Shotgun 1 #26 July 27, 2006 QuoteTry buying a new house in any California suburb. You're going to be stuck with an association. We recently bought a house in California suburbia. It's not exactly new (1988), but there is no HOA. There are plenty of subdivisions out here that do have HOA's, but I in no way felt forced to buy a home in one of them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,723 #27 July 27, 2006 >Why is Congress even spending time and money on this sort of thing? Because it's an election year. Expect other bills along this line, like a bill to protect children from predators or a bill to help stray kittens and puppies. Feel-good legislation helps both sides escape the bad image they have created for themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,822 #28 July 27, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuotePart of paying the Homeowner Association fees is micromanaging your neighbors. If you want to live in such a place then you should be able to. Let the market not the government decide what is appropriate. It IS ironic that a conservative Republican administration would promote governmental control over a private activity instead of letting the marketplace decide. But of course it's only about the Flag, not about any of the other (former) rights. Feels so good. Remember, it's an election year. If burning a flag is freedom of speach shouldn't flying one be the same? The Bill of Rights protects the People from the Government. Not from their own decisions on where to live and which contracts to sign.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #29 July 27, 2006 QuoteQuoteI have to disagree completely. What can I say? I've raised this rant before, and there's usually a homeowner who feels the way you do who responds...the way you did. Not saying you're wrong, it's just different strokes for different folks. FWIW, when we we home-shopping before we bought our current house some years ago, we did exactly what you said - made a point of avoiding the developments with homeowners' associations and restrictive covenants on the deeds. To each his own, I guess. Because you have a different point of view, let me pose a similar scenario to you. How would you feel as a homeowner who is not a part of an association if a law was passed that said you cannot display a flag on a flagpole on your property? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ScottishJohn 25 #30 July 27, 2006 Hopefully the passing of the law will not cause the eyesores that have plagued England during the recent world Cup. I'm not against people flying thier flag but there should be some sort of limit to stop this type of nonsense. (see link) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/5050488.stm John---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you think my attitude stinks you should smell my fingers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
meatbomb 0 #31 July 27, 2006 Clickified --- Swoopert, CS-Aiiiiiii! Piccies Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #32 July 27, 2006 QuoteYou have to join if you want to live in that community. They will make you sell and get out if you don't comply. There's plusses and minuses of buying inside those neighborhoods (usually more negatives). My association is a little rabid, but they have taken care of a few eyesores, like those cheezy Direct TV dishes. If I can't put a pink flamingo lawn decorator on my lawn, they better not allow that ugly crap up front. Then they have most likely violated the law. From the Telecommunications Act of 1996. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html QuoteThe rule (47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000) has been in effect since October 1996, and it prohibits restrictions that impair the installation, maintenance or use of antennas used to receive video programming. The rule applies to video antennas including direct-to-home satellite dishes that are less than one meter (39.37") in diameter (or of any size in Alaska), TV antennas, and wireless cable antennas. The rule prohibits most restrictions that: (1) unreasonably delay or prevent installation, maintenance or use; (2) unreasonably increase the cost of installation, maintenance or use; or (3) preclude reception of an acceptable quality signal. QuoteThe rule applies to individuals who place antennas that meet size limitations on property that they own or rent and that is within their exclusive use or control, including condominium owners and cooperative owners, and tenants who have an area where they have exclusive use, such as a balcony or patio, in which to install the antenna. The rule applies to townhomes and manufactured homes, as well as to single family homes. QuoteThe rule prohibits restrictions that impair a person's ability to install, maintain, or use an antenna covered by the rule. The rule applies to state or local laws or regulations, including zoning, land-use or building regulations, private covenants, homeowners' association rules, condominium or cooperative association restrictions, lease restrictions, or similar restrictions on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has an ownership or leasehold interest in the property. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,288 #33 July 27, 2006 I think its quite funny that a large part of the crowd whose usual slogan is: "If you don't like it in the US, feel free to leave" support this Bill. Doesn't fly directly in teh face of that statement? People choose to live in a HOA controlled area. They are free to leave whenever they want. They know what the rules are prior to finalizing the purchase of the house. I can't believe so many people are in favour of a government and Bill that micro-manages to that degree... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 1 #34 July 27, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI have to disagree completely. What can I say? I've raised this rant before, and there's usually a homeowner who feels the way you do who responds...the way you did. Not saying you're wrong, it's just different strokes for different folks. FWIW, when we we home-shopping before we bought our current house some years ago, we did exactly what you said - made a point of avoiding the developments with homeowners' associations and restrictive covenants on the deeds. To each his own, I guess. Because you have a different point of view, let me pose a similar scenario to you. How would you feel as a homeowner who is not a part of an association if a law was passed that said you cannot display a flag on a flagpole on your property? Generally speaking, parties to contracts can opt to allow the contract to restrict their legal or constitutional rights if they so choose. But laws that conflict with constitutional rights are at risk of being challenged in court and declared unconstitutional. With the type of law you hypothesize, I would predict (since I happen to be the business) that roughly 80% of judges out there would rule that such a law is unconstitutional. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #35 July 27, 2006 Quote-smaller government -less spending -domestic investment -less government intrussion At some point this adiminstration crossed the line from Republicans to Fascists. I'll correct that. They crossed the line from Republican to Democrat - I can't tell the difference any more. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,822 #36 July 27, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI have to disagree completely. What can I say? I've raised this rant before, and there's usually a homeowner who feels the way you do who responds...the way you did. Not saying you're wrong, it's just different strokes for different folks. FWIW, when we we home-shopping before we bought our current house some years ago, we did exactly what you said - made a point of avoiding the developments with homeowners' associations and restrictive covenants on the deeds. To each his own, I guess. Because you have a different point of view, let me pose a similar scenario to you. How would you feel as a homeowner who is not a part of an association if a law was passed that said you cannot display a flag on a flagpole on your property? The Bill of Rights protects the People from the Government (well, it used to, anyway). It does not protect people from their own decisions on where to live and which contracts to sign, from rules made by their employers, etc. I find it truly remarkable that so many people fail to grasp this concept.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 1 #37 July 27, 2006 QuoteI think its quite funny that a large part of the crowd whose usual logan is: "If you don't like it in the US, feel free to leave" support this Bill. Doesn't fly directly in teh face of that statement? People choose to live in a HOA controlled area. They are free to leave whenever they want. They know what the rules are prior to finalizing the purchase of the house. I can't believe so many people are in favour of a government and Bill that micro-manages to that degree... I understand your point, but let me play devil's advocate a bit more. You're right that people have the choice to live in a HOA or not - that's because people generally have the freedom to enter into contracts or not, as they choose. But exceptions to this general principle have occasionally been carved out for residential premises, because a residence is such a necessity. That's why certain highly-oppressive landlord-favorable clauses in residential leases are sometimes declared null and void, because everyone needs a place to live, but the tenant really is only given a "take it or leave it" choice - he really doesn't have the ability to negotiate a lease's terms. Now extend this general principle to purchased residences. If there's plenty of housing in a region that doesn't have HOA's or even private restrictive covenants on the deeds, then I think your point wins out: "Don't like the HOA in Neighborhood A? Fine - live in Neighborhood B instead." But as the amount of housing in a region not governed by HOA's decreases over time, it becomes less and less possible to buy a house that doesn't have a restrictive covenant on the deed. So a law-making body such as a legislature may decide that, as a matter of public policy, the prevalence of these restrictive covenants - to the extent they infringe upon First Amendment freedom of speech and expression rights (i.e., not just your right to have your pickup up on blocks in the front yard) runs the risk of becoming so widespread that it is abusive. Anyhow, that's the logic behind the law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #38 July 27, 2006 QuoteThe Bill of Rights protects the People from the Government (well, it used to, anyway). It does not protect people from their own decisions on where to live and which contracts to sign, from rules made by their employers, etc. I find it truly remarkable that so many people fail to grasp this concept. But, what about the truly poor that can only afford to live in a single area? Are we going to let the rich council members of the homeowner's association restrict their speech? sorry, I had a liberal moment there anyway - let's see who flip flops if the HOA decides to ban "support our troops" signs vs "Bush is an idiot" signs vs "save the trees" signs, etc. (it's a facetious comment, the point that this isn't a government intrusion is the good comment. And I don't believe your last sentence either, I doubt you find it 'remarkable' in the least.) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 1 #39 July 27, 2006 By the way - and I realize this is not a close comparison to the flag issue - it used to be common in the US for houses to have restrictive covenants on their deeds prohibiting the owner from selling the house to non-Caucasians. Back in the 1960's those covenants were deemed to be legally null and void as a matter of public policy. Now when the issue was being fought-over in the courts, legislatures and the forum of public opinion, those in favor of maintaining the restrictive covenants had a similar argument: "People are free to enter into contracts or not, so they're free to buy this particular house or not. Don't like having a house you can't sell to a Negro? Fine - then don't buy one. Don't like the fact that you can't sell your house to a Negro? Too bad - you knew what you were getting into when you bought the house." Of course, that argument eventually lost out because society had changed over time to the point where a new public policy consideration ruled the day. Again, I'm not comparing the 2 issues, I'm just explaining the thought process behind the debate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,288 #40 July 27, 2006 Ohh I understand the thought process. But, I would have thought that in a country that raves about freedom, they would be in favour of letting market forces dictate these types of things. Surely there are more urgent matters in the US to address by your legislature? I am not 100% familiar with US HOA, but I am assuming that by-laws can be amended with majority votes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #41 July 27, 2006 Quote Generally speaking, parties to contracts can opt to allow the contract to restrict their legal or constitutional rights if they so choose. But laws that conflict with constitutional rights are at risk of being challenged in court and declared unconstitutional. With the type of law you hypothesize, I would predict (since I happen to be the business) that roughly 80% of judges out there would rule that such a law is unconstitutional. So 80% of judges would say it is unconstitutional for the government to infringe upon your property rights, but it is ok for the government to infringe upon the property rights of a group of people? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 1 #42 July 27, 2006 QuoteOhh I understand the thought process. But, I would have thought that in a country that raves about freedom, they would be in favour of letting market forces dictate these types of things. They generally are, but there's always been this natural tension between letting market forces prevail, and regulation based on social and public policy considerations. For example, if only market forces prevailed, it probably would have taken longer before fire escapes were built into all buildings and pollution controls were built into factories. QuoteSurely there are more urgent matters in the US to address by your legislature? Nope. It's an election year. Nothing's more urgent than getting re-elected. In all fairness, this kind of politically-motivated activity is no less prevalent in legislatures of any other democratic country. QuoteI am not 100% familiar with US HOA, but I am assuming that by-laws can be amended with majority votes? Generally. So yes, a homeowner can try to start a grass-roots movement to amend the bylaws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 1 #43 July 27, 2006 QuoteQuote Generally speaking, parties to contracts can opt to allow the contract to restrict their legal or constitutional rights if they so choose. But laws that conflict with constitutional rights are at risk of being challenged in court and declared unconstitutional. With the type of law you hypothesize, I would predict (since I happen to be the business) that roughly 80% of judges out there would rule that such a law is unconstitutional. So 80% of judges would say it is unconstitutional for the government to infringe upon your property rights, but it is ok for the government to infringe upon the property rights of a group of people? Uh..no, that's not what I said. I'm predicting (not advocating, just predicting) that most judges would find the hypothetical flagpole statute to be a violation of First Amendment freedom of speech rights, not property rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #44 July 27, 2006 I think we're really starting to split hairs here or maybe I'm getting off track. Let me back up. I think this is a bad law because it weakens the authority of the HOA. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,822 #45 July 27, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe Bill of Rights protects the People from the Government (well, it used to, anyway). It does not protect people from their own decisions on where to live and which contracts to sign, from rules made by their employers, etc. I find it truly remarkable that so many people fail to grasp this concept. But, what about the truly poor that can only afford to live in a single area? Are we going to let the rich council members of the homeowner's association restrict their speech? sorry, I had a liberal moment there anyway - let's see who flip flops if the HOA decides to ban "support our troops" signs vs "Bush is an idiot" signs vs "save the trees" signs, etc. (it's a facetious comment, the point that this isn't a government intrusion is the good comment. And I don't believe your last sentence either, I doubt you find it 'remarkable' in the least.) I do find it surprising, given that (in IL at least and I suspect elsewhere) passing a Constitution test is a requirement for graduating from Jr. High AND high school, or becoming a naturalized US citizen wherever you apply. So pretty much everyone in the US above the age of 14 has had to learn this at some time. Maybe you can explain the paradox.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #46 July 27, 2006 QuoteMaybe you can explain the paradox. If I started in on public schooling and PC curriculums or even school vouchers, would you buy me beer? perhaps knowledge retention issues, or even students caring about the topic during the rote learning is less cynical ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aftermid 0 #47 July 27, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotePart of paying the Homeowner Association fees is micromanaging your neighbors. If you want to live in such a place then you should be able to. Let the market not the government decide what is appropriate. It IS ironic that a conservative Republican administration would promote governmental control over a private activity instead of letting the marketplace decide. But of course it's only about the Flag, not about any of the other (former) rights. Feels so good. Remember, it's an election year. Unfortunatly it isn't ironic with this adminstration. Other than the Religous Right and Megabussiness, its hard to find many ways that this administration has advanced any classic conservative platforms: -smaller government -less spending -domestic investment -less government intrussion At some point this adiminstration crossed the line from Republicans to Fascists. Again, do you support the burning of the flag? If so, shouldn't you support someone wanting to fly one? I don't advocate burning the flag, but I DEFINITLY don't support criminalizing that expression. I'm sure home owners associations have guidelines against burning flags as well. Guidelines agreeded to when the home is purchased. If you don't like the rules you agreed to then move. Let the government worry about other things: -war -skyrocketing fuel costs -Poor performance of the US dollar -Struggling education system Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #48 July 27, 2006 I have not seen the text of the new law, but all this stems from a guy who decided to live in a HOA and wanted to fly a flag on a 12' flagpole rather than from the bracket on his house. Taken to the extreme, you live on a nice lake or golf course and your neighbors decide either to piss you off or just because they can, to erect a 50' flagpole better yet a BASE tower with an American flag on it once a year on the 4th. There's a huge difference between saying you are barred and placing reasonable limitations on certain activities. -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #49 July 27, 2006 Quotebut there are no Sanford & Son looking crack houses and that is how I like it. Didn't know Sanford & Son were crack dealers. A scandal I must have missed." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #50 July 27, 2006 QuoteDidn't know Sanford & Son were crack dealers. I'm assuming it must have been a subtle sub-context of the TV series plot. I mean old Fred clutching his chest and calling out to his disceased wife must have been symbolic of the culture war in the middle east, this offset with the communist threat of the times may have offset the comedic expressions of the weekly episodes into a serious discussion on the effects of pre-crack drugs in the 70's and the resulting free thought expressions of those citizens between 16 and 40 at the time. It's very deep. And all taking place in a junk yard too.I do not consider you a psycho feminist BTW. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
