The unattributed Northridge HOA blog has this comment:
I'm going to be very interested in how the majority will handle the first realProblems contemplated include:
crisis that comes upon us all as a community. I figure that since
they have rejected the one solution that has been proposed, it
will fall to them to find the solution and provide the
leadership necessary.
Will some group of neighbors get so vexed by the condition of someReading between the lines I'm guessing there are a few homeowners letting their landscape fade, piling subjectively ugly amounts of random items in their yards , or maybe there are a few Darfur-related yards signs like the ones causing an HOA showdown in Boulder. And, they're in the majority and want to keep the meddling of a stereotypical HOA out. Pity, as the legal liability issues are compelling.
other neighbor's property that they will band together and sue that neighbor
under the legal and binding provisions of the contract know as the covenants?
The background to the vote is the "failure" of the developer of Northridge and the town to formally create an empowered HOA; there is now a legal limbo of an entity to handle enforcement and liability questions. In light of such limbo, the town is holding onto a couple hundred thousand dollars meant for Northridge neighborhood improvements.
This is a mess. Check out the PowerPoints from the meetings and the vote results on the Northridge website.
10 comments:
Northridge is the type of situation Doktorbombay was referring to in his other life as a homebuilder. The developer did not follow through on numerous commitments and left the Town of Erie better "educated" about how to deal with developers.
None of that has helped the residents of Northridge, but apparently not all of them perceive a huge problem.
When the weeds start growing around the entrance to the neighborhood, maybe then the perception will change. Maybe not.
No, Dan. What is really going on is that the Town of Erie is maintaining property that it thinks the subdivisions should be maintaining, included irrigation costs. It is costing them big bucks.
Cities and developments like HOAs for different reasons. Cities do because the homeowners pay their own way. Developers do to control the development until most of the homes are sold.
The biggest "battles" Indian Peaks has had is with the city and/or the development, not its members. Both have often avoided its responsibilites and commitments, even to this day.
My guess is IP residents spend around $2M a year on the commonly shared property. Where would Lafayette get that kind of money?
It's not about the signage or the weeds. The city used to violate those ordinances more than we do. The biggest problem in IP right now is the streets. Wonder why?
There is at least a perception that Northridge is a mess. The situation has been somewhat notorious since the Town and the developer got into the legal scuffle years ago. And, honestly, I think the background on why this happened is at least a fair representation of what Doktorbombay was talking about on another topic: Deliberately unanswered gaps in development applications leading to consequences down the line.
I haven't looked at the projected budget for the apparently-not-going-to-happen Northridge HOA board in any detail, but I would have to agree that the maintenance of HOA property by the Town has been driving this issue to the fore. It's about the signage and the weeds and everything else, which is to say that HOAs are clearly pushed in Lafayette as a way to defray burdens on the city budget.
It will be interesting to see what Erie does now. The Northridge folks who voted against probably figured why they should pay for something that get for free now.
The developers win big with HOAs since they control them for a while. This way they can prevent a property owner from creating an eye sore that could hurt the sales of new homes in the same neighborhood. It also allows the developer to install items with lower life cycles knowing the HOA will be around to repair or replace those items. Developers don't have to worry about operational costs so they can install cheaper stuff that will need to be replaced sooner.
As shown, cities rarely review what the deal was and is there compliance or not.
We seem to agree, Kerry, except that it's a gross generalization to say that Northridge proves that "rarely" do cities know what kind of deals they are making. Obviously, I agree that this happens, but not in every case.
And, in my estimation, there is sometimes a very conscious decision to allow the HOA to be used for early mutual advantage between the city and a developer if it can also be used for the city's continued and later advantage.
As to whether HOAs are generally good policy or not, are we even trying to come to a verdict? As head of one of the larger HOAs in Boulder County, I don't think you're proposing that HOAs are all bad, are you?
Cities only know what's in the ODP or PUD. I doubt they know what the content of the HOA covenants are. My experience is that HOAs don't know what's in the ODP or PUDs that commit their HOA. And the developer of IP didn't seem to know what was in either one. So that's my personal experience. I have a long list of screw ups, given 15 man years of experience doing this (without pay). I've had to challenge both when they tried to violate our covenants as well.
My point is that the publicity often revolves around signage and maintenance. But since the cities back away and the developer disappears, the HOA seems to be the only way for the members to protect their property values and keep some semblance of order. And they pay for the "priviledge".
The city is being sued by an HOA right now (not IP).
Nobody in the city government reviews and approves HOA covenants when a new neighborhood is developed?
In theory, the City can incorporate most physical development, design control aspects of an HOA into the PUD approval. How many instances this is actually accomplished I can't answer.
It is not, however, accurate, to claim that the City never reviews covenants. Again, on a case-by-case basis, the design controls and other administrative aspects of a HOA may be reviewed in the hearing process. In other cases, that level of detail may be covered at the staff level upon recording of the plat. And there are undoubtedly cases where no one paid any attention, and other cases where the HOA changed the rules sometime after receiving approval as a subdivision.
Even in the Northridge application, some amount of HOA information was obvious submitted for review. Whether it actually received sufficient review in that case or not is another question.
I can only speak to Indian Peaks when the Master HOA covenants were approved back in 1993. Since then there have been 13 subs approved. When the city tried to deal with affordable housing and the covenants with the developer at the Hedgerow, it did not understand it was violating the covenants.
As for PUDs and ODPs, the development never alluded to them when they managed the develop and ignored some of the content. Lay people don't even know what these are.
So in theory a lot may happen. But in practice, I have yet to see it since 1998 when I got involved.
Moore was or still is the prez of his HOA in Erie. So he may have gotten into their issues based on what he learned as well.
As they say in the computer business, it always works in Powerpoint.
Ok, back from vacation.
Ah, Homeowner’s Associations. First used to keep certain races out of neighborhoods, they’ve now morphed into mini-governments.
Developers like them because, like Kerry said, it keeps the development looking good until all units are sold. Also, keeps the developers out of court if a homeowner decides to exercise his/her individual rights and offend a neighbor. But, after all the units are sold, the HOA board has been turned over to residents, and certain responsibilities turned over to the local towns, the developers have no vested interest in what happens.
Cities and towns like them because it pushes some of the responsibility of government onto the local homeowners. Think there would be a pool in Arapahoe Ridge in Erie if there wasn’t an HOA? Or, how about the open space and/or parks in the new developments that are required by the city, but the HOAs have to maintain? In some parts of the country, HOAs have to maintain the streets as well. What a deal for the towns. I always thought property taxes were to provide for these things? How naïve I was. 4 states have set limits on this sort of thing, citing double taxation since HOA assess “dues”.
But, in the case of Northridge, where Erie failed to assure the existence of an HOA, everybody loses something, except the developer. The town loses the ability to make the HOA pay for certain maintenance/improvements. And, the homeowners lose the ability to act as a unified force when dealing with the town’s failings.
HOAs have increased in number only because cities require them in PUDs. If each homeowner had the option to participate, many would opt out, just like the vote in Northridge indicates. If, when buying a home, it was optional, a much higher percentage of people would chose not to participate.
The protection of property values that most people cite as the reason to have an HOA is as much of an illusion as our Homeland Security. Property values are not the reason HOAs exist today, but it’s the reason developers and cities will tell you they do.
Erie needs to admit it’s failings in the original development. They need to admit they failed to protect themselves and the homeowners. Then, they need to fulfill their obligations as a service provider to those property owners, instead of leaving them twisting in the wind.
Post a Comment