My front-yard wellhouse will now need a birth certificate

I support the hard work that is moving the neighborhood forward.
I fully embrace that my front-yard wellhouse will now need a birth certificate.

My understanding is that one of the new proposals will allow construction materials to remain behind a house. And also behind garages on lots where no house is built, since I can see construction materials while standing anywhere in my front yard, side yard or back yard.

I would like clarification about this. And would like to know which other restrictions the committee has decided not to enforce, and would like to know why the committee has decided not to enforce a restriction that I own. And for whose benefit this decision is being made. It is intrusive and dishonest for a committee to decide not to enforce a restriction without notifying those who own that restriction.

The current restriction requires construction materials to be stored inside an enclosed building.
The current restriction is knowable, reasonable, adequate, ordinary and enforceable, and affords my lot certain standard protections that I purchased with the land.

By deed, I own land in the state of Texas, and as a result, my restrictions are mixed into the dirt that I own. These deed restrictions are protected by law and are worth money until the real estate market says otherwise.
The board of directors is required to protect me from others who want to enter my property and dig up my dirt trying to remove the restrictions that are mixed into my dirt.
Each time a person votes to end a restriction, or complains about the fees, or votes to bankrupt the corporation that protects my dirt, or finds reason not to improve, or says they don’t think we ought to be offending anyone with enforcement letters, they are entering my yard and digging up my dirt trying to remove something of value that belongs to me.
Not surprisingly, the same folks who year-after-year try to dig up my yard, are the first to complain loudly if somebody wrongs them.

I object to any proposed new restriction or lapse of enforcement allowing construction materials to be stored behind a house or garage or anywhere except inside enclosed building for all the following reasons.

Please explain which Trailer park allows open storage of construction materials?
Please explain which Business park allows open storage of construction materials?
Please explain which City or Business allows open storage of construction materials?

Please explain which Real Estate corporation recommends open storage of construction materials?
Please explain which Bank will loan money on property with open storage of construction materials?
Please explain which Bank has open storage of construction materials?

Please explain which health department recommends open storage of construction materials?
Please explain how long construction materials can be stored openly before becoming trash?
Please explain how many piles of construction materials are going to be approved for back yards?
What size can the new piles be?
Will current minimum height of 32-37 feet also apply to construction piles?
Have you watched the TV shows Pickers and Hoarders?
Can you explain how many rats will live under a blue tarp covering construction materials?

Why would our neighborhood choose to reverse an important restriction that no real estate or banking entity would approve, that no health department or city would approve, that will give us lower standards than a trailer park? The neighborhood can modify and improve restrictions but cannot legally remove ownership of any restriction, especially a restriction as key as storage of materials on a lot. And particularly without fully notifying all owners of the decision, and without full disclosure of ramifications.


Here are some ideas:
- Few construction materials can remain outside without decay or degradation that will render those materials trash at some point. This is true even if piles are covered with tarps or plastic.
- Lumber, shingles, siding, plywood will become trash when stored outside. This is a provable fact.
- Even treated lumber will twist and split and become less valuable when not nailed into place.
- If-and-when construction materials become trash, there is no provision for the neighborhood to identify the materials as trash, and require removal.
- Therefore the neighborhood is allowing trash to accumulate in back yards.
- We are opening the door to nuisance for the benefit of not offending a few friends who might move away, when we should be competing in the real estate market that fixes the price and value of our property. Our real estate prices are not fixed by our friends. They are fixed by a real estate and banking markets that would never recommend piles of building materials or trash in back yards.

- To make the new restriction effective, we would have to identify in the restriction those specific products that are suitable for outdoor storage.
- Or identify a way for the neighborhood to mark transition from construction material to trash. Which seems silly, when it would be simpler to enforce the existing restriction that is knowable and clear and reasonable and ordinary.
- If rubber tires are used by anyone anywhere at any time for construction of exercise equipment then tires are considered construction materials. That is the way the law works.
- Same with other materials such as old siding and sheetrock torn off or carried out of the house and piled in the back. Someone can claim those are construction materials, and make successful argument in court.
- Toilets and bathtubs and water heaters are also construction materials. And they might look very nice if stacked neatly and painted to match the house.
- Stacks of blue insulation board twisted and bleaching in the sun would add year-round color.
- Without specific listing of products, or expiration dates for outdoor materials, the new restriction will allow anything to be stored on a lot. Culverts and pipes. Boxes of tie wire. Pallets.
- There was omission at the recent meeting when full ramifications were not explained.

- There is NO real estate agent or bank that would support this plan or suggest this new plan to be in anybody’s interest.
- In no way does the new proposal improve my investment. It reduces my value.
- The state legislature could pass a law that removes the current restriction from my dirt, but a majority vote of lot owners cannot legally lessen the value of my ownership.
- I will not accept lot owners digging up a knowable and enforceable restriction that protects me, and replace it with a restriction that no real estate agent or bank or city or trailer park would approve.
- A unilateral board decision not to enforce the restriction is also unacceptable.
- It would be extremely difficult for the board or its spokespeople to stand in front of a court and explain the necessity of suspending this key restriction for controlling property values.


- Rats. I worked on a house where the neighbor next door had piles of lumber under blue tarps, surrounded by a fence. Large piles but the piles were lower that the height of the 6’ fence. Rats lived under those piles and were running over the fence. The homeowner told me that rats ran all over his roof at night and his wife was terrified they would jump into her hair. Rats can climb straight up a drain pipe. The homeowner and I stood there and watched it.
- It is a fact that construction materials and other piles of trash attract rats.
- Children visiting our neighborhood could enjoy a ‘nature outing’ with rats.
- Old people could enjoy a bout of plague, which would certainly mark our investment on the real estate map. Rats are vile and they live in piles of construction materials.
- The new restriction allows no provision for cleaning up the mess or the rats.
- The homeowner was forced to petition the health department, and was told he needed to provide photos. His homeowner association likewise reduced their restrictions years before not wanting to offend people, so they were powerless against the nuisance.
- The homeowner lost value in his house. His neighbors were spreading the story to homebuyers.
- The neighborhood lost value.
- Just imagine Shady Oaks’ new tweet at the real estate offices: Shady Oaks has Norway rats running over roofs that are bigger than holes in their roads. Har har.
- We could print wording on our new sign saying: our rats are bigger.
- Bigger rats, lower fees, higher piles, live the dream.

- Home buyers for our homes are going to be younger than us. These folks communicate by social media, and whatever goes on in Shady oaks does not stay in Shady Oak. Our neighborhood image is worth money, and the new rats-n-rubbish restriction is NOT a good tweet.

- Piles. If you allow one pile you must allow all piles.
- The new proposal does not limit size or number of construction piles.
- Any attempt to write limitations on the number and size of piles would end up with somebody having to count and measure piles of trash to see what is suited to our neighborhood.
- It would be far simpler to offend people with a letter saying ‘put your construction materials inside enclosed building’ than to regulate the scope and number of piles of rat infested boards and toilets heaped as you’ve seen on TV shows Hoarders and Pickers.
- The simple points laid out in this letter give the board ample cause to enforce an ordinary restriction.

- My rights.
- I own dirt that has restrictions mixed in with the dirt.
- Each time a person votes to end a restriction, they are entering my yard and digging up my dirt.
- It is larger violation to enter my property to remove something I own than it is to write a letter requiring compliance that might offend someone.
- Personal offense is not supported by a court of law, but removal of ownership is.
- It is the right of a lot owner to sue the neighborhood and board, and those who speak for the board, for failure to protect my dirt from folks who want to dig it up and remove my ownership rights.
- Enforcing restrictions is the legal responsibility of the board.
- Shady Oaks Corp is not a government. Shady Oaks is a non-profit real estate corporation.
- Pestilence and trash are not positive criteria for negotiating best-price real estate deals.
- The majority vote can strengthen restrictions, but not lessen restrictions.
- The new trash-n-rat proposal is trying to replace a knowable and strong restriction with a lesser standard that seriously compromises my neighborhood, and opens the neighborhood to another lawsuit.


- I worked in neighborhoods all my life. More neighborhoods in total than everybody in this neighborhood has lived-in combined.
- Every day at work, I never heard one positive thing about restrictions or local boards.
- Yet each job was required to match neighborhood standards, which we did without hesitation.
- One thing I noticed, the higher up in the management and ownership chain the homeowner was, the less they said anything about restrictions or neighborhood boards.
- The maintenance man at local fast food place complained in December he was moving out because his neighborhood sent a letter asking him to weed his flower beds. He was offended, and his friends heard all about it. His complaint is the normal din and clamor among homeowners until the neighbor puts rats on their roof.
- I suspect the manager of the fast food place, and owner of the fast food place would prefer the maintenance guy weed his flower bed. Just weed it. Just put the construction trash in a shed.
- Now, which guy can afford our homes? The maintenance guy or the manager and owner?
- Certainly every real estate agent would tell the homeowner to weed the flower bed.
- So who should we take council from? The complainer or the real estate agent?


- The new rats-n-rubbish proposal allowing piles of construction materials weakens my ownership rights, opens the neighborhood to lawsuit, is bad for the neighborhood, is unnecessary, and tries to replace a sound restriction with piles of rubbish. No real estate agent would suggest this restriction or want this restriction. No bank will complete a loan without removal of construction piles. No trailer park will permit it. No health department would approve it. We should embrace the competitive real estate market instead of patting our friends on the back with sympathy for fear of offending them with a compliance letter.


Gene Haynes