On Jul 23, 2:31 am, Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:07:57 EDT, wrote:
But in some cases, the first buyer can say "NO!" to the developer, and
get restrictions removed *before* the sale. So while the rest of the
properties may be restricted, that one isn't.

HOA rules are another issue completely, but the same approach may
work.

According to California law - the one that I work with - the CC&Rs
are recorded before the first unit is built, and both state law and
common law holds that the restrictions run with the land. The "first
owner" legally is the developer.

So that idea won't work in California.

I was lucky with the condo because the restriction was no antennas
without permission of the board, and I got that permission while the
developer was the "board" and the permission ran with my ownership and
occupancy of the unit.

So you did a version of the second idea. That's great!

CC&Rs, HOAs and such are of interest to me because although I've
managed to avoid them in the homes I've owned so far, the trends are
not promising for the future.

---

I see a lot of (to me) strange development going on.

The first is the McMansion, a huge frame house on a relatively small
lot, with all sorts of restrictions. Incredibly priced, too, and you
don't even get sidewalks. How people are supposed to heat, cool and
maintain them as prices rise is beyond me.

The second is the condo development, aka "above-ground-rabbit-warren",
where a lot of units are piled onto the absolute minimum of land, sort
of like city rowhouses. The problem is that the development is nothing
but homes and is sited on a busy road, so you have to get in your car
and drive a couple miles or more just to get groceries or go to the
post office. IOW, many of the disadvantages of the city and few of the
advantages.

73 de Jim, N2EY