Jackson Jambalaya

It seems to me that such a restriction on rental of one's house is a "taking" of property without due process, and without just compensation. The power to lease one's house is a part of the title to the land, and a taking of that property right is subject to constitutional protections. But I could be wrong - I haven't researched the issue.

Bill, just don't buy where there is home owners association.

I live in Northbay, and I believe that my property rights have been taken. The Court of Appeals says nothing was taken because there was no valid amendment to the Covenants. I hope they're right.

Dees is all for governmental takings when it suits his liberal ideology.

With no other pulpit to cry from, please allow me to use this one. The City of Madison has, through the inspection process, made owning rentals hard in Madison. City officials treat non owner occupied houses as troubled homes. Land lords are held to a different standard than owner occupied homes. I believe this is an effort to push people out of the rental business in Madison. You know, when the PTB do something to enrich themselves all is well.
Try renting your Madison house and you will see what foolishness they are engaging in.

Bill - if you voluntarily signed the Homeowners Association Agreement then you gave away those rights. Or so says the Court.

7:33, that's the point exactly. The prohibition on leasing homes in Northbay isn't in the Covenants - it's in a Rule adopted by the Board of the POA, and in order to be effective, such a prohibition has to be adopted by amendment to the Covenants, requiring assent of 90% of the homeowners and 50%+ of the mortgagees. Oh, and 4:58. You don't know me. Do you brand everyone who disagrees with you "a liberal"?

Crook's case has nothing to do with covenants or homeowner associations.

What is so hard to understand about the rental ordinance in the City of Madison. If you want to rent your home, you simply fill out a form in the permit office and post a bond. The renter also has to fill out a short form. The house is then inspected once a year by the permit department. The reasoning behind this is rather simple. Madison has some home owners that live as far away as California. The bond is to simply insure that the home owner keeps the house up to standard. The annual inspection is as much for the home owner as for the city. Should something be found wrong, the home owner can be notified. Without this system, a renter could totally demolish a home before the owner knows about it. As a result of this system, we do not have the dilapidated house in Madison as you see in some other cities.

property rights, bureaucracy, nanny, etc.

This has nothing to do with being "for the owner". If the owner is concerned about their property, they can arrange for their own property to be inspected. It's a way to make others conform and to generate fees.

those who would sacrifice liberty for the sake of better neighborhood appearance, deserve neither liberty nor a nice looking neighborhood.

What you say is simply an inspection, I assure you, is used punitively by those on the ground doing the inspection. I can not speak of the intent of the law. We are not talking about "keeping your property as your neighbors do". I do not like to see unjust situations and the way this one is administered is unjust.