var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Snowblind
April 20, 2009 2:39 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

I will never by a house in Tampon Springs.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
April 20, 2009 4:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Snowblind: Isn't that the neighborhood that Carrie was raised in?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
unobservant
April 20, 2009 4:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Trai_Dep: I think it's where they filmed that corridor scene in The Shining. You know the one.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
layton59
April 20, 2009 10:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@unobservant: I am not sure about the movies CARRIE or THE SHINING, but I am glad ADOLPH HITLER never knew about HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION'S (HOA). Can you imagine how much legal power that would have given him. He would have been unstoppable.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
unobservant
April 20, 2009 3:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Snowblind: Apparently the neighbors are d-bags!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
April 20, 2009 4:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@unobservant: at least they only drop by once a month.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Parapraxis
April 20, 2009 3:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Snowblind: me too... especially near the Old Flow Road.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ohenry
April 21, 2009 2:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Parapraxis: I just wouldn't live there, period.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Gokuhouse
April 20, 2009 2:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It seems like one of the parties should have folded long ago. I don't see much reason for either party to have pursued this. $1,000 leash violation is extremely high. I'm pretty sure that you would have to pay less of a fine if your dog got loose and killed somebody anywhere else...

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 21, 2009 10:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Gokuhouse: @Gokuhouse: Agreed, that a homeowner would not receive a $1000 fine for a single, isolated incident, followed by the homeowner complying with the deed restrictions. My experience has been that HOA's are after compiance not money, and are willing to work with homeowners who want to bring their home into compliance. Also, an HOA is not going to \"fold\", ever, or they cease to be an HOA.

In the past I've been the HOA's secretary. I've also gotten the warnings and fines, grumbled quietly about them for a while, then fixed the problem to come back into compliance.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
spanky
April 20, 2009 4:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Gokuhouse:

Baltimore just adopted new leash violation fines that start at $1K for the first offense.

I don't know what the fines are for letting your dog kill someone, though.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Munchie
April 20, 2009 4:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@spanky: Just curios does the new rules indicate you have to be holding the leash. I'm sensing a loophole here.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
spanky
April 20, 2009 7:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Munchie: Yeah, lots of people do, and they just have their dogs hold their own leashes; but most leash laws I've seen are pretty specific about requiring that a person be holding the leash, and have the dog under his or her control.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
meske
April 20, 2009 4:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Gokuhouse: Seems to me that it's not all about the dog... I have a feeling that they wanted this guy out of the community for whatever reason...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Missing in Vlissingen
April 20, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@meske: I wonder if the reason has anything to do with him being the type of guy who threatens to shoot people.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
OneTrickPony
April 20, 2009 3:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Gokuhouse:

I think it's pretty safe to say that this guy did not wind up with the original $1,000 fine after a single violation.

\"It all started more than seven years [earlier than April 2002] ago because Wirth insisted on walking his black Labrador, Cole, regularly without a leash. In January 2003, the River Watch Homeowners Association fined Wirth and his wife, Sandra L. Blaker, $1,000 for doing so.\" So he had been violating the covenant for months, and he was also viewed as \"the most flagrant and continual violator of the pet restriction within the community.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
snowburnt
April 20, 2009 3:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Gokuhouse: I bet you could face jailtime if you let your dog get loose and it kills someone, that and your dog will be put down immediately.

Especially if you have a history of letting your dog run around without a leash.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
WiglyWorm must cease and decist
April 20, 2009 2:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Gokuhouse: As it said in the article, if the HOA does not enforce this rule now, it will lose the ability to enforce it in the future. That's how these things work, they must either be applied evenly or not at all.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Corporate_guy
April 20, 2009 3:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@WiglyWorm: Yea, but in doing their action of using courts and running up the cost, they made it impossible to ever pay the fine. Who has 100k? No one.

They should have put a lien against his house that could have just sat there. They would have got their money eventually if the guy tried to sell the home or if he died. Instead they wasted a ton of money because they can and are foreclosing on a home just for that reason.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
milqtost
April 20, 2009 4:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Corporate_guy: Not sure how FL is but in some states, the HOA can file a lien but if they don't initiate foreclosure within a set amount of time, they lose the right to lien. And while this seems like an extreme fine, if he didn't like the HOA he shouldn't have bought there. Simple as that.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
chatterboxwriting
April 20, 2009 2:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

No one forced this man to live in a deed-restricted development. When you purchase a home in one of these areas, aren't you agreeing to abide by the rules? It's not like the rules were sprung on him by surprise.

Reply
13 replies
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
April 20, 2009 4:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chatterboxwriting: Although, to be fair, I'm pretty certain the deed restrictions don't say anything about not taking a gun and drilling the board members in a puppy-saving, Columbine-inspired rage.
Live by the HOA, DIE by the HOA.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coan_net
April 20, 2009 3:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chatterboxwriting: Even though I don't like HOA's much, if a person moves into a community with this, then they should KNOW THE RULES - Most likely he signed the agreement.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Brontide
April 20, 2009 3:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chatterboxwriting: Try living in Florida or California without buying into a HOA. It's darn near impossible in many locations. The HOA's \"rules\" are subject to biased enforcement and can change day-to-day based on a board of directors.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Brontide
April 20, 2009 3:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snowmoon: Also, depending on the age, many HOA's are still controlled by the developer and they can technically change the rules as they wish.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ospreyguy
April 20, 2009 3:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chatterboxwriting:


Yes I understand the \"it's in the deed\" but I had an issue with our HOA. We lived in a new community that was still under builder control. Nothing was enforced until the members took over. When they did the directors decided to change a lot of the rules stating they \"provided clarification\" this was under a new property manager who was a scam artist I fee which increased our fees from $55a year to $375 with very little to show for it. It took a group actually dismissing the entire board and firing the manager to take care of it. Then we (I'm now apart of the board) had to revamp the entire terms and condition had a real vote on it that was open to discussion.


So my issue here is these board members can get a really swollen head and push initiatives they \"think\" we need and want. This was a dog walking incident. It was your neighbor. Don't take the man's house because you want to prove a point. Apply the $1000 lien to his property yes, and just have it in 1st position. He can never refi or sell unless it's paid. Point made.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
April 20, 2009 4:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ospreyguy: I wouldn't take his house over the dog walking. I would take the house because he's mentally unstable and clearly needs to be in an institution after threatening to kill people and racking up $100k fighting a $k fine when he's clearly in the wrong.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Papa Midnight
April 20, 2009 3:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chatterboxwriting: On the other hand, some counties are requiring the placement of HOAs

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PersonalBest
April 20, 2009 2:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chatterboxwriting: Exactly. I used to live a condo building that required us to stop our cars to let the gate to the parking structure close properly to prevent thieves from getting in. I got dinged with the $200 fine a couple of times, and paid up, because hey, they caught me and I had agreed to their terms. I don't remember plotting a homicide over it. This dude is mental.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mcs328
April 20, 2009 2:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chatterboxwriting: Some of the rules are long and buried in a 2 inch thick booklet. Some are just plain ridiculous. Still I would pay the fine although the fine is way too high.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kc2idf
April 20, 2009 5:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mcs328: With that sort of thing in mind, though, I have two items that are, in considering a property for purchase, instant, irrevocable deal-killers:

- Electric heat
- HOAs.

Electric heat is too inefficient and expensive. HOAs are just an extra layer of government, taking your money, and yes, providing some services, but ultimately telling you what you can do with your own property.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Applekid
April 20, 2009 4:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mcs328: I would think it's more ridiculous to buy a house whose deed specifically refers to abiding by a set of rules that the buyer has no intention to learn about (because the book is too big) nor follow (because they're ridiculous).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skankingmike
April 20, 2009 3:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chatterboxwriting: You can change rules.

@PersonalBest: So do you just go along with all rules no matter how rediculous and unjust?

You can vote people out of the HOA and you can push your own agenda

BTW a bit of information for people. The police have no authority over the streets inside any Apartment complex,Condo/townhouse area unless the area is public domain (which 99% of the time it is not) This means any tickets you've gotten are illegal and can be fought (parking/speeding) etc.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PersonalBest
April 20, 2009 5:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skankingmike: @Trai_Dep: Yeah, this was a pretty big city, in a downtown neighbourhood that basically bordered cracktown. I'm not kidding when I say that we had these problems nearly every week, where people would sneak into the parking structure and smash in the windows of numerous cars.

While I'll admit that it's a lot of money for such a seemingly benign offense, and it seems dictatorial, I'm sure it encouraged a lot of people to follow the rules and prevented further break-ins. I don't really see how we could have done it otherwise. When I broke the rules, I paid the consequence.

This is pretty much off-topic. I just meant to say that I'm sure there were also good reasons for why this guy wasn't allowed to walk his dog around without a leash, and there shouldn't be any exceptions in these cases.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skankingmike
April 20, 2009 6:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PersonalBest: Oh leash laws exist almost everywhere were I live (NJ). And i agree it protects you, your dog, and other people. God forbid your dog gets hit by a car, or bites somebody.

I'm just saying that community organizations should not make laws that are not in their county or state constitution.

@Trai_Dep: only if that community has it's own security that gives private tickets/violations.

But if you are in your own development and its on private streets then police from that community have no right to stop somebody from speeding or parking illegally. Only the HOA has those rights.

(know this from an associate of my wife who fought his parking tickets in his condo area and won effectively making the town give back all parking violations funds for the past year, something around 30k) I'm sure their property taxes went UP :P

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bravohotel01
April 20, 2009 10:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skankingmike: \"I'm just saying that community organizations should not make laws that are not in their county or state constitution.\"

In Houston (TX), up until very recently, it was legal to park one's car on one's front lawn. Of all of the HOAs I dealt with (I used to work at a HOA Management Co), none of them would allow a resident to park his or her car on the lawn, let mold grow on the side of the house, let the front lawn grow wild, let garbage be placed out on non-garbage days, etc., etc.

Under your plan, all of the above--and more--would not be enforced.

-------------

An interesting aspect of HOAs: the more wealthy the residents, the less severe the penalties. In one of the homes that Ken & Linda Lay (of Enron infamy) own, at most a resident will ever see is a warning letter when one of the rules are broken. They told us to never escalate to a level 2 letter (which says basically, fix it or you're going to get sued) or refer the resident to the attorney.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
April 20, 2009 4:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skankingmike: Not to defend the little dictators and their Mayberry Rules, but then couldn't they tack the car violation tickets into a lien and sue, like the dog-walking ticket?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PersonalBest
April 20, 2009 3:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skankingmike: I signed an agreement with the condo board in which the rule was stated, so yes, I did go along with it. It wasn't a ridiculous rule because we had break-ins nearly every week. When I violated it, out of sheer carelessness, I admit, I paid the piper.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Tuuurd_Ferguson
April 20, 2009 2:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

While i think most HOA deed restrictions are ridiculous, he agreed to them when he purchased the property. If you wanted to walk your dog off leash, go to the dog park.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|*
April 20, 2009 5:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Tuuurd_Ferguson: at least this guy's HOA is doing something - we have a worthless HOA. (oh, you put up a fence in violation of our policies? oh well, it's already up, we aren't going to make you take it down.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
headcase
April 20, 2009 3:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Tuuurd_Ferguson: Yup. Unless they introduced the restriction later on without informing him.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
T Axel Jones
April 20, 2009 4:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@headcase: @ospreyguy:


Most HOAs can change their rules with very little notice to the homeowner. Best advice - don't buy one. If you think small town politics are corrupt you haven't seen anything like a HOA board meeting.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ospreyguy
April 20, 2009 3:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@headcase:


Which happens often. Small notebook paper sign says meeting tomorrow. 6 people show up and they change the rules. Then they say \"Oh you weren't at the meeting, sorry.\"


I am on a board now and the previous one was like this...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Traveshamockery
April 20, 2009 4:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ospreyguy: Any legit HOA requires a certain large percentage of residents to be present to change rules. Sounds like yours was a shame.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Admiral_John
April 20, 2009 2:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I would never by a house in an area with a HOA because of these kinds of rules.

That said, the homeowner moved into his house fully aware of the HOA rules. He chose to break them because of the mentality that \"they apply to everyone but me\". He refused to pay the fine and, as is their right, the HOA foreclosed on him.

Sorry, but the fault with this lies with the homeowner, not the HOA.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
snowburnt
April 20, 2009 3:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wchamilton: A) It's not an HOA rule, it's a local law.

When you buy a place with an HOA (at least in VA) you have 30 days to reconsider after receiving the HOA docs. My guess is that no one reads them.

HOAs aren't bad for condos, when you buy a Condo you usually want less hassle than a house or townhouse. They take care of the grounds, you make sure your windows are ok.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
April 20, 2009 2:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wchamilton: In this case, the rule is perfectly reasonable. Dogs need to be walked on leashes for the safety of everyone.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ShadowFalls
April 21, 2009 3:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265:

It is certainly true. Even if a dog is not violent, it can be a little overzealous at times. Sometimes it is to the point of charging a little kid in enjoyment and hurting the kid. All that and the dog doesn't even have to be violent.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Etoiles
April 20, 2009 2:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: In fact, everywhere I've ever lived, it's local (city, state, or county) law.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
j-o-h-n
April 20, 2009 4:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Etoiles: It is not the law here. Here dogs must be on leash OR under voice control.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
loudambiance
April 20, 2009 6:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@j-o-h-n: Everywhere I have ever lived, being under voice control was considered being on a leash.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
j-o-h-n
April 20, 2009 9:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@loudambiance: Explicitly written, as it is here (on lease OR under V.C.) or written as \"on lease\" (and \"everyone\" implicitly understands that under V.C. \"counts\")?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
h3llc4t, breaker of office dress codes
April 20, 2009 2:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Did he know about the rule when they bought the home?


I can't stand when people think their pet is the special exception to a rule. If it says only service dogs are allowed inside, don't bring your Chihuahua in in a carrier and expect it to be cool. If there are leash restrictions, expect to get dinged if you ignore them. One asshole pet owner can ruin things for everyone who does follow the rules.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
ajlei
April 20, 2009 4:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@h3llc4t: My parents live in an HOA area, and they really haven't had too many problems.

However, as far as leash laws go, it's not just an HOA thing but a countywide thing that dogs have to be leashed unless their on that person's private property.

Nobody follows this and I have come this close to running over three separate dogs in the neighborhood, not out of malice, because they come running out of nowhere and have never been trained properly and the owners always give me shit for driving too fast (I'm not going to drive slower than 15 in my neighborhood) or not looking.

Last time, a dog literally came out and SAT in front of my car. The owner ran out and was like \"Gus! Guuuuuuuus! C'mere Gus!\" and the dog wouldn't even move. The woman had to drag the dog out of the way, a bit of a feat for a tiny anorexic fashion-obsessed woman and a giant St. Bernard.

Now that I think about it, maybe that dog had a deathwish. Anyway, leash laws are there for a reason and it's idiots like the OP (and my neighbors) that think they're too high and mighty to obey.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
synimatik
April 20, 2009 2:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@h3llc4t: Agreed. He knew the rules, he broke them. Sure, $1000 fine for walking a dog is out-fricken-ragious, but he knowingly broke it.

Many pet people treat their pets like children, thusly automatically assume their pets are better than everyone else's. Which entitles them to circumvent the rules.

Bollux!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
h3llc4t, breaker of office dress codes
April 20, 2009 2:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@synimatik: We treat our pets like children- naughty, belligerent children. We know they are troublemakers, so we don't take them into situations where that would be a problem, like shopping malls or public events.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Gokuhouse
April 20, 2009 2:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@h3llc4t: Kind of like in the movie Marley and Me....Pretty hilarious scene of the dog ruining it for everyone else......

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Admiral_John
April 20, 2009 2:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

And if you read the article this one line sums the entire situation:

\"Wirth admits he still walks Cole without a leash.\"

So screw him.

Reply
1 replies
","
\"user-pic\"
Shadowfire
April 20, 2009 2:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wait a second... the house is owned by his wife. How can the man's debt be collected upon by using the wife's property?

If my wife was in debt and going to collections, they couldn't take my car.

Something here doesn't seem right.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
Jim Topoleski
April 20, 2009 2:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I still can't believe HOAs are still allowed to exist. The whole concept is borderline illegal and actually IS illegal in some places.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
EinhornIsAMan!
April 20, 2009 8:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jim Topoleski: I agree with you completely. As far as I'm concerned, HOAs are unconstitutional.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
April 20, 2009 9:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheDayIsMine:
I suppose it's a good thing that you're not a judge. I am a bit amused by the fact you don't cite any particular authority for your claim that they're unconstitutional. What provision of the Constitution do you believe they violate?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
EinhornIsAMan!
April 21, 2009 1:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: I suppose it is a good thing that I am not a judge, since I am not a lawyer and that would be an abomination of a country I love so much.

I never said they violate a specific provision as outlined in the Constitution. My problem is that they often take on the governing powers typically reserved to governments. One need only pass the 3rd grade to know that certain powers (certainly almost all powers significant to one's life-public education, marriage, property taxes, drivers licenses) are understood by the Constitution to be relegated to the states. While local governments are not provided for in the Constitution, I believe in certain cases as in the case of my home, HOA's supersede not only the territory that should be the concern of a local government, but concerns that a government should and could not have control over.

Such is the case in my neighborhood. I understand that by living in an a place governed by a HOA, one is notified of that particular areas codes and such, but I believe, once again, this is a twofold violation of 1) infringing on the territory of a government and 2) superseding the power any true, reasonable power of our democratic government (in some cases). Leash laws, where I live (thank Pete) are by local ordinance and not HOAs, because they should not be the domain of HOAs.

An asinine response in my opinion is that Homeowners may \"choose not to live there\" and \"have to sign a contract.\" I understand full well what a contract is, I do not agree with it. Though certainly not an egregious violation of my rights, I go absolutely batshit when I think that I can only paint my house certain colors, or that certain things in my backyard(that are not lewd or otherwise inappropriate) must not be visible from the street, where I can keep my dog. Screw property values. What is reasonable, a local government can legislate. Everything else is bullshit

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SpongeSteveSquareDave_GitEmSteveDave
April 20, 2009 3:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jim Topoleski: Even if it wasn't \"legal\" anymore, wouldn't past contracts still apply until they expired?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
joshua70448
April 20, 2009 4:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SpongeSteveSquareDave_GitEmSteveDave: If I remember my business classes correctly (and I may not), contracts that are illegal are unenforceable, even past contracts. If an area made HOA's illegal, then all of the HOA contracts in that area would be null and void.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
April 20, 2009 4:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@joshua70448:
You're right that a contract that was illegal at formation is unenforceable. However, I think the state would run into serious problems if they passed a law that made existing HOAs illegal. Specifically, I think there might be Due Process, Takings clause and Contract clause problems.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
April 20, 2009 3:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SpongeSteveSquareDave_GitEmSteveDave: \"wouldn't past contracts still apply until they expired? \"

Not if the original contract was illegal at its formation, or was declared unconscionable.

I think HOAs are obviously legal, but I think they're extraordinarily bad policy and I do think there are clear cases where they've become a de facto state agent and therefore are now violating Constitutional rights. I've also seen large numbers of HOAs and condo associations in violations of state property laws and so forth, and where I am there's little oversight or enforcement from the state. I do think a lot of this happens not from malice aforethought but from non-professional boards copying other boards and not understanding the application of the law or differences between the laws in city X and city Y.

We had a local HOA \"steal\" a street from the city. It turns out the city kinda frowns on that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
April 20, 2009 3:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (on Twitter: LPetelle):
You raise an interesting argument about the HOA being a state agent, though I'm not sure it's a valid one. They aren't taking on a function that they state would normally do, which under the caselaw seems to be required. See Marsh v Alabama. The state doesn't normally care what color your house is, or what kind of shingles you have (so long as they conform to the building safety codes). The HOA is more concerned about aesthetics than safety. At least in this case, even if the HOA was a state agent, I don't see how they would be violating this guys Constitutional rights. They passed a rule that has solid justification, he failed to comply with it. He was punished for it, refused to pay. They are now collecting via a legally allowed method (Foreclosure).
I do agree that HOAs and Condo boards can be terribly problematic, largely due to incompetent leadership, and I'm sure there are cases in which, if they were indeed state agents, they'd certainly be violating people's rights. However, I think most HOAs don't come anywhere near being a state agent (some might, but I suspect most don't), rendering the argument moot.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
April 20, 2009 3:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: I didn't say in this case -- I said I'd seen cases. :) I've seen issues with HOAs managing roads, sewers, \"public areas,\" etc.

I don't really see any problem with this case, except for it's TOTAL AND COMPLETE RIDICULOUSNESS, but that's not illegal. Bad policy, but not illegal.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bwcbwc
April 21, 2009 11:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (on Twitter: LPetelle): In Florida, if it's a gated community, the HOA is required to maintain \"public\" areas and roads. The rationale is that the general public of the surrounding community isn't benefiting from those resources and therefore isn't required to maintain them.

And then there's Disneyworld. Disney pretty much is the government in the area around there, not just de facto, but as a legally recognized entity with taxing and zoning powers (not sure about police, courts and other). Sort of a super-HOA

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
April 20, 2009 4:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (on Twitter: LPetelle): So HOAs are basically a Libertarian Paradise version of municipal cities then?
Nice to see yet another example of how, on the cruel rocks of reality, Ayn Rand founders on the jagged shoals of everyday living.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
April 20, 2009 3:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jim Topoleski:
Any particular justification for your claim that they're borderline illegal? Deed restrictions have a pretty solid foundation in Property Law, and have been around for a very long time. I'm not sure why you think they're borderline illegal, when in fact they are very much legal. Since property law is a state issue, states and municipalities are free to legislatively change it if they want to, allowing them to refuse to allow HOAs in their area. I can't imagine this is even a remotely common practice, as many people prefer HOAs because it keeps their property values up.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SynMonger
April 20, 2009 3:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Any particular justification for your claim that HOAs keep the property value up? Lots of people spout this, but I've never seen any evidence to back it up.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
godawgs7
April 20, 2009 6:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SynMonger: Let's say you have a HOA that has architectural restrictions on it. You are only allowed to build 2 story brick or craftsman style homes. The 200 people in the neighborhood all abide.

BUT, some guy comes in, buys a house and tears it down. He now wants to build a 3 story glass and metal art-deco house. The HOA would prevent him from doing that. There is the potential that his 3 story glass house would depress property value as who would want to live next to or near that house? That would force people to sell their house for a lesser amount to entice someone to deal with this guy's new house.

HOA can be a pain in the butt, but they can also make sure people don't do god awful things which affect your enjoyment of your property. Would you like it if someone put cars on cinderblocks in their front yard and you lived across the street?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
April 20, 2009 7:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@godawgs7: I'd rather live in a city with zoning laws where citizens have protected property rights and recourse against the government than in an HOA which can rule by fiat without being responsive to anyone.

I've come to understand on Consumerist that some of y'all apparently live in zoning- and code-free realms where people CAN put cars on cinderblocks in their front yards, but everywhere I've lived, those kinds of things have already been prohibited by city code and you can just call the nice folks at code enforcement to come and start issuing tickets.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GearheadGeek
April 20, 2009 7:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@godawgs7: Happily I live in a city that prohibits \"junk cars\" (and defines that broadly enough to include cars on cinderblocks: \"... any wrecked, dismantled or partially dismantled vehicle that doesn't work.\" And the city doesn't tell me what brand and color of paint and shingles I'm required to use. I hope never to live under the jurisdiction of an HOA again, I've had enough of it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cliff_Donner
April 20, 2009 4:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SynMonger: I'm aware of at least one neighborhood whose HOA has a reputation for being so intrusive and unreasonable that homeowners who are trying to sell have trouble finding buyers (a situation that existed even before the current real estate meltdown).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
April 20, 2009 3:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SynMonger:
None in particular, but I think it's logical that when you don't have to worry about your neighbors turning their house into a huge eyesore and you don't have to worry about keeping the grass in common areas manicured, it makes your home more valuable. I suppose for me it's more of a pure common sense thing, and I suspect there are studies out there that support that, but I can't name any. I realize some people are wholly against HOAs, which would make the home less valuable to them, but my suspicion is that those people are in the minority.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
April 20, 2009 2:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shadowfire:
The fine is levied against the property owner who is responsible for the conduct. The rules are probably written in a way that allows them to levy a fine against the home owner for the transgressions of any occupant of the home. He's an occupant of the home, the homeowner is responsible for his conduct while he's inside the subdivision.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Snarkysnake
April 20, 2009 2:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99:

Good luck trying to collect. His house is in Florida. That means that if his wife declared homestead (and it meets the other rules for homestead),the HOA can piss up a tree until...Until they are chunking snowballs at one another in Miami Beach. Florida offers absolute protection against any lawsuit or lien on your primary residence. (This is why O.J. Simpson moved to Florida. He could moon Ron Goldman's family from his homestead -protected crib because it is virtually untouchable EXCEPT for the first mortgage during the owners lifetime)Since the HOA doesn't hold the first mortgage,if he stays there until death,they are out o' luck.It's when you try to sell or refinance that they can cloud your title with a lien or fine.

One of the reasons that Snarkysnake has a home in Florida...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
April 20, 2009 3:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Snarkysnake:
Given the fact that the home is already in foreclosure over this, I think your analysis might be a little bit off. Not that there aren't judges who simply ignore the law, but I think the fact that the HOA was awarded a judgment, and has already been allowed to put the home into foreclosure at least presumptively defeats your analysis of the issue. I don't know anything about Florida property law (I am aware that they have some screwy laws that offer some extra protection for the homeowner), but your argument obviously doesn't mesh with what the courts have allowed. Maybe they were wrong and will be overturned on appeal, but as it stands, it seems the HOA has won.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Snarkysnake
April 20, 2009 4:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99:
I won't say that you are wrong,but my understanding (after paying soem very well compensated attorneys)is that with the proper Florida homestead exemption filed in the county of residence,your home can only be seized for not paying the 1st mortgage or taxes .Now,not all homes qualify for this homestead exemption-the law spells out precise guidelines that no judge can circumvent. It could be that his property is larger than the prescribed maximum -It could be that his HOA has some sovreign power to tax (very doubtful) or that its really a co-op arrangement that is exempt.Also, he could have filed an declaration of homested in another state,which would pre empt one in Florida. But if it is just a guy with his house,he should be safe.

I'm not sure,but I believe that Texas has a similar law.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GearheadGeek
April 20, 2009 5:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Snarkysnake: Texas does in fact have excellent homestead protections, but deed restrictions on the property that were present and duly executed when you purchased are in fact allowable, and can supersede your homestead protections.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
April 20, 2009 4:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Snarkysnake:
My point was the article makes clear that he's not safe. The home has already been foreclosed upon. If it's gotten that far, I think it's pretty clear that the Homestead law didn't apply (or was misapplied or ignored by the judge). If the homestead law did apply, I can't imagine that a judge would have entered an order of foreclosure (Again, not accounting for judges who simply refuse to follow the law). Perhaps he didn't file the requisite exemption or it simply didn't qualify, but the obvious fact is that one way or another the law didn't apply since the HOA has already gotten an order of foreclosure.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
morganlh85
April 20, 2009 2:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

All dog owners think their do is so sweet and well-behaved, till they get away from them and maul some little kid to death. THAT'S why we have leash laws. Don't like it? Buy a farm.

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
Alys Brangwin is one smartass pawn
April 20, 2009 7:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Since my dog has bitten people inside my house - twice - I always muzzle him when going to the vet's office and warn away people who want to pet him when I take him for a walk. (He IS an exceptionally pretty dog!) Yet I still have to put up with people who insist that dogs love them, that they love all dogs, and that mine won't mind if they pet him! People can be awfully stupid sometimes.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Feminist Whore
April 21, 2009 4:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Alys Brangwin is one smartass pawn: Sounds like the situation I used to have with my cute little cocker spaniel. So many people thought they had some sort of magical mind-meld powers where they could connect with my dog... \"oh he won't bite me, dogs love me!\" Um yeah sure. Even if I told them that the vet determined the dog had a genetic predisposition of \"a nervous tendency to bite\", they never believed it. Stupid hippies.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Scoobatz
April 20, 2009 3:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@morganlh85: While that may be true, I don't think this situation has anything to do with dogs. This is a case about a man living in a neighborhood run by a HOA and he refuses to play by the rules. I have no sympathy for the man in this situation. HOA rules suck, but they're generally put in place for the good of the neighborhood.


As an example, I onced lived in a townhouse neighborhood that had a HOA. One of the rules was residents were not allowed to park in the street. Everyone had 1-2 car garages, driveways long enough for 2-3 cars, and plenty of parking lots scattered throughout the community. But, before long, people started parking in the streets. And, violaters were ticketed $100 per occurance. These people would come up with some lousy excuse and complain at the quarterly HOA meetings why they couldn't park in the spots provided. But, truth is, parking cars in the street made the community look awful. I hated when people would park their cars in the street, especially in front my house. Luckily, the HOA didn't back down and took further legal action against some of the worst offenders.


When I moved into the neighborhood, I got a book on the HOA rules. Regardless of some of the comments made on this blog, none of these rules were buried deep in the text of the document. They're very clear. And, the rules always cover the same common issues: dogs, parking, lawn care, decorations, noise, garbage, etc. And, before signing any documents, we were presented a package of rules to review prior to buying a property. There's no excuse.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
s73v3r
April 20, 2009 6:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Scoobatz: Question: Where would guests park? Did the area have plenty of guest parking? And would a guest's car fall under HOA authority?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Scoobatz
April 20, 2009 8:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@s73v3r: Well, for starters, guests are free to park in the driveway. If there's no room, they must park in one of the lots. There's plenty of parking and regardless of where you live, you wouldn't have to walk more than 2 buildings away -- the equivalent of about 25-50 yards.


And, yes, guests' cars fall under the HOA authority. Residents are responsible for their guests. Honestly, it's not that big of a deal, some people just like to complain about everything.


Having said that, I can also tell you that I've since moved and live in a non-HOA neighborhood and vow to never return to one. I think the majority of HOA rules serve the greater good of the community. Problem is, the board tends to made up of people on a power trip, enforcing their versions of the rules, hoping to find someone in violation. Stereotypical or not, my previous HOA was made up of mostly woman, stay at home, bitter, responsibily for most of the neighborhood gossip, who would walk the streets at night with a clipboard taking note of changes made to someone's property.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
webreacher
April 20, 2009 3:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@morganlh85: I would looove to see our neighbor's chihuahua maul a kid to death. Oh, wait...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Yokai Monsters Spook Warfare
April 20, 2009 11:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@webreacher: I used to feel this way about my two small Boston Terriers, but in my new complex there are several people who are incredibly afraid of dogs (probably is considered a phobia for them based on their behavior).

My point is, even my loving, well behaved dogs scare the daylights out of some people by simply running in their general direction. I know we can't cater to EVERYONE'S fears (I'm sure someone in my building has a pet snake, for example, but I'm not getting out my pitchfork just yet), but something as simple as a leash is just common courtesy when you live in a populated area.

Plus, people can freaking steal your dogs. They have microchips now, but those aren't really effective unless you live in the same place and go to the same vet where you bought and activated it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
April 20, 2009 3:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@webreacher: It can be for the pet's safety as well. A couple summers ago we had not one but TWO chihuahuas attacked by hawks that attempted to carry them off. Both required extensive medical care.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
April 20, 2009 4:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (on Twitter: LPetelle): Is is bad that when I read your post, my thought was, \"Need to raise more hawks\"?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
xipander
April 20, 2009 4:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (on Twitter: LPetelle): Good for the hawks. Doing everyone a favour.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
JGBrock
April 20, 2009 2:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

In an HOA outside of Phoenix, I was threatened with losing my home over the height of a playground in my backyard. To make it even more madening, a) the playground was put up (apparently) two owners and fice years before I bought the house and b) the nasty letter was my very first contact from the HOA on the subject. I took the tarp off the top and that made them happy.


Then I moved to Kansas City. Six month in, I get a letter from the HOA telling me the fence around my backyard needed to be removed because it was too close to the sidewalk and I had not asked before having it built. Which, if you are playing along at home, should not suprise anyone that the fence was there when I bought the house.


Once I convinced them of this, they still wanted it to be come down or be moved, but they were willing to pay for it (I was amazed). I pointed out that this would mean paying for a new fence, moving or replacing the watering system, new landscaping, and new sod. They decided it was not that much of an eyesore, and they could live with it. I would bet, however, the next owner gets the same letter, though

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
tundey
April 20, 2009 4:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JGBrock: Aren't you supposed to get some clearance from the HOA before buying a house? I believe my realtor made sure we had certification that there was no outstanding HOA-issues before I bought my house.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bravohotel01
April 20, 2009 10:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tundey: Yes, you're exactly right. In fact, most--if not all--title companies will not transfer the title until any outstanding HOA dues/fines are paid, and any deed restriction violations are resolved.

---

It is patently easy to apply for a variance, and most are rubber-stamped, unless they are crazy. If JGBrock had applied for a variance on his playground equipment and fence, most likely they would have granted it and the matter would be closed.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JGBrock
April 20, 2009 5:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tundey:


In Phoenix, the excuse was that they had not noticed.


In KC, it turns out that there was something called a HOA lien on the house which, apparently, has no force whatsoever. The bank (who owned the house due to foreclosure) ignored it. It never came up during the closing. We found out only when we were sent the notice from the HOA. Like it said, the HOA backed down, but, if they hadn't, I would have raised holy hell with the bank for not telling me. Probably would have done no good whatsoever, but I would have screamed at them anyway.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GearheadGeek
April 20, 2009 7:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JGBrock: If the existing lien had any legal force, your \"title policy\" could have been invoked. It would probably be the first time the mafia...er... title company had actually had to pay anything out on a policy in decades.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mcs328
April 20, 2009 2:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JGBrock: Sometimes I feel that some HOAs are all bark and no bite. That's why someone of these violations go on for so long from the previous owner until the next buyer is willing to cave in to their demands.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
April 20, 2009 2:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This guy is a real estate broker, so there isn't even an argument that he didn't know what he was getting into when he bought the house. Him and his wife choose to move into a planned community with a particular set of rules. He chose not to follow those rules, seemingly because he thinks he's above them. He was given multiple opportunities to remedy the situation on his own, and he refused to do so. If he was paying a lawyer, he knew (or should have known) that if he didn't pay up foreclosure would be an option. He chose to refuse to abide by the court order (pending appeal, at least), and is now going to have to find a new place to live. Maybe this time he'll find a place with rules that he can follow. Basically, he's getting exactly what he deserves.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
feckingmorons
April 21, 2009 3:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Read his County Court files, he has been sued by credit cards, finance companies, he has sued the association and lost on other occasions.


I opine that this guy has some sort of mental problem and they are manifest in his odd behavior. This is not simply a HOA fining some guy for walking a dog off a leash one time, it is him exacerbating the situation in any way possible.


He is even made at the State because someone dumped concrete behind his house before he lived there and he thinks it is an enviornmental and navigation hazard. The local code enforcement, the county enviornmental enforcement unit, and the state don't think so but he was in the paper a few years ago about that. I wonder who he sued that time.


I think this guy is off his rocker.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
1stMarDiv
April 20, 2009 2:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Last summer I went on a walk with my wife through our neighborhood in San Diego, and in a nearby yard there were a few Hispanic people and two small dogs yipping around without leashes (there was also no fence). As we were walking, I made a comment to my wife about how the dogs should be on leashes, and right after saying that one of the dogs came running over to us on the opposite side of the street.


Sure enough, a black SUV happened to be speeding down the street at the same time, and the dog was literally about 4 feet away from us when the SUV ran him over with both tires. The worst part is that the dog didn't die right away; he immediately started writhing and convulsing in pain as one of the people in the yard rushed to pick him up. My wife started screaming and I tried to get a license plate number, but it was too late.


As an animal lover, I was more pissed off at the people who didn't use a leash in lieu of a fenced area. So anyway, screw this douchebag for being stubborn and not following a simple rule.

Reply
15 replies
\"user-pic\"
EinhornIsAMan!
April 20, 2009 9:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@1stMarDiv: I don't think details are inherently racist/bigoted/etc. It's more the general trend of uneven descriptors in stories. You know, the white, male heterosexual as the standard; the assumption that unless other wise noted, everyone is a straight white male-that's what makes \"Hispanic people\" and \"black guy\" and \"this woman,\" sometimes unintentionally biased. I never see people write, \"I was with my wife and I saw this straight white guy with his dogs,\" race and whatnot however become mysteriously important even when the understanding of the story does not call for it if one is homosexual, female, black, asian, fat, etc.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
April 20, 2009 6:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@1stMarDiv: I never swerve for animals while in a car/truck. I am not trashing any four wheeled vehicle or risking my life for a pet or wild animal.


A couple of years back I am driving through my HOA managed development in my midsized pickup truck while following a slow moving car. That slow moving car would be both the cause and savaltion of the dog's actions as described below.


There was a dog which I knew chased cars on a certain block. Never on a lease was the dog- some sort of Golden Retriever or similar.


Did I mention that I never swerve for animals while in a car/truck?


Stupid dog runs out to chase the car in front of me, doesn't understand that I am following in my truck, and promptly goes under the front of the truck. I dragged him maybe 6' to 8' before I could stop. But I had been going slow...


I pondered what to do for a minute and then reversed to see if the dog was wacked or just damaged. I figured if he was toast, I would have put him in the truck bed for removal and burial somewhere else. If he was just injured I would have called the police and had them write an unleased pet ticket against the owner via my sworn oath if the police would not have done it.


As I backed off of him, the stupid dog gets up and runs away!!! Oh well not my problem now... I never did see the dog again so either he learned his lesson or went off and died somewhere.


Stupid owners...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Gokuhouse
April 20, 2009 8:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@econobiker: Your story hurt my soul just a little...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
zibby
April 20, 2009 4:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@1stMarDiv: And why did you need to mention your wife? Were you worried we might think you weren't straight or something? You should have said \"significant other.\"


And why did you have to mention that the dogs were small? It really wasn't necessary, you know?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ElizabethD
April 20, 2009 8:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@zibby:
One question: If they weren't Hispanic or Black, would he have said \"white people\"?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TaterTom
April 21, 2009 7:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wchamilton: I take a slightly different approach, and say \"this dog bites\" when approached by others in public with my dog. A vast majority of people jump when I say that, and keep their distance, decreasing the chances of a problem with my dog, because you are quite right. There aren't non-biting dogs, just ones that haven't bitten anyone.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
zibby
April 20, 2009 11:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ElizabethD: How should I know? I do know it wouldn't send me into a tizzy if he did.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
1stMarDiv
April 20, 2009 5:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@zibby:


I thought you were being serious at first, but now I get it. But I guess I'm still a racist, according to SynMonger.


Nice call buddy. You also forgot to mention I called the SUV \"black\"....I bet, in your fragile world, that's considered racist too.


Calm down people.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ElizabethD
April 20, 2009 6:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@1stMarDiv:

Everyone: In the journalism world, we learn not to include descriptors that are unnecessary to understanding the story. We don't need to know, for example, that the board chairwoman was wearing a sleeveless purple blouse or that the hospital president is a black man -- unless someone at the board meeting got mad and ripped that purple blouse off the chairwoman's back and that become the lede of the article, or the hospital president is the first black person to lead this particular hospital in the formelry segregated Deep South and that's the point of the story. Etc.

So, NO -- the original poster should have omitted the race of the dog owners from his post. There is just no reason in the world to include it unless the poster was referencing an imagined stereotype about Hispanics and their yappy little uncontrolled beaner dogs. You know?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Gokuhouse
April 20, 2009 8:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ElizabethD: It's called storytelling. When people tell stories they use descriptive words. That poster was clearly telling a story.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ElizabethD
April 20, 2009 8:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Gokuhouse:

One question: If they weren't Hispanic or Black, would he have said \"white people\"?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Gokuhouse
April 20, 2009 8:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ElizabethD: I don't see why not. Read a book sometime, you will find out that authors generally use descriptive words to give you the feel that you are there. It is as simple as that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ElizabethD
April 20, 2009 11:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Gokuhouse:

You don't see why not?

Please. You are being extremely disingenuous.

Read a book? I have written books. How about you? Don't tell me about writing, journalistic or otherwise. This is basic decency we're talking about. OK, I'm done. Never underestimate, etc etc....

Reply
\"user-pic\"
EinhornIsAMan!
April 20, 2009 9:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Gokuhouse: Once again, I agree. as long as descriptors are evenly used. So if you want to say \"black guy,\" fine, say it was a black guy, but also say \"white guy\" when it's a white guy. If you want to say gay guy, fine, say gay guy, as long as you refer to every straight guy as that straight gay. Unless of course it's essential to the story.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
EinhornIsAMan!
April 20, 2009 9:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheDayIsMine: that last one should say \"straight guy\" not gay

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
April 20, 2009 7:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ElizabethD: This is why I notice things that are unnecessarily included. I don't mention it to be rude, but it's because I've been trained and educated to spot these things and to never write them myself. There's no need to describe the people as Hispanic unless it's absolutely relevant.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TaterTom
April 21, 2009 7:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Elitism > racism?

[en.wikipedia.org]

Not to be rude myself, but some of us untrained, uneducated country folk with our simpleton ways might not agree with you. If you are taking offense to a simple descriptor used in a non-derogatory manner, then I will take exception to your touting of paid services as some sort of advantage over others.

I've enjoyed plenty of your posts here, but I don't agree with firing off on someone about racism while talking down to them because of an assumed educational difference.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
1stMarDiv
April 20, 2009 6:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ElizabethD:


Don't tell me about journalism. I was a war correspondent in the Marine Corps for five years, so I know a little about it. This isn't journalism, this is a website where people post anecdotes, advice, etc. etc. Get over yourself.


Isn't it amazing how overly sensitive we are when it comes to things like this? I was hoping my post would garner reaction due to what happened to the dog, but instead people are griping about calling a group of people \"Hispanic\".


But you're right. I shouldn't have referred to the person I was with as \"my wife\" either. Instead I should have called her a \"carbon-based life form.\" And I can't believe I haven't been called out for calling the SUV black - it's easy to see I associate dog killers with black people, hence me describing the black SUV.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ElizabethD
April 20, 2009 11:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@1stMarDiv:

You're a laff riot. Very subtle. And not on point.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Johann
April 21, 2009 6:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ElizabethD:

There was a recent study that showed purposely avoiding the mention of race can, itself, be seen as racist. Maybe, just maybe, we should give people the benefit of the doubt on these manners. We do see race. You walk down the street and see a group of people that are a different race than you and, yes, most people will actually notice their race. It is merely a detail -- neither good nor bad. Just mentioning someone's race is not in itself offensive or antagonistic or indicative of bias.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ElizabethD
April 20, 2009 8:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@1stMarDiv:

One question: If they weren't Hispanic or Black, would he have said \"white people\"?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
zibby
April 20, 2009 6:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ElizabethD: Well, I know this isn't journalism. It's a story some guy is relating on the internet. Details tend to make stories more interesting.


Of course, he could have just said, \"I once saw an unleashed dog struck by a motor vehicle\" and made exactly the same point. But it doesn't really put you in the moment.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ElizabethD
April 20, 2009 8:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@zibby:

One question: If they weren't Hispanic or Black, would he have said \"white people\"?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
shepd
April 20, 2009 3:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@1stMarDiv:

You were getting the license plate so the SUV driver could sue the dog's owner for damage to their vehicle, right?

Because, if you were getting it to somehow give them a hard time, let me tell you, the law is on the SUV owner's side. They were being nice driving away. Otherwise, either they or their insurance company could collect damages against the dog's owner for allowing their property to damage their vehicle. If the cops arrived and wrote up the incident, the driver may not even have a choice in the matter (Insurance companies are great at getting that info in a hurry, and they like their $$$).

That is how the laws are written. Of course, if you don't like them, you're free to vote to change them. Personally, I think they're best the way they are, though. It keeps terrible pet owners on their toes, so to speak.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Corporate_guy
April 20, 2009 3:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@1stMarDiv: Why was it necessary to get a license plate number? You don't have to to stop if you hit an animal and there are no guarantees the driver he knew he hit it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mmmsoap
April 20, 2009 5:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Corporate_guy: Really? In my state you do. (See Chapter 5.)

Squirrels, racoons, no. But there are special indications for dogs and cats. You're supposed to stop, and attempt to inform either the owners or the police.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Crim Law Geek
April 20, 2009 3:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Corporate_guy:
In some places you do have to stop after hitting an animal (in others only if you hit livestock). Pets are considered property, and in those certain places you need to stop because there is property damage.

That said, it's possible the driver of the SUV didn't realize he had run over an animal.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
1stMarDiv
April 20, 2009 3:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Corporate_guy:


I see your point, but I did forget to mention something. As the SUV was coming down the street, it had plenty of time to either slow down or move out of the way. Also, I stepped a little onto the street and started waving my arms in the air for the car to slow down. So unless the driver was completely blind, he saw the dog, not to mention I'm sure he felt the impact as well.


You may not have to stop if you hit an animal, but common sense and human decency would lead me to believe that the right thing to do would have been to stop.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
John
April 20, 2009 2:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@1stMarDiv: Was it necessary to point out it was a Hispanic family?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nbs2
April 20, 2009 3:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@John: Context on dog type for those familiar? I don't hang out in dog-owning circles, but I have noticed that middle class suburban white folks in my (DC) area are big fans of Labs. Maybe suburban San Diego Hispanics have a particular dog type they prefer, and that give dog context.


But, I have no idea. Just trying to come up with something.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
1stMarDiv
April 20, 2009 3:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@John:


About as necessary as pointing out the black SUV…not everyone's a racist, you know.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AirIntake
April 20, 2009 5:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SynMonger: Describing people is now considered racist? Is saying someone was a man or a woman considered sexist now too?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ElizabethD
April 20, 2009 8:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AirIntake:

One question: If they weren't Hispanic or Black, would he have said \"white people\"?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
lemortede
April 20, 2009 2:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

And crap like this is why I bought a older, less nicer home outside a HOA rather than new one in a HOA.
Its my land, Ill be damned if I'm going to let anyone tell me what to do with it.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
GearheadGeek
April 20, 2009 7:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lemortede: Well, perhaps you mean that your selection was between a particular house that was a somewhat nicer but had an HOA and the house you bought... but I think the fact that my house doesn't look like the houses adjacent (or in fact any house anywhere near it) is reason enough to find it nicer than most houses in HOA-controlled developments.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Trai_Dep
April 20, 2009 4:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lemortede: I've never understood the appeal to that, either. Or ever lived w/in twenty miles of those planned monstrosities.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mizike
April 20, 2009 3:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: I don't think s/he was complaining about the dog rule, but the fact that HOA's have the power to foreclose on your home over what can often be very arbitrary rules. If the fine had been for painting his front door a non approved colour, not for walking his dog without a leash, would you still be supporting the HOA? Yes, this rule has safety implications, but as you said, the government likely regulates this already, let them deal with it. Like lemortede, when it comes time for me to buy property, it will be very, very, unlikely that I purchase a new home for just this reason; I'm fine with the government telling me I can't do things that are unsafe, I'm not fine with an HOA telling me I can't do something because they want the neighbourhood to have a certain homogenous look (also, there are certain benefits I would derive from buying a used home in the city, some personal, some relating to incentives for buying used property in my jurisdiction).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
April 20, 2009 3:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lemortede: But as someone else has pointed out...walking your dog on a leash is a rule pretty much in every city and county. It's not like fencing, where you can put up a fence on non-HOA governed land. This is about walking a dog on a leash, in which not doing so may put many people in jeopardy. I'm supposed to take it on your opinion that your dog is gentle and caring? What if the dog chases after a squirrel and gets hit by a car? what if the car swerves and hits someone else?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
missdona
April 20, 2009 2:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have a wack job neighbor who refuses to leash his cocker spaniel. Our HOA strictly forbids dogs off leash, but he just doesn't give a damn. He says since the HOA isn't a municipality, they can't fine him and it will never hold up in court.


He even took to decorating our patio with American flags. Isn't that kind of him? He think we want American flags decorating our patio.


He's a vet and an ex-sheriff, and he carrys. So we think it's just best to keep the peace.

Reply
7 replies
\"user-pic\"
bravohotel01
April 20, 2009 10:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@missdona: \"He says since the HOA isn't a municipality, they can't fine him and it will never hold up in court.\"

IANAL and YMMV, but I believe he's wrong. Certainly in TX he is. The HOA has first lein on all properties under jurisdiction and the homeowner signed over this right when the house was purchased.

It isn't that hard to fill out a variance request and submit it, but most people are either too lazy or to inimical (\"no one better tell me what I can do to MY house!!!!\") to follow the rules. These are the same people who will complain about their neighbors when they break the rules.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
JoshReflek
April 20, 2009 4:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@missdona: so you let this guy bully you with his unleashed dog and gun on his side?


if you dont want the flags, tell him DIRECTLY.


if you want his dog on a leash, ASK HIM to do so.


dont get bullied.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
missdona
April 20, 2009 5:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JoshReflek: I hear you, but it's just not worth it. It's a nice concept, but I still have to live next to the guy. It's not that important to me to start a war over it. And that's what it would be.


If I thought he was a rational person, who could deal with the feedback in a normal, calm matter, I would consider it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
April 20, 2009 7:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@missdona: Unleashed dogs often like to eat dead wild animals. Sometimes these animals still have the poisons which killed them in their stomachs. The owner should be aware of this...


A past landlord had an issue with an unleashed dog threatening his young daughters - age 2 and 5- even on their front driveway and lawn. This was in a decent development but in an un-incorporated area. He told me that he documented the issue, sent registered letters to the owner, had his lawyer send a couple letters, and was told by the police/sheriff nothing doing until the dog bit a child, etc. He said the owner basically blew him off and didn't do squat about it.


My landlord told me that finally one night the dog disappeared never to return. He said that that tends to be a problem with unleashed dogs by definition. I was watching his face as he told me this and completely understood what he was talking about...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
missdona
April 20, 2009 8:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@econobiker: He is always out with his dog when he lets her 'go'. I'm not concerned about her eating dead animals. She doesn't wander far and always comes when she's called.


Actually, she's much better behaved than he is.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SynMonger
April 20, 2009 3:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@missdona:

It'll hold up in court. But do you (and the HOA) have more balls, stamina, and stubborness of the old fart who's breaking the rules?

For all but the most nazi-like HOAs, the answer is no.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
missdona
April 20, 2009 3:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nbs2: He keeps the dog on the property, and not really where anyone besides us would be bothered. An 'anonymous' tip would certainly lead him to us.


@SynMonger: We can get pretty stubborn. We just don't care enough about it to go through it with him.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nbs2
April 20, 2009 3:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@missdona: The HOA may not be a municipality, but your municipality is. And I'm sure that they have trespassing laws. Maybe the HOA could go after him for that after an \"anonymous\" tip?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
thufir_hawat
April 20, 2009 2:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Of course he knew about it when he bought the home. It is a deed restriction.


The referring story states he regularly walked his dog without a leash so even if he didn't know originally, he did eventually. Given that he still does it, even today, he is not terribly sympathetic.


I really hope that with the last sentence of the post the Consumerist is not supporting a homicidal nut. He's going to shoot and kill soeone if he doesn't get his way? How is that an even remotely defensible position?


Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Admiral_John
April 20, 2009 2:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

And one other thing (this story has me peeved for some reason)... one thing my mother always told me about dogs is \"you can never say your dog doesn't bite. All you can say is your dog hasn't bitten anyone yet.\" So it doesn't matter how sweet and lovable your dog is... once they take it into their heads to bite they'll bite, especially if the dog is particularly protective of its owner.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
zibby
April 20, 2009 4:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wchamilton: As my old man would say, \"An animal can turn on you at any time and for any reason - including none at all.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
April 20, 2009 3:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wchamilton: If you provoke an animal, you can never tell what happens.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ExtraCelestial
April 20, 2009 3:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wchamilton: What they always say at our local animal shelter to prospective adopters, \"anything with teeth can bite\".

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Possinator
April 20, 2009 2:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

While the $1,000 fine seems high the rule itself I believe is reasonable since the dog could inflict harm on someone. If the homeowner wanted to contest the price of the fine based on principle is one thing but him letting it get to this point is just ridiculous.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
bbagdan
April 20, 2009 2:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Just yesterday I ran over an off-leash dog on my bicycle, breaking its leg. The owners saw me coming and did nothing to even grab the collar of the mutt. They can thank heavens I didn't crash or they would be facing a 6-figure lawsuit. Folks, if you love your animal, put it on a leash. Would you let your toddler run around in traffic?

Reply
9 replies
\"user-pic\"
Feminist Whore
April 21, 2009 5:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bbagdan: Just like this guy!



+ Watch video




These defendants say they/their dog is not responsible because the bike rider was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and he could have decided to ride on any of the other \"2500 miles\" of bike trails in their state. Crazies.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
AirIntake
April 20, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bbagdan: Aren't you a nice person. If you ran over someone's child would you sue them as well?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bbagdan
April 20, 2009 6:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AirIntake:


A child is not breaking the law by not being on a leash. However, if a toddler ran into the street (i.e. jaywalking) and injured me, damn right I would seek compensation. If someone was criminally negligent and caused damages to you, you would not sue?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Alicia Gray
April 20, 2009 5:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bbagdan: Wow, you're a jerk. Yeah, the owners should be happy someone ran over their dog and broke its leg - which, since insurance companies don't even offer the option of health insurance for non-humans, will end up costing them hundreds of dollars in veterinary bills.

If I was riding my bike and a dog ran out in front of me, I would go to whatever lengths I could to avoid hitting it, even causing myself bodily harm. I've been in bike wrecks before, I can deal with bleeding...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GearheadGeek
April 20, 2009 7:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Divals: First off, I think you missed bbagdan's point that keeping dogs under control is good for the dog as well as the public. Secondly, there ARE companies that offer pet health insurance. I'm not quite sure why, but there are. In some of my bull-headed bull terrier's clumsier years, it might have saved me money, but overall it would be a net cost for me.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bbagdan
April 20, 2009 6:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Divals:


As did I attempt to avoid the dog, duh! No, I purposely chased the dog and ran him over. @AirIntake:

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Joewithay
April 20, 2009 3:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bbagdan: Six figured lawsuit? That would seem a bit high if you would of crashed. Were you going like 50 mph to cause that much damage?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bbagdan
April 20, 2009 6:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Joewithay:


More like 30 (more than adequate to kill a rider in a crash), but as a top-ranked competitive cyclist, I would claim severe emotional and financial damages if I had to miss the racing season, particularly if I were never able to compete again.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
catskyfire
April 20, 2009 3:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bbagdan: ...Judging by some of my neighbors, YES, they would let their toddler run around in traffic.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
rainbowsandkittens
April 20, 2009 2:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Because I own a 160lb black Great Dane, I always have to go above and beyond to be respectful when walking him outside of my home--on a humane pinch collar, with a short training leash and always with a poopie bag. He's better behaved than any small dog I've ever met, but he has to be because of his size.

I frequently run into neighbors walking their dogs off of a leash, when we have an HOA code and a county ordinance. A few of them must a death wish, because they automatically charge at my dog barking and snarling, totally ignoring their owner. I have a horrible feeling that one of these days we're going to end up with dead Terrier, and I'll be in a heap of trouble simply because my leashed dog who was protecting his owner committed the crime of being a large breed.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
veronykah
April 20, 2009 5:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rainbowsandkittens: Same thing with me. I have a bull terrier and have on many occasions had a teeny dog, off leash, charge my dog. I love the opportunity to lecture the owner on how they are lucky MY dog didn't eat theirs because they always tell me how \"nice\" their dog is so its ok they are off leash.
They don't seem to understand not all OTHER dogs are nice.
It really bothers me because I know if my dog DID do anything to their fluffy pooch they would immediately freak out and blame my evil \"pit bull\".

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GearheadGeek
April 20, 2009 7:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@veronykah: I think if someone called my bull terrier a \"pit bull\" after their loose hairball started an incident, I'd probably kick them in the teeth (the owner, not the dog.) The humans always seem surprised when she goes from rigid hyperattention as they approach to WAY threatening when their loose dog gets within what she considers the \"danger zone.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TaterTom
April 21, 2009 7:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GearheadGeek: I sincerely love all dogs, but I think I look at the little ankle-biters a similar way to how big dogs do [I have two boxers myself].

Those little purse-dogs look about the size of a football, and I've always wanted to see one get punted, and if I could outfit one in some sort of doggy-armor suit, I'd punt it myself.

I think the dogs look at 'em like squeaky toys, and likely wonder if they keep chewing on it, will it stop squeaking and get thrown out?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Parsnip
April 20, 2009 3:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rainbowsandkittens: Here here. I have two Boxers. They are both sweet and gentle unless they feel their pack is being threatened... and to them, my fiancee and I are their pack. We have a couple of neighbors who think it's acceptable to simply open their front doors and let their dogs run free for an hour or so. When one of them comes running in my direction at full speed to say hello, it's all I can do to keep my dogs calm. I am terrified that one day, one of these neighborhood dogs will be faster than I am with my leash corrections, and we'll have a situation.

I have renters insurance, which covers this sort of thing, however I shouldn't have to worry about it at all. Leash laws exist for a reason. I do NOT want to send these dogs to animal control, but despite numerous phone calls and knocks on the door, the neighbors still just open their doors and let their dogs run free.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
ExtraCelestial
April 20, 2009 3:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

We have a ridiculous law with a fine like this but no one really pays attention to it. People that have well-behaved dogs let their dogs walk with them leashless and everyone lets their cats roam. I'm not saying the man shouldn't be held accountable for breaking the rules, but I can see how it happens especially if you've lived in your home for years.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
snowburnt
April 20, 2009 3:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TinkishDelight: It's not a ridiculous law. You don't have control of your dogs unless they're on a leash. Other dogs that are on leashes can feel threatened by dogs that aren't on leashes.

I was walking my 120 lb mastiff with my leash when a dog with out a leash came out and ran up all friendly to my dog and they went at it. I tried to pull my dog away but she's a big dog and even when I was able to move her, it was basically setting my dog up to be attacked by a dog that wasn't controlled. The owner came out and couldn't get their dog off by calling out to it. Had my dog or me been injured, in my state, the other dog (and the owner) would have been responsible. even if the other dog only weighed 10 pounds.

Just because one dog is responsible, not all of them are. If you are an excellent driver, should we just let you drive 120mph everywhere? If you think you drive better drunk than sober, should we let you drive drunk?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
April 20, 2009 3:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TinkishDelight: Just because you've lived there for years doesn't mean you're not subject to the neighborhood rules. Letting animals roam is dangerous, not only for the animals, but also for people. And well-behaved animals are not perfect - they are animals, after all, and will bite when provoked.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ExtraCelestial
April 20, 2009 3:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: That's not what I said at all. I actually specifically wrote that I wasn't excusing breaking the rules, but that I can see how it happens.


@snowburnt: Maybe I should have elaborated. The law in my neighborhood extends to all animals. This includes my Conure despite the fact that he has clipped wings and doesn't leave my arm (or yard). I mean it's not a big deal, he has a little birdie leash, but I was responding mostly to the people that were in awe that someone would do such a thing. It happens a lot where I am. People know everyones dogs. Cats hang out on neighbor's porches. When I lived in the south it was actually the norm.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
David Anderson
April 20, 2009 3:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

a $1,000 off-leash fine is standard in Baltimore -

[weblogs.baltimoresun.com]

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
picardia
April 20, 2009 3:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's an insanely high fine, and a lot of HOA rules are ridiculous -- but as others have said, this particular rule is reasonable, and the insanity of the fine doesn't even compare to this guy's crazy attitude that the rules he signed up for don't pertain to him. He's at fault here.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
LegoMan322
April 20, 2009 3:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

First off these spelling mistakes are really bad. Can you use your spell check?

Second, he should of folded a long time ago. I agree that a $1k fine is excessive, but to lose your house over it is just plain stupid. And over a lease too?

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
DeathByCuriosity
April 20, 2009 3:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LegoMan322: Heh, you complain about spelling mistakes, and then you use \"should of\" instead of \"should have\" and \"lease\" instead of \"leash.\" D'oh!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LegoMan322
April 21, 2009 2:45 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DeathByCuriosity: Thank you for correcting me. Also I do not draw people here. I can here since I liked the interaction and it was a crisp clean site with great content. I would like to keep it that way.
@orlo: I was about to type something similar but you got their first. : ) @CFinWV:

Reply
\"user-pic\"
orlo
April 20, 2009 9:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@DeathByCuriosity: Legoman isn't getting paid to write

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
solareclipse2
April 20, 2009 3:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hmm...I'm more interested in the \"Stand your ground\" law than I am about this guy and his dog. Go figure.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
April 20, 2009 3:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@solareclipse2:
I'm not entirely sure how this guy thinks the stand-your-ground law is going to protect him here, given that it only applies if you reasonably fear great bodily harm or death. If they are just taking away his property, he doesn't have the right to use deadly force. That's especially true because they are legally taking it away, not stealing it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
fantomesq
April 20, 2009 4:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Yeah, it'll be the Sheriff evicting him... good luck on that defense.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
looneytunes
April 20, 2009 3:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm sorry, but I can't muster up any sympathy for this guy. When I bought my condo, I received a book of rules that was inches thick but I still read it to make sure that I wasn't agreeing to anything that I found completely unreasonable. And frankly, I don't consider keeping my dog on a leash and picking up after her unreasonable - it's just common courtesy!

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
CFinWV
April 20, 2009 3:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@looneytunes: This! I know what the dog rules are for my development and I don't even own a dog. Why is that? Because I read the F-ing manual.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LegoMan322
April 20, 2009 3:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@looneytunes: Agreed. This guy is just being completely unreasonable about it.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
DeathByCuriosity
April 20, 2009 3:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Good grief, put the dog on a leash already, if only for its own safety. I don't care if the dog is well-behaved. Use a leash.

Our neighbors have two annoying dogs and only one leash. The dogs are not neutered and they stay cooped up in a small fenced backyard most of the time. So, when it's time to take the dogs out for a walk, one goes on a leash and the other runs free. The first thing the loose dog does is run as fast as he can and as much as he can through yards, flowerbeds, and the streets. It's a nuisance and a hazard, and it violates the city's leash law to boot.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Myownheroine
April 20, 2009 3:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I hate HOAs and most of their stupid rules creating cookie-cutter houses and boring neighborhoods. That said, people need to leash their pets. I was walking in a park one day on a high hill and was threated by a stupid dog whose owner wouldn't come up and get him.


And this guy is a psycho. Killing someone? Over a fine? Legally, that is not what the law is there for. You cannot kill someone because they chose to fine you. Jesus. I wouldn't want him to be my neighbor.


Consumerist, please don't side with the psychos.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
jhpope
April 20, 2009 3:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

[en.wikipedia.org]

...in found the story's link less than helpful

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
vdragonmpc
April 20, 2009 3:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I hope when this guy snaps and kills some folks in the neighborhood nobody goes \"Well we never saw this coming he was so normal and nice, what could have provoked him to go wild\"....

Its gone way past where it should have stopped. He is wrong to have broken a rule but they are just as wrong for upping the ante. Nobody is going to win in the end. And being right isnt always the winning way to end the situation sometimes you have to back away and let it go just to keep the peace.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Brontide
April 20, 2009 3:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My father runs that HOA!

This guy is LYING. Do not believe a word he says. He and his developer cronies are on the loosing end of a protracted battle of *the owners* to regain control of the place.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Brontide
April 20, 2009 3:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snowmoon: DOh

Mea culpa, it's a different spelling! This is not the same HOA!!!!

Serves me right for going off right after a big cup of coffee!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Brontide
April 20, 2009 3:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snowmoon: Some of the issues these people have had with the rest of the owners.

1) Developer right being held in perpetuity against the original HOA ( they have since regained control )

2) Claiming deleper right on properties already developed ( so they don't have to pay dues )

3) Getting contractors to do work without bids ( paid for with HOA dues ) and then getting complementary work done on their homes as well.

4) Painting common building without home owners approval for their daughters wedding.

5) Destroying HOA documents in order to hide their illegal activities.

...

and the list goes on and on.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Parsnip
April 20, 2009 3:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snowmoon: While I'm certainly not doubting your examples, you didn't address what he was lying about. The story states that he walked his dog without a leash, got a $1000 fine, refused to pay it, had his home foreclosed on by the HOA for $100,000 legal fee debt, and is now threatening the HOA with death for this.

You didn't address any of that, merely made strawman arguments about other things.

Is the story true?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
LostTurntable
April 20, 2009 3:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

HOAs are a joke and this situation is insane but I have no sympathy for someone stupid enough to believe that his dog is a magic dog without the instincts and behavior that ever dog has. If you walk your dog it needs a leash, I don't care how \"well-behaved\" it is you conceited jerk.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
macinjosh
April 20, 2009 3:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The tag should have been \"Bad Consumer\".

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
April 20, 2009 7:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@macinjosh: Maybe it's because he's not a customer of the HOA that the tag isn't there.

Maybe we need a new tag to indicate the story is about a bad/crazy person that's not a consumer.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Mollyg
April 20, 2009 3:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

In some places, it is very hard to find housing that is not part of a HOA, especially if you can only afford a townhouse or condo.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
xspook
April 20, 2009 3:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

He will lose. That's all.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Adhominem
April 20, 2009 4:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Enforce an excessively large fine? $1000 for walking a dog without a leash? Are you kidding me? If his dog dug up someone's yard and ended up killing half the grass in someone's yard would be an instance where $1000 fine would be justified.

I don't believe ANY HOA should be able to enforce such a harsh fine on something so little. If the fine was something more reasonable say like $25-75 dollars, I'm sure it would have been paid by now.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
chrysrobyn
April 20, 2009 4:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Less than a year ago, I started jogging. I've never liked dogs, but when I come across an unleashed dog while jogging, it's a major problem. \"Don't mind him, he's just growling because he's friendly.\" \"Don't worry, he's friendly, if he catches you, he'll just lick you.\" I don't like dogs. I'm certain that if I had a can of pepper spray with me and sprayed a dog who bit me, the owner would prosecute me, citing how friendly the dog is and how \"this kind of thing has never happened\". (Why is \"this kind of thing has never happened\" such a common phrase, by the way?)

I support the HOA having this regulation. I don't know enough about the specifics to know if $1000 for a violation is reasonable, if this truly is the first violation (could this be a 1st violation is $100, second is $300, third is $600?). Leashing a properly trained dog is no imposition on either party. If the guy's complaint revolves around the dog being so poorly trained that he can't handle a leash, he shouldn't be beyond the confines of a properly maintained and regularly inspected fence.

As an aside, I don't believe those 25 foot leashes are following the spirit of the rule, they don't protect fellow pedestrians and they can't keep a dog from sprinting into the road after a ball or butterfly and getting hit by a car.

Reply
1 replies
","","
\"user-pic\"
Caveat
April 20, 2009 4:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I can't believe $1000 is for the first fine. The jerk probably continually and persistently let his dog off the leash. Dogs off leashes put themselves in danger, place neighbors and their dogs in danger, and they end up crapping all over people's years and often digging up flower beds. Even if the dog is harmless, why should I have to pick up the dog's crap every day? Even if the HOA rules weren't in place, there should be a leash law in every city/town as well as a rabies vaccine law.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Adhominem
April 20, 2009 4:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Even though the HOA may be in the right, it's just hard to side with a HOA.

It's the perfect organization that attracts the biggest douchebags in a 2 mile radius for membership. From my experience it's full of people who a)have way too much time on their hands, b)love telling people what to do and c)power mongers.

I hate HOA's with a passion.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Omniboy
April 20, 2009 4:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

In our city the standard is to be in complete control of your dog at all times. Leash is implied, but not explicit.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
tundey
April 20, 2009 4:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This guy is a moron. What if his \"well-behaved\" dog mauls a neighbor? Have we all forgotten the damages done by the so-called friendly chimp?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
orlo
April 20, 2009 9:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tundey: Chimps are now illegal to own as pets. Dogs too?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
tundey
April 20, 2009 4:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's funny how everybody thinks their pets are harmless.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
sasquatch28
April 20, 2009 5:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here's an idea, if you don't like the rules set fourth by the HOA then don't buy a house there. Why should one family get special privileges over others. Also, no matter how well trained you think you dog may be, you have to remember they are still animals and can do unexpected things. This is why there are leash laws to begin with.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
JiminyChristmas
April 20, 2009 5:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

There's no one to sympathize with in this story. One party, the HOA, is hell-bent on enforcing the rules just for the sake of enforcing the rules. The other seems equally determined to break the rules for the sake of breaking the rules. That said, according to the article, the dog is well-behaved…so where is the actual harm with it not being on a leash? If the dog isn't a nuisance, the only harm done is to the sensitivities of the rule-enforcers.


Likewise, a $1000 fine? Ridiculous. That tells you something right there: the HOA has a vastly inflated sense of the importance of their rules. Sure the guy signed the deed restriction but people should have the right to buy a home in a place of their choosing without being subject to arbitrary and capricious rules. Living in a deed-restricted community shouldn't mean that you become the HOA's bitch because of THE RULES. After all, aside from cruel and unusual punishment, the 8th Amendment also outlaws 'excessive fines.' I'm actually pretty surprised a judge upheld the reasonableness of the fine.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Esquire99
April 20, 2009 8:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JiminyChristmas:
The HOA isn't a state actor, so the 8th Amendment doesn't apply. This is nothing more than a private contract, one that sets forth a particular penalty for violating a provision of said contract.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
April 20, 2009 8:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

so where is the actual harm with it not being on a leash?

@JiminyChristmas: The harm is that people who don't have their animal on a leash let said animal approach strangers, human and animal alike.

The dog being \"friendly\" doesn't make it less scary, make the person it's jumping on and licking less allergic, or the larger dog it's barking at less likely to bite it's head off.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
u1itn0w2day
April 20, 2009 6:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You buy a house , not a neighborhood or set of organizational rules . HOA or the condo commandoes should have no say in your sale/transaction . In most cases there are laws and ordinances that cover the pettyness of these organizations . These so called neighborhood organization should have no say on your personal rights .


Until more people challange and flat out disagree with these rules on the paper transaciton ie the sale this crap will continue to happen .


In most communities unless your dog is in a fenced in yard they're supposed to be on lease and yet , really folks - how many times are rules like that enforced . And in reality how often do they actually need to be enforced . But that's the point ,call city hall , the police or ASPCA I don't care . But don't expect me to waive my rights away because the neighborhood dictator said so .

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
corinthos
April 20, 2009 6:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I live across the street from one. Luckily I dodged that bullet. A guy in my area was ticked off from it though and read into it and got on the news for doing crazy stuff to his property. Don't know what ever came of it, I think he just moved.


I've been reported to it before even got about five letters about my home needing to be 40% brick on the outside or something. Until I got the final notice then I called the number and haven't heard back since.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Charlotte Rae's Web
April 20, 2009 6:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I've spent the past six weeks helping my child heal from a dog bite from a dog the owners never thought would do something like that. She still might have to have a skin graft if it doesn't heal better.

So based on my completely emotional reaction, I hope they keep fining him and make a point out of it by doing whatever is needed to enforce the community law.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
orlo
April 20, 2009 9:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Charlotte Rae's Web: If a dog bites someone off its leash the owner should pay and go to jail. Really your kid would have been much safer if you didn't let him/her out of the house (could still be bitten by leashed dogs), and you should be fined for letting him/her out of the protective pod.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GearheadGeek
April 23, 2009 2:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@orlo: At the risk of being disemvoweled, you're either an idiot or a troll. Sure there is danger out in the \"wide world\" even if that world is only as wide as a housing development, but responsible people minimize the danger they and the creatures for which they are responsible pose to others. I have a dog that is overall friendly but both excitable and given to fairly rough play... I would never let her out of the house off-leash, because she's easily provoked by other dogs and even in play she could knock a child over or otherwise hurt or frighten the kid. When we're out on-leash, I don't let her rush up to people of any size and I'm alert to what's going on around us.

Your admonition of Charlotte Rae's Web to lock the child in the house is heartless, pointless, callous and crass.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
SJActress
April 20, 2009 6:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Not leashing your pet, even if it's friendly, is stupid.

My dog is NOT friendly (she's 13 and crotchety). If your sweet, gentle, leashless dog comes up to greet my dog and my dog eats it alive, you have NO GROUNDS FOR SUING ME unless I'm on your property. Even then, most small claims courts will dismiss the case because you have to be in control of your animal AT ALL TIMES.

Stupid. Why would you put your pet at risk?

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
anduin
April 20, 2009 7:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

homeowners associations are so bad, for the most part if you make the smallest effort theyll give you a pass but some of the stuff is ridiculous....

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Felix the Cat
April 20, 2009 7:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm kinda on the fence with this one. Usually I would jump in on the guys side but living in a condo myself I know that reasonable regulations need to be enforced. In Fla, at least for condos, if you sue them or they sue you, the loser pays the others expenses. I know that for sure as I am suing my Assn but unlike this guy our BOD dosen't enforce the regulations, even when you cite chapter and verse of the regulations they do nothing. See: [nautiluscovesuit2008.blogspot.com] or [nautiluscondosrules.blogspot.com] if you need more info on a really stupid condo complex in NW Florida. If you are looking for a Fla condo you will NOT want to buy here!

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
vastrightwing
April 20, 2009 7:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Another fine HOA forecloses on member who walks his dog.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
shockwaver
April 20, 2009 8:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@vastrightwing: While I think foreclosing on this guy may be a bit much, the dog should be on a leash.

My dog was in my backyard, with a 6 foot high fence, and an electric collar/fence around the perimeter so he can't get out.. Two of my neighbors rottweilers that were being walked, without a leash, broke through the wooden fence and tore him to shreds. Oh sure, the neighbors said the dogs were friendly, and had never attacked anyone before.. but I still ended up with a dead dog. Had there been a child playing in the backyard, they probably would have gone after it too.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GearheadGeek
April 23, 2009 2:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@shockwaver: Did the authorities deal with the Rotts and/or their owner? If that happened to mine while I was paying attention, there'd be Rottweiller splattered all over the yard, and judging from my reaction the last time I shot a snake, the hammer would be clicking on an empty chamber a few times before I stopped pulling.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
orlo
April 20, 2009 9:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Leaving your dog in a semi-enclosed area hobbled by an electric collar isn't the best idea either. Your neighbor is 100% to blame, but your dog would have had protection if he were supervised or a chance to run away if he were completely free.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
shockwaver
April 21, 2009 12:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@orlo: It's a simple reality, which is why I don't own dogs anymore. To be ideal, you'd have to be able to dedicate every moment they are awake to playing with them. That just doesn't happen. And I doubt me being outside with him (I was just inside, watching through the window searching for something to beat the other dog off with) would have prevented it. The only difference between having the dog outside and on a leash and outside and with a collar on is that the dog has more room to run around.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
synergy
April 20, 2009 9:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

HOA=ebil

I've never understood why people are willing to sign away their rights to these HOAs.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
hilltop_sniper
April 21, 2009 12:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yet another reason why I would never purchase a property with covenants and surrender my civil rights in the process.... My SIL cannot have a close-line in her neighborhood due to these restrictions. Simply ridogulous!!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
April 21, 2009 1:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

That guy sounds like a douchebag. Everywhere I've ever lived, there are leash laws so your dogs don't 1) bite people while running about, 2) cause damage to other people's property, including THEIR pets, and 3) cause an accident while running in the road!

The fact that he is still flaunting the rule makes him an ass. If you disagree with a rule, work to change it. Breaking it does not make you right.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
xredgambit
April 21, 2009 1:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

All I can think of is when Homer was the head of the Union.


Does the job of president pay anything?
No
D'oh
Unless you're crooked
WOOHOO

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
rellog321
April 21, 2009 2:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This should have been a small claims case... not a foreclosure... what a joke...

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
I_have_something_to_say
April 21, 2009 3:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

HOA's are usually run by a bunch of pricks. In this case the HO and the A are both parties of pricks.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
btdown
April 21, 2009 3:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why can't people just follow the rules?
If you don't like the rules, get involved, get on the board, and put some effort in changing them.

I have no sympathy for idiots like this.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
fatcop
April 21, 2009 4:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I hope he goes on a complete rampage and gets every one of them. Maybe the next neighborhood nazi will take heed.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
April 21, 2009 6:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If I do not live in the HOA area but I walk my dog on the street in the HOA area, what are they going to do then?

Most HOA areas or deed restricted areas are not in a gated community.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
RChris173
April 21, 2009 9:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Considering this is in Florida, I doubt the house will easily get foreclosed on...

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Bs Baldwin
April 22, 2009 10:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

PUDs are the worst invention in housing in a long time. Its too bad that americans are only now waking up to this sad reality and can't do much. Its great that if you owe money to your town they will just put a lien on our property to get back the money you owe but HOA will foreclosure you on.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Smorgasbord
April 23, 2009 1:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

POINT #1
Why is it that if someone threatens to kill the president, they go to jail. If they threaten to kill me, nothing can be done until they try. Anybody threatening to kill anybody should go to jail. This guy should be in jail now.

POINT #2
Many law suits have been filed because of a FRIENDLY dog not on a leash attacking another animal or person. That is why there are leash laws. People have been killed by loose dogs. Having to pay possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars after loosing a law suit, and doing time in jail is a lot less than a $1,000 fine. I am guessing the fine is so high because they tried a lower amount and the owners figured they could pay it and forget about it.

POINT #3
If you read a HOA contract and don't like one or more RULES, don't sign it, and don't live there. HOAs were set up so certain people could have CERTAIN RULES for EVERYBODY to live by. As with living in the USA, it is a person's CHOICE. Nobody MAKES you do it.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Smorgasbord
April 23, 2009 1:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

POINT #4
It sounds like the guy wants to keep his dog off of a leash more than he wants to keep his house or his wife.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
NotMe
May 3, 2009 5:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kc2idf

...Electric heat is too inefficient and expensive....

Expensive, maybe. Inefficient, no.

Electric heat is 100% efficient. I'm with you on the anti-HOA sentiment, however.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Not Given
July 1, 2010 11:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

If the home is owned by his wife how does the HOA have ANY authority to fine him for anything?

Reply
");