Author: Bill Otten" <res0958z@verizon.net (Bill Otten)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 00:52:35 -0400
It's a small start against the restrictive, abusive homeowner's associations. I'd encourage people to go to the ABC website and email the page to others who would be interested. The page is at : http
Hello all; My WIFE was watching this on TV last night and was very surprised at what she heard & saw. It was "old news" to me, as a ham operator who was first licensed in 1981 and who tries to stay o
Brad, this is not an issue of attorney's and judges. Attorney's represent parties who can bring a prima-facia claim under the current law. Judges, have the duty to ensure that claims have relevancy
Be that HOs, or HOAs? Paul. At 10:08 PM 19/04/2002, Jim Idelson, you said... -- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). To: <towertalk@contes
Brian, the counter-argument is what % of the voting population are electing their legislators? Who else is placing these people into their legislative positions? 100% of the voting population is not
Paul, You're only partially correct (if I may argue with a lawyer on a legal issue). If the laws concerning Homeowner Associations (or private contracts) permit actions which are unconstitutional ..
And those legislators are lawyers who intentionally pass laws that encourange conflict and help keep assets in play. Every time assets change hands forcefully lawyers drag off a portion of it. It's t
I read in one Supreme Court case where the court said "there can be no rights issues when contracts are involved". Thats probably not an exact quote but close. So it seems to me that the CC&R's are c
I think the contentious issues with CC&Rs are several fold: 1) In a lot of places (certainly true for Southern California), local planning permission for a developer is contingent on the developer ha
So slavery is OK as long as you can get them to sign a contract? Wrong. In addition, many CC&Rs still contain a "no non-caucasian can live here" clause. But it has been ruled unenforceable. So there
Several years ago I was looking for a building site to construct my new home. I found a beautiful new division that had only one house at the time. I spoke with the real estate person, and found out
And therein lies the root problem. All the great protections you just mentioned and are constructed and framed within our Constitution are limits of GOVERNMENTAL power, not private power, such as th
This is yet another example of drawing the distinctions between Unconstitutional and unlawful. The private actions that make these things wrong falls under statutory law, not the Constitution. The C
Author: thompson@mindspring.com (David L. Thompson)
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 14:24:36 -0400
What is wrong with the CC&R's is that most are NEVER signed by each homeowner. The prevailing law is that if they exist and are not expired that just their being there makes them valid. The lawyers h
Maybe I'm being over-optimistic, but it seems to me that the strong trend in state legislatures toward adding PRB-1 type "reasonable accommodation" language to state codes, plus the precedent of the
Paul, That's exactly the point ... when the HOA steps into areas that are traditionally the province of government (e.g.. freedom of speech, due process, regulation of interstate commerce, land use,
Mick, Please send a copy of that document, if you still have it, to the ARRL. It would be a perfect exhibit for the effort to have congress enact invalidate anti-tower, anti-ham CC&Rs. Lest anyone h
It's certainly a good argument Joe. I don't believe there is a hard-and-fast rule in determining the distinction. Until and if legislation is passed to define it more succinctly, we'll need to rely