To put this into it's own blog post, I am also pulling out a great discussion topic brought up in the comments. Should we change our covenance to not allow any of us to rent our homes? This is something that needs unanimous support to change in our existing HOA, but it's a serious question to bring up. Some of the most successful and nicest communities throughout Cobb are "no-renting allowed" places. This allows the community to stay more tight knit as well as keeping our property values at the highest of highs.
But to bring to everyone's attention, the flip side. We are in a housing slow down. Some of us might come under hard times or might have a job transfer. Selling our homes might be easier than other homes in our area, but still because of the slow down, it's taken longer to do so. Those types of situations require immediate financial fixes that only renting would solve.
What are some other thoughts on this topic as well as support for either side? If this gets enough track, this should be put to a movement of amendment to our covenant at our next meeting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
it looks like this blogger has run its course...
That was a positive comment for an open discussion question. Also, why is the commenter shielded by "Anonymous?" I see no problem with this post as it brings up a VERY valid question brought up by another resident in the community.
This is a good point we will have to table this at the next meeting whenever that happens. It is a simple majority vote.
I would love to know who is so freakin intimidated by this blog...... All this talking and ideas and formation of community events is sooo scary. I don't know how I can sleep at night.... ; )
Hmm, can we pass such a restrictive covenent by simple majority? I agree that we don't want to create a transient community but I'd have to bag the covenent if I were on the brink of financial ruin. For this to have a legal toe hold, I'd imagine we'd have to have prior knowledge of this restriction even before moving into the neighborhood. The ole saying goes that the single largest investment most people will ever make is their home. So clearly choosing wisely is important. But just as a community full of renters can devalue one's property, so too can arduous restrictions and limited options. In this case, I can clearly agree with the sentiment but let's think through the potential impact and consequences. Let's leave blind law making to congress.
Welcome to the discussion Dozemont! I am glad you brought some fresh perspective and understanding to the open discussion. When making a decision like this, you really do have to look at it from ALL angles. I too was under the impression this was more than just simple majority, but then again, that is something I guess we will have to look further into.
If we were to poll our friends and family you would find the majority of subdivisions over 200k have such "arduous restrictions and limited options". Should a hardship situation happen to one of our home owners I’m sure the board could handle it on a case by case basis. We should want it to be the exception not the norm. Usually the tenant is not the issue it’s the signage. Think of your selves shopping for a home in this price range and you go into a subdivision and find several "For Rent" signs. Would you personally consider purchasing a home there? Neither would I......
It is something we need to address. With Chris' line of work, an out-of-state transfer is always a possibility.
Good points lrod, I appreciate the discussion. I don't disagree with the notion or our ultimate community pride-based objective but I also think we should be thoughtful rather than ham handed in how we legislate such a policy.
Categorically prohibiting rentals is a bad idea as is making it a case by case decision by the board. God forbid any of us are in a dire situation where a rental option is forced upon us but I'd be against having to air my laundry to the board who would then only have to explain the situation to the demanding or noisy masses. Rather, I say we take a creative tilt towards the solution. Here's a 3 pronged idea that may fit our shared goals.
1 - owner must reside in home for at least 6 months prior to renting with urgent situations not satisfying the time limit subject to review - this allows life to happen while removing speculators from the equation.
2 - owner must use a management company to facilitate the rental process - the better of this companies screen renters for fit and do their marketing without signs
3 - no "for rent" signs
I do speak from experience here as I still own and rent the home from which my wife and I moved. It is a lower entry level community and many homes are now rentals. I clearly get and agree your point regarding the proponderance of rental signs but I think this can be avoided. In my case, I employ a rental company who specifically marketing my home without a sign and had it rented within 30 days.
I've run long here so I'll call it. However, I'd be happy to share more about my experience or how we could implement rules that find the appropriate middle ground for each of us.
I have grown up with my father's business, Residential Property Management of Cobb County. I see both sides of the coin and I very much like the direction that dozemont directed us in. I would like the lengthen the stay in the house to at least a year instead of 6 months. I don't want people coming in and buying our homes to turn around and rent them for profit at our expense. I do like the part where you have to work with a management company as well as presenting the management company to the board for review of legitimacy. Also, many management companies, including my father's, can work around the "for rent" sign and not put that up in our neighborhood and STILL rent the house out.
Here is a reason for these "restrictions" on renting: My father would LOVE to have a house in our community to rent and could probably rent it in less than 30 days because of the size, location, and how nice these homes were built. The demand is there...and with Acworth at an all time high for house rentals due to the low number of multi-family dwellings, concern is warranted for how our community takes a stance on renting out our homes.
DOzment, I want to thank you. You can tell that you have really put some thought into your comment and Colleen and I would definitely second your motion to the board should we have another meeting.
Really Great Ideas……
Thanks guys/gals (one day we'll put a face to the screen names - I'm Dave by the way), I appreciate the comments and dialogue! I'm open to modification of my initial ideas - 9 or 12 mos over 6 and verification or validation of a credible mgt co are easy negotiation points.
I have no idea when the next meeting will take place or how items are added to the agenda but I'd welcome the opportunity for us to discuss this and other topics in a collaborative manner. Even if that means we establish subcommitees to think through issues and impacts rather than issuing blanket decrees.
I'm convinced that there's a certain passion or interest in our community that can be bridled for the benefit of all. I say we capitalize on it.
Thanks!
Post a Comment