Opinions Suggestions - One vote per lot - Per lot owned

Hello, Just a few questions, what would you do?....

How do you like the phrases "One vote per lot owned" and/or "Per lot owned"

The first, "One vote per lot owned" seems like a complete screw-up, if there are 30 vacant lots and you come in and buy 16 of them, then you have control over the subdivision, since you now have the majority of votes,correct?

Is that fair?

Second, "Per lot owned" also seems odd since that would apply to the road maintenance fees as well as, in my case possible road paving fees.

The problem is..I moved into the sub in 03, It has a 3/4mi gravel road. The hoa was gone or had a vague existence when I arrived. I was told by a former HOA member that most of the lot owners failed to pay the road maint fees,that the same people paid or did not pay every year and that the paying owners got tired of paying when others did not. So they too stopped paying, soon the road started going down hill.

For the past few months we have started up another HOA, voted on new board members and have had a few meetings, same people every time, 9 or 10 of the 32 owners.

>>>>>

Disagreements between myself and the HOA / Covenant

First thing I disagree with, the road maint fees are now due and they want me to pay per lot owned, in my case, two lots. To me,it would make more sense(fair)to pay per owner, or in the worst case, make the ones at the end of the road pay more and ones up front,pay less, they use more of the road. By the way, I am in the middle.

Second, Since we have has so many corrosion problems with the gravel/dirt we have had estimates to get it paved, $124,129. The HOA president wants to divide this by total lots,then pay per lots owned.

I own two lots, another guy at the end the road owns three lots.

Is this fair?

I have fought the "one vote per lot" and "per lot owned" since the beginning of the new HOA to no avail. To me this is not fair. Am I not seeing the light?

Opinions?

Thanks

Michael,
Unfortunately that you do not agree with the concept of 1 lot with 1 vote per lot.

Think about it from this angle. You will pay equal assessments for each lot owned so you should have equal say per each assessment that you pay. That is the way that it works. Sorry but that is the fairest way.

Michael, I like the use of one vote per lot and I like assessments per lot unless there are significant differences in their value - such as when one unit has twice the value of another. Example: for single family units of similar value the owner of 2 lots gets two votes and 2 assessments compared to an owner who owns 1 lot who gets one vote and 1 assessment.

However, it doesn't matter what I like; what matters is what your controlling documents state. If your road maintenance fee is separate from your assessment perhaps then perhaps the fair controlling document should require the road maintenance fee to be prorated by footage adjacent to each lot.

I stated 30 lots..one person owns 16 lots, the other 14 owned by others. The one person with 16 votes trumps the other 14...

Should any one person have control over the division? , given that the only reason they are receiveing "one vote per lot" is because they are accessed one fee "per lot"

I have the opportunity to apply two votes, I still see this as unfair to the others.

Michael,

Let's look at it another way. If that person who owns 16 lots only had to pay for one, where would all the $$ come from to pay the costs to run the assn? Each lot is levied an assessment because each lot owner benefits from the assn. If you own more than one lot you pay for each lot owned and as a benefit you are entitled to cast a vote for each lot owned. If you don't agree with this concept then you are living in the wrong place. All HOAs operate this way.

Michael,
You are basically trying to fix a system that ain't broke. Like Mary said, if you own multiple lots, this is how the voting works. You must give up that it isn't fair . It is the way it is. It has worked forever this way. An owner with that much investment should have say for each lot owned. Sorry

Michael,

I'll bet if the shoe was on the other foot, you wouldn't think it was unfair for YOU to have the controlling interest?

With reference to your example:
1) the association is run by a Board of Directors who each get one vote (no matter how many lots they own); and
2) with 16 lots you may be able to control who gets on the Board but then the Board still must act in good faith and make sound business decisions. If they do not then any member has legal recourse.

Usually the only time one entity has major control is the Developer and they control the association's initial Board. Then there can be what the homeowners may consider to be unfair practices. But the Developer has taken on a financial risk and without contro no Developer in their right mind would take on such a venture.

no, the farmer does not get more votes because he owns more land. That's because the US government voting system is simply 1 vote per person, not per $ or acre or child.. If it helps, think of this: ALaska has fewer representatives than california. Is that fair? Doesn't Alaska deserve equal rights with Florida, California, Texas?

It's fair, because Representatives are based on Population. If Alaska wants more Reps, they need to get more Population.

In your HOA, voting is based on Lot Ownership. Want more Votes? Buy more Lots.

Well, the first error in logic is yet again the application of standards of GOVERNMENT to a CORPORATION.

VOTES for American citizens, and VOTES for shareholders are two different things with completely different criteria.

In the case of the corporation, the amount of investment is directly related to the power within the corporation. In other words, if you have invested to the point where you own 53% of the voting stock then it is completely fair that you get to paint the building pink, if you want to!

Other shareholders may sell off and get out if they don't like pink, but as long as you have the investment level that gives you the most votes, then paint it pink if you want.

So, in answer to your question, it's completely fair.

I don't understand your issue with it.

Susan,
Your setup seems not kosher to me. When the Developer set up the developement, he divided it up as units. Each unit is a sorce for collection of assessments which in total, makes up the entire revenue. If the entire developement is bought by just 2 people, you mean to tell me that they, (the 2) will now just pay for 2 units worth of assessments and each have 1 vote? I find that preposterous to comprehend.

Susan, our votes/assessment obligations are not tied to the SIZE of the lot, either.

But the number of lots, regardless of size, since each lot has its own deed, and has its own assessment obligation.

Therefore, whoever owns the lot, again, regardless of size, owes the assessment obligation and has the right to exercise a vote.

So you are saying that if I own 10 lots, I still only pay ONE assessment, the same amount as someone who only has ONE lot?

Wow. If I were a multi-lot owner I would love that. Not so much if I were the single-lot owner.

This is an interesting thread. I did a search of about 363 covenant documents I have been collecting and scanning into machine readable format from Hoosierland and Illinois. I only found one community that has something other than one vote per unit.

Covenants from recreational community surrounding a lake in southern Indiana provide for 1/2 vote (and 1/2 assessment) per undeveloped lot. When the lot is built out and a home has received a certificate of occupancy then the unit vote and assessment increases to a full vote. (Also when a lot is purchased, there is a buy in fee of several thousand dollars designated for the association for capital improvements.)

The community in question provides several municipal-like services including private water and sewer utilities, roads and maintenance, and private dam maintenance.

Susan,
So what you are saying is that if I have two lots and I build a house (with water) on each lot, I would pay a full assessment on each lot (2 assessments), and still have only one vote? I would then be supporting the association with twice as much money as you would. Doesn't that entitle me to 2 membership and 2 votes?
BarbP

The original Articles of Incorporation for my neighborhood stated that a member received one vote for their property. If a person owned two or more lots, they would be limited to two votes...

I assume this was a measure added by the developer to limit their control in the establishment of an HOA.

If I owned 16 out of 30 lots, I would probably be upset if I did not have a say for every property I owned and I would probably be upset if a minority told me what to do with my property. I understand the limiting of votes as a measure to control the weight of one persons' vote... much like the Senate and the House of Representatives... why should Rhode Island have as many votes in the Senate as Texas or New York or California??? But if we only had the House, then Rhode Island would probably never get what they want!

Why can't their be bicameral HOAs?!

Personally, I would say keep the one vote per property, for even though it may seem unbalanced if you have two votes to another person's one, it is fair... and if you feel strongly about the rules, I would recommend either trying to change them or abstaining from using one of your votes (or use your extra vote against 3 house guy to try to balance it out for the little folks).

Michele, you're right! Bicameral means having 2 legislative chambers, such as Congress. Perhaps Kevin thinks HOAs should have 2 BODs. Wow wouldn't that give the members something to complain about!!!! Double your trouble, double your fun. . . LOL