Different strokes for different folks, Frank.

In my view, I didn't give up anything when I built in a neighborhood with
restrictive covenants. Instead, I gained the peace-of-mind that the
neighborhood wouldn't decay. I gained "rights" as I agreed to covenants
that I would have followed anyway, because my neighbors will as well.

Your "public sector versus private sector" infringement of rights arguments
isn't simply valid in this case because it is voluntary. My rights are just
fine, thank you.

However I do agree that there are plenty of cases where the public sector
(government) does infringe on the rights of private property owners. I am
vehemently against it. I believe it is unconstitutional for a city
government to use eminent domain laws to force an owner of private property
to sell it (so the government can grant the land to a developer who will
build a shopping center) because the government will make more tax revenue
on a new shopping center. Yet this is happening time and again all over the
United States. It' just plain wrong.

-- Stinger

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Stinger" wrote in message
. ..
Frank,

As I mentioned to Wes, nobody forces you to buy into a neighborhood
with
covenants. I also mentioned that they are not for everybody. In my
case,
they are a good idea, and one of the reasons I built my house where I
did
was specifically because I knew what to expect from neighbors as they
built
nearby.

I don't feel bad that I can't let my yard get waist high, park junk
cars on
the lawn, or paint my roof purple. Rather, I feel good knowing my
neighbor
won't.

By the way, I happen to be a Republican Kung-Fu black belt (Dragon
Claw
1992) that knows a good, honest mechanic that helped me teach my son
how to
change the heads on his antique T-Bird in his garage.

So much for your lily-livered weenie who won't fix their own car
argument.

I honestly don't understand the hostility in your tone, Frank. What's
the
real problem?

-- Stinger




I am hostile to the whole concept to a Homeowner's Association. These
are contractual arrangements, and not laws. If a person is penalized,
he doesn't have his usual legal rights. He either pays the penalty,
sells the property or sues the Homeowner's Association. If he sues,
it's the Homeowner's Association which will get the benefit of doubt in
Court. Policing power is one of genuine responsibilities of the
publicly elected government, and it ought to be done by public employees
who are directly answerable to the courts.

And there's the related issue of ownership. Let's say, after another
marathon session of listening to SW kooks, I completely lose it and
paint my roof purple. It's my roof, isn't it? If it does cause some
damage to someone else it should be provable. But the complainer ought
to be prepared to put up some sort of evidence.

So, yeah, homeowner's associations ain't for me.

I could go on with my opinions about the public sector getting
improperly in the private sector and vice versa.

My brother and I practically rebuilt his 64 T-Bird right in the
driveway. If I was bothering anybody, nobody spoke up.