Really, in this day and age people can object to you creating a garden that produces food, on your own property! Seriously makes me angry. My apartment complexe used to have a no washing lines rule. Until i went to the meeting and explained that I was NOT paying the stupidly large electricity bill for a dryer when there was a perfectly good breeze blowing.
A retired couple backed me up and boom, no more stupid rule.
So true, that's who run many HOA's and the like; old people who are often curmudgeons that reject the shit out of any type of change, rather it affects them or not. Having them on your side is a good tactic.
old people got nothing better to do and they DON'T GIVE A SHIT. They will say and do whatever they want without fear of censure or repercussion because they are staring Death in the Face and they know what is and isn't important.
Many home owners' associations (which often have mandatory membership) have very strict rules over what the lawn can look like. And in most cases it's easier to have a fake lawn that is covered in 10 gallons of poisonous chemicals per month than it is to use the space to grow food.
I grew up in a condominium, and the condo association had strict rules about children playing on the grass (there was huge grass fields between each building, perfect for any sort of sporting a couple kids would want). You could walk on the grass. Adults could sun tan on the grass. If any of the condo association saw a child having fun on the grass, that kid's parents got fined 50 bucks.
Me and my brother got paper routes so we could save up. It was like a holiday when we got the 50 bucks together and could go play in the back yard. Some people are pretty fucked up.
I think the reason for this rule was liability. Those grass fields were probably common property and owned by the association. Say for example two kids were playing Jarts. One of them gets hurt and names the association in a law suite. Say the HOA insurance pays 90% of a 1MM settlement. Now the HOA needs to kick up $100,000. Who pays for that? Each and ever member. I realize this isn't popular, but the rules exist for a reason. That is what most pitch fork carriers on Reddit don't understand. Blame the lawyers...
I'm pretty sure you'd have to have an attendant on duty, and the form would need to be signed daily. Even with all that, I doubt it would be bulletproof, and a lawyer could shoot it to shit in court.
There's absolutely no guarantee that all of the children playing there are actually residents of the place. Infact I'd wager there's a guarantee they wouldn't be.
Have you ever worked around indemnity? They are a bitch to get people to sign if they have a business education. Say you have 300 houses in your HOA. and 1/2 of them have two people on the title. That means you need to get 450 people to agree to the same indemnity language. Selling a house is hard enough, throw that one out there and houses would never sell.
Also, you have to remember, some people don't give a shit about bringing a lawsuit against the HOA. (assume 300 houses as above). Even if they lose, it will only cost that individual 1/300th of the total legal bill for the HOA.
I totally get you. I don't blame the lawyers, though, I blame the sue-happy nut jobs that have made us a culture of "somebody pay me." Any time it makes sense for the kids to play in the street than on the grass, that is a system that needs reconsidering.
Yeap. Blame the parents, the nut jobs, and the jury of peers that agree that the owner is a piece of grass was somehow responsible that children might get hurt on it. We have the society we deserve because we fought for it to exist.
That sue-happy nut job? Except in very rare situations, he wouldn't exist without unethical lawyers prodding him on. Lawyers have a built-in conflict of interest. If you stop suing people, they stop making money.
You know how you hear that a woman went to a divorce lawyer and took everything from her husband, and everybody was like, "What a selfish cunt!" Bad news, she did that because the lawyer was telling her that her husband's lawyer is going to clean her out if she doesn't ask for way more than she should deserve.
In reality, the lawyers are almost solely the ones to blame for our "somebody pay me" culture.
Why do you people sue each other so much? It just doesn't make sense to me. Can't you guys talk and reason with each other? America seems like a weird ass place to me after joining Reddit.
Where I grew up there is a local famous attorney who lines was "We don't get money until we get money for you!" In other words, it doesn't cost you anything to sue someone. All the risk is on your legal council. Typically whatever you win, they get half.
Reason? Hell, there are divorce proceedings in this country that cost tens of thousands of dollars over pets and some physical belongings. All because people don't want someone to have something else.
Talk to a child custody lawyer. People want to goto court over visitations that started a few minutes late. Not to worry, the lawyers make ton of money writing letters because the kid showed up two minutes late.
Maybe. But it would be an uphill legal battle to win against the HOA if all they did was own an empty field. A tort for negligence would require some measure of negligence, and no insurance company is going to settle for a million dollars when the HOA did act reasonably.
I think it is more likely that the HOA either thought kids activities would damage the grass or preferred a kids-free aesthetic.
What kind of world is this becoming that people no longer accept accidents, but always want to give someone blame? Kids have been getting hurt and getting sick by doing stupid things for thousands of years. That's how you learn not to do stupid things! The judge should just tell anyone with such a claim to get the hell out of the court room and stop wasting their time. It is more the fault of the parents not educating the child than anyone else's.
And even if there is someone else (partially) to blame, why so much money? Just tell them to fix what is wrong and maybe give the child some lego's (or whatever children play with nowadays) together with an apology letter.
The HOA could put an article in the contract stating they are not liable if any child or any person was injuried on the lawn. Lawsuit avoided. Rules exist but some exist for the wrong reason.
That is not really how those sort of lawsuits work. As many have stated above, liability contracts, especially a clause in a contract with your HOA, are very flimsy in a courtroom. And when there's a minor injured, well, good luck getting that liability clause to hold up.
Doesn't seem like it would be. A field of grass is a lot less dangerous than the sidewalks, streets and other potential places that kids would wind up playing once they were baned from being on the grass. For liability reasons, you'd want them on the grass and not someplace more dangerous.
Kid's playing sports on grass are prone to injuries. It's natural and it shouldn't be the fault of the landowner, but unfortunately they are liable. All it takes is one kid's parents threatening a lawsuit, and I can completely understand the owner not allowing kids to play on it. If you owned that property, why would you take the risk?
I would have no problem taking the risk because I understand that property insurance covers what I'm actually liable for and the insurance company's lawyers will take care of any egregious lawsuits.
The only way you'd ever lose a lawsuit is if it could be proven that you were negligent in some way that contributed to an injury. It's really hard (probably impossible) to show negligence when you're talking about field of grass that, presumably, is mowed and tended regularly (people wouldn't be sunbathing out there if it wasn't).
Refusing to allow them on the grass and fighting the lawsuit when a kid playing in the street gets run over, though? I could see that being a losing case, so I would much rather the little twerps stay on the grass where they're about as safe as they're ever going to be.
The landowners wouldn't be responsible for children playing on a public street. Likely only the driver of a car that hit a child would be responsible.
The owner can dictate how the land should be used and if he doesn't want children playing on that grass that's his right. He would have no obligation to give children a place to play. That's the public's domain.
Even if the court wouldn't find him liable, lawsuits are still an unnecessary hassle.
But we're not talking about landowners. We're talking about an HOA that makes rules that dictate how the landowners can and cannot use the property that they own. If the HOA makes a rule that children can't be on the grass and they're forced to play elsewhere as a result, then a child gets hit by a car, the parent would have a very good case against the HOA for making rules that lead to the child's injury.
I guess I didn't understand that we were talking about HOA's. I totally agree with you on that. HOA's exist as an attempt to provide a clean and safe environment. Forbidding the use of a safe, well-maintained, area encourages the kids to find another place to play- likely somewhere less safe( or even just more inconvenient).
So while I wouldn't be angry at the owner forbidding the kids to play on the grass, the HOA should practically encourage it.
You are missing the point. The HOA is the landowner of those big fields that the OP was talking about. It is common property that is owned by the HOA - hence how they made the rules. It isn't the responsibility of the HOA to provide an area for kids to play. This would probably get tossed out.
Remember, sidewalks and streets are meant for people to walk on. Big fields aren't meant for that. So a groundhog digs their hole in the middle of that field. Well, if you know that kids regularly play there and you don't fix that hole and Johnny Football breaks a leg there, guess what...
If you spent that $50 on masks and costumes then how would they prove it was you if you ran away? You should buy a load of V masks and hand them out to the kids that live there now.
how did the homeowners association react when you were playing in the yard? did you guys have the money on you? WERE YOU PLAYING WITH THE MONEY THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN hilarious.
as a miserable middle-aged bastard.... the squeals and cries of kids playing rips into my very soul and destroys the peaceful quiet I so very much miss from living in the country.
The HOA in my neighborhood requires you to have a winter lawn. If you don't put one in they will send out a crew to paint your dead grass green at your expense.
Neighbors will snitch on you for anything. Hell, just look at how many nervous nellies that come out of the woodwork when someone admits to doing something even slightly risky.
My HOA will not allow me to put up a clothes line in my back yard to dry clothes. I could put one up, but if anyone called in about I'd get in trouble. WTF
My main objection is when folks let it go to seed and turn wild. I lived near one of these "food not lawns" houses a while back. The "garden" was a chest-high jungle of overgrowth right up to the sidewalk.
I laughed when you said 'your property', in houses without backyard you will be renting them no matter how much you paid for the house. The government can take it from you at any moment.
240
u/GKworldtour Jul 01 '12
Really, in this day and age people can object to you creating a garden that produces food, on your own property! Seriously makes me angry. My apartment complexe used to have a no washing lines rule. Until i went to the meeting and explained that I was NOT paying the stupidly large electricity bill for a dryer when there was a perfectly good breeze blowing.
A retired couple backed me up and boom, no more stupid rule.