[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

How is that socialism?

It's simple, there is no vote. You show up, and if you end up in a place with restrictive rules, you're screwed. With restrictive city ordnances you're truly screwed, depending on your work, economic conditions for the surrounding areas, or whatever brings you to that city, you might have no choice but to live there.

[phobiaphobe]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

It's simple, there is no vote. You show up, and if you end up in a place with restrictive rules, you're screwed. With restrictive city ordnances you're truly screwed, depending on your work, economic conditions for the surrounding areas, or whatever brings you to that city, you might have no choice but to live there.

Now, I realize you're just an ordinary Joe, not a powerful lobbyist, but I'm pretty sure you do elect your officials down there in Perris. We have some pretty goofy bylaws here in my city... you can be fined $100 if your lawn is not cut below 10cm... but every person has an equal vote and an equal opportunity to run for Alderman.

It's the tyranny of the majority.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by ConqSoft

If I didn't want that, I'd live somewhere that didn't have an association. Usually you have to read, sign, and agree to the rules when you buy a house in the area, so I don't see how anyone could be surprised by it.

If you rent a house, it's quite easy.

AND, if the rules are not all stated in the CCNRs, but are also contained in the local traffic code, which, I damn sure didn't think changed, you won't find things like parking restrictions.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

Now, I realize you're just an ordinary Joe, not a powerful lobbyist, but I'm pretty sure you do elect your officials down there in Perris. We have some pretty goofy bylaws here in my city... you can be fined $100 if your lawn is not cut below 10cm... but every person has an equal vote and an equal opportunity to run for Alderman.

It's the tyranny of the majority.

This shithole is run by contractors. It's the most incestuous thing you ever saw. I do not have the time or inclination to fight a hard fight with a bunch of scoggin hillbillies who think this place is something it's not. I mean, for Christ's sake, the nicest resturant in town is ****ing Round Table Pizza. So many people violate the rules it's crazy, but my subdivision is the nicest in town, and believe me, I'm not bragging, so they come out here to fine everyone. They know people out here will pay it. So excuse me for believing as I moved in, that this was not an overly restrictive town.

It is nowhere NEAR nice enough to devote the time I'd need to try and actually fix anything. People here also don't care, they live here a couple years and move on. The turnover is amazing.

[ConqSoft]

It may be different there, but most homeowner associations here don't allow you to rent out your house.

[luvtolean]

This isn't an HOA, in the traditional sense, this is a set of very restrictive city ordinances. Not all of which are spelled out in any one document. (think HOA, where the guy in charge roams the neighborhood with a ticket book. At least 20 tickets are written every week I'd estimate)


Personally, I think it's an arrangement between the contractor and the city. It fully smacks of a revenue generating scheme.

[phobiaphobe]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

This shithole is run by contractors. It's the most incestuous thing you ever saw. I do not have the time or inclination to fight a hard fight with a bunch of scoggin hillbillies who think this place is something it's not. I mean, for Christ's sake, the nicest resturant in town is ****ing Round Table Pizza. So many people violate the rules it's crazy, but my subdivision is the nicest in town, and believe me, I'm not bragging, so they come out here to fine everyone. They know people out here will pay it. So excuse me for believing as I moved in, that this was not an overly restrictive town.

It is nowhere NEAR nice enough to devote the time I'd need to try and actually fix anything. People here also don't care, they live here a couple years and move on. The turnover is amazing.

Sounds like a charming little hamlet. Time to get the hell out and possibly use the Soviet "scorched earth" policy.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

Sounds like a charming little hamlet. Time to get the hell out and possibly use the Soviet "scorched earth" policy.

I have a plan.

We will either be moving in December, or more likely probably May. I hope, I mean, really hope, it will be in December.

Yesterday on the way home from breakfast, my GF and I had the conversation, "what have we learned from moving here"? Lots of hard lessons, but lots about where we do and don't want to live. If it can be helped, no more subdivisions. Ever. If in one, get in a very old one, with flat driveways, garages behind the house, and read the city ordinances before renting. (my last place in SJ was a subdivision, but totally perfect in regards to rules/zoning.)

Subdivisions without HOA, have more potential IMO. My old neighborhood had all sorts of crazy remodels done that gave the neighborhood character. This made it quite charming and popular. Which made values skyrocket. Of course, this was because it wasn't some boring bureaucrat's vision, but the vision of the collective. Most of the houses were quite unique looking.

Also, before buying a house in an area new to you, rent a house near where you'd like to buy. You'll learn if you truly want to live there or not.

[RC51Mike]

Yes, it's theoretically possible to change deed restrictions provided you can muster up the necessary votes of the property owners. It's not very likely in most places because most of them are sitting there enjoying their property values increase with like minded people. That's why they bought in there in the first place. My point was that no judge will throw out a deed restriction ever, unless it violates a Constitutional protection, such as restrictions against blacks, Jews and Italians in many older subdivisions from the late 19th century to post WWII. At least in government you can appeal a questionable law and stand a chance of it being thrown out as arbitrary and capricious with no public benefit. You can seek variances and pester your elected official to amend the code. Many of those laws are on the books and being enforced because no one has appealed them. And, California is the gold mine for ludicrous local laws. It's ultimately up to the community to decide what laws are in their best interest and some take a more restrictive view than others.

Deed restricted subdivisions and their HOA's are known as shadow governments because they are not accountable to anyone. They are usually thankless jobs anyway, having to put up with whining neighbors. On the other hand they get to lord it over the other property owners enforcing and worse, interpreting the restrictions to suit their world view. You can't get a nomination or a board seat unless you are an insider. Get used to it though. Nearly every suburban subdivision developed today has deed restrictions that limit what you can do with your land and how you live on it. The only choice is to not buy there.

Personally, I'd stick with plain old democracy (or more accurately representative republic.) There's more options to make change.

[DEPO]

Originally Posted by Red Rider

It's a free country and you can live wherever you want, providing you can afford it. If you buy a home in a town, subdivision, or community that has ordinances, zoning, or covenants that you don't like than DON'T BUY THE FRIGGIN' HOUSE! What amazes me is someone who buys property and doesn't bother to do the research first and than bitches when they find out they can't leave an RV, boat, snowmobile trailer, bike trailer, and their work vehicle all parked in the front yard and then bitch about it.

+2

My house is an investment, not only a place to live and store my stuff. When I decide to move out, I want a house that is worth more then what I paid. The only way to do that is live in an area that will maintain the integrity of what was intended.

Not being allowed to work on a car in your garage? Crazy! But, not my subdivision. Not being allowed to have your vehicles outside of its garage? Part of our subdivision...... do I think the rule is nuts? Hell Yes, do I take issue with my neighbor that has two kids that are driving and a two car garage? No. Do I take issue with the guy who has three cars out, non-operational and a boat in the yard? Yes, by all means.

When you live somewhere and other people are affected by how you do things, you should be respectful and accountable. Some people will not do it, because they have the "right" to become an eye sore. But, in the case of a subdivision you do not, because the orignal planners and residences created a set of rules that a MAJORITY (2/3rds by the way) agreed upon.

Socialism, I think not..... trust me... I spent 6 weeks in socialistic and communistic countries. No even close.

What car do you want? Ohhh yeah... you do not get one take the bus.

You want steak for dinner? Well that is not on your ration card this week.

You want to be a lawyer? hmm I do not think so, how about a plumber?

And here is your flat, I know you have 7 kids, but you will make the two bedrooms work.


Want to pile your crap in your front yard, when the rules say not too, I do not think so.... Socialism? Nope. Being a good Neighbor... Yes.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by RC51Mike

It's ultimately up to the community to decide what laws are in their best interest and some take a more restrictive view than others.

Or a developer.

They are usually thankless jobs anyway, having to put up with whining neighbors. On the other hand they get to lord it over the other property owners enforcing and worse, interpreting the restrictions to suit their world view. You can't get a nomination or a board seat unless you are an insider.

Get used to it though. Nearly every suburban subdivision developed today has deed restrictions that limit what you can do with your land and how you live on it. The only choice is to not buy there.

And here we come to the crux of the problem.

Most people can't afford a nice house in the country for a variety of reasons. Older properties come with issues built in. There are good arguments to buy new. Except for the moronic gestapo that thinks cars parked in the driveway lower the value of houses.

Originally Posted by DEPO

Want to pile your crap in your front yard, when the rules say not too, I do not think so.... Socialism? Nope. Being a good Neighbor... Yes.

HOA makes people good neighbors? Yeah, like the lawyers fighting about dropping a fence a couple inches out of the asinine rules? Using HOA rules to mess with a neighbor you personally don't like? There are good people, there are bad people. Legislation will never, ever fix that.