Ledges of Hidden Hills

Dick,

It was nice to meet you Thursday evening.  Thanks for stopping by to invite us to the neighborhood picnic you’re hosting with Carol later this month.

For the purpose of providing historical context and to explain our motivation, attached is a letter we mailed to everyone concurrently with requesting review by the North Carolina Supreme Court.

While the legal issues were resolved to our complete satisfaction on August 18, 2006, there remains a fundamental difference in our understanding of how we’re to treat our neighbors.  Although the “stick” has been replaced by the “carrot” in advancing the proposal to add walking trails and parks, the association’s ultimate objective is the same as it was in 2003.  The current situation in the Ledges is merely a temporary truce.

Twelve current property owners were among those who consented in writing to the scheme described as “unreasonable” by the Court.  To paraphrase George Staropoli, the founder of Citizens for Constitutional Local Government, there can be no friendly neighborhood get-together until the Amended Restated Covenants with their authoritarian predilections are disavowed.

In lieu of a dish to share, we’ve made a donation to the Wounded Warrior project.

Sincerely,

Robert and Vivian Armstrong

Normally, it’s the bankers who go after delinquent homeowners. But in communities governed by the mighty homeowners’ association, as the sour economy leaves more people unable to pay their fees, it’s neighbor versus neighbor……

Tom,

We acknowledge receipt of your letter urging us to pay what can best be described as welfare for the well-to-do.  The board asks us to pay for insurance to protect their assets and to subsidize the maintenance of our neighbor’s private property.  Instead of redistributing the wealth we choose the activating principle of all human accomplishment – individual responsibility.

A $15.00 payment has been made to Duke Energy account number 0002454597 to cover the cost of the decorative entrance lighting for lots 33, 39 and ½ of 38.

As a matter of clarification, paragraphs 24 and 26 of the Restrictive Covenants do not mandate the approval of all tree removal or exterior changes and improvements
as stated in your letter.  The precise requirements can be viewed at the following link http://www.ledgesofhiddenhills.com/documents/northcarolinarestrictivecovenants.pdf

Our concern continues to be the potential for abuse by private governments and the lobbyist lawyers who enable them.  Here’s an example in North Carolina of what happens when an HOA has legal authority to impose uniformity with fines and liens.

http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20100210/ARTICLES/100219969/1177?p=1&tc=pg . George Washington warned, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent, it is force.  Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

Finally, we reiterate our pledge to contribute to the cost of pruning the evergreen shrubs at the subdivision entrance island. We’ll be happy to coordinate and schedule this work with Richard Fry or any other professional or assist a volunteer crew.

This letter is posted on the web site Blog.

Sincerely,

Robert and Vivian Armstrong

February 11, 2010

To the Editor:

The recent letter characterizing HOA’s as harmless volunteers ignores a mountain of evidence to the contrary.  A Google search of homeowner association lawsuits reveals the not-so-neighborly nature of these private governments.

In the mainstream they are content to oversee the maintenance of community facilities and abide by the terms of the founding documents i.e. deed restrictions.  The more left-leaning HOA’s however are leading the charge to fundamentally change the nature of established developments.  (Specifics available at www.ledgesofhiddenhills.com)

As part of a special interest coalition of trade associations, real estate industry lobbyists and lawyer’s private governments remake the terms and conditions property owners bargained for initially by adding new restrictions on the use of private property and imposing special assessments to purchase and develop amenities not part of the original community.  This remaking of established neighborhoods is done ostensibly for the common good (to protect property values) but the end result is a nanny state.

The liberals in our nation’s capitol don’t have a monopoly on activist government.