Land Use Regulations on your own property.

Cardinal said:

I would want to buy property free of the regulations that determine what mailbox, color grass and trees I'm allowed to have. I've seen neighborhoods with those sorts of HOA regulations and they look like a dystopian nightmare. Somewhere out there probably are HOA rules that determine what kind of dog you can own and the color of your kids' hair.

That said, it's a very fine line between abuse of regulations to no HOA regulations at all that result in your neighbor deciding to keep his '83 Plymouth Voyager on cinder blocks in the front yard.

Click to expand...

HOA rules, however, are not government regulations, think of them as private party (aka HOA members) zoning rules. There will never be a state or local official enforcing a HOA rule, the members will have to sue each other to enforce them.

To your second point regarding the fine line in zoning... to me that is the beauty of them because by and large they are decided locally for and by the communities they apply to.

Winchester said:

HOA rules, however, are not government regulations, think of them as private party (aka HOA members) zoning rules. There will never be a state or local official enforcing a HOA rule, the members will have to sue each other to enforce them.

To your second point regarding the fine line in zoning... to me that is the beauty of them because by and large they are decided locally for and by the communities they apply to.

Click to expand...

There are in fact teeth to those rules, else what's the point in making those rules in the first place? Also, who makes those rules are whoever is put onto the HOA board in the first place, that can be basically everybody with a Napolean complex on your street.

Lane's a North Carolina man who's caught up in a dispute with his HOA because he planted some pansies in a community common area. He "felt the flowers would spruce up the park, which he viewed as unsightly and unkempt," reports the Huntersville Herald. For committing his act of botanical goodwill, the Gilead Ridge Homeowners Association fined him. Then, when he refused to pay, the HOA placed a lien on his house. In the interest of avoiding foreclosure, Lane paid the fine—but he's now suing the HOA for $800,000 for abuse of process and other things. He's also founded a statewide coalition to help other homeowners in his state fight back against their HOAs.

Don't think Lane's HOA "couldn't possibly" take his house just because he didn't pay their fines, because they totally could: "Before now, associations rarely, if ever, foreclosed on homeowners," reports AP. "But today, encouraged by a new industry of lawyers and consultants, boards are increasingly foreclosing on people 60 days past due on association fees."

Click to expand...

The Horror of Homeowners' Associations

The larger article is more detailed, and is really just one example of numerous anecdotal experiences my family has dealt with.

Cardinal said:

There are in fact teeth to those rules, else what's the point in making those rules in the first place? Also, who makes those rules are whoever is put onto the HOA board in the first place, that can be basically everybody with a Napolean complex on your street.


The Horror of Homeowners' Associations

The larger article is more detailed, and is really just one example of numerous anecdotal experiences my family has dealt with.

Click to expand...

Of course there are teeth to them, members sign a legal contract agreeing to abide by the rules when buying property within the HOA. The main difference between HOA rules and Zoning Laws is who enforces them. Don't like the rules of the HOA, don't buy property in one. Personally I'd go insane dealing with the busybodies that tend to end up in HOA leadership.

Winchester said:

Of course there are teeth to them, members sign a legal contract agreeing to abide by the rules when buying property within the HOA. Don't like the rules of the HOA, don't buy property in one. Personally I'd go insane dealing with the busybodies that tend to end up in HOA leadership.

Click to expand...

And there you have your conundrum. No HOA = your neighbor potentially building a race track in his back yard (yes, that happened, and his neighbors could do nothing about it).

Cardinal said:

And there you have your conundrum. No HOA = your neighbor potentially building a race track in his back yard (yes, that happened, and his neighbors could do nothing about it).

Click to expand...

There are always balancing acts with zoning/hoa rules, not everyone will be happy, but there usually is a compromise that most can live with.

Cardinal said:

And there you have your conundrum. No HOA = your neighbor potentially building a race track in his back yard (yes, that happened, and his neighbors could do nothing about it).

Click to expand...

Good, its called the "land of the free". Not the "land of the mad about something, anything".

Best thing is to know the law. I had a neighbor really hated my lifted Suburban. Called code. Code said you could not have a truck in your drive that didn't fit in your garage.
Told him I did not own a truck. He about lost his mind. So I went inside, got the title and clearly said "SW". For station wagon. So I lifted it higher, but on bigger tires, and left it muddy and parked it right out by the front so the neighbor could see it all day every day.

Redress said:

No, it is Alaskan codes. And it is irrelevant to my point either way since whether the codes, laws and restrictions come from localities, the state or the federal government does not matter, only that they exist. ALaska, like every other state, has significant zoning, code, and other land use regulations. You just cannot get away from such laws, nor should you.

Click to expand...

That's entirely false. What you posted were the international codes that some Alaska cities and towns have adopted. Beyond city limits they do not apply. There is a whole of land available beyond city/town borders. There are no state zoning/building codes. Have you ever even been there?

This consideration played a part in our decision to buy where we did. On most of the Gulf Islands in BC they deal with a municipal-level entity called the Islands Trust but here, Texada Island, there's no such thing. I have to have an electrical inspection done on the house I'm building- and that suits me- and if I put in a septic field it needs to be inspected and meet standards but that's it as far as regulation is concerned. I like it. So do my neighbours.

CRUE CAB said:

Good, its called the "land of the free". Not the "land of the mad about something, anything".

Click to expand...

Oh, believe me, this is the land of the mad about something for everyone.

Cardinal said:

Oh, believe me, this is the land of the mad about something for everyone.

Click to expand...

Contrary to believe here, I am hardly ever mad. Or even mildly upset.

ronpaulvoter said:

Suppose you want to buy or build a home in a rural area. How important is it to you to get property that is free of land use or building regulations?

Click to expand...

When I bought mine which is in the country, being free of any type of association and as you put it land use or building regulations was pretty much at the top of my list. I figure it is my property and I should do what ever what I want on it. If I can't, there is no sense in me owning it. This is also one of the reasons why I live in the country instead of town. I will not be impeded in doing what I want.

I wanted to build a patio, porch combination on the house I owned in town. When I was told I had to get permits and licences and have it inspected after I built it. I said seeya. I sold it and moved.

joko104 said:

Yes, the tract homes of suburban are perfect. The diversity of styles and artist natures of older urban areas suck. Those areas should be required to standardize or bulldoze it all down. NO ORGINALITY OR INDIVIDUAL CREATIVE. It's offense. It is the job of the majority via government to require conformity to set a universal standard of living and appearances. Liberals want universally enforced standards to force compliance to the will of the majority. No surprise.

The zoning nazis who declare that "property values" are a constitutional right, for which they can tell you the color to paint your house and what plants you must have and may not have in your yard.

Really, there should be a universal standard how people dress too to maintain the quality of the appearance of the community.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are ranting about but nobody said anything about killing originality nor creativity. Perhaps the barn is calling and wants its strawman back.

ronpaulvoter said:

Suppose you want to buy or build a home in a rural area. How important is it to you to get property that is free of land use or building regulations?

Click to expand...

Thats a double edged sword. On one hand one wants to be able to do whatever they want on their own property. On the other hand some people do some pretty stupid stuff on their own property that would endanger other properties and lives..

I dont know if you have been to Mexico, but they give a good example why building codes are needed in modern society.

Understand that in the places where there are building codes and you choose not to follow them (allowed in certain places, used to be called class K housing in Nevada County) you will never be able to get insurance. Generally insurance is required for a home loan. So it will be extremely hard to sell.

CRUE CAB said:

I really wonder about the stability of the 30 that love restrictions.

Click to expand...

I wonder about the stability of people who think you should be able to operate an unshielded nuclear reactor on your property.

Deuce said:

I wonder about the stability of people who think you should be able to operate an unshielded nuclear reactor on your property.

Click to expand...

Oh, extremism. Nice. How about I just want to change my oil without someone calling the HOA or put whatever drapes up I want?

joko104 said:

Such a pretty picture. But in many regions government restrictions and regulations on how small scale farmers use their land and don't use it has forced them out and instead you should post a picture of a huge corporate "farm." The age of the barn in your picture tells the story. YOUR side basically has outlawed that farm. So YOU really should show a picture of rows of metal sheds with migrant workers working the for the corporation.

Click to expand...

Thats funny you should say that, being that farm is in Ponca, AR, technically on National Park land. Its a private family farm on National Park. There are several such farms there.

Moreover, thats a ridiculous argument you are making. Any environmental regulations applicable to a small farm are also applicable to a very large corporate farm as well. The reason why there are less small farms is simply capitalism at work. Large farms are more efficient, and thus buy out smaller farmers.

joko104 said:

Yes, the tract homes of suburban are perfect. The diversity of styles and artist natures of older urban areas suck. Those areas should be required to standardize or bulldoze it all down. NO ORGINALITY OR INDIVIDUAL CREATIVE. It's offense. It is the job of the majority via government to require conformity to set a universal standard of living and appearances. Liberals want universally enforced standards to force compliance to the will of the majority. No surprise.

The zoning nazis who declare that "property values" are a constitutional right, for which they can tell you the color to paint your house and what plants you must have and may not have in your yard.

Really, there should be a universal standard how people dress too to maintain the quality of the appearance of the community.

Click to expand...

Its liberals that are behind POAs???? I suggest you look at the voting records of those cookie cutter McMansion suburbs. I doubt even 1 in 10 such communities vote Democrat. Liberals live in the cities themselves, and the inner ring burbs, very, very few cookie cutter developments there and hardly ever any POAs.

Winchester said:

Not at all. If we did not have laws on the books regarding the individual right to buy and hold a deed to land combined with a government strong enough to enforce the individuals right to use the land, it would be a free for all. The same people who deride government and regulations wouldn't have **** w/o them.

Click to expand...

What you claim makes a point doesn't. In fact, it is fundamental contradiction to claim because "the government" protects people's land, therefore really it's the government's land; therefore meaning the government isn't protecting anyone's land but it's own.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Its liberals that are behind POAs???? I suggest you look at the voting records of those cookie cutter McMansion suburbs. I doubt even 1 in 10 such communities vote Democrat. Liberals live in the cities themselves, and the inner ring burbs, very, very few cookie cutter developments there and hardly ever any POAs.

Click to expand...

Absolutely it is the further right and further left who both want to control what isn't theirs. For Suburbanites the chant is "property values!" like it is in the BIll of RIghts and one of the commandments of the Bible. If anyone hurts their property value that person is a criminal.

For the left, it is about controlling aesthetics - and often property values too.

It is destructive. I could give many examples from here and around the country. Elsewhere? Madison Wisconsin, ubber liberal. There are blocks and blocks of big 2 and 3 story houses around the Capital and University - very old homes of the once very wealthy and still high dollar real estate. All are wooden homes. Fairly ordinarly looking other than BIG.

Except the are NOT wood homes. They are brick and stone homes. However, property taxes are SO high on brick and stone homes that people covered them over with wood and made them look cheaper to drive down their value to reduce property taxes.

Around here, many people will NOT maintain the exterior of their homes and want the fence half falling down, paint bad, driveway cracked and the rest to keep their property taxes from not increasing too much. Every year, property tax people not only do Google earth looking at every property, but also WALK everyone's yards and search for construction permits, any permits for electrical work, to find anyway to up the valuation on the home. The majority here are on fixed income and are seniors, so they need to make the outside of their house looked old and worn, and dare not do ANYTHING outside to give any reason to raise their home aprraisal.

Between the general decline in real estate in Florida and people deliberately doing no improvements, as the value of property declines further and further, the tax appraisal and collection office has become increasingly desperate. They all but set out a SWAT team when it was reported taht someone was claiming homestead exemption was instead leasing out the house.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Thats funny you should say that, being that farm is in Ponca, AR, technically on National Park land. Its a private family farm on National Park. There are several such farms there.

Moreover, thats a ridiculous argument you are making. Any environmental regulations applicable to a small farm are also applicable to a very large corporate farm as well. The reason why there are less small farms is simply capitalism at work. Large farms are more efficient, and thus buy out smaller farmers.

Click to expand...

Ah, so the government has already seized that farm and now are leasing their own land back to the farmers.

OK, we've heard your sales pitch for corporate takeovers.

clownboy said:

Alaska is what you're looking for. They have plenty of land that has no taxes, plenty of resources and absolutely no building codes or regs.

Click to expand...

Not true, especially if you want to be connected to a road system. Wetlands mitigation is a b****, among others. There are indeed property taxes and building codes and regulations. Not absolutely everywhere but most places all but the most independent,resourceful and industrious would consider building.

- Rural AK property owner

The longer I'm in popular American culture, see the media and such as read this forum, the more I find myself going to the right on all but some key social issues.

What I have learned is just how much contempt and borderline hatred those who see themselves as the enlightened left have for ordinary people. They don't care if someone works his whole life for their home for their old age and then loses it to new regulations. They spew incessant accusations at them calling the bigots and ignorant, when all they are doing it living their lives and trying to pay their bills at the end of the month.

The left doesn't help people. It tries to profit off the votes of minorities and poor people, tries to buy votes and tries to gain power. Little else. But I have also seen there isn't a niclek's difference between the elitists on the left and the elitists on the right. They both want exactly the same, but use opposite reasons for the same goals. Power. Control. Self declared superiority. Arrogance. Ego mania.

clownboy said:

That's entirely false. What you posted were the international codes that some Alaska cities and towns have adopted. Beyond city limits they do not apply. There is a whole of land available beyond city/town borders. There are no state zoning/building codes. Have you ever even been there?

Click to expand...

Alaska Building Codes

The building codes listed below apply as a mandatory minimum for all buildings except 1, 2, or 3 family dwellings, unless otherwise indicated.
Plans for all construction (except 1, 2, or 3 family dwellings) are reviewed at the state level except in the cities of Anchorage, Juneau, Fairbanks, Kenai, Seward, Kodiak, Sitka,and Soldotna. Plans for these cities should be submitted directly to the city.

Authorities Having Jurisdiction are those government officials who are the final authority on questions in a particular area (or jurisdiction).

Click to expand...

Lmao... what? How do you come up with these blatant lies on what is in the law and what isn't? Alaska has building codes for land that isn't within city limits. They're legislated by the state. It's actually cities which also have their own laws and ordinances. The state of Alaska does have laws regulating what is built how. To state otherwise is simply dishonest.