GIANT purple people eater 3 car garage

AGAINST

OMG he actually owns and controls his property.

Private ownership with government control is called ............. Fascism.

Please remember that Mussolini was elected.

The purpose of a HOA is to operate and maintain the commonly owned elements.

The purpose of the restrictive covenants is to maximise the profits to the developer.

I repeat, the purpose of a HOA is to operate and maintain the common elements.

Possibly to enforce lawn care - except in the event of a water shortage - oops .... here come the arguments and law suits because the volunteer BODs do not understand laws which trump the CC&Rs.

Again, I repeat: The purpose of a HOA is to operate and maintain the common elements.

Mussolini's purpose was to get the trains running on schedule.

I thought it interesting that the one homeowner said the rights of the neighborhood were being violated.

Personally, I dislike extremely restrictive covenants. I understand certain covenants that may actually serve a purpose, but paint colors and styles are completely different in my opinion. This garage may be unattractive, but I believe people have forgotten the principles of investing...

Homeownership in America has risen over the past four decades and an increasing emphasis is placed on property value. As many HOAs state, covenants increase the property value and that the home is the largest purchase and investment for people.

That being said, people want to protect their investment and side with covenants that may hinder another person's right. I have heard numerous times from people that if you don't like the covenants, then you should move (or in some instances they want the covenants changed to better suit them), but in my opinion, I think that those who say that are not truly understanding how the market works.

If I purchase a home, and then the property value raises, I made a good investment. If my property value falls, I made a poor investment. If my neighbor thinks it is a great idea to paint their home neon and that it will maximize their investment (and assuming there are no covenants), and as a result I feel my investment has been hurt, I would be left with a couple options:

1) Sell my investment for whatever gain or loss I had made, or
2) Retain my investment for hopes to further increases.

There is no sure thing, and whether you believe HOAs increase or decrease property values, there is no way to guarantee an investment. Diversify your investments to protect yourself, because as many have probably realized in the past couple years, you cannot depend on housing markets to keep you afloat...

I agree that there is nothing wrong with amending covenants, especially to loosen restrictive ones, or to clear up vague wording...

It's the creation of more restrictive covenants that I am opposed to... things like keeping easements clear for utility workers or keeping grade levels to allow for proper drainage is essential! But silly rules I feel are the things that cause so many homeowners to to become wary of HOAs and distrustful of their intentions.

Now if the owners of that purple monstrosity are reading this, I hope your home is not as horrible an interpretation of the style as your garage is. Victorian architecture is not meant to be so dull and boring so change the color scheme and add more trim and do something about those windows!!! (If you couldn't tell, I had originally been an architecture student).

Okay, that brightened my day! From the looks of it, it was inevitable that that property was going to have a house on it which would have obstructed Mr. Juel's view, so that's a non-issue. But the color is hilarious! Clearly these complaining folks moved to a unrestricted neighborhood to be, well, UNRESTRICTED!

I especially loved telescope woman describing the view from one of her windows as being "pristine," when on her property I counted four cars that someone surely had to look at every time they looked out their window.

I, for one, despise the ubiquitous beige of my neighborhood of Martha Stewart starter-homes. It's dead, unimaginative, ugly and just flat-out, bone-cracking boring. Someone put in a deep purple door when they built their house and the neighborhood started twitching and hyper-venilating.

So, will a lavender house depreciate surrounding property values more or less than a property that looks like a used car lot? And therein lies the rub - beauty or ugly is in the eye of the beholder. I'm pretty sure re-assessing property values on how many vehicles one has on their property would just turn those folks into whirling dervishes!

Give me a lavender house any day over the also ubiquitous dog-and-trailer-belt mentality. Bring on the color!

Dorothy

That was pretty dern funny Dorothy. As a painter/artist. I look at this lavender as a soft color. If it were my house, I would embellish it as Kevin said, putting some shutters and frett work to finish off the Victorian look. It could be made to look like an awesom old farm house with just a little tweeking. The new developement that I am in even goes so far as to require a certain breed of turf grass. Now that is restrictive!

Yeah, How about "Tall Fescue" The reason being that it will remain green all year long. Developer wants to sell some homes and it is his idea that green will get the job done.

soooo...... once he is gone, is it still a "bad" restriction? I mean, if it keeps lawns green all year round and someone deems that maintains property values (ie, makes other homes easier to sell in the neighborhood), then you have no point.

No one denied that SOME restrictions are not written for his favor/maximization.

But not all of them are, and many are, indeed, intended to minimize loss of home value.

Again, because some MIGHT be written to benefit the developer, doesn't mean all of them are and doesn't mean that many don't benefit individual HOA members as well.

Personally, I think dictating the type of lawn is silly, but, once the developer leaves, if there are enough like-minded folks in the neighborhood as me, then we can amend OUR restrictions and eliminate that one, can't we?

Company Town - PUD - HOA ... six of one, 1/2 dozen of another.

All built for individual profit ... not the needs of the (eventual) occupants.

Sorry, did not want to hijack the thread for a political rant.

First, what helps the developer sell also helps the owner resell. So much of that is good for both sides.

Second it amazes me the number who are against restrictions and whine and cry when someone does something they don't like next door. And at the same time others buy with restrictions and figure they should apply to everyone but them.

Now the area that needs some attention from legislatures is developer control. There needs to be laws that give some realistic time frame that the owners get (full and total) control. I would think that the owners should have equal footing for voting people onto the board about the 2/3rds to 3/4 mark. (and the standard should be occupancy certificates). Additionally the amount of time the developer has should be reduced. Perhaps a combination of five years from when the first completion for a logical area or if there is more then a one year pause in construction. At that point the developer loses most all controls. Give them a couple years to restart and they lose all control.

Laws should place a heavy burden on developers to properly finance the HOA. Among laws that should be in place:

• Developers should pay a minimum of 1/3 the dues for each lot from day 1.


• Developers should be bared from "lending" money to the HOA. They should simply be forced to make it up for any year they retain any control.


• Developers should be legally required to provide an initial reserve study and new ones any year after significant improvements are made.


• Developers should be held to a higher standard for fiduciary duty. In short, they should know better.


Perhaps George should take this list in his consideration of legislation for his state. Prevent the reign that some developers reek on owners now.

Absolutely ridiculous.

We already have 3 rounds of amendments.

And we are not alone.

Those documents that are unchangeable are few and far between.

Try again.

In addition, Mary, the purpose of my initial posting is clear.

*IF* enough like minded. . .

means, obviously, if whatever threshold is required for an amendment to pass in each person's documents.

If the documents don't allow for any change within xx number of years, that is still usable information for me, the homebuyer.

If I don't like that they tell me what kind of grass I can have, then I have the option of either deciding it doesn't really raise to the level of dealbreaker for buying the house and I move forward and accept the restriction.

If the docs don't allow for amendments, and the grass thing is a deal-breaker for me, then I move on and don't purchase the property.

Oh, Donna, I see nothing wrong with the covenant, per se.

I just was making the comment that it might be a little much for me, but if the grass were a deal-breaker, guess what? I don't have to buy the house!

On the other hand, I would imagine that I would study the issue first, if I really really wanted the home.

In which case, I would no doubt run into what you have pointed out.

I think the whole thing is, going back to the beginning here, the Purple People-eater Garage is obviously not in a deed restricted community.

If it were, and the restrictions say no purple buildings/garages (or even only blue, or only white and green, whatever), then obviously the homeowner would have to comply.

If the homeowner bought into the community anyway, know he/she might want a purple garage, then the best they can hope for is to reach the proper voting threshold to amend the documents, if amending is allowed.

If the minimum number of people required to make a change want something changed, they can get it done.

If the number who want a change can't meet that threshold, then the docs stay as they are.

As it should be.

That's all I'm saying.