Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I'm really not much of a joiner, but the last thing in the world I would join is a homeowners association. I am way too much of an individualist to voluntarily give my neighbors control over what I do on my own property. And here's a story that illustrates just how bad they can get. Just watch this video:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
They may actually put this little girl in a foster home because of the complaints from this homeowners association. How about a little compassion and understanding, you bunch of rules fetish ghouls?
Comments
and the welfare of the child ?
Posted by: Jim Ramsey | January 5, 2010 9:17 AM
I think this is a little harder than simply attacking the homeowners association. There are some people (Ed is obviously not one) who like living in a highly structured environment governed by strict rules. The grandparents knew the rules before they moved in. They accepted the rules and then disobeyed them for 6 years. I suspect that during the initial portion of that time they were fighting to get an exception. When they failed the housing market had collapsed and now they are in a bad spot. Had they followed the rules 5 years ago, in 2004-2005 they would have been able to sell the house and move. They did not.
What about the people who bought a property in the development because there were no children allowed? Don't they have the right to live in a community of their liking? The one that they thought they were moving into when they purchased a house?
If you do not like homeowners associations there is an easy solution. Don't buy a house in a community governed by a homeowners association.
Posted by: mess | January 5, 2010 9:31 AM
The grandparents chose to purchase property in a neighborhood with stated guidelines. Had they bought the house and specifically tried to move the child in, I'd support the HOA in their opinion. Given the situation, the HOA should make an exception - and I think a decent attorney would be able to make the point that they've allowed the girl to live there for four years, so in essence they have already MADE the exception and need to deal with it.
I was on the board of my HOA for three years. You're dealing with volunteers when you're talking about the people running it. You're dealing with volunteers who are probably busy bodies. The reason I did it was because a friend begged me to be on the board to COUNTER some of those types - there were two women who were absolutely over the top in their HOA rules crap ... like the rule that said all vehicles had to be parked inside the garage, which was going to be a stupid rule eventually as children grew up and more cars were added to a household, and was ALREADY a stupid rule because some cars were simply too long to fit in the garage (say, a huge Dodge Ram or Excursion - which these women said people just should not have bought) or because the development didn't own the street so if people didn't want to follow our rules, all they had to do was part in the street, which was owned by the Town and beyond their power. Which, of course, they didn't want ... they wanted the neighborhood to look uninhabited, and it drove them crazy when people started parking in the street. I chuckled.
BUT ANYWAY ...
If you don't like HOAs, you of course are not obligated to purchase a home in a covenant controlled community, but in towns like mine, good luck finding a neighborhood without them. Your actual challenge is doing your research to find the least militant ones.
Posted by: Andrea | January 5, 2010 9:35 AM
Oh, FFS, Ed. Your reflexive hatred for authority is really getting tiresome.
Look. This is not a random act of homeowners' association evil. The grandparents in the story live in a retirement community which, like most retirement communities, does not allow young children. The residents in this community moved in knowing this restriction; for many of them, surely, the restriction played a part in their choosing this retirement community to live in. This includes the grandparents themselves, who deliberately chose to live in a community without children running around annoying them.
Now. The story says that this six-year-old has lived in the retirement community her whole life. In other words, the community association has been bending the rules for the last six years to give the child a place to live. How very heartless of them, eh? But at some point, as sympathetic as the situation is, one either has to enforce the rule or give the rule up as unenforceable, which would be unfair to the many other residents who chose to live in a childfree community.
(And besides, am I really to believe that they couldn't sell their house and find another place to live in the last six years? Please.)
Posted by: mad the swine | January 5, 2010 9:35 AM
Ed, I live in Texas and much of the state has no zoning. HOA's are the only way to maintain property values in rural subdivisions ( and in some cities like Houston which has no zoning).
Being on the other side of many of these issues, it is really hard to go and tell your neighbor to move their junk cars,
trash, etc.
Places that have zoning, you call the city and they come out tell them to move or fix the violation.
Posted by: James Thompson | January 5, 2010 10:00 AM
mad the swine wrote:
*shrug* I doubt anyone's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read it. I don't have a reflexive hatred for authority; I have a considered and rational hatred for authority that mindlessly blathers on about rules when there is something far more important at stake. And it isn't just about the homeowners association, it's about the state, which apparently is ready to rip this child from the only home she has ever known and give her over to a foster home because of this kneejerk concern about rules over human compassion. Sometimes there are things more important than rules.
This couple is being perfectly reasonable. They are willing to sell their house and move, even at an enormous loss. The obvious solution is for the homeowners association to accept that and wait for the housing market to recover so that they can sell the place. Given the very low pricing they've put on the place, it will certainly be quick to sell once that happens. Then they can have their precious rules back without doing great damage to this poor child.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 5, 2010 10:02 AM
If it was really that horrible for the residents, maybe a special levy to purchase the house ... :) I'm sure that'd change the tune pretty quickly.
Posted by: Andrea | January 5, 2010 10:13 AM
Gotta agree with Ed on this one. What we have here is a community making rules which prevent or limit otherwise legal behavior. Specifically, they make discriminatory rules on who can live in the community based on age. On what basis are they allowed to do so? Community safety? Because if you can't come up with a legitimate reason, "personal preference" doesn't cut it. If, in this property ownership case, it was not age discrimination but some other form - racial, ethnic, religious - would you accept it? No? So on what rational basis do you give age discrimination a bye?
IMO you can get away with these types of discriminatory rules so long as no actual person is hurt by them - so long as the people outside your insular community politely agree to accept what you are trying to do. But the moment that first gay couple, black family, athiest family, or 6-yr-old moves into your community, you're going to lose the legal fight to keep your community "pure" (and I'm using that in a derogatory sense).
Posted by: eric | January 5, 2010 10:15 AM
@4, the article links to an article from 2007 with more detail. The girl started living with her grandparents in 2004. The HOA objected "soon after". They went to mediation. In April 2005, the grandparents agreed to get rid of the girl by October 2006. They were planning to give the girl back to her mother, but the mother "took off". Between those two dates, the housing market started to go to shit.
Posted by: spider | January 5, 2010 10:15 AM
Unfortunately, Andrea, there are towns/counties/states where an HOA is not optional; new developments can not be approved without an HOA structure. Government officials realized that HOAs are a great way of dumping traditionally government responsibilities (read "expenditures") onto private parties. Such responsibilities often include road maintenance, trash pickup and snow removal. Unfortunately, local governments have also seen HOAs as a way of abrogating their responsibility (again, read "expense") to enforce their own zoning laws.
I have discussed HOAs with several homeowning friends (I'm considering becoming one for the second time; the first I sold out because of the HOA) and the argument in favor of them is usually "so people don't park five rusty cars on their lawns." Such matters are covered by zoning laws, which local governments are very interested in establishing but barely if at all interested in enforcing.
Posted by: Constance Reader | January 5, 2010 10:18 AM
A few points in the interests of fairness...
First, people in a neighborhood do indeed have some legitimate interest in how their neighbors use/manage their properties. This includes things like add-ons, exterior mods and displays, numbers of cars, and where said cars are parked (we're a car-dependent society, so parking space is VERY limited everywhere), as well as activities that directly effect the cleanliness and liveability of a neighborhood. Also, in townhouse neighborhoods like mine, people live closer together and therefore have less freedom to swing their fists and all that.
Second, some HOAs have more sensible rules than others. Mine takes care of trash and recyclable pickup, snow removal, maintenance of common areas, and even some front yard work; and (AFAIK) its regs are mostly reasonable and not all that cumbersome.
Third, if an HOA has idiotic regs, one possible reason is that non-idiots aren't participating in the rulemaking process. If you live close to other people, then you have to interact with them, and you really can't expect to withdraw from them and still have them care what you think. But that doesn't mean you can't be proactive in your interactions. The libertard way of pretending you're an island doesn't work, if you're not actually living on an island. If your HOA is run by morons, get involved and start fighting them.
Fourth, individuals can be, and often are, just as unreasonable as those pinko HOA collectives. The Northern Virginia suburbs are absolutely clogged with people who live here because they want to be close to the action of a metropolitan area, and then start bitching and moaning when they find the action gets inconveniently close to them. Guess what, folks -- there's not as much room for multiple SUVs and quirky mods in the 'burbs as there is in the country. You can have wide-open space, or you can be close to the action. Make a choice and stick with it. For the last two generations or so, we've convinced ourselves we can have both in the suburbs, and now the suburbs are growing into somethihg like cities, and we're refusing to change our priorities to make the adjustment work right.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 5, 2010 10:18 AM
I've got a lot of experience with Associations. In this case I'd argue the Association Board should grant a temporary variance to their deed to these co-owners (if their Deed and/or Bylaws delegates such powers to the Board and even if it didn't*) contingent upon a couple of factors:
1) The non-compliant co-owners market their property for sale in a manner that insures their property is included in the local area's Multiple Listing Service (aka "MLS"), which it appears they are already doing.
2) The Board monitors the listing price of the home on a quarterly basis to insure it's a competitive list price. They should use a "BPO", Broker Price Opinion where the Co-Owner pays for the BPO (normally between $100 - $200, if done regularly the fee could go below $100). The BPO should be done by a Realtor broker independent of the listing broker. The BPO should include any observations that would make the home less-than-marketable. The Co-Owners must have their listing price and terms consistent with the BPO and remove observed risks and their cause as noted by the BPO (e.g., defective windows, leaky roof, anything water-damage related, staging advice utilized unless it would cost more than a certain amount of money, then allowances included in list price).
3) The Board gets a signed agreement that the co-owners will counter any offer at/over 80% of list price and accept any offer at/over 90% of current list price. (These are numbers based on the market I'm in, where serious offers are at/over 85% and actual prices currently average 92% of list; the numbers the Board demands should reflect their local market and change quarterly based on market changes.)
This process would insure the co-owners are authentically trying to sell their home rather than merely posing as if they're selling it. This would also motivate the co-owners to sell given the quarterly fee. It would also validate to the Board they're making a "best effort".
I'm a licensed Realtor and a residential developer. I'm President of one Association and a co-owner within two others. I've also started one Association up (the one I'm where I'm currently President). I also list and sell homes at dozens of other Associations (I live in a touristy area and one also popular with retirees, which is why we have so many relative to other areas). A couple of observations where my perspective comes mostly from Michigan, not Florida (though I've lived in Florida and was a co-owner of an Association there as well):
1) There are very few opportunities to discriminate against people due to federal law; in Michigan there are even fewer. "55 and up" is one of the rare exceptions. One of the reasons they have such restrictions is these sorts of developments are much denser than normal neighborhoods relative to the quality of the construction, so co-owners except some enhanced control on noise given these co-owners are usually down-sizing (Of course having an older neighbor who refuses to get hearing aids and blasts their stereo/TV accordingly is a headache that is not aggravated by age-restrictions, this occassionally requires intervention by guys like me).
2) There are advantages to Associations, but also risks. One of the biggest factors one should consider is that you not only purchase a property where you reside, but become a co-owner with all other co-owners to a set of assets and liabilities beyond the discrete lot/unit you purchased, all bound by rules. People often consider the benefits and ignore the risks.
I have seen nightmarish issues dealing with Associations. The most drama I've had in the past 10 years was being a co-owner who led a transition to seize control of our association from an irresponsible developer (who ended up paying us big bucks for his irresponsibility). I also love that Association now, that place is now bliss given the co-owners control it, not the Developer whose since sold-out (I purchased and finished the development myself).
The Association my primary residence is in is 2 miles from the center of town but in the middle of the woods with a great little fishing lake we all share; most people wouldn't even know it's an association given how large the lots are, but that's how we keep our lake and roads private and the public out though we are still the most convenient spot for kids to park; I let 'em go, some of my neighbors are more prudish.
*I'd do all this with out consulting the Association's attorney unless some co-owners started complaining; I would also send a letter to the other co-owners on this course of action to give them an opportunity to complain and to let them know the Board is trying to handle to mitigate the problem.
If a scuttle-butt is raised, I'd advise the Board to then contact their condo doc attorney and find out whether the Board has the power to grant a temporary variance in this case and if they don't, find out if they could then do the following. Draft a variance as proposed above and vote it out with the other Association co-owners who currently have voting rights. Most condo doc attorneys have a large body of "school of hard knocks" experiences which might provide even better advice than mine here.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 5, 2010 10:21 AM
Why are HOA rules banning children legal, while rules banning blacks are illegal? Why is it illegal to discriminate against 65 year olds in employment, but not illegal to discriminate against 6 year olds in housing?
Are there any communities that enforce age bans in reverse - that is, you have to move out once you hit 40 because they're only for the "young and beautiful".
IMHO a person who lives under the rule of such an association doesn't really own their home at all - they merely rent it by leave of the association. This is further proven by the usual practice of maintenance of the property being the responsibility of the association. Therefore the association itself should be responsible for all taxes, as well as sales of individual units. Because they're just de facto rentals.
Posted by: Dave H | January 5, 2010 10:23 AM
Eric - Unfortunately, you are simply wrong here. They can make rules that limit otherwise legal behavior - you don't think they had these rules reviewed by attorneys? Think they just came up with them willy-nilly?
Whether it's something you agree with on principal is another thing, but the legality of the age rule itself, I would bet, is pretty solid. Where this HOA loses cred is in the fact that they have allowed the little girl to live there for years.
Posted by: Andrea | January 5, 2010 10:26 AM
"Gotta agree with Ed on this one. What we have here is a community making rules which prevent or limit otherwise legal behavior. Specifically, they make discriminatory rules on who can live in the community based on age. On what basis are they allowed to do so?"
Here in Texas this has been fought over and over. HOA's
can rule on all sorts of otherwise legal behavior.
How many dogs you can keep.
What color you paint your house.
How many cars you can keep on the property.
How many people/family's can live in a house/apartment.
It goes on and on.
If case was in Texas the HOA would need to aggressively defend/prosecute the issue otherwise their entire set of restrictions would be in jeopardy.
Depending on your restrictions you can grant variances but this leads to a slippery slope. I'm glad I'm not on that HOA because I would probably be trying to grant the variance and prevent the granting of many more just like it.
Posted by: James Thompson | January 5, 2010 10:26 AM
Are these organisations common in the States? it seems odd people would go for that. One of my main motives in buying a house was so that there would be no landlord figure in control of my home. Not that I ever had problems with landlords but I like the idea of being able to do what I want with my property with the only limits set by the same laws that apply to everyone.
Posted by: Matty | January 5, 2010 10:31 AM
...I have a considered and rational hatred for authority that mindlessly blathers on about rules when there is something far more important at stake.
What, the concept of "rule of law" and "equal protection of the laws" is no longer "important?" An exception to the rules does indeed sound reasonable in itself in this instance, but how many more such exceptions should be made, and under what circumstances? And is that really fair, if other residents may have already complied with the rules without a court fight or a YouTube campaign?
I agree that the HOA is being unfair here, but we can't just make exceptions to the rules whenever someone gets hyper-emotional and launches a manipulative PR campaign. (Yes, the girl is cute and has a bright sunny telegenic smile, but should that alter our concept of what's fair in this case? Haven't we had enough cases of raw emotion trumping law and fairness in the last eight years?)
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 5, 2010 10:33 AM
Constance Reader,
(sorry, didn't see this one til after I'd posted my last response)
I'm not sure you meant to respond to me, since I agree with you - in my town you would be hard pressed to find a neighborhood without an HOA. I honestly don't know if there are any, now that I think about it. There may be one area that I can picture that doesn't have one, homes that have been here for longer than most (which, around here, means maybe 30 years old).
As I said - there is always a choice, you can find the ones that are not over the top. Then again, that only lasts until the next HOA election and a new slew of officers.
Or you can choose not to live in a particular area at all, which around my neck of the woods, greatly limits your buying pool, effectively knocking out most suburbs of Denver. And, dare I say it, most of the places where you'll find lots of parks, better schools, etc.
Posted by: Andrea | January 5, 2010 10:33 AM
What amazes me here is that this 6 year old human being is being compared to a junk car on blocks in the front yard. *That is evil. We are talking about a child, in a family. These are not robots who malfunctioned. The Child needs adult care givers, preferrably in her own family--because we all know what happens to many children who get sucked into a state system. And the economy collapsed making sale of that property difficult if not impossible.
A little girl is not an old fridge in the yard. Maybe the couple should put some old appliances out there, so that their asshole neighbors can realize the difference.
With children, you can pay now or pay later. You can put her in the system where she will be abused and neglected, where she most likely will not receive an adequate education due to unstable living circumstances. Then we can bitch and moan when she doesnt graduate, runs away, and ends up in someone's stable out there, or in some other abusive situation with unplanned children of her own and a habit of her own.
Or we can put her with her grandparents, keep her in a stable, loving home, and give that family all the support they need so that this child can grow up to be a contributing member of society.
Honestly I believe that NEIGHBORHOODs who discriminate against children are run by grinches and I am surprised that this has not been challenged legally. This isn't a retirement home. Its an indivudual house on a street in a neighborhood.
Posted by: Seeing Eye Chick | January 5, 2010 10:40 AM
Andrea, I was replying to you. Incidentally, I live in Austin, TX, and those older neighborhoods which are free of HOAs are most likely to be the most desirably located neighborhoods whose home prices are comparable to San Diego's. Which is not to say that they are necessarily the nicer, some of them are just plain old and poor. But they are centrally located, and thus highly coveted, and thus priced 2x-3x their objective worth.
I'm very glad I can't afford much; I would hate to wake up one morning, look around my 60 year-old 2/1 house that had to be completely redone, and realize what a moron I am for paying $200k for it.
I wish I were exaggerating the above. I just described 78705. Many of the adorable, old, little bungalows get bought for at least that amount, torn down, and replaced with hideous modern houses that look like aliens landed in one of the lovliest areas of my beloved city.
So many homeowners, and the great majority of first-time homeowners, have little choice but to buy a soul-sucking commute from everything that makes Austin wonderful, and join an HOA.
I am very grateful that homeownership is not an end in itself for me; if I can't find my best house in my price range outside of HOA territory, I'll just keep renting.
Posted by: Constance Reader | January 5, 2010 10:46 AM
The commenters bringing up the lack of zoning, and other failures by local government to promote the creation and sustenance of subdivisions (the primary alternative to Associations) is a good one.
The neighborhood next to my HOA development pays about $2000/year more in property taxes than my HOA does (they're in the city, we're in the township). My HOA could join the city, pay $2000 more in taxes, and then pay twice the rate for water and lose their broadband Internet access. In addition for about $2500/year my co-owners get the following services the HOA provides at well below single consumer rates (each service is optional): snow removal of walk/drive, in-season weekly lawncare, trash removal (city doesn't provide), security monitoring, seasonal insecticide application, seasonal maintenance on HVAC components (AC and furnace), free irrigation of lawns (city's rates are astronomical).
I looked into doing a subdivision on the last property I developed and the costs were so prohibitive that this property would not have been developable any other way but as a HOA, one reason developers are almost forced to do HOAs now days for certain locations.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 5, 2010 11:09 AM
My brother and sister-in-law recently bought and moved into a beautiful house in a nice neighborhood north of Dallas. We visited for Christmas, and remarked on the elaborate lights on the houses in the area. My sister-in-law explained that the HOA requires them to decorate their houses for Christmas. Even if you don't celebrate Christmas, for whatever reason.
I didn't get the chance to ask her how much you have to decorate, or if you have to decorate in a particular style (Could I put "MERRY FUCKING CHRISTMAS" in bright lights in my yard?) but apparently the main reason they are required to decorate is because when it gets close to the holiday people like to drive through the neighborhood slowly, admiring all of the displays. To me, that sounds like a very good reason not to decorate for Christmas.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 5, 2010 11:13 AM
Personally, I hold HOAs in very low regard and would never live in an area that had one, however if others want to voluntarily submit to their rules, that's fine by me. However, I don't think any rules based on age, sex, color, creed, or ethnicity should be legal. Should a group of people be allowed to exclude black, gays, older people, or latinos just because they all agree to do so? I should certainly hope not. The "community" in question here needs to get back in touch with their basic humanity, and get it through their heads that the world does not revolve around them. I find their self-absorption in denying the needs of a small child whose short life has been marked by difficulty and turmoil to be utterly disgusting.
Posted by: Doug | January 5, 2010 11:19 AM
OK, reading through Michael Heath's comments I begin to get the reasons this happens but it still seems bizzare. What is the point in owning something when you have so little control, doesn't that defeat the whole point of ownership?
Posted by: Matty | January 5, 2010 11:28 AM
Has anyone alleged any harm beyond the offense to the rules?
Posted by: barry | January 5, 2010 11:30 AM
I've been on a HOA board, and personally I could not care less what people are doing as long as they aren't committing a crime. However, once a resident complains about a situation in violation of the rules, you are LEGALLY bound to follow through. If the cute little angel runs into someone with a bike, there is no defense for a lawsuit. The association---meaning all of the homeowners--pay. Think that little girl would look so cute if YOU lost your home because of these people?
Notice they slide a little line in about halfway through the story, "by the time the grandparents had accepted it would be best to move...." Just about everyone is amazed that yes, the rules do apply to their special selves. It's their fault for not taking care of the situation earlier. The market has crashed? Too bad. It's a shame the kid has to suffer but it sounds like she comes from a family that are too inept/stupid/selfish to care for her.
Posted by: Pastafarian | January 5, 2010 11:37 AM
In our area, homeowner associations care for joint property such as drainage ponds, swimming pools, clubhouses, internal roadways, and entry areas. They keep the neighborhood clean and provide a way to keep neighbors out of courtrooms in disputes over noise, animals, obstructive parking, etc. Like any other level of government, they are subject to possible corruption and to creating useless or even damaging regulations.
My seventy-year-old neighborhood was established without a homeowners association, while all the newer neighborhoods around us have such associations. The problems of all the neighborhoods are identical. The difference is that we have to take every issue of neighbor-against-neighbor directly to the city and cost the city's taxpayers as we go through the long legal/political process. If someone in the middle of one of our residential streets suddenly decides to set up a business that will bring in a couple of dozen of huge dump trucks to his house everyday (a real example), we must go to the city, and city money must be used in a long enforcement process. Or if someone tries to sell his residential lot to a business that buys it because it's much cheaper than business property (something that happens at least half a dozen times a year in our neighborhood), we're off on a three-month long process that involves many people from the neighborhood appears at a long string of public meetings, using taxpayer money all the way.
The other neighborhoods simply say, "It's against the covenants, and we'll call the police if necessary because there's no doubt you're breaking our law/regulation." Because a small, regularly-meeting board can simply declare that someone is in violation, these other neighborhoods have many fewer problems than ours, and spend many, many fewer hours in legal processes, and cost the general taxpayer much less than we do.
In this particular case, of course it would be sad if the child has to go to a foster home. But the people responsible for her plight are the grandparents who took a chance on her future, not this Homeowners Association. And, yes, age-restricted neighborhoods are legal. They allow for higher density and lower fees as there need not be space for children to play or additional burdens on the local schools. The grandparents chose to buy a house in such a neighborhood, typically built without any of the plannig for the costs children bring to the city taxpayer.
The grandparents apparently did not at first put their home up for sale. Then they apparently offered it at a very large price, from which the higher price mentioned in the clip was a reduction. The Homeowners Association gave them five years (five years - I promise you the legal system that our neighborhood is forced to rely on in every situation, big or small, doesn't give anybody five years to do anything) to find an appropriate home in which to raise this child. The grandparents' deliberate refusal to arrange for such a home at the beginning, as they knowingly risked her future, is the cause of this sad situation.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 5, 2010 11:40 AM
Homeowners associations: America's Little Fascists.
Posted by: MPL | January 5, 2010 11:45 AM
So there seem to be a lot of people here defending the HOA. That's fine, but a lot of you don't really seem to understand what's going on in this particular circumstance. These people aren't scofflaws. They aren't flipping the bird to passing motorists while they celebrate their victory over the forces of good. They want to leave. They can't, because we've had a a little problem with the real estate market. (Perhaps you've heard about it. I'm sure it was on the news)
They didn't bring a child into the house out of some willful act of malice, they didn't really have a choice. Unless, of course, you consider abandoning your own grandchild to be a choice, in which case you've got deeper problems than your latent authoritarianism. That's what this comes down to - a cabal of control freaks ordering a couple to abandon their own flesh and blood to satisfy an arbitrary bullshit code. At this hour, I really can't think of much that's crueler than that. If you disagree on the grounds that "Oh, it's against the rules," then you are REALLY on the wrong blog.
For every rule, there's an exception. The HOA could grant the Stottlers an exemption. They won't, and no one will explain why not. (I love the HOA leader in the video deflecting blame onto the sheriff. Guy's a borderline sociopath, if you ask me) If that's not proof that these little enclaves choke the life out of humanity in the name of enforcing conformity, then I'm not sure that anything is.
Posted by: D Johnston | January 5, 2010 11:55 AM
Matty @ 24 stated:
I'm not sure what I stated that caused one to have "so little control". The fact is that the amount of restrictions, both by deed and by rules vary greatly by HOA. My primary residence's Association only controls maintenance of the road and common-sense rules regarding the use of our lake. My development also has few rules; both HOA's dues are modest.
My last project had extensive rules since the Association controlled and maintained the assets from each condo unit's drywall-out and co-owners could rent their condo on a nightly basis through the golf and ski resort wherein these condos were located. Such control requires extensive rules, as I stated earlier, since the co-owners took over life is pure bliss out there now (It helps to be on the only Tom Fazio-designed golf course in the state of Michigan. Mr. Fazio is in anybody's top-five list of currently practicing golf course architects).
I got a kick out of Gretchen's story about Xmas light rules; I wonder if any non-confederate states have such rules.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 5, 2010 12:01 PM
What a sin. I was very fortunate to have grandparents who let me live with them. I can't imagine what society is coming to when we have to start abandoning our families to maintain some set of arbitrary rules.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | January 5, 2010 12:09 PM
Mess, Mad the swine, Raging Bee: So, back in the old days when "Exclusionary covenants" were legal, would you support a HOA trying to enforce them to evict a mixed-race couple? After all, the other homeowners bought their property with the understanding they'd only have to look at other white people near their homes, surely it's not FAIR to force them to put up with brown people. :-P
Dave H: Why are HOA rules banning children legal, while rules banning blacks are illegal? Why is it illegal to discriminate against 65 year olds in employment, but not illegal to discriminate against 6 year olds in housing?
Because brown people and old people (and old, brown people) can vote. Children can't.
JuliaL: At the beginning, the grandparents only expected to have to take care of the kid for a short time, well withing the "60 days per year" allowed, until the mother was able to again. Then the mom skipped out. This is their fault how exactly?
Posted by: Mike Crichton | January 5, 2010 12:11 PM
Constance Reader about certain houses: "But they are centrally located, and thus highly coveted, and thus priced 2x-3x their objective worth."
You mean, two or three times what they would be worth _in a less central location_. Location certainly is a factor in objective worth! There's even an old real estate maxim about the three things that determine the value of a property being location, location and location.
I pay much more per square foot in a fairly central city neighborhood than I would in the suburbs (somewhat offset by house and, especially, lot having fewer square feet than most suburban properties), but the objective things I get for that include a two-block walk to an indoor (farmers') market and a subway station one block farther.
To bring this slightly on thread topic, there's no HOA, but the strong historic preservation code covering the neighborhood sometimes provokes the same kinds of reactions in property owners who aren't allowed to do what they want to their buildings. But they _are_ allowed to take in as many grandchildren as they desire!
Posted by: davidj | January 5, 2010 12:16 PM
MPL @ 28:
I'm not sure whether I should exclaim 'fuck you' for your blatant ignorance yet you still opine in spite on such, or for your repugnant dishonesty in misrepresenting what HOAs actually are. Either way . . .
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 5, 2010 12:18 PM
Rules or not, I can't fathom where sending a child into foster care, away from stable family is remotely compassionate, humane or logical. The HOA should seriously question their own ethics here.
That said, I've lived in one place with strata rules and no thanks. HOAs, strata, forget it. If I buy a place, I don't want to risk being nitpicked to infinity by a nosybody control freak over property I own.
The strata manager we lived under for a year was fond of patrolling the halls and slipping notes under doors over percieved infractions. If you so much as farted and she didn't like it, blam! It was all a bit too much surveillance for us. I used to come home daily from work to her little "notes."
Fortunately, HOAs are fairly rare in canada. Perhaps because we have better things to do than constantly tell our neighbors how to live. The municipality handles maintenance, garbage, etc. That's why we pay property tax.
Posted by: Nico | January 5, 2010 12:20 PM
davidj:
I'm talking about 60 year-old, 700sf houses sitting on an eighth of an acre, requiring extensive repair and renovation if not a total teardown, going for $200-$300k. Many of them, due to their age, have only only window A/C and wall heaters, if they have heat or A/C at all. The old historic houses in the historic neighborhoods are half a million or more. My agent tells me that the real estate bubble bust didn't affect Austin much, and some neighborhoods were untouched by it. She said Austin was "lucky" for that, but as a potential buyer, I'm not sure if "lucky" is the word I'd use.
Posted by: Constance Reader | January 5, 2010 12:24 PM
I just don't get those who continue to see the "age 55 and up" rule as arbitrary. In our area, we have justified higher density neighborhoods on the grounds that there will be no children to require schools and play areas and additional sidewalks. Those things cost public money. They are absolutely necessary where neighborhoods include young children.Age restricted neighborhoods can be accommodated where there is no more money for child facilities.
Our schools here are heavily burdened. If one set of grandparents can ignore the age restriction and bring in children, so can others. Suddenly the children already planned for in the local school will suffer with the overcrowding. The children in the age-restricted neighborhood will suffer for lack of planning for their play and safety needs. In addition, older people who bought homes in that neighborhood will suffer a loss of the quiet they paid for, and they will end up, like all the area taxpayers, paying out unplanned-for money to meet the needs of the children.
Planning decent housing and living conditions for human beings is not an arbitrary, meaningless activity. As population increases, and natural resources decrease, such planning is a primary defense against loss of quality of life.
This Homeowners Association gave the grandparents five years to make arrangements. This isn't soomething that just happened as the economy tanked. Now the child is reaching school age, and there are more needs to be met.
Anyone who wishes to live in an area where quality of living issues have to be fought out at the expense of taxpayers in public venues, should live there. But when planning provides reduction of costs to the public with an increased variety of living-environment choices to that public, the result is not fascist. It is, in fact, an absolutely necessary tool for developing future communities.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 5, 2010 12:26 PM
D Johnston @ 29:
I'm not sure we know they authentically want to leave. That's way I suggested @ 12 at that the Association tie its variance letting the girl stay to a BPO with conditions for sale. It's easy to see on a listing and it actually happens all the time (e.g., wife wants to move, husband doesn't, husband controls the relationship with the Realtor and wife blindly complies).
On the other hand this news segment failed to report on any issues that might make the Association a place no one would buy into no matter what the price (e.g., inadequate reserves to maintain the common elements, large percentage of co-owners in default on their dues, pending law suits, etc.). If their Association's individual homes had become unmarketable because of problems within the Association, that is a good reason for my advocating @ 12 that the temporary variance remain open-ended as long as their listing price and terms were compliant to the Broker Price Opinion.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 5, 2010 12:28 PM
I agree completely with Ed. I don't care if the grandparents willingly joined this community knowing the HOA rules or not; the rules are arbitrary, ridiculous, and not worthy of respect. If the system is so rigid that it would result in tearing apart a family and heaping psychological damage on a six-year-old, then the system needs to be broken and shattered, period.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 5, 2010 12:33 PM
Homeowners associations fascinate me because they are not democratic organization, but people are pretty willing to give up their rights to them. It's "use your rights or they will go away" in action.
In many places they are essentially serving the function of a local government (trash collection, basic zoning like stuff.) At one point in Kentucky anything that was a mile square could incorprate as some class of city. So the subdivision that I grew up in was its own miny city. The extent of "governance" was to arrange for trash pick-up, some basic zoning type stuff (ie you can't park 5 rusty cars in your yard) and to keep the streets pot hole free. Being a government they were ultimately bound to follow the Constitution and people had rights. Not that this was an issue, but if it was living there didn't mean you had signed away many rights.
At some point the laws changed and new developments couldn't incorporate as cities. However, that left new subdivisions without a way to make sure that trash got picked up and roads were maintained. Enter home owners associations. Most of them did the same things as the super small cities, but being voluntary associations people have signed away their rights.
The alternatives to government actually providing standard government services can be much worse than government.
I would argue that in some situtations like condos, home owners associations are the only way that kind of housing can function, but that's more about caring for a joint assest than providing government like services.
Posted by: katydid13 | January 5, 2010 12:34 PM
Mike Crichton,
Their fault that the daughter is incapable of raising her own child? I have no idea. Were they abusive parents to help cause this? I don't know, and I think it is irrelevant. I don't understand why you think that their fault or lack of it in that matter has anything to do with the issue.
Is it their fault that they continued for years to remain knowingly in legal violation, risking their granddaughter's future in order first not to have to bother to move, and then later to get more money? I think so, yes. A child's welfare isn't something to be gambled with.
The Homeowners Association board gave them five years before enforcing the regulation they are legally required to enforce, opening the board members to the possibility of lawsuits and legal action against them for refusing to do their job. They aren't to blame here.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 5, 2010 12:36 PM
Gretchen@22:
Lit-up neighborhoods are essential on Xmas Eve, at least they were while my kids were growing up. While I took my kids on a slow meander through wonderfully-lit streets, oohing and aahhing, my wife was shifting all the gifts from random and sundry hiding places strewn thru the house to one pile in a garaged van. This so we didn't run the risk of waking the young 'uns later in the night while putting gifts under the tree.
So, for this one rule, think of the children ....
Posted by: Art | January 5, 2010 12:42 PM
Given that the grandparents have expressed a desire to move once they can sell the house, it seems to me rather heartless that some folks on the street can't support extending at least a provisional exception. It seems like an agreement could be worked out whereby they agree on a schedule for pricing the house, the house must remain on the market at all times, and in exchange they get an exemption until the house sells.
It's not like they are talking about opening up the retirement community to under-55s in general; it is an isolated case involving a difficult confluence of circumstances. I don't see why the zero tolerance on the part of the neighbors.
Ah, I see Michael Heath has already advocated this option, with far more specificity than I could have managed. You're a smart guy, Heath, you consistently impress.
I also wonder -- and maybe someone else has pitched this and I missed it -- about trying to get a coalition of HOA members to buy them out at a rock bottom price. It would solve the immediate problem, and potentially yield a big profit a few years down the line for those who invested.
Posted by: James Sweet | January 5, 2010 12:42 PM
The indignation in this thread ... oh, the righteous indignation ...
People choose to live in covenant controlled communities for many reasons, including ...
1. They don't want to have to be bothered with common area stuff (in particular, condos are like this).
2. They don't want to necessarily have to worry that they're going to spend a bunch of money on a house only to have their next door neighbor decide that THEIR house would be lovely in a nice purple with pink polka dots facade and and an astroturf lawn. And I fully expect someone to respond to this with, "So what's wrong with that?" Nothing, until you want to sell your house and have to find that buyer who loves having a neighbor with an astroturf lawn and a pink and purple house.
3. Constance - the older neighborhoods in Denver proper are lovely too. I would love to live there (except ... not so much next to the people here who do the same thing as happens in Austin, apparently ... tear down pretty old houses and built ugly new ones ... which, y'know, wouldn't happen in a covenant controlled community) ... but we personally can't afford it with three kids, and I wouldn't want my kids going to public school in those areas. In other words, they're lovely for older or wealthier (private school) or childless families.
For the retirement communities, I can see not wanting children in the area and guess what, peeps ... children are not a protected class when it comes to HOA laws, as far as I know. Race, yes. Age, no. Maybe a change in the laws would be good, but blathering about CURRENT injustice doesn't stand up.
As has been pointed out, there are ways around this. There are temporary variances that can be granted - in writing, to protect the HOA - the HOA could somehow assist in the sale, OR the rules can be changed entirely. I'm not being insensitive to the situation that family is in, but nor is it everyone else's problem. I'm sure around the holidays that neighborhood is awash with kids and there are always going to be grumblers (I remember a couple of years ago we went to visit my in-laws and one day when we were tooling around in a golf cart, there was some old fart standing out front yelling at us to SLOW DOWN!!!), but there is no point to having an HOA if the rules that are clearly stated are ignored. The situation HAS to be addressed somehow.
Frankly, I'd be surprised if she's evicted. This story reads more like media frenzy than anything else.
Posted by: Andrea | January 5, 2010 1:26 PM
@ Michael Heath No. 34
I was needlessly inflammatory, sorry.
I have no problem with HOA acting as collective purchasing organizations, but they also tend to act as mini-legislative bodies regulating various sorts of externalities in neighborhoods, which is an alarming situation, potentially dangerous to individual liberty and property rights.
It is always extremely controversial when the government tries to regulate behavior. Making such tradeoffs is fundamentally delicate issue, which I fear HOAs may not be equipped to handle. I recognize that the agreements are considered contracts, and therefore not bound by the same Constitutional provisions as laws, but the extent of intrusiveness some of them show is frankly astonishing compared to what a legislature would be allowed to impose.
From my perspective, homeowners associations seem to be a gambit by governments to abdicate the regulation of behavior to pseudo-governmental organizations. The fact is, although homeowners agreements appear to be voluntary, it is often impossible to avoid them. Some of this is probably also regional bias on my part---coming from New England, homeowner's agreements seem like a strange and intrusive institution.
Posted by: MPL | January 5, 2010 1:27 PM
JuliaL@37: I just don't get those who continue to see the "age 55 and up" rule as arbitrary. In our area, we have justified higher density neighborhoods on the grounds that there will be no children to require schools and play areas and additional sidewalks. Those things cost public money. They are absolutely necessary where neighborhoods include young children.Age restricted neighborhoods can be accommodated where there is no more money for child facilities.
We all know this case isn't about taxes. These elderly folks don't want a 6-year old living in their community. Period.
If it was about taxes, you could just exempt the elderly from paying school support (some counties effectively do this by limiting property taxes for long-term owners). Of course, then they'd find some other excuse to try and prevent undesirables living in their neighborhoods. Because that's the issue here - who gets to live on this property.
All these posts about cars and noisy neighbors and crap like that just muddle up the issue. Of course you can have rules limiting behavior. This is not that sort of rule. This is a rule that excludes a specific class of person from living in a community - regardless of how good their behavior is, how quiet they are, or whether they have a 1969 Ford POS in the driveway or a 2009 Audi.
Look, this is really simple. When your desire not to live next to me comes into conflict with my rights to buy poperty, my rights should trump your desire unless there is a rational basis for denying me my rights. If I'm a child molester wanting to live near a school - rational basis. If I have a 6-year-old grandchild - not rational basis.
Posted by: eric | January 5, 2010 1:30 PM
Further proof that old people "isolated and studied, so it can be determined what nutrients they have that might be extracted for our personal use."
Seriously though, trying getting HOV agreement that nobody over 65 can live there and see how fast groups like AARP drop on you like B-2 JDAM.
Posted by: History Punk | January 5, 2010 1:30 PM
My one personal experience with an HOA leads me to add another vote to the America's Little Fascists position.
My family's first taste of home ownership fell under the auspices of an HOA in the mid eighties. I do not know why my parents were not familiar with the rulebook before signing the mortgage papers, but they would have run far and fast had they understood beforehand.
Grass was mowed at least three times a week in spring and summer to keep it below maximum height. Fall leaves were raked daily. Winter was particularly unpleasant as the vague wording about keeping driveways clear of snow could be used to fine those on the directors' shitlist nearly at will during a snowstorm. Our backyard patio umbrella remained in the garage because its colors were not on the approved list. We were fined one fine summer day when my mother dared to set a potted houseplant on our front step to get a bit of sunlight. Entertaining guests who brought more than two cars for the evening required prior permission and a parking waiver. Christmas Eve and Day 1986 was a miracle as an across the board waiver was magnanimously declared for the entire neighborhood. The people rejoiced -- quietly -- noise enforcement was still active. Funny how the sound meter seemed to keep finding its way to the homes of those on the shitlist far more often than to the homes of others.
Open director seats were to be filled by election, but should a director resign before end of term, he had the right to appoint a successor. The successor began a full length term in his own right. Term limits were only in place to stop consecutive terms. 1 resigns. 2 appointed. 2 resigns. 1 appointed. The same clique never lost power our whole time in that purgatory.
I can not imagine how many tales of HOA benevolence it will take to enable my mental image of them to be free of that taint.
Posted by: Sean | January 5, 2010 1:35 PM
Posted by: llewelly | January 5, 2010 1:36 PM
Do nasty looking lawns really bother people that much?
Sometimes those rusty looking cars in the lawn are sources of income and emergency cash. I grew up in a pretty shitty area and lived in a shitty trailer. My dad bought junk cars for cheap, parked them in the yard took out the good parts and sold them for a profit. The gutted car is usually a ton or so of scrap metal can be sold when prices go high for enough to pay off some bills or get a weeks worth of groceries.
Luckily for us we had owned the property for generations and when our neighbors got all shitty we could tell them to fuck off and leave because they were trespassing.
Posted by: deep | January 5, 2010 1:40 PM
Matty @24,
No, for several reasons. First, as Michael Heath has noted, some HOAs exist for the purpose of providing public services, rather than controlling every detail of use. This can be desirable for a group of like-minded people who prefer a specific set of services at a specific price point that their local government cannot make available. Second, more negatively, there are those people who want more than a little control--they want to control what their neighbors are doing as well. They would not park 3 cars on their lawn, hang up their laundry outside, put up political signs, etc., so rules prohibiting that kind of behavior are not, to them, a loss of control over their property, but a gaining of control over the property of those around them. But as those around them feel likewise, it's the rare person who actually suffers any meaningful loss of control in an HOA. Those, like Ed and several others here who would, choose not to join them.Katydid @40,They are democratic. First, they allow people to vote with their feet. Just as American federalism allows people to vote with their feet, meaning you don't have to live in a state whose policies you despise, but can move to a state more amenable to your way of thinking, and just as you can choose whether you prefer to live in a major city, a soulless suburb, or a rural paradise. HOA neighborhoods are but one more alternative. (My sympathies to those where it's becoming the only alternative). But second, homeowners associations are legally incorporated and must follow certain requirements of that. Nearly, if not all, have regular elections. If it's the same old group of curmudgeonly busybodies who dominate, it's not because the HOA is not democratic; it's either because that's what the majority is satisfied with or it's because the majority of the people in the HOA are not democratically active. Personally, I like a less structured and more live-and-let-live atmosphere than you usually get in those neighborhoods. I say, let the HOA supporters have their neighborhoods--it keeps them out of mine!
Posted by: James Hanley | January 5, 2010 1:43 PM
Andrea: children are not a protected class when it comes to HOA laws, as far as I know. Race, yes. Age, no.
So, if race _weren't_ a protected category, then would you support an HOA "asserting it legal rights" and keeping out brown people?
Posted by: Mike Crichton | January 5, 2010 1:45 PM
Mess, Mad the swine, Raging Bee: So, back in the old days when "Exclusionary covenants" were legal, would you support a HOA trying to enforce them to evict a mixed-race couple?
Right. We point out a few reasons why HOA's exist and act the way they do, and Crichton's brilliant reply is to compare us to racists. Clearly some people here are just as impervious to reason and common sense, and just as full of hyperemotional self-righteousness, as the anti-vaxx crowd. If you idiots can't be bothered to respond to the substance of our arguments, then there's no reason why I should be bothered to respond to you.
Are there any communities that enforce age bans in reverse - that is, you have to move out once you hit 40 because they're only for the "young and beautiful".
Don't know about outright bans, but there are rental properties where kids aren't allowed to live because most tenants are young, single people who want to work, study, and party without having to restrict their actions for the sake of someone else's kids; and because facilities for kids just aren't present.
IMHO a person who lives under the rule of such an association doesn't really own their home at all - they merely rent it by leave of the association.
Ah yes, the teabagger/survivalist mentality: "If I have to obey any rules, then I don't really own my house! Slavery! Communism! WAAAAH!"
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 5, 2010 1:47 PM
Katydid13 @ 40 states:
Blatantly untrue. In fact I belong to no organizations more democratic than HOAs. Each unit gets voting rights and the majority rules. By law Deeds/Bylaws also provide the opportunity for majorities to make amendments to the Deed and Bylaws (as long as those changes conform to the law). Board of Directors are delegated very limited powers, mostly to carry out the Deeds and Bylaws, administrate meetings, and in some HOAs, to set the budgets.
In fact I even mentioned in one of my earlier posts how a majority of co-owners in an Association I belonged to was able to take control of an Association and successfully make some significant changes consistent with what the majority sought.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 5, 2010 1:52 PM
Mike @52: No, but I don't see the relevance, unless you didn't bother to read the rest of my post that said that perhaps there is a need for a law change, but under the current rules, the blah blah blah about how it's somehow illegal or indefensible, which is the impression I get that some people in this thread have, is incorrect.
Posted by: Andrea | January 5, 2010 2:00 PM
I'm with Ed on this one. Having lived in one, and with friends in several others, I have come to the conclusion that HOAs are dictatorial venues for a small clique of busybodies.
As for you knuckleheads that spout forth about maintaining "property value," let me remind you that this is exactly what was used to justify segregation, in the pre-CRA days.
I have friends in Howell who were hounded for leaving children's toys in the front yard (heaven forbid we acknowledge that children exist!), due to a hasty trip to the emergency room. These same people were the subjects of complaints because of a plumber they'd hired for a several-days-long job - he was black.
Posted by: TGAP Dad | January 5, 2010 2:01 PM
Or crazy homeowners associations that can't resolve simple disputes without going nuclear.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | January 5, 2010 2:02 PM
The real problem is that regardless of how idiotic or shortsighted the grandparents were, the child is not to blame. The purpose of the rule of law is to create a society where people can interact peacefully and for the greater good; I fail to see how punishing an innocent child serves that purpose.
If a competent judge is asked to rule on the case, I would expect an outcome similar to what Michael Heath has sensibly outlined in #12, above. A temporary variance that lasts the absolute minimum time necessary to relocate this family would not be unreasonable.
Whatever fault the grandparents may bear, I was thoroughly revolted by the fellow in the car who basically said, "I'm not throwing them out. The sheriff will do that." Way to be a self-righteous, responsibility-denying schmuck, dude. If you believe you're justified in throwing them out, then at least have the stones to own it.
Posted by: --E | January 5, 2010 2:03 PM
MPL @ 45 - classy response. FWIW I also agree with all your points @ 45. I personally have no desire to live in a 55 and over community even when I reach that age. I lived in a HOA in Florida with lots of retirees and the guys I hung-out with (golf buddies) and myself all agreed it was a much richer experience living around younger folks as well (where I was one of the young guys at that time).
I do respect the need for stricter rules at Associations located within resorts or resort-like settings that are very densely populated and where owners are renting their units out as well and/or where the Association maintains the buildings from the interior walls outward.
I personally would never join an HOA filled with a lot of unneccesary rules; like I stated earlier, the Association where my present residence is located contains almost no rules, including any regarding construction of one's home (my county in MI has excellent zoning and building codes).
I'm proud of how I run my development and strongly encourage buyers to consider items that would cause most people to flee from other Associations - risks which normally revolve around poor financial management of the Association - which is too frequently atrocious (Developers frequently don't reserve enough funds in interest-bearing accounts for future improvements and maintenance).
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 5, 2010 2:04 PM
I don't think many people on this thread actually know how a HOA works, though I see others have tried to inpart some facts.
I sit on an HOA with nine Board members. We collect about $160k per year in fees and spend almost all of it on road work in the summer and plowing in the winter. We fix the tennis and basketball courts and buy sand for the beach and spring for a few hundred bucks in hamburgers, franks and sodas for the annual cleanups and picnic (I'm the chef)
The people, who give freely of their time, without any pay (and we have a rule that anyone who lives in the community CAN'T get paid to do any work), love their community and want to carry on and maintain it according to our published and voter-approved BYLAWS.
We try and follow the law, we try and enforce our rules. It cost 10k out of pocket to sue a homeowner for violating common area rules. We won in court, of course, but now we have to get that back in judgement.
it took 2 1/2 years. same as this case where the HOA tried to get them to move and they stalled and stalled...
Guess what? GET AN APARTMENT! somewhere else! They should have been sued and kicked out long ago. its not "technically" its legal!
we put changes to the bylaws to a community wide vote. We as a board make rules and decisions to carry out the bylaws. We are not facists imposing our will.
if people don't like that there are 3 members up for vote each year. run and get elected and then you can put forth a proposal to change the bylaws as you see fit. (unless you have,as we do, deed restrictions built into the titles.)
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | January 5, 2010 2:05 PM
OTOH we don't have that many rules... ha no more than 2 unregistered vehicles on the front lawn, must be 16 to ride and ATV, cars must have stickers, speed limit 15, no discharge of firearms.
we ask people not to throw trash on their front lawns (i.e. when they do that we ask them to stop) we have a weight restriction during the thaw, and no fires on the beach cause it messes up the sand.
no tall fences, no pools filled with well water and some other stuff. oh and we pay 15k for a security guard so kids who don't live here are discouraged from coming in and trashing the place.
We talk to the local building code people and the are local nuisance laws re dogs etc.
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | January 5, 2010 2:13 PM
James @ 43, "It seems to me rather heartless that some folks on the street can't support extending at least a provisional exception?" Dude---It's been five years. It's not like the HOA popped up on their doorstep yesterday.
Trust me, after having been one of the "fascists," I can assure you, some people won't get off their butts until you send the Sheriff, boot their car, etc. If the HOA is taking what seems to be drastic steps, it's because these people took no action whatsoever.
What kind of idiots decide to raise a kid in an old folks development? Presumably there aren't any other kids or facilities for the child.
Make no mistake, this is about grandma and grandpa not wanting to change THEIR lifestyle. Now they want to cry about how the HOA is mean? Please. They apparently didn't want to accommodate her either---by getting off their kiesters and moving to a more appropriate location.
Posted by: Pastafarian | January 5, 2010 2:13 PM
Oh sorry forgot: "Open director seats were to be filled by election, but should a director resign before end of term, he had the right to appoint a successor. The successor began a full length term in his own right. "
well crap that's problem. we only fill vacant seats until the end of its regular term. iF the board chooses, a replacement is selected by majority vote of the board (if there is a tie it remains vacant)
(wow.. big posts for me. I guess its because I have a HOA board meeting this weekend...)
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | January 5, 2010 2:17 PM
eric @ 46 stated:
I too find it odd that the federal government can have all kinds of laws prohibiting discrimination, and most states have laws that extend these prohibitions, and yet yield on this issue. But it is a very successful product marketing strategy that many older people actually seek out.
All licensed real estate agents in MI (I assume it's similar in other states) are required to take so many hours of continuing education every year by the state of Michigan to go along with the class-time taken to initially secure a license. The amount of time we spend on anti-discrimination laws - both statuary and recent case laws is vastly more time than we spend on actually learning to optimally market property and execute a good closing (sale). So for real estate licensees and Realtors, this is even more odd than it is for those considering this issue abstractly.
In fact just recently the apartment complex my 92 year-old grandma lives at was recently forced to accept young people who are living on Social Security and Medicare as well so as to not lose retiree renters who also get federal subsidies. I'm not sure how they were able to avoid such scrutiny in the past given my dad handles her issues.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 5, 2010 2:19 PM
Quite a few commenters here are hitting on one of my political bugaboos, namely the insistence on focusing on the theoretical suffering of theoretical people in the future while ignoring the actual suffering of actual people right now. You've got Pastafarian asking what IF she hits someone with her bike, JuliaL asking what IF other people start doing it - well, what IF she becomes a serial killer and murders the neighborhood? We've got a 6-year old who's about to be dropped into the notoriously bad Florida foster care system. Let's concern ourselves with that before we start worrying about the trials and tribulations of some phantasmal family down the line.
And to JuliaL in particular: You keep mentioning how the Stottlers are risking their granddaughter's future. I'm a bit curious as to what, exactly, you think they should have done. You're trying to shift the blame to them, as if taking in their own kin was a selfish act, and I'm really trying to understand how that works.
Posted by: D Johnston | January 5, 2010 2:20 PM
I'm with Ed on this one. Having lived in one, and with friends in several others, I have come to the conclusion that HOAs are dictatorial venues for a small clique of busybodies.
Did you make any attempt to get involved in the HOA's decision-making process? Ever talk to your neighbors to try to build a coalition for any sort of change? I'm not involved in my HOA, but I do see this sort of activity in response to controversies about parking spaces, services, etc.; and I have voted in HOA annual meetings (one household, one vote), and have been invited to get more involved. Like they said on "The West Wing," decisions are made by those who show up.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 5, 2010 2:25 PM
"We've got a 6-year old who's about to be dropped into the notoriously bad Florida foster care system"
===>>>
"We've got a 6-year old who's been abandoned by her parents and whose grandparents down't care enough about her to move to a place where she would be accepted, and who are now using a patently hyperbolic claim about her being about to be dropped into the notoriously bad Florida foster care system in order to violate the rules and get their way and avoid penalties for messing over (in some way) other members of their community"
oh wow I agree with you!
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | January 5, 2010 2:27 PM
Sean @ 48:
When buyers are purchasing property in a HOA from the Developer, they have nine days by state law to review the relevant condo docs. Buyers of property from co-owners have no such protection and therefore are an even greater need of a buyer's agent (see below).
Sean @ 48:
I'd be very surprised if how this HOA in practice added people to its Board was compliant to its own Deed. In the three states I've lived in within HOA's, all of them used boiler-plate language designed to comply with state law regarding the formation of the Board of Directors. In addition, the legal cost of drafting condo docs is insigificant when going to a condo doc attorney given they were off both templates and their prior works. I'd be shocked if an attorney drafted such a horrible scheme.
Certainly your story reveals the need for people to secure a "Buyer's Agent" when purchasing real estate who is experienced and competent at purchasing real estate within HOAs and within a certain geographical location.
I am in no way disparaging your parents since I don't know their particulars. But I deal with buyers far too often as a seller where these people arrogantly think they can represent themselves when in fact such people are the very ones in need of professional representation. I realize such advice could then lead into the vast number of unprofessional Realtors out there who haven't done their clients right where I will offer a preemptive mea culpa and more advice - people pick Realtors based on their personal associations and feelings of obligation rather than picking the best possible person for the job.
What I can say is even though I'm a Realtor/Developer who thinks he has well-honed purchasing skills, I've always hired a Realtor as my buyer's agent to represent me when I purchased personal property outside my geographical area of expertise. I've never regretted one piece of personal property I ever purchased, largely because they scared me away from properties which were nightmares.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 5, 2010 2:38 PM
If you're on the board of the HOA, it's your job to ask the what ifs. It's not your money with which you are gambling. Look, I don't like our crazy legal system. I do things that could get me sued on a personal basis. But--when you're representing the association, it isn't a personal choice.
Taking in your kin is not a selfish act. Expecting special and different treatment is---and that's what the Stottlers have done. They created this situation, and now are using the media to try and wiggle out of responsibility for their own actions.
Posted by: Pastafarian | January 5, 2010 2:38 PM
Late in their life, my grandparents moved to an apartment development specifically for senior citizens; there were some facilities, like a small shop in the building (milk, juice, coffee, toilet paper sort of thing), and illuminated light switches.
My parents would take us over there moderately often to see our grandparents. What I remember is how pleased complete strangers were to see us: because we were children, and they didn't see many children outside the supermarket.
If what you want is a quiet development, there are ways to write those rules that aren't age discrimination. If you're worried about the six-year-old on a bicycle, do none of the residents still cycle? And if you resent paying school taxes, I would ask who paid for your education, and your children's. A chunk of my tax money goes to the public schools every year, and I'm glad of it. I have no children, nor intend to, but that school system educated me, my brother, and both my parents, and I think did a good job.
Posted by: Vicki | January 5, 2010 2:43 PM
The HOA has it within their power to grant a variance, and there is no slippery slope--all HOAs have within their covenents the power to grant variances, and for good reason. They choose not to, which is their right, but I can publicly call them heartless ogres for doing so. It's not like children are unknown in retirement communities...they visit there all the time, and yes, ride their bikes there, so we're not talking about taking some geriatric child-free refuge and introducing this terrible pathogen with pigtails. We're talking about an HOA that is throwing it's power around like some HOAs like to do (as was mentioned earlier, the people who tend to run for HOA offices are usually the people who tend to enjoy minding other people's business).
The biggest problem is the fact that it is getting to be very hard to opt out of an HOA. For example, when I moved into my new location 3 years ago, we couldn't find a new home that was NOT in an HOA. Not only that, but even if the members of our development decided we wanted to disband the HOA, we couldn't. The whole thing is a nightmare, and trying to defend your property against the HOA is a huge time-drain.
Posted by: Shygetz | January 5, 2010 2:46 PM
Me earlier:
Troublesome Frog @ 57's response:
Both are reasons why I always advise people to hire a buyer's agent conversant with HOAs and the geographical area being considered. (I can't when they directly contact me on my listings since I'm a fiduciary to the seller and therefore can't advise those potential buyers of such; instead I bite my tongue at their arrogant ignorance.)
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 5, 2010 2:50 PM
The whole thing is a nightmare, and trying to defend your property against the HOA is a huge time-drain.
There's two problems right there: first, it seems you know you can "defend your property," but you CHOSE not to do it simply because you didn't want to spend the time on it. That was your choice. And second, you're showing a bit of a paranoid mentality when you use words like "defend your property." What sort of "attack" were you forced to "defend your property" against? I've never heard of HOAs with black helicopters (who would want to pay extra HOA fees for those?).
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 5, 2010 2:59 PM
My one experience as a homeowner in a covenant-controlled community came before my divorce. We had moved into a very new subdivision (we were the first owners of the house), and our lawn kept getting really crappy dead spots on them. The management company acting on behalf of the HOA kept sending me nastygrams about the lawn, threatening to fine me if I didn't fix the dead spots (which covered up rocks, chunks of concrete, etc.), which I tried to do repeatedly. At one point I sent a bunch of pictures back to them with a letter (worded in the same way as theirs to me) pointing out that the pictures showed the same problems in the common areas along the subdivision's streets as I was experiencing on my front lawn. They stopped bothering me after that, and after we sold the house following the divorce I learned that the builder admitted to having done a shitty job preparing the lots and common areas for landscaping.
Posted by: slavdude | January 5, 2010 3:10 PM
"Gotta agree with Ed on this one. What we have here is a community making rules which prevent or limit otherwise legal behavior."
If the buyers knew about and agreed to those rules before buying the house, as is the case with the many over-50 adult communities, I can't see the problem.
It would be a problem if the rules changed after they moved in. Especially if the rule change was arbitary and capricious, and even more so if it was petty, like the recent case of the decorated WW2/Korea/Vietnam veteran whose HOA didn't want him to fly a flag.
But this is an adult, no-kids development. The issue at stake here is *central* to the housing development's reason to exist. (I doubt there are any housing developments marketed on the specific theme of 'no flags' or 'no Wal-Mart patio furniture'.) Many other residents probably bought their homes *specifically* to live without kids around. That's what *they* paid for.
This one family, by having a kid around, in violation of rules they signed up for, is essentially diminishing an amenity which their neighbors intentionally paid for.
I think no-kids developments are entirely reasonable. Little kids might not be terribly objectionable, especially in detached housing where you can't hear a kid crying next door. But they grow up into teenagers, and keeping teenagers out most likely reduces noise (especially car radios, parties, or practicing bands), reckless driving, vandalism and other petty crimes. (My house in Cinci was broken into by a neighborhood kid. Stole all my CDs off the rack, but 100 of the cases were empty because they were in the carousel. So he got my shitty CDs and I got the last laugh.)
Come to think of it, if you have a development full of older people, and it's supposed to be kid-free, then it's probably not that safe to have a little kid around. The older folks, who might well be developing cognitive or physical impairments, or just have slowing reaction times, won't be expecting or watching for kids as they drive around the neighborhood.
Posted by: Jon H | January 5, 2010 3:16 PM
Vicki @70
Being in an HOA does not absolve one of paying taxes to fund higher education. Traditionally, most schools have been funded via local property taxes, and being in an HOA means you are a property owner. Therefore, you pay property taxes, at whatever rate is set by the local taxing jurisdiction. In the special case of condo owners who are joint owners of the building, their corporate body owes the tax, but obviously it comes out of owner dues.The trend today--to limit disparities in school funding--is toward state general fund revenues being used to fund schools. With some variation among the states, these general funds are largely composed of a mix of property taxes, income taxes, corporate income taxes, and sometimes severance fees on natural resources. There's little chance for HOA members to avoid the relevant ones of those.
I don't doubt that there's a few who join HOAs thinking they won't have to help fund public schools, but they're in for a rude shock.
(P.S. Just for kicks, few people know that one of America's best tax havens is Yellowstone National Park. Employees living in the park live in Wyoming, which has no income tax, but the closest town to do their shopping in is in Montana, which has no sales tax. Those lucky few just might be avoiding paying to support public education!)
Posted by: James Hanley | January 5, 2010 3:23 PM
That's kind of like asking people who want abortions who gave birth to them.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 5, 2010 3:28 PM
Maybe they could do a house swap. Find a couple of appropriate age, and live in each others' houses. Or perhaps they could find a renter, and move into an apartment.
Posted by: Jon H | January 5, 2010 3:40 PM
Michael Heath @54 In fact I belong to no organizations more democratic than HOAs. Each unit gets voting rights and the majority rules.
If by "democracy" you mean the original version put together by Solon of Athens - where only landowners got a vote - then yeah, its democratic. If you're HOA is anything like mine, your vote power is based on your square footage owned. Which works about like normal democracy...until someone buys up half the units and treats the area like their own little fiefdom.
What a great step backwards. No rent serfs get a political voice on their living conditions! Woo hoo! Now, I'll admit I live in an HOA, as a homeowner. But I won't pretend its the "most democratic" system I've ever lived under. Its brutally protective of landowner rights and privelidges at the expense of everyone else, which, at best, it treats the way Congress treats D.C.
Posted by: eric | January 5, 2010 3:51 PM
James Hanley stated:
A bit pedantic, but . . . The condos I've owned within a multi-unit building here in MI (knowing this is also your home state), and all my current listing clients who own condos in multi-unit buildings, are assessed a valuation based on the market value of their unit. That value incorporates their share of the common elements.
Therefore Associations are not taxed anything given that the value of the entire property is allocated by all the livable units, properly I think. The only complexity the tax assessor has with this approach is figuring out what is assigned to a unit which might not be obvious, e.g., garages if not every unit has a garage or some units have more or bigger garage bays than others. These variations usually get straightened out when a unit owner protests a valuation and the issue revolves around a misunderstanding regarding what property goes with a particular unit.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 5, 2010 3:52 PM
"Look, this is really simple. When your desire not to live next to me comes into conflict with my rights to buy poperty, my rights should trump your desire unless there is a rational basis for denying me my rights"
what? when you enter into a contract, you are giving up certain of your rights, as specified in the contract. There is no "right" to buy property with deed restrictions and then just say ha ha FU! or if the property is "governed" under an HOA.
you can argue and we can sue and sooner or later the sherrif will show up to collect the fines and fees and costs, and he'll add a few grand on top for himself in the process.
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | January 5, 2010 3:57 PM
Eric @ 79 - "democracy" simply means as Merriam Webster states and to what I was previously responding to:
There are a host of ways HOAs can split their voting rights. By unit, by sq. footage, by floor plan (model types), by dollar or other unit of measure percentage of ownership.
I've never heard of someone buying up more than half of the units of a development except other developers who purchased a struggling development, in which case that generally be good news. Do you have a citation that fits your example?
A democracy is in no way perfect, your complaints should be expected in a democracy. A primary reason the U.S. has a liberal democracy (rather than a democracy), and a HOA has condo docs some of which requires super-majority results to amend, is to defend the rights of individuals.
I stand by my original point, I'm not a member of any organization more democratic than the HOAs of which I belong. In fact it's not even close. If you were instead seeking utopia, then get yourself down to a scratch handicap and join my golf club, you'll be swimming in post-round bet money given most of them do the reverse of sandbag.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 5, 2010 4:05 PM
Isn't that more like capitalism than democracy?
Posted by: twincats | January 5, 2010 4:06 PM
@Michael Heath:
I like your proposed solution. I wonder if anyone has suggested something like this to the president of the HOA?
Unfortunately, other articles have given me the impression the Stottlers are not acting in good faith.
From the St. Petersburg Times:
If they aren't willing to change jobs, change schools, and change doctors, I doubt they would be willing to accept a $100,000+ loss.
However, if the HOA were to offer them the compromise you described, and publicizes that offer, it would at least short-circuit the media narrative that paints them as heartless authoritarians.
Posted by: DaveL | January 5, 2010 4:11 PM
I have little patience for people who can't see beyond "the rules are the rules". This seems like a clear case where an exception should be granted.
Posted by: Taz | January 5, 2010 4:14 PM
It has always been hilarious to me that die-hard conservatives who demand the government stop interfering in their lives then proceed to buy a house in a place with an HOA.
Anyway, here is a hilarious letter from an HOA to a homeowner who I would like to have a beer with:
http://i47.tinypic.com/11ig7lt.jpg
Posted by: Pliny_the_Elder | January 5, 2010 4:24 PM
Twincats,
So federalism = capitalism? My great-great-grandparents immigration from Switzerland to the U.S to escape religious oppression was capitalistic?
Or perhaps, just perhaps, capitalism is more democratic than most people tend to think. Capitalism allows more people to "win" on certain important issues than simple majoritarian democracy. There are many issues where we can allow that, although obviously there are issues where "everyone can win" is an impossible outcome as well. For every thing there is a season, or a method, if you will.
Whichever, the ability to vote with one's feet has long been recognized as a form of democracy, and is firmly within the democratic theorists' scope of what constitutes democratic structure.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 5, 2010 4:29 PM
I loathe homeowners associations and often wish it were legal for me to introduce them to my shotguns. The individuals in 'em seem to think they're the lord almighty and that they have a divine mandate to tell everyone else how to live. Of course the more useless they are, the bigger their egos. You'll always find stupid people who will stick by their rules no matter what. How many "good christians" out there condemned jews to be murdered by the Nazis because they were just following the rules? Fanatical adherence to rules is a trait of the incompetent and dimwitted. My father was a physician and surgeon and he broke the rules fairly regularly to save lives. I break rules all the time in favor of decency and fairness. Good judges frequently take a law into consideration but state that it is not applicable in a particular case and give their reasons. The notion of "ius malus" (an unintended detrimental effect of a law) is as old as the legal profession itself.
Posted by: MadScientist | January 5, 2010 4:48 PM
The original article cited here is crap: totally opinionated and uninformative, with sloppy language and links that only went back to the same article. The original source cited was from 2007; and the recent article made no attempt to provide any factual updates as to who was doing what.
From the original article, I got this tidbit:
Broffman, 30, [the kid's mom] told the St. Petersburg Times she has a drug problem and "personal issues." She has two older children who live with other relatives.
So why can't this child be placed with one of those "other relatives," at least temporarily?
Seems to me the cause of all this is the kid's mother, who skipped out on her own parents and left them in an impossible situation, with very little, if any, leeway to handle the load that was unceremoniously dropped in their laps. Yes, they had lots of time to make alternative arrangements, but the article doesn't exactly clarify what they could have done, or did do, in that time. Yes, they could have sold the house before the big crash, but did they, at that time, suspect the grandkid would be staying with them permanently? Yes, they could have tried to get other relatives to take the kid, but did they? And if so, what was said relatives' response?
I wonder if a judge has the authority to order one of those "other relatives" to take custody, possibly with some small regular payments from the grandparents to cover food and other expenses. That would certainly be better than foster care, and would satisfy the HOA's rules. It probably wouldn't make much sense to order the kid back to the mother's custody, given her drug problems and worse, but could a judge order her to choose someone else to take her child?
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 5, 2010 4:54 PM
Michael @82 I stand by my original point, I'm not a member of any organization more democratic than the HOAs of which I belong.
Does your HOA allow all residents of the community to vote, or just property owners?
If the latter, would you stand by your words to the extent of saying you think your HOA which does not allow all community members a vote is a more democratic system than the representative democracy outlined in the Constitution?
Posted by: eric | January 5, 2010 4:54 PM
Madscientist @ 88 - snark/satire or a devout fealty to strawmen?
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 5, 2010 4:56 PM
Whichever, the ability to vote with one's feet has long been recognized as a form of democracy, and is firmly within the democratic theorists' scope of what constitutes democratic structure.
So if a tyrant or big landowner imposes his will on a certain community, without regard to their interests or objections, or even to the law, and gives them no option but to leave their homes behind, that's "democratic structure?" If North Korea allowed more people to flee their oppressive policies, would that make North Korea more "democratic?"
This blather about the wondrous beauty of voting with one's feet has already been debunked and discredited in another thread. The ability to run away from an evil policy does not make it more "democratic" -- especially not to people who can't afford to lose what they'd be leaving behind.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 5, 2010 5:07 PM
Well there was the guy running an under-age drinking house and pot smoking club in one of our houses. We actually don't have any rules against that, but the bonfire on their lawn and the piles of beer bottles got the law involved.
I think he called us "Nazis!!"
He could vote for new directors, or against any maintenace fee increase. or on special ballot items. did the JEWS get to do that!!??
If you (as a family unit) own a house, you get 2 votes, a lot owner gets one vote. if you own extra lots, or extra houses, = no extra votes! but you have to pay a small extra lot fee. Lot owners can't be directors.
if you hav't paid your dues = no vote. if you are renting = no vote.
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | January 5, 2010 5:12 PM
I'd think the Fair Housing act allowing exceptions for elderly people ought to be considered violating the equal protection clause of the constitution. Unless I can set up a group home for six year olds that specifically outlaws 55 year olds...
(@Andrea- *children* are not a protected class; but nobody's talking about the 6 year old owning the home. Familiar status *is* a protected class; although there is an exception specifically noted for elderly housing. If these were not OLD people, it WOULD be illegal to make the rule.)
Also, did it ever occur to anyone this family might not be able to sell their house, not *just* because the market's tanked, but also because they have such jackhats for neighbors?
I think the family should sue the homeowners association for tanking their property value.
Logically, if a HOA can *require* people to decorate for Christmas, they can also legally *require* people to put out Swastikas. As long as they don't refuse to allow black people or Jews to join, it's legal.
Many things might be legal. That doesn't change the fact that these OLD ASSHOLES are not mere heartless ogres, but bigoted irrational heartless ogres.
Wanting to live without kids around is no better than wanting to live without black people around. Kids are people, not rusty trucks. Jackhats.
(for the record, I don't have a problem *in theory* with HOA, but I think that when you allow them to make rules about *what kind of people can live there* and they slip into violating the spirit, if not always the letter, of the Fair Housing Act, they've gone way too far)
Posted by: becca | January 5, 2010 5:13 PM
"The ability to run away from an evil policy "
what? EVIL!!?? its not as if they are demanding the child be sacrificed to the Social Security God to ensure that the 55 year olds would be able to collect ....
Its a policy, part of the founding documents of the community. the HOA has been forgiving and cautious. its time for a resolution. I think the HOA should be SUED! for giving special consideration to this rule-breaker! I bet they are accepting bribes to look the other way? I bet they drove off the mother so they could force out the grandparents and STEAL their house for BIG profits!!
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | January 5, 2010 5:18 PM
Wanting to live without kids around is no better than wanting to live without black people around.
What a breathtakingly stupid statement. So not wanting to have kids makes you as bad as a racist?
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 5, 2010 5:19 PM
Hey, Raging Bee---in this case, the tyrant(s) are the Stottlers. They're unilaterally deciding to impose their will on the community, without regard to their interests or objections.
These sort of people complain that upscale restaurants aren't "family-friendly" for a two year old. Guess what? The two year old would rather be at Chuck E. Cheese. Toddlers hate sitting in an uber-fancy place while mommy and daddy indulge themselves.
These self-centered weenies are reprehensible for pretending this is about the child. Again---it's about where THEY want to live, a place that is undoubtedly not good for a kid.
Posted by: Pastafarian | January 5, 2010 5:27 PM
Kevin: just to be clear, I was addressing Hanley's point about "voting with your feet" in general, not any specific policy at issue in this thread.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 5, 2010 5:31 PM
that is not clear RB. since voting wyf related to the policy of no kids, seems transferable...
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | January 5, 2010 5:56 PM
d johnston,
I say that if one set of grandparents can get away with ignoring the legal requirement on ages, then other people can too, and you reply that's a whole lot like this little girl becoming a serial killer. I'll confine my reply to saying, no, stating the well-known fact that allowing some people to violate legal requirements tends to result in more people violating that regulation is not at like predicting that a 6-year-old will become a murderer.
Taking in their own kin (or anybody else's kin) would be in my view a praiseworthy act. However, having taken her in, they were responsible (by their own choice) for providing her a suitable home or finding someone else to provide her a suitable home.
I think they should have put the house up for sale immediately. I think they should have asked a price likely to get a quick sale. I think that, unable to sell immediately, they should have looked into renting the house out; or sought government financial assistance; or looked for someone to trade homes with until the sale happened; or accepted the free housing closest to the woman's job, changing the child's school and the man's doctor if necessary; or taken any other steps to solve the situation.
As it is, they apparently did nothing for many months. As I remember a TV interview with them some time ago, they were asking for a price much higher than the one they are now being noted as having lowered. In that interview, I recall the reporter pointing out the danger to the child in hanging on for such a substantial price. The grandmother, as I recall, replied that she understood but that she felt entitled to a substantial price.
I remember thinking to myself at the time that the woman was gambling: betting she'd get all the money she wanted before the law actually took the child away. That's what I meant by "risking her future."
However, even if the grandparents are truly helpless, truly unable to move to free housing, truly unable to find a renter, able to get a lawyer but truly unable to get government help based on the woman's low income, truly unable year after year after year after year to get themselves into any other living environment on earth except for that one house, it still isn't true that Homeowners Associations are somehow "evil."
Age-restricted housing is a significant element in planning for future quality of life. Organized subdivisions that act as a sort of lower-level "government" can save tax money and help to provide choices for quality living. And living in the same home for five years in legal violation of neighborhood regulations before a court decision is hardly a failure of the other homeowners to be patient.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 5, 2010 6:29 PM
--E,
I agree. I hope the courts will provide some sensible solution along the lines Michael Heath so wisely suggests.
eric,
You've turned my comment about taxes upside down. I didn't say the people who bought houses in a retirement development were trying to avoid taxes. Presumably they pay the same taxes as everyone else, including taxes to support schools. My point was that good housing planning takes into account whether a particular area already is supporting all the schools and other child-related facilities that it can without overcrowding and tax expenses for the entire larger community (such as the whole city or county) that could be avoided if some new housing were for age 55 plus only.
In some areas it's easy and practical to build a new school. In other areas, a new school would have to go further out in a previously undeveloped area (this is, in my little section of the world, a primary driver of expensive and inefficient suburban sprawl).
You might be quite right in your statement, "These elderly folks don't want a 6-year old living in their community. Period." But it's irrelevant. Such communities are legal, qualifying people may purchase homes there regardless of their hidden motivations, and the homeowners board has a legal responsibility to enforce the legal requirements.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 5, 2010 6:31 PM
I loathe homeowners associations and often wish it were legal for me to introduce them to my shotguns. The individuals in 'em seem to think they're the lord almighty and that they have a divine mandate to tell everyone else how to live.
Horsepoop. Another former HOA board member here. I quit after getting personally stalked by a disgruntled homeowner who wasn't happy with the performance of the board. HOA board people get so much flack and hate from others when they are VOLUNTEERING to make sure that garbage gets picked up, snow gets plowed, parking spaces don't get used up by strangers or eaten up by discarded cars, and so on.
If there were no HOA members, the management company would have to do all of these things. And based on my experience with management companies, I doubt many of the pieces and parts of keeping up the neighborhood would get done reliably or even get done at all. When I was on the HOA board, we had to chase the managment company down all the time to get them to call the right person to repair the playground swings, to call the porter to remove whatever large household appliances that people had abandoned on the curb that week, and to make sure that we had reliable snow plowing in the winters. A lot of our time and effort was making sure the management company followed through on their commitments and promises.
If you don't want to live by HOA rules, then don't buy a house in an HOA-governed development. Or if you're buying a house governed by an HOA, make sure you read the HOA covenant and rules first to make sure you can live with them.
I think the HOA should grant a variance in this case. For those of you who think it shouldn't be legal to discriminate against people of a certain age when it comes to living arrangements, I support your argument that it seems to be an odd exception to equal and fair housing laws. But the point now is that it is *legal*. If you don't like those laws, work to change them. But all of the other members of this development bought a house in a location that allows them quite legally to avoid living in proximity to children. Therefore, their legal rights are being violated by the grandparents taking in this child. The grandparents were wrong to take her in in the first place, even if they should be allowed to keep her now lest she fall into foster care.
Posted by: Adrienne | January 5, 2010 6:45 PM
There would be another option: The HOA could buy the property and sell it themselves, if they really are concerned in a "fair" solution.
But clearly, that doesn't seem to be the case, it's more along the lines of: "These are the rules and sorry but my hands are tied" or rather: "Would anybody think of the property value!?!?"
Posted by: Michael | January 5, 2010 7:02 PM
Michael @103:
The HOA could buy the property and sell it themselves, if they really are concerned in a "fair" solution.
Ha ha ha ha. Good one. Oh, wait......you weren't being serious, were you?
So the HOA should buy the rulebreakers' property, forking over the money that would otherwise go to paying the trash removal guys and the road maintenance crew. Because HOAs always have TONS of capital. NOT!
And then, tight finances aside, remember that the HOA's money comes from association fees paid by all of the homeowners. In order to authorize the use of the HOA's money to purchase the property of the grandparents--that is, homeowners who WILLFULLY and KNOWINGLY disobeyed the HOA rules they had agreed to live by when they moved in-- the HOA board would almost certainly have to get the explicit approval of something like 2/3 of the entire group of homeowners in the HOA. Which is about as easy as finding WMDs in Iraq.
Hell, my HOA can't even get a 2/3 majority of homeowners to agree to a quarterly association fee increase of $100 to keep the HOA from going broke in the next decade.
Posted by: Adrienne | January 5, 2010 7:12 PM
eric @ 90:
All the Associations I belonged now or in the past allowed one voting designee per unit. Each Association split that vote differently, in my development and my primary residence that vote is equal to all other units' votes (a fairly equal plot of land). In the resort development I sold out of that vote was counted by percentage of value determined by floor plan (condos in multi-unit buildings).
eric @ 90:
Great point and I must concede some ground though not all ground. How representative each of those voting designees represent the people in their unit probably varies, from that perspective you make a strong point. However, as others have noted here, HOAs are vastly more responsive to co-owners than even local government voters when issues arise. That has certainly been the case with me as well, in fact it's always been true for me.
As I noted earlier @ 12 ("nightmarish issues" paragraph), when we were upset with the management of the Association, it was far easier for us to gain a consensus amongst the husbands and wives who attended the Association meetings, and by simple majority take control of the Association from the developer by voting in a completely different set of Board members (the vote was unanimous).
An example of dealing with a city: I wanted to see if they'd consider allowing us access from our development to a nearby city road, where I planned to offer to pay for improving the dirt trail currently there that already had all the necessary easement rights (in fact I already owned 2/3 of it). At this point I was merely looking to investigate the feasibility of such and didn't tell them my final position (I'd pay for the improvement). I called the City Mgr. to ask what it would take to start such an investigation, he invited me in to talk to the City Council, stating it was the only way to begin discussions (I was a rookie then and didn't know better, I do now).
I couldn't make the meeting; I had a business emergency. The next day a newspaper reporter called me to get my reaction to my request they open the road, which was met with strident objections from neighbors from that road who attended the meeting. Obviously the manager contacted these people in order to shout down my investigation which was presented by the City Mgr. as a formal request, in spite of having nothing in writing from me requesting such, my never attending a meeting, and never verbally making such a request (merely inquiring into its feasibility in one phone call to the City Mgr.). The story was on Page 1 (small town); at least the article reported by position accurately. I have other stories like this as well.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 5, 2010 10:03 PM
If you do not like homeowners associations there is an easy solution. Don't buy a house in a community governed by a homeowners association.
I really really really hope that one day I can live in a house that doesn't come with a HOA.
Posted by: MarkusR | January 5, 2010 10:20 PM
I have every sympathy with septuagenarians who do not wish to live next to teenagers - which is what this child will be in five years time. I wonder how these grandparents - given that they opted to join an >55 community - would have reacted if the people next door had decided to host a sprog?
Yes, it's rough on the kid that her mom is a junkie. Not the fault of the HOA.
Posted by: Paul Murray | January 5, 2010 10:35 PM
Constance Reader: "I'm talking about 60 year-old, 700sf houses sitting on an eighth of an acre..."
Sounds good to me, except that's maybe a little new and way too much land. The first house I owned was 900 sf, at least 90 and more likely over 110 years old at the time (the early records were lost in a municipal building fire around 1900), on a lot of the same squarefootage or about one-fiftieth of an acre (the house is two stories and occupies half the lot). This is on the small side (my present house, a few blocks away, is a more typical 1700 sf, both house and lot), but there are some smaller, maybe several dozen or even a hundred circa 500 sf houses on lots half that size (i.e. two-story houses occupying their entire lots), in the neighborhood. They're typically 85-120 years old now; I doubt any are as new as 60 years old. (My present is over 130.)
Of course, you have to be willing to put up with endless minor and occasional major maintenance, but I rather suspect that the kind of houses covered by HOAs require the same and won't hold up nearly as well or as long even if they get it. The houses in this neighborhood are all small and close together by present-day suburban standards, but they're also close to the indoor market and other commercial stuff and the subway -- you don't need a car. ( We have one, but we use it so infrequently that we sometimes forget where we left it -- in a neighborhood like this, you may have to go several blocks for a space. ("Garages"? What are those?)) And the historic preservation laws, strict though they are, are much more lenient than any HOA I've heard of.
Tradeoffs. I'll take small, old and convenient over big, new, far away and encumbered by HOAs. I'll pay a bit more for the property (and a lot less for cars). This is in a big Eastern city, but I'd likely feel the same way in Austin. Your mileage may vary (perhaps quite literally).
Posted by: davidj | January 5, 2010 11:23 PM
I'm going to start by saying I agree wholeheartedly with the evaluations of HOAs as "America's Little Fascists", and frankly the HOA people interviewed in the story do a wonderful job of presenting themselves as subhuman assholes.
HOAs are a blight. There is no check on them, no "owner's bill of rights" on the state or federal level forcing some kind of accountability on these people. As it happens, I happen to be a licensed ham radio operator and I've heard quite a bit about HOAs can interfere with that sort of thing, to the point where stealth antennas are a pretty big deal within the hobby (long wires in backyard trees, extended exhaust pipes, that sort of thing). Mind you, hams aren't just licensed for hobby purposes; quite a few are still involved in emergency response communication, providing relays for short-range services like police radio and mobile phones when the power is out over a wide area. HOAs have, time and again, worked against the interests of ham operators because of a pathological fear of antennas, an issue that has gone so far as some HOAs attempting to ban OTA TV antennas and satellite dishes (this is actually illegal, as HOAs are not allowed to restrict how people access the public airwaves).
On top of all that, you do have the busybody problem -- people who just aren't happy unless their personal fantasy of how things are supposed to work are fulfilled. The HOA president in the clip is clearly one of those people -- a blatant misanthrope and evidently a generally unpleasant person. It's obvious the grandparents of the girl have been acting in good faith the whole time, but right from the beginning age covenants are as hateful as race covenants and the restriction should be tossed out on its ass. People like these are the reason suburban sprawl exists in the first place anyway.
Posted by: BrianX | January 6, 2010 1:23 AM
I've never experienced a HOA, but it sounds to me that, like religion, HOAs are amplifiers. When they are good, they are really, really good. When they are bad, they are completely, utterly, irrevocably bad.
I do have to wonder how much the HOA culture is tied to the cult of suburbia.
Posted by: Pseudonym | January 6, 2010 1:27 AM
Raging Bee, Andrea: There are valid reasons why a non-racist could support exclusionary covenants back in the old days. Brown people moving in really _did_ lower property values, since those properties were no longer as attractive to racists. The arguments some people are making about how HOAs are justified in whatever policies they choose to enact to keep property values up are almost identical to the arguments made way back then. So why, exactly, should I sympathize with this HOA trying to enforce their currently legal "rights", but not with the HOAs back in the old days enforcing their then-current rights?
Posted by: Mike Crichton | January 6, 2010 2:11 AM
There have also been cases where HOAs have tried to prevent homeowners from installing wheelchair ramps for handicapped family members, under the same "Oh noes, property values will plummet!" reasoning. Am I supposed to sympathize with them too?
Posted by: Mike Crichton | January 6, 2010 2:22 AM
As a thought experiment how would you react if a county government.
1. Restricted voting to property owners
2. Imposed age limits on residents
3. Required people to put up approved christmas decorations, get permission for visitors cars etc..
Would anyone defend their rights on the grounds that people are free to move away or to try and get new officials elected who will change things?
If not what is the relevant difference? It can't be the degree of voluntarism because you have as much freedom to move in/out of the county as you have to move in/out of the HOA development. So what is it, the technicality that one authority gets the label government and the other doesn't, the fact that government units are usually larger than single developments, or something else I haven't thought of?
Posted by: Matty | January 6, 2010 5:46 AM
Frankly, it seems to me that many people on here are losing sight of one person - the child. She was put in a bad situation through no fault of her own, and her grandparents, being her grandparents, decided to try to help her out.
Sorry, if I was in the same situation, I would do what the grandparents did, the rules be damned. People are more important than rules, and, if the HOA board can't see that, they're pretty crappy people.
Posted by: Zmidponk | January 6, 2010 7:03 AM
It's the fact that a covenant comes attached to the property at the time of purchase. A buyer is essentially entering into a contractual agreement (which is all a covenant really is) to abide by the HOA's rules; we generally want contracts to be enforceable unless public policy demands otherwise - which you could make an argument for with this child, but not so much with the parking, decorations, or voting examples you give.
It's important to recognize that a covenant on one owner's property (to do or not do something on his land) is itself a property interest held by the other homeowners in the HOA; those homeowners were paying not just for the land and house, but for a set of contractually enforceable rules covering the neighborhood, which they perceived as beneficial. If the state refuses to enforce the terms of a covenant, it's depriving those other homeowners of the property interest created by the covenant.
Posted by: Davis | January 6, 2010 8:11 AM
You may have something with the point that these covenants are a property interest held by other homeowners but I'm not sure what time of purchase has to do with it. I could easily have stipulated in my example that you are thinking of moving to a county with the example local laws in place, wouldn't that put you in the same position as someone who knows that there will be restrictive covenants before buying.
I am also puzzled that you see no public policy interest in the voting example. Is deciding that those who rent have no say in issues like how often their trash is collected not a matter of public policy?
Posted by: Matty | January 6, 2010 8:38 AM
A lot of people seem to be under the impression that age is not included in housing discrimination. Nothing could be further from the truth. But there are exceptions to fair housing laws and one of them is age restrictions for retirement properties. Another is group home settings for the mentally ill, which are allowed to only allow the mentally ill and are also allowed to discriminate by gender.
I hate to say it, because I am in general rather pro-child, but the grandparents should have made arrangements early on. As it stands, I have my doubts that the HOA is going to mange to get her out anyways. I sincerely doubt that a judge is going to rule to put a six year old child in foster care, when she has grandparents caring for her, who have been caring for her for quite a while. About the best that is going to come out of this for the HOA is that they will get a must sell agreement with balls - which is probably what they are expecting.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 6, 2010 9:28 AM
The difference is that when you buy subject to a covenant, you're entering into what is essentially a contract. There are many constitutional rights that the government cannot take away from you, but which you can give up in a private contract (for example, your job contract likely included a provision waiving your right to a jury trial in favor of arbitration if you have grievances).
There's also a general policy that people should be able to enter into almost any sort of contract, as long as they do so willingly. Generally public policy concerns only override contractual duties when they're unconscionable - you probably couldn't contract away your right to freedom of religion, but you can contract to limit your rights of free speech (such as in non-disclosure agreements). I'd say a limited right to vote on HOA policies is more like the latter; governmental voting would be more like the former.
Posted by: Davis | January 6, 2010 9:48 AM
Davis,
Thanks for your calm, clear, and accurate explanations.
This child is in a sad situation, and I trust the court will be looking for ways to protect her even while helping the other homeowners to get, as soon as possible, the living environment that they paid and contracted for, and which the HOA is legally bound to provide.
Posted by: JuliaL | January 6, 2010 10:17 AM
Since this *Contract is so rigid, just like the robots who wrote it--perhaps this contract might fall under some kind of predatory law.
1. As pointed out by various other posters: Discrimination on the basis of Age is usually considered illegal. I am sure if we told one of these elderly people that they were not allowed to buy a home or live in an apartment area, that there would be a huge lawsuit.
2. Someone else pointed out that the adult child who abandoned the child must have been abused herself to act like such an ass. --Maybe, maybe not. There are a variety of traumas that can happen to a person in childhood, adolescence or adulthood that can cause them to loose their ever loving mind. The original story indicated the mother had a drug addiction problem. Some people can discover drugs all by their little selves with no help from anyone else. And if the grandparents haven't heard from the adult daughter, then for all we, and they know, she is dead in a ditch somewhere.
The rules often set out by HOAs often remind me of those scary scenes from Sci Fi books where conformity is enforced upon pain of death or worse, "Reprogramming."
Even military housing isn't as strict as this place. So if we use military housing as a baseline for codified behavior in a neighborhood setting, then this place and I am sure many others would end up on the fringe of extremely intrusive, draconian rule.
I would be more sympathetic if the grandparents lived in a retirement home building {note singular} but a detached, single family home? Who cares.
What's next are we going to allow HOAs that discriminate against pregnant women? or special needs people? Not to put too fine a point on it, but with the number of people diagnosed daily with Alzheimers and other degenerative neurological diseases--they have or will have enough adult equivalents to a child in that neighborhood soon enough, if they do not already. The difference being that their behavior will not improve, nor will they *grow up or out of anything.
Posted by: Seeing Eye Chick | January 6, 2010 10:20 AM
Michael Heath @105: All the Associations I belonged now or in the past allowed one voting designee per unit.
Yours is slightly different from mine. Mine allows fractional votes per unit owner, with your fraction based on unit size. Renters may not serve as proxies, meaning that if the absentee landlord doesn't show up to the meeting or send in vote (they almost never do), that renter is SOL in terms of getting a say, and the small minority of owner-residents rule the roost. I'm one of them, so this works in my favor, but I think the structure is wrong and I won't defend it. When the HOA meets, I pay attention to what the renters say and sometimes change my vote to support them.
As for your other comments about HOAs being more responsive than district, city, local, or state government... don't you think that this might possibly have more to do with size rather than structure? If your HOA covered 50,000 units, do you think it would still be more responsive to your needs than, say, the county? And don't you think that your 'it was far easier to gain consensus' experience might have more to do with the fact that there were only a few of you than it does with the structure of your governance system?
I think you're making a mistake in thinking "more responsive" is caused by "more democratic." What you have with HOAs is a less democratic system which is nevertheless more responsive because it is smaller. I'll stick to my guns :) and say HOAs are less democratic for the simple reason that not every adult resident is represented equally. In the vast majority of HOAs renters don't get a vote; in many HOAs multi-adult households must share a vote, and in some HOAs the weight of your vote is based on the size of your unit or even total ownership of multiple units. All of these variances from US Constitutional democracy are, IMO, not improvements on the federal form of democracy but rather the opposite (reductions of it).
Posted by: eric | January 6, 2010 10:31 AM
The rules often set out by HOAs often remind me of those scary scenes from Sci Fi books where conformity is enforced upon pain of death or worse, "Reprogramming."
The sheer paranoid batshit-stupidity of that sentence strongly implies that addressing the rest of the comment would be a waste of time. This is nothing more than the teabagger/survivalist mentality at its most infantile, where all forms of "authority" are seen as evil alien entities that can't even be comprehended, let alone dealt with productively.
(Hell, I've never seen or heard of any HOA doing anything interesting enough to look remotely science-fictiony. Have you discovered some underground sub-genre of SF stories about HOAs on other planets or something? Have you seen a leak of the next "Avatar" spinoff?)
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 6, 2010 10:48 AM
BrianX @109:
HOAs are a blight. There is no check on them, no "owner's bill of rights" on the state or federal level forcing some kind of accountability on these people.
That is completely incorrect and ignorant. I can tell you from personal experience that there are plenty of laws at our state's level governing exactly what HOAs can and cannot do.
Posted by: Adrienne | January 6, 2010 11:03 AM
Pseudonym @110:
I do have to wonder how much the HOA culture is tied to the cult of suburbia.
Why or how is suburbia a cult? What the hell is wrong with suburbia anyway? OK, so there is a problem with sprawl and they are generally not pedestrian-friendly. But there are ways to rectify these shortcomings.
Given the choice between suburbia and living in a decayed urban setting full of crime and trash, I'd take suburbia any day. In fact, I *did* choose suburbia after I moved out from a family member's house in a city neighborhood that was borderline "bad". My family member still lives in the "half bad" neighborhood--where she has lived continuously for a couple decades now--and has simply accepted the fact that both her car and house get burgled about once each every three years. Having a barky dog certainly has helped to deter burglars, but is not foolproof...the last burglar kicked in her dog's ribs. At least her cars never get damaged, though, because she buys old and junky cars and never keeps anything valuable in them.
Two gay men I know used to live several blocks from my family member in an area that crossed the line from just "half bad" to outright "bad". This couple moved out to suburbia after the smaller and more effeminate of the two got mugged in or just outside of their apartment building no fewer than four times in a year and a half. Yeah, they hated the expense and hassle of having to buy a car to commute to and from work, but at least they are saving on hospital bills.
RagingBee @122:
The sheer paranoid batshit-stupidity of that sentence strongly implies that addressing the rest of the comment would be a waste of time. This is nothing more than the teabagger/survivalist mentality at its most infantile, where all forms of "authority" are seen as evil alien entities that can't even be comprehended, let alone dealt with productively.
For once I'm actually going to agree wholeheartedly with Raging Bee here.
Posted by: Adrienne | January 6, 2010 11:15 AM
Eric - I'm trying to understand your Association's relationship with renters. Are you stating that the voting designee for a unit can not proxy their vote to a renter of their unit by some stated bylaw or deed prohibition? Or are you saying that renters' complaints were ignored because co-owners kept their voting right and failed to show up at meetings? I have sympathy for the former, none for the latter.
I'm not surprised you mistook my responding to whose more democratic by using examples of responsiveness. What I was trying to articulate I will re-do since I think the point is important:
1) Certainly it's more democratic for everyone in an entity to have a vote versus a person representing people living in an entity. That's the difference between a simple democracy vs. a representative democracy (which is why I used the term 'represenative' earlier). However, it doesn't on its own argue that would lead to more democratic results. So I don't find the point all that important in gauging my argument that HOA's are in effect a better democratic model than local government given their results are more democratic than those of local government, i.e., outcomes more representative to the majoritarian will of the people.
2) I weighed the simpler democratic model of government to the more representative democratic model of HOAs relative to an inherent weakness of government's inability to be as responsive to its voters, which they clearly are not in my experience and others here as well. I think if you measure who is more responsive to the needs of the people in the community, HOAs are far more responsive in its overall results, and I do equate that to democracy in the sense that democratic forms of government are designed to better reflect the will of the people relative to some interior or exterior agency that is not necessarily representative (in the case of a brand new development/HOA, it would be the weight of the Developer's votes overwhelming those of his first co-owners if the developer has voting rights for their undeveloped units, which most do).
So no, it's not merely the weighing of a smaller body relative to a larger body that gives the whole story on why I've observed HOAs being far more democratic than city government, but the observations noted in this comment @ 27 which I previously referred to (though I failed to note the comment number).
Government has processes that de facto result in decisions that are in no way democratic when looking strictly at individual issues. Certainly we can 'vote the bums out', but that requires an issue that becomes distinguished in a campaign or based on a huge pattern of results. On individual results of a person or small set of people, the wheels of government are far less responsive than HOAs given how those wheels turn, not merely based on difference in populations given HOAs are more prone to less formality before responding to co-owners critiques.
It's also imperative to not ignore the smaller numbers argument when it comes to whose more democratic. As President of my HOA, I've secured the services of a trash collector for example. If my co-owners are unhappy with them, it's far easier to get me to switch suppliers than it is for a citizens in a city who has a contract a trash collector simply because our smaller size and lack of government regulations and rules makes it easier to respond to such complaints.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 6, 2010 11:27 AM
I do have to wonder how much the HOA culture is tied to the cult of suburbia.
A LOT. Since the 1950s, suburban life has been seen, and advertized, as the perfect escape from all the dirt, crowding, noise, crime, expense, minorities, creeping socialism, etc. of those awful cities, without getting too far away from all that action to benefit from it when you needed it. In other words, people moved to suburbia to get away from other people; and then, when other people moved out to the suburbs to get away from other people, all those refugees from humanity started looking askance at each other and trying to keep the comfortable distance they wanted, or at least the illusion of comfortable distance, even as population growth gradually turned "bedroom communitites" into something eerily similar to cities. This is one reason why so many people in suburbia almost never talk to their neighbors; and that, in turn, is why so many people refuse to get involved in their HOAs, let a minority of busybodies make all the decisions, and then freak out when their HOAs impose some rule that interferes with their splendid isolation. And since they've already consigned their neighbors to the status of aliens in their minds, it's no wonder they do the same to the HOAs in which those aliens vote. As some of the more paranoid comments here demonstrate, a lot of suburbanites simply never think of getting involved in HOA decisions as an option, because they never think of doing ANY cooperative activity with their neighbors. After all, isn't that what they fled the cities to avoid?
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 6, 2010 11:57 AM
Raging Bee,
Bee, No, it does not make the policy more democratic, but it makes the larger system--the system that extends beyond that particular regime--more democratic. That is, the ability to vote with one's feet is a more democratic situation for the individual than is the lack of such opportunity. By focusing on whether the policy or regime is thereby made more democratic, you've focused on the wrong unit of analysis (although it is indisputable that a regime that allows voting with one's feet is more democratic than one that tries to prevent it).You say you've previously debunked the idea of voting with one's feet? Here on Ed's blog we've debunked something that the overwhelming majority of democratic theorists believe? Really? This blog's good, but I don't think it's quite that good.
I recommend Albert O. Hirschman's Exit, Voice, and Loyalty to anyone interested (exit = voting with one's feet).
Posted by: James Hanley | January 6, 2010 12:06 PM
Given the choice between suburbia and living in a decayed urban setting full of crime and trash...
Guess what -- "urban settings" aren't uniformly like that anymore. That's just a memory of industrial-age cities wiped out by deindustrialization, which remains in the minds of paranoid suburbanites who haven't yet had a look at what cities have become since the '70s.
We really need to take note of this, especially since many of our beloved Amurcan suburbs are becoming more like cities themselves, and we'd better wake up, bust out of our stifling old cocoons, and start learning from our urban experiences (and *gasp* the experiences of urban Old Europe), and guiding the process of growth to make sure it works best for all of us.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 6, 2010 12:07 PM
That is, the ability to vote with one's feet is a more democratic situation for the individual than is the lack of such opportunity.
That's not saying much.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 6, 2010 12:14 PM
I do have to wonder how much the HOA culture is tied to the cult of suburbia.
A LOT.
An interesting thesis. I have never been a part of an HOA. However, before I moved to the 'burbs, I owned apartments in two NYC Coops. All of the issues I see described here with HOAs seem to exist in spades in the Coops as well. That seems to suggest that it isnt something unique to the suburban mindset that causes these issues.
Posted by: Dave | January 6, 2010 12:15 PM
Really? The ability to escape an oppressive regime "isn't saying much"? Tell that to those who've given their lives in the effort because they weren't allowed to leave. I think it's quite significant. (Note that I'm not claiming it's sufficient in itself.)
Posted by: James Hanley | January 6, 2010 12:22 PM
Eric - I'm trying to understand your Association's relationship with renters. Are you stating that the voting designee for a unit can not proxy their vote to a renter of their unit by some stated bylaw or deed prohibition?
That is what I am saying.
But this brings up another issue, which is that a bylaw allowing me to proxy my vote to you is not ethically or politically equivalent to you having a vote. I doubt very much, Michael, that any woman would be content with a Federal system whereby married men get two votes each and could legally permit their wife cast one of them. Thats not the same thing as women getting the vote. A HOA bylaw that gives only landowners votes but then allows them to give a proxy power to a resident renter - if the landlord so chooses - is not the same as renters getting a vote, either.
The rest of your post seems dedicated to arguing that representative democracies are less democratic than direct ones. Philosophically true. But since HOAs can be representative democracies, it doesn't support your position that HOAs are the most democratic governments around.
Perhaps we can agree that HOAs come in many shapes and forms; some are more democratic than others. And that both size and structure play a role in responsiveness, with the general trends that smaller, more democratic governments tend to be more responsive. And I hope you will agree that a system of government that provides only landowners with a vote, and not "landless" adult residents, is less democratic than one which provides all adult residents with a vote.
Posted by: eric | January 6, 2010 1:07 PM
I think it depends on what the purpose of that government is. If the only reason it exists is to maintain property values, then no, I don't think that every adult having a vote is necessarily more democratic.
I'm a renter, and I have seen enough annoying busybodies with power in HOAs to be skeptical of their benefits (at least, in my area where complaints like "polka dot houses" and "stripped down cars on the lawn" are imaginary problems rather than real issues), but if the purpose of the HOA is to maintain the value of the owners' investment, then only owners should be represented. Weighting that representation by the amount of financial skin they have in the game seems pretty reasonable as well.
I'd feel it was very democratic and a very nice gesture if I had a huge say in how my company operates, but I'm an employee and not a shareholder. The company isn't spending my money, so I'm not going to complain.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | January 6, 2010 1:28 PM
Bee, No, it does not make the policy more democratic, but it makes the larger system--the system that extends beyond that particular regime--more democratic.
Exactly: it doesn't make ANY actual regime more democratic, it just makes some imagined abstract "larger system that extends beyond that particular regime" more democratic, in some abstract way you don't specify.
Yes, even the worst injustice is a little better if you can run away from it. But it's still an injustice, running away from it doesn't make it go away, and there's no guarantee that any given batch of refugees will find greater freedom anywhere else, or even a place to stay, just because they "voted with their feet." (Is it "democratic" if you're told to "vote with your feet" EVERYWHERE YOU GO?)
In fact, the very phrase "vote with your feet" is nothing more than a rhetorical flourish used by Ronald Reagan and the states-rights libertards to dress up the act of refusing to do anything for anyone and demanding that they just piss off and go bother someone else instead. There's nothing "democratic" about it; it's just a fake ideology cobbled up to allow local bigots and reactionaries to pretend they're being "democratic" when they pressure those poorer than themselves to stop fighting for change and just go somewhere else that hasn't been claimed by other bigots or reactionaries. Quite frankly, I'm surprised you don't see through this bald-faced rhetorical con-game -- it's probably because you're financially secure enough that you'll never have to exprience "voting with your feet" in the same way as the overwhelming majority of those who are forced to do it.
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 6, 2010 1:40 PM
Troublesome Frog:I think it depends on what the purpose of that government is. If the only reason it exists is to maintain property values, then no, I don't think that every adult having a vote is necessarily more democratic.
Your corporate analogy fails because, say, IBM does not discriminate who can buy stock based on age. This HOA does. It also fails because non-shareholders of IBM are typically not beholden to IBM for permitting them basic living. People need to live somewhere - they don't need stocks and bonds. HOAs that discriminate may not make much of an impact on your rights if you have many other local choices on where to live. But the more monopolistic they are, the more likely it is that some money-making rule such as age discrimination is going to take away someone's constitutionally guaranteed rights. If 1% of St. Petersburg won't allow kids, maybe that's no big deal. If 80% of it does, or if all the nice property does and the young folk are all "free to buy land" in trailer parks, well, I would argue that's a problem.
Raging bee: In fact, the very phrase "vote with your feet" is nothing more than a rhetorical flourish used by Ronald Reagan and the states-rights libertards to dress up the act of refusing to do anything for anyone and demanding that they just piss off and go bother someone else instead. There's nothing "democratic" about it...
I have to disagree with you slightly. Between nations, like you say, 'voting with your feet' is typically just a way to excuse repression or exiling undesirables. Internal to the U.S. I think the idea does have some democratic value. As long as the number of state representatives is linked to population, political power is linked to number of representatives, and the Constitution requires free movement between the states, it can serve as a safety net against horribly bad state policies. Its a form of catastrophic insurance - it won't help solve any day to day political problems, but it may help keep the States from going completely off the rails in terms of repressing their citizens (or making bad economic decisions - voting with your feet most often happens if you can't find a job).
Posted by: eric | January 6, 2010 2:29 PM
eric -
But you aren't going to find retirement communities turning into a majority anywhere and they are one of the very few situations that allow for age discrimination. The only other exception is even less than a threat, as group homes are not really age discriminatory - though they do have exclusion rules. Children are not welcome in group homes, but that is because there are other options for children and at least in some group home settings, their safety could be at significant risk.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 6, 2010 2:53 PM
eric: if you want to call migration a useful safety valve, or a viable and sometimes necessary option, I won't dispute that. Just don't go around romanticizing it as something that will, in itself, make any given situation "more democratic" in any meaningful sense of the word. Let's not kid ourselves here: having to run away from a bad situation, posibly leaving behind any property you coud not carry, and having to depend on someone else's willingness to make a new place for you, may be necessary, may be better than staying where you were, and may be the best option available, but it's not "democratic."
Posted by: Raging Bee | January 6, 2010 3:10 PM
DuWayne - the median resident age in St. Petersburg, FL, where this incident took place, is 40-41. While significantly higher than the US median, which is 35, it probably means there is plenty of housing for younger folk. But St. Petersburg is not the 'oldest' city in the US, not by a long shot. That is Laguna Woods CA, at a median age of 78. In fact there are 65 cities in the U.S. where the median age is higher than the retirement age, and 29 where the median age is higher than 65. So I have to say, I think your comment "you aren't going to find retirement communities turning into a majority anywhere" is a bit naive.
Posted by: eric | January 6, 2010 4:49 PM
Ok, but if you have the population ration that causes such a majority, you also have the people to fill them, versus people who do not qualify. The bottom line is that you simply are not going to run into a situation where there isn't going to be housing that allows children - unless you somehow end up with an entire municipality of seniors who all want to live in age segregated housing.
But I think an important consideration would be whether or not all the seniors who live in those communities are living in age segregated retirement communities.
Posted by: DuWayne | January 6, 2010 5:13 PM
Ed wrote:
This has been making me laugh all day. I was having a bit of a bad boss morning, so when I read this at lunch it totally made my day.
Posted by: Leni | January 6, 2010 6:36 PM
Renters don't get to vote. If the owner gives the renter the envelope with the code number on it, and the ballot, then the renter can fill it out and send it in.
If you had 15 or 50 adults living in your household it does not matter. you get two votes per item.. i.e. you can vote for three directors, and give each 2 votes.
for what its worth we had 3 vacant seats and 3 incumbents running for re-election. so it was like a ranking of popularity. I came in second.
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | January 6, 2010 10:04 PM
Raging Bee wrote,
That is 100% false. Voting with one's feet is a colloquial expression of what is normally termed "exit" in the scholarly literature. The value of exit has been extensively analyzed, as I've noted before, by democratic theorists. It's also been extensively analyzed by game theorists (as it turns out, the ability to exit is a great tool for promoting cooperation). So it's far more than a right-wing "rhetorical flourish."
Your focus seems to be on people running away from bad policies, rather than trying to change them. But you miss several key points that those who actually study the issue have recognized.
1. Sometimes you can't change a bad policy, so running away may be your best alternative. A basic concern for human rights suggests that exit/voting with one's feet is a very important issue, not merely a "rhetorical flourish." As an example, I would note that pre and post WWII, there was a great migration of African-Americans from southern states to northern states. I don't think there's any way, Raging Bee, that you would argue they should have had to remain in the South, but that would be the effect of your argument against voting with one's feet.
2. With exceptions like apartheid, policies very often can't be labeled good or bad on objective grounds, but only on subjective ones. Voting with one's feet allows like-minded people to cluster together, allowing more people to live in polities where they are satisfied with the effective policies. Your suggestion seems to be that the only legitimate alternatives are to change the policy or suck it up. But why is moving to a polity with more satisfactory policies wrong? When I was still looking for a tenure-track academic job, I had an offer of an interview at a Louisiana University. After much consideration (I had kids to feed, after all), I declined the interview out of antipathy for Louisiana politics. Now let's assume I had accepted a job there: Would I have had a duty to stay and spend my life trying to change Louisiana politics for the better (as I would define it), or would it be legitimate for me to keep looking for a job in a state where I would be more satisfied? Your antipathy to voting with one's feet suggests I would have a duty to stay. I just can't agree with that.
3. Exit/Voting with one's feet can force polities to compete with each other to attract people. This is, of course, what causes businesses to compete with each other--to attract customers who find it easy to exit (despite all the criticisms of Wal Mart, they've never prevented a customer from leaving their store without purchasing something). I am observing this in my own community right now. As a consequence of Michigan's "School of Choice" rule, public school districts in my area are competing with each other for students. The administrators of the school system I'm in absolutely hate this, as other school districts have been successful at persuading parents to pull their kids from our district (my wife works for the school district, so I hear the complaints). But I see our school district taking efforts to upgrade its programs and facilities in consequence, despite real budget constraints, to the point where I'm keeping my kids in our district because I think it's doing an excellent job.
So there are several reasons to support voting with one's feet, and despite your claim that it's merely a right-wingers' rhetorical flourish, there's a lot of scholarly research on the issue, and it's not coming from a group of right-wingers or from the Cato Institute, but from run-of-the-mill (read, left-leaning) political scientists.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 7, 2010 10:05 AM
Raging Bee @137
There is a "level of analysis" error here. At issue is "what is the 'it'" that is more democratic. Having to run away is not an element of democracy. able to run away is an element of democracy.
And the oppressive regime does not become more democratic because citizens manage to slip out of the country without getting caught. That's not the argument, and to repeat that line is to dispute nothing.
But the oppressive regime that allows exit is marginally more democratic--allowing more authority to citizens--than is the oppressive regime that does not allow exit.
And the bigger system, in which people can exit (even if surreptitiously) from one country to another, is more democratic than it would be if they could not. Raging Bee calls this an "abstract" system, but in fact we all live within a system of multiple countries, and in that system, some countries allow entry (from those who have exited elsewhere), and some do not. That larger international system, as it currently exists, is more democratic than if no country allowed entry, but less democratic than it would be if every country freely allowed entry.
Compare, for example, the U.S. to a feudal system. In some respects a feudal system is federal--the feudal lord has fairly broad authority to set rules for the people on his own land, as states in the U.S. have fairly broad authority to set rules for the people within their state. Of course it's not a perfect analogy--serfs don't get to vote, so the American system is obviously more democratic than the feudal system. But another important difference is that in the feudal system, those serfs must remain on their lord's land, whereas in the American system a state's people are free to up and move. And that also is a factor in the U.S. being more democratic than in the feudal system.
Now I expect that most people on here--certainly Raging Bee--believe that having a real ballot is more important than having the right to exit. I won't dispute that, but will note that both have their place. That's the point of the book I recommended above, Hirschman's Exit, Voice, and Loyalty (where the ballot is a form of "voice," the ability to effectively express one's dissatisfaction). Sometimes exit is too costly (whether financially, or just because of emotional ties), so voice is crucial. But when voice is ineffective, exit is a valuable option.
Again, I want to note that while Raging Bee claims this is only a rhetorical flourish from right wing politicians, there is a large scholarly literature on it. Raging Bee has effectively denied that it's a subject of scholarly study, which is contrary to fact.
Again I would point to Hirschman's Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, which while scholarly is still quite accessible to any intelligent reader--i.e., to anyone who regularly read Dispatches. He relies on verbal explanations and clear examples, and keeps the diagrams and mathematical formalization in an appendix. It's widely considered a classic work, and I highly recommend it.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 7, 2010 10:34 AM
Ok for you people who feel this is not againsta associations, are you telling me that because this poor little girl has no where to stay that she can't stay with her grandparents because residents and the association will not make an acception so this little girl does not have to go to foster care and the grandparents will get evicted on a home they have been paying for...what is this world coming too. In regards to ballots...huh...do you think that living in an association gives you the true democratic process...for those not familiar with homeowners associations, do more research, they are nothing but scam artists, their CCR's and rules and regulations are made by attorneys that are in favor of the association and not the average homeowner...ask them if they signed a paper stating their granddaughter would have to live in a foster home, and for all those old farts that want to live in a 50's and older community should be ashamed of theirselves, how much trouble would on little girl be..they should treat her like one of their children, they could all become grandparents and welcome her and show the family what community is all about and pull together. Its not like they are not trying to move. I am so ashamed of what this world is coming too.
Posted by: rwefree | December 19, 2010 6:20 PM
The problem with HOA's and people buying into them, is that the rules and regs are not fully disclosed until they sign on the dotted line, second is that people buy into the HOA's will take care of what people are to lazy or not in good enough shape to take care of themselves, figure out the cost of an HOA annually and figure out the cost you would pay if you got someone to mow your lawn and plow your snow and membership to the amentities you wish would come out to much less than you pay annually for dues in HOA's to make them rich off your money. You also pay their attorney fees out of your dues and have to pay for your own attorneys to fight them...The realestate person that posted your nothing but a salesman making money off people that don't know any better, and selling them fantasy island. wich HOA's are not.
Posted by: rwefree | December 19, 2010 6:33 PM