HOA MGR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ‘I'll never buy a property that's in a mandatory
> association again'‘
> Sorry you it didn't work in your favor. Did you
> warn the buyer about what they were getting into?
>
They were well aware. In our case it was a matter of potential joint liability and as such that I believed that it was a necessary disclosure; otherwise, I might face some future action.
>
> ‘the ability to make unilateral changes to
> rules'
> Not without a quorum. Unless no one shows up to
> vote. If that happens the size of the quorum
> decreases. This is how they get away with changes
> without the majority's approval. The majority
> don't attend the meetings to vote. Hopefully they
> are informed of when these meetings are.
It can go beyond that. For example, see:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/va-supreme-court/1580282.html
>
> ‘forced payment for CATV'
> I have never heard of this. Maybe for renters?
Example below:
"FCC Allows Loopholes That Mandate Cable Service for Homeowners, Renters
Phillip Dampier September 28, 2010 Bright House, Comcast/Xfinity, Competition, Consumer News, Cox, Public Policy & Gov't, Verizon, Video 11 Comments
Residents of these Virginia homes are required to pay $146 a month for Cox Cable, Broadband, and Phone service whether they want it or not.
Marilyn Castro decided she did not need her landline phone any longer. The Virginia Beach resident learned her provider would be happy to oblige her request to disconnect service, but she is still required to pay her phone bill, even without the service, for at least the next 25 years.
Woodland Park, Virginia resident Allan Pineda got a similar story when he wanted out of Cox Cable’s landline service. Yes, Cox will schedule a visit to disconnect service at his convenience, but he’ll still have to pay his cable bill, including landline charges, every month.
Frederic Martin, who lives at a Mid-America Apartment Communities-owned complex in Dallas, learned he was on the hook for cable-TV service, even though he has not owned a television set for more than a decade.
In Weston, Florida, some 15,000 homeowners pay for cable television whether they want it or not and if they don’t pay, their homes are at risk from foreclosure.
It’s all thanks to the concept of “bulk billing,” a practice growing in popularity that delivers mandatory cable, phone, and broadband service to renters and homeowners whether they want the services or not. It’s a multi-million dollar racket, and thanks to the Federal Communications Commission, it may be coming to your community or apartment complex soon.
For almost five years, mandating cable service has become a growing problem in many parts of the country, especially in Florida and Virginia. Most of the controversy comes when large housing management and homeowner associations, builders, and corporately-owned apartment complexes cut “discount deals” with a cable company to wire a community or complex for service. Their mission is not always altruistic. Many builders receive generous signing bonuses and ongoing kickbacks earned from condemning residents to mandatory cable service contracts that may not expire in their lifetime.
Some apartment complexes have added charges for cable-TV service to the rent. Many earn ongoing compensation from grateful cable companies who pay 3-5 percent of revenue back to the complex. Even homeowner associations have gotten into the act, adding cable-TV costs to required association dues for upkeep and maintenance. For those who can’t or won’t pay, liens and even foreclosure can soon follow.
LM Sandler of Virginia Beach, a Virginia builder, is a typical player.
Sandler has built entire neighborhoods of new homes across Virginia, most of which are covered by a “bulk billing” contract with Cox. When residents buy or rent a Sandler-built property, a triple-play package of phone, cable, and Internet service comes along with the deal. It’s not cheap, running $146 a month. Even worse, your grandchildren could still be paying Cox Cable if they stayed in the family home, because Sandler’s contract with Cox runs up to 75 years.
Although residents are not required to take service from Cox, they are required to pay for it, in full, every month."
(continues...)
>
> ‘people should be aware of before buying into
> these deals.'
> In VA its called a disclosure packet. You were
> either given one or waived your right to one prior
> to the purchase. Also, a contact is not ratified
> until 72 hours after the buyer receives the
> packet.
Which don't most don't read nor do they understand the implications of which particularly when developers/builders/sales people/sellers aren't real keen to point out the potential downsides. In our case it was buried as an obscure covenant related to some jointly owned property that pretty much none of the owners really paid any attention to or even knew about until it became an issue at a much later time.
>
> ‘Governments also regulate HOAs'
> Correct, our great Commonwealth does! Here is the
> link:
>
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+co
> d+TOC55000000026000000000000
You can substitute significant if you don't like the use of real.