Homeowners' Association

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Homeowners' Association - 30/07/2007 23:25

Quote:
I understand your point of view as well, but I suppose I'm an orderly person at heart, and I'd prefer to have a standard to keep than complete disarray.

I at first misread this as "elderly person at heart".

I find these HOAs that govern free-standing homes to be pretty creepy -- turning developments into the set for the Truman Show. Actually, worse than that. Luckily, I don't have to worry about purchasing one of those oppressive million-dollar mansions.

Now, I do own a condo and, condos being a different kettle of fish (more common property) I would be surprised to find a condo without an HOA or HOA-like Coop board. For condo dwellers, I think of the HOA as a fact of life. I did not find the fact that my condo had a "blinds rule" (and some other rules) like yours too oppressive -- not enough to put me off buying the unit. What I do firmly believe having lived here for a while is that we don't have much choice but to fairly enforce whatever rules are on the HOA's books. The rules can always be changed, but when considering a condo, it probably pays to read the rules thoroughly and assume that they might never change.

I applaud your willingness to see this from all sides. I find the fact that the blind company will actually give you 50% back to be pretty good. In your shoes I would go back and take them up on it. Put this behind you. Ask 'em how much it would cost for HOA-OK replacements. Who knows. Maybe you'll get a break.

Posted by: insightful

Re: Homeowners' Association - 31/07/2007 13:20

Yes, it was an X-Files reference. Whenever I hear any stories about restrictive Homeowners Association rules I always think of this episode. One of those woodsman whirlygigs gets the homeowners killed.

-Jeff

Posted by: lectric

Re: Homeowners' Association - 02/08/2007 01:03

Quote:
Gabriel

Bingo. Oh, and it looks like they've started dropping prices a bit. Or perhaps only the lots I saw we .5 Mil, as the website is showing low end lots starting at a mere $175k and high end at $550k.

Posted by: FireFox31

Re: Homeowners' Association - 03/08/2007 20:10

Quote:
The next thing you know, people will want to think for themselves!

And without HOA and COA, you get jerks like me who often neglect to mow my lawn, pull/spray weeds only once a year, and still haven't replaced my ratty front door, though a new one is sitting there waiting. Sure, all these neglegances come with good reason, but a HOA would hang me.

Quote:
tell you what kind of DOG you can keep.

That HOA must be trying to win some WASP picket fence award.

Good X-Files references. One of the only episodes I've ever seen.

Posted by: msaeger

Re: Homeowners' Association - 03/08/2007 21:22

Quote:

And without HOA and COA, you get jerks like me who often neglect to mow my lawn, pull/spray weeds only once a year, and still haven't replaced my ratty front door, though a new one is sitting there waiting. Sure, all these neglegances come with good reason, but a HOA would hang me.

I'll take that over being told what color window treatments I have to get. I didn't even consider anything like a condo or townhouse to avoid a HOA.

Posted by: maczrool

Re: Homeowners' Association - 03/08/2007 22:53

Quote:
it looks like they've started dropping prices a bit.

Well then I guess now is the time for me to buy

. Amazing how much they are getting for what used have a horse race track.

Stu

Posted by: lectric

Re: Homeowners' Association - 05/08/2007 03:47

Quote:
Amazing how much they are getting for what used have a horse race track.

Yeppers. Jefferson Downs. At least the area never flooded during Katrina as far as I know. My wife's ex's place in there was high and dry, anyway. OOH, that reminds me, good news! Road Home sent us our award letter. Brings our total loss to only 30k. That's a more manageable debt, assuming we actually see any money.

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Homeowners' Association - 29/10/2007 01:51

Quote:
I find these HOAs that govern free-standing homes to be pretty creepy

Yeah, I used to feel that way ("Nobody can tell ME what to do with my own property..." and all that) but then I started looking around my own neighborhood.

The attached photo shows a pretty nice house and yard about a mile and a half from where I live. In today's real estate market, it would sell for about $350K. Now scroll down and look at the picture immediately beneath the first one.

That house is immediately next door to the first one. You could stand on the roof of the first house and easily hit the house next door with a rock. The picture of the second house does not do justice to the full impact of that place. I could have taken four pictures of that yard, all with near identical content without any overlap.

The irony is, I knew the previous owners of house #2, and when they owned it (and when the first house was built) it was a showcase. Not fancy or expensive (a double-wide mobile home) but immaculate, with a circular driveway outlined with white stones, everything neat as a pin.

I'll bet the owners of the first house wish that there were some kind of home owners' agreement in place.

tanstaafl.

Posted by: peter

Re: Homeowners' Association - 29/10/2007 06:24

Quote:
I'll bet the owners of the first house wish that there were some kind of home owners' agreement in place.

If they're the sort of people who get worked up about that sort of thing, then I bet they wish a whole range of things about the occupiers of house #2. But I still think that it'd be an unacceptable and alarming situation for them to have any way of enforcing those wishes against someone else's private property, so long as house #2's junk isn't causing them any actual harm (corroding cars leaching into the water-table or whatever).

Peter

Posted by: mlord

Re: Homeowners' Association - 29/10/2007 11:01

I don't see a problem with that second house. The first one looks wretched -- cookie cutter character, oversized garage, and barren landscape. But each to their own (property).

Cheers

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Homeowners' Association - 29/10/2007 11:24

Quote:
I don't see a problem with that second house. The first one looks wretched -- cookie cutter character, oversized garage, and barren landscape. But each to their own (property).

Cheers

Agreed! the second house looks a lot more interesting. I bet they have cool stuff in their back yard

If they’re worried so much about the neighbor’s houses then they should buy a lot of land around their place.

I live in the country and suburban sprawl is a real issue out here. When a $500k house pops up near an old farmer’s place the taxes instantly go up for the old farmer. Sometimes so much they must sell their farm because they can not make the taxes (happen to a friend of my dad’s). There have also been cases of the farmer being ordered to sell his livestock (chickens in the case I know of) because the new neighbors complained.

Lots of these people say “they want to move to the country” however they bring their suburbian attitudes with them.

I that white stuff really lowers the resale value IMO

Posted by: drakino

Re: Homeowners' Association - 29/10/2007 12:44

Quote:
oversized garage

That also appear to be unoccupied by their vehicles. This has always puzzled me, the amount of people who get large houses with plenty of garage space, and still park every vehicle outside.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Homeowners' Association - 29/10/2007 12:56

Maybe they have five cars.

Posted by: tonyc

Re: Homeowners' Association - 29/10/2007 13:40

I am about to become a first-time homeowner, so I've done some thinking about HOAs. The house I'm buying is not part of a HOA, but having walked through some houses in similar situations as Doug's example, and thinking about how I'd feel if my own home's value declined, say, 25% because of a lousy neighbor, I have to say I now can see the case for their existence, though I'm personally willing to take the risks associated with not having one.

People in the US have been encouraged for many years now to buy more house than they need, and in many cases, more than they can afford, with the expectation that real estate is their best investment option. The sub-prime lending disaster is finally being recognized for what it is, but even outside of sub-prime borrowers, there are a lot of house poor Americans who have "bet the farm" on their house rising in value over time. In this situation, an HOA protects their investment to some extent.

I recognize that caveat emptor applies, and anyone who goes into massive amounts of debt expecting their home investment to be a "sure thing" deserves their fate. But with the situation being what it is, I don't see anything wrong with homeowners banding together to create some rules for their entire neighborhood, recognizing that they all want good resale value if they ever need to sell. As long as existing homeowners can opt out when new HOAs are established, I see no problem with them.

Posted by: mlord

Re: Homeowners' Association - 29/10/2007 13:41

Around here, garages are for winter use, and/or protection from vandalism.

In most neighbourhoods here in dry/warm times, there's no good reason to open/close a garage door every time the vehicle is used. And since most garage doors are motorized, it would also be a big waste of energy (and contribute to global frying) to use them purely for appearances sake.

Cheers

Posted by: Tim

Re: Homeowners' Association - 29/10/2007 13:47

Quote:
That also appear to be unoccupied by their vehicles. This has always puzzled me, the amount of people who get large houses with plenty of garage space, and still park every vehicle outside.

One of my friends has a rather large garage, I think it was called a 2.5 car garage or something (no clue where the .5 comes from). He parks his cars outside, and uses his entire garage as a workshop and woodshop. Since he doesn't have to move the various tables/tools out of storage to work on something, it looks a ton neater and more professional than it could. He also does a lot more projects with that setup than he use to, because of the lack of hassle with moving everything.

Posted by: Robotic

Re: Homeowners' Association - 29/10/2007 14:44

Seems like house #2 is behind a fence, so that's something to add to the equation. I'm in the same camp as those saying, "Whatever- do what you want and take your risk."
Not that I wouldn't enjoy living in house #1, but I'm not the sort of person to worry about the neighbors.
That said, I was once offered $100 to paint my own garage door... so you might get an idea of how I roll from that.

/would always park cars indoors if possible.

Posted by: lectric

Re: Homeowners' Association - 30/10/2007 01:20

While I disagree with an HOA personally, I DO understand the point. My next door neighbor has let his house fall completely apart. Currently, I don't really give a shit, it only really matters when I decide I want to sell my house. We all know I work at city hall. This guy is breaking SEVERAL ordinances and building codes. I could make a few calls and force him to clean up his property. I choose NOT to because I'm more interested in not pissing him off than I am with him making his house look nicer.

The previous owner and he had a feud going before we bought the house. The kind of feud where they were pointing lights in each others windows to to be irritating and the like. Only once did I call code enforcement to come out. My wife was letting the puppies out in the back yard to do their business and a rat ran across the back porch, closely followed by 8 babies. THAT I cannot abide. I did a little investigating and it turns out that 4 people had made complaints against him in the last year. The inspector came out to make him cut his grass, etc, and he talked his way out of it every time. The next day I got the mayor to come to my house with the director of code enforcement and had them both peek over my fence into my neighbor's back yard. The inspector that let it slide 4 times was written up, the neighbor cut his grass for the first time in YEARS (it took 4 guys a full day to do it, with a bushhog), and the rat problem has since disappeared. 3 years have gone by and he still keeps his grass cut now. All that being said, he has no idea who called on him, so we still get along fine.

I still get 1-2 tiles from his roof in my pool every week, but I can deal with that. I KNOW his house has termites, but I can live with that too, so long as I keep mine sprayed. Basically, It's kind of a live and let live with me, until it starts to affect me personally. As an added bonus, my grass always looks great, in comparison to his. I'll try and get some pictures if I can do it without him seeing me. ;8^)

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Homeowners' Association - 30/10/2007 02:46

Quote:
Seems like house #2 is behind a fence, so that's something to add to the equation.

Oh, yeah... that fence is all of 15 feet long, it is there for the sole purpose of supporting a gate so that he can lock it up to keep all the criminals from sneaking in in the middle of the night and stealing his valuable stuff.

tanstaafl.

Posted by: Laura

Re: Homeowners' Association - 30/10/2007 12:54

I also agree, the first house has nothing interesting about it at all, it's so plain and stark looking and just plain boring. I have never lived anywhere that has a HOA and never will. I used to live in a suburban village that had too many rules and regulations of it's own. One night I had the police wake me up at 4 in the morning to move a car I had parked horizontally on my drive and stayed there until I got up and moved it. My drive was small as was my garage and my van wouldn't fit in it and there was no place on the street within blocks to park my other car so I had it at the end of the drive. It was out of the street and not sitting in the grass but it wasn't legal there. I also had them wake me at 6 one Sunday morning to make sure I had a garage sale sign on the corner down by noon or else I would be fined. I live out in the country now with a couple of acres. Less than 1 of those is mowed, the rest has been left wild for the birds and animals. My grass sometimes gets high because I haven't had the time to mow. Some of my neighbors houses are very nice and some older and run down and there are some trailers out here too. I really don't care what anyone else does with their house or land, I don't feel it's any of my business. Some people are happy with everything being dictated to them and others aren't. It's nice to be able to have the choice.

Posted by: DWallach

Re: Homeowners' Association - 30/10/2007 13:04

The house I'm in the process of buying has no HOA, and Houston has pretty much no zoning either. My old house had a cabinetry shop next door and a artists' commune around the corner (for metal working / welding artists). This is the sort of thing that makes Houton quirky but cool. Sure, loony-tunes neighbors can and do happen, but you do have things like noise ordinances and whatnot to keep them at least partially in check.

How do they keep things from going completely bonkers? Deed restrictions. These were originally invented as a legal mechanism to keep black people from moving into white neighborhoods. These days, deed restrictions tend to say things like how far back your house needs to be from the street and whether you can have more than one dwelling on a given piece of property. When a large enough percentage of the people who own property on a given block agree to a deed restriction, it then becomes official.

In the Houston suburbs, it's a completely different world. They have the kinds of restrictive HOAs with big binders listing the restrictions on what colors you can paint your house and whatnot. I'm happy not to live out there, although the temptation is quite strong from a financial perspective.

I find it amusing that HOAs justify their rules on the basis of protecting resale value, when suburban real-estate doesn't tend to appreciate much, if at all. If there's always brand new construction around the corner, "used" houses fall in value just like used cars.

P.S. Lectric, good one with bringing the mayor out for a visit.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Homeowners' Association - 30/10/2007 14:56

No one seems to have commented on the other aspect of HOAs: fees and assessments.

I'm currently a member of two HOAs (or HOA-like organizations), one for my townhome and another for the neighborhood, and I hate it. I pay huge amounts of money for no benefit, but at least I'm restricted in what I can do.

Anyway, recently the neighborhood HOA tried to sneak through repair and improvements to a kiddie park a mile away from my house costing $413,000. Fortunately, someone caught it and only after a big todo is there going to be a referendum.No one seems to have commented on the other aspect of HOAs: fees and assessments.

I'm currently a member of two HOAs (or HOA-like organizations), one for my townhome and another for the neighborhood, and I hate it. I pay huge amounts of money for no benefit, but at least I'm restricted in what I can do.

Anyway, recently the neighborhood HOA tried to sneak through repair and improvements to a kiddie park a mile away from my house costing $413,000. Fortunately, someone caught it and only after a big todo is there going to be a referendum.

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Homeowners' Association - 30/10/2007 15:11

Quote:

I find it amusing that HOAs justify their rules on the basis of protecting resale value, when suburban real-estate doesn't tend to appreciate much, if at all. If there's always brand new construction around the corner, "used" houses fall in value just like used cars.

I have a summer house that I intentionally keep, I guess you would say "low profie" just so the value doesn't go up as much and I don't have to pay more taxes. I keep it in good repair but I intentionally leave old cloths on the cloths line and the like to keep it on the DL.

I don’t know if it has helped but we’ve become known as the “cloths-line people.”

I kind of like that.

Posted by: Robotic

Re: Homeowners' Association - 30/10/2007 15:36

Quote:
I have a summer house that I intentionally keep, I guess you would say "low profie" just so the value doesn't go up as much and I don't have to pay more taxes. I keep it in good repair but I intentionally leave old cloths on the cloths line and the like to keep it on the DL.

I don’t know if it has helped but we’ve become known as the “cloths-line people.”

I kind of like that.

What-wait? huh?
How are your taxes fluctuating without an assessment?
I'm not a Real Estate Lawyer, Broker, Agent, or have much experience with any of that at all, but I believe (in California, at least) the property taxes are based on the last assessed value- not the current value.
An assessment is only required for something substantial- like a new mortgage or re-finance, structural additions, or sale.

I think I need to know more about how this stuff works...

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Homeowners' Association - 30/10/2007 15:48

I have property in Indiana, Ohio and Michigan. In the mid-west tax assessors sometimes do reassessments to see if you’ve done any improvements on your house that would make it more valuable thus raising your taxes. There was much concern (by the revenuers) in Indiana that people where buying old farm houses and fixing them up without paying higher taxes. I believe it was last year that every property in IN was reassessed. Even though I had built a garage since I bought the house my taxes went down.

So IMO, if you’re not going to sell your house, the best thing to do is keep it looking “lived in.”

Posted by: tonyc

Re: Homeowners' Association - 30/10/2007 16:11

Quote:

I find it amusing that HOAs justify their rules on the basis of protecting resale value, when suburban real-estate doesn't tend to appreciate much, if at all. If there's always brand new construction around the corner, "used" houses fall in value just like used cars.

I think you may be overgeneralizing "suburban real-estate," and at the same time overstating the depreciation of used houses. The one part of your analogy that holds true is the initial drop in value when the house goes from "new" to "used." There's a huge price premium in many cases for new homes with that "new home smell," and anyone who buys one and has to turn around and sell a few months later probably gets killed. But, once that happens, I don't know how much depreciation is happening in most markets. In most suburbs, you have urban sprawl sending people away from the city, but they also want to be close enough to the city to either work there or play there, so they settle down in the middle. There's only so much middle in a lot of cities, so suburban real estate often holds its value or appreciates.

Also, there are a lot of suburban areas that don't necessarily have new construction all over the place, and when they do, the new construction is often 125% - 150% above comparable homes that are only 10-15 years old. I think this huge price difference keeps the values of existing construction from falling too much.

I'd also be willing to bet that the used homes that *are* appreciating in value by virtue of being in desirable areas are the ones more likely to be covered by HOAs.

Finally, even if every real estate market in the country goes to hell and every home in America depreciates, there will still be homes that depreciate less. One can "protect resale value" and still end up losing money, just not as much as the other guy who didn't take steps to protect resale value.

Again, I don't personally favor HOAs, but I understand why they work, and understand why people might want some protection against a bad neighbor.

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Homeowners' Association - 30/10/2007 16:12

Quote:
No one seems to have commented on the other aspect of HOAs: fees and assessments.

I'm currently a member of two HOAs (or HOA-like organizations), one for my townhome and another for the neighborhood, and I hate it. I pay huge amounts of money for no benefit, but at least I'm restricted in what I can do.

I did. At least in passing.

I'm in the middle of a house-hunt, now, and it's damn tough finding a place that fits our needs, that doesn't have an HOA attached to it. Some of them have fees on the order of $2-300/month!

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Homeowners' Association - 30/10/2007 16:25

Mine's $156 a month for one plus $360 a year for the other, so that comes to $186 a month. Of course, the pricier one is for a townhome, so there's some property insurance being paid out of that.

Posted by: Tim

Re: Homeowners' Association - 30/10/2007 16:56

I have a really hard time coming to grips with paying somebody to tell me what I can and can't do. It just seems counterintuitive.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Homeowners' Association - 30/10/2007 16:59

Yeah, it was not my decision to purchase this particular tenement.

Posted by: DWallach

Re: Homeowners' Association - 30/10/2007 17:26

Quote:
I have a really hard time coming to grips with paying somebody to tell me what I can and can't do.

We do it all the time. It's called government taxes and government regulations.

As such, a homeowner's association is really nothing more than a micro-government with its own taxes. That could be good or bad. At least in theory, a home-owner's association could be very effective even while the surrounding government was dysfunctional. The converse could also potentially be true.

In my new neighborhood, I'm not really concerned about derelict neighbors. I'm far more concerned about the nearby Texas Medical Center, which has been steadily building itself bigger, and taller, up into the sky. From my new front yard, I will see the neighbors across the street, and a huge, massive tower currently under construction a few blocks away. My fear is that, over the next decade or two, and due to the lack of zoning, more of my sky will be occupied by giant office towers.

On the flip side, our proximity to those very towers should keep our property values up, as there will always be somebody who works there who is keen to walk to work...

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Homeowners' Association - 30/10/2007 17:44

Quote:
I have a really hard time coming to grips with paying somebody to tell me what I can and can't do.

We do it all the time. It's called government taxes and government regulations.

However government taxes are usually (disclaimer) for the individual’s benefit and to provide protection from others. Not to keep us from doing what we want with our property.

You can argue that homeowner's associations protect our property value. However that comes at the expense of someone else’s freedom to do what they want with their property. While governmental laws like that do sometimes arise they are usually met with opposition, at least by me.

I think the majority of these people on the homeowner's association boards are people that get off on telling others how to live and enjoy the power trip. “Mind your own business” is a good motto, IMO.

Posted by: DWallach

Re: Homeowners' Association - 30/10/2007 17:56

Ostensibly, a HOA does beneficial things, ranging from grounds-keeping to major maintenance. The townhouse I'm currently renting is connected with five others under an HOA. The HOA recently dealt with some major roof repairs across all six units (which is to say, one of the neighbors spent an awful lot of time on the phone to make it all happen). For high-rise condos, this sort of thing is even more important, to pay for major mechanical upgrades and so forth.

As such, I'll stick with my assertion that a HOA is really just another smaller form of government. And all of the problems that can happen with an HOA (e.g., people who just get off controlling their neighbors) can also happen in larger governmental bodies.

Now, if you treated HOAs as nothing more or less than local governmental bodies, that could lead to some interesting fall-out, i.e., state regulation of what a HOA can and cannot regulate, how it must deal with elections, and so forth. I believe, for example, that New York has extensive regulations along these lines for how co-op boards are managed.

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Homeowners' Association - 30/10/2007 18:02

OK, I’ll give you the governmental analogy.

So far I’ve only had dealings with the “Iraq” homeowner’s associations.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Homeowners' Association - 30/10/2007 18:23

Yeah, with townhomes, you're pretty much guaranteed an HOA, because there's not much other way to tell people that they need to fix their roof in order to prevent water from coming into your house. And other similar things that have to do with sharing the same building.

How do the British deal with this sort of thing in regards to, uh, terraces(?)?

Posted by: peter

Re: Homeowners' Association - 30/10/2007 19:45

Quote:
Yeah, with townhomes, you're pretty much guaranteed an HOA, because there's not much other way to tell people that they need to fix their roof in order to prevent water from coming into your house. And other similar things that have to do with sharing the same building.

How do the British deal with this sort of thing in regards to, uh, terraces(?)?

My house is a terrace, which, just in case there's any ambiguity, means that it has shared walls with the houses to the left and to the right, but I own it from top-to-bottom and from front-to-back. There is no HOA, nor anything like it, and I'm pretty sure there are no special deed conditions either. I'm not sure what would happen to the neighbours if I decided to knock the house down: even assuming I left the shared walls, next door isn't quite self-contained as there's no proper wall between the attic spaces. Probably they'd just sue me for damaging their property, to the extent that knocking my house down damaged their property too (there are places round here where an end-of-terrace got knocked down, and the next house had to have great big tie rods bolted through the entire building to stop it leaning over).

Having said that, one reason I couldn't just decide to knock the house down and build something completely different, is that it's in a conservation area: this is a council-mediated thing where a particular area of town is judged to be worth keeping in its "authentic" state (it's a bit like a "lite" version of being a listed building). This has some of the same effect as a HOA: the council planning department can veto proposed modifications (extensions etc.) that are "out of keeping" with the authentic 1880s ambiance. In theory even such things as replacement windows and rooftop TV aerials are covered, but in practice only really major changes get vetoed. However, relatively few UK houses are in conservation areas; it's certainly not correlated with being terraced or not.

Peter

Posted by: andy

Re: Homeowners' Association - 30/10/2007 21:12

Then of course you have all the Party Wall regulations and act.

http://www.diydata.com/planning/party_wall_act/party_wall_act.php

Posted by: petteri

Re: Homeowners' Association - 30/10/2007 21:46

Quote:
Then of course you have all the Party Wall regulations and act.

http://www.diydata.com/planning/party_wall_act/party_wall_act.php

Meh, I though this had to do with a party!

Posted by: mlord

Re: Homeowners' Association - 30/10/2007 21:54

Quote:
The HOA recently dealt with some major roof repairs across all six units

HOA fees for two years: $150 * 12 * 2 = $3600.

Current cost of re-shingling the roof once every 20 years: $3400.

Mmm..

Posted by: AndrewT

Re: Homeowners' Association - 30/10/2007 22:42

Quote:
Current cost of re-shingling the roof once every 20 years: $3400.

Am I right in assuming that the use of exterior building materials such as ash felt and wood are, by and large, for economic reasons? Even if the home-owner doesn't plan on staying in the property for 20+years, the resale price will take into account the condition of the degraded roof (or 'siding' for that matter). What is the reason for building with something so "short-term", concrete tiles would be a better bet, surely? Perhaps asking the structure to bear the additional weight is a cost factor here?

Posted by: mlord

Re: Homeowners' Association - 31/10/2007 01:35

Quote:

Am I right in assuming that the use of exterior building materials such as ash felt and wood are, by and large, for economic reasons? Even if the home-owner doesn't plan on staying in the property for 20+years, the resale price will take into account the condition of the degraded roof (or 'siding' for that matter). What is the reason for building with something so "short-term", concrete tiles would be a better bet, surely? Perhaps asking the structure to bear the additional weight is a cost factor here?

House prices are generally based on (1) location, (2) location, and (3) location. And sometimes on the yearly taxes, square footage, proximity to schools and transit, and acreage of property. Roof condition is seldom a factor, unless the shingles are visibly curling and broken.

I'm being pessimistic on both the HOA fees, and the roof lifetime. Our particular house here (no such thing as HOA around here, either!) has the cheapest variety of asphalt roof shingles. They were 10 years old when we bought the house, and that was 20 years ago. I might replace them (finally) next summer, after 31 years or so.

The weight of heavier materials should not be an issue -- our winter snow/ice loads far exceed that. But the brown curvy tile roofing that is common in hot climates is not suitable for general use here. The wet freeze/thaw winters would crumble it to dust in a year or three.

I don't know anything about cement roofing, other than the curvy tile stuff.

Slate material is not readily available here, so it is not often seen or used.

The better alternatives here, are sheet metal roofing (should last 30-50 years), metal shingles (they exist, but are hard to find), or perhaps plastic roof tiles (relatively new here). There are also better grades of asphalt shingles that claim 40 year lifespans, and are priced perhaps 3X the 20 year shingles.

Cheers

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Homeowners' Association - 31/10/2007 17:26

Quote:
House prices are generally based on (1) location, (2) location, and (3) location.

That's kind of the point I was trying to make. The value of the "nice" house's location has decreased significantly since the "Clampetts" moved in next door. The owner has suffered a monetary loss due to actions of a third party, and he has no recourse under local laws (this is Alaska, after all, where independence sometimes runs amok) to obtain alleviation or compensation.

tanstaafl.

Posted by: peter

Re: Homeowners' Association - 31/10/2007 17:42

Quote:
That's kind of the point I was trying to make. The value of the "nice" house's location has decreased significantly since the "Clampetts" moved in next door. The owner has suffered a monetary loss due to actions of a third party, and he has no recourse under local laws (this is Alaska, after all, where independence sometimes runs amok) to obtain alleviation or compensation.

Right, but that's IMO still no grounds to restrict the Clampetts' freedom of action. If Madonna happens to bring a new single out the same week Britney does, Britney suffers a monetary loss (or, at least, less monetary gain), but it's not right to restrict Madonna's freedom of action on that basis alone. House-buying for monetary gain, like all speculation, is gambling. If the Clampetts' neighbour genuinely didn't realise that, then perhaps McMansions, in line with other investments, should have one of those "The value of this property may go down as well as up" disclaimers shrinkwrapped across the front door.

There are, after all, probably still places in both the US and the UK where (sadly) house prices would go down if a black family moved in next door. Loss of house value alone cannot be a legally actionable event, chaos would ensue.

Peter

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Homeowners' Association - 31/10/2007 19:59

Quote:
There are, after all, probably still places in both the US and the UK where (sadly) house prices would go down if a black family moved in next door. Loss of house value alone cannot be a legally actionable event, chaos would ensue.

Well said, Peter. In my heart I'm sure you're wrong, but you state your case so elegantly that I am at a loss to refute it.

There must be a line somewhere that even you wouldn't cross. OK, a messy yard doesn't cross it. How about a situation where the Clampetts decide that it is too expensive to replace their septic system and let raw sewage stand in execrable pools on their property? Maybe they want to start up a metal stamping operation, keeping everybody awake in a quarter mile radius? No, these are weak examples, because in the first the health authorities would step in, and the second would run afoul of zoning regulations pertaining to businesses in a residential area, and not have anything to do with preserving the quality of the neighborhood.

I'm sure, however, that there must be some circumstance, even though confined physically to the "offenders' " property, that would merit preventative action on the part of some authority or other. Or, maybe not. Is this just a small expansion of the "...window blinds the wrong color" scenario that started this thread?

tanstaafl.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Homeowners' Association - 31/10/2007 20:09

Quote:
Maybe they want to start up a metal stamping operation, keeping everybody awake in a quarter mile radius? No, these are weak examples, because ... [it] would run afoul of zoning regulations pertaining to businesses in a residential area, and not have anything to do with preserving the quality of the neighborhood.

What if they decided to take up metal stamping as a hobby? Or they had a garage band that played into the early morning? These are covered (in my jurisdiction) by noise ordinances that are city law, not HOA restrictions. There are things that are nearly universally frowned upon, and most of those are taken care of in law, in my experience. Things that you personally object to: tough. This works both ways, though. Some people work at night and would be fine with the garage band at 2AM, but really hate it when they're playing at 11AM.

Unfortunately, if some significant minority objects, then that reduces the demand for your property. Again, tough. I suppose you could sue, as you can sue for anything, but I don't know if you'd succeed. It's not totally ridiculous, even if I personally find it to be so.

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Homeowners' Association - 20/04/2008 04:22

Quote:

I'm sure, however, that there must be some circumstance, even though confined physically to the "offenders' " property, that would merit preventative action on the part of some authority or other. Or, maybe not. Is this just a small expansion of the "...window blinds the wrong color" scenario that started this thread?

OK, so I'm beating a dead horse here, bringing up an old thread. But I have an example that pretty much defines the point I am trying to make.

My house is tucked way back in the trees, off the road. I share a common property line with neighbors who are adjacent to the road. After I lived in my house for 15 or 20 years, my neighbors moved away and new people moved in... with the Hell Hounds.

The Hell Hounds are four incredibly stupid beagles who have nothing to do with their lives except bark at any change in their environment. The noise is physically painful if I am close (<20 feet) to them. If I turn the light on in my kitchen or crack open a door that will set them off, and that is from 70 feet away. God help me if I want to walk down my driveway -- I will be aurally assaulted, non-stop until I am at least half a block away from the edge of their property.

OK, it's annoying. But it's more than that. I figure that those fscking beagles have cost me somewhere between thirty and fifty thousand dollars. My house is for sale, and at least two people declined because of the beagles. I finally received an offer last week -- for $70,000 less than my original asking price. I'm going to take it.

I was supposed to be retired and in Mexico nearly a year ago, and because I am keeping two households (I'm working in Alaska, my wife is working in California) and because the real estate market has declined sharply (can you say: "collapsed", and we're seeing just the beginning of the fiscal train wreck) and because Alaska and California expenses are vastly greater than they would have been in Mexico... I figure I am somewhere around $110,000 worse off than I would have been had I been proactive and fed those beagles a nice bowl of anti-freeze the day I put my place up for sale.

I have a short video clip of the Hell Hounds, but it still runs about 11 MB which I think is too big to post here. If anybody would like to host it for me... ??

Do I sound bitter?

tanstaafl.

Posted by: Dignan

Re: Homeowners' Association - 20/04/2008 17:36

I'll gladly host it.

Posted by: DWallach

Re: Homeowners' Association - 20/04/2008 18:44

YouTube for the Hell Hounds.

I had an evil idea today. If the hounds annoy you, I'll bet they also annoy their owners, particularly if they bark at night or during prime-time television. The trick is that you can choose to get the dogs attention, including late at night.

"Yeah, I just feel the need to stretch my legs at 3am. I don't really understand what's up with those dogs."

Posted by: jimhogan

Re: Homeowners' Association - 20/04/2008 18:59

Originally Posted By: DWallach

....
"Yeah, I just feel the need to stretch my legs at 3am. I don't really understand what's up with those dogs."

Or an ANDEV -- Autonomous Nocturnal Dog-Exciting Vehicle.

Posted by: gbeer

Re: Homeowners' Association - 20/04/2008 21:47

Doubt it'll do much good. The neighbors are most likely inured to the noise.

edit: I do like the idea of getting the dogs used to company.

Posted by: DWallach

Re: Homeowners' Association - 21/04/2008 00:27

Originally Posted By: jimhogan

Or an ANDEV -- Autonomous Nocturnal Dog-Exciting Vehicle.

I'll bet you could program a Roomba to do that...

Posted by: Dignan

Re: Homeowners' Association - 21/04/2008 00:41

Here's the video. Doug wanted me to stress that the audio is not as loud as it should be (probably the camera adjusting for the horrible noise). I think it still gets the point across, though...

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Homeowners' Association - 21/04/2008 00:49

Originally Posted By: DWallach

They keep the dogs inside at night. (Alaska. Cold.)

I have thought about putting their phone number on speed dial, and then when the Hell Hounds are loose, walk up to the fence, dial them and hold the phone right to the dogs' noses.

I have thought about getting a really loud ultrasonic dog whistle, and whenever the dogs are inside blowing the whistle and see if I can set them off.

I have thought about getting one of those compressed air boat horns and matching the dogs decibel for decibel.

However, it looks like I now have an agreement to sell my house, for less than 1/3 of what it would cost to buy the property and build the exact same house today. So I'll let the new owners deal with it. And yes, I did mention the Hell Hounds in the pre-sale disclosure statement.

tanstaafl.

Posted by: Dignan

Re: Homeowners' Association - 21/04/2008 00:51

I love the dog whistle idea. I'm sure it would work.

Posted by: LittleBlueThing

Re: Homeowners' Association - 21/04/2008 07:17

Offer them $5000 to keep the dogs quiet when people come to view the house.

Annoying but you both win...

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Homeowners' Association - 21/04/2008 16:52

Jimhogan started a parallel thread on dogbarkings, to which I responded. Check my response there.

Posted by: gbeer

Re: Homeowners' Association - 22/04/2008 01:20

Would this be a positive or negative method of dealing with the situation.

Posted by: lectric

Re: Homeowners' Association - 22/04/2008 01:55

Positive. As would putting collars that emit the same noise when the dog barks more than once. The noise distracts them from what they're barking at. After a few months, they are trained not to bark all the time. The citronella ones work as well, but I've never used them. I didn't want to smell citronella all the time. I would say no shock collars, unless you try them on yourself first. After that, you wouldn't dare put one on a dog.

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Homeowners' Association - 22/04/2008 18:34

After over a year on the market I just sold my house for $30K under appraised value and $10k under tax assessed value.

No dogs to blame.

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Homeowners' Association - 22/04/2008 20:41

Originally Posted By: Redrum

After over a year on the market I just sold my house for $30K under appraised value and $10k under tax assessed value.

No dogs to blame.

Yeah... the housing market just stinks if you're selling.

Posted by: msaeger

Re: Homeowners' Association - 23/04/2008 00:29

I guess it was a bad appraisal then ?

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Homeowners' Association - 23/04/2008 00:48

Quote:

I guess it was a bad appraisal then ?

No. The situation is a bit more complex than that.

The original appraisal/asking price was a bit optimistic, but do-able. Then the market went soft and houses in the $300K+ range simply stopped selling here. With 20/20 hindsight, I should have quickly dropped the price by about $30K which would have been a true fire-sale at the time and gotten out of it. I'd have been better off bottom-line speaking.

To give you an idea of what I sold this house for... replacement construction cost for buying the land and building this exact house (not that anyone would -- it's an older house with a dated floor plan) would be just about half a million dollars MORE than I sold it for. The house is very well built and energy efficient -- I have to show people the fuel bills before they believe how little heating oil my computer-controlled $20K heating system uses -- and has had at least $40,000 worth of renovation and updates in the last three years. Four bedrooms, three baths, 3500+ square feet (including the garage) plus an additional 770 square foot detached two car garage plus workshop, 1.2 acre lot with fantastic view of the Alaska Range and Tanana Valley, and except for the Hell Hound house complete privacy.

Construction costs in Fairbanks are currently around $200/square foot. I sold for considerably under $300K. Do the math.

tanstaafl.

Posted by: msaeger

Re: Homeowners' Association - 23/04/2008 01:40

The tax appraisal on my house is about 20K less than it cost to build and the bank appraisal was about 80K more so how much is it worth ? I don't have any experience selling but I figured the real value is how much I get when I sell. (which I have no plans to do anytime soon)I think the appraisers pull these numbers out of their butt anyway. My house is a 1.5 story and they valued it for more than a larger 1.5 story on the same street built one year earlier.

Posted by: Shonky

Re: Homeowners' Association - 23/04/2008 07:04

Regardless of what people say something is "worth", what it comes down to is simple IMO:

"It's worth what someone is willing to pay".

End of story. Property market here (Australia) is still at a high. We are still in quite a good position at the moment - fortunately the US sub prime hasn't affected us too much although inflation is starting to get a little out of hand.

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Homeowners' Association - 23/04/2008 17:49

Quote:

Regardless of what people say something is "worth", what it comes down to is simple IMO:

"It's worth what someone is willing to pay".

Absolutely, I agree completely.

My complaint is that there is so little correlation between cost and "worth". You could not build my house today for less than three times what I sold it for.

Market forces today (and, in my opinion for quite some time into the future) are dictating an unfair disparity between cost and worth.

tanstaafl.

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Homeowners' Association - 23/04/2008 18:30

Originally Posted By: msaeger

I guess it was a bad appraisal then ?

I'm sure the tax man will disagree and still tax me on $10k more than what it sold for. I have to pay $2k in property taxes at closing.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Homeowners' Association - 23/04/2008 18:56

Here in Wake County, NC, you can appeal your tax valuation. I don't know that that is common, but I wouldn't be surprised. It's probably too late for you to do that now, though.

Posted by: DWallach

Re: Homeowners' Association - 23/04/2008 19:36

For years, I've used a service that protests my property taxes for me. Every year, the city would jack up my property valuation, they'd protest it back to where it used to be, and I'd pay them half of the delta. (They only charge you half of your savings in the first year. Everything after that is gravy. In real dollars, they typically managed to reduce my tax bill by $300 every year from the initial appraisal, and I'd pay them $150 every year in commission.)

What I like about this is that their incentives are aligned with mine. The more money they save me, the more I pay them. Conversely, if they don't think it's financially worthwhile to protest my property taxes, then they won't bother, and I pay them nothing. (It's not that I couldn't do it myself, but it's awfully nice to let somebody else deal with the problem.)

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Homeowners' Association - 23/04/2008 19:38

This post is worthless without links.

Posted by: msaeger

Re: Homeowners' Association - 23/04/2008 20:46

I did that the first year on my house because they didn't even have the right type of house so I complained and they dropped the value by 100K dollars.

Posted by: Dignan

Re: Homeowners' Association - 23/04/2008 21:13

Originally Posted By: msaeger

The tax appraisal on my house is about 20K less than it cost to build and the bank appraisal was about 80K more so how much is it worth ?

I think they use a warehouse full of monkeys to asses properties around here. My parents' house, which they just got a buyer for yesterday, had a fun tax assessment recently. Basically, last year the assessment gave them a certain value for their house. First of all, this assessment didn't include the pool that was put in 20 years ago, or an entire additional bedroom and bathroom.

But here's the fun part. Last year, they assessed that the property was about 2/3 the total value, and the house was 1/3. This year the property lost a couple thousand in value, but now they'd assessed that the property was worth 1/3 of the total, and the house was 2/3.

WTF?

Apparently this was the case for everyone in town, and possibly the county.

It seems enough people thought this was stupid (especially since anyone who lives in this area knows that the land is far more valuable than any house you can put on top of it), and a couple months later they sent out new appraisals reversing the values once more.

Posted by: matthew_k

Re: Homeowners' Association - 23/04/2008 21:58

Quote:

But here's the fun part. Last year, they assessed that the property was about 2/3 the total value, and the house was 1/3. This year the property lost a couple thousand in value, but now they'd assessed that the property was worth 1/3 of the total, and the house was 2/3.

WTF?

Well, IANACPA, but it would seem like they were doing you a big favor. You can depreciate the building over X number of years, but you can't depreciate the land. Depreciation shields income from income tax, and since it's your home, you don't have to pay capital gains on quite a bit of it if you do sell.

Matthew

Posted by: Dignan

Re: Homeowners' Association - 23/04/2008 22:58

I suppose so, but I have to think it's a fairly big issue for some people in the area, who have 50 year old ranchers sitting on million dollar plots.

Posted by: DWallach

Re: Homeowners' Association - 24/04/2008 11:40

Bitt wants links. Unless you live in Houston or the handful of other places they do business, it won't do you much good, but the firm I use is O'Connor and Associates. Interestingly, these guys state up front that they take half of your savings as their contingency fee. I did a bunch of web surfing to see if I could locate competition for them. Several other local firms offer similar services, but none of them come right out and state their fees.

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Homeowners' Association - 24/04/2008 15:55

Quote:

I think they use a warehouse full of monkeys to asses properties around here.

Understand that there are two types of assessment: The one the local government uses for tax purposes; and the one the real estate agent uses for selling the property.

Typically the tax assessment is less, sometimes considerably less, than the appraised value that would be used in selling the home. The tax assessment will be based more on what the taxing authority needs to run its operations than on the actual sale value of the home. If the local government decides they need more money (that could never, happen, right?) they will go out and re-assess the properties at a high enough valuation to bring in the revenue they want because often their percentage tax rate is capped by local ordinance. Fairness dictates that they be consistent, that is if they are assessing your home at 80% (or 150%) of what it might reasonably sell for, then they must apply the same standards to all the other homes in the taxable area.

Where I live, the taxing assessment generally runs at about 90% of what people get when they actually sell, and everybody knows that the assessed valuation for tax purposes only pertains to the asking price for the house as a comparative ratio.

tanstaafl.

Posted by: Redrum

Re: Homeowners' Association - 24/04/2008 16:20

It WAS 80% for my house.Not anymore.

Homeowners' Association