writes:
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

BTW, one easy way to get around adverse possetion is to give permission
to cut the grass.

The posession the possession must be hostile, exclusive, continuous,
and under claim of right for a time.

If you give permission, then it's not hostile.

a little web research resulted in:
http://realtytimes.com/rtnews/rtcpag...possession.htm




--
be safe.
flip
^___^ Count to three. Make a wish. Close your eyes.
\^.^/ Wait. Scratch that, reverse it.
==u== - apologies to Roald Dahl

Oh loady loady, it's even worse than I've been saying. Here's a bad one
for sure, & alas it applies FEDERALLY:

In Meyer vs Holy, the Supreme Court made a unanimous & unfortunate
clarification regarding HOA discrimination against minorities. The Supreme
Court found that damages cannot be recovered from any officer or owner
within a HOA whose agents or volunteers are in conflict with the Fair
Housing Act refusing as a matter of policy to sell to Jews, blacks, or
other minorities.

Despite efforts of recent legislation especially in California & Florida &
in a few other places to make the Fair Housing Act apply to HOAs, a case
finally makes it to the Supreme Court & they once again confirm methods by
which HOAs to be now what they have always been in the past, racist &
discriminatory! One might sue to change the language of a charter or
covenant, without effecting deeds. Only if a corporate officer personally
involves himself in the discrimination is there even a slim chance of
prosecution -- any agent or volunteer acting for the HOA, by contrast, is
now protected against litigation. So the racist status quo wins again!
The government gets to boast about having the Fair Housing Act, but honky
rednecks in their HOA enclaves can go on doing as they please.

The Supreme Court decision overturned a federal appeals court ruling that
applied the full letter of the Fair Housing Act even to HOAs. Civil Rights
inroads again reversed by conservatives!

-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/

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
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.


Because my list was not exhaustive, you can not logically conclude that I
support discrimination based on any unnamed criteria. It doesn't mater what
I personally think, it only matters that HOA follow the law. I am not aware
of any HOA that dictates the way its members dress or what books they read.
Unless there is a compelling reason to prohibit head coverings, I don't
think that the courts would uphold a covenant prohibiting hats or other head
coverings. Although I don't support such restrictions, the point is moot
since I believe that HOAs must follow the law. I am not aware of any HOA
that specifies acceptable sexual behaviors. Unfortunately it is legal in
most areas to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Ironically,
the most likely group to discriminate would be people of faith who are
themselves exempt from many civil rights laws within the practice of their
faith.

In article ,
Vox Humana wrote:


Because my list was not exhaustive, you can not logically conclude that I
support discrimination based on any unnamed criteria.

Well, no. But I can conclude you support discrimination based on
the criteria you list. You stated that your determination of
whether or not criteria was acceptable was based on whether or
not it was based on changeable features, such as behavior.

I gather from your protests that you would like to change that
position. Then what are the criteria? HOAs should be a vehicle
to infringe on individual liberties that otherwise be
unconstitutional as long as they are liberties that you do
not value?

It doesn't mater what
I personally think, it only matters that HOA follow the law.

Actually, it does matter. Hiding behind law as a way of avoiding
whether or not something is right or wrong is rarely a
successful debate tactic. Racial discrimination was legal
for many years; that does not make it right. Stupid HOA tricks
are often legal; that does not make it right. Using HOAs to
destroy individual liberty is often legal; that does not make
it right.

billo

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.

As it turns out, Montgomery Village has far fewer actual Homeowner
Associations than Vox has invented for the area, & virtually nothing she's
posted in this thread about Montgomery has much of truth to it. Some may
really not know what a HOA is & seriously but wrongly believed a Home
Corporation is the same thing; but I think Vox knows better -- having
posted a link to 800 alleged HOAs in Virginia, Washington D.C., & Maryland
(most of which weren't even HOAs), claiming these far-ranging condo,
townhouse, & corporate-run apartments & houses (many of them rentals) were
all local to Montomery Village HOAs -- well, had she made that "error" as
just one more of her persistant & amazing errors of fact by "mere"
mistake, she would have apologized for having unintentionally misled (as
Tom halfheartedly & backhandedly apologized for not knowing what he was
talking about); but for Vox it seems to have been a conscious lie
reinforced by further lying, including the inference that Montgomery
Village per se has a "ton" of little neighborhoods all run by HOAs. Unless
she means even one condo easily weighs more than a ton, then she's just
lying, though from a liar's point of view saying "tons of" is so
non-specific she can make up anything at random thereafter, & pretend it's
not EXACTLY a lie.

Here's the truth, taken from the Montogmery Village Homes Corp, an
umbrella organization of incorporated housing districts, few of which are
run by HOAs per se. Legally these are mostly Homes Corporations though
frequently misnomered Homeowners Associations, & though on "lists of
hundreds" across multi-counties & multi-cities or multi-states these are
included alongside actual HOAs, they are vastly different as legal
entities. Even including them, one gets dozens rather than hundreds of
incorporated residential entites in a given region, far fewer than Vox
says, & in Montogery Village per se, it turns out that these incorporated
neighborhoods are primary townhouses often associated with high-density
low-quality housing, are widely regarded as pretty ****-poor places to
live unless you're too old to go outside, young & newly married with a kid
& can't afford better, or simply don't have the stamina or good taste to
find a better place to live.

To pump up Vox's dream-vision of a world ruled by hundreds of HOAs all
over town, she has included Condominium Associations few of which are
incoporated as "neighborhoods" but only as business entitites; she
includes combination rental & buyer housing projects & townhouses which
are incorporated as BUSINESSES not as neighborhoods & are more accurately
called Home Corporations, not Homeowner Associations, because they're
rarely run by the owners (& renters) but are run by the developers or by
a big company that specializes in orchestrating garbage pick-up &
enforcing covenants for the developers rather than for the inhabitants of
the apartment houses & homes. Many homeowners & renters don't even know
they live within a Home Corporation area, the Corporation impinges on
property rights much less noticeably than do HOAs, as there are no HOA
activists to harrass & terrorize whoever has a basketball hoop or too tall
of a hedge or for being Malaysian instead of white. Home Corporations do
get unreasonable at times but not generally over race & religion, more on
the same bases that landlords are mostly assholes or they wouldn't even
WANT control of other peoples' living spaces.

The number of neighborhoods actually incorporated to be governed by
Homeowners Associations per se are relatively few, & a huge number of
those date to the late 1950s & early 1960s in look-alike tickytacky
housing projects aimed at selling to families that qualified for GI
homeloans, in outlying areas at the time completely open to cheap new
development, & those which were established to be HOA run were indeed
invariably white only. Older neighborhoods that weren't built explicitly
to be HOA operated CANNOT be & never are retroactively incorporated to be
run by HOAs, but many have instead Neighborhood Associations that are not
incorporated & are not legally self-governing entities & usually don't
harrass each other in any manner unless you run a crackhouse. A volunteer
in a Neighborhood Association would likely come by once or twice a month
to mow that arthritic old black woman's lawn since she cannot afford to
hire it done, whereas a HOA wouldn't let her live there in the first
place, & if she didn't get out of her sickbed & mow the lawn, they'd
categorize her as a miscreant & threaten & fine her until she has a heart
attack & they're finally free of her.

In the Home Corporations that are more common than HOAs in Montgomery
Village, there are covenants that address care of the house & yard, as
defined on the deed itself rather than by any charter or continuously
changing HOA stormtrooper list of commandments. This means a disgruntled
neighbor can report their dislike of an unmowed lawn to the Corporate
headquarters, not to a HOA, & the business corporation may correct the
matter if they deem it serious enough. Deed covenants cannot have
enforcible restrictions on race, age, or religion the way incorporated
HOAs can. Maryland legislation permits Home Corporations to police, fine &
enforce the changeless deed covenants, but they are not empowered to be
menaces to the homeowners the way HOAs so easily turn into menaces toward
each other & especially against minorities.

So when speaking of the racist institution of HOAs one cannot include
Condominium Associations that are not self-governing corporations,
Neighborhood Associations which are not corporations at any level, & Homes
Corporations. Vox has included them in order to muddle the issue & pump up
the numbers & cite restrictions on Home Corporations which must adhere to
Fair Housing in ways HOAs do not.

An incorporated neighborhood created as a legally semi-independent
self-governed housing project, & run by an actual Homeowners Association,
is a product of racist agendas always preserving the option (whether or
not activated) of keeping out "inappropriate" races or religions or age
ranges. This cannot be done by Homes Corporations unless the developer (or
corporate holder) breaks the law to do so, nor by Neighborhood
Associations which are volunteers in a normal & usually much healthier
ordinary neighborhood.

Nor is any genuinely attractive city neighborhood with Victorians apt ever
to be incorporated & HOA run, because the nicer urban neighborhoods were
not often built all at one time as housing projects. HOA-run gated
communities only rarely predate the Civil Rights era which is what induced
the white racist movement in the first place, at a time when the spaces
outside of cities were changing from farms & woodlands to sprawling
suburbs because every GI was governmentally assisted in buying a home.
This government-sponsored suburban explosion happened simultaneously with
the Civil Rights movement. The end result was whites abandoning the inner
city, but even black GIs found they could not buy houses in the 'burbs
due to a combination of redlining & HOA filtering mechanisms & so on, thus
inner city neighborhoods in larger cities became black neighborhoods, &
incorporated housing projects in the hinterlands developed from the
ground-up as all-white. Older self-segregated white communities could
sustain their infamy through covenants & did not require incorporation,
but as those covenants by stages became decreasingly enforcible under law,
the incorporated HOAs arose to take their place so that honkies could
still discriminate with abandon. This was also the beginning of the "two
car family" (make that "two car white family") because when whites
self-segregated to the suburbs they actually left the better neighborhods
to the minorities, & whites were virtual exiles in shitland & without two
cars whoever stayed home (usually the mom) was a prisoner for half of each
day.

Some of the 1950s HOA neighborhoods are today extremely deteriorated,
incorporation has been abandoned, & one finds that the old racist
neighborhoods are today owned by a high percentage immigrants who can't as
yet afford better housing. But even when those neighborhoods were brand
new, they weren't much to boast of, unless you were a Bob Dobbs
worshipper.

Here is an absolute number: INCLUDING Home Corporations, limited equity
coops, & Condo Associations along with actual HOA neighborhoods, there are
a total of 230,000 of these TOTAL in the continental United States,
according to the Community Association Lawletter, Summer 2002. The
Lawletter notes that it is because of these incorporated enclaves that
increasing numbers of neighbor battles are ending up in courts -- HOAs
increase rather than decrease neighbor wars that require civil court &
criminal proceedings to sort out. But note the 230,000 numer includes
single-building condo associations & townhouses, rentals as well as
owner-based corporations, & other kinds of legal neighborhood entitites.
The far fewer number of actual neighborhoods of single family dwellings I
could not find, & the smaller still percentage of those which are
incorporated to be self-governed by HOAs rather than from outside the
neighborhood by developer corporations also not available. The ones that
have racist privileges under law are the Coops (which are actually very
few in number & some regions have none at all) & the incorporated
self-governing HOAs. The other categories do not have racist options or
privileges permitted under law.

-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/

Here are some recent examples of typical conflicts between HOAs &
individual members within the HOA government; these show how ignorant &
churlish HOAs are on average. Some of these cases are more crazy-ass as
than others, but none are 100% reasonable either. I've not picked out the
cases that make HOAs look the stupidest -- they are NEVER in court for
reasons other than those which are churlish & picky & vendetta-driven
suing over tiny things. These cases really are representative of how far
these nutball HOAs will pursue things of little or no real consequence or
value. The cases really do "at biggest" amount to hating someone's
basketball hoop or television antenna, or even dumber shit. What HOAs need
is a way of fining jerkwad HOA activists who harrass their neighbors to
the point of dragging them into courtrooms over nothin'.

Village of Pheasant Run Homeowners Association v. Kasto in Texas took one
of their homeowners to court for violating architectural restrictions AND
WON. What was Kasto's courtroom-worthy crime? Painted the front door blue!
Seems the HOA had an enforceable regulation requiring written permission
to paint your house under any circumstance whatsoever, in part or in
whole, a good color or a bad color. Without written permission, they can
punish you. And will.

Turudic v. Susan Estates Homeowners Association in Oregon, the HOA tried
to define what was an appropriate pet, banning certain breeds of dogs for
instance. So one of their members had two tame cougars. Well ha ha, the
court said HOAs cannot pass rules against pets. (The State could, but
hasn't.) I recommend everyone annoyed with their dumbass totalitarian HOA
get themselves a really big wild animal for a pet! That'll fix those
racist wouldbe stormtrooping arseholes.

Here's a weird one. A bill was introduced into the into the Maryland House
Committee that would permit individuals within HOA districts to put up the
American flag if they wanted (some HOAs ban flag displays!). The
legislation, however, was rejected, so in Maryland still, if you want to
put a removable flag on the front of your house for the 4th of July, Labor
Day, Memorial Day, D-Day, or because Bushy is waging war, for any reason
whatsoever -- the HOA can enforce their rule saying you can't. This is a
weird one to me because HOAs are usually such conservative racist entities
one would expect them to encourage even the Confederate flag. I live in a
military town, where the idea of banning the American flag is truly alien!
So even conservative patriots aren't safe from HOA assholiness.

A new ammendment to the Maryland Condominium Act permits incorporated
housing entities to pass new regulations without a quorum. Now that one
crazy **** who is trying to rule everyone else's life doesn't have to have
ANYone agree with him -- he just has to discourage you from showing up at
the meeting in which he decides it's from now on illegal for you to grow
tomatos.

Chestnut Real Estate Partnership v. Huber. In an incorporated retirement
community someone had the audacity of putting up a garden shed. The
covenant said no structures could be built -- none, not even a small one
for some tools. The court upheld the incorporated partnership's regulation
& furthermore transferred to the retiree all court costs -- so Huber had
to get rid of his garden shed AND pay the corporation attorneys $27,000.
The judge said it was not necessary to prove any harm or injury or damage
or to show that the garden shed was in any way inappropriate other than
the Huber in buying into the enclave had agreed to build no buildings.
Note at least this wasn't a HOA per se, it was one of the other types of
legal entities Vox has kept miscontruing as HOAs -- but I couldn't resist
including this example of the amazing injustice successfully executed even
by the lesser-empowered corporations.

In Woods Homeowners Association v. Muravchik, the HOA sued because a
member was in violation of a ban against having signs anywhere on any
property. In this insane case the "sign" was a self-employed member's
company logo on the side of his van. Parking the van in his own driveway
constituted a "sign" on his property. Case upheld! Curiously the HOA had
neglected to ban signs on the street, so until they managed to add another
draconian regulation, poor Muravchik (the court pointed out) could park on
the street so long as he did not violate city ordinances (the city did
also ban signs on the street, but unlike the crazyass HOA did not include
a company logo on a van as a "sign.") The HOA was royally cheezed off that
they could only stop him from parking on his own property.

In Craninger v. Overbrook at Flower Hill Homeowners Association, the HOA
destroyed the private property of Craninger (a basketball hoop) because he
had placed it in an area used by children as a playground, but basketball
hoops were banned on HOA common property. The court held that the HOA did
have the legal right to keep children from playing basketball in the
playground area, but did not have the right to destroy private property,
so made the HOA pay Craninger $320 so he could buy a replacement which,
however, since it could only be used on his own tarmak, was of no use to
the neighborhood children who had used the one the HOA destroyed, those
small-minded vicious & par-for-the-course Voxamatic types!

In Montgomery Village Foundation v. Ellis, a Home Association (not a
Homeowners Association however) sought to enforce in the courts a
regulation banning private trucks. Montgomery Village Foundation is an
enforcing agency serving a number of Homeowner & Home Associations & Condo
Associations, & do not do this unless members of the neighborhood involved
insist. But once committed, they didn't care if the regulation was
nonsensical. The covenants did permit vans, Winebagos, huge honking-ass
utility vehicles -- but all Ellis had was a small pick-up truck. The court
found that the regulation was stupid & unenforceable since giant RVs were
permitted, & Ellis's tiny pick-up was a new & well-kept & on no rational
basis of any harm to anyone. The courts' decision, however, didn't mean
incorporated housing areas couldn't ban EVERYthing bigger than a Lovebug
&make EVERYone get rid of their vehicles, but only going after Ellis's
little pick-up was not going to be allowed.

In the FCC case of "The Matter of Victor Frankfurt," in Illinois, a
Townhouse Association sued to force Victor to remove his television
antenna, on the trumped up basis of it violating a safety regulation of
the Association. This was one of "Take your antenna down or we'll sue
you!" cases that made it to the FCC, another in Arizona regarding a fixed
signal antenna for wireless internest access. In both cases the
Associations were informed their regulations in no wise effectively
addressed safety issues, & if the antennas were in FCC compliance, the
Association could not force an antenna to be removed.

In Paytas v. Edgewood Community Association, an intransegent Home
Association would not stop demanding Paytas remove a stationary basketball
hoop from his property. Paytas was able to document 28 cases of basketball
hoops in the neighborhood that no one complained about. The court found
there was no physical reason to distinguish between the one which was
installed on a pole stuck in the ground, from the others which were
mounted on weighted stands, & yet another Basketball Hoop War was found to
be the result exclusively of HOA unreasonableness & in this case a very
unwise attempt at selective enforcement. The court disapproved of the
selective enforcement, however, & if the unreasonableness had been evenly
applied to everyone, they could've gotten away with it.

In Fairland Park Homeowners Association v. Gebreyese, a homeowner
installed a skylight which so damaged the neighborhood it took three years
for anyone to even notice. Then the HOA decided the skylight violated
architectural restrictions & took Gebreyese to the county commission. The
Commission concuded that the HOA did have the right to limit skylights but
since it took them three years to even notice, Gebreyese had three years
to either remove the skylights or move them to the back of the house where
HOA gripers couldn't see them.

Inverness Forest Association, Inc. v. Notter. Notter replaced four of her
windows with better ones, but failed to get written permission from the
HOA. Though there was nothing wrong with the new windows, the HOA had
protocol to uphold, & took it to the Mongomery county commission, which
ruled that sure enough, that was HOA protocol, & Notter had to restore the
inferior windows.

In D¹Aoust v. Quince Haven Homeowners Association, the HOA's ban on
architectural changes was extended to include window decorating that
looked like stained glass. Since the decoration was visible from the
street it was not permitted. The Mongomery County Commission again
concluded the HOA could indeed restrict window decorations in someone's
private residence!

By contrast, in Vojciech Fizyta v. Quince Haven Homeowners Association,
the HOA's attempt to restrict decorations inside a homeowner's house, but
which were not visible from the street, was deemed unenforcible.

--
"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/

"paghat" wrote in message
but for Vox it seems to have been a conscious lie
reinforced by further lying, including the inference that Montgomery
Village per se has a "ton" of little neighborhoods all run by HOAs. Unless
she means even one condo easily weighs more than a ton, then she's just
lying, though from a liar's point of view saying "tons of" is so
non-specific she can make up anything at random thereafter, & pretend it's
not EXACTLY a lie.

I referred to "a ton" of little neighborhoods. I confess I was not
distinguishing between HOAs and developer corporations. When I lived there,
most of the condo and townhouse neighborhoods were mixed between owned and
rented. I just assumed they were all run by HOAs. When we lived in a
neighborhood of single-family colonials, we had neighbors who seemed to
delight in, as I said, skulking around, looking for violations.

In article ,
paghat wrote:

In Montgomery Village Foundation v. Ellis, a Home Association (not a
Homeowners Association however) sought to enforce in the courts a
regulation banning private trucks. Montgomery Village Foundation is an
enforcing agency serving a number of Homeowner & Home Associations & Condo
Associations, & do not do this unless members of the neighborhood involved
insist. But once committed, they didn't care if the regulation was
nonsensical. The covenants did permit vans, Winebagos, huge honking-ass
utility vehicles -- but all Ellis had was a small pick-up truck. The court
found that the regulation was stupid & unenforceable since giant RVs were
permitted, & Ellis's tiny pick-up was a new & well-kept & on no rational
basis of any harm to anyone. The courts' decision, however, didn't mean
incorporated housing areas couldn't ban EVERYthing bigger than a Lovebug
&make EVERYone get rid of their vehicles, but only going after Ellis's
little pick-up was not going to be allowed.



No kidding. So they were just faking it when they sent me that
nasty letter? Sons of bitches. I never went to another party there.



billo

so who knew? my mother always thanked the previous owners for cutting the grass.
gave em plants. new neighbors (they bought a lot, a less than an acre split off the
land from other house on my mothers driveway for 160K!!! this is woods with very
steep slope, built one of those 300K houses on it )... anyway. my aunt took em pie
and introduced herself. saw they were stacking wood up on my mothers land which
adjoins there property (now she shares 12 lot lines!) so my mother is going to go
over and tell em they are on her land, sign a paper saying she gave them permission
to temporarily use the land so wont have any problems there in the future either.
as it turned out in court, the use was never exclusive cause every winter the
snowplow hired by my mother piled the snow on the side of her drive and every spring
us kids would have to rake the gravel back onto the road. damned court didnt just
dismiss the whole thing and call it a frivolous suit.

one of the main reasons (I think) they went nuts about putting up a fence is that
they were using our drive as an access road to the back of their property without my
mothers permission. daughter of next door lady (who has since died) found a big
honker truck using "our" drive to haul in load of bricks to back of their house when
they were putting on an addition. She told him to get off and stay off they didnt
have permission. Mom and the next door lady on our drive had a policy "ask" and they
can use it, but not heavy trucks in spring which wrecked the road.
ownership of the drive is strange. my mother owns the north 10 feet, the other house
owns the south 10 feet. but of course they now own it in common .. except when it
comes to being sued!!! Ingrid

Philip Edward Lewis wrote:
BTW, one easy way to get around adverse possetion is to give permission
to cut the grass.

The posession the possession must be hostile, exclusive, continuous,
and under claim of right for a time.

If you give permission, then it's not hostile.

a little web research resulted in:
http://realtytimes.com/rtnews/rtcpag...possession.htm



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

I find there is a big difference between zoning laws for health and security and some
city politicians deciding they are going to force their idea of esthetics down the
throat of the whole damn city. So they decide what colors are acceptable in house
paint, what flowers are acceptable, what material and color of fence is acceptable,
etc. etc. Ingrid

"Vox Humana" wrote:
I'm still not clear if you
think that all zoning regulations should be abolished?




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

wrote in message
...
I find there is a big difference between zoning laws for health and
security and some
city politicians deciding they are going to force their idea of esthetics
down the
throat of the whole damn city. So they decide what colors are acceptable
in house
paint, what flowers are acceptable, what material and color of fence is
acceptable,
etc. etc. Ingrid

As someone said, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this.

On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 13:42:02 GMT, "Vox Humana" wrote:


wrote in message
...
I find there is a big difference between zoning laws for health and
security and some
city politicians deciding they are going to force their idea of esthetics
down the
throat of the whole damn city. So they decide what colors are acceptable
in house
paint, what flowers are acceptable, what material and color of fence is
acceptable,
etc. etc. Ingrid

As someone said, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this.


Actually, to add my final addition to this discussion, I agree with what Ingrid
is saying. The part I disagree with is where people move into a community where
they are fully aware there is an architectural board of directors who have put
in place certain deed restrictions and which are upheld in civil court, yet,
people move in and bitch about it later. That, is not ever going to change. I
say, move out to the country or to a larger parcel of land where there are no
restrictions and paint your house mood ring blue for all I give a shit.

The case with Ingrids mother is simply disgusting. She's been there for many
decades and to force her into anything, regardless what it is, is simply awful.

Cereoid-UR12yo wrote:

The real problem is neighbors not being good neighbors.

If one was willing to help out a fellow neighbor by volunteering to mow
their lawn while they have their own mowers out, the neighborhood would be
a more peaceful and harmonious place.

Amen!
I have a single female living next to me whose job takes her out of town a
lot ... so much so that her back lawn (fertilized with pit bull poop) had
gone well past 18" and her front yard was well over 12". When I finally got
a chance to talk to her I pointed out that her yard looked like the house
was abandoned and that I would be willing to mow the lawn in exchange for
the clippings in order to keep from living next to a house that looked
abandoned. She looked distressed for a moment, mentioned that she had hired
some men to mow the lawn who hadn't yet showed up, and then realized that I
was offering her a way out of her lawn problem. She then objected that the
dog would be a problem. At that, I called her dog away from her side to
mine. The dog sat down against the fence and waited for her ear-scratch.

I've been feeding that hound treats since it was a puppy. There aint no way
I'm going to have a hostile pit bull just a short chain link fence away. I
slap-box that dog and she has never done anything more than take my hand in
her mouth nor will she ... she has no one else to play with.

Ditto for the German Shepherd on the other side of my yard. Unfortunately,
its owner realized what I was doing and has kept the dog inside for the
past several months so now the dog and I are not on as good of terms as
previously. Again ... that's too big of a dog to have just a short fence
away. Poops D-cell batteries, too and the owner, a cop, does a lousy job of
keeping the manure up.

Bill
--
Zone 5b (Detroit, MI)
I do not post my address to news groups.

paghat wrote:

Oh loady loady, it's even worse than I've been saying. Here's a bad one
for sure, & alas it applies FEDERALLY:

In Meyer vs Holy, the Supreme Court made a unanimous & unfortunate
clarification regarding HOA discrimination against minorities. The Supreme
Court found that damages cannot be recovered from any officer or owner
within a HOA whose agents or volunteers are in conflict with the Fair
Housing Act refusing as a matter of policy to sell to Jews, blacks, or
other minorities.

The Supreme Court decision overturned a federal appeals court ruling that
applied the full letter of the Fair Housing Act even to HOAs. Civil Rights
inroads again reversed by conservatives!

-paghat the ratgirl


Yeah ... and they also discriminate against people making less than $11,000!

Give it a break ... you are as much in need of a life as the HOA Nazis.

A couple of thoughts: you want to compel people to live with other people
whom they are not comfortable being around.

I live, by choice, in a mixed-race neighborhood. Some from India / Pakistan,
many blacks, a smattering of whites. No Orientals that I can tell ... but
that reflects both a paucity of Orientals in Detroit and their desire to
live in upscale communities ... including the gated ones. I am, in fact, a
caucasian man married to a black woman in a very solid marriage.

However, I have a deep scar in the back of my left leg where a group of
younger black co-workers tried to cripple me ... and nearly succeeded. HR
where I work was totally un-helpful (afraid to accuse a black person of
hateful acts) when, after healing from the first injury I was returned TO
THE SAME WORKGROUP and the process of setting me up for the injury was
begun again. I had to quit a good job to keep from being crippled. I got my
wake up call when the guy doing the stitching on my leg the first time told
me that, had the missing muscle been gouged out a quarter of an inch deeper
or a half an inch lower, I would have forever lost the use of that foot.
Forever? Because my skin is too pale? I woke up this color just the same as
blacks wake up one morning and realize that their skin is dark.

Racism cuts both ways.

Get used to it. Some people just don't like other people for a variety of
reasons and excuses including NO reason, NO excuse. That doesn't make it
right ... but you'd best get adjusted to it.

I give such people, black or white, wide berth. There is nothing I need from
them, nothing I wish them to have from me. With one exception, I do not
socialize with the blacks at work because they live their lives very
differently from the way I live mine or else because they choose not to
spend their social time with ME. They have their lives, I have mine. Mine
includes gardening and a deeply spiritual life. Theirs do not. That I know
of, two have gardens; two others take spiritual matters seriously. One is
studying the Bible with me and joins me in religious services.

Then again, there are NO whites from work that I socialize with.

Get off your soapbox. You have a right to live with whomever is agreeable to
living with you and the right to exclude those with whom you are
uncomfortable. However, you do not have the freedom to excercise your
rights without also granting the exact same rights to others. Moreover, you
do not have the right to impose your decisions about who / what is
acceptable on others. Those who chose to live in HOA developments are no
more to be ridiculed than those who chose to live as you do.

Live your life (pretty much) as you please. Allow others to do the same.

Bill
--
Zone 5b (Detroit, MI)
I do not post my address to news groups.

paghat wrote:

Turudic v. Susan Estates Homeowners Association in Oregon, the HOA tried
to define what was an appropriate pet, banning certain breeds of dogs for
instance. So one of their members had two tame cougars. Well ha ha, the
court said HOAs cannot pass rules against pets. (The State could, but
hasn't.) I recommend everyone annoyed with their dumbass totalitarian HOA
get themselves a really big wild animal for a pet! That'll fix those
racist wouldbe stormtrooping arseholes.

I fail to see the connection between an animal regulation and racism. Nor do
I see the connection between an animal regulation and a Storm Trooper or,
for that matter, between an animal regulation and a body part.

You are as close-minded as the people you castigate. The next time you want
to "fix" an "arsehole", stop by the mirror for a minute.
--
Zone 5b (Detroit, MI)
I do not post my address to news groups.