I know how it happened. Maybe not all the exact details and the names involved, but I know how our neighborhood ended up in this controversy over whether or not to form a Homeowners Association.
A bunch of our neighbors—good people, concerned about deterioration in the neighborhood's appearance—got together to fix some things themselves. We should all be grateful for their efforts, and a little ashamed for not helping if we were available to do so. These good neighbors of ours were frustrated at the low turnout, excited that they had been able to do so much on their own, and inspired by the possibility of doing even more—if they could just get the rest of the community involved. And they were, of course, absolutely right.
Good people with good intentions, working together for a good cause. Volunteer organizations—the PTA, your church, the Scouts, the quilting club, the bowling league—are always run by the folks who care enough about it to do so. The other parents, members of the congregation, bowlers, etc. ride along on the efforts of those few. That's not a bad thing: The other bowler may be president of the PTA, or the other quilter may spend 40 hours a week with the food co-op. The fact that the self-appointed HOA committee has been swept up with enthusiasm should be recognized as a community strength: Where people care, good things happen.
And there is absolutely no way in the world I'm going to join the HOA as it's being presented today. Read on for why, and more importantly, for a counter-proposal.
This document started out as an open letter to Mark Swain, but it grew too big for that as I started looking more closely at the issues involved. I ask you and urge you to read the whole thing before committing yourself either way in the debate. If you want to jump to a particular section, though, here are some shortcuts to help.
My name is Fritz Knack, and I live at 2201 Katherine Kiker Road. It's the second house on the left as you're coming down the road. I have had items stolen from my car on a number of occasions. I have had problems with a neighbor's dogs barking all hours of the night. My mailbox was destroyed last Hallowe'en. My next-door neighbor is growing a vegetable garden in his front yard. I understand very well the sorts of things the HOA is hoping to "fix."
I'm also a homeowner. I live in my house, and I respect your right to live in yours so long as we don't interfere with each other. The vegetable garden might not be my ideal, but my neighbor and I come from different cultures, and that garden may be what makes his home his castle. Who am I to say?
The HOA Committee formed because its members saw several problems they felt they would be able to solve if they could get the help of the community. I'm sure there are many more than I've listed below, but I think I got the big ones.
A few of the proposed changes were presented at the meeting. Although the panel urged "open and honest" communication with the meeting attendees, I was disappointed to see some significant "spin" on some of the points made. I won't go so far as to accuse anyone of active dishonesty, but some of the information was presented in a light that was not quite accurate.
I'm sure I didn't catch everything, nor is this intended to be an exhaustive list. These are just the items that sent up red flags for me, causing me to wonder what else might be hidden in the details.
Changes to the CCRs on what signs are and are not allowed was presented during the slide show as being a relaxation of the existing rules. In fact, the only change between the old and the new covenants is that the exception for a "For Sale" or "For Rent" sign in your yard has been removed. In other words, you would no longer be able to have a sign on your property advertising the property for sale. This is more restrictive than the existing covenants, not less.
I have not seen the raw numbers used to make the chart given in the slide show, but the chart was presented with a lot of talk implying that your home value would go up with an HOA. Here's what the chart actually showed:
Item 3 above is a particularly common logical error. The implication made was that an HOA (cause) would increase your home value (effect). I think the other way around actually makes more sense: Expensive homes are more likely to be in HOAs. Look at the million dollar homes in the area and look at the more affordable homes: Is the difference in cost because of the HOA? No, it's because the million dollar homes have six or more bedrooms, or they're made of solid brick, or they're in "gated communities"—HOAs with gates—having their own golf courses.
I would advise everyone to understand exactly what it is you're agreeing to if you choose to join the HOA. Talk to your own attorney if you have one. Discuss it with your friends and neighbors. Joining a Homeowner's Association is a one-way decision: If you decide afterward that you don't like it, your only option is to sell your home and move.
I have read the existing CCRs closely and compared them with the new proposal. I also attended the meeting on August 11, asked a few questions, and listened to the answers provided by the panel. I am not an attorney: I am a professional computer geek, educated as a mathematician. That being said, here's what I've been able to determine.
Simply put, if you join the HOA, the more restrictive rule applies. For example, if the Jones join and the Smith don't, then the rules would work as follows:
The existing CCRs are there until January 3, 2014. Period. No relaxation of any of the rules by the HOA can protect you from anyone except the HOA. Conversely, new restrictions affect you only if you join. There are rules that no one is following of course, such as the ban on satellite dishes. As good neighbors who understand the intent of the original ban, no one is taking anyone else to court. But they could. And the HOA couldn't protect you from it.
My goal here is to be accurate and complete. If you see something I got wrong or missed entirely, please let me know and I will correct the error. Numbers below refer to the existing CCRs. Paragraph descriptions (e.g., Signs) are mine.
Except that "DEVELOPERS" has been changed to "the homeowners association", there is no change between the existing CCRs and the proposed ones. Since the developers have finished their work and moved on, the HOA committee is proposing that they assume those access rights to individual properties.
This change is essentially more restrictive, because it exchanges absentee developers (i.e., no one) for HOA representatives—your neighbors—as people who can enter your property without your consent and without fear of legal reprisal.
i. The exception allowing a "For Sale" or "For Rent" sign was removed.
This item is more restrictive than the existing CCRs.
iii. The exception allowing the developers to erect an entrance sign was removed. Although technically more restrictive, it probably has little or no effect since development in the subdivision is now complete.
The proposed coventants grants any one of the follwing exceptions not provided in the original:
The "only one exception per residence" restriction says that if you work for yourself and have your logo on your car, you're not allowed to keep a boat on your property. Nor can you form a "Mom & Pop" operation and have both partners driving "company" vehicles.
Although this proposed change is less restrictive, it has no effect because of the 25-year duration of the existing CCRs.
Under the proposed CCRs, legal fireworks would be permitted. (Charlotte city ordinances may still prohibit any fireworks in the city limits.) You would also be allowed to work on your car inside your garage.
Although this proposed change is less restrictive, it has no effect because of the 25-year duration of the existing CCRs and (possibly) city laws.
Under the proposed CCRs, you would no longer be restricted to a single-pole, round clothes-line, and you would no longer have to bring your clothes in by 5pm.
Although this proposed change is less restrictive, it has no effect because of the 25-year duration of the existing CCRs.
This item has been eliminated from the proposed CCRs, so you would be allowed to build a dock, pier, or float on any pond that happened to be on your property. Since the item has been completely eliminated, there are no proposed restrictions to the size or materials used to build such a structure.
The wisdom of such a change notwithstanding, it has no effect because of the 25-year duration of the existing CCRs.
This item has been eliminated from the proposed CCRs, so you would be allowed to to operate a motor-powered craft (jetski, fishing boat, speed boat, etc.). Since the item has been completely eliminated, there are no proposed restrictions to the kind of craft allowed.
The wisdom of such a change notwithstanding, it has no effect because of the 25-year duration of the existing CCRs.
This item has been eliminated from the proposed CCRs, so you would be allowed to attach a satellite dish to your home, erect a HAM antenna, or build a tower and rent space on it to a cell-phone or paging company. Since the item has been completely eliminated, there are no proposed restrictions to the antenna erected, even allowing the large-sized dishes you can see on the property of a commercial radio or television broadcasting facility.
The wisdom of such a change notwithstanding, it has no effect because of the 25-year duration of the existing CCRs.
This item has been reworded in the proposed CCRs, but seems to say the same thing as the existing document. The only real difference I see is that it specifically addresses repairs (as opposed to additions or modifications), and requires that any such repairs be of the same material of the existing driveway. Neither document addresses wholesale replacement of the driveway or material requirements in that case.
This item is slightly more restrictive than the existing CCRs.
This item has been elminated in the proposed CCRs. In the existing covenants, there is a 15-foot easement for "storm drainage and for the common pedestrian use of all said lot owners" on the properties that, I think, correspond to 2223, 2231, and 22301 Katherine Kiker Road. If anyone can tell me what, if any, affect this might have if the proposed CCRs take effect, I'll update this document.
This item is slightly more restrictive than the existing CCRs.
This item has been eliminated from the proposed CCRs. I expect the details of HOA rule changes would be detailed in the HOA corporate by-laws. The only concern I see here is that someone newly moving into the neighborhood might end up with incomplete information (i.e., just the HOA covenants) and find himself in trouble when he violates one of the older covenants that had been relaxed by the proposed CCRs.
This change has no effect. Not stating or re-stating a means for ammendment and update does not invalidate the current methods because of the 25-year duration of the existing CCRs.
This item has been eliminated from the proposed CCRs. HOA enforcement methods would include fines, liens, and the possibility of foreclosure, but this item's absence from the proposed CCRs does not invalidate it.
Because as a member you would be subject to two sets of conflicting rules and enforcement processes, this change is effectively more restrictive than the existing covenants.
A Neighborhood Watch might just be a good idea, but it does not require an HOA to implement. And keeping the grass mowed in our common areas is not going to keep hoodlums from taking stuff from our cars.
By its very nature, an HOA is an enforcement agency, and "enforcement" implies adversary. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it couldn't work, but I don't think it's the best solution for that problem.
The self-appointed HOA Committee has said that a Community Association wouldn't work, and knowing how volunteer organizations work—or don't—by the level of enthusiasm of a few active people, I'm inclined to agree. Conversely, the proposed HOA wouldn'thave the authority to enforce its rules against anyone but its own members. But that still leaves us with a neighborhood in deterioration, increasing crime, little communication, and no overall sense of community. So if not an HOA and not a Community Association, then what?
For lack of a better term, I propose what I'll call a Community Co-Op. It's probably still legally a Homeowners Association, but my proposal here is intended to leave Big Brother out of the loop:
The by-laws should also be carefully written—and an advance condition of incorporation. Some examples might include:
The resulting organization would have all of the benefits of the proposed HOA, but it would be a friendlier organization with considerably higher membership.
We obviously have some problems in the neighborhood, but creating a formal authority isn't the right answer. It falls short in some areas, intrudes on our individual rights as property owners, and sends entirely the wrong message to many of us. In a nutshell, it's a good idea carried too far. Let's step back and see if we can't work together to actually solve the problems we have, and do it without turning our neighbors into our landlords