Quote:
Originally Posted by jetskier
The issue is that city ordinance over arches any association rules. As such, the city ordinances take priority. Both SD and LB are essentially deferring to the city for any enforcement (of city ordinance). LB is restating the city ordinance and it is probably a stronger position than in the past. However, the city has indicated that enforcement is based upon complaints only.
The issue for associations such as SD and LB is that when a property is rented, the owner is not around to deal with issues. All problems become the responsibility of the board and property manager. Essentially, the community bears the cost of the rental and the individual reaps the benefit.
Some renters are terrific, but others feel that they can do whatever they want as they have paid for their vacation. It is a difficult situation as some homeowners do rely on rental income.
Jetskier  |
I absolutely agree that all city ordnance’s and law supersede rules and regulations-of any HOA and that is the way it should be. I do not agree that the HOA bares any of the cost of renters and the problems do ultimately fall on the owner not the HOA. There are plenty of rules in place in LB and the sub HOAs in LB so if a tenant had a situation where there was any cost and been paid by the HOA the owner would have to reimburse the said costs. But as I have said in 10 years as a board members of an LB sub HOA we had renters and never had this situation.
Sent from my iPhone using
Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app