CHANNAHON — Although many who live in newer subdivisions enjoy the protections outlined in homeowners’ association covenants, residents of the 50 houses in the Deer Ridge subdivision say they do not want one.
All, save one whom residents say wasn’t home when they called, signed a petition they brought to Monday evening’s Channahon Village Board meeting stating they do not want to establish a homeowners’ association in their subdivision.
They were promised there would be no association when they purchased their residences, they told trustees, which is the reason some found the site so attractive. But now, according to the 20 or so residents, the developer, Mark Skaggs, is telling them the village is requiring him to set an association up.
--------------------
Thousands of words appeared on this blog since last weekend when I asserted HOAs lack acceptance as legitimate local governing authorities and are regarded as intrusive, overbearing juntas of volunteer directors with too much time on their hands aided by managers and attorneys seeking to maximize fee-driven enforcement activities and litigation revenue.
It therefore wasn’t surprising to read of this revolt against an attempt by the village elders of Channahon, Illinois to force 50 properties into an unwanted HOA as the village attorney told opponents an HOA to watch over them would protect their property values. To the HOA opponents, that “protection” is likely about as desirable as protection provided by Tony Soprano and crew.
The revolt against forced HOA governance could be spreading. Note the comment in the story by Channahon Village Board Trustee Debbie Militello, who is quoted as saying she has heard of many residents unhappy with their associations and recently met with a group of homeowners in another subdivision that is fighting a similar annexation into Privatopia.
4 comments:
> Thousands of words appeared on this blog since last weekend
> when I asserted HOAs lack acceptance as legitimate local
> governing authorities
For the benefit of those who didn't follow that discussion, here are direct links to the blog posts Fred is talking about:
Saturday, December 31, 2011
HOA convenants not generally regarded as contracts
Posted by Fred Pilot at 9:57 AM
http://privatopia.blogspot.com/2011/12/hoa-convenants-not-generally-regarded.html
Monday, January 02, 2012
Do Americans consider CC&Rs Contracts, Revisited
Posted by Evan McKenzie at 1:55 PM
http://privatopia.blogspot.com/2012/01/do-americans-consider-cc-contracts.html
Monday, January 02, 2012
Do owners believe CC&Rs are contracts, part trois...
Tyler Berding tried to comment my long post in response to the
Pilot/Berding exchange, but Blogger rejected it as too long. I am
posting Tyler's response here:
Posted by Evan McKenzie at 10:24 PM
http://privatopia.blogspot.com/2012/01/do-owners-believe-cc-are-contracts-part.html
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
George Staropoli on the "Do owners believe CC&Rs are contracts?" debate
From George Staropoli comes this response to the Pilot/Berding discussion:
Posted by Evan McKenzie at 9:48 PM
http://privatopia.blogspot.com/2012/01/george-staropoli-on-do-owners-believe.html
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
Fred Fischer on the "Do owners believe CC&Rs are contracts?" debate
Fred Fischer weighs in:
Posted by Evan McKenzie at 9:49 PM
http://privatopia.blogspot.com/2012/01/fred-fischer-on-do-owners-believe-cc.html
As more and more of The Truth in HOAs is made public by the reluctant media and government officials, realizing that they cannot continue to deny reality, we should be seeing more and more opposition to HOAs.
In the past, how could buyers turn away from HOAs when all they were told is that HOAs were the closest thing to heaven on earth as can be, but no negatives were even whispered.
Ha...Here is a case where they have to shove the "contract" right down their throats.
It is wonderful to see that folks are becoming fully aware of what an ill-conceived nightmare these HOAs really are.
The residence of Deer Ridge made a good and wise decision by not believing anyone who claimed that forming an HOA was going to maintain (can also decrease) their property values or make their neighborhood a better place to live. Because there is no such thing as “association covenants” that were designed to maintain their property values, that’s misleading and a misnomer. Yes some covenants can help maintain property values except the association had nothing to do with those since they never created them. In addition some covenants are of no clear mutual benefit, are necessary because they mirror already existing municipal ordnances, are of subjects that would better serve the CID as a rule and that sometimes contain ambiguous language that does nothing but cause conflicts.
Specifically covenants (are equitable servitudes) and housing associations (are non-profit corporate entities) are two different subjects. The developer creates covenants for various reasons (that include protecting itself from liability) primarily to sell and manage his properties until the condo/homeowner/co-ops members elected Board takes over. The association on the other hand is created separately to govern the affairs of the association as most often mandated (imposed upon buyers) as a condition of zoning by municipalities and not voluntary created by the developer as they were before the 1960’s. Consequently the affairs of the association otherwise known as its scope are spelled out in State statutes and in the declaration (contract). Which is primarily “to own and operate portions of a CID” (not the private properties) such as the commonly owned properties, street right of ways and amenities. As far as enforcing the covenants to protect those property values, that was not decided by the association or even the developer either. Instead that authority was granted to housing associations by the courts long ago in addition to the members who always had that authority individually. So anyone who claims that a housing association must be created in order to enforce the CID covenants is blatantly lying and trying to mislead someone.
Finally it’s obvious that the Village goofed during their initial planning and approval process and was trying to pawn off the maintenance costs of the “public spaces” onto the neighborhood owners through the formation of a housing association, so that they would not have to maintain them at Village expense.
Post a Comment