Surveillance Systems on units exterior > HOA Forum

Unanswered

Active Topics

Forums

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions

Subject: Surveillance Systems on units exterior

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 3 of 3

Author

Messages

PWells
(Washington)

Posts:30

05/18/2007 4:26 PM
Ok here's what's going on. This owner installed the cameras before they submitted the request to alter the exterior. They place 3 out originally. Now they have 6. This owner has already accused several owners of illegal activities even though no other owners have witnessed such activities. So far we've had over 10 letters from owners demanding them to be removed. The board made the decision was made during a legal meeting. Minutes were taken! Management was present. This owner is still believing they are above the CC&R's for our community. Every time something happens on the property this owner automatically thinks it's their EX doing the damage. This owner has saught out other owners to inform them of what they believe is drug activity. When in fact it is an owner that works various hours on a construction site. This owner has also tried to interven with the sale of units on the property. The board had come up with an alternative solution to the issue. By allowing them to have their cameras on the inside of their unit and to only have their patio and front door areas under survialence. This owner has refused to even discuss this option. Right now the owner is refusing to even discuss any alternatives.

RonaldW
(South Carolina)

Posts:900

05/18/2007 4:38 PM
Posted By PWells on 05/18/2007 4:26 PM Ok here's what's going on. .............. The alternative is to take her to court. She doesn't need to discuss it with you and you don't need to discuss it with her. I believe I said it before, but if you don't enforce your covenants, you don't really have any. The credibility of your association is at stake here.

Ron SC

TomK2
(Ohio)

Posts:39

06/01/2007 12:33 PM
Be careful of the "work shop" meetings. What constitutes a meeting? Anytime a quarm of the board gathers ,party,cook out etc.,and discusses the Association , IT IS A MEETING and must be treated as such.

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1850

06/02/2007 8:27 AM
Frankly, I see a board who was unwilling to work with this resident to begin with. I hope she prevails. Their presumptions that the survelience cameras could cause harm are ludicrous and a huge stretch. This post earlier says it all and would have and STILL COULD make the difference: " A board does not dilute their authority when they issue a variance. The next door neighbor can request to install a camera for some reason, and if the board thinks the reason is not sufficient, they can deny the request. All variances are issued without prejudice so they are not setting a precedent. " It's clear, then, that the board is just unwilling to work with this person. Whatever past issues should not have any bearing on the decision at hand. Each request should stand on it's own. Bias and prejudice work their way into it otherwise, and it's a good bet she can use that in her favor.

RonaldW
(South Carolina)

Posts:900

06/02/2007 9:53 AM
Posted By MicheleD on 06/02/2007 8:27 AM Frankly, I see a board who was unwilling to work with this resident to begin with. I hope she prevails. Their presumptions that the survelience cameras could cause harm are ludicrous and a huge stretch. This post earlier says it all and would have and STILL COULD make the difference: " A board does not dilute their authority when they issue a variance. The next door neighbor can request to install a camera for some reason, and if the board thinks the reason is not sufficient, they can deny the request. All variances are issued without prejudice so they are not setting a precedent. " It's clear, then, that the board is just unwilling to work with this person. Whatever past issues should not have any bearing on the decision at hand. Each request should stand on it's own. Bias and prejudice work their way into it otherwise, and it's a good bet she can use that in her favor. Michele, You have it backwards. The person was not willing to work with the board. She installed the cameras without permission. She clearly feels that she is a "special person" who does not have to abide by the covenants. The HOA said "no cameras". She said "the hell with the HOA, I'll put up cameras if I want to."

Ron SC

PWells
(Washington)

Posts:30

06/17/2007 6:54 PM
Our board has made numerous options for this owner. So far the owner is not even willing to discuss the option because it is not what they want. They have made it clearly known that unless the board says "the cameras may stay right were their at." The owner will not review any options. The board has offered to allow the cameras as long as they are inside the unit. And only recording what is happening in their assigned patio and front door areas. They do not have the right to record the sidewalk, street or neighbors patios or entryways. The board is at least trying to come up with a solution instead of ignoring it. -PWells

RonaldW
(South Carolina)

Posts:900

06/18/2007 6:51 AM
Posted By PWells on 06/17/2007 6:54 PM Our board has made numerous options for this owner. So far the owner is not even willing to discuss the option because it is not what they want. They have made it clearly known that unless the board says "the cameras may stay right were their at." The owner will not review any options. The board has offered to allow the cameras as long as they are inside the unit. And only recording what is happening in their assigned patio and front door areas. They do not have the right to record the sidewalk, street or neighbors patios or entryways. The board is at least trying to come up with a solution instead of ignoring it. -PWells I would have thought you would have taken her to court by now. The longer she keeps them, the harder it will be to make her get rid of them. I'm also a little surprised that neighbors haven't complained directly to her or even vandalized the cameras.

Ron SC

KateB1
(Arizona)

Posts:1

06/19/2007 10:58 PM
Comments about the security camera that you are so concerned about. Be concerned about a night of police cars, roped off home for a murder? Trust that if you decide to sell or rent your house, everyone will refer to your community as the one who had a murder when some guy got out of jail. It also could be a requirement as a disclosure to sell in your community. SHUT UP and let this quiet hidden camera protect her and deters an invasion...and hope that she will eventually sell and leave before something awful happens.

RonaldW
(South Carolina)

Posts:900

06/20/2007 5:14 AM
Posted By KateB1 on 06/19/2007 10:58 PM Comments about the security camera that you are so concerned about. Be concerned about a night of police cars, roped off home for a murder? Trust that if you decide to sell or rent your house, everyone will refer to your community as the one who had a murder when some guy got out of jail. It also could be a requirement as a disclosure to sell in your community. SHUT UP and let this quiet hidden camera protect her and deters an invasion...and hope that she will eventually sell and leave before something awful happens. KateB1, you just don't get it, do you? It's not about "security cameras" (which won't prevent the murder, just record it), it's about a homeowner's complete disregard of the covenants. A homeowner who made exterior modifications without approval and refuses to remove them. She should have been hauled to court on this a long time ago.

Ron SC

Jadedone4
(Virginia)

Posts:495

06/20/2007 5:49 AM
Kate, I understand your concern and passion about allowing the person to feel safe. However, as it has been noted here (last post), the cameras are not going to protect the lady if the "ex" wants to do harm. This comes from a person who was a police officer, and who's family is about 25% "cops" on some level (federal, state, local). Cameras will prevent someone from stealing your flowers, vandalizing your property - as they serve as the "deterent" factor. They will NOT prevent a boot to the door to gain entry, or handgun/rifle spraying bullets, or any other methods to do bodily harm. I have witnessed too many crime scenes where the person "invested" in a false sense of security, and grew complacent. From the original post, the owner was not approved by the HOA to install the cameras. From a later, follow-on post it was suggested that the HOA agreed, based on the circumstances, to allow a set number of cameras, and pointed in a particular manner (so as to not infringe on neighbor's rights). What should/could have occured is that the "camera seeker" going to the neighbors and seeking their support for the cameras. This would have (IMHO) gone a long way to influence the HOA. It also provided an additional set of "eye and ears" to the "camera seeking" owner in the way of additional community protection. In the end, isn't that what an HOA/community is there for....

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 3 of 3

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > Surveillance Systems on units exterior