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/

On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 20:44:14 GMT, "Vox Humana" wrote:


I guess I hadn't read enough of her messages to realize with I was dealing
with.


I'm glazed over first few lines in. I do try, though.

wrote:
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...


That's what I said a day or two ago. Especially if you plant some thing
like sweet peas on it. It might not even be a fence anymore but a trellis.

Best regards,
Bob

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

THERE IS NO PERMIT REQUIRED FOR A 3' FENCE.
THERE WAS NO PERMIT REQUIRED FOR A 3' FENCE.
IT WAS MORE THAN 50% OPEN.
IT WAS NOT WOOD, BUT THAT WAS/IS NOT SPECIFIED IN THE "RULES" EITHER.
DECORATIVE IS IN THE MIND OF THE BEHOLDER.
Ingrid


"Vox Humana" wrote:
In the case where
your mother put up the fence without the required building permit and it
didn't meet the municipal code,


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

Well that's lovely. Innocent puppy dogs in a pound. They should start
doing that to kids. More than one and they get sent to live in disgusting
wire cages. Or they get put down. Do you think they would get that into
some HOA rules?

Charlie.

"Dave Fouchey" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003 07:52:47 +0100, "Charlie"
wrote:


"Vox Humana" wrote in message
. ..
You would have to put your toys
away, mow the lawn on a regular basis, put your trash cans out of
sight,
and
limit yourself to four dogs.

What happens if your dog has ten puppies? Would they could round and
slaughter them all?

Charlie.

Off to the pound they would go, and you would be holding a ticket.


Dave Fouchey, WA4EMR
http://photos.yahoo.com/davefouchey
Southeastern Lower Michigan
42° 35' 20'' N,
82° 58' 37'' W
GMT Offset: -5
Time Zone: Eastern

(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.

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

The vast majority of Homeowner Associations automatically reject Jews.

The vast (70-80-90%?)majority!!! Sure, right, prove it.

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.

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?

wrote in message
...
Q. Do I need a permit?
A. Yes, ---- except for a decorative fence more than 50% open and less
than 3' in
height.
What part of this dont you understand. NO PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR A
DECORATIVE FENCE
MORE THAN 50% OPEN AND LESS THAN 3' IN HEIGHT.


The part that I don't understand is why you had to remove the fence. If
your fence was in compliance with the municipal code, what reason did they
give for ordering you to remove it?

"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.

wrote in message
...
THERE IS NO PERMIT REQUIRED FOR A 3' FENCE.
THERE WAS NO PERMIT REQUIRED FOR A 3' FENCE.
IT WAS MORE THAN 50% OPEN.
IT WAS NOT WOOD, BUT THAT WAS/IS NOT SPECIFIED IN THE "RULES" EITHER.
DECORATIVE IS IN THE MIND OF THE BEHOLDER.
Ingrid


What was the official reason for ordering the removal of the fence?

"Charlie" wrote in message
...
Well that's lovely. Innocent puppy dogs in a pound. They should start
doing that to kids. More than one and they get sent to live in disgusting
wire cages. Or they get put down. Do you think they would get that into
some HOA rules?


Except that no one said that the rule specified that the puppies would sent
to the pound. This is where the wild urban legends come from concerning HOA
rules. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see some report here in a year
or two that chronicles how the poster read a message about a HOA that forced
a member to have the puppies put down.

"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.