On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 20:41:57 GMT, "Vox Humana"
wrote:

All the things that you attribute to zoning are covered in our HOA
regulations. We are only allowed to have one political sign in our yard and
it can only be up for a specified amount of time. Again, there is a lot of
confusion about the concept of free speech. But if you don't have a problem
with zoning, then why would you have a problem with HOAs? It is the same
thing. It would probably be easier to change HOA rules than to get the
zoning board to change its regulations. If the first case all you would
have to do is get several homeowners to attend a meeting. Then someone
would offer a resolution, it would be seconded and there would be a
discussion followed by a vote. Since virtually no one attends these
meetings you could probably damn near change all the rules in a few hours.
The zoning board would be a much more protracted and tedious mechanism to
deal with.



Which is why I CHOOSE to live in a NON HOA neighborhood. HOA's tend to
be Too arbitrary and I am too much of a contrarian to put up with some
self righteous types telling me what color paint, what kind of
plant's, what kind of paving I am permitted to use on MY property. You
CHOOSE to live in one fine, but they are NOT for everyone and I for
one won;t live in one.

I also applaud the old farmer for poking the HOA in the eye for their
patently stupid B.S.

Dave
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

I also very much applaud his solution...

Dave


On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 10:56:58 -0400, Minteeleaf
wrote:

susabean wrote:

"animaux" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 01:19:50 GMT, Diane
wrote:


by the HOA rules and regulations. They gave him a list of paint colors
that
were "acceptable" for his home. So.....he mixed them all up, and painted
his home a lovely shade of light peptobismol pink! They took him to
court
and lost. He had lived by the letter of the law.

Bravo! I hope someone gave him a medal.
Diane

o you honestly find that to be fair to the rest of the homeowners? Why
didn't
:the guy, or any number of people move to the country where they can do
whatever
:they want? I never did understand why people do such spiteful things. I
:complain, but I've never once did anything to bother my neighbors. We are
to
urselves, and take care to be as compliant as necessary to respect others.

I think it's pretty spiteful to order someone who's been
there long before any Mcmansions were built, as to what
color they are "allowed" to paint their house. What gall!

Minteeleaf

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

The message
from "Charlie" contains these words:


I've never heard of restrictions on this sort of thing.

That can only be because your personal experience is so limited.
Presumably you haven't been to certain Conservation areas in the UK,
have zero idea of the restrictions on owners of historically listed
houses, have never bought property in a new and very expensive
development, and have never bought a modest starter flat in a modern
block. All those instances in the UK would have decrees on permitted
external paint colours, fences, parking of cars/trailers/boats etc, and
much more, to which owners sign agreements at purchase.

Janet (UK).

ratgirl, you need to take those blinders off and see what trailer living can be
like. Take my trailer I rent, it's a 2br one bath trailer that had at one time a
expando living room, which was converted into a fix room size. It's also 65ft
long, the max lenght allowed by law. My kitchen is split fromm the living room
by a short wast high shelf.

There are NO beer cans or soda cans or bottles laying around the trailer park.
We;ve got chinese elms growing by the trailers for shade and all the trailers
have swap coolers too, most ontop, mine is side mounted. Plus NONE of the
trailers have roofs that go bang when hot, as they have all be coated with
roofing paint that reflects 90% of the heat/light from the trailers roof.

I'm not going to say that everyone here is real good, we've had to boot out some
too, but there are still those in here that own their trailers too.

I've seen trailer parks where they have trailers that are just as good as any
house and they look just as good too.

As for us trailer people being trailer trash, I've seen enough people in houses
that I would call House Trash.

As it is, for the $350 in rent and the $50 for gas/elect.(park has it's own
water wells), I've not seen a house out here that I could rent for the same
amount.



--
In This Universe The Night was Falling,The Shadows were lenghtening
towards an east that would not know another dawn.
But elsewhere the Stars were still young and the light of morning lingered: and
along the path he once had followed, Man would one day go again.

Arthur C. Clarke "The City & The Stars"

SIAR
www.starlords.org
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Bishop's Car Fund
http://www.bishopcarfund.Netfirms.com/
Starlord's Personal Page
http://starlord-personal.netfirms.com
Freelance Writers Shop
http://www.freelancewrittersshop.netfirms.com


"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article , "Charlie"
wrote:
I don't like trailer houses myself. I seriously believe even "po' folk"
could be more aesthetic than that & an old wooden shed, a lean-to, or a
teepee could be beautiful in a way a trailer house never can be -- so



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 5/6/03

many of those so called "CLEAN WHITE gated" areas are so full of crime as to be
junkie heavens! Also the top court in the land KILLED that loop hole, it can no
longer be inforced on bases of sex,color,religon, THAT is against Fed. Law.


--
In This Universe The Night was Falling,The Shadows were lenghtening
towards an east that would not know another dawn.
But elsewhere the Stars were still young and the light of morning lingered: and
along the path he once had followed, Man would one day go again.

Arthur C. Clarke "The City & The Stars"

SIAR
www.starlords.org
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Bishop's Car Fund
http://www.bishopcarfund.Netfirms.com/
Starlord's Personal Page
http://starlord-personal.netfirms.com
Freelance Writers Shop
http://www.freelancewrittersshop.netfirms.com


"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article ,
wrote:

"Charlie" wrote:

I've never heard of restrictions on this sort of thing. America really
puzzles me sometimes.

I'm sure other countries have some communities like this. A variety of
planned communities have sprung up over the last 20-30. This is where
a small twon is virtually planned. Everything matches, there are color
schemes. More afluent commuities try to do similar things. Trust me
this only happens in well-to-do areas, often within sometimes gated
communities with clearly defined property limits. People pay to live
in these manicured suburbias. They have commitees that run them. Older
natural neighborhoods don't have such extremes. While town/city
ordances might adopt certain limitations on grass height to avoid
fires it would never apply to city-owned properties especially those
in poorer parts of town since they are the ones the city will allow to
be regularly overgrown with 5 foot high wild grasses and weeds.

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, it's perfectly legal, nothing those gawdamn queers & darkies
or whoever's left out can do to stop it, neener neener. 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; 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." 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.

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. So we're working toward equal
opportunity appartied.

So trying to force people not to paint their house pink or have a
basketball hoop 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

--
"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/


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.478 / Virus Database: 275 - Release Date: 5/6/03

"Ann" wrote in message
news
"Vox Humana" expounded:

I also think that it is preposterous that one would assume that just
because
they bought something and pay taxes that they have an entitlement to do
what
they want. That would be like saying "I paid $40K for my car and pay
license fees (taxes) so I should be able to use it exactly as I want. To
hell with traffic laws."

No, traffic laws are for safety, HOA's are because you don't like what
someone else does to their property. Big difference. Your life isn't
in danger if I choose to paint my house orange.

The argument is that because someone pays for the house and pays taxes that
entitles them to do as they wish. It is the same argument. The
consequences my be different. One might think that smoking marijuana or
visiting a prostitute fall within the same category as painting your house
orange. Neither will automatically endanger your life. Can I assume that
you support the right to do what you want as long as it doesn't put life and
limb in harm's way?

"Dave Fouchey" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 20:41:57 GMT, "Vox Humana"
wrote:

All the things that you attribute to zoning are covered in our HOA
regulations. We are only allowed to have one political sign in our yard
and
it can only be up for a specified amount of time. Again, there is a lot
of
confusion about the concept of free speech. But if you don't have a
problem
with zoning, then why would you have a problem with HOAs? It is the same
thing. It would probably be easier to change HOA rules than to get the
zoning board to change its regulations. If the first case all you would
have to do is get several homeowners to attend a meeting. Then someone
would offer a resolution, it would be seconded and there would be a
discussion followed by a vote. Since virtually no one attends these
meetings you could probably damn near change all the rules in a few
hours.
The zoning board would be a much more protracted and tedious mechanism to
deal with.



Which is why I CHOOSE to live in a NON HOA neighborhood. HOA's tend to
be Too arbitrary and I am too much of a contrarian to put up with some
self righteous types telling me what color paint, what kind of
plant's, what kind of paving I am permitted to use on MY property. You
CHOOSE to live in one fine, but they are NOT for everyone and I for
one won;t live in one.


But here is my point of contention. I do want to live where I can be sure
the neighbors aren't going to put their car up on blocks in the front yard.
I have no issue with you not wanting to live in a planned unit development.
In your universe that makes me self-righteous and you noble? Go figure! I
didn't know that it was morally wrong to expect people to act in accordance
with the agreements that they signed when they bought their house. Could
you explain how that works? Why would it be OK to agree to restrictions and
then disregard the agreement later?

Nothing noble or ignoble about either of our choices, I was simply
making the point that it IS a choice one can make. I personally find
HOA's a pain in the tuckus I don't wish to deal with. YMMV.

Dave

On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 23:19:31 GMT, "Vox Humana"
wrote:


"Dave Fouchey" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 20:41:57 GMT, "Vox Humana"
wrote:

All the things that you attribute to zoning are covered in our HOA
regulations. We are only allowed to have one political sign in our yard
and
it can only be up for a specified amount of time. Again, there is a lot
of
confusion about the concept of free speech. But if you don't have a
problem
with zoning, then why would you have a problem with HOAs? It is the same
thing. It would probably be easier to change HOA rules than to get the
zoning board to change its regulations. If the first case all you would
have to do is get several homeowners to attend a meeting. Then someone
would offer a resolution, it would be seconded and there would be a
discussion followed by a vote. Since virtually no one attends these
meetings you could probably damn near change all the rules in a few
hours.
The zoning board would be a much more protracted and tedious mechanism to
deal with.



Which is why I CHOOSE to live in a NON HOA neighborhood. HOA's tend to
be Too arbitrary and I am too much of a contrarian to put up with some
self righteous types telling me what color paint, what kind of
plant's, what kind of paving I am permitted to use on MY property. You
CHOOSE to live in one fine, but they are NOT for everyone and I for
one won;t live in one.


But here is my point of contention. I do want to live where I can be sure
the neighbors aren't going to put their car up on blocks in the front yard.
I have no issue with you not wanting to live in a planned unit development.
In your universe that makes me self-righteous and you noble? Go figure! I
didn't know that it was morally wrong to expect people to act in accordance
with the agreements that they signed when they bought their house. Could
you explain how that works? Why would it be OK to agree to restrictions and
then disregard the agreement later?


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

In article , "Vox Humana"
wrote:

"paghat" wrote in message
news
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, it's perfectly legal, nothing those gawdamn queers & darkies
or whoever's left out can do to stop it, neener neener. 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; 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." 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.


Most of what your wrote is a complete fabrication. Here is the applicable
federal law. The complete statue can be found at:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/title8.htm
Sec. 804. [42 U.S.C. 3604] Discrimination in sale or rental of housing and
other prohibited practices

You're just so dead wrong. The loopholes require first that no government
funds be involved in building these private communities; incorporated
housing enclaves run by Homeowner Associations, cooperative apartment
buildings, just like private clubs, have all been dragged into court
REPEATEDLY, & their right to be bigots has always been upheld. These
communities would not exist otherwise.

Though communities with racist covenants go back to the late 1800s or
earlier, Homeowner Associations really only began to take hold in America
in a major way in the 1960s & early 1970s when there was no longer any
question but that Civil Rights was making it harder for bigots to have
their way, & covenants alone might no longer keep the ******s out.

The founding father of Homeowner Associations was California real estate
tycoon Ole Hanson, a racist of the first water (not the same Ole Hanson
who was Seattle's only fascist mayor early in the last century). Ole
composed charters of incorporation that were pure venom, & assisted by his
bought & paid for congressional connections, saw to the establishment of
laws that made his Whites Only idea of Utopia legal even in the post-Civil
Rights era. His charters & deeds provided that homes within a given
enclave could never (into perpetuity) be sold to any Hindu, Negro, Asian,
or other racial minority. He's THE great hero of the Homeowner
Association movement. He set the model, & that model has never changed.
He's as close to Evil as any Norwegian American ever got, yet he gets to
have a an elementary school named for him, & Richard Nixon was pleased to
live in in Ole's first no-minorities-allowed project.

Over time Ole's overt racism has become submerged; it's not likely that
any Homeowners Association still puts right in their charter "no ******s
need apply" as Ole did, because in 1966 the Supreme Court made racist
covenants illegal (though no one enforced that). The spirit is still
there, & it's still the primary reason such enclaves feel it necessary to
incorporate in the manner of private clubs but with added features of
independent village government. Without the overtly statedly racist
covenants (which were standard from about 1900 to the 1950s) a Homeowners
Association COULD make the specific choice to become an integrated
neighborhood, but the recent example in San Clemente with Ole's original
racist experiment STILL behaving like white upper class variants of
trailer trash Ku Klux Klan members, well, it's clear that the spirit
behind the invention of Homeowners Associations still runs profoundly
deep, & it is NOT a coincidence 99% of them are to this day lilywhite.

Though the Supreme Court theoretically knocked down the overtly racist
covenants in 1966, the covenants somehow managed to remain broadly in
effect until 1999! The first legislation against them in California was
that year, but it didn't actually outlaw racist covenants, rather, it
outlined a method by which homeowners who were NOT racist could ask that
the wording be removed from charters & covenants, & when the Associations
refused (they invariably refused) they could be sued for damages. This is
why the majority of the "harassment" that Homeowners Associations have
been experiencing of late (with either federal or county governments
taking actions against their standard racist policies) have been
post-1998, & nearly all the attempts to change the norm are still being
worked out in long court processes. Another tepid law was sponsored by
Senator George Nakano & got through in 2000 -- though it makes the
CONVENTS illegal (rather than their continuing spirit which is legally
kept active), even that limited illegality takes effect if there is HUD or
other government funding entering the racist enclave. If there is
government funding, even the most outrageous racist covenant is legal
right now (but subject to suit by members thanks to the 1999 legislation).


Most Homeowner Associations don't feel the need to have the strong racist
wording in order to behave the same as ever; they're satisfied to have the
continuing right to be bigots, & who needs HUD anyway.

What California starts, other states follow, & soon the same challenges
were happening in Texas, Florida, etc. Most states don't yet even have
anyone looking at covenants & older charters, let alone at "mere" policies
that "just happen" to work out in a manner that'd please the KKK.

It would be nice if I fabricated all that as you so misguidedly supposed,
but you clearly need to do some REAL research rather than cutting &
pasting an inapplicable law you found too hastily with a google search
without knowing squat beforehand.

For three years now, the Civil Rights Commission on Hate Crimes has been
attempting to get Homeowner Association standard policies defined as Hate
Crimes so they can be prosecuted successfully (since the law you cited
does not apply). So far, the Commission has failed, as in case you haven't
noticed government has tilted back toward ideals of a a pre-Civil Rights
America. But the law does now move in occasionally in the most overt cases
where an "inappropriate" race managed to buy into one of those enclaves &
Association members begin terror campaigns, such as were undertaken by the
Palacio del Mar Homeowners Association in California against one elderly
Malaysian woman.

The Association waged a ten-year campaign against the Malaysian woman -- &
that whole time the Association never had to contend with any other
"inappropriate" races as their "coincidentally" were no other successful
buyers from any minority community. Their tactics against that one woman
included arranging to have streetside watering devices left on 24 hours a
day, aimed up the hillside at the Southeast Asian woman's home, & when
that didn't annoy her sufficiently, they intentionally broke a water main
near her house creating a geyser. The when the sewer pipe mysteriously
broke near her home, the Homeowners Association informed her hell would
freeze over before it would get fixed. After TEN YEARS of the police
refusing to help this elderly Malaysian woman, some good activists got
wind of it & made her a bit of a celebrity, & that's when other immigrants
& also gays & lesbians poured out of the woodwork with their complaints
about legal housing discrimination by Homeowner Associations, & if they
managed to sneak into the housing anyway, the harassments that forced them
out. But one brave old Malaysian gal wasn't going to cave in to it!

Eventually the H.A.'s mischief caused the ground under her house to move &
the house still sits 12 inches off its foundation. All this while, by
night, curse words & the command "MOVE!" were spraypainted on her house --
repeatedly. When on the television news she called the Association a pack
of racketeers, they set their lawyers on her with a baseless but for her
costly civil suit. And so at long last entered the California Attorney
General who attempted to prosecute the gang of attorneys the Association
AS racketeers, since they had indeed been hired to harass the only
non-white family in that lilywhite community by every means they could
drum up. The state attorney general's attempts to find a way to prosecute
hate crime behavior rather than just use Section 804 is because Section
804 does not apply under the laws & methods of establishing a Homeowner
Association run private enclave, which like a private club can be as
racist as it desires to be & be so legally. The commission on Hate Crimes
& the California attorney general wouldn't've had to get "creative"
attempting (unsuccessfully) to stop Homeowners Associations' racism if the
normative antidiscrimination laws applied; but they do not apply.

This is a big Homeowner Association which was historically proud of its
political pull, but by the new millennium they were at long long last
beginning at least to experience some few repercussions for their brand of
legal racism. If there were any non-racists in the whole damned community,
not a one ever came forward to even hint that the decade of harassment to
get rid of the only gook in the neighborhood served no good purpose for
anyone. TO DATE, NOTHING HAS CHANGED except that it is now better known
what Homeowners Association really means. Congressman Inouye said that
public education was necessary, as the law was just not providing the
corrections. So here I am doing what Inouye said to do -- NOT fabricating
as you so wrongly accused, but telling the truth as it stands.

Curiously, now that there ARE all-Latino Homeowner Associations in some of
the nicest areas of California, a few white people have come forward to
fight for change in laws that for the last fifty years have permitted
whites to be as racist as they please if they can orchestrate their
housing districts legally as semi-independent private governments.

There is nothing unique about the extreme & venomous racism of the Palacio
del Mar Homeowners Association. It is standard, & the government has gone
after only the most egregious cases where the policies were either written
into incorporation documents, charters, or covenants, or when the
Associations committed physical hate crimes against persons & property to
get them to leave the Association's territory. If such Associations make
even a moderate effort to keep their heads down while misbehaving, then
whatever their excuse -- that they're a Christian community therefore no
Jews, that they're an Elderly community therefore no women of childbearing
age nor even any grandchildren living in, that they're an Aryan community
therefore none of those really nice black people who if they don't like it
should start their Black Homeowners Association, which would of course be
just as legal, & in in recent years Mexican Americans have taken advantage
of that even if black folk haven't been able to.

Now you might argue (as Homeowner Associations argue) that we should all
have the RIGHT to gang together with people of our own kind & do
everything possible to make sure we don't have to live in integrated
communities. But you, instead, argue that reality doesn't exist. I know
you're smarter than that -- I've read your posts too long to believe
you're really that dumb -- & yet you posted such fantastic nonsense! What
or who ever convinced you of such nonsense?? I hope you'll now question &
look into it seriously, rather than kneejerkedly deny reality.

Obviously many people involve themselves in their Homeowner Association
never thinking about these issues, & may not be individually racist, but
by living in De Nile, & refusing to notice what is going on all around
them, they are High Fivin' participants in an ongoing racist situation.

So now & then the government is pressured to attempt to do something about
it, as in a Houston Homeowner Association lorded over by an intensely
racist conservative named Geneva Brooks. Since a Homeowners Association's
"right" to be bigoted is the reason such Associations exist, the
government couldn't go after her on the basis of housing discrimination.
George Bush when governor had signed a law into effect that permitted
Homeowner Associations to foreclose on houses over missed payments as
small as one penny --the purpose of which was to assist these Associations
in getting rid of Mexicans & Blacks on the thinnest basis. But that
hideous law leapt up to bite the Association itself in the ass, when the
county seat decided to get "clever" in attempting to make it unpleasant to
be a bigot. They began citing Kirk on dozens of minor housing infractions
& dragging her into court on any pretext (much as racketeers end up in
jail for tax evasion when the government couldn't get them on their dozens
of murders & racketeering). Then the county struck out to foreclose on her
home inside the racist housing development, on the basis of unpaid legal
bills & fines, using the same law that was supposed to make it easier for
such Associations to harass unwanted races or religions out of their
enclaves. If section 804 applied to Homeowner Associations, it would not
be necessary to go after these miscreants by such roundabout means.

The majority of Homeowner Associations aren't so overt. They are only
"coincidentally" lilywhite. The middleclass honky rednecks that buy into
such communities NEVER took into consideration the happiness they would
feel if they could be pretty sure they'd never have to live next door to
hymies or gooks or ******s.

Anyone who hasn't heard of retirement housing projects wherein
grandparents signed away any privilege to have a grandchild live with them
for longer than a month has been closing their eyes. Anyone who hasn't
noticed the lack of Jews or Blacks in the majority of these enclaves (or
of whites in the all-Latino housing associations), is playing the See No
Evil Hear No Evil game on themselves.

Case law includes a woman who bought into a "no children allowed"
community who later became pregnant, was informed she had to sell her home
now that she had a child, but WON the resultant court case. This induced
all such enclaves thereafter to discriminate (legally!) against women of
childbearing age so that this wouldn't happen again. Clubs & housing
enclaves that ban anyone they pick out, generally minoritiesm can & do
continue to maintain bigoted policies, & it is not illegal.

There are a few (damned few) Homeowner Associations around the United
States which, knowing their origin, & ashamed of that origin, actively
issue periodic statements that their private communities do not support
the racist desires that birthed these enclaves. Homeowner Associations
should not be confused with Neighborhood Associations which do not have
the same legal standing -- N.A.s tend to be good things though they can be
overzealous about what they consider tidiness, but they're more inclined
to be against racism & for integration than any Homeowners Association
which would not have gone through all the trouble to become an
semi-independent self-governed entity if their primary goal hadn't been to
circumvent certain federal laws that make life better for everyone except
racists.

My own experience with one of these Associations was was when Granny
Artemis & I were home hunting. The Association first turned us down
officially because they did not permit women of childbearing age. We
apparently looked younger than we are. We assured them we had no desire to
become lesbian mothers anyway, as we thought it was a joke. Their eyes got
big & round & they said they didn't permit homosexuals. I was ignorant of
what these Associations meant, but I spoke to an attorney, & was apprised
of the legal reality, they can be as racist as they please, incorporated
communities of that sort CAN ban faggots, dykes, ******s, jews, & anyone
they please. From then on we were careful to find out who our neighbors
were. We found a great place with great neighbors & gays, straights,
blacks, asians, indians, & whites all living happily together, with
several interracial families right here on our block, & I now count myself
lucky those racist munchmonkey Homeowners Association people rejected us
for being dykes. It would've been absolute hell if we'd accidentally ended
up in a Klan-like neighborhood of that sort!

If you want NOT to get caught up in the future claiming people are
"fabricators" when they know a heck of a lot more than you have as yet
bothered to learn, you might look into this a bit deeper. If YOUR
Neighborhood Association has managed to orchestrate a fully integrated
neighborhood, good for them. They'd be the less than one out of a hundred.
But if your neighborhood is lilywhite & the best you can do is cite
Section 804 as proof reality doesn't exist, then shame, shame, shame on
you. What you should do instead of keeping your head in the sand is invite
the NAACP to address your Homeowners Association. They have an active &
polite approach to educating what amounts to White Homeowners
Associations, attempting not to alienate on the off chance that some of
you are good people who just need your hard-won unconsciousness turned
into awakening.

-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/

In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 17:27:00 GMT, "Cereoid-UR12yo" wrote
in rec.gardens.edible:

Look in your own back yard before criticizing the country that saved your
up-tight asses in two world wars.

World War I was 1914 - 1918. The United States entered the war in 1917
and did
not save anyone's ass.

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.

Why is this discussion happening in the gardening groups?
--
Gardening Zones

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

--
"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/

"Vox Humana" expounded:

The argument is that because someone pays for the house and pays taxes that
entitles them to do as they wish. It is the same argument. The
consequences my be different. One might think that smoking marijuana or
visiting a prostitute fall within the same category as painting your house
orange. Neither will automatically endanger your life. Can I assume that
you support the right to do what you want as long as it doesn't put life and
limb in harm's way?


Assume anything you want. All I'm saying is I wouldn't live anywhere
where anyone had the kind of say over my property as to what kind of
fence I put up, or what color I painted my house, or what I grew in my
yard. All the rest of your arguments are just red herrings to draw
away from the base issue.

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

On Tue, 03 Jun 2003 17:34:35 GMT, "Vox Humana"
wrote:
"susabean" wrote in message
...
But.....the bottom line is its their right to do what they want to do with
their property as long as it isn't endangering anyone else.
I don't know where this concept originates. You simply don't have unlimited
rights to do as you wish with your property.
If you don't know where this concept originates, you should study some
history or get a better understanding of people, because the answer
should be very clear even if you disagree with it.
Indeed, most of us live on
property owned by a financial institution who has some interest in
maintaining the value of their investment. Therefore, the use of property
has to take into consideration the risk to the investor and the rights of
surrounding property owners to preserve their investments. When you sell
your home the listing agent will come up with a price based on the
comparable value of homes in the neighborhood. This is based in large part
on sales histories. When someone causes a depreciation in his home's value
it also has an impact on the surrounding properties. You might find
yourself in a situation where you have to sell your home quickly and are
unable to because your neighbor has decided to decorate his home in an
Adam's Family theme. Remember, when you sell your home you are competing
with sellers who live in neighborhoods that are free from the clutter of
boats, RVs, unmowed lawns, Pepto-Bismol and aubergine colored siding, rusted
fences, and trash cans dotting the landscape.

I disagree. I should have the right to do whatever I want with my
property. I bought it. Its mine. Sure I'm in debt to the bank over
it, but that should not be in any way a consideration of how I can use
my land.

When you are talking about keeping the value of the property up in
case you need to sell, or any of the other reasonable points you made,
you are talking about what is common sense, not about what I must do.
By that I mean that not trashing your place is a good idea, not only
because you may want to sell the place some day, but you've got to
live there as well. Again, I consider this to be common sense, not a
rule that I must obey. Trying to be kind to the neighbors by
limiting unpleasant views (by my standards) I see as just the right
way to behave. Actually, there are legal limits to what I can do, so
you are not totally incorrect in saying that I don't have unlimited
rights

I made sure that there were no associations before I bought my place.
I do think about these things as I contemplate planting more trees,
changing the lawn over to wild flowers and gardens, etc. If I want to
sell the place, having too many trees and not enough lawn or formality
could be a problem. Still, I'll go ahead with my plans. I live here,
I have to like it here, and have no plans of moving. As long as I
don't go too far overboard, most of what I do is reversible with a bit
of work

snip
It reduces the value of the property. If I have a choice between buying a
home in a neighborhood that has boats, truck, trailers, RVs, and semi
tractors parked in the driveway and one that doesn't, then the choice is
easy. It might not even be a conscious decision. I would probably just
have a better feeling about buying in an orderly neighborhood than in one
peppered with clutter. Let's face it, when have you ever heard anyone say
that they liked a neighborhood because of all the charming boats in the
driveway? How may boats would be acceptable - one, two, six? If one boat
is ok, then why not three? Part of the cost of having a boat is either
keeping it in an enclosure or at a dock or storage facility. If you can't
afford to store your boat, then you can't afford the boat. Boats are
optional. Your hobby or recreational interests shouldn't be pursued at a
cost to your neighbors. Parking you boat(s) in your driveway is just a
subtle way of extracting value from your neighbors' homes.
I thought just the opposite.

I bought a home in a neighborhood where there were no sidewalks,
every home was different (no cookie cutters), and there was an
informal feel to the area. I wanted it that way. If someone had a
boat or an RV, I wouldn't give the least bit of a damn, and I may want
a ride. I wouldn't like it too much if their yard was trash strewn,
or rusting hulks of cars were littered all over, but fortunately the
neighborhood doesn't have much of that.

Its a difference of opinion. You seem to be talking a lot about value
of property as though your home was only a way point to somewhere
else. To me, this is home, and although I may be elsewhere in a few
years, I'm not planning on going anywhere anytime soon if ever. I
have to like the way things are around here. I can't spend too much
of my time worrying about what the people that may buy this place may
think.
snip
Can your neighbors operate a kennel or keep farm animals?
My neighbor has 6 dogs that can be a real pain sometimes, especially
the barky ones, or the old dog that forgets he knows me. Still, I
like animals and could probably live with it just fine.
Would it be OK if they
decided to pave the entire yard with asphalt?
That would suck. That's a lot of asphalt. Is that actually illegal
in most places?
There is a home with a chain
link fence in our area that has crushed beer cans of various colors that are
inserted into the mesh to form a flag and spell out "God Bless America." Is
that OK? How about if is spelled "Impeach George W. Bush" or "Long Live the
KKK?"
Depends on what type of beer it was.

I think a lot of people would do well to MTOB.
People are very much minding their own business when the act to protect
their property value and quality of life.
MTOB is the way to go for me. There are valid points of view to what
you saying as well. I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right. Its a
difference in philosophy about how and where we want to live. There
should be places where we can each live the way we want to. It would
be a shame if every community had the same laws, and everyone had to
obey the same rules (one major reason that I am in support of states
rights vs federal mandates).

Swyck

zxcvbob expounded:

You probably do live near people who think like that. They just haven't
organized yet.

Eh, every once in awhile they try, but we shoot them down at town
meeting. If you want that kind of living situation, then go make one
somewhere, don't try to bring it in after the fact when you're moving
into an already established neighborhood.

One year some newbies to town decided that they didn't like people
bringing their work trucks home, they tried to impose a 9,000 lb
limit on vehicles that could be put in a driveway. That was voted
down soundly at town meeting, if a guy makes his living in that truck,
and makes enough money to support his family and pay his taxes with
it, who are we to say they can't park in their own driveway (I'm not
talking tractor trailers, I'm talking utilibody type trucks, panel
trucks, dump trucks).

I bought my house in 1978 between two eyesores. In one, the messy son
moved out, and the daughter (who lives there with her mother) took to
gardening after watching me, her house is cute now. The other side
neighbor thankfully moved out, the new neighbors cleaned up tons of
debris, they have a nice yard now. Was it my example? I dunno. All
I know is no one told anyone what to do. We all take care of each
other, but we mind our own business.

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

"Charlie" expounded:

I've never heard of restrictions on this sort of thing. America really
puzzles me sometimes.

Not all of us, Charlie!

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

On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 21:07:21 -0700, (paghat)
wrote:
snip
Also, if they put up any gaudy fire hazard
christmas lights, I'd fine them a thousand dollars per bulb. All these
possibilities would of coruse be draconian & offensive, but far less so
than what actually gets legislated to require polluting lawnmowers,
redefining all wildlife as vermin, turning houses into advertising
billboards for christianity.
What, no christmas lights!!??

You go too far, paghat. Christmas lights are one of the joys of those
dark, bleak, garden less and sunless months of winter. I'm not even
religious. I just like all the pretty lights.

Swyck