Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 6424
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by Jadagul » 19 Jun 2012, 18:55

fyodor wrote:
Jadagul wrote:
fyodor wrote:
thoreau wrote:Whether existing HOAs should be enforced is an uninteresting point to me. The contracts are there, they are (apparently valid), and if there's one thing we've learned on grylliade it's that bad shit goes down when I suggest that judges should rule differently than they usually do!

I'm more interested in whether we, as libertarians, should say that it is good to establish more communities governed by these sorts of contracts
I'd say the libertarian thing to say is that it's up to the people involved, not anyone else. (Except where violations of rights are concerned, and that's the whole question to begin with, so if you're not interested in that, why should I be interested in anything else you ask ostensibly in the name of libertarianism?)
I think this is rather precisely what we're disagreeing with. If "the libertarian position" is just about what the government should do, then yeah, you're right. But if libertarianism is about creating a way for people to live with minimal interference in how they live their lives, then we can have a conversation about whether HOAs give people more or less control over how they live their lives. Because the difference between an HOA and a government is pretty academic and doesn't really mean anything. I mean, if you renamed the HOA to be "a municipal government", what would really change?
If the "libertarian position" is not just about what the government should do, then why do you compare HOA's to governments to elucidate why they should be considered a problem for libertarians?

As to "libertarianism is about creating a way for people to live with minimal interference in how they live their lives", well, y'know, I'm not interested in "creating ways" for how other people should live their lives, and I don't think that's very libertarian, because I think that's a form of interference itself! I have also made abundantly clear on this thread that I don't ever want to live under an HOA myself and abhor the idea. So if the question here is whether HOA's are "good", then my answer would be no. But that doesn't mean I would want to restrict someone else from joining one. But then, the very idea of that raises the question of what government should do because that's the only way to restrict someone from joining an HOA, so we're kinda going in circles here....

I should say that I actually do think that libertarianism is first and foremost a philosophy of public policy. It's built on principles of human interaction that most people have little problem with as applied to most human interaction, but what's unique about libertarianism is that it applies those same principles to public policy as well. I've repeated many times in this forum that the sentiments that led me to libertarianism can also be used as a good guide for addressing issues of soft power, but I would still say libertarianism itself is about public policy. FWIW....

What are we disagreeing about again?
Because the point was that whether or not something is done by "the government" is silly, and irrelevant, and basically purely semantic. The question is whether a thing enriches people's ability to control their own lives, or weakens it. Whether the person so enriching is a government or a corporation or a HOA or a club or a band or an individual is really pretty irrelevant, if the consequences are the same. (We mostly criticize governments because their reach is wider, but that's an epiphenomenon).
JasonL wrote:
GinSlinger wrote:
Jadagul wrote: I think "justice" works better than "rights" (marginally--the English language actually isn't well suited for the kind of distinctions I really want to draw) because it makes it sound like rights are a thing that exists. And also that they're more than tools to accomplish something. Justice is really just a catchall term for "whatever we're trying to accomplish" and so is less...problematic? Because justice certainly exists, since we're trying to accomplish something, and whatever that is, that's justice. But I think maybe I can make my point better by abandoning this line of argument and resuming from within the main discussion going on here, so I'm going to do that, I think.
"The justice of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . ." Yeah, that doesn't work for me. How is "justice" any more real than "right"?
I'm not a natural rights guy, but if you have to pick a name for "principles we feel should be violated only under severe necessity and here's a bunch of hurdles you have to jump to stop your willy nilly ass from being all up in people's business", "rights" is every bit as good as "justice", and I'd say better. I think more people get what you mean by rights than get what you mean by justice, and it isn't close.
I think y'all have just illustrated why I don't like talking about rights as a moral/principled thing. I prefer justice because it doesn't fit in that sentence. I prefer justice because I don't think "principles we feel should be violated only under severe necessity etc" is actually a useful category. The questions are "what sort of world do we want to live in" and "what policies get us there"; trying to add additional side constraints on to the whole process is counterproductive. (Now, I think the sort of world I want to live in is one where any given actor does act under side constraints. I like institutions featuring strong individual rights. But that's because those institutions produce desirable outcomes, not because they protect people's rights.)

User avatar
GinSlinger
Posts: 3624
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:49
Location: Here today, gone tomorrow

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by GinSlinger » 19 Jun 2012, 19:05

Jadagul wrote: I think y'all have just illustrated why I don't like talking about rights as a moral/principled thing. I prefer justice because it doesn't fit in that sentence. I prefer justice because I don't think "principles we feel should be violated only under severe necessity etc" is actually a useful category. The questions are "what sort of world do we want to live in" and "what policies get us there"; trying to add additional side constraints on to the whole process is counterproductive. (Now, I think the sort of world I want to live in is one where any given actor does act under side constraints. I like institutions featuring strong individual rights. But that's because those institutions produce desirable outcomes, not because they protect people's rights.)
Um, how is that extendable? You say "we," but without a bright line that the average person will think should not be crossed regardless of the outcome (and I mean average in the sense of the median moreso than mean), don't you end up with Democracy?

What if: "We want to live in a world where there is no threat of losing our life in a terrorist attack" is met with "The policy that gets us there is random searches in public, and intrusions into all forms of personal communication"? We've pointed out in these parts that the most sure form of airline security is for us all to go naked. That's the policy to get us there. We don't pursue it because of "rights" and not out of immodesty, or else the pornoscanners wouldn't exist. Clearly hoi polloi is comfortable with denying suspected "terrorists" trials, and it seems to produce a "desirable outcome" so I take it you're down with that?

What is a desirable outcome? How is it determined? What makes you think strong individual "rights" (and I'm not sure why you used that there) is in anyway aligned with desirable outcomes?

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 21508
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by JasonL » 19 Jun 2012, 19:13

What sort of world do we want to live in isn't all that meaningful because at what cost and with what tradeoffs and who is the we and such all get wrapped up into that idea. I don't think you can aggregate values meaningfully into a single concept because doing so skirts the real balancing act you are trying to pull off. I'd rather have a set of value notions that we can lay out, then say "okay how do we want to weight these things". That makes one set of preferences explicit and analyzable in relation to another set of preferences.

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6807
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by fyodor » 19 Jun 2012, 19:14

Jadagul wrote:
Because the point was that whether or not something is done by "the government" is silly, and irrelevant, and basically purely semantic. The question is whether a thing enriches people's ability to control their own lives, or weakens it. Whether the person so enriching is a government or a corporation or a HOA or a club or a band or an individual is really pretty irrelevant, if the consequences are the same.
I certainly agree that the consequences are what matter, not who does them to you. (Though I wouldn't call who does them to you a matter of semantics!)

But the important thing is that the means to arriving at a situation cannot be divorced from a description of "the consequences".

If a TSA cop feels you up as an unavoidable condition of flying in an airport, that's hardly the same as your significant other feeling you up.

Now, that's an extreme example, but I really don't see how you can remove consent from the picture.

Now I'll concede the consent issue does not always provide bright lines (and I brought up the primary reason for that all by myself). But that doesn't mean there are no genuine distinctions to be made, either.

How about a stranger punching another stranger in a bar versus a sadist punching a masochist because they both agreed to it? See, no talk of government, and it doesn't even matter who these people are. In one case there was no consent, in the other there was. That's what I'm talking about.
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11343
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by Eric the .5b » 19 Jun 2012, 19:18

thoreau wrote:FWIW, I was fascinated by this long before I bought into an HOA community. I found a 2007 UO post on it:

http://highclearing.com/index.php/archi ... 08/15/6968
I guess my answer is that "you can always leave - or never enter" is a perfectly good response to angst about HOAs.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 24962
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by thoreau » 19 Jun 2012, 19:18

fyodor wrote:If a TSA cop feels you up as an unavoidable condition of flying in an airport, that's hardly the same as your significant other feeling you up.

Now, that's an extreme example, but I really don't see how you can remove consent from the picture.
Sure. And we've been questioning whether consent to HOA rules is as meaningful as, say, consent to elective surgery (to pick something at the extreme end of the consent continuum).
"Camacho would be better than Trump. He actually has goodwill towards the world, and he actually did seek out the assistance of the smartest man in the world."
--Fin Fang Foom

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6807
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by fyodor » 19 Jun 2012, 19:24

Jadagul wrote: I like institutions featuring strong individual rights. But that's because those institutions produce desirable outcomes, not because they protect people's rights.)
Weird. And it just so happens that the institutions that protect people's rights are the ones that produce the outcomes you desire? There's no relation, it's just coincidence? Or do you just not like wording that involves "rights"? Because it misleads people into thinking "rights" are "real"? What's so bad about that? (And let's remember that "real" is a relative term! A dream isn't real, but wait, if you really had a dream, the dream is real as a dream! Rights are not concrete, tangible things, but as concepts they're real enough! If most people don't have the smarts or haven't given the subject enough thought to articulate that distinction, does that matter to anything?)
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 6424
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by Jadagul » 19 Jun 2012, 20:06

GinSlinger wrote:
Jadagul wrote: I think y'all have just illustrated why I don't like talking about rights as a moral/principled thing. I prefer justice because it doesn't fit in that sentence. I prefer justice because I don't think "principles we feel should be violated only under severe necessity etc" is actually a useful category. The questions are "what sort of world do we want to live in" and "what policies get us there"; trying to add additional side constraints on to the whole process is counterproductive. (Now, I think the sort of world I want to live in is one where any given actor does act under side constraints. I like institutions featuring strong individual rights. But that's because those institutions produce desirable outcomes, not because they protect people's rights.)
Um, how is that extendable? You say "we," but without a bright line that the average person will think should not be crossed regardless of the outcome (and I mean average in the sense of the median moreso than mean), don't you end up with Democracy?

What if: "We want to live in a world where there is no threat of losing our life in a terrorist attack" is met with "The policy that gets us there is random searches in public, and intrusions into all forms of personal communication"? We've pointed out in these parts that the most sure form of airline security is for us all to go naked. That's the policy to get us there. We don't pursue it because of "rights" and not out of immodesty, or else the pornoscanners wouldn't exist. Clearly hoi polloi is comfortable with denying suspected "terrorists" trials, and it seems to produce a "desirable outcome" so I take it you're down with that?

What is a desirable outcome? How is it determined? What makes you think strong individual "rights" (and I'm not sure why you used that there) is in anyway aligned with desirable outcomes?
I mean, imagine the world in which there's no threat of losing your life in a terrorist attack. Really imagine what that world would be like. How many people would really prefer that world to the world today? I doubt it's very many. (It's possible I'm wrong. But that would be an argument for moving to that world).

I'm not saying that we should do "whatever people feel like doing on a whim." I'm saying that when one is arguing about how society should be structured, the goal is to build a society people want to live in, not to respect some arbitrary procedural protections. Now, it turns out that people like living in societies that have certain types of procedural protections--both in that they like those protections themselves (people value being able to engage in speech) and in that they like the results of those protections (people like living in rich developed countries, and therefore protected property rights are good). But we don't protect property rights to protect property rights; we protect them because protecting them produces a better world than not protecting them.
JasonL wrote:What sort of world do we want to live in isn't all that meaningful because at what cost and with what tradeoffs and who is the we and such all get wrapped up into that idea. I don't think you can aggregate values meaningfully into a single concept because doing so skirts the real balancing act you are trying to pull off. I'd rather have a set of value notions that we can lay out, then say "okay how do we want to weight these things". That makes one set of preferences explicit and analyzable in relation to another set of preferences.
I don't know that we disagree here, really. People have a whole bunch of different values. Any one person has a whole bunch of different values. In fact, most of us have so many values, and so poorly defined, that trying to explicitly lay them all out is pretty futile. The whole point of phrases like "what sort of world people want to live in", or, hell, "justice", is to sweep that under the rug a bit--whatever set of values people have, they have those values, and ultimately what happens is they value some state of affairs more highly than some other state of affairs, and thus we should prefer the first to the second. There's a shitload of tradeoffs in those valuing decisions, about which I'm not speaking explicitly right now.
fyodor wrote:
Jadagul wrote: I like institutions featuring strong individual rights. But that's because those institutions produce desirable outcomes, not because they protect people's rights.)
Weird. And it just so happens that the institutions that protect people's rights are the ones that produce the outcomes you desire? There's no relation, it's just coincidence? Or do you just not like wording that involves "rights"? Because it misleads people into thinking "rights" are "real"? What's so bad about that? (And let's remember that "real" is a relative term! A dream isn't real, but wait, if you really had a dream, the dream is real as a dream! Rights are not concrete, tangible things, but as concepts they're real enough! If most people don't have the smarts or haven't given the subject enough thought to articulate that distinction, does that matter to anything?)
Well, no. It just so happens that institutions produce outcomes I desire when they establish certain rights. And they produce outcomes we don't desire when they establish different sets of rights. We're in a bad habit of arguing about "whether X is a right," rather than "Is establishing a right to X a good idea or a bad idea?".

Like, the droit du seigneur is a real right. Which probably never existed in any actual legal institution. But it certainly it could be established in a legal institution. And then ensuring that the lord got to deflower all the young maidens would be "protecting his rights." That's just a bad right to establish, and a bad right to protect.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 24962
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by thoreau » 19 Jun 2012, 20:10

So, one important libertarian insight is that of Hayek, who talked about local knowledge. Jason, Ginslinger, and I think Highway (and probably others) have suggested that most HOAs and related arrangements might be much-improved if rules required some sort of periodic renewal or other process that involves the community and requires a significant quorum. No matter what you say about consent, a document photocopied from another development (and signed off by buyers who see it late in the game) does not really count as a product of culture or local knowledge. OTOH, if rules have sunset provisions or there's some other method for periodic reconsideration by the community, with a meaningful path to changing the rules (i.e. the threshold isn't so high that a few cranks can force everybody to stick with just 2 shades of white for the porch banister) then I think local knowledge is brought to bear. And then I have much less objection, because I suspect that (1) there will be fewer bullshit rules and (2) what rules there are will not feel like bullshit to most of the people living by them.
"Camacho would be better than Trump. He actually has goodwill towards the world, and he actually did seek out the assistance of the smartest man in the world."
--Fin Fang Foom

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17616
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 19 Jun 2012, 20:39

GinSlinger wrote:
D.A. Ridgely wrote:Well, Hell, Ginslinger, if you're going to go all reasonable and scholarly on me, I should acknowledge that my, um, notes are roughly 25 years away from me, albeit with an occasional glance at a note or case to refresh my memory or, as may well be the case, misremembering. Moreover, although for the life of me I still can't see how it's relevant to a contemporary discussion of legal personhood and property, let alone an ethical discussion of same, I long ago packed away my Corbin and Williston and any pretensions I may have had to be a contract law scholar.
Sorry.

As to how I see relevance, and I understand I'm probably way off is very briefly: Lex Mercatoria opened up a new understanding of contract, that it could be recoverable for dereliction of personal obligation (by failing to perform duties) (it also streamline the difference between failure to deliver goods or money and debt), and that when the common law embraced this concept it do so in part by giving personal obligations a veneer of real obligations. Now, I'm probably way off base in it (because I haven't studied how the evolution occurred), but I thought the blurring of distinction between personal and real was connected with concepts of self-ownership in philosophy/politics.

So, it probably isn't relevant since it's likely wrong.
Ha! Now I'm starting to get it! Yes, actually I think you're right in at least this sense (and maybe a broader sense, too): We're agreed that in medieval law just about everything was about property and, gold and such aside, the only property that really counted was land. The king couldn't always rely on his peers to keep the peace and order he wanted/needed/maybe even thought was just, so he sent out representatives to resolve disputes short of bloodshed. And so somewhere in Henry III's reign the action of Trespass starts to take on a specific form for a specific reason, keeping the peace. It's at the heart of both criminal and tort law and, as Maitland notes, it's the mother of all the other historic Forms.

Now, here's where I think I'm starting to grok where you're coming from. To say that the common law has been conservative in its development, especially back then, is to acknowledge a truth that, while abundantly clear, isn't always fully appreciated. When the dispute is over substantive or procedural law good lawyering is and always was largely the art of convincing the judge that he's not breaking any new ground or, if he is, it's so self evidently the necessary and proper application of existing law to new circumstances that he's not going to get into trouble, himself. Thus, Anglo-American lawyers from the earliest days have been playing the "Of course orange is yellow, Your Honor! It's just yellow with an insignificant touch of red in it!" game, if you get what I mean. (And, in fairness, progressive judges in the good sense of progressive have been playing the game, themselves, forever.)

So, for example, I de S et ux. v. W de S (1348) pushed a novel theory of Trespass vi et armis such that the judge was willing to declare harm without any actual touching and the decision became the first recorded case distinguishing common law assault from battery. We argue that a slightly different fact pattern is sufficiently like the old fact patterns that the old law should apply to the new facts, as well. No one ever said, hey, I think I'm going to invent a new form of action and call it Assumpsit or Trover or Replevin, etc. From Trespass we eventually get Trespass on the Case, what was once an essential element quietly ceases to be so and, most importantly to our argument, legal concepts get blurred, sometimes intentionally and sometimes not as new forms of action slowly develop. The common law has always been, as my Con Law teacher liked to say, a never ending battle between heritage and heresy.

What the judge in Pierson v. Post could have done was to hold that the ancient law of animals ferae naturae, while of some historical significance, wasn't binding on a court of law in the New World and to craft whatever he thought was the best rule to govern such disputes. But what judges have always done is look to the past. Sometimes to the point of completely misconstruing some perfectly reasonable and appropriately legislated change to the common law.

Case in point. The Uniform Commercial Code, Sect. 2-207 modified the ancient mirror-image rule that an acceptance must be the so-called mirror-image of the offer. At common law, any attempted acceptance that changed any of the offer's terms and conditions was deemed a rejection of the original offer and a counter offer. I won't go into the rationale for the change; the important thing is that it was a significant change and the commentary promoting adoption of the UCC clearly stated as much. Not long after Massachusetts' adoption of the UCC, however, came a now infamous appellate decision. In Roto-lith v. Bartlett, 297 F.2d 497 (1st Cir. 1962) a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit misread § 2-207 essentially preserving and applying the old common law rule. It's no big deal for a state trial court judge to misread the law, but U.S. Appellate Court judges are supposed to be selected from the cream of the profession. The "dead hand of the common law" continues to weigh on the way lawyers and judges even now think about the law. So applying earlier real property concepts to later personal contract concepts in the early development of the common law was almost necessarily how the latter evolved.

(BTW, most of the cases I've cited are standard 1L fare. The typical lawyer's grasp of much of this tends to plummet, however, the moment he is informed he has passed the bar examination. Of all the lawyers or soon to be lawyers on this forum, AR almost certainly knows more general law than the rest of us. (Make of that what you will.) As for me, if this discussion has proven anything, it's that I've practiced law long enough that I can stretch a few vaguely remembered legal principles and some jargon into what sounds like a much better grasp of the issues than I really have. *grin*)

User avatar
GinSlinger
Posts: 3624
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:49
Location: Here today, gone tomorrow

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by GinSlinger » 19 Jun 2012, 20:46

D.A. Ridgely wrote: Ha! Now I'm starting to get it!
*pheww*

Glad to know I can eventually express myself. Thank you for your patience and several thorough explanations.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 24962
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by thoreau » 19 Jun 2012, 20:54

Since 1348 English cases still have some relevance for US law, does this mean that US courts sometimes cite the reasoning of modern-day UK courts?

I realize that UK court rulings post-1776 do not have any legal weight in the US, but does a US judge ever say "You know, when it comes to the modern-day application of 15th century English dude vs. other 15th century English dude in cases involving [insert some modern-day issue here], this opinion by the Honorable Judge Crook Ed Tythe really offers the best explanation"?
"Camacho would be better than Trump. He actually has goodwill towards the world, and he actually did seek out the assistance of the smartest man in the world."
--Fin Fang Foom

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17616
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 19 Jun 2012, 21:04

thoreau wrote:Since 1348 English cases still have some relevance for US law, does this mean that US courts sometimes cite the reasoning of modern-day UK courts?

I realize that UK court rulings post-1776 do not have any legal weight in the US, but does a US judge ever say "You know, when it comes to the modern-day application of 15th century English dude vs. other 15th century English dude in cases involving [insert some modern-day issue here], this opinion by the Honorable Judge Crook Ed Tythe really offers the best explanation"?
Those old cases are of historical interest and law students are typically required to understand at least to some extent why and how contemporary law came to be, but no one cites 14th century cases in actual contemporary legal proceedings.

As for your question, though, when faced with a novel legal situation (a case of first impression), a court may consider how courts of its sister states have addressed the same or very similar issues and, yes, under some circumstances, courts will cite non-U.S. courts' decisions as well. But not as controlling authority in either case. Merely as reasoning the instant court finds persuasively sound (or unsound, for that matter). In that sense, such consideration would technically be considered dicta, but it may go to giving context to the court's decision.

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 12920
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by Kolohe » 19 Jun 2012, 22:07

Is 9 pages of comments in a 24 hour period a new record here?
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 6424
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by Jadagul » 19 Jun 2012, 22:35

Kolohe wrote:Is 9 pages of comments in a 24 hour period a new record here?
I think the Trayvon Martin thread did something similar.

User avatar
dhex
Posts: 14837
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by dhex » 22 Jun 2012, 06:41

reason.com/blog/2012/06/21/denver-neighborhood-rescued-from-3-year

it's a (less handsome) deja vu all over again!
"I like you, but you are a film moron." - db

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 21906
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by Mo » 22 Jun 2012, 09:10

The thing is it's primarily idiotic comments and understanding of contract law. Their view of it makes me more on AR's side*. Just goes to show how the quality of an argument can change how a person argues for/against something.

* Just to be clear, they have a very childish view of what a contract is and can do. On a first principles basis, I see HOAs as little different from another layer of government and would prefer if they or the rules expired (as this would create an incentive to compete for residents). However, they are binding and would likely arise in Libertopia.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 24962
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by thoreau » 23 Jul 2012, 13:52

About 3 weeks ago I sent the property management company (which does the day-to-day business of the HOA) a written request (with a check for the exorbitant fee) to get pedestrian gate keys since, Californians though we are, sometimes we would like to enter and exit the premises on foot.

A couple weeks ago I sent them the form to get the gate access keypad programmed so that entrance requests at the gate get routed to our phone.

Still no action. And the reply on the phone is always "You know, the person who handles that just stepped away from her desk, I can have her call you in a few minutes." And she never does. Our only means of entry is a remote gate opener, which is working for now while we just come and go for renovations, but we're moving in soon, at which point we'd like more options for ourselves and guests.

Here's what I'd like to do: I'd like to pay my dues late. And when they send me a nasty letter demanding payment, I'd like to say "Oh, I'm sorry, the person who handles that just stepped away from their desk. I'll let them know, and then you should receive it in 7 to 10 business days." And when they demand a late fee I'd like to say "Well, we can send you a late fee, but our standard practice is to charge you a handling fee for the processing of the late fee. If you could have your office send us the handling fee, we'll mail you the dues with the late fee. What? No, I'm sorry, that's not part of our procedures."

Somehow I doubt it would work out for me if I did that. A corporation can give me that bullshit run-around, but I can't give them the bullshit run-around.
"Camacho would be better than Trump. He actually has goodwill towards the world, and he actually did seek out the assistance of the smartest man in the world."
--Fin Fang Foom

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 21906
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by Mo » 23 Jul 2012, 14:08

Next time they do this, ask for the phone number of the designated arbitrator that the HOA uses because you would like to file a complaint. Whatever the outcome, chances are it's more expensive than getting you keys.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Highway
Posts: 12438
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by Highway » 23 Jul 2012, 14:31

Nothing like starting off on the right foot! Another thing you could try before going for the dispute resolution is "What time is the person going to be there? *get a definite time* I am going to call at that *5 minutes after that time*. Please detain her at her desk until I call, which will be prompt." Or you could offer to just wait on the phone until they get there (call from a non-metered phone, or one you have lots of minutes on).

Other way to do it is call every 10 minutes. If they complain, you could say "If she had called me back any of the previous 12 times I've called, I wouldn't feel I need to call so frequently."
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 24962
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by thoreau » 23 Jul 2012, 14:34

I got a voicemail. They promise to "work on my request" today. They promised that a few weeks ago. I'll call them again in a few hours, after I finish something, "just to confirm" and get an ETA on the keys. I'm in a different time zone than them, so they'll still be open when I call. I'll also harass them about the gate programming request that was sent a few weeks ago.

So far this HOA thing is just super.
"Camacho would be better than Trump. He actually has goodwill towards the world, and he actually did seek out the assistance of the smartest man in the world."
--Fin Fang Foom

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 24962
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by thoreau » 23 Jul 2012, 14:37

FYI, if they don't give me gate keys soon, it will be more difficult to bring in the supplies for the four-story phallus that I'm building as a porch decoration.
"Camacho would be better than Trump. He actually has goodwill towards the world, and he actually did seek out the assistance of the smartest man in the world."
--Fin Fang Foom

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 24962
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by thoreau » 23 Jul 2012, 17:04

The gate access code will be programmed "Hopefully sometime this week." They got the request 2 weeks ago. I suspect that next week I'll be on the phone with them again.

Perhaps I should say to them, in regard to my monthly fee due next Wednesday "The person who handles that isn't in, but we'll try to get it out to you this week." Nah, I doubt I could get away with that.

I'm seriously thinking about putting a 4-story phallus on my porch. No, wait, better: I'll put it on their porch because they're being dicks.
"Camacho would be better than Trump. He actually has goodwill towards the world, and he actually did seek out the assistance of the smartest man in the world."
--Fin Fang Foom

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 24962
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by thoreau » 23 Jul 2012, 23:28

Highway wrote:Nothing like starting off on the right foot! Another thing you could try before going for the dispute resolution is...
It occurs to me that it might not be a bad idea to go to a meeting of the HOA. I have no interest in getting involved, but I'd kind of like to show up once, early on, just to listen and see if I can get a vibe on the place. This might help me calibrate the extent to which I should be vigilant or chill about the finer rules, and the extent to which I should be cautious or aggressive when the property management company fucks up.
"Camacho would be better than Trump. He actually has goodwill towards the world, and he actually did seek out the assistance of the smartest man in the world."
--Fin Fang Foom

User avatar
Highway
Posts: 12438
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by Highway » 24 Jul 2012, 08:16

thoreau wrote:
Highway wrote:Nothing like starting off on the right foot! Another thing you could try before going for the dispute resolution is...
It occurs to me that it might not be a bad idea to go to a meeting of the HOA. I have no interest in getting involved, but I'd kind of like to show up once, early on, just to listen and see if I can get a vibe on the place. This might help me calibrate the extent to which I should be vigilant or chill about the finer rules, and the extent to which I should be cautious or aggressive when the property management company fucks up.
Be careful that you don't end up as the chairman of some ad hoc committee...
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest