Standing up against the neighborhood restriction committee

I am writing this letter to the neighborhood elected representatives because the group is bargaining away ownership rights that do not belong to them. This letter is long because I want to state each point of concern.

My objection 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.
I can see construction materials while standing anywhere in my front yard, side yard or back yard. It is my concern that my elected representatives have decided not to enforce this restriction, and that the restriction re-write group is taking something of value that belongs to me.

The restriction re-write group, and the elected representatives at the May meeting did not reveal or discuss repercussions of dealing away somebody else’s ownership rights.

There has been no give-and-take consultation between the property owners and the restriction re-write group. In fact the re-write group stopped open discussion by refusing to consider all proposals, and/or consult available experts, and is socially impeding opposition by pre-labeling opposing people as ‘passionate.’
Applying labels to anyone who is making a legal objection is dishonest bargaining and would not be accepted in a court of law.

For clarification, I am not passionate. I am a businessman, self-employed from age 15. I worked in neighborhoods all my life and have considerably more experience with restrictions than most.

I support the neighborhood effort to improve restrictions, yes.
But I would like clarification about the committee decision not to enforce the construction materials restriction. 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 key restriction that I own, and that no real estate agent would suggest suspending. And for whose benefit this decision is being made.

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, or the state legislature passes a law removing that restriction from my property.
The board of directors does not have legal right to suspend or remove any restriction ownership I presently own. They can strengthen restrictions, but not weaken restrictions. A majority vote of lot owners cannot suspend my ownership right. Individual lot owners cannot suspend my ownership right.

The directors are required to protect me from others who want to enter my property and dig up my dirt trying to remove restrictions that are mixed into my dirt. It appears the directors are active participants in the effort to dig up an ownership right.

Each time a person votes to end a restriction, 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, would be first to complain loudly if somebody did that to them.

My neighborhood has taken it on the chin from these folks.  And now these people are apparently bargaining to suspend my ownership rights once again. I am drawing the line. I will not accept this action.

There is no reason to suspend the current restriction requiring construction materials be stored in an enclosed building.
No real estate agent would support removing this restriction. No real estate agent was consulted.
No city would pass such a revision.
Trailer parks do not allow piles of construction material.
No health department would recommend piles of construction materials.
No bank would loan money on a property before such piles were removed.
No bank or health department or real estate office would allow piles of construction materials on their properties.
There is no expert who can tell you real estate or neighborhoods are improved by reducing restrictions or allowing piles of construction materials.

Building materials including lumber, shingles, plywood, siding cannot be stored outside without becoming trash at some point.
The new proposal approves trash piles.
There is no way to write a restriction so the neighborhood can mark the transition point between when construction materials are piled up and when they become trash.
Once the construction materials become trash, the homeowner can argue that trash is permitted.
There is no way to write a restriction that lists which building materials are acceptable.
Practically anything can be considered building materials. For example rubber tires are used in the construction of exercise equipment. Tires, culverts, pallets, boxes of tie wire.
Rotted siding removed from a house and burned cabinets and broken sheetrock removed from inside a house for remodeling are construction materials.
If you allow one pile, you must allow all piles.
If you limit the number or size of piles, then someone will have to count and measure piles of trash to determine which trash piles are suited to our neighborhood.
If the neighborhood relinquishes control over construction materials by giving up control to any pile that cannot be ‘seen’ from the front, a 12’ fence can be built to hide mountains of rubbish as seen on TV shows Pickers and Hoarders. Construction materials are the base for most of these piles.
Giving up the construction material restriction is as silly as allowing inoperable vehicles.

- 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 home buyers.
- The neighborhood lost value.
- No health department would approve such a revision to our restrictions.
- 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.
If the real estate market requires that stuff be picked up before a home is sold, why should we permit it by omitting a restriction that prevents it?

I request a meeting with the three board members to clarify their position over my concerns.

- Real estate is a competitive business. It is not a game. Shady Oaks is a non-profit real estate corporation.
- Unlike nearby neighborhoods along Band Road and Cottonwood Road, Shady Oaks does not have buyers lined up. We should emulate successful formulas shown by nearby neighborhoods. We should consult real estate agents before making long-term decisions.

There is no specific control over fencing used to hide mountains of rubbish that I’ve seen first-hand in neighborhoods and see each week on TV.
- An ordinary 6’ fence can hide huge collections of trash.

, especially when no reason exists proving necessity, when clear evidence exists that shows this action to be a risk.
Gene Haynes