paghat wrote:
snip
These communities began for racist reasons, as when the idea of Civil
Rights for more than just white people got a strong if belated foothold in
America, a few court cases settled certain issues & it became illegal to
discriminate in housing. But a loophole was built into the law, & remains
the Communities regulated by Home Owner Associations CAN define the
age, religion, social status, & race of "appropriate" members permitted to
buy houses within the housing enclave -- & no matter how agregiously
prejudiced,
In 1948, in Shelley v. Kraemer, the US Supreme Court ruled that racially
restrictive covenants were unenforceable (rendering them meaningless).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...ol=334&invol=1
It's weird that -- despite Shelly v. Kraemer -- courts still uphold the
'right' of homeowner associations to use the courts to enforce servitude
restrictions that would be unconstitutional, were these private
governments legally considered governments.
it's perfectly legal, nothing those gawdamn queers & darkies
or whoever's left out can do to stop it, neener neener.
The government (e.g., the attorney general) will step in, in the case of
illegal discrimination, in common ownership development housing. In
fact, it's just about the only area the government will consider
defending homeowners against rogue HOA ruling cliques that have run amok.
The loophole makes
it legal to keep grandparents from letting their kids or grandchildren
move in when a housing community outlaws anyone under the age of 60; it
keeps Jews out of Christian housing districts;
I've never heard of a Christian housing district. Are you sure of your
facts?
it can even be "gated" with
a guard at the front gate to protect middleclass whities from "crime"
which is a code-word for "******s."
People can get into these developments posed as joggers, and still rob
people that have let their guard down -- BECAUSE of the gate and the
guard. In the final analysis, it's unclear whether gated subdivisions
are more secure.
It makes it legal to be upfront &
openly judgemental about why the mixed-race family is rejected from buying
into the given community, & if they think they should have the right to
sue over discrimination, tough.
This was prior to Shelley v. Kraemer, although I will agree that this
legacy of exclusion has had effects that persist to the present.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case33.htm
Nevertheless, the victims don't have to sue. There are government
agencies that will handle the situation, like the state Fair Employment
and Housing Commission.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/s...-6841242c.html
If this origin has changed slightly over time, & such enclaves are no
longer fully dominated by the initial purpose to keep racism legal, it is
only different insofar as there are now Chinese housing associations here
in Washington, & lots of them in California wherein only middleclass Latin
Americans are permitted to buy homes.
It is true that HOAs proliferated when they had become *the* main
vehicle to achieve racial discrimination in housing. Today, however,
anyone that's prevented from buying housing on the basis of national
origin, in California, can contact the Department of Fair Employment and
Housing.
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/
So we're working toward equal opportunity appartied.
So trying to force people not to paint their house pink or have a
pink lawn flamingo or an American flag,
http://newsobserver.com/nc24hour/ncn...-2401603c.html
http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/the_news_l...986333,00.html
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...a-news-broward
a UN flag,
http://www.kxtv10.com/storyfull.asp?id=4521
a
basketball hoop
http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi...3/05_27-19/CCR
over the garage door or redefining a hunter as inherently
evil BECAUSE he's a hunter & therefore suitably harrassed by Neighbors
United, up to & including anonymous reports to the police that he's a
child molester -- all that is just the tip of an iceberg made of hate,
among unsophisticated surburbanoids for whom "Property Values" is a
scare-word disguising the real purpose, & is synonymous with
"Intolerance."
-paghat the ratgirl
And to make matters worse, there's no evidence that homeowner
associations protect property values. They're set up using that purpose
as justification for creating them.
In fact, there is evidence to the contrary.
As more and more HOAs are created, and more and more people relate their
experiences, people are getting wind that homebuyers pay for 'pretty'
with oppression-by-adhesion-contract, and you can get 'pretty' without
the oppression.
The uniform "beige" town (city) of Cary, NC, establishes that local
governments can be as persnickety as associations, and that associations
are unnecessary.
That's why "The term 'No HOA' is starting to crop up in real estate
classified ads in the Phoenix area, where almost all new homes are built
under an association's wing. 'For most people it is a real selling
point,' says Rachel Linden, an agent with Coldwell Banker Success
Realty. 'Homeowners associations can be a real pain in the butt.' "
[Kiplinger Magazine, September, 2000]
"[T]oo many developers are more concerned with the immediate marketing
of a property and not long–term value potential."
http://money.cnn.com/2002/03/15/pf/y...dcom/index.htm
Moreover, as housing with no HOAs becomes more scarce, relative to
housing with HOAs -- something that is clearly happening
http://members.cox.net/concernedhomeowners/NmbrHOAs.htm
the values of homes in jurisdictions governed by HOAs will decrease,
relative to those of homes in jurisdictions not governed by HOAs.
Not only don't HOAs protect property values now, they cannot protect
their values from the "invisible hand" -- the inevitable effects of the
free market forces of supply and demand.