I thought your article ( Head-to-head with HOAs, April 26 Summerlin View) was, in some places, one-sided and there was not much research put into some of the anecdotal stories you chose to focus on.
For example, the lead story about George Tiaffay seemed for the most part to simply be a restatement of information Mr. Tiaffay gave you. Did you do any research into the Summerlin CC&Rs and how they are administered?
Why didn t you mention that Mr. Tiaffay was in violation of the Summerlin CC&Rs (covenants, conditions and restrictions) and design standards? Items that can be viewed from a neighbor s yard must be the same color and material as the house structure. Mr. Tiaffay may not like this requirement, but that does not give him the right to do as he pleases. When he bought his house he signed a document indicating he had read the CC&Rs and agreed to abide by them.
Why didn t you mention that Mr. Tiaffay was required to submit for approval of his backyard structure before it was installed? Had he done that, he would have found out it did not meet the criteria and he would have been spared the expense of the original installation and the now the required modification, or removal, to bring in into compliance.
Here is a situation where a homeowner (is) in clear violation of the CC&Rs he agreed to follow and you write an article that makes it look like the homeowners association is the bad guy. I suspect there are some homeowners associations that do a poor job, but Summerlin is not one of them.
I must give you credit for at least writing that the overwhelming majority of people in HOAs like them! It would have been nice if you had led with the last three or four paragraphs of your article.
Homeowners who live in HOAs
agree to give up freedoms for benefits
Over the last four decades home ownership in planned communities governed by an association has become an increasingly attractive alternative to other forms of ownership because it allows increased amenities and security features available through sharing resources. Your front-page article ( Head-to-head with HOAs, April 26 Summerlin View) focused on owner complaints (and) unfairly ignored some pertinent facts about living in a community governed by an HOA.
First, pursuant to (Nevada Revised Statute) 116.4103, everyone purchasing a home in a common-interest community must be given an information statement substantially in the form as provided in NRS 116.41095. The information statement clearly provides: (D)ecisions made by (the executive board) will affect your use and enjoyment of your property, your lifestyle and freedom of choice, and your cost of living in the community. It goes not to say, If you do not agree with decisions made by the association, its executive board or other governing bodies, your remedy is typically to attempt to use the democratic processes of the association to seek the election of members of the executive board or other governing bodies that are more responsive to your needs.
In other words, purchasers, before they buy, are made aware their lifestyle and freedom of choice can be affected by the decisions of the governing board. Knowing that, if they elect to buy anyway, they should not be surprised if, indeed, they are restricted to the rules established by the governing body. If they cannot change the rules through the democratic process, it is because their neighbors are satisfied with the status quo.
Further, before buying, each purchaser is given a copy of the community s CC&Rs and community rules. Few bother to read them, but they should. If they do and do not believe they can live within the rules, their choice is obvious: Don t buy there.
Condo HOA is in the right
for banning renters from owning pets
The current pet ban brouhaha and attacks on HOAs rules have little merit. Reader Sandra Smith s letter ( Summerlin reader upset that condo HOA doesn t allow renters to own pets, April 5 View) attacks her HOA for enforcing its rule that tenant/renters are not allowed to have pets. On this issue the HOA is right. Respectfully, but Smith and other violators argument justifying violation of the law (i.e. HOA CC&Rs) is illogical and egocentric.
Smith admits she knew the CC&Rs and was advised of her violation, but says, …that is not the point… Therein, the gall and self-centeredness of the violators are seen. Further, the following.
The violators are placing themselves above the law/CC&Rs. No one is above the law. Herein, the violators have a double standard and are a contradiction, because, on other issues, they say, No one is above the law but not them on this issue.
By the pet violators renting, knowing what the CC&Rs say, they re depriving potential renters who have no pets of the condos, etc. It s evident some of the violators rented with a scheme to hide their pet(s) and/or subvert HOA CC&Rs. Said schemers deserve no sympathy.
To its credit, Smith s HOA has never reversed itself on the renter-no-pet rule. Nor should it with her. Respectfully, to Smith and all violators: What s so difficult to understand about the HOA fact that no renters are allowed pets means exactly that?