the 9 month rule

[BarbaraRose]

I meant to post about this last week but forgot...

I was just talking with a neighbor about the 9 month rule and he said there is already a lawsuit happening. There was an email sent out a few weeks ago with a question/answer type format about that rule for clarification. I do not remember them ever mentioning all these details before when they put it to a vote a few years ago. a couple of them that have everyone really upset now is that if you are now a full-timer (grandfathered in) and your kids inherit your park model, they will not be able to live there more than 9 months per year. If you are a full-timer now and sell your place and buy another one in the park (which happens quite a bit), you are no longer grand-fathered in to live there full-time. Those two things have really upset a lot of people here now. I think in the fall, this is gonna be a huge issue. Those two things, and the fact that the rule is adversely affecting the sales of houses here and the values, is a very real problem. And that these details were not specified when the rule was put on the ballot. There are 50 park models and lots for sale right now and the prices on them keep dropping.

It will be interesting to see how this all turns out.

[Cudedog]

Barbie, whose bright idea was the 9-month rule in the first place? Didn't everyone in the park vote in favor of it in the first place in order for it to be implemented?

Frankly, it makes no sense to me. Small wonder that sales are slow and prices are dropping - whether or not I wanted to live there for 9 months out of the year or not, I would still want the right to live there 12 months out of the year if I decided to.

Please keep us posted! This is interesting to me.

Thanks.

Anne

[Bethers]

I've never understood that rule. If I was you I'd almost want to wait and see if it goes away and then if you could sell at what your place should be worth.

[snowball]

it will be very interesting and I too have never understood the ruling.... I assume that it was voted on so wonder how it passed...
yes it will be interesting
sheila

[BarbaraRose]

Out of about 1200+ people here in the park, only 500 voted on the rule and it was almost half for and half against but just barely more for it. I think the Canadians are the ones who voted for it since they can't be down here more than 6 months anyways. I had heard they don't want "riff raff" moving in . I doubt most "riff raff" could afford to buy a place for cash that is over $100K. It is all but impossible to get financing on these park models.

[Colliemom]

I never understood that rule either. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. Those who voted for that rule might sing a different song, when thry try and sell their places someday.

[JudyJB]

I really question how homeowners can vote to make such a drastic change in how property can be used by owners. By cutting the length of use to 9 months, they were actually reducing the value of the property by 1/4, which to me seems like taking money from someone without their permission. Does not seem as if it is legal--riff-raff or not.

Could the residents also pass a rule that says you can only sell your property for a specific high amount, thus making it harder to sell it? What if a new rule said you could sell only to people over 75? Could they vote to limit the number of cars owned by each household to 1? These things would really reduce your pool of buyers, and thus take money away from owners. And are Canadians a protected group? I am really just suggesting silly things, but they do have effects, and a lot of homeowners associations have such silly rules. For example, where one of my cousins lived in Florida, you could not park a pickup truck or minivan in your garage or driveway.

Grandfathering property in does not really protect anyone, as it affects values anyway, as you have learned.

[Cudedog]

I really question how homeowners can vote to make such a drastic change in how property can be used by owners. By cutting the length of use to 9 months, they were actually reducing the value of the property by 1/4, which to me seems like taking money from someone without their permission. Does not seem as if it is legal--riff-raff or not.

Could the residents also pass a rule that says you can only sell your property for a specific high amount, thus making it harder to sell it? What if a new rule said you could sell only to people over 75? Could they vote to limit the number of cars owned by each household to 1? These things would really reduce your pool of buyers, and thus take money away from owners. And are Canadians a protected group? I am really just suggesting silly things, but they do have effects, and a lot of homeowners associations have such silly rules. For example, where one of my cousins lived in Florida, you could not park a pickup truck or minivan in your garage or driveway.

Grandfathering property in does not really protect anyone, as it affects values anyway, as you have learned.

Judy, most excellent points. I agree.

Anne

[JudyJB]

I was president of the board of directors for a condo association for 15 years--got the job because no one else would do it! Tried multiple times to talk someone into taking over, but no luck.

Anyway, I learned a lot during the experience, good and bad. Like the lady who moved in who supposedly had a disability and thus could not work, so lots of time on her hands, which she mostly spent decorating the outside of her unit and surrounding area for every real and imagined holiday she could think of. And I am talking about 20 fake bunnies for Easter, plus decorated eggs hanging on trees, and a lot of other junk that made the place look awful to people considering buying the next door unit. (We asked her to limit decorations to her own door and porch.) Another instance was someone renting to a lady who had "parties" with multiple guests almost every night lasting from 8 pm to 2 am, but the renting owner would not believe us until his renter's "guests" caught the wooden patio deck on fire one evening. Previously, same lady went door to door one day asking if anyone had seen any strangers entering her place during the daytime as she had had a safe with $40,000 in cash stolen!! And this was a very nice neighborhood with relatively new and luxurious units.

Between weird neighbors and the problems with every owner being responsible financially for every other unit made me swear I would never again own a condo! However, I did learn that you can only make "reasonable" rules for residents, no matter how many residents vote for them. Some condo groups end up acting like neighborhood social police, and get carried away trying to make up rules for things they think will "improve the neighborhood." One of my cousins moved out of his Florida gated community because a group of residents used to patrol the neighborhood making sure residents did not plant the wrong kinds of flowers in their flower beds.

I hope the people who are suing the association in Barbie's place have a lawyer who specializes in condos and similar, and who is familiar with what boards can and can't do.