In article ,
Vox Humana wrote:


Of course I don't believe that. I do believe that people have the right to
enter into contractual agreements with each other. I believe that if you
don't think the term of the contract are reasonable, then you shouldn't sign
it. If you think that your association has passed rules that are
unreasonable then you have the right to lobby to change or abolish them.
You have the right to sue in court for relief.

But when the contractual agreements are made in such a way that
precludes any other choice, it is not merely a contractual
agreement. For instance, the Supreme Court of the United
States for many years ruled all minimum-wage laws unconstitutional
precisely through your argument -- the government did not
have the right to interfere in contracts between two free
persons, no matter how exploitative they happen to be.

However, of course, things are never quite that simple. Markets
are never truly open or free. People don't have the kind of
choice that pure free-market advocates pretend. There are
many times when "if you don't like it -- shop somewhere
else" merely ducks the real issue. It doesn't work with

In the Unites States, for instance, we have abandoned that
attitude when it comes to racial discrimination, to minimum
wage, to mandating a safe and healthy workplace, and in many
other areas. We recognized that the cry of free contractual
choice is nothing more than an excuse for immoral and
unethical exploitation.

billo

"Vox Humana" wrote in message

I see that here, but not to the extent that is in a highly developed area
like the DC suburbs.

I don't understand your point--sorry. Could you rephrase?

On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 09:24:32 -0700, (paghat)
wrote:

200 the
previous liar


ata girl, couldn't find the numbers so I'm a liar....whatever!

On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 12:53:05 -0500, zxcvbob wrote:

t?

Wondering what Pag's real agenda is,
Bob

Pumping her vile shit out so she doesn't have to smell it as it rots inside of
her.

On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 09:39:08 -0700, (paghat)
wrote:

They don't, of course,

Damn your a stubborn SOB even when you are wrong....276 in the city of
Las Vegas. Now we still have Henderson and North Las Vegas, all the
communities are bordering each other.

On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 09:39:08 -0700, (paghat)
wrote:

They don't, of course,


http://major.ci.las-vegas.nv.us/webs...est/viewer.htm

paghat wrote:

In article , zxcvbob
wrote:


paghat wrote:


[huge snip]

Clearly you people have got to be stopped!
[snipped a *bunch* more]

"You people"? Isn't that a code word for exactly the same kind of
segregation you're ranting about?

Wondering what Pag's real agenda is,
Bob


If you're one of those loons worried I'm out to see the demise of all
white people, stop worryin', that wouldn't be so good for my white ass
either.

-paghat

I actually agree with you that HOA's have more potential for abuse than for
good; with people signing away properties rights that they don't think
they'll need, then the situation changes and they are screwed.

But your ranting about whitey using HOA's to keep jews and ******s out are
ridiculous. But I think I've at least figured out where you're coming
from. You've got the [Middle Class Liberal] "Well Intentioned Blues." (I
wonder if anyone recognizes the obscure musical reference.)

Best regards, :-)
Bob

--
"I wish I was a Negro, with lots of Negro soul,
So I could stay true to my ethnic group and still play rock 'n' roll..."

"Julia Green" wrote in message
...

"Vox Humana" wrote in message

I see that here, but not to the extent that is in a highly developed
area
like the DC suburbs.

I don't understand your point--sorry. Could you rephrase?



You said:
"Each little neighborhood in M.V. has its own little HOA and there
are a ton of little neighborhoods in M.V."

I see some areas where I live like that. There is an area with several
neighborhoods and each has a HOA. This is not the rule however. What is
more common here is for a mixture of neighborhoods. Some have HOAs and some
don't.

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Vox Humana wrote:


Of course I don't believe that. I do believe that people have the right
to
enter into contractual agreements with each other. I believe that if you
don't think the term of the contract are reasonable, then you shouldn't
sign
it. If you think that your association has passed rules that are
unreasonable then you have the right to lobby to change or abolish them.
You have the right to sue in court for relief.

But when the contractual agreements are made in such a way that
precludes any other choice, it is not merely a contractual
agreement. For instance, the Supreme Court of the United
States for many years ruled all minimum-wage laws unconstitutional
precisely through your argument -- the government did not
have the right to interfere in contracts between two free
persons, no matter how exploitative they happen to be.

However, of course, things are never quite that simple. Markets
are never truly open or free. People don't have the kind of
choice that pure free-market advocates pretend. There are
many times when "if you don't like it -- shop somewhere
else" merely ducks the real issue. It doesn't work with

In the Unites States, for instance, we have abandoned that
attitude when it comes to racial discrimination, to minimum
wage, to mandating a safe and healthy workplace, and in many
other areas. We recognized that the cry of free contractual
choice is nothing more than an excuse for immoral and
unethical exploitation.

I understand what your are saying and I agree with you in principle. One
can't freely enter into a contract to do something illegal. For instance, I
couldn't contract with someone to kill another person. However, the courts
consistently side with HOAs when there is a dispute.

I don't agree that in general, people don't have alternatives in housing. I
also don't think that the public is generally dissatisfied with the
covenants and restrictions associated with property in common interest
development.

The Community Associations Institute Research Foundation commissioned a
Gallup Poll in 1999. Only 8% of the respondents indicated that they would
not live in a development with an association because they didn't like the
rules or felt the rules were too restrictive. Of the respondents who would
live in housing with a community association, 7% said that the primary
reason was because they liked the rules. I think this refutes the popular
assumption that most people who are members of a HOA are dissatisfied and
would move given a chance. It also seems to refute the assumption that
people who like living arrangements with community associations are recently
control freak or "neighborhood nazis." Apparently, 92% of the people polled
ranked the restrictions below other reasons for either buying or not buying
in a common interest development. Only 1% said that they would consider
selling for below market value; 8% would sell at market value; 42% wouldn't
sell under any circumstances. That doesn't sound like people are lining up
to get out from under the rules.

According to the survey, 89% of the residents had a good understanding of
rules. Only 2% indicated that they had either a poor understand of complete
ignorance of the rules. The remaining 9% said they had a "fair"
understanding of the rules.

It seems that the biggest issue about rules is that 30% of the respondents
felt that the rules could be enforced more equitably.
http://www.cairf.org/research/gallup-1.html

In article ,
Vox Humana wrote:


I don't agree that in general, people don't have alternatives in housing. I
also don't think that the public is generally dissatisfied with the
covenants and restrictions associated with property in common interest
development.

Of course you don't. We will have to agree to disagree. I will add,
however, that we could be having the *exact* same argument, with the
*exact* same positions 50 years ago regarding race restrictions. Those
who favored restrictive covenants based on race also said that there
were plenty of places to live, and ******s could just go somewhere
else. And, those who favored race-based restrictive covenants could
also point to their overwhelming popularity. That didn't make
them right.

They were wrong regarding race and regarding the wealth of
alternatives. You are wrong regarding covenants in general
and regarding the wealth of alternatives.

billo

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Vox Humana wrote:


I don't agree that in general, people don't have alternatives in housing.
I
also don't think that the public is generally dissatisfied with the
covenants and restrictions associated with property in common interest
development.

Of course you don't. We will have to agree to disagree. I will add,
however, that we could be having the *exact* same argument, with the
*exact* same positions 50 years ago regarding race restrictions.

The difference between covenants based on race and those based on conduct is
that race can not be changed. One can however agree not to park on the lawn
regardless of race. I think it is demeaning to equate rules based on
conduct with discrimination based on unchangeable characteristics such as
race, gender, physical status, national origin, or sexual orientation.

In article ,
Vox Humana wrote:

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Vox Humana wrote:


I don't agree that in general, people don't have alternatives in housing.
I
also don't think that the public is generally dissatisfied with the
covenants and restrictions associated with property in common interest
development.

Of course you don't. We will have to agree to disagree. I will add,
however, that we could be having the *exact* same argument, with the
*exact* same positions 50 years ago regarding race restrictions.

The difference between covenants based on race and those based on conduct is
that race can not be changed. One can however agree not to park on the lawn
regardless of race. I think it is demeaning to equate rules based on
conduct with discrimination based on unchangeable characteristics such as
race, gender, physical status, national origin, or sexual orientation.


Tomato tomahto. That's a distinction without a difference.

I see you've left out religion, which of course can be changed. While
the malleability of sexual orientation is still an open question to some,
one can certainly change one's sexual behavior. Should I conclude then that
you have no problem with covenants that preclude certain religious and
sexual practices? Should I conclude that you would be OK with a covenant
that ruled out wearing a head covering or carrying a Bible? Should I
conclude that you would be OK with a covenant that excluded interracial
couples? That excluded unmarried couples living together?

This behavior thing is a red herring.


billo

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
You said:
"Each little neighborhood in M.V. has its own little HOA and there
are a ton of little neighborhoods in M.V."

I see some areas where I live like that. There is an area with several
neighborhoods and each has a HOA. This is not the rule however. What is
more common here is for a mixture of neighborhoods. Some have HOAs and
some
don't.


Oh, right. Montgomery Village is a very large planned community (sort of
like the nearby Columbia, MD, the granddaddy of planned communities) and so
planning and control is their thing. HOAs are a given for every
neighborhood in M.V.

In article ,
Julia Green wrote:

"Vox Humana" wrote in message
You said:
"Each little neighborhood in M.V. has its own little HOA and there
are a ton of little neighborhoods in M.V."

I see some areas where I live like that. There is an area with several
neighborhoods and each has a HOA. This is not the rule however. What is
more common here is for a mixture of neighborhoods. Some have HOAs and
some
don't.


Oh, right. Montgomery Village is a very large planned community (sort of
like the nearby Columbia, MD, the granddaddy of planned communities) and so
planning and control is their thing. HOAs are a given for every
neighborhood in M.V.




Heh. That reminds me of one of my favorite Montgomery Village stories.
I own a Ford Ranger pickup with a shell over the bed. One night I went
to a party in MV which lasted well into the night. A week or so later,
I got a very nasty letter from some homeowners association nazi telling
me that it was against homeowners association rules for pickups to be
parked in the area at night, and if they caught me there again they would
have me ticketed and towed. Of course, the SUVs were fine, as were the
junker sedans.

I couldn't help but wonder how they would have handled a
Chevy Avalanche. It's OK -- no it's not -- it's OK -- no it's not.
The HOA nazi must be having a tizzy fit.


billo

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message

Heh. That reminds me of one of my favorite Montgomery Village stories.
I own a Ford Ranger pickup with a shell over the bed. One night I went
to a party in MV which lasted well into the night. A week or so later,
I got a very nasty letter from some homeowners association nazi telling
me that it was against homeowners association rules for pickups to be
parked in the area at night, and if they caught me there again they would
have me ticketed and towed. Of course, the SUVs were fine, as were the
junker sedans.

I couldn't help but wonder how they would have handled a
Chevy Avalanche. It's OK -- no it's not -- it's OK -- no it's not.
The HOA nazi must be having a tizzy fit.

God, that is SO like them! As I've said before, there are some people in
SERIOUS need of getting a life!

The Chevy Avalanche will probably drive some of those NANs to a nervous
breakdown bg.