"Dave Fouchey" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 20:41:57 GMT, "Vox Humana"
wrote:

All the things that you attribute to zoning are covered in our HOA
regulations. We are only allowed to have one political sign in our yard
and
it can only be up for a specified amount of time. Again, there is a lot
of
confusion about the concept of free speech. But if you don't have a
problem
with zoning, then why would you have a problem with HOAs? It is the same
thing. It would probably be easier to change HOA rules than to get the
zoning board to change its regulations. If the first case all you would
have to do is get several homeowners to attend a meeting. Then someone
would offer a resolution, it would be seconded and there would be a
discussion followed by a vote. Since virtually no one attends these
meetings you could probably damn near change all the rules in a few
hours.
The zoning board would be a much more protracted and tedious mechanism to
deal with.



Which is why I CHOOSE to live in a NON HOA neighborhood. HOA's tend to
be Too arbitrary and I am too much of a contrarian to put up with some
self righteous types telling me what color paint, what kind of
plant's, what kind of paving I am permitted to use on MY property. You
CHOOSE to live in one fine, but they are NOT for everyone and I for
one won;t live in one.


But here is my point of contention. I do want to live where I can be sure
the neighbors aren't going to put their car up on blocks in the front yard.
I have no issue with you not wanting to live in a planned unit development.
In your universe that makes me self-righteous and you noble? Go figure! I
didn't know that it was morally wrong to expect people to act in accordance
with the agreements that they signed when they bought their house. Could
you explain how that works? Why would it be OK to agree to restrictions and
then disregard the agreement later?