I'm not saying there should be no restrictions at all, especially if everyone agrees to them. What I find hard to swallow is that these HOA's have the power to steal people's property if they don't comply. I believe one is a huge fool to give that power to somebody and I'd never do it. What I find hypocritical in what you said is that you demand the right as a property owner to ensure those who own the property for ever after you must concede thier rights as a property owner in order to buy the property. Not only that but you are purposely making a strong effort to restrict the rights of others in order to turn a higher profit on the sale. So again, it seems as though you are all for property rights as long as it benefits your wallet, and screw everyone else.
Would you participate in a city plan using eminant domain so that you could acquire property from another private owner at a better price than what he is asking?
Nobody is stealing property. Where did you get that idea. They are setting the rules for the common enjoyment of property.
When you sell a property, say in a neighborhood with zoning restrictions, you sell it intact with those zoning restrictions. You cannot say put a business in a house in an area zoned for no business. That is not stealing.
When you buy farms, you can be sold the land without mineral rights. I know this. If you don't read the print you don't know that the mineral rights are owned by someone else.
>>I'm not saying there should be no restrictions at all, especially if everyone agrees to them.
They all did, when they bought. They also agreed to the process for changing the rules when it is necessary to address an unexpected nuisance.
>What I find hard to swallow is that these HOA's have the power to steal people's property if they don't comply.
Without this, they would have no teeth. The key is not to violate them.
>>I believe one is a huge fool to give that power to somebody and I'd never do it. What I find hypocritical in what you said is that you demand the right as a property owner to ensure those who own the property for ever after you must concede thier rights as a property owner in order to buy the property.
Nothing hypocritical there. When the restrictions add value (as they ALWAYS do), it owuld undermine that value to have them disappear in a short time, or after someone resells his house.
>> Not only that but you are purposely making a strong effort to restrict the rights of others in order to turn a higher profit on the sale.
The developer is making every effort to make the property more attractive. What he is really saying (is this so complex?) is that he will protect you (me) the buyer against all these possible bad things that my future neighbors might do to reduce my property value or quality of life. Yes, those are restrictions.
We also have widespread restrictions on the right to commit general nuisances, and we all seem better off by this "restriction."
>>So again, it seems as though you are all for property rights as long as it benefits your wallet, and screw everyone else.
I leave it up to the OWNER what restrictions he wants on his OWN property, not busybodies who sound like Democrats.
Why should you or any outsider have the right to limit how a developer can enhance his value with restrictions?
>>Would you participate in a city plan using eminant domain so that you could acquire property from another private owner at a better price than what he is asking?
No, and WTF does that have to do with the issue?