Post by forrestfab5 on Jan 23, 2014 10:43:51 GMT -5
Regarding the current debate about whether a GHPOA member may rent out their home on a short-term vacation rental basis, it would appear that the Board is trying to enforce the Protective Covenant that prohibits "commercial use" of a property. There is no doubt a legal argument to be made on both sides of this issue. Personally, I thought that Koo's attorney provided a reasonable argument, complete with legal precedent, as to why this activity would not be considered commercial. I am also quite sure that that another competent attorney could make a similarly compelling case on the opposing side. However, my interest in seeing out this debate does not frankly rise to the level where I think it necessary to spend $30K of community funds that could, in my opinion, be better spent on maintaining/improving the neighborhood's facilities and grounds. I also have little interest in burdening another member with presumably similar fees. I note that the Board, while not making any promises, did suggest that legal costs might be recovered from the losing party in such a lawsuit. I assume that this goes both ways and, as such, I would simply say that any member voting YES should consider the total potential cost of going forward. I will be voting NO, but I also believe in democracy. If the majority of my neighbors think that the Board should proceed with a lawsuit against Koo, I will not withhold future dues.
And now, with that all off my chest, here is my actual question. This issue made me look again at our Covenants, something I haven't done since closing. Am I right in saying that Section 4 of the neighborhood has very few Covenants compared to Sections 1, 1A, 2 and 3? From what I can see, none of the really restrictive Covenants, including the one in question about commercial use of a property, apply to homes in Section 4. Not that I'm planning to do anything different, but it's a strange setup where some members are held to more stringent covenants that others.
And now, with that all off my chest, here is my actual question. This issue made me look again at our Covenants, something I haven't done since closing. Am I right in saying that Section 4 of the neighborhood has very few Covenants compared to Sections 1, 1A, 2 and 3? From what I can see, none of the really restrictive Covenants, including the one in question about commercial use of a property, apply to homes in Section 4. Not that I'm planning to do anything different, but it's a strange setup where some members are held to more stringent covenants that others.