Due diligence!People will NOT hire an attorney to assist with a $500,000 property investment (their home), but will hire one to "take care" of a traffic ticket.
Why .... Originally Posted by ck1942
- LexusLover
- 06-01-2014, 02:09 PM
- Mr MojoRisin
- 06-01-2014, 09:38 PM
I would agree that those restrictions are ridiculous. One home I owned did not allow political signs in the yard but For Sale signs??? The main purpose of the HOA is to protect home values. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXXWell apparently we have to put a " For Sale" sign at the front of the subdivision with address and contact information on them.
Jim
- trident60
- 06-02-2014, 04:22 PM
Those who will sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither and will lose both. Originally Posted by JohnnyCapDemocratic societies pay a terrible price for democracy and free speech. Society as a whole must tolerate a lot of hate speech, ignorance, rude behavior, bad taste, on and on. The alternative is to have a dictatorial tyrant who enforces his social norms. A functioning, participative democracy requires the active involvement of enough educated and well meaning citizens to guide the body politic towards a reasonable balance between total liberty (anarchy) and tyranny. There is a valid point to be made that suffering under a dysfunctional HOA is the first step towards sacrificing liberty. The counter argument is that the absence of any restrictions diminishes the peace and well being of a residential area (think shooting ranges, dirt track racing, steel mills). To those who disdain their HOA after finding out that one exists and imposes restrictions on behavior on their property, I have no sympathy. They chose to ignore their own acknowledgement of restrictions signed at time of property purchase. Hypocrisy at its plainest. To those who have new HOA's or restrictions imposed upon them, more sympathy is due, but again, none of this stuff can happen without rule of law in a democracy. The democratic process does not always go my way as I see in the headlines every day, but I am not yet ready to retreat to the deep woods or North Korea to live in search of complete libertarian utopia. I must accept some intrusion to enjoy the collective benefits of an advanced, productive society, and am happy that even the boors among us can voice illogical and intemperate anger at having to abide by some rules. I'm not even dismayed that they can vote and sit on juries. Their ignorance is easily manipulated by public relations, and one never has to unwillingly submit to a jury's ignorant inattention, although to right to is enshrined in our rule of law.
- CuteOldGuy
- 06-02-2014, 09:14 PM
Democratic societies pay a terrible price for democracy and free speech. Society as a whole must tolerate a lot of hate speech, ignorance, rude behavior, bad taste, on and on. The alternative is to have a dictatorial tyrant who enforces his social norms. A functioning, participative democracy requires the active involvement of enough educated and well meaning citizens to guide the body politic towards a reasonable balance between total liberty (anarchy) and tyranny. There is a valid point to be made that suffering under a dysfunctional HOA is the first step towards sacrificing liberty. The counter argument is that the absence of any restrictions diminishes the peace and well being of a residential area (think shooting ranges, dirt track racing, steel mills). To those who disdain their HOA after finding out that one exists and imposes restrictions on behavior on their property, I have no sympathy. They chose to ignore their own acknowledgement of restrictions signed at time of property purchase. Hypocrisy at its plainest. To those who have new HOA's or restrictions imposed upon them, more sympathy is due, but again, none of this stuff can happen without rule of law in a democracy. The democratic process does not always go my way as I see in the headlines every day, but I am not yet ready to retreat to the deep woods or North Korea to live in search of complete libertarian utopia. I must accept some intrusion to enjoy the collective benefits of an advanced, productive society, and am happy that even the boors among us can voice illogical and intemperate anger at having to abide by some rules. I'm not even dismayed that they can vote and sit on juries. Their ignorance is easily manipulated by public relations, and one never has to unwillingly submit to a jury's ignorant inattention, although to right to is enshrined in our rule of law. Originally Posted by trident60So, ah . . . How much intrusion are you willing to accept? And should everyone be required to abide by your standards?
- Guest032516
- 06-03-2014, 11:34 PM
Those who will sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither and will lose both. Originally Posted by JohnnyCapFamous quote but it has no applicability here.
This isn't a matter of sacrificing liberty. We aren't talking about giving power to government.
An HOA is a VOLUNTARY organization. No one forces you to live in an HOA development. You do to of your own free will.
This is a matter of CONTRACT, not political power. And all contracts involve some amount of restrictions of you. You are AGREEING to be bound to do or to refrain from doing something in return for receiving some consideration from the other party to the contract.
Benjamin Franklin, the author of that quote, had no problem with contract law.