|
raphfrk@netscape.net wrote:
> 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.
>
I agree so why the government (HUD) is supporting HOA and CAI industry
and giving them funds?...HUH
>
>>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.
>
We have a law which defines validity of contract. The law is set by the
Government. However, special interest and CAI forced or bribed the
Government to change contractual laws so they would support HOA fraud.
What kind of legal contract allows one side to change contractual
conditions without a notice?.....Huh?
>
>>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.
>
I disagree that the zoning has anything to do with HOA hosing concept.
The HOA is an industry, banks, lawyer, realtors, escrows.... etc. and
are benefiting from fraudulent concept and fraudulent contract to rip
of the consumer. The Government too is riping of HOA consumer by levying
same property tax as to non HOA consumer without representation because
HOA consumer is maintaining property via dues.
>
>>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.
>
Someones crime is someone else freedom. However, too complicated to
explain to the HOA socialist.
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.
Name last time you have read any contract for Credit card, loan, or 150
pages of CC&Rs?? You are romanticizing something which no longer exists
in tis country.
It is essential to the existence of a contract that there be:
(1) identifiable parties capable of contracting;
(2) their consent;
(3) a lawful object; and
(4) a sufficient cause or consideration.
Take credit card contract which is easier than HOA one to explain.
OK, I don't want credit card because I'm unwilling to pay extra 10% to
25% for everything I buy.
OK!
So I don't consent (2 above) therefore will not get the card.
Then, I decide to go on vacation and packet $20,000 from my bank. What
do you thing will happen to me on the airport when they see my suitcase
full of money? My 20,000 is confiscated, I get arrested an must prove
that I'm not drug dealer, or terrorist.
So my original contract was only for credit card and look what else is
hidden in that contract. I'm considered total outcast if you have no
credit card.
SO I MUST GIVE A CONSENT EVEN IF I DO NOT CONSENT BECAUSE USA IS A FORM
OF CORPORATE SOCIALISM WHERE YOU MUST DO WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DO. SAME LIKE
IN OLD COMMUNIST CZECHOSLOVAKIA I HAD TO DO. JUST SHUT UP AND KEEP WALKING.
That goes for HOA too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You must sign HOA contract if you want to live in Orange County CA, like
I do.
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.
>
That would and does not work because in socialism people exhibit extreme
apathy and would and don't vote on anything especially increase of dues.
Ironically, socialism should bring people together but exact posit
happens if one isn't in charge of its own affairs.
Believe me I was living 22 years in old Czechoslovakia. Our mantra was:
"The government pretend that we get pay so we pretend that we work" or
"If you don't steal you are stealing from your family"...... There was
18,000,000 people and only about 1,000,000 registered communists. Same
as in HOA they held to the power via draconian contract which you had to
sign or you must leave like I did.
> 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.
>
This is where you are exhibiting a lack of knowledge re HOA industry.
The industry does not want to be reasonable because it would lost
billions in foreclosures and other rip offs.
Please put into your socialistic head that HOA isn't about housing or
you! It is about the industry.
> 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.
>
It is just better mouse trap. But a trap!
>
>>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".
>
Wrong: Communism is a religion. All communist I knew back in
Czechoslovakia were poor like me and were dreaming about the ultimate
day where everything will be for free.
Same lake HOA socialists dream about perfect housing and social concept.
Same as religion, the Socialism and Communism are mental disorders.
The communists who put money into their packets were time to time
rounded up and hanged which the West considered assault on freedom and
democracy.
>
>>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.
>
As long as you are promoting HOA you are not promoting individualism but
tyranny. In your argument you are relying on a contract which is in
essence contract with devil.
Since this phenomenon is happening in America and mostly to people born
and educated in America I must maintain that Americans are moron
mongoloids. [Emphases added]
-Sub
|
|
Re: Texas Property Tax Ruled Unconstitutional
