The Property Cops: Homeowner Associations Ban Eco-Friendly Practices (AlterNet)

The Property Cops: Homeowner Associations Ban Eco-Friendly Practices

By Stan Cox, AlterNet. Posted April 26, 2007.



Homeowner association regulations often make environmental responsibility impossible by outlawing clotheslines, solar panels -- even gardens.

The house Heather and Joseph Sarachek were building in Scarsdale, N.Y., was to be a model of green efficiency, complete with geothermal heating and cooling. Even the electricity to run the system would be clean, coming from solar panels on their roof -- but when the time came to install the panels last fall, construction came to an abrupt halt.

A local Board of Architectural Review refused to issue the Saracheks a permit for the solar apparatus, having received a letter from at least 15 neighbors -- among them doctors, lawyers and other presumably well-educated people -- arguing that the panels "would clearly be an eyesore in our lovely Quaker Ridge neighborhood."

This March -- four months, $20,000 in extra construction and legal costs, and 107 petition signatures later, and after agreeing to plant a screen of trees to hide their "eyesore" -- the Saracheks finally got the board's decision reversed. On a 4-3 vote, the victory was a squeaker. But it meant that the prosperous Village of Scarsdale, where the average house is valued at $834,000, would see its first solar panels ever.

HOAs: blocking the green path

On April 14, in more than 1,400 locations from coast to coast, Americans rallied around the goal of reducing carbon emissions by 80 percent within the next four decades. On April 22, the San Francisco Chronicle's Earth Day editorial spoke for millions of us when it urged, "The whole planet, with billions of people and scores of governments, must work together on the same page. It's the only way to curb the global threats of rising temperatures, dirty air and polluted and life-depleted oceans. One day in late April isn't enough."

But too many cities, counties, towns and subdivisions are still working off the wrong "page" by banning ecologically sound practices and even mandating consumption and waste. Rooted in outdated aesthetics and plain old snobbery, those regulations make less sense than ever on a planet in peril.

...(snip)...

In much of America, this live-and-let-live attitude is still the rule. Lisa and Jason Spangler told me they'd never had neighbors complain about their non-lawn in Austin. In fact, said Jason, "Neighbors walking by often stop and compliment our prairie flowers." It was an overzealous HOA bureaucracy, not the community itself, that tried to kill their garden.

University of Arizona associate professor Paul Robbins says that the key point of his book "Lawn People," expected out in June, is to show that the economy and the culture cannot be meaningfully separated and that "it is this blurring that so marks contemporary capitalist urban ecologies."

As he put it to me, his work shows that "distinctions between the meaning of our lives and the values of our properties are often intermingled and difficult to distinguish. There are clear tensions between our many contradictory desires; we want to be good citizens, good consumers, and good environmental stewards -- a triumvirate that may simply be materially unachievable."

Even homeowners who put being a "good consumer" a distant third among those three desires will find that consumption remains the housing industry's No. 1 concern. When real estate values are considered as crucial as they are in the America of 2007, it doesn't matter what real people in real neighborhoods prefer. Players who have a big stake in the game have little tolerance for anything that smacks of green frugality. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/51001/?page=1

It amaze me that people have not risen up in revolt against them. They make every effort to micromanage the lives of neighbors. I thought that Republicans were supposed to be big on "property rights" but they are some of the worst offenders.

When you decide to move into a neighborhood that has them, you know about it up front, so your acceptable of what can be draconian terms is in theory voluntary.

What is more disturbing is that there are many more subdivions without a formal HOA but with restrictive convenants. With those while there is no HOA to enforce them, there is also almost no way make changes either.

It both situations its a classic case of caveat emptor.



Renewable energy states and/or the Federal government is going to have to do what they did for satellite dishes and make it so they can not be banned by HOA etc.

that you are a lawyer in solo practice in Maryland, Hi. I'm a lawyer in solo practice in NC.

I kind of agree with your point. But the HOA boards are in business to change the terms by adopting their "reasonable rules and regulations" so they can screw you a little more each month. I've sued a couple of assn's over our differing views of reasonable. Won once or twice.

HOAs are still evil.

Ritter movie. Worth renting on a slow night.

I'm amazed at how easily people give up their rights when moving into gated and other controlled communities. I'm even annoyed that most towns "require" that you have a lawn. Just try and let your property go wild and you're likely to get a summons or worse.

I'm always disturbed at the degree to which people of my generation seem to revel in regulation of individual rights.

I wonder why you would buy a lot to build your dream house in any place that has Covenants or HOA's without first checking all the regulations. If it doesn't fit your idea of how you want to live then why would you buy the property in the first place? If you don't like dogs then go ahead and buy a place with a HOA or Covenent that prohibits them. But don't buy the place and then complain that your dogs are excluded.

If anything put a restriction on the total acreage that can have covenants and/or HOA control. Let the individuals decide what they do and don't want.

Being upfront here. I'm definitely pro-nuclear...but that's not the topic here.

I think it's a very bad idea for HOA's to ban solar panels, clotheslines, and xeriscaping.

I think that xeriscaping is crucial to even being able to survive and prosper anywhere that is semiarid or dry. Green lawns in places like Nevada, Arizona and even much of California are a waste of valuable water that should be used for more essential purposes.

Solar panels are not unsightly. They're rather expensive, but people have every right to invest in them. The very fact that someone installs solar panels probably means they intend to stay in the house a number of years to recoup the costs of the panels. That means a stable neighborhood.

Clotheslines can be hung in back yards in areas where they will not be seen from the street. In my opinion, clothes dried out on the line are cleaner than clothes dried in a tumble dryer because the UV in sunlight has a sterilizing effect. If you've smelled clothes fresh off the line you know how clean they are. Clothes out of the dryer hardly compare.

I think it's OK for HOA's to not allow cutting of large trees (even if they shade the neighbor's solar panel) and it's OK to say "no clotheslines in the front yard.

However, all too many subdivisions don't even have large trees...because the greedy developers cut everything down when they built, rather than saving a few good shade trees.

Green lawns in ALL of California are a waste of water... some parts of the state get enough rainfall to keep a lawn green *most* of the winter, but a lawn that requires *any* supplemental water is a lawn that requires too much water...

Little known to many residents of subdivisions with covenants, the use of tv antennas and satellite dishes* cannot legally be banned. They can be required to be located on the least viewable/objectionable spot on the house, but not if it will negatively affect the reception of the antenna or dish.

The same should be true of solar panels, but, unfortunately, isn't.

* one meter (39.37") or less in diameter (or any size dish if located in Alaska)

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html#QA