garden police gone wild?
 

"Jim Carter" wrote

"This was their finest hour."

Winston Churchill
House of Commons, June18th 1940

Yes. Churchill was a giant.

Funny thing is, the man spent two long years cajoling Franklin Roosevelt
about getting involved in the war. Care to speculate on why?

Jason

garden police gone wild?
 

"Charlie" wrote:

I think it's pathetic that she's bothered about a trailer being left on a
front driveway!

It's illegal in many jurisdictions. Further, the deed to the man's house
says "no trailers in the driveway." It's part of the contract he signed
when he bought the house.

I also think it's pathetic that there are people who make
up stupid rules to say what colour you can or can't have your house
painted,
that you can't have more than a certian amount of cars on your driveway or
that your grass can't be more than 2" long! It's ridiculous.

It can certainly get that way. Some people desperately need a hobby.

And yes, we had a "head start" over making laws, but at least our country
actually has history more than 200 years old.

So does the US. First colonists landed in 1584, making it rather over 400
years. The natives were of course here long before that.

And don't bring the World Wars into it, this is niether the time or the
place. At least we don't start them.

Except for that one where your government sold out Czechoslovakia and
Poland, you're right. Oh, and that Boer War, and the War of 1812 (heisting
our ships and kidnapping our sailors will get you a war). Surely there are
a few others I'm forgetting...

Jason

garden police gone wild?
 

On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 02:13:05 -0500, "Jason Quick" wrote in
rec.gardens.edible:

Funny thing is, the man spent two long years cajoling Franklin Roosevelt
about getting involved in the war. Care to speculate on why?

There is no need to speculate, especially here. The reasons are given in most
books about World War II.
--
Gardening Zones
Canada Zone 5a
United States Zone 3a
Near Ottawa, Ontario

garden police gone wild?
 

On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 02:13:05 -0500, "Jason Quick"
wrote:

}
}"Jim Carter" wrote
}
} "This was their finest hour."
}
} Winston Churchill
} House of Commons, June18th 1940
}
}Yes. Churchill was a giant.
}
}Funny thing is, the man spent two long years cajoling Franklin Roosevelt
}about getting involved in the war. Care to speculate on why?
}
}Jason
}
Everyone already knew that Hitler had some serious weapons.

garden police gone wild?
 

On Tue, 3 Jun 2003 17:04:25 -0500, Mark Anderson wrote:

}In article says...
} World War II was 1939 - 1945. The United States entered the war late in 1941
} after Pearl Harbor was attacked. The Battle of Britain had already been fought
} and won, by Britain, by the summer of 1941. Hitler had already turned the bulk
} of his troops and equipment toward Russia, where he suffered such severe losses
} of both men and materials that he might as well have surrendered at that time
} (as an aside, this is the same mistake that Napolean made and the same
} consequences). The outcome of World War II was already established when the US
} entered it; although, US entry greatly expedited the end of the war.
}
}Read the recent Pulitzer Prize winning book by Rick Atkinson, "An Army at
}Dawn," the first of a three book trilogy. The other two haven't been
}written yet. The book is about the Africa campaign, the first
}involvement of the US in WWII in that hemisphere. According to those
}accounts, Britain had zero chance of invading Africa by herself let alone
}continental Europe. Even the US with Britain learned a lot and lost a
}lot of men through their adventures and mis-adventures in Africa. I'm
}only halfway through the book but it's very enlightening.
}
[snip]

Britain was already bombing the German homeland in 1943. Your author is
also overlooking some serious possibilities. For instance...

The world's foremost scientists, including Albert Einstein, were the ones
who convinced Roosevelt to develop the atom bomb in the belief that Germany
was working on it. If the US had not entered the war these scientists might
have approached and convinced Britain to do so. Maybe.

My point is that there is no way of knowing how things would have proceeded
if the Japanese had not brought America into the war -- either
technologically or strategically. Remember, Britain invented RADAR and was
using a SONAR like system. They had the technological expertise to
construct an atom bomb if they had the will to do so.

Britain's allies were also going full speed ahead. By the end of the war
Canada had the world's third largest navy and fourth largest air force, for
example, and they were a country of a mere 15 million people at that time.
I have not checked what Australia and Brazil were up to.

garden police gone wild?
 

On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 16:44:17 -0700, (paghat) wrote:

}Actually, a pretty good argument could be made that without the Patten in
}Africa & without the US's hard-won liberation especially of France,
}Germany might still have taken Europe down, & most certainly England
}couldn't've stopped them. But I'm not up to that particular argument just
}now, as I have trouble drumming up much jingoism even where it might
}belong.
}
}-paghat the ratgirl

Britain had already stopped Germany in the Battle of Britain and Russia had
already stopped Germany cold (that's a pun). England began daily (weather
permitting) bombing of Germany in 1943 and Russia had opened up the Eastern
front. Germany borders on the Atlantic with a major port at Hamburg (second
largest city in Germany), which England devastated in one night's bombing.
Hitler was so preoccupied with the eastern front that he issued mis-informed
orders to Rommel that caused Rommel to lose his armour and any chance he had
to conduct an attack against Montgomery's eighth army. I bring this up only
to show how concerned Hitler was in 1942 with the eastern front.

What do you think would happen to the German forces in Africa when Germany
fell? What would the Germans in France have done when Germany fell?

Europe would be a very different place today without American involvement,
no argument. I would very much like to see your pretty good argument for
Germany taking down Europe if the United States were not involved.

The jingoism started with "the country that saved your up-tight asses in two
world wars." Are you going to finish it with--"& most certainly England
couldn't've stopped them?"

Why are Americans not talking about lend/lease? That prevented the fall of
England as much as Patton did.

garden police gone wild?
 

What you say is not correct. There is no permit required for putting up a fence
along a lot line. When governments start writing ordinances that start banning
activities like parking certain vehicles, dictating fence type and style, color of
houses and kinds of swimming pools, it has nothing to do with ZONING and everything
to do with the city becoming "BIG BROTHER" like an HOA.
Zoning has to do with the uses to which land is put and laws concerning public
safety. So they can specify that there MUST be a fence and how high around a
swimming pool, but not what KIND of swimming pool or what KIND of fence... that is
cosmetic and has nothing to do with health and safety.
She didnt "have" an attorney UNTIL she was sued.
Ingrid

"Vox Humana" wrote:
You also said that there was no permit required for a fence but this is not
true.
Governments have zoning regulations, not Home Owner's rules.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.

garden police gone wild?
 

wrote in message
...
What you say is not correct. There is no permit required for putting up a
fence
along a lot line.

I guess you didn't see my earlier message so I will copy the information
about fences below.


City of Brookfield, Wisconsin
Department of Community Development
2000 North Calhoun Road
Brookfield, WI 53005
Phone (262) 796-6646 M-F (7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.)
FAX (262) 796-6702

THIS IS A LIST OF THE MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS REGARDING FENCES

Q. Do I need a permit?
A. Yes, except for a decorative fence more than 50% open and less than 3' in
height.
Q. How much will a building permit for a fence cost?
A. $30.00.
Q. Can I put up a fence around my entire yard?
A. Yes, but only if it is a decorative fence more than 50% open and less
than 3' in
height such as a picket or split rail fence.
Q. You mean I can't fence in my own yard for privacy if I want?
A. Correct. You may not fence in your yard for privacy EXCEPT for a 20'
maximum
length, 6' maximum height privacy fence for a patio that must be located in
the rear
yard.
Q. What if I want to put up a chain link fence?
A. A chain link fence is permitted if it is used for one PET ENCLOSURE not
in excess
of 100 square feet in the rear yard and at least 10' from the lot line.
Chain link fence
is also allowed to enclose an ACTIVITY AREA FOR CHILDREN not more than 4'
in height and not more than 500 square feet in area.
Q. What about the fence at a swim pool or tennis court?
A. Fences at swim pool or tennis courts are governed by the swim pool and
tennis
court ordinances.
Q. How do I apply for a fence permit.
A. Application forms are available at the Inspection Services Department
Service desk.
Bring two copies of a typical fence panel drawing and four copies of a
survey (with
the proposed fence sketched in to scale) of the lot along with you when you
apply
for the permit.
Q. Must I have the lot line identified?
A. Yes. The corners shall be located with intermediate stakes or a reference
line from corner to corner. This line must remain in place during
construction
and final inspection.
NOTE: The property owner is responsible for correct placement of structures
upon a parcel of land to comply with the building and zoning law.
The edge of the City street pavement or back of curb is usually
NOT located on a property line.
Good luck with your project! Remember we are here to serve and protect you,
our
residents.
Our hours are Monday thru Friday 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Inspectors are in
from 7:00-8:00
a.m. and 2:30-3:30 p.m. Our telephone number is (262) 796-6646. Please call
if we may
be of further assistance.
S:\inspection\Handouts\HANDOUTS\FENCE 1/11/01

garden police gone wild?
 

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, &amp 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.

garden police gone wild?
 

exactly my point!!!!! there is NO PERMIT REQUIRED FOR A DECORATIVE FENCE. right.
thats what it was, less than 3' in height and 50% open and when the vines grew up it,
decorative.
what it says is a fence on the lot line (all around the yard) DOES NOT REQUIRE A
PERMIT when it is less than 3 feet high and "open". What they say is "like a picket
or split rail". They are not specifically saying it MUST be wood, but that is what
they mean without explicitly stating so. A 3 foot rabbit fence is 90%+ open and has
much less impact against brush than the wooden fence that is there now. In the open
it would not look decorative. We didnt put it in the open, never had any intention
of putting it in the open cause it wouldnt look good. In fact, we had no intention
of every putting up a fence along the "lawn" part of the lot line cause she couldnt
bitch about us cutting back her brush where there was none. But when they really
INSISTED we were cutting onto HER property my mother felt if we didnt establish
property rights they could claim adverse possession in the future. Her lawyer
agreed. In fact, when they sued they CLAIMED adverse possession of the property
right up to the asphalt drive based on their cutting the grass AND the previous
neighbor cutting the grass. Was he ever ****ed when he got dragged into this. My
mother had supplied him with most of the plants he used to construct this beautiful
rock garden next to their house AND he had a little greenhouse and orchids and is
responsible for my orchid addiction. They were very good neighbors.
Ingrid

"Vox Humana" wrote:
Q. Do I need a permit?
A. Yes, except for a decorative fence more than 50% open and less than 3' in
height.
Q. How much will a building permit for a fence cost?
A. $30.00.
Q. Can I put up a fence around my entire yard?
A. Yes, but only if it is a decorative fence more than 50% open and less
than 3' in
height such as a picket or split rail fence.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.

garden police gone wild?
 

In article , Rico
wrote:

[CLIPPED, some EXCELLENT stuff for a change! -- & what a relief to see
that not EVERYone is a head-in-hole Vox type! I will keep unclipped only
what I reply to, but anyone of intelligence will want to have read it
all.]

I've never heard of a Christian housing district. Are you sure of your
facts?

The vast majority of Homeowner Associations automatically reject Jews.
Saint Ole's original wordings & recommendations for how to form a
neighborhood corporation free of anyone but Christian whites even
prohibited Hindus, as if that were any great worry in San Clemente.

The racist, christian, conspirasy-theory organization "Retaking America"
which is worried about the One World Government's desire to force
integration of God's people with mud people, today still promotes
Homeowner Associations as a key weapon for the continuing & express
purpose of keeping neighborhoods exclusively white & "their kind" of
christian. Their charters of incorporation don't have to say all buyers
must be White Christian Patriots, but the purpose is fulfilled. Of course
when the Kamias Christian Homeowners Association named themselves that,
wanting their neighborhood to be exclusively Christian, they didn't
consciously want to be racists also, but that's the effect of it, &
whether they achieve a racist outcome "naturally" as part of their
ingrained culture or consciously as lunatics like those Retaking American
crackpots, it's ultimately the same thing.

So Hickery Woods Homeowner Association in Kentucky is Lutherans only, &
"coincidentally" whites only. Meadowglen Homeowners Association of
Michigan is a humongous & Christian enclave with something like six
Christian denominations represented. Apache Wells Homeowners Assoication
even puts in their charter that they're Christian only (most wouldn't
admit in their charters as it gives something to sue over). There is an
all-white Christian HOA in Washington DC right hemmed in by integrated &
predominantly black neighborhoods, if I recall it's called Brickland or
Broadland HOA.

The county government's round-about efforts to get that ultra-racist
Houston Homeowners Association (George Bush was formerly their explicit
pal while governor, though not standing up for them lately) has Christian
Patriots as their primary backers & fundraisers to help fight against the
county for the continued right to be racists & enforce their own
discriminatory housing. The three things that "just happen" to be true of
99% of Homeowner Associations is they're white, they're racist, & they
purport to be christian. Home Schooling, Christian Patriot, & Homeowner
Association -- they go together for the white separatist worldview.

But I wasn't addressing the far-right wacko versions. The NORMATIVE
Homeowner Association IS epitomized by the Palicido del Mar, since Saint
Ole set it up as THE model & all across America whites who could afford
to, & worried blacks ruined their "property values," set them up for
overtly racistpurposes.

There are rare & occasional exceptions. Brickle Homeowner Association, an
enormous enclave in Miami, defines itself as "Christ Centered." But they
are racially very integrated & work consciously to not be the horrifying
monstrously racist things that Homeowner Associations generally are.
There's no Jews or Hindus of course, but they'd likely welcome any who'd
convert, but it's a long way from Saint Ole's original plan for what HOAs
were supposed to do, & what most of them in fact do.

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.

Of course they're no safer. They're also LESS moral, LESS decent, MORE
corrupt & disgusting -- but they like to THINK they're safer & moral & all
that stuff they're not. One would hope that what they are are targets.

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

The Shlley v Kraemer case was very limited in its effect, it essentially
turned everything back to the states, most of which have done nothing
about it to this very day, though since California began taking action in
1998/99, a few other states (or counties within states) have followed;
things are changing right now. Shelly v Kraemer opened avenues for
potentially good new legislation that just never came about. As did a 1966
case of even greater importance that theoretically banned racist covenants
but racist covenants exist to this day & are enforced. The Shelly v
Kraemer case impacted only lands that were bequeathed to government
entities, & did settle once & for all that racist covenants did not have
to be honored by government entities. And it provided a citation to
attempt to apply the same standard in other circumstances, but unless
cases with additional contexts were actually brought to courts, nothing
really changes.

In the 60s such cases as Shelly v Kraemer were repeatedly cited for a
broading body of case law that prohibits public businesses & all sorts of
public as well as governmental entities from discrimination, but did not
greatly impact private clubs or incorporated semi-autonomus housing
communities. A huge body of case law that was state by state rather than
federal undermines the "right" or "privilege" to discriminate, but none of
it changed the reality of racist HOAs.

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/

This does not impact the "right" of HOAs to continue racist policies
though it makes it harder (in California at least) to foreclose on houses
of unwanted residents by fining them unjustly. It's one of a half-dozen
things that since 1998 have begun to whittle at, but my no means remove,
the "right" for HOAs to have racist policies, & this whittling is being
done state by state rather than federally (though some of the in-progress
cases may eventually reach the Supreme Court). California now has a half
dozen methods to "fight back" against racist HOA behavior, but cases have
to be taken selectively & proceed slowly. Senator Nakano's bill now
permits anti-racists within HOAs to sue the racists who run the places, &
Inouye's bill prohbits HUD funding & the like going into these racist
enclaves though they don't have to change their policies if they don't
take the funding. None of these tools have even started to cause places
like Placido del Mar to permit their enclaves to become integrated.
They'll go down in flames first.

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.

The effect on "property value" was always merley a code-word for "come
join us if you're racist *******s too." Obviously a community full of
racist *******s is NEVER the ideal place to live & the fact that those
*******s run the places means they're worth less than they could've been.

I won't common on the rest below, but leave it unclipped, as some of it
really has an echo of hope in it -- especially that bit about real estate
companies now advertising "No HOAs!" as a marketing plus. It was a
marketing plus when Granny Artemis & I were looking for our home. When I
realized I could not stand to leave the city for a town UNLESS i could
find an integrated town (fortunately there are many of those to choose
from around here), this automatically ruled out HOA ruled enclaves because
having grown up in a mixed race (& mixed faith) family, I was totally
creeped out by 100% honky neighborhoods.

-paggers

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.

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

garden police gone wild?
 

garden police gone wild?
 

paghat wrote:

In article , Rico
wrote:

[CLIPPED, some EXCELLENT stuff for a change! -- & what a relief to see
that not EVERYone is a head-in-hole Vox type! I will keep unclipped only
what I reply to, but anyone of intelligence will want to have read it
all.]


I've never heard of a Christian housing district. Are you sure of your
facts?


The vast majority of Homeowner Associations automatically reject Jews.

That's kind of a ridiculous claim. Where are your statistics? You have a
random sampling of how many HOA covenants? Zero? That's what I thought.

It's like boycotting cotton, because once upon a time the cotton industry
was supported by slave labor.

Best regards, :-)
Bob

--
"When the wolf is chasing the sleigh, throw him a raisin cookie, but don't
stop to bake him a cake." --Banacek

garden police gone wild?
 

garden police gone wild?
 

On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 05:30:48 -0400, Ann wrote:

Now you've taken this a bit over the top.


NOW?!!

This entire thread remains clueless except for some insight by Vox....

Paggers is clueless and ranting IMO.

garden police gone wild?
 

wrote in message
...
exactly my point!!!!! there is NO PERMIT REQUIRED FOR A DECORATIVE FENCE.
right.
thats what it was, less than 3' in height and 50% open and when the vines
grew up it,
decorative.
what it says is a fence on the lot line (all around the yard) DOES NOT
REQUIRE A
PERMIT when it is less than 3 feet high and "open".

What was reason given when you were ordered to remove the fence?

garden police gone wild?
 

"zxcvbob" wrote in message
...
paghat wrote:

In article , Rico
wrote:

[CLIPPED, some EXCELLENT stuff for a change! -- & what a relief to see
that not EVERYone is a head-in-hole Vox type! I will keep unclipped only
what I reply to, but anyone of intelligence will want to have read it
all.]


I've never heard of a Christian housing district. Are you sure of your
facts?


The vast majority of Homeowner Associations automatically reject Jews.

That's kind of a ridiculous claim. Where are your statistics? You have a
random sampling of how many HOA covenants? Zero? That's what I thought.

It's like boycotting cotton, because once upon a time the cotton industry
was supported by slave labor.


Exactly. First of all, restrictive covenants exists and are enforceable
with or without a HOA. Secondly, restrictions that are illegal are not
enforceable. For instance, my deed says that I can't put up a satellite
dish. The Communications act of 1996 voids that restriction. My HOA can
not prohibit me from having a satellite dish, but they can tell me where and
how it can be mounted as long as the guidelines don't prevent me from
receiving a signal or are not unreasonably restrictive. The FCC says that
the placement of the dish can't me more stringent than the placement of an
AC unit. Finally, because there are violations of the law does not mean
that there is no law.

garden police gone wild?
 

"Ann" wrote in message
...
(paghat) expounded:

The vast majority of Homeowner Associations automatically reject Jews.

Now you've taken this a bit over the top. This may happen in some
areas, but it certainly can't happen around here.

I don't see how it could happen anywhere considering that HOAs are bound by
the federal Fair Housing Act. From a practical standpoint, one has to
understand that the actual unit parcel and the home that is built on it are
the property of the homeowner. Since the homeowner and his agents are bound
by federal law, there is no way that the HOA can force him to discriminate
against Jews or any other protected class.

garden police gone wild?
 

Okay, I'm gonna come out of lurk mode for a bit here. I've read most of
these posts, and being a property appraiser, I deal with many of these
issues on a daily basis from the public.

There is what is called The Bundle of Rights, and here they are.

*The right to use
*The right to sell
*The right to lease or rent
*The right to enter or leave
*The right to refuse to exercise any of the above

NOW. The simple fact of the matter is, if you purchase a home within a
subdivision of property that contains by-laws, you are agreeing to the
by-laws. The documentation is signed when closing (usually). These by-laws
are maintained by the community and are entered into public record (the
courts), so they are also backed up by the county in which they sit.

If you don't agree with those by-laws, you don't buy within that
subdivision. That simple. Why? Because 9 times out of 10, someone will be
in that neighborhood ENFORCING those by-laws!!! If you live there already
and don't like them, the chances of getting rid of those by-laws are tricky,
expensive legally, and most likely impossible. If you live in a
neighborhood that enforces the by-laws on some and not others, well, that is
an easy win in a court of law (we see this happening often).

The other thing that can over ride the most simple definition of these
rights are zoning and codes within the city/township, or county. Such as
having 60 cars rotting on a lot can cause some serious health problems sort
of things. And there is always the good ol' eminent domain for roads and
such.

In reality, the laws and by-laws are there to support a neighborhood style
of living that others want and have pretty much established by court record.
If you don't like them, don't live there.

There are subdivisions within this county that don't allow the house to be
seen fromt he highway. Another that controls what you can plant, where, and
how much of it. I've even seen subdivisions that have it written how tall
your grass can get; if you don't mow it, they'll do it for you and charge
you. Yes, I've even seen a lean against a property because the grass was
not green enough. The color range of a lawn was in those by-laws. I've
seen that if the community suspects an infestation of insect or rodent, they
have the right to ENTER your home without warning and inspect it.

I have also seen situations that are like the pink house with the farmer.
The bottom line is if that farmer has not legally joined that association
there isn't a damned thing they can do to him. Some people forget that they
cannot control what is outside of that subdivision's boundries.

Lowering property values with the venison hanging on the basketball hoop and
the alleged molestation of a child, plus the "trailers" being left out?
That one is iffy. It would take years of property sales within that direct
neighborhood to prove such a thing, and even that proof can be argued. Some
neighborhoods just fall. Now if it was in your block, that may be a
different matter. At this point in time I am appraising a neighborhood that
is claiming to have a possible crack house in it (maybe two or three). So
far the property values have not been affected what so ever, and that
complaint has existed for about 3 years now. Yes, the yard is a junk heap
(the first suspiscion that it's a meth/crack house). But the property
values either hold steady or rise.

So it all depends as to what you personally want to live with. I personally
searched for a subdivision (cause I can't afford to maintain my own well)
that would leave me alone and found it.

--
Dance as if no one were watching,
Sing as if no one were listening,
And live every day as if it were your last.

garden police gone wild?
 

Tom J expounded:


This entire thread remains clueless except for some insight by Vox....

Sorry, but I find Vox to be as rabid as Paghat on this one.

--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************

garden police gone wild?
 

"Kari" expounded:

So it all depends as to what you personally want to live with. I personally
searched for a subdivision (cause I can't afford to maintain my own well)
that would leave me alone and found it.

I think that's what the vast majority does. As for me, no
subdivisions at all, thanx, I'll fend for myself in a stand alone home
with as few neighbors as possible.

--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************

garden police gone wild?
 

In article , zxcvbob
wrote:

paghat wrote:

In article , Rico
wrote:

[CLIPPED, some EXCELLENT stuff for a change! -- & what a relief to see
that not EVERYone is a head-in-hole Vox type! I will keep unclipped only
what I reply to, but anyone of intelligence will want to have read it
all.]


I've never heard of a Christian housing district. Are you sure of your
facts?


The vast majority of Homeowner Associations automatically reject Jews.

That's kind of a ridiculous claim. Where are your statistics? You have a
random sampling of how many HOA covenants? Zero? That's what I thought.

It's like boycotting cotton, because once upon a time the cotton industry
was supported by slave labor.

Best regards, :-)
Bob

Don't be a silly, next you'll be asking me to prove there are no ******s
in the Klan, cuz where's the head count. When they even advertise as
"Christ Oriented," when they obtain funding from Christian Patriot
fundraisers to fight for the continuing right to remain racist as is
happening in Huston, when another is explicitely for Lutherans, that alone
guarantees No Jews Even Apply, nor was that accidental. And if you're
paying attention Saint Ole Hanson banned explicitely Jews, Hindus &
Moslems, and all religions other than Christian & all races other than
white, setting the standard that remains even for HOAs that aren't as
explicit. But yes, population statistics are available for HOA
neighborhoods, having been used in court cases, having been documented by
the HOAs who're proud of their bigotry & by organizatiosn that fight
against bigotry.

And there's no Once Upon A Time about it, blacks & jews & gays know full
well that if they attempt to move into a HOA and have to pass a
committee's idea of proper muster, they're gonna be weeded out. I suspect
that's the real reason realators now consider "No HOA!" on the "plus" side
when advertising a home for sale -- it means the potential buyers is
considerably expanded.

Exactly HOW overt does it get? Here's a specific case, & nothing the
least bit unique about it. The Habad congregation is the only Orthodox
synogogue in Marin County, CA., consisting of a mere 18 families that live
just outside the boundaries of the Lucas Valley Homeowners Association.
When they sought to expand their synogogue facilities, the HOA immediately
drummed up something like 630 signatures to stop them. They had several
excuses other than "we hate Jews," but their motivation was pretty obvious
from the start, & became more obvious as they proceded. They CLAIMED they
didn't want the extra traffic on Saturdays when children are playing (
Jews aren't welcome even OUTSIDE the HOA reach because of extra traffic
inside the HOA boundaries on Saturday??? The Orthodox don't drive on
Saturday! the Orthodox WALK to synogogue). The HOA didn't want the added
noise pollution (who the hell ever heard a huge ruckus from a
synogogue??). There were an additional 13 families in all of Marin county
that might've been interested in the Hadad synogogue & might've moved to
the neighborhood -- so the primary reason for the HOA getting all
horrified was, & I quote them exactly: "an erosion of the quality of life
in our neighborhood."

After public hearings & delays caused by the HOA, the only legal &
rational decision was made by the county, & the permits were granted. The
HOA immediately began appeal procedures to stop the Jews, filed a suit
requiring an Environmental Impact Statement & other interference measures.
But when the news got wind of their suit claiming even that the county had
facilitated excess freedom of religion for Jews, the HOA finally backed
off for fear of the repurcussions when the larger community became way too
aware of a band of bigots in their midst. None of their alleged reasons
for trying to stop the synogogue were ever leveled against the numerous
Christian churches around their HOA enclave. No Christian Church in the
vicinity of the HOA had ever been declared by them "detrimental to the
community" as was the synogogue.

This was not a special enclave of klansmen or avowed Christian Patriots.
These were just average normal middle class honkies who well knew (as
anyone with half an IQ point knows) that the best way to avoid ******s,
yids, ragheads, & fags is to buy into a HOA neighborhood -- you sign away
a few property rights, but look at that one & only reward! Dumbasses
couldn't even tolerate Jews even OUTSIDE but too near their neighborhood.

On the other hand there would likewise be no law against a Jewish
Homeowners Associations in whose enclave even non-observant Jews wouldn't
be permitted if that was the HOA's choice. Haven't heard of it happening,
but it would actually make sense since so many Jews do have to walk to
synogogue & must live in a single neighborhood to do so.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

garden police gone wild?
 

In article , Ann
wrote:

(paghat) expounded:

The vast majority of Homeowner Associations automatically reject Jews.

Now you've taken this a bit over the top. This may happen in some
areas, but it certainly can't happen around here. Discrimination like
that would be all over the Boston Globe in a heartbeat. There are HOA
neighborhoods all over the ritzy-titzy towns around me, and there's
blacks, jews, arabs, whatever living in them. If this is still going
on in other parts of the country, I hope they're getting their asses
sued soundly.

See my post on basic & typical HOA behavior in declairing the only
orthodox synogogue in Marin County harmful to the HOA's way of life.

Boston is one of the most racist places on earth, & if you can name even
one HOA that is as integrated as you say, name it. I've named specific &
representative cases, they're easy to find.

I've also mentioned that a FEW of these Associations, knowing they live
under a burden of a profoundly racist heritage past AND PRESENT, do make
the extra effort to say all races are welcome (like the Miami HOA that
welcomes all races so long as they're Christian). If there's one like that
in Boston, name it. Otherwise you're blowing smoke out your hat, & if if
you check into it for the facts, you'll find that the assumptions you make
about the communities surrounding you are very likely different than you
believe.

And if the Boston Globe made racism in that city a priority for their news
coverage, they wouldn't have any room left to report anything good about
Irish Catholics.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

garden police gone wild?
 

In article , Tom J
wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 05:30:48 -0400, Ann wrote:

Now you've taken this a bit over the top.


NOW?!!

This entire thread remains clueless except for some insight by Vox....

Paggers is clueless and ranting IMO.

Actually since I gave specific examples for every claim I've made -- the
Marin county HOA battle against Jews is perfectly representative; the
Placido del Mar HOA's founder explicitly banning Jews & Hindus & remaining
free of same even in 2003 -- well, what we get to see in this thread is
which ******s in this ng are closet racists. For no one who was anything
better could see documented, obvious & undeniable facts about HOAs with
examples named -- & see in that evidence of anything other than the racism
& antisemitism of HOAs -- which after all came about primarily to
circumvent the laws protecting the Civil Rights of minority populations.

Clueless category: You Tom. The facts are there. If you can't deal with
them more honestly than that, I'm left to assume you applaud the HOA
status quo, as you can no longer seriously rely on your general ignorance
as your excuse.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

garden police gone wild?
 

In article , "Kari" wrote:


In reality, the laws and by-laws are there to support a neighborhood style
of living that others want and have pretty much established by court record.
If you don't like them, don't live there.

This is good advice. Yes, assume if you sign away property rights, SOMEone
will be on hand to make you suffer for it.

But this thread shows that a lot of people are in serious denial about the
fact that HOAs came about to circumvent the inroads of Civil Rights, NOT
because articles of incorporation were worth it merely to force the
neighbor to mow his lawn more often, because city or county ordinances
frequently sufficiently take care of the cosmetic aspects of what one must
adhere to. "Innocent" buyers should be more fully aprised of the
historical purpose, & still-strong underlying effect of HOAs, so they
don't accidentally buy into a HOA thinking the worst thing possible is
they have to mow their lawn ridiculously often, then their son marries a
Chinese woman & the shit hits the fan.

Second, some HOA neighborhoods consist of 2,000 or more homes. If you're a
Jew or Black & know those are all automatically OFF your list of safe
places to attempt to buy because nine times out of a ten it's a honky
enclave accidentally-on-purpose, you will suddenly be a little happier
that several states are right today (at least 40 years late!) finally
beginning to undermine HOAs' bigotry privileges. Yes, such people know we
wouldn't like it, & many "voluntarily" elect not to live there.

But your "right" or "option" to join a HOA where the percentage of
minorities drops dramatically (to as low as zero percent ) doesn't look so
nifty, not if the day before you went house-hunting you naively believed
that discriminatory housing policies was illegal in all cases, only to
discover a half-dozen of the surrunding neighborhoods "coincidentally"
only sell to whites & a huge percentage of houses on the market aren't for
you -- & turns out there's very little you can do about it even if you
were brave enough to force the issue & forge a path amidst all those
honkies.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

garden police gone wild?
 

On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 11:09:43 -0400, Ann wrote:

Tom J expounded:


This entire thread remains clueless except for some insight by Vox....

Sorry, but I find Vox to be as rabid as Paghat on this one.


OK Ann, but living in a communality with hundreds of HOA's I see
none of the rantings validated.

garden police gone wild?
 

"paghat" wrote in message news:paghat-
The vast majority of Homeowner Associations automatically reject Jews.

And there's no Once Upon A Time about it, blacks & jews & gays know full
well that if they attempt to move into a HOA and have to pass a
committee's idea of proper muster, they're gonna be weeded out.

I'm having trouble with this assertion myself, Paghat. That HOA place we
lived in Montgomery Village? We're Jewish and so we many of our neighbors.
(Not the NAN neighbor though s.) Unless most of the rest of the country
is very different (which could be, I suppose...our area was voted by Utne
Mag as the most enlightened area to live in the country) and I'm just very
naive...

garden police gone wild?
 

"paghat" wrote in message
...
In article , Rico
wrote:

[CLIPPED, some EXCELLENT stuff for a change! -- & what a relief to see
that not EVERYone is a head-in-hole Vox type! I will keep unclipped only
what I reply to, but anyone of intelligence will want to have read it
all.]

I've never heard of a Christian housing district. Are you sure of your
facts?

The vast majority of Homeowner Associations automatically reject Jews.
Saint Ole's original wordings & recommendations for how to form a
neighborhood corporation free of anyone but Christian whites even
prohibited Hindus, as if that were any great worry in San Clemente.

And how do they know someone is a jew? Are they checking some part of the
anatomy? The would be the first clue to not move in......



The racist, christian, conspirasy-theory organization "Retaking America"
which is worried about the One World Government's desire to force
integration of God's people with mud people,

Your bigotry is showing....


today still promotes
Homeowner Associations as a key weapon for the continuing & express
purpose of keeping neighborhoods exclusively white & "their kind" of
christian. Their charters of incorporation don't have to say all buyers
must be White Christian Patriots, but the purpose is fulfilled. Of course
when the Kamias Christian Homeowners Association named themselves that,
wanting their neighborhood to be exclusively Christian, they didn't
consciously want to be racists also, but that's the effect of it, &
whether they achieve a racist outcome "naturally" as part of their
ingrained culture or consciously as lunatics like those Retaking American
crackpots, it's ultimately the same thing.

So Hickery Woods Homeowner Association in Kentucky is Lutherans only, &
"coincidentally" whites only. Meadowglen Homeowners Association of
Michigan is a humongous & Christian enclave with something like six
Christian denominations represented. Apache Wells Homeowners Assoication
even puts in their charter that they're Christian only (most wouldn't
admit in their charters as it gives something to sue over). There is an
all-white Christian HOA in Washington DC right hemmed in by integrated &
predominantly black neighborhoods, if I recall it's called Brickland or
Broadland HOA.

The county government's round-about efforts to get that ultra-racist
Houston Homeowners Association (George Bush was formerly their explicit
pal while governor, though not standing up for them lately) has Christian
Patriots as their primary backers & fundraisers to help fight against the
county for the continued right to be racists & enforce their own
discriminatory housing. The three things that "just happen" to be true of
99% of Homeowner Associations is they're white, they're racist, & they
purport to be christian. Home Schooling, Christian Patriot, & Homeowner
Association -- they go together for the white separatist worldview.

But I wasn't addressing the far-right wacko versions. The NORMATIVE
Homeowner Association IS epitomized by the Palicido del Mar, since Saint
Ole set it up as THE model & all across America whites who could afford
to, & worried blacks ruined their "property values," set them up for
overtly racistpurposes.

There are rare & occasional exceptions. Brickle Homeowner Association, an
enormous enclave in Miami, defines itself as "Christ Centered." But they
are racially very integrated & work consciously to not be the horrifying
monstrously racist things that Homeowner Associations generally are.
There's no Jews or Hindus of course, but they'd likely welcome any who'd
convert, but it's a long way from Saint Ole's original plan for what HOAs
were supposed to do, & what most of them in fact do.

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.

Of course they're no safer. They're also LESS moral, LESS decent, MORE
corrupt & disgusting -- but they like to THINK they're safer & moral & all
that stuff they're not. One would hope that what they are are targets.

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

The Shlley v Kraemer case was very limited in its effect, it essentially
turned everything back to the states, most of which have done nothing
about it to this very day, though since California began taking action in
1998/99, a few other states (or counties within states) have followed;
things are changing right now. Shelly v Kraemer opened avenues for
potentially good new legislation that just never came about. As did a 1966
case of even greater importance that theoretically banned racist covenants
but racist covenants exist to this day & are enforced. The Shelly v
Kraemer case impacted only lands that were bequeathed to government
entities, & did settle once & for all that racist covenants did not have
to be honored by government entities. And it provided a citation to
attempt to apply the same standard in other circumstances, but unless
cases with additional contexts were actually brought to courts, nothing
really changes.

In the 60s such cases as Shelly v Kraemer were repeatedly cited for a
broading body of case law that prohibits public businesses & all sorts of
public as well as governmental entities from discrimination, but did not
greatly impact private clubs or incorporated semi-autonomus housing
communities. A huge body of case law that was state by state rather than
federal undermines the "right" or "privilege" to discriminate, but none of
it changed the reality of racist HOAs.

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/

This does not impact the "right" of HOAs to continue racist policies
though it makes it harder (in California at least) to foreclose on houses
of unwanted residents by fining them unjustly. It's one of a half-dozen
things that since 1998 have begun to whittle at, but my no means remove,
the "right" for HOAs to have racist policies, & this whittling is being
done state by state rather than federally (though some of the in-progress
cases may eventually reach the Supreme Court). California now has a half
dozen methods to "fight back" against racist HOA behavior, but cases have
to be taken selectively & proceed slowly. Senator Nakano's bill now
permits anti-racists within HOAs to sue the racists who run the places, &
Inouye's bill prohbits HUD funding & the like going into these racist
enclaves though they don't have to change their policies if they don't
take the funding. None of these tools have even started to cause places
like Placido del Mar to permit their enclaves to become integrated.
They'll go down in flames first.

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.

The effect on "property value" was always merley a code-word for "come
join us if you're racist *******s too." Obviously a community full of
racist *******s is NEVER the ideal place to live & the fact that those
*******s run the places means they're worth less than they could've been.

I won't common on the rest below, but leave it unclipped, as some of it
really has an echo of hope in it -- especially that bit about real estate
companies now advertising "No HOAs!" as a marketing plus. It was a
marketing plus when Granny Artemis & I were looking for our home. When I
realized I could not stand to leave the city for a town UNLESS i could
find an integrated town (fortunately there are many of those to choose
from around here), this automatically ruled out HOA ruled enclaves because
having grown up in a mixed race (& mixed faith) family, I was totally
creeped out by 100% honky neighborhoods.

-paggers

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.

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

garden police gone wild?
 

In article , Tom J
wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 11:09:43 -0400, Ann wrote:

Tom J expounded:


This entire thread remains clueless except for some insight by Vox....

Sorry, but I find Vox to be as rabid as Paghat on this one.


OK Ann, but living in a communality with hundreds of HOA's I see
none of the rantings validated.

Some people don't HAVE to care, so never even bother to look. You don't
see what you couldn't care less about.

Tell me what single community has HUNDREDS of HOAs while you're at it. By
HUNDREDS you mean 200 HOAs right in your neighborhood? Three or four
hundred? Six hundred? Should be easy for you to name 10% of them then, or
grab your Yellow Pages & list the ones that start with "S" -- that should
be a good 20 out of 200 right there.

Shit, ignorant people demanding & getting from me specifics of real
situtations with names & places named, & STILL persist in preferring the
myths you make up as you go along. It must be damned hard work to stay
ignorant in a world with such easy access to information.

-paghat

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

garden police gone wild?
 

In article , "Julia Green"
wrote:

"paghat" wrote in message news:paghat-
The vast majority of Homeowner Associations automatically reject Jews.

And there's no Once Upon A Time about it, blacks & jews & gays know full
well that if they attempt to move into a HOA and have to pass a
committee's idea of proper muster, they're gonna be weeded out.

I'm having trouble with this assertion myself, Paghat. That HOA place we
lived in Montgomery Village? We're Jewish and so we many of our neighbors.
(Not the NAN neighbor though s.) Unless most of the rest of the country
is very different (which could be, I suppose...our area was voted by Utne
Mag as the most enlightened area to live in the country) and I'm just very
naive...

Some places like Seattle & Monterey, apparently also where you live, have
fully integrated HOAs & a policy to stay so. Others are just
"automatically" Jew Free without trying, & if a non-observant Jew wanted
to buy a house there, likely no one would even ask -- observant Jews would
no better than to try where there's no synogogue within fifty miles. But
intentinonally integrated HOAs the a distinct minority, & even some of
those, like the Miami integrated HOA, is for Christians only, of any race.
When the majority do advertise "Christian living" or at least distribute
lists of churches to prospective buyers, they're doing what they can to
keep YOU aware you might be comfier someplace else.

Would YOU have guessed a regular old Marin County HOA would expend months
of volunteer energy & easily get 600 signatures practically overnight in
their desire to stop Orthodox Jews from living just outside the boundaries
of their HOA -- as their first excuse for their behavior, a fear that
Orthodox Jews will be racing their cars through the neighborhoods on
Saturday while children play! When that one didn't wash, they had a
back-up preposterous excuse: synogogues are noisy. It's not like Marin
County is famously KKK dominated -- these were just "regular" Christian
people who couldn't stand the idea of a tiny handful of Jews in the next
neighborhood over. It indeed sounds just too ignorant to be true, but it's
what happened, it's what the Lucas Valley HOA expended all that energy
attempting to do (& failing, but causing a lot of unwanted expense & grief
not getting their way -- except they did get their way because now more
Jews know not to try to buy into HOA districts).

This sort of thing is not all one-way, though Jews who avoid living with
black folks don't usually try to incorporate their neighborhood, so it's
not an issue of HOA racism. I lived in the Jewish Maplewood district of
Seattle for years, in walking distance of a synogogue, with several delis,
but over time the neighborhood became black. The older community began to
close their businesses, finally closed the synogogue & built a new one on
Mercer Island, & all the observant Jews sold their houses within an
18-month period & movedto Mercer Island to a Black Free zone. Even those
of us who were very little observant or not at all, who remained longest,
slowly wandered on, because a neighborhood full of catfish joints & soul
burgers wasn't quite the same as neighborhood delis & latkes a short walk
away. When I run into friends from that no-longer-Jewish old neighborhood,
I used to ask, "Why'd everyone have to leave all of a sudden?" There
could've been lots of answer, the neighborhood really had deteriorated,
the high school kids in one of the city's largest high schools could be a
nuisance. But the answer was never complex; it was always one word only:
"Shfartza!"

So it's not only goyim who have deeply ingrained very bad attitudes; &
it's true these sorry-ass attitudes don't make everyone awful in every
aspect of their lives. But being one church or synogogue at a time in need
of a greater moral tolerance is quite different than incorporating a
neighborhood so that bigotry can have a little weight of law behind it to
sustain. HOAs would not exist today if the primary intent was to make sure
everyone mowed their lawn often enough. It is quite a complicated
procedure to incorporate a neighborhood as a semi-independent
self-governing body, & the ONLY privileges they have that one doesn't have
outside the reach of the HOA is they get to personally level fines against
people rather than having the fire department do it on the basis of city
or county regulations instead of HOA rules, & they get to assess who their
neighbors are permitted to be before sales are final, thereby voiding the
majority of Civil Rights gains. Obviously blacks get it LOTSworse than
Jews, & especially as a non-observant Jew it becomes easy to be 100%
assimilated & buddies primarily with goyim, including even goyim who have
issues with blacks but think we're just fine.

But when these enclaves define themselves as Christian and/or advertise
how many churches their community has (INVARIABLY leaving off the lists
the only synogogue & the only Buddhist temple), the message is pretty
damned clear without them having to be more explicit. That HOAs do
additionally commonly ban together to harrass nearby minorities may be
outside the law, but is certainly a related manner, as when the Placido
del Mar broke tirelessly harrassed an elderly Malaysian woman, from
spraypainting warnings on her house to breaking a water main beside her
house & refusing to fix it, & only after ten years of this kind of
continuous hate-tactics was the government finally forced to move against
the HOA. If you think these same people LIKE Jews, you've clearly made it
easy for them to not notice you are one, in the same way faggots & dykes
learn to keep heads down. Which is not to say you might be wonderfully
lucky to live in a genuinely liberal area, & no reason to look TOO hard
for another underlying reality.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

garden police gone wild?
 

In article ,
"john wardle" wrote:

"paghat" wrote in message
...
In article , Rico
wrote:

[CLIPPED, some EXCELLENT stuff for a change! -- & what a relief to see
that not EVERYone is a head-in-hole Vox type! I will keep unclipped only
what I reply to, but anyone of intelligence will want to have read it
all.]

I've never heard of a Christian housing district. Are you sure of your
facts?

The vast majority of Homeowner Associations automatically reject Jews.
Saint Ole's original wordings & recommendations for how to form a
neighborhood corporation free of anyone but Christian whites even
prohibited Hindus, as if that were any great worry in San Clemente.

And how do they know someone is a jew? Are they checking some part of the
anatomy? The would be the first clue to not move in......



The racist, christian, conspirasy-theory organization "Retaking America"
which is worried about the One World Government's desire to force
integration of God's people with mud people, today still promotes
Homeowner Associations as a key weapon for the continuing & express
purpose of keeping neighborhoods exclusively white & "their kind" of
christian.

Your bigotry is showing....

I'm just a little surprised you'd define disliking an avowedly racist
movement (which supports HOAs because HOAs is a short-cut to preserving
their right to enforce discrimination in an entire neighborhood) as itself
bigotted. Okay, i LOVE bigots, I hope my neighborhood FILLS UP with
bigots. If I refuse to attend their queer-bashing party or don't take my
turn burning crosses on a black family's lawn, am I still a bigot not to
help out?

I know, I know, you were being satiric, & you don't share Retaking
AMerica's conviction that Black & Jewish Mud People, assisted by the
United Nations, are taking over America. But the creepier sorts
participating in this thread are going to think you weren't pretending &
that you're a complete dunderhead like themselves!

However, when Retaking America came out against "evil" King Bush II,
Master of the One World Order, for waging war because of pretend-weopons
of destruction, I had this creepy feeling that I agreed with them about
something -- as creepy as the VERY LAST TIME i ever showed up to picket
against an offensive film & found that that Holy Rollers were also
picketing it. Inducing me to buy a ticket. The film turned out to be okay.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

garden police gone wild?
 

garden police gone wild?
 

Tom J expounded:

OK Ann, but living in a communality with hundreds of HOA's I see
none of the rantings validated.

Oh, the racial stuff? No, I've seen none of that around here, either,
I'd say at least the whole of the east coast, from Virginia on up,
there isn't any of that going on. She's always over the top on her
prejudice issues of any race or creed.

--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************

garden police gone wild?
 

On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 09:30:49 -0700, Tom J
wrote:

communality


damn speil chicker!

garden police gone wild?
 

"paghat" wrote in message

Would YOU have guessed a regular old Marin County HOA would expend months
of volunteer energy & easily get 600 signatures practically overnight in
their desire to stop Orthodox Jews from living just outside the boundaries
of their HOA -- as their first excuse for their behavior, a fear that
Orthodox Jews will be racing their cars through the neighborhoods on
Saturday while children play!

That is truly bizarre!


But when these enclaves define themselves as Christian and/or advertise
how many churches their community has (INVARIABLY leaving off the lists
the only synogogue & the only Buddhist temple), the message is pretty
damned clear without them having to be more explicit.

Whenever I see anything defining themselves as "Christian", I'm afraid my
prejudices come to the fore. I have an extremely gut-negative response! My
experiences with people who make a big deal about being Christian is that
they are anything *but. Yuck.

If you think these same people LIKE Jews, you've clearly made it
easy for them to not notice you are one, in the same way faggots & dykes
learn to keep heads down.

We've always had a mezuzah on our door wherever we've lived. Not terribly
noticable I suppose and most people, if they did notice it, wouldn't have
any idea what it meant anyway. Where we lived with the HOA also had a
synagogue, so, obviously not the typical (if you are right about most of the
rest of the country) HOA community. My husband, though, is *stereoypically
Jewish looking. Dark, bearded, large aquiline nose, etc. I've run into the
occassional redneck out here who has (without knowing I was Jewish) made
disparaging comments about Jews, but, overall, this area (with the highest
education level in the country and in the top ten for household income) is
quite enlightened and diverse. I suppose I do take it for granted at this
point and would have a hard time living anywhere else.

Which is not to say you might be wonderfully
lucky to live in a genuinely liberal area, & no reason to look TOO hard
for another underlying reality.

Yup.

garden police gone wild?
 

OK Ann, but living in a communality with hundreds of HOA's I see
none of the rantings validated.
I can't see what's NOT there.

I'm aware of over 200 HOA's in Clark County Nevada. I've worked in at
least 100 different HOA's in my days as a landscaper. Most use
management companies to run their day to day operations. There are at
least 10 Synagogues as well as 4 Mosques around the Valley. I've lived
in 3 HOA's with Gay, Hindu, Hebrew, Buddhist, Christian, Black, Brown,
White, Red and Yellow neighbors. The world still suffers from the
horrible abuses of racism.....but not in my front yard. I work for a
company that celebrates diversity and encourages diversity.

half empty half full, either way ther's a long way to go, I just don't
see the world as evil as you.

garden police gone wild?
 

"Tom J" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 11:09:43 -0400, Ann wrote:

Tom J expounded:


This entire thread remains clueless except for some insight by Vox....

Sorry, but I find Vox to be as rabid as Paghat on this one.


OK Ann, but living in a communality with hundreds of HOA's I see
none of the rantings validated.

I agree. I don't see anything rabid in my arguments. If there is some flaw
of logic, then address it. To call someone "rabid" because you don't like
their viewpoint is simply an ad hominem attack. Out of the 150 homes in my
subdivision, only about two or three have any serious, ongoing violations.
They are the same two or three people who continue to ignore the contract
that they signed at closing. No one comes to meetings. That indicates to
me that people aren't upset about the situation. I don't hear any neighbors
ranting about the rules.

My position on the subject is simple. HOA rules are on file in your county
courthouse. You should ask to see a copy before you sign the planned unit
development rider at closing. You should talk to the people in the
neighboring houses to see what they think about the level of enforcement.
You might want to call the management company or board president. If you
sign the agreement the you should expect to live by the agreement. In
exchange for the restrictions, you have an assurance that your neighborhood
will remain as good (or bad) as it was when you moved in. You will
probably have the use of some common areas including a pool, tennis courts,
playground, and/or clubhouse. Don't expect the basic covenants and
restrictions to be changed or abolished. You can participate in the actions
of the board and change things like the architectural rules that are at the
discretion of the board. HOA are bound by Federal, state, and local civil
rights laws. HOAs generally don't get involved with the sale of your home
except to specify the type of "for sale" sign that you place in your yard.

garden police gone wild?
 

"paghat" wrote in message
...
In article , Tom J
wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 11:09:43 -0400, Ann wrote:

Tom J expounded:


This entire thread remains clueless except for some insight by Vox....

Sorry, but I find Vox to be as rabid as Paghat on this one.


OK Ann, but living in a communality with hundreds of HOA's I see
none of the rantings validated.

Some people don't HAVE to care, so never even bother to look. You don't
see what you couldn't care less about.

Tell me what single community has HUNDREDS of HOAs while you're at it. By
HUNDREDS you mean 200 HOAs right in your neighborhood? Three or four
hundred? Six hundred? Should be easy for you to name 10% of them then, or
grab your Yellow Pages & list the ones that start with "S" -- that should
be a good 20 out of 200 right there.

Someone mentioned that they lived in an area called Montgomery Village that
had a lot of HOAs. If you go to the Montgomery County HOA page you will see
a list of over 800 HOA listed.
http://www.communitiesonline.org/sta...ontgomery/hoa/

garden police gone wild?
 

"Vox Humana" wrote in message

Someone mentioned that they lived in an area called Montgomery Village
that
had a lot of HOAs. If you go to the Montgomery County HOA page you will
see
a list of over 800 HOA listed.
http://www.communitiesonline.org/sta...ontgomery/hoa/

Those are HOAs for the entire *county of Montgomery. It's in Maryland and
is a suburb of DC.

garden police gone wild?
 

On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 05:26:57 -0700, Tom J wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 05:30:48 -0400, Ann wrote:

Now you've taken this a bit over the top.


NOW?!!

This entire thread remains clueless except for some insight by Vox....

Paggers is clueless and ranting IMO.

Pepsi through the nose. Thanks! BTW, on my second batch of tea. I'm
impressed.