Smoking ban in private residences

[Ringel05]

currently, but people of that neighborhood are free to vote on any restrictions they want. and, if they get a majority, i can either move or abide by the new covenants. no government is involved.

No, there are laws protecting homeowners from over zealous HOAs also. HOAs must work withing the confines of their regulatory authority, regulating what happens inside the walls is legally outside of their scope. The HOAs in question need to be reined in, put back in their place.

think about what you're saying. you're saying the HOA (a group of people who got together voluntarily) can pass restrictions for their residents that goes onto a persons personal property (from the street to your house). isn't that what you're saying?

Not even a good attempt at entrapment. Oh and HOAs are seldom a group of people who got together voluntarily, they are entities, often initiated and required by the builder then passed on to the community when the builder is done to continue (as required by the original builder contract). Their authority has to do, only, with preserving the physical exterior ascetics and maintenance required to protect the property value. What these HOAs are doing is playing fast and loose with the wording in an attempt at an end run around homeowner protections. Kinda like you just tried to do.

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

It would be more free if I were able to move into any neighborhood I wanted without having to submit to yet another governmental authority.

well, since it's just a bunch of people in a neighborhood who voluntarily decided to form a group to protect their common interests, and no one is forcing them to exist, you're gonna have a tough time proving that HOAs are government entities. but good luck.

Like I said previously, I guess that depends on whether they have the authority to enforce their rules. Hypothetically speaking, what would happen in your neighborhood if somebody did something in violation of the HOA bylaws, but is otherwise legal?

i guess they would sue and a court would determine if the agreement the homeowner signed holds them to the rules that the homeowners voted on/approved.

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

No, there are laws protecting homeowners from over zealous HOAs also. HOAs must work withing the confines of their regulatory authority, regulating what happens inside the walls is legally outside of their scope. The HOAs in question need to be reined in, put back in their place.

think about what you're saying. you're saying the HOA (a group of people who got together voluntarily) can pass restrictions for their residents that goes onto a persons personal property (from the street to your house). isn't that what you're saying?

Not even a good attempt at entrapment. Oh and HOAs are seldom a group of people who got together voluntarily, they are entities, often initiated and required by the builder then passed on to the community when the builder is done to continue (as required by the original builder contract). Their authority has to do, only, with preserving the physical exterior ascetics and maintenance required to protect the property value. What these HOAs are doing is playing fast and loose with the wording in an attempt at an end run around homeowner protections. Kinda like you just tried to do.

i can blow your whole argument away with one question.

do the residents of the neighborhood have the right to vote to dissolve the HOA?

 

[Ringel05]

think about what you're saying. you're saying the HOA (a group of people who got together voluntarily) can pass restrictions for their residents that goes onto a persons personal property (from the street to your house). isn't that what you're saying?

Not even a good attempt at entrapment. Oh and HOAs are seldom a group of people who got together voluntarily, they are entities, often initiated and required by the builder then passed on to the community when the builder is done to continue (as required by the original builder contract). Their authority has to do, only, with preserving the physical exterior ascetics and maintenance required to protect the property value. What these HOAs are doing is playing fast and loose with the wording in an attempt at an end run around homeowner protections. Kinda like you just tried to do.

i can blow your whole argument away with one question.

do the residents of the neighborhood have the right to vote to dissolve the HOA?

That has nothing to do with the laws that are already in place protecting homeowners, so again you're way off base. The HOAs have no legal authority to regulate anything inside the exterior walls......... period.........

 

[Katzndogz]

This law has nothing to do with HOAs. This is a city ordinance.

 

[Ringel05]

This law has nothing to do with HOAs. This is a city ordinance.

There are two separate items being discussed in this thread.

 

[Ringel05]

think about what you're saying. you're saying the HOA (a group of people who got together voluntarily) can pass restrictions for their residents that goes onto a persons personal property (from the street to your house). isn't that what you're saying?

Not even a good attempt at entrapment. Oh and HOAs are seldom a group of people who got together voluntarily, they are entities, often initiated and required by the builder then passed on to the community when the builder is done to continue (as required by the original builder contract). Their authority has to do, only, with preserving the physical exterior ascetics and maintenance required to protect the property value. What these HOAs are doing is playing fast and loose with the wording in an attempt at an end run around homeowner protections. Kinda like you just tried to do.

i can blow your whole argument away with one question.

do the residents of the neighborhood have the right to vote to dissolve the HOA?

Also your argument is fallacious, most HOAs are set up in perpetuity, very few actually have an escape clause.

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

Not even a good attempt at entrapment. Oh and HOAs are seldom a group of people who got together voluntarily, they are entities, often initiated and required by the builder then passed on to the community when the builder is done to continue (as required by the original builder contract). Their authority has to do, only, with preserving the physical exterior ascetics and maintenance required to protect the property value. What these HOAs are doing is playing fast and loose with the wording in an attempt at an end run around homeowner protections. Kinda like you just tried to do.

i can blow your whole argument away with one question.

do the residents of the neighborhood have the right to vote to dissolve the HOA?

That has nothing to do with the laws that are already in place protecting homeowners, so again you're way off base. The HOAs have no legal authority to regulate anything inside the exterior walls......... period.........

i guess it would be in the verbage of the HOA agreement that you signed.


what blows me away, since i'm a small government guy, is that so many small government people have lost their way. we sit here every day and say that we want government out of our lives (which i agree with). then, when people try to do things for themselves (and tell others that they're free to join and have an equal vote) we want the government to get involved and tell the HOA what they can and can't do (which i can understand if they're violating a state/federal law). but many times we just want the government to tell people (or private groups) what to do if we don't agree with it.

baffling

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

Not even a good attempt at entrapment. Oh and HOAs are seldom a group of people who got together voluntarily, they are entities, often initiated and required by the builder then passed on to the community when the builder is done to continue (as required by the original builder contract). Their authority has to do, only, with preserving the physical exterior ascetics and maintenance required to protect the property value. What these HOAs are doing is playing fast and loose with the wording in an attempt at an end run around homeowner protections. Kinda like you just tried to do.

i can blow your whole argument away with one question.

do the residents of the neighborhood have the right to vote to dissolve the HOA?

Also your argument is fallacious, most HOAs are set up in perpetuity, very few actually have an escape clause.

i have no idea how many do or don't. but it sounds like you're saying some do.

 

[Ringel05]

i can blow your whole argument away with one question.

do the residents of the neighborhood have the right to vote to dissolve the HOA?

Also your argument is fallacious, most HOAs are set up in perpetuity, very few actually have an escape clause.

i have no idea how many do or don't. but it sounds like you're saying some do.

Of course some do but that doesn't change the laws that govern what authority HOAs have and don't have. They do have specific limitations regardless of what the majority may or may not want. Can I be any more plain?

 

[Immanuel]

Also your argument is fallacious, most HOAs are set up in perpetuity, very few actually have an escape clause.

i have no idea how many do or don't. but it sounds like you're saying some do.

Of course some do but that doesn't change the laws that govern what authority HOAs have and don't have. They do have specific limitations regardless of what the majority may or may not want. Can I be any more plain?

I am pretty sure that the ones that do, only do so because they could not get a majority of those who lived there at the time to agree to the association without it.

Immie

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

Also your argument is fallacious, most HOAs are set up in perpetuity, very few actually have an escape clause.

i have no idea how many do or don't. but it sounds like you're saying some do.

Of course some do but that doesn't change the laws that govern what authority HOAs have and don't have. They do have specific limitations regardless of what the majority may or may not want. Can I be any more plain?

sure they have limitations. they can't say that people can smoke dope in their house. i don't think anyone on either side of the argument thinks a private group can make laws that trump local/state/federal laws. and if this is one, someone will sue and it won't be allowed.

and to the person who said this is a town law, i'm 100% against the local/state/federal government being able to tell people that they can't smoke in their own home. i was also against state governments from restricting smoking in bars (although i have to admit i have saved some money on dry cleaning).

what is better than private citizens forming voluntary groups and voting on what they want. it don't get much better than that.

 

[Ringel05]

i can blow your whole argument away with one question.

do the residents of the neighborhood have the right to vote to dissolve the HOA?

That has nothing to do with the laws that are already in place protecting homeowners, so again you're way off base. The HOAs have no legal authority to regulate anything inside the exterior walls......... period.........

i guess it would be in the verbage of the HOA agreement that you signed.


what blows me away, since i'm a small government guy, is that so many small government people have lost their way. we sit here every day and say that we want government out of our lives (which i agree with). then, when people try to do things for themselves (and tell others that they're free to join and have an equal vote) we want the government to get involved and tell the HOA what they can and can't do (which i can understand if they're violating a state/federal law). but many times we just want the government to tell people (or private groups) what to do if we don't agree with it.

baffling

Again, HOAs are not omnipotent, the limits of their authority are restricted by law. The same goes with town councils. One of the things the constitution protects is property rights, while SCOTUS has ruled that under certain conditions, the existence of an HOA for example, has some authority to regulate the exterior of a property they have never been given the authority to regulate the interior of a persons property, that's supposed to be protected.

 

[Ringel05]

i have no idea how many do or don't. but it sounds like you're saying some do.

Of course some do but that doesn't change the laws that govern what authority HOAs have and don't have. They do have specific limitations regardless of what the majority may or may not want. Can I be any more plain?

sure they have limitations. they can't say that people can smoke dope in their house. i don't think anyone on either side of the argument thinks a private group can make laws that trump local/state/federal laws. and if this is one, someone will sue and it won't be allowed.

and to the person who said this is a town law, i'm 100% against the local/state/federal government being able to tell people that they can't smoke in their own home. i was also against state governments from restricting smoking in bars (although i have to admit i have saved some money on dry cleaning).

what is better than private citizens forming voluntary groups and voting on what they want. it don't get much better than that.

As long as it doesn't violate the Constitutionally protected rights of others then I have no issue with it.

 

[Immanuel]

i have no idea how many do or don't. but it sounds like you're saying some do.

Of course some do but that doesn't change the laws that govern what authority HOAs have and don't have. They do have specific limitations regardless of what the majority may or may not want. Can I be any more plain?

sure they have limitations. they can't say that people can smoke dope in their house. i don't think anyone on either side of the argument thinks a private group can make laws that trump local/state/federal laws. and if this is one, someone will sue and it won't be allowed.

and to the person who said this is a town law, i'm 100% against the local/state/federal government being able to tell people that they can't smoke in their own home. i was also against state governments from restricting smoking in bars (although i have to admit i have saved some money on dry cleaning).

what is better than private citizens forming voluntary groups and voting on what they want. it don't get much better than that.

I've never been a member of an HOA and God willing I never will be. The issue I have with what you say, is that the formation of an HOA in an already established neighborhood, is not voluntary to all its "members". Usually they are established in order to force the "undesireables" out of the neighborhood, by bullies.

Immie

 

[manifold]

well, since it's just a bunch of people in a neighborhood who voluntarily decided to form a group to protect their common interests, and no one is forcing them to exist, you're gonna have a tough time proving that HOAs are government entities. but good luck.

Like I said previously, I guess that depends on whether they have the authority to enforce their rules. Hypothetically speaking, what would happen in your neighborhood if somebody did something in violation of the HOA bylaws, but is otherwise legal?

i guess they would sue and a court would determine if the agreement the homeowner signed holds them to the rules that the homeowners voted on/approved.

Ahhh, more government, got it.

Enjoy your fantastic freedom.

 

[manifold]

i can blow your whole argument away with one question.

do the residents of the neighborhood have the right to vote to dissolve the HOA?

That has nothing to do with the laws that are already in place protecting homeowners, so again you're way off base. The HOAs have no legal authority to regulate anything inside the exterior walls......... period.........

i guess it would be in the verbage of the HOA agreement that you signed.


what blows me away, since i'm a small government guy, is that so many small government people have lost their way. we sit here every day and say that we want government out of our lives (which i agree with). then, when people try to do things for themselves (and tell others that they're free to join and have an equal vote) we want the government to get involved and tell the HOA what they can and can't do (which i can understand if they're violating a state/federal law). but many times we just want the government to tell people (or private groups) what to do if we don't agree with it.

baffling

The term "Big" government doesn't refer to the the number of people governed, but rather the scope and magnitude of liberty infringement said government places on the governed. A draconian HOA can be just as much 'big' government as a City, State or Federal government.

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

That has nothing to do with the laws that are already in place protecting homeowners, so again you're way off base. The HOAs have no legal authority to regulate anything inside the exterior walls......... period.........

i guess it would be in the verbage of the HOA agreement that you signed.


what blows me away, since i'm a small government guy, is that so many small government people have lost their way. we sit here every day and say that we want government out of our lives (which i agree with). then, when people try to do things for themselves (and tell others that they're free to join and have an equal vote) we want the government to get involved and tell the HOA what they can and can't do (which i can understand if they're violating a state/federal law). but many times we just want the government to tell people (or private groups) what to do if we don't agree with it.

baffling

The term "Big" government doesn't refer to the the number of people governed, but rather the scope and magnitude of liberty infringement said government places on the governed. A draconian HOA can be just as much 'big' government as a City, State or Federal government.

sure, the HOA could have some crazy rules. but as long as you volunteer to be apart of it, and the rules don't violate any local/state/federal laws, then that's the definition of freedom.

 

[manifold]

i guess it would be in the verbage of the HOA agreement that you signed.


what blows me away, since i'm a small government guy, is that so many small government people have lost their way. we sit here every day and say that we want government out of our lives (which i agree with). then, when people try to do things for themselves (and tell others that they're free to join and have an equal vote) we want the government to get involved and tell the HOA what they can and can't do (which i can understand if they're violating a state/federal law). but many times we just want the government to tell people (or private groups) what to do if we don't agree with it.

baffling

The term "Big" government doesn't refer to the the number of people governed, but rather the scope and magnitude of liberty infringement said government places on the governed. A draconian HOA can be just as much 'big' government as a City, State or Federal government.

sure, the HOA could have some crazy rules. but as long as you volunteer to be apart of it, and the rules don't violate any local/state/federal laws, then that's the definition of freedom.

I guess in a wildly perverted way you could say that if one freely surrenders their freedom, that one time act is an exercise of freedom. But obviously from that point on, it sure doesn't qualify as freedom according to any dictionary definition I've ever read.

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

The term "Big" government doesn't refer to the the number of people governed, but rather the scope and magnitude of liberty infringement said government places on the governed. A draconian HOA can be just as much 'big' government as a City, State or Federal government.

sure, the HOA could have some crazy rules. but as long as you volunteer to be apart of it, and the rules don't violate any local/state/federal laws, then that's the definition of freedom.

I guess in a wildly perverted way you could say that if one freely surrenders their freedom, that one time act is an exercise of freedom. But obviously from that point on, it sure doesn't qualify as freedom according to any dictionary definition I've ever read.

yep, true freedom is being able to do whatever you want (as long as it's legal).