Who would have thought something like this could even have been a question in the US?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I don't see why it would be wrong for a private organization or association - like HOAs - to make rules about appearances. I'm sure we're not allowed to, for instance, install massive crosses in the yard of our townhouse.
That being said, I think it's a stupid rule to not allow small signs or icons.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Who would have thought something like this could even have been a question in the US?
Who, indeed? Since when does religion trump the right of a landlord to make rules for his apartment building?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Except that it wasn't a landlord's property; this is a condominium association. They don't own the property; they just agree on rules to make the community nicer.
So there's no question of ownership. The woman owns her door, and her door post.
I note that the rules have been revised to allow her to hang up her mezuzah.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Despite using that phrasing in their argument, I don't see this as being a case of freedom of religion vs freedom from religion. It seems more like a straightforward and minor scuffle over the rights of a home owner's association to make rules about what can or cannot be displayed on the front door. In fact, in the end they say that the HOA changed their policy to allow for the religious display.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
It's tough to balance anti-discrimination rules with the desperate need for comforting uniformity of the neighborhood. *sigh*
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm somewhat bemused that Lisa seems to be suggesting that a clause of a freely entered into private contract should be breeched by the government.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I actually think there might be a legitimate legal question here. If the rules affect Jews in particular, then they might constitute a form of religious discrimination.
It's wrong to frame it as "freedom of religion vs. freedom from religion", though.
I don't know how conflicts between HOA rules and religious requirements has been resolved in the past, except for in the movie "Devil's Advocate".
Edit: similar issue Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Yeah, this is clearly a case of a HoA abusing it's power, realizing they could get into trouble and fixing it.
HoAs are just another means for people to exercise their need to control the lives of others. They're a miniature government run by power hungry [expletives] who are evil enough, but neither smart enough nor ambitious enough to be social workers or politicians.
Unfortunately, my hubby didn't realize how awful they were before he bought our home. If we'd been together at the time, I would have vetoed the place strictly because it's under a HoA.
But no, this isn't a freedom of religion argument.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I'm somewhat bemused that Lisa seems to be suggesting that a clause of a freely entered into private contract should be breeched by the government.
Ditto. If you don't like being ruled by an HOA, don't move where you'll be constrained by one. Of course, houses in neighborhoods where there are worth more than those in neighborhoods without. I think the premium is about 5K or so, although I could be misremembering the journal article.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: They're a miniature government run by power hungry [expletives] who are evil enough, but neither smart enough nor ambitious enough to be social workers or politicians.
The social workers I've known have been decent people who wanted to improve the lives of others, and were willing to undertake a fairly low pay, high stress career in order to do so. I'm sure that there are bad apples in the field, but there are bad apples in every field. I do think that it's the kind of job that demands so much from a person emotionally that it could be easy to become callous, simply as a defense mechanism.
Is there a stereotype of the evil social worker that I'm unfamiliar with?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Of course, houses in neighborhoods where there are worth more than those in neighborhoods without. I think the premium is about 5K or so, although I could be misremembering the journal article.
That should about cover the first 1-2 years' HOA fees.
Pass!
Noem, Pix had a very bad experience that involved social workers, so she has made it her second most important campaign to vilify them. I'm fairly tired of it, although I was initially sympathetic.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
What sort of HOA do you live in? We pay $80 a month for a very nicely kept neighborhood, with a number of small playgrounds, a tennis court, and lots of paths through small wooded areas. And this is in Fairfax, VA, which isn't the cheapest area in the world to live in.
Houses in HOAs also sell quicker, as I recall, which isn't something to sneeze at.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:That should about cover the first 1-2 years' HOA fees.
This sentence confuses me. If you buy a house worth, say, 100k with no HOA, and pay an extra 5k on top of that, just how is your extra 5k 'covering' anything? It's rather the reverse!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'm not convinced one way or the other that this was an area of private property, not common property. That is, when I (and others close to me) have lived in condominiums, the entryways and hallways were not under my purview: I couldn't repaint the outside of the door (although I could do so to the inside face), I couldn't hang anything on the doorframe, as it was not interior to the door, etc.
Mind you, I'm glad the woman is able to hang such a small and discreet item that is so important to her. I think making allowance here was the right thing to do. But it would seem inconsistent to my experience that condominium owners could assert rights to changing the external face of the dwelling without circumscribed exemptions to the general agreement either already in place or being made in response to permit it.
It's common area, same as the color of the external face of the door and the color of the doorframe in the hallway around the exterior surface of the door.
Again, though, I think the making the exemption was the right solution -- I just don't see it as surprising or particularly troubling that it wasn't an automatic process.
---
PS: I'd also expect such an issue could be settled without dragging through years of dispute, mind. This does have the scent of more to the issue than may be apparent on the surface, and I would not be surprised if there were personality or religious conflicts driving the dragging out of the issue. I don't know either way, of course, but I would not be surprised to find that to be the case.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:That should about cover the first 1-2 years' HOA fees.
This sentence confuses me. If you buy a house worth, say, 100k with no HOA, and pay an extra 5k on top of that, just how is your extra 5k 'covering' anything? It's rather the reverse!
Well, yes. Think about it this way: by refusing to buy into an HOA, and not paying those fees, I would quickly have covered the cost differential on the housing unit.
Jhai, I suspect this is probably highly area-dependent. HOA fees in most condos around here start at about $200 a month; $400 is not uncommon, and with "emergency assessments" and such, it is all too common to be paying an average of $500-600 a month. It's hard to compare non-HOA to HOA here, since all the condos have HOAs, and very few non-condos do. However, my impression is that being in an HOA slows down many sales here, rather than the reverse.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I have to admit, Pixiest, the idea that someone would be ambitious and go after a social worker job is strange to me.
Politician? Sure. Cop? Sure. CEO? Obviously. General? No doubt.
But what power, prestige, money, or influence does a social worker have that would draw someone to it for ambition's sake?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Well, yes. Think about it this way: by refusing to buy into an HOA, and not paying those fees, I would quickly have covered the cost differential on the housing unit.
Either we are using language in extremely different ways, or I'm extremely confused. If you buy a cheaper house with no fees, then there's nothing to cover; you've already saved money.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
At some point I will wish to sell the house, and not get that extra money. But that's ok. I already have it.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: They're a miniature government run by power hungry [expletives] who are evil enough, but neither smart enough nor ambitious enough to be social workers or politicians.
The social workers I've known have been decent people who wanted to improve the lives of others, and were willing to undertake a fairly low pay, high stress career in order to do so. I'm sure that there are bad apples in the field, but there are bad apples in every field. I do think that it's the kind of job that demands so much from a person emotionally that it could be easy to become callous, simply as a defense mechanism.
Is there a stereotype of the evil social worker that I'm unfamiliar with?
Not a stereotype. Personal experience.
I was a foster mom last summer. No, I won't talk about it, except to say Social workers are lying Sacks-a who are out for nothing except a feeling of power over societies most helpless. After seeing what it was like to be an adult part of "the system" I see why children brought up under their "services" end up in prison, on drugs or both.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I'm somewhat bemused that Lisa seems to be suggesting that a clause of a freely entered into private contract should be breeched by the government.
This isn't a landlord making a rule. This is a bunch of people changing the rules on an individual after the fact. It's more akin to the government making such a rule than a landlord making such a rule.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I think you two are seeing HOA and condo fees as the same thing. Condo fees are generally a lot higher, they often include not just the cost of maintaining the building but building insurance as well.
I own a townhouse that is not a condo. I pay $300 a year to my HOA. My friends live in a condo and pay an additional $150 a month in condo fees, PLUS an annual HOA fee. By the way they paid the same price, the same year, in the same town, for the same square footage. Without the yard.
HOAs do not own the exterior walls to your house, condo associations do.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Even neglecting what is private property and what isn't, when a home in an HOA is sold, that sale is conditional on agreement to follow the rules of the HOA. Restricting what one is allowed to do with one's own private property is a common thing to agree to in many contracts, especially HOAs.
Now, I don't like HOAs, generally. I would go somewhat out of my way to avoid being part of one. But they're a fairly straightforward sort of voluntary private agreement.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Here's a summary of the paper on HOAs. KoM, from an economist's perspective, the fact that people are willing to pay more for a house in an HOA (~5% more, not 5K) suggests that HOAs are adding some sort of value to the home owner. That doesn't exactly answer your question re: rivka's post, but it's my perspective on things.
Rivka, I think the paper is looking at houses, not condos, where, as you point out, the vast majority have HOAs. Condo HOA fees are another thing entirely - and we see about the whopping fees out here as you do in SoCal.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I'm somewhat bemused that Lisa seems to be suggesting that a clause of a freely entered into private contract should be breeched by the government.
This isn't a landlord making a rule. This is a bunch of people changing the rules on an individual after the fact. It's more akin to the government making such a rule than a landlord making such a rule.
A "bunch of people" to whose authority the individual willingly subjected herself.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
IIRC, non-condo HOAs are common in NorCal and certain parts of SoCal. But I have yet to see any for sale in my area. Partly because the notion gets vigorously voted down around here every time it is suggested. Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
The purpose of HOA contracts is supposed to increase the value of the home. Making sure your neighbors cut their grass so the whole neighborhood doesn't look shabby. It would be ridiculous for an HOA to not allow someone to put up a mezuzah because most are not the visible from the road anyways. Not to mention the fact that they tend to ignore the 10 foot blow up santas that are on some lawns for 4 months a year.
I can see an argument about a condo association not allowing it, because it is jointly owned property. However from what I have seen the law often leans towards the reasonable in discrimination cases. For instance if my business is in a 100 year old building that making wheel chair accessible would cost me a fortune, it would not be reasonable to force me. I think any court would side with her as long as it wasn't one of those huge gaudy looking mezuzahs that take up half the doorway I have seen.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lisa: an HOA is not just a static set of rules you agree to. It is also an agreement to follow future rules made in accordance with the governing bylaws of the HOA. Where in there is the government? Where in there is anything that makes it okay for the government to breech a private, consensual contract?
There are vast numbers of organizations that make changes to existing rules, where the participants agree in advance to follow those changes if they are made in a certain way. For instance, you might have noticed almost every business in the United States with more than one owner. I guess I've been misremembering your strident support for consensual contracts between private parties.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:I was a foster mom last summer. No, I won't talk about it, except to say Social workers are lying Sacks-a who are out for nothing except a feeling of power over societies most helpless. After seeing what it was like to be an adult part of "the system" I see why children brought up under their "services" end up in prison, on drugs or both.
The social workers you dealt with may have been "lying Sacks-a who are out for nothing except a feeling of power of societies most helpless", but it seems pretty uncalled for to generalize about the entirety of social workers in the world based off that one experience. A white christian once called me a dirty jew. Are all christians dirtbags? Or is it all white people? A black guy i know is really selfish and self serving. I'm assuming this is true of all black people.
But i'm sure you're right, all those maniacal social workers who earn masters degrees and then proceed to make chump change because they are doing work they believe in, are doing it all for the power. Only makes sense.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Isn't a HOA basically a form of Libertarian self-rule? No one person wants to be responsible for the entire community's common areas. So all parties willingly and knowingly enter into an agreement where they all contribute to the common good, as decided by the ruling body.
If people aren't comfortable with the rules and or power vested in the HOA, they shouldn't have gotten involved.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Strider: Yes, they need a masters degree to screw up kids as bad as they do. As I said before, (and this is information I got straight from them, actually) Prison and Drugs await kids who spend more than a minimal amount of time in "the system." That's nation wide.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I was a foster mom last summer. No, I won't talk about it, except to say Social workers are lying Sacks-a who are out for nothing except a feeling of power over societies most helpless. After seeing what it was like to be an adult part of "the system" I see why children brought up under their "services" end up in prison, on drugs or both.
This is the most striking example of someone taking limited personal experience and applying it to a wide group of individually unique people I can remember hearing. So much so that I'm not sure if you're just venting and don't really mean it, or not.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Pixiest, correlation doesn't mean causation. maybe these kids are in "the system" for a reason already and social workers have hard time battling family, environment, peer pressure, etc...when certain behaviors are already ingrained in these kids.
but this doesn't address your initial assertion, which is absurd.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
is there a wikipedia link over the issues over bad social workers I can read?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Oh mezuzah, I want one of those.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I'm amazed how quickly a thread about a conflict between religious freedom and an HOA turned into a discussion of social workers. It may even be an interesting topic for another thread.
As far as the HOA goes....I'm glad that I'm a part of one. They're sometimes annoying, but they make sure my neighbor doesn't hurt my property value by having half a dozen broken down cars on his lawn (such as my in-law's have had on theirs) and they maintain several neighborhood pools that I will be enjoying in a couple of weeks. There are some HOA's that go over the top, such as one I knew that required its residents to only hang white (not colored) Christmas lights. (IMO...YUCK! I loev color.) But if the HOA ever gets out of hand I can get active in it and try to change it or else move, if it's really bad. At least the HOA helps keep the value of my house up.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Blayne, wikipedia has a liberal bias, they'll probably only have good things to say about social workers. You might want to check out conservapedia for the truth.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:KoM, from an economist's perspective, the fact that people are willing to pay more for a house in an HOA (~5% more, not 5K) suggests that HOAs are adding some sort of value to the home owner.
Sure, I understand that part. It's rivka's language that saving money on fees 'covers' the lack of an initial outlay that has my head spinning.
Posted by Traceria (Member # 11820) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Yeah, this is clearly a case of a HoA abusing it's power...
Another instance: Not allowing hanging plants (on hooks from the above deck) on our condominiums' (yes, plural for there are now 8 separate buildings) porches.
Okay, so maybe that's not the same.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I was a foster mom last summer. No, I won't talk about it, except to say Social workers are lying Sacks-a who are out for nothing except a feeling of power over societies most helpless. After seeing what it was like to be an adult part of "the system" I see why children brought up under their "services" end up in prison, on drugs or both.
Pixiest, I respect that you had a a horrible experience with social workers, and I'm sure that social services as a whole is a flawed organization. I also know that you're not the only person on the forum who could tell horror stories about social services--if I recall correctly, ketchupqueen went through no small measure of pain in having to deal with them a few years back.
Where I think that you're wrong is drawing the conclusion that social workers are, as a group, horrible, lying people who are only in it for the power. Can you see how that could be perceived as an overbroad generalization? I'm not asking if you think that it is such a generalization--I'm asking if you can see how it would seem so to me.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm pretty hostile towards HoAs. Many of their guidlelines and rules feel so arbitrary, and often those rules have more devious reasoning beneath the surface. For example I think the reason there is a rule that prohibits anyone beyond parent and children from living in a house or condo is specifically designed to keep out hispanics who often invite extended family to live in the same household.
Because the top floor of my parents four floor condo is so oppressively hot, my parents installed an exterior air conditioning unit through one of the window panels. A neighbor complained that it looked unsightly, and pressed the HoA into forcing my parents to uninstall the unit. My family has had to field many complaints from neighbors who suspected that my parents were breaking the covenants whenever one of my siblings and their spouse visit. "Are you certain your son is married to that woman, and they aren't just spending the night?" "I see alot of cars parked in your driveway from time to time are some of those vehicle owners living at your condo?"
It drives me insane, I think if some grandparents want to let their children and grandchildren shack up with them, it's none of my business, and reasonably speaking I don't think doing that devalues the houses in the neighborhood for any good reason.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Blayne, wikipedia has a liberal bias, they'll probably only have good things to say about social workers. You might want to check out conservapedia for the truth.
Your kidding right.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: They're sometimes annoying, but they make sure my neighbor doesn't hurt my property value by having half a dozen broken down cars on his lawn (such as my in-law's have had on theirs) and they maintain several neighborhood pools that I will be enjoying in a couple of weeks.
I live in a neighborhood with an HOA. When we were looking for a house we could either buy a house that was 20+ years old or we could live in an area with an HOA (honestly, they are that prevalent in the Phoenix area). I understand the need to have an entity responsible (and funds) for common areas (parks, pools, etc), but the most common reason cited for HOAs is aesthetic issues (like grass, cars, weeds, etc.) that are (at least in this area) already covered by city codes. So, I don't understand (or like) how needing a responsible party for common areas has morphed into aesthetic policing (sometimes involving vague regulations) of private property.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Blayne, wikipedia has a liberal bias, they'll probably only have good things to say about social workers. You might want to check out conservapedia for the truth.
Your kidding right.
Hi, I'm Strider. What's your name?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Our HOA is pretty easy-going - theoretically, we should have beige windows, for instance, but when we installed new white ones no one minded. I couldn't put up with a busy-body HOA, though, or one with over-the-top regulations. I made sure I read through ALL of the regulations before we bought our place, which is something everyone should do before buying a property.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I have a completely ineffectual and pointless HOA that charges $20 a month and doesn't actually get anyone to take care of their yards. I kind of think of it like paying $20 for the privilege of not having anybody minding my business.
(It will, eventually, turn into something more intrusive. I know this. It was one of the tradeoffs for our main buying criterion which was "cheap house".)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Blayne, wikipedia has a liberal bias, they'll probably only have good things to say about social workers. You might want to check out conservapedia for the truth.
Your kidding right.
Hi, I'm Strider. What's your name?
God.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: Where I think that you're wrong is drawing the conclusion that social workers are, as a group, horrible, lying people who are only in it for the power. Can you see how that could be perceived as an overbroad generalization? I'm not asking if you think that it is such a generalization--I'm asking if you can see how it would seem so to me.
I can see how people without first hand experience could think that social workers were wonderful people. After all, they sacrifice so much for the good of the kids, right?
That's how I was suckered in.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
You're still missing the point Pixiest. Unless you have had first hand experience with lets say at least 50% of all social workers in the world, your generalization is pretty baseless.
Have you never criticized someone at Hatrack for using anecdotal evidence to support a sweeping generalization? Would you agree with someone's argument that gays should not be allowed to marry because they knew a few gay couples who married, were bad parents and then got divorced? I know that you think gay couples can raise children fine, I thought the same thing too, then I met these gay couples and they were TERRIBLE parents. All gay people are terrible parents.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I can see how people without first hand experience could think that social workers were wonderful people. After all, they sacrifice so much for the good of the kids, right?
That's how I was suckered in.
I've got first-hand experience, too. It tells me you're full of crap. But I suspect it's because of some very personal and unpleasant experiences, so I don't think it's a big deal. Doesn't make you any less wrong, though.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Isn't there a limit to what you can sign away through contract? I mean is the argument that even if she signed a contract that limited this right, it isn't legal to do that anyways?
Hobbes Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Hobbes: yes, though most libertarians are generally for reducing those restrictions. I can't imagine what would prevent you from signing away your right to have small decorations outside your door, though.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
OK, just curious. I don't know much about this so I couldn't figure out if the argument was the contract didn't cover it, or that the contract couldn't cover it.
Hobbes Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
"scroll like object"
What is so hard about getting the details right? It's a scroll in a case!
[/rant]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Oh mezuzah, I want one of those.
Why? And are you looking for just a case, or did you want an actual scroll inside?
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
Maybe he's missing a doorpost...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Wouldn't that make the "why" MORE of a question?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:I can see how people without first hand experience could think that social workers were wonderful people. After all, they sacrifice so much for the good of the kids, right?
That's how I was suckered in.
No kidding!
That's probably why my girlfriend takes time out of her day to drive her high-school kids to doctor's appointments 'cause their parents are busy working. Or when she puts up her own money so that recent immigrant students can play varsity soccer.
Or that phone tree she's in to relay the status of a student that's currently in a coma after a car accident.
I'm not sure why she does all that, then works on the weekends to make up for her pittance of a salary. It's probably because she just really wants to ruin lives!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Or control them.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
You could be right.
Or you could just be passing unwarranted judgment on a large group of individuals.
If the former, please proceed to explain to me the motivations of thousands of people you've never met.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Pff, that's nothing. Lisa can tell you about the inner life of Bronze Age stoneherders; it's remarkably similar to that of present-day Orthodox Jews. She's really quite good at the mind-reading thing.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Bronze Age shepherds.
Fixed that for you.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:She's really quite good at the mind-reading thing.
You know, you two really do have a lot in common.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by adenam:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Bronze Age shepherds.
Fixed that for you.
Well, I could go into a long rant on how that was actually an intentional insult to Lisa's hypothetical ancestors, but actually my fingers just got ahead of my brain. Thank you.
quote:You know, you two really do have a lot in common.
Well, for values of "a lot" extending down to 50%, sure. We're both convinced we're right, but only I actually am.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Well, for values of "a lot" extending down to 50%, sure. We're both convinced we're right, but only I actually am.
For two such apparently different people, 50% is a lot.
And, as I'm sure you're aware I was suggesting, thinking you're both right isn't a part of that 'a lot' I was referring to. Everyone has that in common, or nearly everyone, to the point that even pointing it out is silly.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)