Posted on 11/17/2006 10:46:11 AM PST by TheKidster
No one is forced to buy an HOA property.
That's a voluntary personal choice.
Secondly, if I am reading the article correctly, the HOA changed the rules after they moved in. I think they have a very strong case for appeal on the last point.
Nope.
They knew when they moved in that the HOA could amend its bylaws at any time.
Then you don't understand property rights. I can't help you with that. As a condition of sale I can exercise my property rights to only sell to people who agree to abide by the HOA.
And I don't have an HOA and would never want to live in one. But I hate FReeper nutcases who can't understand simple logic.
SD
Again, the fine print said that the HOA could amend its bylaws.
they bought a property knowing that the terms of their residence were subject to change.
The terms and conditions specifically stated that the HOA could amend its bylaws at any time.
They have a right to sell to who they want without discrimination. You can't refuse to sell to a gay couple, or interracial couple, or jews, or muslims, or black folk, etc.
If your idea of the right to decide who to sell it to involves restricting the property rights of the new owners (especially if they end up with less rights than you had as the owner) then there is something seriously and fundamentally wrong with you.
Immaterial.
They bought property in an HOA that had bylaws subject to amendment.
If they did not want to be subjected to bylaw changes, they had the option not to buy the property in the first place.
If you move into the community you are covered buy the HOA rules. Yes you can decide to buy somewhere else, but you can not decide to buy in an HOA community and then decide not to live by the association rules. For the most part the people who run these HOAs are Liberal little house nazis that want to run everybodies lives.
You didn't address the drinkers. In the next apartment. Do the drinkers not have to take responsibility to keep their drunken rages contained? Yes, personal responsibility is very important as long as detriment to others is absolutely proved and not just an allegation by one who simply doesn't care for what someone else does. What I am saying IS relevant and you know it. You don't speak for everyone, because most people know they are no saint and are willing to give and take, Begone
HOA's aren't better deals but when you are given the choice of by this unit for 170K or move in 3 months (while many of the other complexes in the city are doing the same thing) then you are beginning to be coerced depending upon your finacial situation. Also there is no give and take, the property isn't any better than it was as an apt. but now there are extra restrictions. If the mortgage is about the same and all the other decent apts. in town are priced at twice what you have been able to afford, then you are certainly being forced. You could always live in a rat hole or on the street, but is that much of a choice, really?
Wrong.
A seller has the right to sell or not to sell to whomever he wants, for any reason.
If the seller advertises a property to the general public and then discriminates against members of the public who respond to the ad based on certain criteria, then he has violated the law.
The rules were changed....who doesn't read the whole post?
Can we dispense with the red herrings. Thank you.
If your idea of the right to decide who to sell it to involves restricting the property rights of the new owners
I can make whatever restrictions I want a condition of sale. (As long as it isn't forbidden by the state, as in your red herrings above.)
If you don't like it, don't buy from me.
It's called property rights. I own it. You don't like it, don't buy it.
Capiche?
SD
That's what I meant. You can't descriminate and refuse sale based on religion, race, sex, etc.
Good questions
Yes, of course they do. There are laws against creating a disturbance.
Yes, personal responsibility is very important as long as detriment to others is absolutely proved and not just an allegation by one who simply doesn't care for what someone else does.
Another fairy tale believer who doesn't think it possible for smoke to pass from one apartment into another. It's all a scam made up to abuse poor smokers.
SD
You can always buy a controlling share of the property and have the HOA dissolved or totally impotent under your control. That's property rights.
So, tell me again why you can't make the HOA voluntary?
It is voluntary.
SD
That is what I'm talking about. I don't smoke and would be upset that smoke was coming into my apartment but I would expect the builders to fix the problem instead of demanding my neighbor not smoke. Today they are going after the smokers. Next it will be something else. The nannies won't be happy until we all are bubble wrapped.
First in this country everyone has a right to sue over anything, but that isn't the point. You make a strange comparison between my local elected officials and the house nazis that run HOAs. Cities are usually run by a mayor and city council made up of people with various viewpoints elected from different part of town and are at least in theory accountable to the electorate and often governed in some sense by state and federal laws. HOAs on the otherhand are usually a small of group of busy bodies with too much time on their hands, and an overwhelming desire to make everyone conform to their view of the world.
I do not and will not ever live in a community run by a dictatorial HOA, but I know people who do and never met anyone who was happy about it.
Begone, you have failed to prove your point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.