Ignorant Property Associations

There is nothing ignorant about it.

The developer decided this was the product he wanted to offer and thought property owners would like their investment protected from those wanting a different lifestyle. So the developer drew up a set of covenants and restrictions. These in most states are recorded and part of the public record.

This is a prime example of property rights and contracted protection from cheap construction, small shacks, and garish taste.

I am both the President and treasurer of such an association. Believe me it only takes a few homes to hurt property values. There is a development only a couple miles down the highway that has destroyed the value of early buyers because of poorly written restrictions.

Granted the developer runs the risk of not being able to sell his lots because his product concept is priced outside the local demand.

Our current dues is only $204 a year but we have zero clubhouses, golf courses and the like. We have limited common areas to maintain and our board's biggest job is enforcing aesthetic compliance.

I know of association dues as high as $300 to $600 a month. These neighborhoods are sold out and brokers have names on buy list if one goes on the market.

This is part of freedom. This is part of property rights. This is far better than having a government zoning and planning commission.

There is nothing ignorant. It is informed.

I did not participate in our association because of my work. Only once did they do something stupid. They had the state put in speed bumps. Just before they went in I attended the annual meeting think it was up for discussion. I had just returned from my work in the UK so I was out of the loop. I let them know how underhanded such a decision was but they had secretly got enough signatures to put them in.

Speeders were a problem but as I know now before the speed bumps the neighborhood had no liability. Any idiot should know that but the lie took. Now I take a modicum of pleasure telling everyone that plus now that we put them in if we remove them, and we can. But, if a child is hurt we have liability exposure we did not have before. That president found himself completely off the board soon after.

Then there was the president that hired an incompodent lawyer to rewrite the covenants and restriction which would automatically renew if two thirds of property owners did not sign off on a new set. Time was running out and the lawyer had not completed thr rewrite.

Then came a guy that really had an ongoing battle with his neighbor. He hired another lawyer that did a good job. The old set prohibited the old big satellite dishes but was written so even the new small ones were prohibited. Updating was a must. But this president was a nit picker and had an ongoing battle with his next door neighbor and in most cases rightly so.

Now there are covenants and restrictions that are part of the public record and attached to the deeds. Then there are by-laws which spell out how the board will operate, terms, officers, number of board members, etc. He offered some amendments at the end of his term that would extended his voting rights, added to the board from 7 to 9 when the C&R say 5 to 7 and nominated for president a lady that would have done his bidding

Now I retired four and a half years earlier. The old treasurer could not get anyone to take the job. It was a non-voting position. Finally she just dumped the records on the presidents door. After it became clear to him and everyone else he could not do the job I agreed to take it on. Well the president tried to make me his minion. Increasingly I was forced to tell him in no uncertain terms, "you can't do that."

So at his urging the lady with his urging said she was putting her name in the running for president. Now she was (is) not even a board member but a by laws fix was proposed to get around that. The nominating committee contacted me asking (telling) me they were going to nominate me. I informed them without a new treasurer or a by laws change I could not be both. I also thought there are ethical considerations.

Into the meeting we went. The departing president insisted that he still had a vote. I objected. The consensus was let's just see how it comes out. The vote was 4-4. So the new consensus was the out going president cannot vote. I offered to withdraw, "saying a 4-3 split was not good either way." I got kicked under the table while some insisted I stay in others saying I should be able to withdraw if I liked. Then the statement came let's just vote. I became President/Treasurer with a 5-2 vote.

I am not oblivious to association abuses. But they are still necessary to protect property rights and values. Take a hundred homeowners there will be 75 that think their one deviation is ok. There are restriction that can be taken to absurd levels. Like no parking on the street or on grass. Everyone has visitors where exceptions are necessary. Yet some will take a 24 hour rule and think they can just move their car and re-park.

In any case I support having covenants and restrictions are better than the two alternatives. I do not like government dictated covenants and restrictions. No C&R can destroy your property values.

I will be filing a case of failure to pay dues in magistrates court tomorrow.