http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/06/23/3451818/9yo-boy-little-library/#triple-feature

A nine-year-old boy in eastern Kansas who decided to open his own little front-yard library and share books with his neighbors has been shut down for violating a city zoning ordinance.
Spencer Collins lives in Leawood, Kansas, a suburb of Kansas City. Like many precocious children, he loves reading. “It’s kinda like a whole ‘nother world, and I like that,” he told KMBC.
Last month, Collins had an idea for how to share his passion for literature: a little free library. The Little Free Library Movement began in 2009 when Todd Bol of western Wisconsin built a mailbox-like structure that held books and placed it in his front yard with a sign to “take a book, return a book.” Little free libraries have since popped up around the world.
On May 11, Mother’s Day, Collins put out his own little free library, complete with children’s classics like Madeleine L’Engle’s A Wrinkle in Time and Roald Dahl’s The BFG.
But a month later, his parents received a letter from officials saying the library violated the city’s zoning ordinance and needed to be removed or they would be fined. The city prohibits people from having structures on their property that are detached from the physical house.
City officials justified the move because they said they “need to treat everybody the same,” says Richard Coleman, noting they can’t just ignore the two complaints they’d received because “we like the little libraries.”
Collins is now rallying support on his Facebook page and studying municipal ordinances in an effort to get the city council to amend its code.

And the offending structure.



Since it's the 'burbs, I imagine that we're talking about the quality of community here where the neighbors all race to get up five minutes before the other so they can get outside to measure each others grass to rat them out to the HMA for being a day behind on the mowing. I'm wondering if anyone had a problem with the bench shown adjacent to the bookcase.

Were I them, this'd probably make me consider no longer trying to help the community by sharing good things, and instead find out what the zoning regulations are on a very tall privacy fence painted the most obnoxious color allowable on the outside..

It would be interesting to see how they consider dog houses, childrens swing sets, etc... all of those are "structures" not attached to the house.

That aside I would suggest that the "free library" is more a piece of furniture than a structure.

"Now you've learned son, never try."
-Homer Simpson.

What about mail boxes?

This is so silly it is laughable.
Maybe he should place his free library in a large mail box?

I'd get rid of my mail box if I could.

It's hard to imagine people who are such jackasses that they'd actually call to file a complaint about something like that.

But hey, I've never lived in the suburbs, and God willing, I never will.

 Hordini wrote:
It's hard to imagine people who are such jackasses that they'd actually call to file a complaint about something like that.

But hey, I've never lived in the suburbs, and God willing, I never will.

Happens all the time to kid's lemonade stands...

I'm sure the City could just ignore this particular case at it wouldn't be expedient to enforce and would hardly set a precedent for anything negative.

There are a number designs on the LFL site that inspiration could be taken from. All of the seem to use a single post mailbox set up or sit separately upon a surface when inside a building.

I'm interested in what they are defining this as that makes it unsuitable for a residential area.

 whembly wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
It's hard to imagine people who are such jackasses that they'd actually call to file a complaint about something like that.

But hey, I've never lived in the suburbs, and God willing, I never will.

Happens all the time to kid's lemonade stands...

I thought America was all about bootstraps, freedom and capitalism?

Unless that isn't lemonade they are selling...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
It's hard to imagine people who are such jackasses that they'd actually call to file a complaint about something like that.

But hey, I've never lived in the suburbs, and God willing, I never will.

Happens all the time to kid's lemonade stands...

I thought America was all about bootstraps, freedom and capitalism?

Well of course! But, you'd also have to pay corrupt politicians for a license to even have a business.

Unless that isn't lemonade they are selling...

Heh.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
It's hard to imagine people who are such jackasses that they'd actually call to file a complaint about something like that.

But hey, I've never lived in the suburbs, and God willing, I never will.

Happens all the time to kid's lemonade stands...

I thought America was all about bootstraps, freedom and capitalism?

It's also appears to be about following all the rules at all times.

 Frazzled wrote:
I'd get rid of my mail box if I could.

Apparently if you move to Leawood, Kansas you not only will be able to get rid of it you will be required by law!

 SilverMK2 wrote:
It would be interesting to see how they consider dog houses, childrens swing sets, etc... all of those are "structures" not attached to the house.

That aside I would suggest that the "free library" is more a piece of furniture than a structure.

It's a fully enclosed structure, swings and dog houses are not.

I can see where the authorities are coming from, if they don't raise objection to the little library they create a legal precedent that a smartalek can use to say, 'you allowed the little library so I can build what I want on my land, if you dont allow me too its a clear case of discrimination, not only will I get what I want eventually but I can sue you for the discrimination.'

 SilverMK2 wrote:
It would be interesting to see how they consider dog houses, childrens swing sets, etc... all of those are "structures" not attached to the house.

That aside I would suggest that the "free library" is more a piece of furniture than a structure.

When I went to my city office to see if I need a permit for an outdoor oven I was given the (non)helpful answer of "Does it have a roof? If it has a roof it's a building that needs a permit".

Which seems like it would cover dog houses that have a "roof" and swing sets that have a "roof".

But expecting them to know their own rules might have been my first mistake

that looks no different from the elabortate mailboxes we have down here. Like the bear carved from a chainsaw and the mailbox is naughty bits

This is Kansas. They don't want people reading! That's a waste of time when you should be working the fields!

 d-usa wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
It would be interesting to see how they consider dog houses, childrens swing sets, etc... all of those are "structures" not attached to the house.

That aside I would suggest that the "free library" is more a piece of furniture than a structure.

When I went to my city office to see if I need a permit for an outdoor oven I was given the (non)helpful answer of "Does it have a roof? If it has a roof it's a building that needs a permit".

Which seems like it would cover dog houses that have a "roof" and swing sets that have a "roof".

But expecting them to know their own rules might have been my first mistake

This does not make sense as there are plenty of dog houses, they have roofs and don't AFAIK require permits. Sheds probably do, I know they do in the UK, but a permit for a shed it just a rubber stamp in 99% of circumstances.
Really the solution for the 'little library' is to give a heads up they will send an official around at say 3pm, if the library isn't there no problems. It makes no difference if it is back at 3.05pm so long as its mobile, then its furniture and people can put furniture out if they want to. Another option is to move the 'little library' around the garden frequently enough that it is classifiable as outdoor furniture and not a structure.

The city authorities have to support the law, so the 'little library' needs a loophole which is safe for the city and doesn't create a legal precedent that will bite local citizens in the arse later.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
the mailbox is naughty bits

Wait what?


Well i feel bad for the kid. hope he learned a valuable lesson or starts reading all the zoning rules and becomes a heck of a lawyer.

 Desubot wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
the mailbox is naughty bits

Wait what?

the bear is upright an the mailbox is in the crotch.

Or they could build a Little Library as a shelf sticking out of the side of their garage, possibly as part of a garage side door.

I actually wanted to build one of these in my town, so this is a nice cautionary tale for me.

What makes this even more sad is that someone would have had to call code enforcement on the kid to create this situation.

 agnosto wrote:
What makes this even more sad is that someone would have had to call code enforcement on the kid to create this situation.

That's the least surprising part.

Haters gonna hate.

Have you ever had neighbors or been part of a home owners association? they can control the kind of grass or plants you display. You bet someone complained about this

HOA, Freedom at its finest!

HOA's have always struck me as the sort of things that stuck-up, uptight, overbearing, busybody, namby-pamby, didn't-get-enough-hugs-as-a-child, upper middle class, shorts-with-dark-socks-and-sandals wearing, twichy white folks would come up with.

I mean it's one thing to want a tidy neighborhood, it's quite another to be anal retentive and rain on someone else's parade, especially if it is something for the betterment of the community.

FYI I identify as white.

My only complaint about HOAs is when people bitch and moan about having to follow them. Crap like "evil HOA won't let Veteran put up a flag pole!" stories.

You know there is an HOA before you even buy the house. You can read all the rules before you even buy the house. You sign a document that you read all the rules and agree to them when you buy the house.

If you don't like it don't buy the fething house!

Oh, that's certainly true. I just dislike that they exist.

 d-usa wrote:
My only complaint about HOAs is when people bitch and moan about having to follow them. Crap like "evil HOA won't let Veteran put up a flag pole!" stories.

You know there is an HOA before you even buy the house. You can read all the rules before you even buy the house. You sign a document that you read all the rules and agree to them when you buy the house.

If you don't like it don't buy the fething house!

I dont, I dislike people telling me what I can and cannot do with stuff I own. And what if theirs is the only place you can afford a house? Or they extablish one when you are there? In my experiance they are there to make my life hell. Our recent HOA said that we cannot have charcoal BBQ and must have Propane BBQs for "Reasons" we cant park backwards, we can paint our door any color other then the green color. When we wanted new windows we had to go threw them to get approved frames.

 Orlanth wrote:


This does not make sense as there are plenty of dog houses, they have roofs and don't AFAIK require permits. Sheds probably do, I know they do in the UK, but a permit for a shed it just a rubber stamp in 99% of circumstances.
Really the solution for the 'little library' is to give a heads up they will send an official around at say 3pm, if the library isn't there no problems. It makes no difference if it is back at 3.05pm so long as its mobile, then its furniture and people can put furniture out if they want to. Another option is to move the 'little library' around the garden frequently enough that it is classifiable as outdoor furniture and not a structure.

The city authorities have to support the law, so the 'little library' needs a loophole which is safe for the city and doesn't create a legal precedent that will bite local citizens in the arse later.

Most places in the US, a permit is only required if the structure is over a certain size. So for instance, a dog house wouldn't, but a 10'x10' shed would... Which is also kind of ironic, since when I lived in TN, I found out that if I built a 9'6" x 9'6" shed, I didn't need a permit, but once it reached 10' it did. They do also take account of height, so presumably, if you made a dog house that was as big at the base as a usual dog house (say 3x4 or so), but was 30 feet tall, then you'd need a permit


Also, if I were the kids' parents, I wouldn't remove the "library" what I'd do is remove much of the door so that it's more open, remove the library sign, put a planter box on top of it in order to create a planter box that also happens to hold books that people can borrow

They have a good and legitimate purpose. Here is what mine does:

1) Maintain all common areas: entries into the neighborhoods, parks, all sidewalks and trees along the public roads and all the paths, the ponds and lakes.
2) Build and maintain recreational areas: playgrounds, soccer fields, basketball and tennis courts, baseball fields, pool, splash pad, keep the pond stocked with fish so that the kids can catch and release.
3) Maintain property values by making sure that the place doesn't turn into a ghetto (which is the purpose most HOAs get the most crap for). You can sell your home and hope for fair market value without having to worry about the house next door that has not had any yard work done in 6 months and has rats running out of the grass into your yard while racoons build a nest in the broken down car in the driveway.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
My only complaint about HOAs is when people bitch and moan about having to follow them. Crap like "evil HOA won't let Veteran put up a flag pole!" stories.

You know there is an HOA before you even buy the house. You can read all the rules before you even buy the house. You sign a document that you read all the rules and agree to them when you buy the house.

If you don't like it don't buy the fething house!

I dont, I dislike people telling me what I can and cannot do with stuff I own. And what if theirs is the only place you can afford a house? Or they extablish one when you are there? In my experiance they are there to make my life hell. Our recent HOA said that we cannot have charcoal BBQ and must have Propane BBQs for "Reasons" we cant park backwards, we can paint our door any color other then the green color. When we wanted new windows we had to go threw them to get approved frames.

That sounds excessivley strict hotsauce... I know the HOA that my wife and I are under isn't so bad. I mean, it's kind of stupid that I can't have my trash receptacles in front of the garage (the only thing that is allowed to be visible/movable in front of the house is a vehicle). There's a rule that, since I didn't buy my house with a fence already installed, if I want to install one, I have to get prior approval, which isn't so bad (as my plan is to find the contractor who did the backline, and have them do the work, or have my family come up some weekend)

But at the same time as some HOAs aren't bad, there's one rule that nearly all HOAs have that I've NEVER seen followed: and that's pets, particularly cats outside.

 d-usa wrote:
They have a good and legitimate purpose. Here is what mine does:

1) Maintain all common areas: entries into the neighborhoods, parks, all sidewalks and trees along the public roads and all the paths, the ponds and lakes.
2) Build and maintain recreational areas: playgrounds, soccer fields, basketball and tennis courts, baseball fields, pool, splash pad, keep the pond stocked with fish so that the kids can catch and release.
3) Maintain property values by making sure that the place doesn't turn into a ghetto (which is the purpose most HOAs get the most crap for). You can sell your home and hope for fair market value without having to worry about the house next door that has not had any yard work done in 6 months and has rats running out of the grass into your yard while racoons build a nest in the broken down car in the driveway.

But then they get to the stupid stuff. Like why cant I have a pet moniter lizard I take for walks around the neighborhood?(Actual Rule) Or a miniature horse(Another rule)
Also, why cant me and a buddy at 10:00 a night, not drinking or smoking mind you, have a conversation? Why must a tow company be snactioned by the HOA? Why do they enforce stupid rules like pets but when someone parks behind my car so I cant leave they say "Sorry, cant help you"

 d-usa wrote:
They have a good and legitimate purpose. Here is what mine does:

1) Maintain all common areas: entries into the neighborhoods, parks, all sidewalks and trees along the public roads and all the paths, the ponds and lakes.
2) Build and maintain recreational areas: playgrounds, soccer fields, basketball and tennis courts, baseball fields, pool, splash pad, keep the pond stocked with fish so that the kids can catch and release.
3) Maintain property values by making sure that the place doesn't turn into a ghetto (which is the purpose most HOAs get the most crap for). You can sell your home and hope for fair market value without having to worry about the house next door that has not had any yard work done in 6 months and has rats running out of the grass into your yard while racoons build a nest in the broken down car in the driveway.

This is basically what mine does as well, though we don't have nearly that much common areas


But, we're already starting to figure out who wouldn't be doing ANY yard work if HOA didn't require it :( On the plus side, there's nothing in the HOA rules stating that grass must be under a certain height, only that it has a cut/maintained appearance

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
My only complaint about HOAs is when people bitch and moan about having to follow them. Crap like "evil HOA won't let Veteran put up a flag pole!" stories.

You know there is an HOA before you even buy the house. You can read all the rules before you even buy the house. You sign a document that you read all the rules and agree to them when you buy the house.

If you don't like it don't buy the fething house!

I dont, I dislike people telling me what I can and cannot do with stuff I own.

Great, don't buy a house there.

And what if theirs is the only place you can afford a house?

Considering that HOA fees actually make things more expensive it is more likely that you will find a place without one that is cheaper. If it is the only place you can afford then you follow the rules you agreed to follow when you signed the contract anyway.

Or they extablish one when you are there?

That usually doesn't happen though.

In my experiance they are there to make my life hell. [/spoiler]

They are there for the reasons I mentioned above.

[spoiler]Our recent HOA said that we cannot have charcoal BBQ and must have Propane BBQs for "Reasons"

To reduce the fire hazard, to reduce the amount of smoke that enters the neighbors yards and houses. These are two legitimate reasons right there.

we cant park backwards,

Backwards in your driveway? Or backwards on the street?

we can paint our door any color other then the green color. When we wanted new windows we had to go threw them to get approved frames.

Because one of the functions is to maintain aesthetics of the neighborhood and preserve property values for everybody that lives on your street.

One of the "funnier" rules of my HOA is that I cannot fire off a firearm within my property or house.

So, no celebratory fire for 4th of July

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
They have a good and legitimate purpose. Here is what mine does:

1) Maintain all common areas: entries into the neighborhoods, parks, all sidewalks and trees along the public roads and all the paths, the ponds and lakes.
2) Build and maintain recreational areas: playgrounds, soccer fields, basketball and tennis courts, baseball fields, pool, splash pad, keep the pond stocked with fish so that the kids can catch and release.
3) Maintain property values by making sure that the place doesn't turn into a ghetto (which is the purpose most HOAs get the most crap for). You can sell your home and hope for fair market value without having to worry about the house next door that has not had any yard work done in 6 months and has rats running out of the grass into your yard while racoons build a nest in the broken down car in the driveway.

But then they get to the stupid stuff. Like why cant I have a pet moniter lizard I take for walks around the neighborhood?(Actual Rule)

Because they might carry diseases and drop lizard poop on the sidewalk.

Or a miniature horse(Another rule)

Because life stock make noise and stink, which affects your neighbors.

Also, why cant me and a buddy at 10:00 a night, not drinking or smoking mind you, have a conversation?

Because there is a curfew that cuts down on noise that can bother your neighbors.

Why must a tow company be snactioned by the HOA?

To make sure that legitimate and bonded tow companies are utilized in the neighborhood so that if they damage anything they are insured.

Why do they enforce stupid rules like pets but when someone parks behind my car so I cant leave they say "Sorry, cant help you"

You can always call one of the tow companies that is sanctioned.

We cannot park backwards in our driveway. and yes, the HOA was established as me and my mother where hear, after we bought it. The door thing is useless because the way things are situated you cannot see he doors until you walk up.
And we have to pay 400$ a month to be part of an orginization that makes out life hell that we just ignore anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:


You can always call one of the tow companies that is sanctioned.

Here is the fun part, they have yet to sanction a tow company sense the rule was implemented. So none can come in due to the rule, So a car cannot be towed in our lot.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
We cannot park backwards in our driveway. and yes, the HOA was established as me and my mother where hear, after we bought it. The door thing is useless because the way things are situated you cannot see he doors until you walk up.
And we have to pay 400$ a month to be part of an orginization that makes out life hell that we just ignore anyway.

Im not sure, but there should have been legal recourse to keep your family from being "forced" to join an HOA, if one was formed AFTER you moved in.


And honestly, I'd better get a gakload in return for 400 bucks a month. the neighborhood im in is only like 20 a month. Also, as to the mini-horse thing, it could come down to a zoning thing, depending on where you live (i honestly have no idea if California has a "ranching/farming" zone that is different from Commercial/Residential zones)


The lizard thing doesn't make sense to me either, unless the rule is specifically that you can't walk a lizard on a leash round the 'hood. Most people that I know keep lizards as a caged/indoor animal, so wouldn't walk them anyhow.

If you pay $400 a month in HOA fees then you should be able to find a cheaper place to live, since you could pay $375 more in rent/mortgage and still end up paying less.

Did you guys have a vote to establish the HOA?

My bad...its 250$ a month 150 for insurance. But it was there but didnt do much beyond manage the roads and the pool. But for some reason some lady came in and started making these rules by a board of supervisors that pay to get on the board. It is kinda like a dictatorship.

So run to get a seat on the board when the next elections come around.

Um like I said, you PAY to get on the seat. It isnt an election.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Um like I said, you PAY to get on the seat. It isnt an election.

That sounds seriously suspect.

Should be able to link to the rules (at least mine has the rules online).

I would like too, but It would show exactly where I live and I would not like that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok, looking around, we do have elections.....But I talked to a few off my neighbors, None of us ever remember voting for awhile or getting anything about voting

Hotsauceman, wow that's just awful!

I would find it very hard to not invite the members of an HOA to a cocktail party.

Oh, gin & tonic?. No, sorry I only make molotovs!

Ok, my place is weird. it seems the HOA, while elected, has to follow rules of the people who own the land on it(Like the No BBQ thing) This is weird.

Live out in the country. I turned down some nice houses with HOA at 5 a month I just do not want to deal with "Stupid". Nice house with some land with a natural spring on it and a stream. Nice downward slope that works really well as an impact area to go plinking

You are free
You are free
You are free
You are free to do what we tell you to do

They don't seem to be fixed 'structures' to me. Kid and parents should exploit loopholes to give the figurative finger to these whiney d-bag's

You are free to buy a home without an HOA. Bad try, 2/10, better luck next time.

 d-usa wrote:
You are free to buy a home without an HOA. Bad try, 2/10, better luck next time.

I'm going to sue you for libel. It was 2.5/10 AT LEAST, BUDDY


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
You are free to buy a home without an HOA..

Are you suggesting 9 year old kids can purchase homes?

The kid should put that gak on wheels and give a big finger to these overly litigious morons.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

Our recent HOA said that we cannot have charcoal BBQ and must have Propane BBQs for "Reasons" we cant park backwards, we can paint our door any color other then the green color. When we wanted new windows we had to go threw them to get approved frames.

You can tell a crazy organisation when they deny people the goodness of charcoal cooked meat, or hate green doors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
One of the "funnier" rules of my HOA is that I cannot fire off a firearm within my property or house.

So, no celebratory fire for 4th of July

But , but, what do Muslims do at weddings then??

Oh and hotsauceman I think you cannot keep a monitor lizard because restraining a lizard with a leash would be almost impossible , potential toy dog-icide might also have something to do with it.

I'm still hung on the charcoal bit for BBQ. What's the justification I wonder

I've seen what happens behind the green door...

 d-usa wrote:
I've seen what happens behind the green door...

So retro

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm still hung on the charcoal bit for BBQ. What's the justification I wonder

Usually it's that they smoke (when lit, or at least when lit amateur style without using the magic that is a chimney starter) and that smoke blows onto other properties and into other buildings.

Or it's because the HOA doesn't have enough Carbon Credits, it is California after all...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I've seen what happens behind the green door...

So retro

Respect the classics man!

 d-usa wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm still hung on the charcoal bit for BBQ. What's the justification I wonder

Usually it's that they smoke (when lit, or at least when lit amateur style without using the magic that is a chimney starter) and that smoke blows onto other properties and into other buildings.

Or it's because the HOA doesn't have enough Carbon Credits, it is California after all...

Yep. I understand now.

If someone is bothered by smoke I think they need an attitude adjustment. It's fething smoke. If it carries the smell of crisping fat to you so much the better. If you are a defective person and it causes you asthma then that's your fault ,not the legend having the best time honoured tradition of roasting meat over a fire. It's like me expecting the world to have 10 foot high signs for everything because I am short sighted.

It's probably the carbon credits though

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm still hung on the charcoal bit for BBQ. What's the justification I wonder

Dirtier smoke? Seems like it would stand to reason that the charcoal barbecue would throw out more ash and particulates, which may damage paint or discolor structures?

As far as the main article goes, I don't really see why this is an issue. The kid/family did a nice thing. They were informed through reasonable channels that they had inadvertently violated an ordinance, without receiving any punitive measures provided they came into compliance. And complying with the law would be as simple as attaching the box to their home.

Although this HAS led me to want to make one of these for my own yard.

Next week dog is arrested for owning real estate.

Local lemonstand gang is arrested for breaking the law!



My god the world is stupid.

It seems like the law that restricts structures away from the house is overly broad and badly written. But the way to resolve that is to rewrite the law, you don't just ignore because it happens to apply to feel good story this time.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
One of the "funnier" rules of my HOA is that I cannot fire off a firearm within my property or house.

So, no celebratory fire for 4th of July

I don't have a HOA, but I can't do this either. You cannot shoot in my county within 200 yards of a home without the owner's permission, or across any roadways.

Those are both probably reasonable rules.

Is it a legal requirement that you sign up to the HOA if you buy a house in an area otherwise covered by the HOA? Seems kind of... commie to me

And all the work maintaining parks, roads and so on... isn't that what the local council/government is for?

Or is this another thing where paying more to a private organisation is somehow a good thing, like healthcare?

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Is it a legal requirement that you sign up to the HOA if you buy a house in an area otherwise covered by the HOA? Seems kind of... commie to me

And all the work maintaining parks, roads and so on... isn't that what the local council/government is for?

I don't know about a "legal requirement" but it wouldnt surprise me in a development where HOA has already been established.


As for maintaining the parks, etc. this only applies to the private land that the HOA "controls" as in, the one individual housing development, since the city/county/state no longer owns the land.

Being A British Homeowner I keep seeing references to these HOA's in american popular culture and I find them to be both fascinating and kind of creepy.

We've got nothing like these in the UK and I can't imagine anything like them ever taking off. We tend to subscribe to the idea that 'an Englishman's home is his castle' and if any group wanted to try and enforce petty rules about the length of our grass or what colour walls could be painted and tried to make us pay for this privilege they would be be politely but firmly told to clear off.

Just to make it clear if you move to an area with a HOA is is compulsory to join it? What if you refuse to abide by it's rules, are they somehow legally enforceable?

From everything I've seen, it's yes to both.

 LuciusAR wrote:

Just to make it clear if you move to an area with a HOA is is compulsory to join it? What if you refuse to abide by it's rules, are they somehow legally enforceable?

I believe so, and there have been some fairly recent news stories about families having their homes foreclosed on by HOAs without homeowner consent. To be fair though, Im not sure about legal recourse over someone's lawn being a quarter inch too long, the one story that stands out in my mind was over a wife who's husband deployed in the military and she missed a bunch of HOA dues payments (which is also weird, because I know with my home loan, it's all tied together so I automatically pay the HOA, as long as I pay my mortgage)

 LuciusAR wrote:

Just to make it clear if you move to an area with a HOA is is compulsory to join it? What if you refuse to abide by it's rules, are they somehow legally enforceable?

Just speaking about my own HOA, but it's yes to both. Not sure how it works for every HOA out there but here is ours:

The whole square section is being developed by a single company. They purchased all the land in this section and are the ones building all the homes, dividing up all the lots, etc etc etc.

The company formed the HOA and filed the covenant and restrictions with the city, which means that the HOA rules are actually part of the property itself and together with the title and zoning regulations determine what you can and cannot do on the property.

When you purchase a home in the area and do a title search you find the current owners, the title, any liens against the property, any zoning restrictions, and any covenants. So you know about the HOA before you ever buy the property and you know what the rules are that you are expected to follow.

HOA can be found on the listing of the house for sale. Varies in prices. I've seen five a month to up to 50 a month. Realtor can pretty much can find out what the HOA provides for the home buyer

Sometimes reading a thread on here actually makes me kind of glad I'm Welsh.

All this talk and lamentation over what appears to be organisations of interfering busybodies complaining about the minuitae of your property that might upset the homogenous nature of your neighbourhood (but then again, I've always seen american/british society as a culture of 'he who stands out the most is he who stands out the least').

Over here (well, in my grim and dank part of Wales anyway) we just treat such issues the good-old fashioned way: we just do absolutely nothing about it, regardless of how offensive/unhygenic/dangerous/etc the state of your property is, all the while grumbling to our spouses and glowering menacingly out of the upstairs windows at any neighbours who offend our particular opinion of home and property maintenance (not when they are looking, of course, that would be impolite).

If you really annoy us, we might even write a platitudinous letter to a local newpaper, but that would have to be for something really unpleasant, (along the lines of 'shooting up heroin while simultaneously taking a crap on the bonnet of a car').

You Brit's can pretend all you want, but we all know what happens when your lawns gets too long and your flowers are not perky enough!

Which is really bizarre of Americans, when you think about it. We seem to have this odd thing where we pride ourselves on personal freedom and "castle doctrine" and stuff and then at the same moment we proudly shout "Yes,sir!" when corporations tell us what colors we can and can't paint our houses.

 d-usa wrote:
You Brit's can pretend all you want, but we all know what happens when your laws gets too long and your flowers are not perky enough!

Exalted.

 d-usa wrote:

 LuciusAR wrote:

Just to make it clear if you move to an area with a HOA is is compulsory to join it? What if you refuse to abide by it's rules, are they somehow legally enforceable?

Just speaking about my own HOA, but it's yes to both. Not sure how it works for every HOA out there but here is ours:

The whole square section is being developed by a single company. They purchased all the land in this section and are the ones building all the homes, dividing up all the lots, etc etc etc.

The company formed the HOA and filed the covenant and restrictions with the city, which means that the HOA rules are actually part of the property itself and together with the title and zoning regulations determine what you can and cannot do on the property.

When you purchase a home in the area and do a title search you find the current owners, the title, any liens against the property, any zoning restrictions, and any covenants. So you know about the HOA before you ever buy the property and you know what the rules are that you are expected to follow.

So you don't actually own anything, since apparently this company still regulates all that you can and cannot do with what is supposed to be your property?

To me, as a liberal commie European, this sounds incredibly weird... You guys all rail out about Federal Government interference about anything and everything, yet you let a privately owned corporation tell even how you can park your car in your own driveway and what pets you are and aren't allowed to have?!

PhantomViper wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 LuciusAR wrote:

Just to make it clear if you move to an area with a HOA is is compulsory to join it? What if you refuse to abide by it's rules, are they somehow legally enforceable?

Just speaking about my own HOA, but it's yes to both. Not sure how it works for every HOA out there but here is ours:

The whole square section is being developed by a single company. They purchased all the land in this section and are the ones building all the homes, dividing up all the lots, etc etc etc.

The company formed the HOA and filed the covenant and restrictions with the city, which means that the HOA rules are actually part of the property itself and together with the title and zoning regulations determine what you can and cannot do on the property.

When you purchase a home in the area and do a title search you find the current owners, the title, any liens against the property, any zoning restrictions, and any covenants. So you know about the HOA before you ever buy the property and you know what the rules are that you are expected to follow.

So you don't actually own anything, since apparently this company still regulates all that you can and cannot do with what is supposed to be your property?

You own your house. Nothing about a HOA says otherwise. It's just one more set of rules regarding what you can and cannot do with it. Same as zoning laws, same as city laws, same as fire department codes, same as...well same as any other rule.

To me, as a liberal commie European, this sounds incredibly weird... You guys all rail out about Federal Government interference about anything and everything, yet you let a privately owned corporation tell even how you can park your car in your own driveway and what pets you are and aren't allowed to have?!

At this point it's a HOA, not a privately owned corporation. We are all members of the HOA, we can all vote on stuff. All the property owners agreed to the rules and had them filed into the property deeds (at this point the developer owned all the lands, but if an existing neighborhood wanted to form an HOA it could do the same thing.

You know about this when you buy your house. If you don't like it buy a house somewhere else. If you buy a house in a city that doesn't allow chickens in your backyard then you either don't have chickens of buy a house in a city where chickens are allowed.

The whole "HOA's take your freedom away" saying is pretty dumb because you always have the freedom not to buy a house with an HOA in place.

So.. the issue was that you can't have things like this detached from the house? Can't they just attach it to their house, and problem solved?

 SilverMK2 wrote:
And all the work maintaining parks, roads and so on... isn't that what the local council/government is for?

Typically the HOA will administer facilities above and beyond what is normal in that council. For instance, I'm in a development with an artificial lake and we pay extra to have that maintained. We pay that extra money to council who can then spend that money only on the facilities in our area (when I worked for a local government I used to administer these trusts, and it was an annoying inconvenience to me and a drain on my time to be honest).

Having the estate itself collect the money and administer it seems a reasonable alternative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:
So you don't actually own anything, since apparently this company still regulates all that you can and cannot do with what is supposed to be your property?

Of course you still own it. You're restricted by how fast you can drive your car, and what modifications you can make to it, but you still own the thing.

 d-usa wrote:
My only complaint about HOAs is when people bitch and moan about having to follow them. Crap like "evil HOA won't let Veteran put up a flag pole!" stories.

You know there is an HOA before you even buy the house. You can read all the rules before you even buy the house. You sign a document that you read all the rules and agree to them when you buy the house.

If you don't like it don't buy the fething house!

Ow wow D and I agree on something.

I'm just glad we don't have these HOAs in England (that I'm aware of... ). A man's home is his castle, and all that. The concept of a group of people, who don't represent the government in any capacity, regulating what I can do on my property is truly bizarre.

 d-usa wrote:
My only complaint about HOAs is when people bitch and moan about having to follow them. Crap like "evil HOA won't let Veteran put up a flag pole!" stories.

You know there is an HOA before you even buy the house. You can read all the rules before you even buy the house. You sign a document that you read all the rules and agree to them when you buy the house.

If you don't like it don't buy the fething house!

I didn't want to be the first one to say it, but I'm pretty onboard with this.

Putting it in a British frame, these HOA's seem to be some form of local council law that only apply to specific houses/zones/areas, with an appropriate level of additional 'council tax' to support the local services. So I can understand people saying, if you don't want to follow those local laws/rules, you shouldn't move there to begin with'.

At the same time though, these HOA's seem to prescribe invasive restrictions and behaviour far in excess of what any local council here in Britain would ever consider doing, hence the amazement. Council law applies throughout the borough, not just to certain zones/properties within it, and any council that started trying to say that specific houses should have specific colour doors would be ignored in short order, I would think. Likewise, insisting that all home renovations/alterations went through a council approved list of contractors would be seen as infringing extremely heavily on the freedom of the market, and the individuals freedom of choice.

I am amazed that such autocratic institutions exist in America, quite frankly.

 -Shrike- wrote:
I'm just glad we don't have these HOAs in England (that I'm aware of... ). A man's home is his castle, and all that.

Think of it this way... Say you bought a house for you and your wife, after being married, and in this same house for 10+ years, you've decided that the 2 kids, you, your wife and the family dog just no longer "fit" in that house properly, so you put it on the market for sale. Say you paid 90k for the house, 10 years ago. Naturally, you want a return on that investment, and with some repairs/renovations youve done/had done over the years, you think you should get 150k out of the house.

How pissed off would you be if you found out the BEST case value on your home was 80k, simply because the neighbor next door has 6 cars up on blocks, or at least that's what it was at last count before the grass overgrew the vehicles; And their windows are broken/boarded up, the house needed a new paint job about 15 years ago, and both your family and the local Law Enforcement have reason to suspect that they are cooking meth?


THAT is, in essence, what an HOA is for here in the US... Because, let's face it, there are some people who view their owning a home as something about as throw-away as a car, and so they don't take proper care of the building where they live.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
Putting it in a British frame, these HOA's seem to be some form of local council law that only apply to specific houses/zones/areas, with an appropriate level of additional 'council tax' to support the local services. So I can understand people saying, if you don't want to follow those local laws/rules, you shouldn't move there to begin with'.

At the same time though, these HOA's seem to prescribe invasive restrictions and behaviour far in excess of what any local council here in Britain would ever consider doing, hence the amazement. Council law applies throughout the borough, not just to certain zones/properties within it, and any council that started trying to say that specific houses should have specific colour doors would be ignored in short order, I would think. Likewise, insisting that all home renovations/alterations went through a council approved list of contractors would be seen as infringing extremely heavily on the freedom of the market, and the individuals freedom of choice.

I am amazed that such autocratic institutions exist in America, quite frankly.

I can't speak for many other HOAs, but I agree that an HOA that told me "you can only have contractor X, Y, or Z do work on the exterior of your house" would seem overboard. Usually there are also certain avenues of approach that MUST be used when making a complaint or the like... For instance, my HOA has a "quiet hours" rule, which obviously dictates certain noise levels are maintained after a certain time of evening... This is completely different from Hotsauce's apparent "no gathering outside after dusk" rules... As such, if I'm having a party/BBQ or whatever, and it's after 10pm, the first course of action is for the offended neighbor to actually come over and request that we quiet down (I'd think that there are certain limits to this, as there are also city ordinances that must be followed as well), and if we don't or repeatedly do this behavior they can take it to the HOA board, and we get a letter in the mail, or a visit from from official within the Board.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

How pissed off would you be if you found out the BEST case value on your home was 80k, simply because the neighbor next door has 6 cars up on blocks, or at least that's what it was at last count before the grass overgrew the vehicles; And their windows are broken/boarded up, the house needed a new paint job about 15 years ago, and both your family and the local Law Enforcement have reason to suspect that they are cooking meth?

See over here, we regard sovereign property rights as generally outweighing considerations as to the value of the neighbours property six doors down. What colour I paint my door is my affair. What length I choose to have my grass at, and what plants I choose to grow in my garden are my affair. If I decide that I want a wildlife and hedgehog friendly garden, and cultivate a lot of fairly ugly shrubs with that in mind, that's my right as the occupier/owner of the property. The land valuation six doors down has nothing to do with me, and I'd find restrictions on my freedom to do my gardening with that in mind intolerable.

If I'm growing a diseased tree that threatens to infect the street, then the council can cut it down. If I have a plant growing into the street, the council are within their rights to request I trim it back to within the bounds of my property. But the second the council tried to pass a law telling me that everyone on my estate had to have uniform gardens or be fined, that would be regarded as a gross violation of personal ownership rights. I mean, jesus, you should see the outrage over people being told to leave their bins in accessible locations. Attempting to institute these HOA's over here would make those reactions look minimal in comparison.

I can't speak for many other HOAs, but I agree that an HOA that told me "you can only have contractor X, Y, or Z do work on the exterior of your house" would seem overboard. Usually there are also certain avenues of approach that MUST be used when making a complaint or the like... For instance, my HOA has a "quiet hours" rule, which obviously dictates certain noise levels are maintained after a certain time of evening... This is completely different from Hotsauce's apparent "no gathering outside after dusk" rules... As such, if I'm having a party/BBQ or whatever, and it's after 10pm, the first course of action is for the offended neighbor to actually come over and request that we quiet down (I'd think that there are certain limits to this, as there are also city ordinances that must be followed as well), and if we don't or repeatedly do this behavior they can take it to the HOA board, and we get a letter in the mail, or a visit from from official within the Board.

Again, here in Britain, you can call the police if the disturbance has reached a particular level, but there's no attempts to say, 'Everyone on this street must legally turn their music down by 10pm or get fined, because otherwise someone might lose a few thousand pounds on their house sale'.

When it comes to people smoking drugs on the street and piling garbage bags high, there are council laws in place to deal with those things. They're very specific offences, with very specific penalties, and the larger issues are all applied nationwide. I think the proof in the pudding as to the HOA's necessity quite frankly, is that we here in the UK manage to get along just fine without any such thing, and yet our house prices tend to go up rather than down. If you live on a street with crack dealers, having an HOA wouldn't get rid of them regardless, the police do that. If someone tried to lowball your house because someone three houses up has a differently coloured front door, or architecturally mismatched windows, they'd get laughed out of town here.

I don't personally see the attraction in uniformity to begin with. Houses and people aren't toy soldiers. Variation in vegetation, wildlife, and architecture is far more interesting and pleasing to the eye. And quite frankly, with the hodgepodge of houses in our country dating back anywhere from ten to three hundred years, any attempts to enforce uniformity would be doomed before it even began.

 Ketara wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

How pissed off would you be if you found out the BEST case value on your home was 80k, simply because the neighbor next door has 6 cars up on blocks, or at least that's what it was at last count before the grass overgrew the vehicles; And their windows are broken/boarded up, the house needed a new paint job about 15 years ago, and both your family and the local Law Enforcement have reason to suspect that they are cooking meth?

See over here, we regard sovereign property rights as generally outweighing considerations as to the value of the neighbours property six doors down. What colour I paint my door is my affair. What length I choose to have my grass at, and what plants I choose to grow in my garden are my affair. If I decide that I want a wildlife and hedgehog friendly garden, and cultivate a lot of fairly ugly shrubs with that in mind, that's my right as the occupier/owner of the property. The land valuation six doors down has nothing to do with me, and I'd find restrictions on my freedom to do my gardening with that in mind intolerable.

If I'm growing a diseased tree that threatens to infect the street, then the council can cut it down. If I have a plant growing into the street, the council are within their rights to request I trim it back to within the bounds of my property. But the second the council tried to pass a law telling me that everyone on my estate had to have uniform gardens or be fined, that would be regarded as a gross violation of personal ownership rights. I mean, jesus, you should see the outrage over people being told to leave their bins in accessible locations. Attempting to institute these HOA's over here would make those reactions look minimal in comparison.

I think a big part of it is just a culture thing, and the things that appear like they are usually handled by your council sound like they are the things that would also usually be handled by our city through regular code enforcement.

Not every neighborhood has a HOA (I would guess that in Oklahoma City neighborhoods with HOAs are probably the minority) and so it's not that "common" of a problem, and it really is not as much "they are telling me what to do" and more "we all agreed that this is what we are going to do". Many HOA's are pretty mild and basically consist of nothing more than "we collect some money, maintain the park and playground, get rid of the snow in the winter, and please don't let your property turn into a mini-ghetto, thanks". My HOA has a book of rules that is 125 pages thick, with a big junk of that just being definitions of the neighborhood, procedures for elections and meetings, when it expires, etc etc etc. The actual rules are not that extensive and really not that involved. We also have the "this is the color of the door and house, file a request with the review board if you want to change it" clause and quite a few other asthetic rules. But I don't feel like they are "forced" upon me since I knew that these are the rules were when I purchased the home.

Which again makes me think that it's just a cultural thing here. Deciding to buy a home with a HOA or not is no different than trying to decide which city you want to buy a home in based on the zoning restrictions. If you buy a home in Oklahoma City and then get pissed about your freedoms being taken away from you because you can't keep chickens in your backyard I don't have much sympathy for you when all the zoning rules for Oklahoma City are online for you to read before you ever buy your home. You know all the rules before you buy the house (HOA or not, zoning laws or not, fire department codes or not), you have the freedom to buy a home where you can do what you want.

Ohhh, Another fun thing happened. the HOA came in a cut ALL our rose bushes today when all we asked for was a single tree. They said "Well we where out there, so we decided to cut those to protect your neighbors kids"

 Ketara wrote:

See over here, we regard sovereign property rights as generally outweighing considerations as to the value of the neighbours property six doors down. What colour I paint my door is my affair. What length I choose to have my grass at, and what plants I choose to grow in my garden are my affair. If I decide that I want a wildlife and hedgehog friendly garden, and cultivate a lot of fairly ugly shrubs with that in mind, that's my right as the occupier/owner of the property. The land valuation six doors down has nothing to do with me, and I'd find restrictions on my freedom to do my gardening with that in mind intolerable.

Generally it's the same in the US, however the appearance of neighboring properties affects the overall value, at least from a marketing stand point (I mean really, if we wanted to ACTUALLY value a house's real value, you'd take the cost of materials and add in the cost of labor, and finally add in the cost of inspections... but that's not entirely how it works)

Again, using the "meth lab neighbor" from my previous example... If you were in the market for a house, would you buy one that was situated next to what appears to seriously be a drug den? If your answer is yes, then I would have some serious questions for you As it is, I personally feel that, when someone buys a house in the States with a pre-existing HOA, they go into it with the mindset of "the neighbors have the same values in the upkeep of their properties as I do" I mean, yeah, a man's house is his castle... but I think I'd rather face the French army in my castle if it's well maintained


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ohhh, Another fun thing happened. the HOA came in a cut ALL our rose bushes today when all we asked for was a single tree. They said "Well we where out there, so we decided to cut those to protect your neighbors kids"

I think you may have some legitimate beef with them, as well as possible legal actions available in this situation... Im no lawyer, and obviously dont know ALL the details, so I dont know for sure, but it would seem you should be able to do something here.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
It would be interesting to see how they consider dog houses, childrens swing sets, etc... all of those are "structures" not attached to the house.

That aside I would suggest that the "free library" is more a piece of furniture than a structure.

Bravo! I do not think I could had said anything better.

Lets add Sheds, Tents, Tree Houses, and patio bbq's to that as well.

 Vasarto wrote:


Bravo! I do not think I could had said anything better.

Lets add Sheds, Tents, Tree Houses, and patio bbq's to that as well.

In most places, it greatly depends on the square footage and height as to whether a structure would require a permit. I'm pretty sure it's been discussed previously ITT.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Vasarto wrote:


Bravo! I do not think I could had said anything better.

Lets add Sheds, Tents, Tree Houses, and patio bbq's to that as well.

In most places, it greatly depends on the square footage and height as to whether a structure would require a permit. I'm pretty sure it's been discussed previously ITT.

Some of the other articles that I have read seem to make a little bit more sense than the original article posted here.

According to those articles the lending library still violates city ordinances. But it doesn't violate them for being a "The city prohibits people from having structures on their property that are detached from the physical house". According to them it's a bit more specific and violates an ordinance against having structures in the front yard.

Which would make more sense and I don't think it would be uncommon for a city to have an ordinance against an outdoor kitchen, a jungle gym, a pool, etc in the front yard.

If that's the case I can sympathize a bit more with the city and the whole "if we make an exemption here then we are going to open a can of worms" argument.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

See over here, we regard sovereign property rights as generally outweighing considerations as to the value of the neighbours property six doors down. What colour I paint my door is my affair. What length I choose to have my grass at, and what plants I choose to grow in my garden are my affair. If I decide that I want a wildlife and hedgehog friendly garden, and cultivate a lot of fairly ugly shrubs with that in mind, that's my right as the occupier/owner of the property. The land valuation six doors down has nothing to do with me, and I'd find restrictions on my freedom to do my gardening with that in mind intolerable.

Generally it's the same in the US, however the appearance of neighboring properties affects the overall value, at least from a marketing stand point (I mean really, if we wanted to ACTUALLY value a house's real value, you'd take the cost of materials and add in the cost of labor, and finally add in the cost of inspections... but that's not entirely how it works)

Again, using the "meth lab neighbor" from my previous example... If you were in the market for a house, would you buy one that was situated next to what appears to seriously be a drug den? If your answer is yes, then I would have some serious questions for you As it is, I personally feel that, when someone buys a house in the States with a pre-existing HOA, they go into it with the mindset of "the neighbors have the same values in the upkeep of their properties as I do" I mean, yeah, a man's house is his castle... but I think I'd rather face the French army in my castle if it's well maintained

If it truly was a drug den, then that is a crime and you call the police on them. If its just a neighbor with a poorly maintained property, as long as that property isn't causing any safety risks to the surrounding houses, then it is within his right as the owner of the house to keep it anyway that he likes, and we tend to value individual rights a bit more higher than "property values".

If you've lost a few dollars when you wen't to sell your house because of that? Well, tough cookies, better luck next time.

Frankly I find the whole concept baffling, especially when we are talking about a country that seemingly prides itself about the freedom of its citizens, but it really brings into context for me the thread that was started a few months ago about people living in the city, people living in the country and people living in the suburbs and how the majority seemed to consider living in the suburbs to be some kind of hell... If these HOA's are more common in suburban communities, then that pretty much explains those opinions and I would agree with them entirely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

Which would make more sense and I don't think it would be uncommon for a city to have an ordinance against an outdoor kitchen, a jungle gym, a pool, etc in the front yard.

Why? What possible harm could any of those structures cause that it would require a city ordnance, of all things, to outlaw them? (Genuinely curious here, since having any of those things in the front yard is pretty common over here)

 LuciusAR wrote:
Being A British Homeowner I keep seeing references to these HOA's in american popular culture and I find them to be both fascinating and kind of creepy.

We've got nothing like these in the UK and I can't imagine anything like them ever taking off. We tend to subscribe to the idea that 'an Englishman's home is his castle' and if any group wanted to try and enforce petty rules about the length of our grass or what colour walls could be painted and tried to make us pay for this privilege they would be be politely but firmly told to clear off.

Just to make it clear if you move to an area with a HOA is is compulsory to join it? What if you refuse to abide by it's rules, are they somehow legally enforceable?

In the UK we have listed buildings and conservation areas with a similar effect. If you lived in a leasehold property there will certainly be conditions in the lease similar to an HOA. For example it is common in blocks of flats to not be allowed to keep a pet.

Although I do agree that HOA's are a stupid concept, I also agree with the sentiment "if you don't like it, buy a house somewhere else" - which I did.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

See over here, we regard sovereign property rights as generally outweighing considerations as to the value of the neighbours property six doors down. What colour I paint my door is my affair. What length I choose to have my grass at, and what plants I choose to grow in my garden are my affair. If I decide that I want a wildlife and hedgehog friendly garden, and cultivate a lot of fairly ugly shrubs with that in mind, that's my right as the occupier/owner of the property. The land valuation six doors down has nothing to do with me, and I'd find restrictions on my freedom to do my gardening with that in mind intolerable.

Generally it's the same in the US, however the appearance of neighboring properties affects the overall value, at least from a marketing stand point (I mean really, if we wanted to ACTUALLY value a house's real value, you'd take the cost of materials and add in the cost of labor, and finally add in the cost of inspections... but that's not entirely how it works)

Again, using the "meth lab neighbor" from my previous example... If you were in the market for a house, would you buy one that was situated next to what appears to seriously be a drug den? If your answer is yes, then I would have some serious questions for you As it is, I personally feel that, when someone buys a house in the States with a pre-existing HOA, they go into it with the mindset of "the neighbors have the same values in the upkeep of their properties as I do" I mean, yeah, a man's house is his castle... but I think I'd rather face the French army in my castle if it's well maintained

If it truly was a drug den, then that is a crime and you call the police on them. If its just a neighbor with a poorly maintained property, as long as that property isn't causing any safety risks to the surrounding houses, then it is within his right as the owner of the house to keep it anyway that he likes, and we tend to value individual rights a bit more higher than "property values".

Yeah...there's not much the police are going to do unless you have some kind of proof, in most cases. Meanwhile, they're still lowering your property values, bringing criminals into your neighborhood, and possibly poisoning your family with by-products of their drug manufacturing.

We also value individual rights over property values...that's why the default legal assumption is that you CAN do whatever you like on your property unless there's a specific law forbidding it.

A Homeowners Association isn't a squad of jack-booted thugs, roving through the neighborhood in packs, crushing lawn gnomes with sledgehammers and tearing down treehouses. It's a collection of responsible, mature property owners who are interested in forming a community of responsible, mature adults. I've never heard of a HOA that didn't allow avenues for both A) changes to the rules or B) exemptions on a case-by-case basis. (Usually requiring the approval of a board, the immediate neighbors, or a simple majority.)

I've also never heard anyone but angsty teenagers refer to living in the suburbs as 'hellish.' I think a far worse nightmare would be to invest in a property, to put a significant amount of effort (and a significant period of your life) into it, only to have it turn into a squalor-ridden slum around your ears. If entering into a voluntary agreement with my neighbors that we will establish a communal set of rules that everyone will abide by to protect ALL our investments can stave that off, then that seems like a wonderful thing.

 Jimsolo wrote:


Yeah...there's not much the police are going to do unless you have some kind of proof, in most cases. Meanwhile, they're still lowering your property values, bringing criminals into your neighborhood, and possibly poisoning your family with by-products of their drug manufacturing.

So let me get this straight. The police can't sort out the crack dens, but these HOA associations can? All those hardened criminals will repent upon receiving their letter informing them of their contractual violations, and put all that money made selling drugs into paying their fines?

One is inclined to think that if there's a crack den in a house, the people inside will just ignore the letter until they get dragged to court, and then either not bother showing up, or pay the fine (since it'll be chump change compared to the money you make selling crack), and keep on doing it anyway. Making the HOA rules somewhat meaningless except to grab money off people who didn't trim their lawn this summer.

 Ketara wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:


Yeah...there's not much the police are going to do unless you have some kind of proof, in most cases. Meanwhile, they're still lowering your property values, bringing criminals into your neighborhood, and possibly poisoning your family with by-products of their drug manufacturing.

So let me get this straight. The police can't sort out the crack dens, but these HOA associations can? All those hardened criminals will repent upon receiving their letter informing them of their contractual violations, and put all that money made selling drugs into paying their fines?

One is inclined to think that if there's a crack den in a house, the people inside will just ignore the letter until they get dragged to court, and then either not bother showing up, or pay the fine (since it'll be chump change compared to the money you make selling crack), and keep on doing it anyway. Making the HOA rules somewhat meaningless except to grab money off people who didn't trim their lawn this summer.

Sums up my thoughts pretty well. The more I hear about these things, the happier I am that I live in England. I really can't see what they do that isn't already covered by local council laws, the police, or an informal agreement between homeowners in a particular area.

 d-usa wrote:


According to those articles the lending library still violates city ordinances. But it doesn't violate them for being a "The city prohibits people from having structures on their property that are detached from the physical house". According to them it's a bit more specific and violates an ordinance against having structures in the front yard.

If that's the case I can sympathize a bit more with the city and the whole "if we make an exemption here then we are going to open a can of worms" argument.

This is still a bit "odd" to me, as I would have assumed more that they would be in violation of performing a municipal function, ie, a library.

I am going to remember this thread next time I get that guff about how exceptionally precious freedom and individuality is to americans this thread is great!

Someone did have to be a right spanker to report the kid for his library though- I bet the parents had annoyed someone in the past and they took their chance to get one back on them.

 Ketara wrote:
Putting it in a British frame, these HOA's seem to be some form of local council law that only apply to specific houses/zones/areas, with an appropriate level of additional 'council tax' to support the local services. So I can understand people saying, if you don't want to follow those local laws/rules, you shouldn't move there to begin with'.

At the same time though, these HOA's seem to prescribe invasive restrictions and behaviour far in excess of what any local council here in Britain would ever consider doing, hence the amazement. Council law applies throughout the borough, not just to certain zones/properties within it, and any council that started trying to say that specific houses should have specific colour doors would be ignored in short order, I would think. Likewise, insisting that all home renovations/alterations went through a council approved list of contractors would be seen as infringing extremely heavily on the freedom of the market, and the individuals freedom of choice.

I am amazed that such autocratic institutions exist in America, quite frankly.

Not necessarily Ketara. The part of Edinburgh I live in has several small areas and even specific buildings which are "listed", ie they have certain architecturally noteworthy or historically significant aspects or exist in an area with either of those features, and there are substantial restrictions on what people can do over and above ordinary planning regulation. My building isn't even listed itself, but because it's in an area with a lot of listed structures, we still cannot for eg have anything except white wooden sash&case windows with the proper number and size of panes in them(so no cheaper PVC framed and double/triple-glazed windows despite them being more energy efficient, even if they look exactly the same as painted wooden ones from the street), and any repair work to the exterior of the structure must be done with mason-dressed sandstone(rather than the much cheaper and visually indistinguishable method of carving away damaged/eroded portions of existing blocks and repairing them with a kind of ground-sandstone putty). The council can even mandate that repairs take place using their own approved contractors via a Statutory Notice, although that might be coming to an end after the scheme was exposed as massively, terminally corrupt.

 Yodhrin wrote:


Not necessarily Ketara. The part of Edinburgh I live in has several small areas and even specific buildings which are "listed", ie they have certain architecturally noteworthy or historically significant aspects or exist in an area with either of those features, and there are substantial restrictions on what people can do over and above ordinary planning regulation. My building isn't even listed itself, but because it's in an area with a lot of listed structures, we still cannot for eg have anything except white wooden sash&case windows with the proper number and size of panes in them(so no cheaper PVC framed and double/triple-glazed windows despite them being more energy efficient, even if they look exactly the same as painted wooden ones from the street), and any repair work to the exterior of the structure must be done with mason-dressed sandstone(rather than the much cheaper and visually indistinguishable method of carving away damaged/eroded portions of existing blocks and repairing them with a kind of ground-sandstone putty). The council can even mandate that repairs take place using their own approved contractors via a Statutory Notice, although that might be coming to an end after the scheme was exposed as massively, terminally corrupt.

I'm aware of the restrictions listed buildings have, but I'm not entirely sure that making sure that historically significant architecture is restored in a way that doesn't ruin it is quite comparable to insisting that you cut your grass every year and have a green door (or get fined). The former is in place for reasons of preservation and historical necessity, the latter because apparently you might affect the house prices of someone six doors down. With regards to insisting that buildings in historically significant areas match the area aesthetically, it's a bit closer in form to the US model, but I would posit that the intent is different.

I've lived in Canterbury and London, two reasonably historically significant places, and you tend to only get restrictions of that type on say, a building that was up against the city wall and surrounded by listed buildings, or buildings of a type whereby the sudden plonking a large block of modern glass flats would completely ruin the aesthetic appeal for tourism and historical purposes. I can't speak for Edinburgh of course, it may be that the council there was overzealous due to backscratching, but I don't believe that it's a standard form across the UK.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
THAT is, in essence, what an HOA is for here in the US... Because, let's face it, there are some people who view their owning a home as something about as throw-away as a car, and so they don't take proper care of the building where they live.

Yep, as much as people like to say its their house and they can do what they want with it, the reality is that we buy the street we live on as much as the house. People don't just pay for land and the house, they pay to have the kinds of neighbours that make for a pleasant street to live on.

So HOA and other kinds of restrictions aren't just to protect your property value, but also your standard of living. Now, there's no argument that plenty of HOA go too far, have more restrictions than are sensible and are far too rigorously enforced, but as a general concept they make a lot of sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
I think the proof in the pudding as to the HOA's necessity quite frankly, is that we here in the UK manage to get along just fine without any such thing, and yet our house prices tend to go up rather than down.

That's not really proof of anything. Housing will grow in value as long as you have an expanding population and no new city centres springing up out of nowhere. As long as that is the case then across the whole land closer to city centres will be traded at an increasing premium compared to increasingly distant new suburbs in outlying areas.

The point of the HOA is to reduce one specific risk that threatens individual property values while not impacting property values overall - the risk of a bad neighbour.

I don't personally see the attraction in uniformity to begin with. Houses and people aren't toy soldiers. Variation in vegetation, wildlife, and architecture is far more interesting and pleasing to the eye. And quite frankly, with the hodgepodge of houses in our country dating back anywhere from ten to three hundred years, any attempts to enforce uniformity would be doomed before it even began.

Sure, I agree that the kinds of estates where every house is identical are pretty damn weird, but they're not the dominant kind of HOA. Most just given some design requirements and enforce maintenance standards, and really represent not much more than a heightened level of town planning laws.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
I'm aware of the restrictions listed buildings have, but I'm not entirely sure that making sure that historically significant architecture is restored in a way that doesn't ruin it is quite comparable to insisting that you cut your grass every year...

Once a year? Forget the HOA, if some neighbour of mine only cut their grass once a year I'd have them reported for being a fire hazard. You got any idea how fast grass grows in a year?

 sebster wrote:

Once a year? Forget the HOA, if some neighbour of mine only cut their grass once a year I'd have them reported for being a fire hazard. You got any idea how fast grass grows in a year?

Yes, but you do live over in Terra incognito. The rest of us don't worry so much about firestorms from the heavens.

 Ketara wrote:
Yes, but you do live over in Terra incognito. The rest of us don't worry so much about firestorms from the heavens.

Very true

 Ketara wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Once a year? Forget the HOA, if some neighbour of mine only cut their grass once a year I'd have them reported for being a fire hazard. You got any idea how fast grass grows in a year?

Yes, but you do live over in Terra incognito. The rest of us don't worry so much about firestorms from the heavens.

Forget a fire hazard, if you let grass grow too long in that part of the world, you create the perfect ambush point for the drop bears... and I'd rather not be ambushed by pissed off Koalas

Did they arrest the criminal? did they tazer him? did they shot him? "Sir! for the last time! put the book down!"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Once a year? Forget the HOA, if some neighbour of mine only cut their grass once a year I'd have them reported for being a fire hazard. You got any idea how fast grass grows in a year?

Yes, but you do live over in Terra incognito. The rest of us don't worry so much about firestorms from the heavens.

Forget a fire hazard, if you let grass grow too long in that part of the world, you create the perfect ambush point for the drop bears... and I'd rather not be ambushed by pissed off Koalas

You need to maintain firelanes to kill whatever animal is trying to come to the house any given hour.

 d-usa wrote:

You need to maintain firelanes to kill whatever animal is trying to come to the house any given hour.

Damn.... Thanks for reminding me to update my range cards (DA Form 5517-R) for my house