quote:

---

when its covenants and bylaws were recorded in land records,

---

Simple advice: if you're big on property rights and individualism, don't buy property with restrictive bylaws and covenants. It really allows your homeowner's association to jerk you around legally, and your defenses are limited. Buy land or a house in an older subdivision where they are less common, or buy outparcels that are not part of a subdivision.

One thing that I was appalled to see when researching deeds and plats at my old survey job was covenants forbidding sale of land to black folks, right there in black and white. Unenforceable nowadays of course, but it really brought Jim Crow laws and the civil rights struggle into focus for me.
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 
or..OR it's absolute garbage that this is even an issue. I'd tell a man to piss up a rope if he told me I couldn't fly an American flag in my yard. Which apparantly is what he did. God bless him.
If he were flying mangled deer carcass from the flagpole, I'd have a different opinion.
But to try to force him to take down a flag? A FLAG?! There be a big helping of kiss my ass on tap for them from me.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Why not fly a flag from your eaves? You could make it as huge as you want but not acutally have a flagpole. That is if there is a loophole prohibiting flagpoles but not flags.

Pet peeve: Those stupid easter bunny, halloween and whatever the heck else other holiday that might exist flags that kitschy people fly on their front porches.

AJ
 

---

Posted by Damien (Member # 5611) on :
 
Forcing him to take it down=not cool...
forcing someone to run one up=not cool...
burning things in political outcry=way cool...


EDIT to add: Halloween>everything

[ September 12, 2003, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: Damien ]
 

---

Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
 
Pooping people's shoes when they piss you off = cool
 

---

Posted by Damien (Member # 5611) on :
 
Has this quickly become a cool/not cool thread?

cool/not cool threads=cool (when not applied to people)
 

---

Posted by Damien (Member # 5611) on :
 
Oh, and slightly on topic...I think we should kick the majority of America out of their homes....flags or no flags...randomly...with hangings....*nods*
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
In purchasing my new home, I made sure that there was no homeowners' association to contend with. The area residents did create a voluntary deed restriction to make sure no-one turned their house into a student rental property. But other than that, no restrictions. I like that...a lot.

The other thing I hate about home owners associations is that you actually have to pay for the privilege to have them in your business.

It sucks.

In this particular case, I think that if the guy was flying an obnoxiously large flag, there might be a problem. The issue arises because if they don't enforce a covenant JUST ONCE, it becomes impossible for them to enforce it in the future. Why they didn't try to exempt American and state flags below a specified size, I don't know. But they sure end up looking like jerks.
 

---

Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
 
I, for one, hate how pervasive HOAs are (especially here in the Phoenix area). slacker and I would love dearly to buy a home in a subdivision where there is no HOA, but that is extremely hard to find. From what I've seen, you have to find a development that is more than 15 years old (which on the east side, where we want to be, is unusual) to have a shot at no HOA.

I do know that when they passed a law here in AZ that HOAs couldn't retrict the flying of a US flag, my boss went out and got a huge 20ft flagpole and enormous flag. His HOA is insane and he enjoyed bugging them.

[ September 12, 2003, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
Over-intrusive HOA's came about because so many people are junky jackasses, and there was nothing that their neighbors could do about it.

Unfortunately, the pendulum has swung the other way too far.

In my county, they recently tried to pass an anti-trash-and-junk-on-your-propery ordinance, and couldn't do it because all of the rusted-derelict car afficionados showed up in force.
 

---

Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
 
Incidently, why is it that an HOA has the right to kick someone out of their house?

There was huge flack last year when an elderly woman here in town was kicked out of her home for refusing to pay the HOA dues for the last few years.

I just don't get it. He hasn't broken any laws. He's not having his house foreclosed because he didn't pay. They should not have the power to conviscate his home. They should not have any "right" to his property.

[ September 12, 2003, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
They don't have a right to his home or property.

They were allowed to put a lein on his home for the legal bills incurred while fighting him in court. Probably, the association rules allow them to do this when they have to enforce the association rules in court.

Now, they want their money, or they're going to foreclose on the house and sell it to get their money ($22k).
 

---

Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
 
But they specifically said "There has to be a way to give the association a right to enforce its claims on the property". Why are they allowed to lay any claim to his property while this whole thing is still being contested?
 

---

Posted by slacker (Member # 2559) on :
 
HOA's suck. I think they should be illegal. There's no reason that a bunch of bitter, misinformed and UNELECTED people should decide just how MY house that I'm PAYING FOR should look.

People in AZ have lost their houses for stupid reasons (things like the wrong kinds of bushes, etc).

Coincidentally, it's a law here that your HOA cannot tell you that you can't fly the American flag.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind seeing HOA's be illegal, and the organizations have to pay reparations to the people that they've opressed.
 

---

Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
 
William - In 'your country'? Where are you from?
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
It's like anything else, different suits proceed at different paces through the courts. The HOA has an unsatisfied lien on this guy's house. They sued to collect and the court agreed that they had the right to collect. Period. Doesn't matter whether he may or may not win on the presence of the flagpole in the first place. He caused a situation that resulted in legal bills to the HOA and they have the right to collect that money from him.

And, frankly, I don't have too much sympathy because everyone who buys a house in ANY deed restricted area is informed of those restrictions, BY LAW, before they close on the house. If he's an original owner, he may have lost or forgotten the restrictions, but that's not an excuse either.

He agreed to live by those covenants when he purchased his house (or when the HOA was established if that was AFTER he bought the house). Either way, he signed that he would abide by the restrictions. He hasn't, so he will get hit with penalties if his neighbors decide to enforce the rules they all agreed to live by.

All the more reason to stay away from neighborhoods with an HOA if you want to do anything you want.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
He's from Zimbabwe.

Or he could have been talking about his county. Either one.
 

---

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
 
I'm in my own, private, rural Idaho.
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
County, country. Whatever. I had to read that twice, too. I thought it said country the first time I read it and wondered the same thing. Notice only the cool chicks had a problem with it.
 

---

Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
 
Oh, duh.

::smacks self on forehead::

I really shouldn't be playing in the big kid's sandbox.
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 

quote:

---

And, frankly, I don't have too much sympathy because everyone who buys a house in ANY deed restricted area is informed of those restrictions, BY LAW, before they close on the house.[...]He agreed to live by those covenants when he purchased his house

---

Bob.

Exactly. The flag issue just makes it more emotional. Would people care if he fought to have 10 wrecked cars on his property?

Although I am suprised they can foreclose like this. I thought (as did the FL Attorney General) that Florida's homestead law would have protected him. It's certainly protected enough fat cats with creditors after them. It's become a legal strategy to pour insane amounts of money into a FL home if you're are in danger of losing lawsuits or face bankruptcy.

I remember one of the principals in the largest real estate scam in Connecticut history, basically a giant Ponzi scheme, was allowed to keep his estate in Florida after bankruptcy and civil suits from all of his victims ($100million++ in victims IIRC). Ken Lay and his ilk have done similarly.

I do sympathize with ludusti, who doesn't want a HOA but has difficulty finding a home without one.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
My new TX home is in an older neighborhood (circa 1963) and it has a voluntary owners' covenant that they all agreed to.

There were a few older neighborhoods around the Bryan/College Station area that also had no HOA. Most of those are in "historic districts" however and that has its own brand of neighborhood pressures as well as some government sanctioned restrictions if the place is TRULY historic and not just "real estate" historic.

Then, the rest of the surrounding area is basically carved up into "neighborhoods" with HOAs ruling the roost. If I wanted that, I'd move into a condominium. Criminy sakes.

At least in TX, if you really want freedom, you can move onto a piece of vacant land and do whatever you want.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I remember growing up in West Texas and hearing about over-population and no place to put the people. Then I'd walk outside and watch the empty horizon curve away.

(Of course, it is a real deal, because the limiting factor is not land here, it's water. Still.)
 

---

Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
 
The thing that always surprises me is that, by and large, the reasons people spout for needing an HOA - keep people from having a million rusting vehicles, weeds 5 feet tall, motor homes parked out front, etc. - are already prohibited by city ordinances (at least here there are). Why the need for the HOA then?
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
Well, for example, in Florida, the HOA can put a lein on his house. The state can't. They have people there who owe hundreds of thousands of dollars, but the state can't foreclose on their house because of the homesteaders law. So, they get to have a city dump in their yard and the neighbors can't do a darn thing about it.
 

---

Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
 
If it really is such a dump, certainly there are city ordinances that are being violated, which they can be forced to comply with (even without involving any sort of lien).
 

---

Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
 
No, not really. Well, maybe the State will win in the long run, but for now, they certainly aren't. Or, at least, weren't when this was written.

http://www.local6.com/news/1247576/detail.html

[ September 12, 2003, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
 

---