more noticeable.

No need to see red over it!

No one is arguing against your last paragraph, by the way.

But had the homeowner with the RED shed and TAN home "followed" the rules in the first place and received proper approval before building the apparently non-compliant shed, he/she most likely wouldn't be seeing "red" (either in his shed or his bank account) after the fact.

Do you really want us to keep arguing a point of view that is 180' opposite on this particular case?

We were so feeling the love before that, too!

FYI. . .

Check out the following two links and see for yourself what Beanie is all about and exactly what her foreclosure data reveals. BTW, I see nothing about reduced property values in HOAs that have high foreclosure rates! Read the objectives of her HOA advocacy org, one of which is to "see equal justice and equal tretment for TX homeowners udner theconsitutions of TX and of the U.S." No matter that HOAs are private entities and not subject to "constitutional" protections, per se. This, in itself, tells me Beanie has no use for HOAs. Also of note is that her "advocacy" started when her civic assn was turned into a mandatory HOA a number of years ago.

Oops, forgot to include the links:

Beanie's org - TX Homeowner's for HOA Reform: http://www.texashoareformlorg

Beanie's Foreclosure http://www.prodigy.net/hoadata/

Of course I can!

I'm not a "judge," so I don't have to stand by the level of the bar that Judge Judy does.

However, there are many many times where she can make determinations and assessments, based on past history and past statements.

The pattern of communication from "George" has left it's mark.

I already agreed that there is nothing wrong in the least with reading about and knowing and understanding all the "warts" that come with association living.

Again, that's a distraction from my main point, which is that the subject line in and of itself was not only a misrepresentation, but, based on past performance, most likely an intentional one.

The disagreement isn't over the posting of and discussion of the content of the article.

Many here are doing that.

You and I, however, seem to be locked in a struggle over whether or not the subject line was misleading.

I say it was.

You say it wasn't.

Again, 180' endpoints that will never be joined!

How much less manipulative would a subject line like this have been:

"News Report in Texas Discusses Claims That HOAs Lead to Reduced Home Values"

No bias. No bull. No slant. No "statement" in and of itself.

Someone just glancing through the subject titles on the forum would not get the seed planted "Gee, there's evidence somewhere that proves HOAs lower home values! I'll read it later. . . "

And, of course, doesn't have time, whatever.

I know he didn't use the word "proves," but that's my point. Remember, my career was in "spin." Certain words trigger various subconscious connections.

The word "evidence" itself suggests something concrete and credible. Then to point that "evidence" at the lowering of home values by HOAs, well, one dot leads to another. . . .

By the time one reads the article one is already of the mindset that there's some credible standard of proof there. And, there clearly wasn't.

So the problem isn't with the article, it's with the portrayal of what it contained.

He's more than welcome in his accompanying text to his opinion that what is in the article is "evidence" to him and good enough in an of itself.

But he should be more "credible" in his own subject lines.

And, given "George's" propensity to be completely aware of language and its nuances, I don't believe for one minute that it was unintended skew.

And back to the poor sad worn-out dead horse named Red Shed, I also don't believe the homeowner just painted his red. Regardless of what he may or may not have understood "color scheme" to mean (even though we really don't know the actual verbiage of the covenant, only the poster's paraphrasing of it), it was pretty clear that whatever he did wasn't even run by the board or Arch Committee for approval. It's been a while since I read the post, but from my take away, the shed that was red was out of compliance from day one. It either was never approved or the color was never presented for approval.

We were lucky here in our subdivision to escape most of the ice damage. Our electric only went out briefly, but my father-in-law's went out, as did my daughter's. So FIL and his pet, daughter and family and their pets, and us and our pets all huddled in the house for the duration. It lasted about a week.

One thing I know now, cats generally don't make friends with other cats that easily.

Michele, before any of us read a subject line we have a slant so I don't think the headline is going to change much. It might inspire me to read the article if it goes strongly for or against my belief.

Kind of like if I was planning to travel to Scotland to see Castles I might be inclined to read article of interest to me.

On this Michele we can agree, "it was pretty clear that whatever he did wasn't even run by the board or Arch Committee for approval" if you mean the CURRENT board/Arch, cause they just took over.

The problem arise with what HO's did between the time the developer was in control in the 2 prior years and just recently when the turnover to a resident controlled board took place. Leaves the current BOD with the dilemma of enforcing what THEY now believe to be violations (either in the CCR's or their interpretation of them...remember that veto clause) vs what the developer may have approved either outright or tacitly. That's also where the 'veto' clause can be an issue since one board can read RED as fine and the next, not.

It wouldn't be the first time the developer approved something contrary to the CCR', or didn't bother enforcing during his tenure.

Gotta watch out for those dead horses, sometimes their trojan and you never know what kind of a mess you'll find inside them.

Thank you, Joe. Your observations are well reasoned.

I have been following this thread, reading posts as they have been made. It is fascinating to see how individual posters choose to interpret and respond to my original post. The ad homeniem knee jerk responses display an almost ostrich-head-in-the-sand approach to the issue, whether it is perceived to be legitimate or not. It is attack-the messenger time for daring to post something people don't seem to want to hear.

All I said was that it was "worth watching." Even in the subject line, I was careful to use the word "indicates" rather than a more positive word such as "proves" or "shows" or "demonstrates." I made no comment regarding an endorsement of it. Yet, I have been castigated as if I support the thesis of the news report that I had nothing to do with.

I am pleased that I have learned not to take such attacks personally. Instead, I have come to know that ad homeniem responses demonstrate the weakness of an argument. "If we can't challenge the veracity of the argument, then we will attack the credibility, character and motives of the poster." I have yet to see any data that refutes the thesis of the report (not that I endorse it).

This is an investigative report by a legitimate, main stream news organization. It is watched by thousands of people. And, the thesis of the report has been reinforced by a leader of a long-standing, recognized and respected non-partisan organization that has made (according to the report) its own investigation. These are the kind of things that shape public opinion and influence legislative interest in increased regulation of homeowners associations--for good and ill. It is important for association leaders to understand the public opinion shaping that is going on in the real world if they are to deal with the fallout from it. Such investigative reports are enormously influential. Simply dismissing them will not make them go away.

A wise leader will seek to understand all points of view, not simply reject uncomfortable or disagreeable ones out of hand--particularly those viewpoints (regardless of merits) that are shaping public opinion.

And then there are the attacks on the source of the data. More legitimate to be sure, but there has been nothing posted here, other than questions about the data, that refutes either the raw data or the correlation/interpretation that results from it. A wise leader will argue the data or the interpretation, not the attributed motives of the source.

Although I did not intend this posting to generate such a vitriolic response, it tells a great deal about the perceived mind set of some of the most vocal defenders/advocates/champions of homeowners associations. They should be aware as to how their responses may strengthen the positions of people who hold differing opinions, particularly if those people are influential in the legislative arena.

Maybe, just maybe there is something of value to be learned here from the investigative report and the responses.

George,

You said: "I have come to know that ad homeniem responses demonstrate the weakness of an argument. "If we can't challenge the veracity of the argument, then we will attack the credibility, character and motives of the poster.""

You have described the mindset of the HOA abolitionists (who populate many of the HOA newsgroups). Frankly, I've not seen that on this group. What you describe usually happens when one is perceived as defending HOAs.

George, I think you may be interested in joining the yahoo group called "Hoanet". http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hoanet/ You'll have to join in order to read any messages. Check it out!

As a matter of fact the point of the article was not that HOA's lead to reduced home value but that in HOA's that foreclose the value doesn’t rise as much as in HOA's that don't foreclose.

From the article:

She says in Houston neighborhoods where HOAs filed foreclosures, property values went up 32 percent.

In subdivisions where HOAs didn’t file any foreclosures, prices increased 59 percent.

She also didn't have comparisions in these HOAs b/4 foreclosure. Perhaps the neighborhoods where the prop. values increased are areas where there is always a higher rise in property values -- for whatever reason, and vice versa for the neighborhoods where the increase was not as high. For instance in some neighborhoods the property values may rise 10%/yr, but in other neighborhoods the rise is usually around 5%/yr.