In article ,
paghat wrote:

In Montgomery Village Foundation v. Ellis, a Home Association (not a
Homeowners Association however) sought to enforce in the courts a
regulation banning private trucks. Montgomery Village Foundation is an
enforcing agency serving a number of Homeowner & Home Associations & Condo
Associations, & do not do this unless members of the neighborhood involved
insist. But once committed, they didn't care if the regulation was
nonsensical. The covenants did permit vans, Winebagos, huge honking-ass
utility vehicles -- but all Ellis had was a small pick-up truck. The court
found that the regulation was stupid & unenforceable since giant RVs were
permitted, & Ellis's tiny pick-up was a new & well-kept & on no rational
basis of any harm to anyone. The courts' decision, however, didn't mean
incorporated housing areas couldn't ban EVERYthing bigger than a Lovebug
&make EVERYone get rid of their vehicles, but only going after Ellis's
little pick-up was not going to be allowed.



No kidding. So they were just faking it when they sent me that
nasty letter? Sons of bitches. I never went to another party there.



billo

I find there is a big difference between zoning laws for health and security and some
city politicians deciding they are going to force their idea of esthetics down the
throat of the whole damn city. So they decide what colors are acceptable in house
paint, what flowers are acceptable, what material and color of fence is acceptable,
etc. etc. Ingrid

"Vox Humana" wrote:
I'm still not clear if you
think that all zoning regulations should be abolished?




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

wrote in message
...
I find there is a big difference between zoning laws for health and
security and some
city politicians deciding they are going to force their idea of esthetics
down the
throat of the whole damn city. So they decide what colors are acceptable
in house
paint, what flowers are acceptable, what material and color of fence is
acceptable,
etc. etc. Ingrid

As someone said, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this.

On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:42:02 GMT, "Vox Humana" wrote:


wrote in message
...
I find there is a big difference between zoning laws for health and
security and some
city politicians deciding they are going to force their idea of esthetics
down the
throat of the whole damn city. So they decide what colors are acceptable
in house
paint, what flowers are acceptable, what material and color of fence is
acceptable,
etc. etc. Ingrid

As someone said, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this.


Actually, to add my final addition to this discussion, I agree with what Ingrid
is saying. The part I disagree with is where people move into a community where
they are fully aware there is an architectural board of directors who have put
in place certain deed restrictions and which are upheld in civil court, yet,
people move in and bitch about it later. That, is not ever going to change. I
say, move out to the country or to a larger parcel of land where there are no
restrictions and paint your house mood ring blue for all I give a shit.

The case with Ingrids mother is simply disgusting. She's been there for many
decades and to force her into anything, regardless what it is, is simply awful.

Cereoid-UR12yo wrote:

The real problem is neighbors not being good neighbors.

If one was willing to help out a fellow neighbor by volunteering to mow
their lawn while they have their own mowers out, the neighborhood would be
a more peaceful and harmonious place.

Amen!
I have a single female living next to me whose job takes her out of town a
lot ... so much so that her back lawn (fertilized with pit bull poop) had
gone well past 18" and her front yard was well over 12". When I finally got
a chance to talk to her I pointed out that her yard looked like the house
was abandoned and that I would be willing to mow the lawn in exchange for
the clippings in order to keep from living next to a house that looked
abandoned. She looked distressed for a moment, mentioned that she had hired
some men to mow the lawn who hadn't yet showed up, and then realized that I
was offering her a way out of her lawn problem. She then objected that the
dog would be a problem. At that, I called her dog away from her side to
mine. The dog sat down against the fence and waited for her ear-scratch.

I've been feeding that hound treats since it was a puppy. There aint no way
I'm going to have a hostile pit bull just a short chain link fence away. I
slap-box that dog and she has never done anything more than take my hand in
her mouth nor will she ... she has no one else to play with.

Ditto for the German Shepherd on the other side of my yard. Unfortunately,
its owner realized what I was doing and has kept the dog inside for the
past several months so now the dog and I are not on as good of terms as
previously. Again ... that's too big of a dog to have just a short fence
away. Poops D-cell batteries, too and the owner, a cop, does a lousy job of
keeping the manure up.

Bill
--
Zone 5b (Detroit, MI)
I do not post my address to news groups.

paghat wrote:

Oh loady loady, it's even worse than I've been saying. Here's a bad one
for sure, & alas it applies FEDERALLY:

In Meyer vs Holy, the Supreme Court made a unanimous & unfortunate
clarification regarding HOA discrimination against minorities. The Supreme
Court found that damages cannot be recovered from any officer or owner
within a HOA whose agents or volunteers are in conflict with the Fair
Housing Act refusing as a matter of policy to sell to Jews, blacks, or
other minorities.

The Supreme Court decision overturned a federal appeals court ruling that
applied the full letter of the Fair Housing Act even to HOAs. Civil Rights
inroads again reversed by conservatives!

-paghat the ratgirl


Yeah ... and they also discriminate against people making less than $11,000!

Give it a break ... you are as much in need of a life as the HOA Nazis.

A couple of thoughts: you want to compel people to live with other people
whom they are not comfortable being around.

I live, by choice, in a mixed-race neighborhood. Some from India / Pakistan,
many blacks, a smattering of whites. No Orientals that I can tell ... but
that reflects both a paucity of Orientals in Detroit and their desire to
live in upscale communities ... including the gated ones. I am, in fact, a
caucasian man married to a black woman in a very solid marriage.

However, I have a deep scar in the back of my left leg where a group of
younger black co-workers tried to cripple me ... and nearly succeeded. HR
where I work was totally un-helpful (afraid to accuse a black person of
hateful acts) when, after healing from the first injury I was returned TO
THE SAME WORKGROUP and the process of setting me up for the injury was
begun again. I had to quit a good job to keep from being crippled. I got my
wake up call when the guy doing the stitching on my leg the first time told
me that, had the missing muscle been gouged out a quarter of an inch deeper
or a half an inch lower, I would have forever lost the use of that foot.
Forever? Because my skin is too pale? I woke up this color just the same as
blacks wake up one morning and realize that their skin is dark.

Racism cuts both ways.

Get used to it. Some people just don't like other people for a variety of
reasons and excuses including NO reason, NO excuse. That doesn't make it
right ... but you'd best get adjusted to it.

I give such people, black or white, wide berth. There is nothing I need from
them, nothing I wish them to have from me. With one exception, I do not
socialize with the blacks at work because they live their lives very
differently from the way I live mine or else because they choose not to
spend their social time with ME. They have their lives, I have mine. Mine
includes gardening and a deeply spiritual life. Theirs do not. That I know
of, two have gardens; two others take spiritual matters seriously. One is
studying the Bible with me and joins me in religious services.

Then again, there are NO whites from work that I socialize with.

Get off your soapbox. You have a right to live with whomever is agreeable to
living with you and the right to exclude those with whom you are
uncomfortable. However, you do not have the freedom to excercise your
rights without also granting the exact same rights to others. Moreover, you
do not have the right to impose your decisions about who / what is
acceptable on others. Those who chose to live in HOA developments are no
more to be ridiculed than those who chose to live as you do.

Live your life (pretty much) as you please. Allow others to do the same.

Bill
--
Zone 5b (Detroit, MI)
I do not post my address to news groups.

paghat wrote:

Turudic v. Susan Estates Homeowners Association in Oregon, the HOA tried
to define what was an appropriate pet, banning certain breeds of dogs for
instance. So one of their members had two tame cougars. Well ha ha, the
court said HOAs cannot pass rules against pets. (The State could, but
hasn't.) I recommend everyone annoyed with their dumbass totalitarian HOA
get themselves a really big wild animal for a pet! That'll fix those
racist wouldbe stormtrooping arseholes.

I fail to see the connection between an animal regulation and racism. Nor do
I see the connection between an animal regulation and a Storm Trooper or,
for that matter, between an animal regulation and a body part.

You are as close-minded as the people you castigate. The next time you want
to "fix" an "arsehole", stop by the mirror for a minute.
--
Zone 5b (Detroit, MI)
I do not post my address to news groups.

The case with Ingrids mother is simply disgusting. She's been there for
many
decades and to force her into anything, regardless what it is, is simply
awful.

I can't see how anyone can force you to change something that was legal when
you did it. If 20 years ago you painted your house red, and it was legal
then, no one can come along and say it is now illegal to have red paint. You
have a "grandfather right" with respect to paint color.(constitutional
prohibition of ex post facto laws?)

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 05:33:53 -0700 in
, "Darwin Vander Stelt"
graced the world with this thought:



The case with Ingrids mother is simply disgusting. She's been there for
many
decades and to force her into anything, regardless what it is, is simply
awful.

I can't see how anyone can force you to change something that was legal when
you did it. If 20 years ago you painted your house red, and it was legal
then, no one can come along and say it is now illegal to have red paint. You
have a "grandfather right" with respect to paint color.(constitutional
prohibition of ex post facto laws?)

.....but you won't be able to repaint it red...

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:52:59 GMT, belly wrote:

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 05:33:53 -0700 in
, "Darwin Vander Stelt"
graced the world with this thought:



The case with Ingrids mother is simply disgusting. She's been there for
many
decades and to force her into anything, regardless what it is, is simply
awful.

I can't see how anyone can force you to change something that was legal when
you did it. If 20 years ago you painted your house red, and it was legal
then, no one can come along and say it is now illegal to have red paint. You
have a "grandfather right" with respect to paint color.(constitutional
prohibition of ex post facto laws?)

....but you won't be able to repaint it red...

And they can then get you with one of those "run-down" laws. :/

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:52:59 GMT, belly wrote:

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 05:33:53 -0700 in
, "Darwin Vander Stelt"
graced the world with this thought:



The case with Ingrids mother is simply disgusting. She's been there for
many
decades and to force her into anything, regardless what it is, is simply
awful.

I can't see how anyone can force you to change something that was legal when
you did it. If 20 years ago you painted your house red, and it was legal
then, no one can come along and say it is now illegal to have red paint. You
have a "grandfather right" with respect to paint color.(constitutional
prohibition of ex post facto laws?)

....but you won't be able to repaint it red...

And they can then get you with one of those "run-down" laws. :/

....but you won't be able to repaint it red...

And they can then get you with one of those "run-down" laws. :/

"they" are ordinarily volunteer committees of your neighbors. Land use
ordinances almost always benefit some and anger others, but the key to
having the neighborhood you want is to participate. The squeaky wheels get
to decide what the neighborhood looks like. You get the impression from
reading some posts that some political gestapo imposes these ordinances from
the top, and we little people are getting screwed. The truth is that land
use planning and zoning is typically a very transparent process with lots of
hearings etc. and only a few people care enough or have the time or ambition
to participate. And all citizens must realize that the system is not
necessarily corrupt just because their position does not prevail. The
climate of "my adgenda at any price" including a willingness to lie to
advance the adgenda pervades our civic life and it may eventually ruin us.

....but you won't be able to repaint it red...

And they can then get you with one of those "run-down" laws. :/

"they" are ordinarily volunteer committees of your neighbors. Land use
ordinances almost always benefit some and anger others, but the key to
having the neighborhood you want is to participate. The squeaky wheels get
to decide what the neighborhood looks like. You get the impression from
reading some posts that some political gestapo imposes these ordinances from
the top, and we little people are getting screwed. The truth is that land
use planning and zoning is typically a very transparent process with lots of
hearings etc. and only a few people care enough or have the time or ambition
to participate. And all citizens must realize that the system is not
necessarily corrupt just because their position does not prevail. The
climate of "my adgenda at any price" including a willingness to lie to
advance the adgenda pervades our civic life and it may eventually ruin us.

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 08:47:39 -0700, "Darwin Vander Stelt"
wrote:

....but you won't be able to repaint it red...

And they can then get you with one of those "run-down" laws. :/

"they" are ordinarily volunteer committees of your neighbors. Land use
ordinances almost always benefit some and anger others, but the key to
having the neighborhood you want is to participate. The squeaky wheels get
to decide what the neighborhood looks like. You get the impression from
reading some posts that some political gestapo imposes these ordinances from
the top, and we little people are getting screwed. The truth is that land
use planning and zoning is typically a very transparent process with lots of
hearings etc. and only a few people care enough or have the time or ambition
to participate. And all citizens must realize that the system is not
necessarily corrupt just because their position does not prevail. The
climate of "my adgenda at any price" including a willingness to lie to
advance the adgenda pervades our civic life and it may eventually ruin us.

Applause, applause. I have been working with (doing a web site for) a
local neighborhood association. The membership is heavily weighted
with participation by Los Ricos with waterfront property, and they
*do* get their agenda acted upon. However,...a quarterly newsletter is
distributed to 1,600 households just in advance of general meetings.
At the last meeting, the attendance was 32 people, and about 150
families are voting members ($10/yr membership fee). The rest sit home
and complain about changes the association has promoted or brought
about. The quarterly general meetings and monthly board meetings are
open to participation by anyone. Los Ricos definitely have their own
interests in mind, but they *are* the ones who come to the meetings,
volunteer to be on the board, do the paperwork for grants and
activities, and hide the eggs and dress up in the bunny costume for
the Easter Egg Hunt in the park. I did my share of complaining
before I got involved. But Darwin is right. It does absolutely no good
to take a 'victim' position when there are opportunities to change
things through participation.

....but you won't be able to repaint it red...

And they can then get you with one of those "run-down" laws. :/

"they" are ordinarily volunteer committees of your neighbors. Land use
ordinances almost always benefit some and anger others, but the key to
having the neighborhood you want is to participate. The squeaky wheels get
to decide what the neighborhood looks like. You get the impression from
reading some posts that some political gestapo imposes these ordinances from
the top, and we little people are getting screwed. The truth is that land
use planning and zoning is typically a very transparent process with lots of
hearings etc. and only a few people care enough or have the time or ambition
to participate. And all citizens must realize that the system is not
necessarily corrupt just because their position does not prevail. The
climate of "my adgenda at any price" including a willingness to lie to
advance the adgenda pervades our civic life and it may eventually ruin us.