Homeowner wins tree battle against Southern Highlands HOA - www.ktnv.com:
"In the Spring, the Southern Highlands HOA began sending Louis letters saying he was in violation for not having trees in his front yard. "My house has more greenery than any house you wanna go around and look at, and they're saying I still need a tree, which I do not agree with that." They told him he had to put two trees in, despite the fact that he bought the home brand new from builder Pulte Homes, who installed the landscape in 2002. "If they had came to us a year after we came, I would have probably had to give in, but 11 years?" Louis says incredulously. "I don't see why I have to give in." Another issue wrapped up in all this is that by requiring homeowners to put in more trees, the HOA is requiring homeowners to use more water. And many say that's just plain irresponsible, considering the drought situation we're in here in Southern Nevada."
----------------
Ordering people to plant more trees in a Southern Nevada yard? This makes sense to somebody? How, please?
Saturday, September 07, 2013
Man stabbed in dispute with HOA president | UTSanDiego.com
Man stabbed in dispute with HOA president | UTSanDiego.com:
SAN DIEGO — A man was stabbed Friday during a dispute between the president of an Otay Mesa homeowners association and a worker, San Diego police said. The 59-year-old HOA officer got into an argument with the 39-year-old man about work that was done for the association, police Officer David Stafford said.
------
I haven't tried to add up all the incidents of HOA and condo violence, but these incidents underscore how intense HOA/condo neighborhood disputes can be, beyond the sense of injustice that arises in many conflicts. One reason is the inability to separate people. Two people can get into a dispute at a baseball game or a bar, and after they are separated they may never see each other again. But when people live in the same neighborhood they run into each other again and again. And in a condo association or HOA, there is another level of connection because everybody is linked in an economic and governance arrangement. So there is no way to separate the combatants unless one of them moves. A second reason is that HOA and condo disputes often involve people's feelings about their home, which are intensely personal. The home is where we can be ourselves and where we go when we want to feel safe. If people feel that they are being plagued by neighbors, even when they are home, they often experience a deep sense of insecurity, intrusion, and even violation.
SAN DIEGO — A man was stabbed Friday during a dispute between the president of an Otay Mesa homeowners association and a worker, San Diego police said. The 59-year-old HOA officer got into an argument with the 39-year-old man about work that was done for the association, police Officer David Stafford said.
------
I haven't tried to add up all the incidents of HOA and condo violence, but these incidents underscore how intense HOA/condo neighborhood disputes can be, beyond the sense of injustice that arises in many conflicts. One reason is the inability to separate people. Two people can get into a dispute at a baseball game or a bar, and after they are separated they may never see each other again. But when people live in the same neighborhood they run into each other again and again. And in a condo association or HOA, there is another level of connection because everybody is linked in an economic and governance arrangement. So there is no way to separate the combatants unless one of them moves. A second reason is that HOA and condo disputes often involve people's feelings about their home, which are intensely personal. The home is where we can be ourselves and where we go when we want to feel safe. If people feel that they are being plagued by neighbors, even when they are home, they often experience a deep sense of insecurity, intrusion, and even violation.
Friday, September 06, 2013
Court: Deed restrictions can't ban 'for sale' signs on homes
Court: Deed restrictions can't ban 'for sale' signs on homes
Thanks to Fred Fischer for the link to this story. So the HOA was so determined to prohibit "for sale" signs that it launched a doomed-from-day-one challenge to the constitutionality of the 2009 state law that protects a homeowner's right to post the signs. The statute is presumed to be constitutional, and the burden is on the HOA to show that the statute has no "significant or legitimate purpose." What chance did the HOA of invalidating this statute? How would you like to be one of the owners who has to pay the HOA's lawyers who lost in the trial court and then took the case up on appeal and lost again?
"PHOENIX — The right of state lawmakers to allow homeowners to post “for sale’’ signs trumps any deed restrictions that ban them, the Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled. In a unanimous ruling Tuesday, the judges rebuffed arguments by a planned community that its pre-existing ban on such signs remains valid despite a 2009 law to the contrary. Potentially more significant, the appellate judges rejected the contention that the 2009 law unconstitutionally interfered with the contracts previously signed by all property owners agreeing to the restriction...As to the constitutional claim by the association, Swann said it is up to the group challenging the law to show that it “substantially impairs’’ the contractual arrangement. Even then, the judge said, a challenger must also show there is no “significant or legitimate public purpose” behind the law, or that the impairment is an “unreasonable means’’ of achieving that purpose."
Thanks to Fred Fischer for the link to this story. So the HOA was so determined to prohibit "for sale" signs that it launched a doomed-from-day-one challenge to the constitutionality of the 2009 state law that protects a homeowner's right to post the signs. The statute is presumed to be constitutional, and the burden is on the HOA to show that the statute has no "significant or legitimate purpose." What chance did the HOA of invalidating this statute? How would you like to be one of the owners who has to pay the HOA's lawyers who lost in the trial court and then took the case up on appeal and lost again?
"PHOENIX — The right of state lawmakers to allow homeowners to post “for sale’’ signs trumps any deed restrictions that ban them, the Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled. In a unanimous ruling Tuesday, the judges rebuffed arguments by a planned community that its pre-existing ban on such signs remains valid despite a 2009 law to the contrary. Potentially more significant, the appellate judges rejected the contention that the 2009 law unconstitutionally interfered with the contracts previously signed by all property owners agreeing to the restriction...As to the constitutional claim by the association, Swann said it is up to the group challenging the law to show that it “substantially impairs’’ the contractual arrangement. Even then, the judge said, a challenger must also show there is no “significant or legitimate public purpose” behind the law, or that the impairment is an “unreasonable means’’ of achieving that purpose."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)