Text 8623, 68 rader
Skriven 2006-09-18 13:43:00 av Robert E Starr JR (9120.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: ABC backs down on 9/1
=================================
* * * This message was from Charlie Edmondson to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * *
*
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <450ef809$1@news.cadence.com>
@REPLY: <0001HW.C134621D0173E66BF0407530@news.verizon.net>
Amy Guskin wrote:

>>>On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 14:29:41 -0400, Rob Perkins wrote
> 
> (in article <4n86slF8t005U1@individual.net>):
> 
> 
>>Charlie Edmondson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>For one thing, buyers think it enhances the long term value of a 
>>>community if there is an HOA to maintain standards.  At least, this is a 
>>>good selling point for the builders and realtors to use.
>>>
>>>IMNSHO, the real truth is the money.  I strongly suspect that builders 
>>>get something of a 'cut' from that initial HOA formation money.  I have 
>>>noticed that there is usually a deal in place with a management company 
>>>for these HOAs with 'very interesting' provisions that make it very 
>>>difficult, if not impossible for the HOA to change management companies 
>>>for a period of 2-5 years, during which they have guaranteed income from 
>>>the HOA.  If these deals weren't money makers for the builders, I doubt 
>>>they would survive... 8-)
>>
>>Actually, while that might be true of some areas, it's not true of mine. 
>>Our association arose out of the builders' desires not to honk off the 
>>surrounding (and very involved) community more than it already had with 
>>10 years of tract house building in the area.
>>
>>So, when they platted the neighborhood, they included parkland between 
>>and around the houses. Our State law requires a non-profit homeowners 
>>association be created to manage common property like that.
>>
>>They did employ a management company initially, but our board is on the 
>>fence about keeping them, and there are no provisions in our bylaws 
>>saying they have to be kept. <<
> 
> 
> Having never lived in a community with a homeowners' association, I have to 
> wonder why local laws (township, county, borough, whatever) aren't enough to 
> cover the various contingencies that arise.  When I had fence issues with a 
> neighbor, I got online and read my township's code.  When I needed 
> clarification on a section, I e-mailed the township manager.  Isn't a 
> homeowners' association like a duplication of that, or worse, an extra layer 
> of laws and regulations?
> 
> Amy
> 
The real problem deals with 'common' property.  In my old community, 
with my house, I owned 1/12th of the roads and landscaping in my 'phase' 
of the community's build out.  Through a second HOA, I owned an interest 
in the parks and greenways around my community, including several pools 
and tennis courts.  To administer and maintain these areas, an HOA is 
required, since these are not 'public' facilities, but private, for 
residents only.  There were also a couple of public parks built as a 
part of the area, but those belonged to the city, and taxes paid for 
those...

Charlie
                    
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)