|
Subcomandante wrote:
> raphfrk@netscape.net wrote:
> > Property tax and association dues are completely different things.
> > Property tax means that the person doesn't own their own property, they
> > just have a transferrable rental agreement. In a HOA, you *actually*
> > do not own "your" house, it's in the original agreement. Association
> > dues are agreed when you aquire the property, including the mechanism
> > for increasing the dues. To declare association dues unconstitutional
> > would be to strip people of their right to freedom of contract, this is
> > a fundamental cornerstone of capitalism.
> >
> There is nothing contractual about the HOA unless you consider signing
> dictate to be a voluntary contract or agreement.
>
It is ? You have an option not to sign and rent a house or something
if you want. In any case, it isn't the governments or anyone else's
responsibility to provide anyone with a house.
> Dues are set by the board without approval by owners and without limit
> as to special assessments and if not payed, the owner will be
> non-judicially foreclosed on, within 15 days + Attorney fees. Your
> $400,000 house can be sold for $4,000 or less.
>
The rules of which are laid out in the contract that was signed. I
agree that signing a contract which allows the fees to be arbitrarilty
increased is not smart. I'd never (or almost never) agree to
something like that. However, that doesn't mean I wouldn't allow
others to make that decision. I do not own their money and they are
allowed to spend it any way they want even if I do not approve and even
if I think they are stupid to sign.
>
> Obviously you have no clue what are you talking about. The contemporary
> HOA is mandatory housing concept which you must join in order to be able
> to purchase not housing, but certain space, in most California's
> Counties and municipalities.
>
Ok, now you are focusing on a *real* problem. People should be allowed
to build on their own property (unless the building actually damages
their neighbours' property). So, you should be arguing for a repeal of
zoning laws, not a repeal of HOAs.
However, even though zoning laws exist, people still choose to sign the
contracts. Just because they really really want something doesn't mean
they should not have to agree to the terms that the seller sets. That
is what capitalism means.
> Again you are repeating stupid propaganda which is untrue. I can name
> 1,000,006 things which you are prevented by the Government to buy.
>
Most of the things the government prevents you buying are things that
deal with crimes. One of the functions of government is protecting
property and also protecting people from crime. Preventing prople from
buying and selling their legal property does not count as crime though.
You are correct that sometimes the government over steps its
boundaries. In any case, this doesn't make allowing people freedom of
contract is a communistic action.
> If
> > HOAs are really a bad idea, then people who buy will lose money and
> > won't be participating in housing market anymore.
>
> Are you telling me that the people will stop buying private homes if
> builders will build them?
Well, I think you can assume that anyone who is burned by a HOA isn't
likely to buy another HOA house.
Also, if enough people are burned, the HOAs that use the current
contracts will lose market share as people start not buying houses in
HOAs that use the current contracts.
Capitalism will start trying to improve the HOA contracts. It seems
clear that the current batch have serious issues. If current HOAs get
a really bad rep, you could have retail agents putting in clauses that
improve the situation. Also, it would mean that people would read the
contract that they are signing. The main one being that democracy
is not a very good way to handle property rights.
Ideally, property rights mean that a person who owns his property can
decide to do something with it even if everyone else disagrees. In
practice, they are never that solid though.
However, I think that some of the negatives of the HOA system could be
reduced.
I think something like a limit on the dues increase would be a good
idea. For example, you could require a vote to increase the dues at
the annual meeting.
up to 5% for the year increase - only requires board approval
up to 10% for the year increase - requires 50%+ support of membership
up to 15% for the year increase - requires 70%+ support of membership
up to 20% for the year increase - requires 80%+ support of membership
That should cover most situations where there is really a need to
increase dues.
Next, property ownership. The current situation where the HOA owns all
the property is madness. A better solution would be for each person to
hold their own title deeds and there be a cap on how much of a liens
can be placed by the HOA on the property. For example, this might be a
$10,000 cap. This should be more than enough to compel dues payment
and also compliance with any of the other rules.
Finally, clearly defined penalties for violations of the HOA agreement.
This would represent a contract between the HOA and the house owner.
If the house owner doesn't break the rules, they cannot have the liens
applied to their house. This means that if the HOA declares bankrupcy,
it cannot claim the cap liens on all the properties. Even if it could,
it still wouldn't be able to evict anyone as it doesn't own the
properties.
The penalties would be applied as a liens so there is no issue with
collection. The easiest way to handle failure to pay dues would be
just to add it to the liens automatically. People can either pay the
dues or pay them when the property changes hands. Other things like
paint colour could have a fixed penalty. For example, a fixed $250 per
year fine up to a cap of $1000 would encourage most to paint their
property in the appropriate colours, while allowing those who really
object to paint them other colours and pay the fine. Perhaps, the
neighbours on both sides of the offenders would be paid the fine, so
the BOD doesn't benefit from fining people.
This means that even if you get on the bad side of the BOD, the worst
that can happen is you lose $10,000.
The real fundamental problem with HOAs seems to be judging compliance
with the rules. That is hard, but the above would reduce the effects
of a BOD gone mad. Perhaps a professional arbitration firm could be
employed for this purpose. However, selecting the firm would represent
the same problems as selecting supreme court judges face. Selecting a
single firm at the start removes their incentive to provide a good
service,. but selecting a firm by majority vote or BOD vote leads to
the firm being responsive to the will of the majority and you are back
where you started.
Ideally, you want a system which allows people to pick their own agency
(or person or something). One possibilty, is for each house owner to
list agencies that they find acceptable. For every house owner that
you do not have an agency in common, you must pay a $50 fine per year
which is split up and a fraction paid to each of the house owners.
There would be a number of iterations before the fine would be applied.
Each owner would get a list of what agencies are being listed by those
who they do not have a match. If there is a dispute between two people,
a random agency that the two people have in common is used (or they can
pick one if they both agree).
Adding agencies that will always find in your favour is a waste of time
as nobody else would add them. If one person didn't pay, then everyone
would have to pay $50 and the hold out would have to pay $50*(number of
members-1). In the end, the hold out would have capped his liens
(probably) and everyone else would get their money back as the fines
are shared. This provides an incentive to list agencies. However,
listing agencies that will treat you unfairly is never a good idea.
> By definition, common property are held in common and therefore are held
> by commune a.k.a. communism.
>
Correct, and by saying that all property is held in common you are
effectively removing property itself. The whole point of property is
to allow you exclusive use of it. Banning HOAs means that you are
preventing people using their property in the means that they see fit.
A communist is someone who does this kind of thing to people "for their
own good".
> However, since you are HOA American born moron mongoloid you would not
> know as you don't know what is a torture.
Another aspect of capitalism is treating everyone as an individual,
what difference does my place of birth matter ? The other insults,
well you are entitled to your opinion.
|
|
Re: Texas Property Tax Ruled Unconstitutional
