It all began last year when the original gates put in by the developer bit the dust.
"They were all bent out of shape, they were black, they were chipped and rusty. There was never any complaint from Summerlin North to do something about those ugly gates. They finally closed on a car and trapped somebody in there."
Reeve found the gates would cost less to replace than repair. So his board approved a new gate design and submitted it to master association Summerlin North.
"I contacted Summerlin North and said this situation we have--these are our front gates, not somebody putting a plant in their front yard that you have to approve. I said we have to move on it."
But he says the master didn't move fast enough. And since they couldn't imagine there'd be any problem with the design, they went ahead and installed them.
But soon after the gates went up, Summerlin North told them to take them down.
---------------------------------------------------
An account of the "frictional costs" of forting up in America. And the private local government bar is laughing all the way to the bank.
1 comment:
HOA Hall of Shame? Wouldn't it be easier to have an HOA Hall of Non-Shame?
From the story:
Not enough to keep the case out of arbitration where Reeve says it languished for five months while the arbitrator and attorneys racked up big bills.
Arbitrator Alvin Apfelberg ruled in favor of Summerlin North [the master HOA], saying they, not Canyon Crest [the sub-HOA], have the "discretion and authority to determine the appearance, harmony, beauty and attractiveness of entry gates."
As a result, Canyon Crest has to pay Summerlin North more than $25,000.
Jim: "By the time we pay the legal fees and to change these gates it'll be around $40-50,000."
Darcy: "And that equates to what for the people who live here?"
Jim: "About $500 per home. Most of them don't know it yet. When they find out, there's gonna be a lot of ruckus. They're gonna be mad as hell."
Canyon Crest's attorney wrote a letter to the Nevada Real Estate Division saying he was "appalled" at arbitrator Apfelberg's "atrocious" billing practices and the "unreasonable" amount of time he took to decide the case.
But Walter Olson and Ted Frank, of Overlawyered.com -- a web site "chronicling the high cost of our legal system" -- have promised us that arbitration leads to lower costs for consumers -- even when said consumers have to pay for the privilege of being repressed. The "tort reform" movement's concern for consumers is about as sincere as Al Gore's concern for the environment.
And a "free-market think tank" has assured us that "Since HOAs are very local and small, participants are often neighbors and hence have incentive to settle disagreements in a civil manner."
Like communists and socialists, libertarians refuse to admit when their socio-economic theories are demonstrated to be wrong.
Post a Comment