Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 "Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... "Stinger" wrote in message . .. Homeowners associations are a good thing! They are basically an agreement that you and your neighbors will follow some clearly defined rules for the specific purpose of maintining optimum property values for everyone. Homeowners associations are private governmental authorities which rule over people who signed away their Constitutional rights! For what -- the promise that othersuch people will pay more later on? Well, maybe so. This Homeowner Association thing sounds like yet another odious invention of the New World Order. In other words, you won't have to worry about buying an expensive house and having your next-door neighbor decide to use his yard to store a dozen wrecked automobiles while he builds a hot-rod or runs a car-repair business. Common sense should tell anyone that their rights end when they start to infringe on anyone else's, but sometimes you need it in writing. ;^) Common sense says there's considerable value in a neighbor who can fix your car. Especially if you need a Sunday afternoon repair! I've done plenty of car work, back when I had a driveway. I got along fine with the neighbors. I suppose fixing their cars helped. We'd talk about cars, laugh at the Cubs, etc. It's the American way! Receiving antennas are easily concealed. If you can find mine from the street, you were born on Krypton. I think this is an overly-hyped problem. Anyone who is bothered by the sight of a wire belongs on another planet. Broadcasting antennas are another animal, though. For instance, nobody wants to live next to some clown running a bunch of linear amps through a CB "base station." It will literally be "seen" on well-shielded cable television connections, and is a nuisance. I think that's a lot of what the "external antenna" rules are meant to curb. -- Stinger External antenna rules and the rest are meant to intimidate lily-livered weenies who won't help fix their cars but are happy to sign away their Constitutional rights. And if some radio operator is splattering all over, there's plenty of Real Governmental Authority to answer to. Frank Dresser |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Stinger" wrote in message .. . 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. This probably doesn't have anything to do with anything, but it crossed my mind some weeks ago, with all the controversy over the removal of Judge Moore's monument to the Ten Commandments. After the removal, I pretty much expected Judge Moore would put the monument on his front lawn. It's his property, and he should be free to do so. Well, maybe Judge Moore rents an apartment or lives in a condo and doesn't own a front lawn. But wouldn't be ironic if Judge Moore negligently signed onto a list of restrictions which effectively banned any such monument on his own property? 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 If it's government using eminent domain to effectivly transfer private property from one owner to another private owner, yeah, there's a big problem there. Even if it's not a Constitutional problem, the voters should be deeply skeptical of all the promises the politicians make about these wasteful projects. But we have a long history of being negligent with our votes, as well. Frank Dresser |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The supreme court has ruled that it s perfectly legal if the aim is to
improve the tax base. The most oppressive, draconian, government entities are your local zoning boards. "Stinger" wrote in message .. . .. 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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Stinger" wrote in message .. . 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. Many areas with restrictive covenants DO decay. The homes get old and out of date. The shingles aren't replaced often enough and so on. The covenants generally do not and cannot force a specific maintenance cyle on people. I seen some very run down areas that had covenants. Yeah the grass was mowed and there weren't any junk cars but the houses looked old and tired. 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. While you have every right to sign away rights, the rest of it will continue to consider it foolish. 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. That is not the purpose of eminent domain laws. If the law has been abused in such a manner, then the citizens affected should be filing a class action suit. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message gy.com... That is not the purpose of eminent domain laws. If the law has been abused in such a manner, then the citizens affected should be filing a class action suit. "Filing a class action"? Give me a break. More like locking and loading!!!!! Just kidding |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message ... My brother and I practically rebuilt his 64 T-Bird right in the driveway. If I was bothering anybody, nobody spoke up. But if you were selling your home and I had a 1980 rusted Honda on blocks plus a used beer keg as a 'bird bath', do you honestly think that everyone that looked at your home wouldn't mind me as your neighbor? That is the whole point of covenants. Something that protects me when I want to sell. I could careless about my property value going up, as long as I could break even it would be better than renting. However, even if your price is low...having the wrong neighbor could mean 3 people that would have bought will change their mind. Now I am running out of time, dipping into my cash reserve, etc. trying to keep my old home and pay for a 6 month lease in my new city where I work. I personally will not live with covenants. City ordinances are bad enough!!! My goal is to live in the city I work and get a home for $90K. Save, save, and save some more until I can get a home not in a neighborhood that won't be annexed for a while. If it's annexed, I think it will be time to move even further north. I would rather have to buy Hondas that will last 200K miles if it means living free. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Midwest Kid" wrote:
But if you were selling your home and I had a 1980 rusted Honda on blocks plus a used beer keg as a 'bird bath', do you honestly think that everyone that looked at your home wouldn't mind me as your neighbor? Ah yes, the "but if he paints his house orange and puts a giant unicorn on the front lawn, the resale value of the properties in the area will drop!" nonsense. Let us suppose this would in fact occur. The neighbours gang together and nail an invoice to his door, and this is the "right" thing to do. What about the converse? Suppose someone instead made their property into a gorgeous work of art that _raised_ the value of the neighbouring properties? Surely this means he can issue invoices to all the neighbours he has "helped", right? That is the whole point of covenants. Something that protects me when I want to sell. _YOU_ protect your own property. It is why it is yours and not someone elses. These HOA's and similar entities are the analog of labour unions for property owners. Complete idiocy, with _ALL_ of the hideous bad effects of such things. Why have two bosses when one is bad enough? The protection you refer to is as illusory as the thousands of unionized workers who lose their jobs every year: "It's in the contract. So sorry." |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Stinger" wrote in message . .. Frank, 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. As I said before, cities and communities have ordinances against these things (except the purple roof). Except in decaying neighborhoods, such city ordinances are enforced. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Outwitting Home Owner Associations/Condo Associations Regarding Antennas | Antenna | |||
Outwitting Home Owner Associations/Condo Associations Regarding Antennas | Scanner | |||
Outwitting Home Owner Associations/Condo Associations RegardingAntennas | Antenna | |||
Poor quality low + High TV channels? How much dB in Preamp? | Antenna | |||
Home made antennas | Scanner |