I agree Scott. The previous post states "HOA are volunteers, not for profit, not incorporated, not paid, etc." Except for the incorporated part the same thing can be said for a city. Our HOA is actually starting steps to become incorporated but that's not our issue here. You are totally correct to say a HOA is a level of government. I wonder if the original poster will return to answer the question of lkae ownership, that is key. In every lake HOA I have encountered the HOA owns all the way around the lake, lakelocked I guess is a term. Some folks own to the water line, others 50' of common property geenway and many just have a view but all are governed bythe Board of Directors of the HOA, POA in my case.

See guys this is the problem. We can't figure out who owns the lake. The original owner owned the property. He established an association. He allowed people to either leave or remain in the association in 1988. So much of the land never signed back into the association. He then sold off all his old land. So who then now owns the lake? We have no clue. Besides that the DNR has told us the state owns the lake, but at the same time seem to not want to get involved and say it's the associations. We can't get any answers from anyone. Early I told you about the lawyer that represented the lake that got fired. My father spoke with him and he said that they are about 95% bluff out there, so we are thinking of "testing the waters" so to speak.

I'm not against them in general. As you must have read, I have been part of one for a long time. I'm just against the ones that take it too far. You can read in my above post what I find different between an HOA and a Government. And we still have not determined if the association or the property owner has control in this particular situation. I'm going to get a little uppity here but maybe because our government actually governs and sets rules, and our police actually go out and police and that's why our POA's & HOA's do not have to turn into vigilantes! That might piss you all off, but I really do not understand the need for associations to be doing everything that government & cops should be doing. Food for thought.

First read Lisa's response. I think you will find your local laws similar to her's. But I did ask very specifically, what does your survey show. Also what are the covenants under which the HOA was established? What are its by-laws.

I agree that they are probably a lot of bluff. Anyone who thinks they can establish rules that countermand the Constitution (due process, unlawful search and seizure) is truly bluffing or has delusions of grandeur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erbusch

See guys this is the problem. We can't figure out who owns the lake. The original owner owned the property. He established an association. He allowed people to either leave or remain in the association in 1988. So much of the land never signed back into the association. He then sold off all his old land. So who then now owns the lake? We have no clue. Besides that the DNR has told us the state owns the lake, but at the same time seem to not want to get involved and say its the associations. We can't get any answers from anyone. Early I told you about the lawyer that represented the lake that got fired. My father spoke with him and he said that they are about 95% bluff out there, so we are thinking of "testing the waters" so to speak.

---

Someone, some place knows who owns the Lake - the tax assessor, it's on a title search, someone -

I think, yes, I would line up some other people to test the waters (so to speak... ) but I think it could be expensive.

Lisa's "opinion" is without a doubt the one to go with - she's handling a similar situation and she never, ever posts off the top of her head. If she posts it, she knows it.

Are there really cities out there that are not for profit? You must be kidding me right? And the Mayor is a volunteer? He doesn't get paid? No one working for the town gets paid?? Come on now. What about the essential services. Nobody mentioned an HOA providing sewer services yet?

As opposed to your situation I have never encountered a lake where the association owns the land. This is actually the first time I had heard of this. Up here, you own the land or the government does.

As for you Erbusch I wish you the best of luck It sounds messy & complicated being that the DNR can't give you the same answer twice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hundalei

but I really do not understand the need for associations to be doing everything that government & cops should be doing.

---

No one is saying they should be doing "everything", but its clear that HOAs/POAs exist to provide a level of services beyond what local govt can provide. Lets use anoither example. Would you expect your town to mow your lawn? If you had a pond on your property, would you expect the town to kep it clear of algae and other plants? Of course, not, that would be your responsibility. In a development, there are common areas that need to be maintained, that's why you have a HOA.

The POA and HOA issue gets complex because they can run a muck and be a pain if a few bad folks get elected. However that does not change the Boards legal autthority. The POA is needed because there frequently is no city around these lakes. In our lake the DNR does own the lake but we have authority to make rules regarding the use of the lake such as speed, size of boat, number of boats per property. DNR will not ticket people who break our rules so we have our own security who can. Our laws must be as strick or more strick than the state or DNR laws. If they say 50 mph is OK we can say no, only 40 mph. We can not say 60 mph is legal.

See guys it just different up here. The town does provide everything we need. I wouldn't pay my taxes if it didn't. The police do actively patrol the waterways. We have a boater's license so that everyone behind the wheel is trained. The police put up speed limit signs on our lakes. Also would like to mention that there is no large city nearby. It is a rural area, but that doesn't mean the town gets to slack out on our roads etc. When there is a private road that needs to be cleared/repaired then the occupants of that road pay for it. Not the whole lake.

Yes Scott, anything on my own property I would be responsible for. As far as common grounds, if on private land ( although common area on private land sounds like an oxymoron to me) than yes it would be great for the HOA to get together and keep it clean. But not to regulate it use. If it is a common area, than it is a common area free for common people to do what they wish. As I stated before Environental Stewardship should be the main purpose. Also my lake does not have a common area. It is all privately owned properties & cottages, no parkland, so I do not have experience in caring for the common land. I actually have never seen privately owned common land. Up here, especially in cottage country the land is either privately owned or it is crown land (government owned). All of our parkland is government cared for.

Not only do I cottage in Muskoka but I also live on a small kettle lake here in the city, we have 2 associations on the city lake, both entirely geared to environmental protection. Check out www.musselmanslake.com or Clear Lake Property Owners Association to see what Canadian POA's are all about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hundalei

As far as common grounds, if on private land ( although common area on private land sounds like an oxymoron to me) than yes it would be great for the HOA to get together and keep it clean.

---

But not to regulate it use. If it is a common area, than it is a common area free for common people to do what they wish. [/quote]

In the Co-op I grew up in, there were several playgrounds such as basketball courts, swings, etc. These playgrounds were all within the boundaries of the complex. The playgrounds were built for the use of the Co-op residents. So they were common ground in a private development. I'm not sure why that concept is so hard for you. If a swing broke or a basketball hoop bent, then fixing it came under the Co-op's maintenance budget. This gave the board the right to establish rules about the use of the playgrounds. If someone was caught vandalizing playground equipment, then they could be held responsible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hundalei

But not to regulate it use. If it is a common area, than it is a common area free for common people to do what they wish.

---

That's anarchy. According to you, it would be OK if someone decided to use a grassy lawn to try out his new ATV. I'm sorry, if you think you are totally free, you are sadly mistaken. We all have constraints on our lives. Put there by governments, parents, bosses, religion etc. including HOAs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hundalei

As far as common grounds, if on private land ( although common area on private land sounds like an oxymoron to me) than yes it would be great for the HOA to get together and keep it clean.

---

But not to regulate it use. If it is a common area, than it is a common area free for common people to do what they wish. [/quote]

In the Co-op I grew up in, there were several playgrounds such as basketball courts, swings, etc. These playgrounds were all within the boundaries of the complex. The playgrounds were built for the use of the Co-op residents. So they were common ground in a private development. I'm not sure why that concept is so hard for you. If a swing broke or a basketball hoop bent, then fixing it came under the Co-op's maintenance budget. This gave the board the right to establish rules about the use of the playgrounds. If someone was caught vandalizing playground equipment, then they could be held responsible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hundalei

But not to regulate it use. If it is a common area, than it is a common area free for common people to do what they wish.

---

That's anarchy. According to you, it would be OK if someone decided to use a grassy lawn to try out his new ATV. I'm sorry, if you think you are totally free, you are sadly mistaken. We all have constraints on our lives. Put there by governments, parents, bosses, religion etc. including HOAs.

What can I say other than long live the "True North Strong & Free". And I apologize for not putting the words "within the law" after my comment about "common people being free to do what they wish in common ground", like I have after every other post I have put up here but thanks for putting words in my mouth about using common ground to go wild & destroy stuff. Obviously I mean within the law. Also Government owned parklands do not allow motorized vehicles at least here they don't. It is well signed at each park. Right under the sign that tells you not to walk your dog without a leash. Oh yes, and if anyone anywhere was caught vandalizing property they would be held responsible for it. But is it up to the POA. No. Call the cops, let them deal with the vandalizers & then fine them. Establishing guilt though the proper channels seems like an important thing to me and not something a POA would be trained or have the right to do.

Anyway this has gotten way off topic and it appears we will not be agreeing anytime soon. So I leave you with this.

The constraints on my life are set by me & my government, not my next door neighbour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hundalei

The constraints on my life are set by me & my government, not my next door neighbour.

---

I was going to just leave this be until I read that last comment. Because I think it goes to the heart of what you refuse to accept. A HOA/POA is NOT your neighbor putting constraints on your life. It's a representative of an organization that you CHOOSE to join, either overtly or by force of your use of the faclities under the control of the association. You want to live in development or building under the auspices of an HOA/POA, then you agree to abide by their rules. Its your CHOICE!! You don't like their rules, you don't by the house or apartment or whatever.

Oh, by the way, since you are championing Canada as "True North Strong & Free". I have to point out something that is part of Canadian case law. Are you aware that, if someone is caught shoplifting in a store, the store is allowed, in addition to criminal proceedings, to impose a fine of $300-$500 against the individual? This is without any due process or court trial or anything other than the store security (not the police) catching the person.

Doesn't seem like Erbusch has much of a choice now does it? Nor does it seem likes he wants to live under the auspices of an HOA/POA? He can't even get a straight answer as to who has control of the land(this is my biggest issue of the whole thing... how can you buy land tha is under under someone else's control, CONDOS EXCLUDED we are talking about cottages here). It sounds to me like he wants to enjoy his property like a normal law abiding citizen, without having rules & regulations crammed down his neck by an association he does not belong to.

You are right, I refuse to accept your point. I will never understand how POA's have gotten to the point where you are calling them a level of government. Where they are able to enact laws. I sure hope everyone on this side of the line will allow cooler heads to prevail, and not go down that road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Oh, by the way, since you are championing Canada as "True North Strong & Free". I have to point out something that is part of Canadian case law. Are you aware that, if someone is caught shoplifting in a store, the store is allowed, in addition to criminal proceedings, to impose a fine of $300-$500 against the individual? This is without any due process or court trial or anything other than the store security (not the police) catching the person.

---

Does that even sound reasonable to anyone? Nothing happens without due process. In order for that fine to come into place they have to prove you were guilty and you have to admit it. If they have proof, they ask you to sign a form admitting your guilt, and attesting as to what took place. Then they are usually nice and let you off with a fine, and an agreement that you will not return to the store. Loads of people will admit to what they did and pay the fine to avoid a criminal record, HOWEVER, if you do not admit to your guilt they cannot make you pay a fine. Security will call the police and it will go through the legal system. If you are found guilty by a court of law, then yes they can make you pay a fine to the store, for cost of security, lost product, etc. Thanks for the laugh though.

And I'm done with the posting. Happy weekend everyone.

This scenario I'm going to give is how I see what is happening. My family bought a house 20 years ago. 20 years pass by without anything irregular happening in the neighborhood. However, over the years some snob neighbors have moved in. Now they represent a majority in the neighborhood and decide to create a neighborhood association. They abide by the laws of the state yes, but attempt to impose they're will on the rest of the neighborhood regardless of how the people that have been living there for 20 plus years feel. They attempt to impose rules that violate your civil rights, and threaten to use the very system that should be upholding our civil rights against us in a law suit. They may not win, however the simple fact is that the majority of the minority here cannot drop 100 grand on a case like this This obviously is not completely accurate of the situation at the lake but I'm sure this can help you all understand how we feel about the situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erbusch

This scenario I'm gonna give is how I see what is happening. My family bought a house 20 years ago. 20 years pass by without anything irregular happening in the neighborhood. However, over the years some snob neighbors have moved in. Now they represent a majority in the neighborhood and decide to create a neighborhood association. They abide by the laws of the state yes, but attempt to impose they're will on the rest of the neighborhood regardless of how the people that have been living there for 20 plus years feel. They attempt to impose rules that violate your civil rights, and threaten to use the very system that should be upholding our civil rights against us in a law suit. They may not win, however the simple fact is that the majority of the minority here cannot drop 100 grand on a case like this This obviously is not completely accurate of the situation at the lake but I'm sure this can help you all understand how we feel about the situation.

---

If this is correct you have a civil rights lawsuit and Attorneys LOVE to get their teeth into violations of civil rights. Skip the private Attorney and go to someone who handles Civil Rights.

My neighborhood has an association - I don't belong. No particular reason, I just don't like the whole Big Brother concept. They don't bother me, I don't bother them. If they want to get together every couple of weeks and pretend they are Police Officers, that's fine with me.

I do need to correct a statement I made earlier regarding DNR owning my lake. Checked with my GM and she reminded me that the lake is part of the common property owned by the POA but the state and DNR have legal authority on navigateible waterways.

I never thought of what happens when people get together to try to form a POA. The ones I have dealt with all existed from the git go and were created by the original developer. I would not want to create one if it did not exist, they are a pain, that's why I ran for the board, to kick off some goofball who had a Napoleon complex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erbusch

They attempt to impose rules that violate your civil rights, and threaten to use the very system that should be upholding our civil rights against us in a law suit.

---

That's why I've been suggesting contacting the ACLU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hundalei

Does that even sound reasonable to anyone? Nothing happens without due process. In order for that fine to come into place they have to prove you were guilty and you have to admit it. If they have proof, they ask you to sign a form admitting your guilt, and attesting as to what took place. Then they are usually nice and let you off with a fine, and an agreement that you will not return to the store. Loads of people will admit to what they did and pay the fine to avoid a criminal record, HOWEVER, if you do not admit to your guilt they cannot make you pay a fine. Security will call the police and it will go through the legal system. If you are found guilty by a court of law, then yes they can make you pay a fine to the store, for cost of security, lost product, etc. Thanks for the laugh though.

---

Check the case law, I forget the exact cite but its from Hudson Bay Company.

I am sorry if you feel it is not fair or right, but Scott is merely telling you what they do under civil law there. Stores have the right to impose their own penalty without going though the criminal courts ( although money do both) The store will at times allow the person the chance to take care of it though civil process, paying the amount allowed

If the person does not want to pay, and wishes to be sued in court, then yes they have their right to refuse to pay. But that does not stop the stores right to charge it without any additional due process

I understand to a certain extent. But a store having the right to place a fine does not in any way mean they will collect if a person disagrees without "due process". Either a person signs a form admitting guilt and paying the fine or the go through the justive system. Either one is a process is it not? It is not just a store saying hey we suspect you of this and now hand over $500 whether you agree or not. There is a legal process to fines happening either by admission signed or by court verdict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hundalei

I understand to a certain extent. But a store having the right to place a fine does not in any way mean they will collect if a person disagrees without "due process". Either a person signs a form admitting guilt and paying the fine or the go through the justive system. Either one is a process is it not? It is not just a store saying hey we suspect you of this and now hand over $500 whether you agree or not. There is a legal process to fines happening either by admission signed or by court verdict.

---

This has turned into a debate on a message board, complete with posts being pulled - maybe it's time to end the thread. It's no longer legal advice and it's into arguing what people can or cannot do, the powers of the Police and so on.

And I thought you said good-bye, you were leaving... yesterday.

Post Closed