HOAs: "No solar panels for you"

Page 1 of 3  
"The government wants you to install solar panels at your house, and will even give you a tax break to do it. But your neighbors? Maybe not. It's a lesson Angel and David Dobs discovered when their homeowners association north of Atlanta denied their request to install solar panels on their roof. Neighborhood officials said the panels would look out of place and might lower home values..."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/solar-panels-clashes-homeowner-groups-16208070#.T5e33vWDl8E
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/25/2012 7:47 AM, HeyBub wrote:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/solar-panels-clashes-homeowner-groups-16208070#.T5e33vWDl8E
There is a parallel with folks under a HOA putting up Satellite Dishes and even On-the-Air TV antennae (as well as Amateur/CB stuff.)
My understanding is that the FCC passed a special rule that said that HOA's could NOT block communications based stuff. (Owners can; thus renters are stuck).
Perhaps in the fullness of time, the feds will cause a similar rule in regard to solar heat and solar electric panels.
I wouldn't get too upset, were I you.
Back in the days of Jimmy Who, lots of folks put up solar water heating panels. Within a decade almost all of them had been bypassed and most of them completely removed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Gilmer wrote:

No they are not. As long as the antenna is not attached to the building and is in and area the renter has exclusive control of (patio), it can go on a tripod or other non-permanent base.
Problem for lots of apt. dwellers is a south facing exclusive area of control.
--

We are spirtual beings having a Human Experience. - Oprah Winfrey


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The FCC did only after SCOTUS had weighed in and said it could only because the FCC (and thus the Feds) had pre-empted the field and could do so under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. In other words because Congress had given the FCC sole authority over the care and feeding of radio and TV in the US. There is no similar agency in the US for solar panels.

I am not sure they can, at least using the same legal idea as was used in the FCC.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think a lot of this was due to old technology. PVC, which most of those early systems were made of, was not UV resistant and in a short span of a few years most of it broke down and fell apart. Those early systems were jes not reliable. I also don't think they were very cost effective in the long run, so didn't get rebuilt when newer material technology appeared. Jes a guess.
nb
--
vi --the heart of evil!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/25/2012 9:27 AM, notbob wrote:

One of my neighbors had some type of system on his roof that was shredded during the last hail storm. He didn't reinstall it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Might be. But just as likely it could be the Gestapo attitude a lot of associations adopt. Several years ago the city of Wichita, in an attempt to suck up to an "exclusive" neighborhood went way out of its way to dress up a water pumping facility on the edge but OUTSIDE of the neighborhood. They designed the facility to look like one of the high-end homes inside of the neighborhood, right down to landscaping and shake cedar roofing. If you were not aware of the fact that the structure was full of pumping equipment you would not have guessed it was not another expensive home.
A few years ago the structure was needing a new roof. In order to save some very tight funds they decided to put an attractive dark colored metal roof on the building. Not only did it save taxpayers installation money, it reduced insurance rates for the structure, the city and taxpayers. As a show of appreciation for the city having sucked their tit for 20+ years the adjacent neighborhood sued the city and won. Remember, this plant is outside of the walled boundaries of the neighborhood. The city was forced to remove a perfectly good and economical roof and put shakes on the house. Why? They played footsie with the snobs for years and it proved to be a precedent.
RonB
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

"They're just afraid that someone's going to put up this big, honking ugly thing that reflects light and just looks ugly," he said.
Which sounds like a legitimate concern to me. I've yet to see one installed that didn't look ugly. If you put it on the back side of your house where no one else can see it, then it has no effect on neighbors. But I've seen them put right on the front of houses. And IMO it does lower the property value.
For my next house, I'll pay extra to have solar panels already installed so I can enjoy lower energy bills. Maybe the hand-wringers in Atlanta should just mandate the use of the type of solar cells that look like roof shingles so their aesthetic sensibilities aren't compromised.
Tomsic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Only problem with that is that for the enjoyment you're going to shell out a hell of a lot of money upfront to hopefully recover it over decades. And it only makes economic sense at all if the installation is heavily subsidized. Meaning someone else is then paying for your enjoyment.
And if you want them, why wait for a new house? They go on an existing house just as well as a new one.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You can pay extra right now.

However, you miss the entire point. They don't help the NEIGHBORS, but are an impact on them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"They're just afraid that someone's going to put up this big, honking ugly thing that reflects light and just looks ugly," he said.
Which sounds like a legitimate concern to me. I've yet to see one installed that didn't look ugly. If you put it on the back side of your house where no one else can see it, then it has no effect on neighbors. But I've seen them put right on the front of houses. And IMO it does lower the property value.
*****************************************************************************
Eye of the beholder. The lower utility bill is more important to me. I'd not object to them. I may even pay more for a house with them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Except that it's not your house that is being depreciated because of them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 21:34:31 -0400, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

But as the price of energy goes up and up, it may be Appreciated.
I've seen some installations that don't look bad at all, black panels on a black roof.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

one day such panels may be required by law........
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

one day such panels may be required by law........
Or essential. If California is going to comply with their own law which is to achieve their goal of building mostly zero energy homes by 2020, that's a lot of roof panels.
Tomsic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The biggest thing that lowers home value is a HOA.
Remove 333 to reply. Randy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Seems to me, HOA wields their power thru litigation. Comply or be sued. Turn it around.
If solar pwr actually will save you money, sue the HOA on the grounds of how much money you will lose by not converting to solar power. IOW, sue based on how much $$$ the HOA is costing you!
nb
--
vi --the heart of evil!
"Avenge me!" --Bill Burr
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ridiculous suit that has no merit. When you buy a home in a HOA community, you know and agree to the HOA having control over certain aspects of what you can do with your property. If you don't want that arrangement, then you simply buy somewhere else. If you do buy, then you are bound by the convenants imposed and if they include control over what the exterior looks like, then too bad, so sad, but you're gonna lose.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Somebody (Woody Allen?) said "Ninety percent of success is just showing up!" You, and no more than five of your neighbors can probably take over the HOA governance at the next election.
Then, as another great worthy once said, "Payback's a bitch."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A good friend tried that after their HOA president was hiring himself for renovations (which weren't getting done). The covenants required 50% of the *members* (not just those in attendance) for any elections and 60% for a change to the bylaws.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.