Angry in Azusa: Early Rosedale buyers are ticked off

Regular commenter TakeFive points out another troubled development, in addition to the three covered earlier today: in Azusa, where early buyers are ticked off that a master-planned community development has stalled.

Again from the Pasadena Star-News: "Frustrated over problems at what will be a new 1,250-home community, some residents want a home builder to buy back their homes."

More: "Two of four home builders at Rosedale, Fieldstone Homes and William Lyon Homes, stopped construction this year at the city's first master-planned community in the foothills.  Neighbors living in Fieldstone's Arborview neighborhood said they feel cheated, others said being surrounded by vacant homes and unkempt grounds causes safety concerns."

The developer, through a spokesperson, denies allegations of shoddy upkeep, but acknowledges that new home construction in Rosedale is on hold.

Your thoughts? Comments? E-mail story tips to peter.viles@latimes.com.
Photo credit: Submitted to Your Scene at LATimes.com by Dan Simpson.

Comments

[tbgpalisades]

Gosh! This is boring. If you're unhappy, just sell. Take your lumps and move, for crying out loud!

[Ex DRE]

California has one of the best programs in the country to protect homebuyers in "Planned Communities", though it is never as tough as what buyers want. Sadly, they listen to what new home salesmen have to say about the wonderful features to be built in the whole community, but then the buyers sign form purchase agreements where they acknowledge that every thing the salesman said is b.s. and not enforceable.

If Rosedale has a homeowners association, the developer will have had to post bonds to insure that any common area improvements are completed, at least in the phase where the occupied homes are located.

As to home builders buying houses back, that is completely unrealistic from a legal point of view. The best the homeowners can do is raise hell at their homeowners association meetings (which they can force to be called) and pressure the management of the homeowners association to aggressively force owners of vacant homes to keep their landscapes in good shape. In most homeowners association CC&Rs the HOA has the right to go onto a degenerating property, clean up the landscaping, and put a lien on the house for the cost. That lien can be foreclosed if the owner doesn't pay up. If the HOA is still controlled by the developer, they have a fiduciary duty to do the clean up if the degenerating homes are owned by the developer who controls the HOA.

Homeowners in failing tracts need to read their CC&Rs cover to cover, and read the portions of the Civil Code conerning "Common Interest Subdivisions" which can be found on the State Legislature's website. Homeowners who take control of and use their homeowners associations can be effective in keeping their neighborhoods well maintained even if there are vacant homes.

[MarkW]

As I remember, people were lining up to buy unbuilt houses in Rosedale assuming everything would end up like the little models and pictures they were shown. That was a real gable.

[jaded]

Azusa has some deep-rooted problems with gangs, inadequate schools, and less than beautiful old neighborhoods. So developers took the one nice parcel of land available in Azusa, on a hill once owned by Monrovia Nurseries, and tried to cram a master community on it with houses STARTING in the 1 millions.

At the height of the housing boom we took one look at the billboards advertising the development, and said "One million for Azusa? No thanks." And we never even went to look at the models. Apparently we weren't the only ones who saw a scam in the works. And to the people who bought in at the peak and now want to complain about the bust, I say, too bad, you were an idiot, and you and your over-inflated purchase were a part of the problem.

Schadenfreude just makes my day.

[RB]

yes, and I want my stockbroker to buy back my stocks at their October 30, 2007 closing price. I don't see why I should have to continue to own something that has lost value. I mean, why shouldn't everyone get back their money?

[Clearing some things up here]

In response to the post by ''Jaded:'' Your bashy comments clearly indicate that you feel Azusa in beneath you; I get that. Unfortunately, your recitation of facts regarding the Rosedale development doesn't fare too well, either.

The homes in Rosedale start in the $400K range (not ''STARTING at one million'' as you claimed), and only the most expensive mammoth estate ones reach a million. And in the current market, those highest-end would only *maybe* reach the seven-figure point.

Just because you strongly dislike a city and wouldn't consider it for a home doesn't mean there's a ''scam'' whenever property is being marketed there.

I suppose you could have missed the memo about a housing market crisis. That is the root of the problems we're seeing here, not some Azusa-born ''scam'' as you vaguely allege.

On the other hand, ExDre makes some great comments. There is a clause in the Rosedale CC&R's that prevents the recreation center, pool, and other specific amenities from becoming operable (for obvious financial / maintainence reasons) until 150 homes have sold. So far, they're just about half-way there.

The best thing these homeowners can do is exercise patience and wait-out the downturn in the housing market... something that we all have to do because, quite honestly, it affects us ALL in various ways. Things should pick-up again for Rosedale as the overall market turns to an upswing.