Boomer |
02-07-2010 10:28 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by batman911
(Post 247319)
I have lived in a housing development governed by a Community Association for over 30 years. When the developer was the majority voting interest for several years until build out. At that point, the residents were in total control of the Community Association. The transition was smooth as the developer also owned the shopping center and commercial office building in the development (no golf course, only bike/walking trails, city owns the parks). Over time, the developer sold the commercial property but the occupancy and types of vendors did not change significantly. The new owners did cut down a lot of the nice trees on their property due to the liability and trimming cost. Over the years the maintenance of the common areas has degraded significantly. This is primarily due to the Community Associations reluctance to raise the monthly fee. We only pay $300 per year. I would rather raise the fee and maintain the common areas to the level they were when we purchased our home. The truth is that a lot of residents do not agree (either do not care or can not afford). In the end, the appearance of the common areas does affect the value of your home and the prestiege of the community. This is one of my fears about TV after build out. Will the residents agree to raise the maintenance fees the level necessary to fund proper maintenance? Again, some may not be able to afford the increase in fees. Will some villages be better maintained than others? One of the large expenses our Community Association has is repair of damage and vandalism to sprinkler systems, trees, walls, etc. Most all of that is caused by kids (some of whom do not live in our development but just like TV have access because the streets are city owned) so it should not be as large of an expense in TV. One of the things we lost when the developer stepped away was the deep pocket for legal fees to enforce the rules (for those homeowners who think they are exempt). That all said, I still think TV is the place to retire but we must all work to ensure that the very standards that attracted us to TV are maintained and funded.
|
Hi Batman,
The kind of thing that you have been dealing with is the kind of thing that happens way too often. I have spent some time lately trying to steer someone away from buying in a community where I think I can see a mess coming, like the one you are talking about in your post. (They asked me.)
- - - - - - -
TV is the only retirement community that we are considering. The size and momentum of TV and the business savvy and the awareness of the big picture that residents have should serve TV's future well. I sure hope so anyway. Whether we end up there or not, I want TV to continue to be good for the residents.
I have watched TV's market for many years. Since long before I retired. I am fascinated by the concept. And I am seeing more pros than cons.
The Lifestyle. TV's niche.
Buying near the ocean means you've still got the ocean if things do not work out. But buying near the ocean means that you have a house by the ocean -- and all those associated costs and risks. I think that it might be kind of nice to have the best of both worlds. We could buy in TV and easily visit the ocean. It's not that far away.
With me it is not really analysis-paralysis, although it might look that way. It is more of a sometimes seemingly cursed ability to not let emotion enter into real estate decisions. And though that has helped me in the past, this go-round, it might be in the way.
(Well, actually this miserable Ohio winter is starting to come through to me, talking to me loud and clear. And I think it is telling me that I am an idiot and I just think I can figure stuff out, and I spend way too much time thinking.)
Also -- and this might sound a little strange -- I find it encouraging to read here that others have felt the same way, looked into the issues closely, weighed the possibility for things to maybe not work out, and decided to go ahead. I am not the Lone Ranger.
Boomer
|