Resident Resource

On this page we'd like to bridge some gaps in understanding and keep everyone informed and engaged and also discuss the implications of some of these proposed amendments outside of a purely legal framework.

Let me know if you’d like further adjustments!

Unintended Consequences

In one striking example of unintended consequences, India once offered a bounty for every captured cobra to reduce the dangerous snake population. 

However, instead of curbing their numbers, enterprising citizens began farming cobras to claim the rewards, which ultimately led to even more cobras when the bounty was eventually discontinued. 

This phenomenon, often called the "Cobra Effect," demonstrates how well-intentioned incentives can sometimes backfire, leading to unexpected outcomes. 

It’s a reminder that people’s responses to policies or changes can be complex and unpredictable, emphasizing the importance of considering potential indirect impacts when implementing new measures. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what are we getting at here?

Creating new restrictive covenants may not always yield the expected benefits the creators were after.  A great deal of the vibrance and charm of our neighborhood is rooted in the unique character that flourishes precisely because there has been no HOA governance to impose uniform standards or deter homeowners from bringing their own vision and creativity to their property.  This individuality not only enhances the visual appeal of our community but also fosters a sense of pride and personal investment among residents, who make decisions with themselves and neighbors in mind rather than the pressure of outside intervention.

Here's an example:

HOA enforcement of tidy yards, while intended to keep neighborhoods looking their best, may have the opposite effect.  For instance, when homeowners receive letters demanding that they cut their grass to meet certain standards, some may choose to remove grass altogether to avoid future hassles. 

This can result in bare, gravel-covered yards that detract from the neighborhood’s lush, green aesthetic. 

Others, faced with fines for perceived "unkempt" gardens, may pull up their landscaping and replace it with artificial turf or cement—easy to maintain, but lacking the natural beauty and benefits of real plants. 

In some cases, rigid enforcement can even discourage homeowners from experimenting with native plants or pollinator-friendly gardens that might appear unruly but actually support local ecosystems. 

Over time, strict yard rules can drive people to prioritize low-maintenance solutions over vibrant, living landscapes, inadvertently transforming neighborhoods into sterile, plant-sparse environments that lack the warmth and appeal they once had.

Here are some cool links about the Cobra Effect if you're interested:

https://www.johnmclegg.com/blog/innovation/the-cobra-effect/

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-cobra-effect-2/

Trailer Parking

Existing restriction:

"No boat, trailer, camper body, or similar vehicle shall be parked for storage in the driveway or front yard of any dwelling, nor shall any such vehicle be parked for storage in the side yard of any dwelling unless parked to the rear of a screen fence."

I've received multiple messages from neighbors who have been threatened with legal action regarding storing their trailers in their driveways.

Unfortunately, this is an existing deed restriction and it is clear that trailers cannot be stored in the driveway.

However, you have the power to change this!  If you would like to have this restriction removed from your unit's covenants, all you need is a majority of your unit's owners to sign off on striking this restriction from your property's covenants.  You would then file it with the county clerks' office, the same office you would go to for any property deed requests.

For those of you who are in a larger unit and this may be too big of an undertaking, there is another workaround.

Park it in the street!

The existing restrictive covenants make no mention of street parking and they wouldn't anyway because the street is owned by the city.  We can't directly impose restrictions on how the city allows its property to be used.

The City of San Antonio does have an ordinance that pertains to parking a trailer in the street and miscellaneous other rules about parking in the street.

The Rules:

If you park your trailer in the street, it must be attached to your truck/car, etc. You cannot store your trailer on the street unattached to a towing vehicle.

You cannot park your trailer, or any vehicle for that matter, on the street for more than 24 hours at a time.  You must move it daily. You can continue to park it on the street as long as you move it every 24 hours.

The truck and trailer must be parked in the direction of the flow of traffic and cannot block driveways, intersections, alleys, sidewalks, fire hydrants, must be parked within 18 inches of the curb/edge of roadway, etc.

Your truck and trailer must have valid/current registration.

There is a catch!  Your trailer might be too big and be classified as an oversized vehicle. If your trailer is oversized you cannot park it in the street in a residential area ever except for loading and unloading. Most residential use tow-behind trailers will not be classified as oversized.

The public roadway cannot be used to permanently store your trailer, but if you are using the trailer daily for work and moving it daily this is not storage.

Park your trailer on the street and WOHA has no enforcement authority. The restrictive covenants do not govern public roadways. Any enforcement actions will have to come from the City of San Antonio.

CoSA's Code Enforcement office is very helpful (they're not just out to get you, they want you to be informed and help as well) and for those of you who have received letters about your trailers I would highly recommend you give them a call to confirm that your trailer qualifies to be parked in the street.

For those of you still following along, do you see why I started this page with a discussion about unintended consequences? This is yet another one.  Because WOHA sent letters threatening legal action to neighbors who parked their trailers in their driveways, we will now have to deal with trailers parked in the street instead.

Do I want that? No, of course not. But I'm a big legalese nerd because the law informs us not just of our responsibilities, but of our rights as well, and I want others to be fully apprised of their rights.

While this isn't a discussion about free speech, I think this quote is still suitable here: 

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" 

Balancing Intent, Clarity & Integrity

I, the creator of this website, do not necessarily disagree with all of the proposed amendments.

But even my untrained non-attorney eye is appalled by the lack of specificity with which these were written.  In their attempts to be so broad as to be able to target anyone, the authors of the proposed amendments somehow simultaneously botched enforceability and overlooked addressing actual issues. 

I'll use the "Lot Maintenance" amendment again as an example.  Simply because the amendment is titled "Lot Maintenance" does not mean it would govern maintenance of the entire lot. The authors of the amendment forgot to include any clauses about lot maintenance. The entirety of the proposed amendment only targets yard maintenance. Yards! That's basically it!

They forgot about driveways. They forgot about everything else besides a yard that actually that might exist in front of a house.

A certain someone's house has been critiqued for chronically having stuff in the driveway.  

It's mine. That's my house. 

Guess what? This proposed amendment would not address that issue at all. It would only prevent neighbors from having indoor furnishings in their driveway. 

The proposed amendment would not stop the storage of construction materials such as lumber, siding, plywood, steel barrels, tarps, etc. from being stored in a driveway. It would only stop it from being stored in a yard. They really bungled this.

This amendment won't affect the stuff on my driveway in one bit as long as there are no indoor furnishings on the driveway. Who will it affect? My elderly neighbor whose grass is overgrown because they've been bedridden.

WOHA members have made public and published statements that seem to imply that issues such as construction materials in driveways would be addressed by their proposed amendments. This is false! 

Which brings me to my next point of contention:  The lack of integrity.  I can't say for certain whether these misleading statements are deliberate or a result of ignorance.

While ignorance may not initially stem from malice, there comes a point where choosing to remain uninformed becomes a conscious, and therefore harmful, decision. Ignorance isn't simply a passive state; over time, it requires effort to avoid learning, growing, or correcting misunderstandings. When individuals resist opportunities to educate themselves or improve, their continued ignorance shifts from innocence to negligence, making it a deliberate act with real consequences. In this way, persistent ignorance can indeed become a form of willful harm. 

Actively promoting misinformation—whether out of ignorance or otherwise—crosses into malice, as described earlier. When individuals persist in spreading inaccurate information about the proposed amendments, they aren't merely uninformed; they’re influencing others' decisions in ways that can have lasting consequences on property deeds and the rights of all homeowners. By choosing not to correct these misstatements, they are willfully engaging in actions that harm the community, making ignorance no longer an excuse but a deliberate act.

This lack of integrity leaves an icky taste in my mouth and makes granting them any enforcement authority much less palatable. Yuck.

Misdirection

So speaking of misleading statements, let's talk about the statements that were sent out in the recent WOHA directory.

This was posted in the latest directory sent out to WOHA members.

"A troublesome neighbor decides to build a casita in his backyard just a few feet from your property lines. City staff confirm it's allowed because of recent zoning policy changes for some suburban lots. He then rents the casita to his cousin who likes to partly loudly late on weeknights. Frequent calls to SAPD don't help much  and raise tensions with both of these neighbors you must see everyday. Your privacy and solitude are never the same because the city modified its longstanding zoning policy.

Amendment 2 reinforces that each lot in Whispering Oaks is allowed just one dwelling (no matter what City Hall decides)."

Let's dive into this shall we.  What is this even about? Is this about noise and parties or is this about accessory dwelling units?

"A neighbor builds a casita in his backyard just a few feet from your property lines."  Really? Because the minimum setback for building anything is at least 5 feet, sometimes up to 25 feet.

Do you know how far away my house is from the side lot line? 5 ft 3 inches. Yes, the developers built a whole freaking house only 5 ft away from the property line. Does that instantly make my house a party house? Should my house be demolished? Should it never have been allowed to exist?

To build an accessory dwelling unit, there is a permitting and inspection process. It would have to meet all current code requirements and pass inspection. This isn't something that happens willy nilly.  If it doesn't go through the proper channels, the property owner may be required to remove it. There are additional setbacks that may be present in existing restrictive covenants that are stricter than the city's rules. Our lots are not massive by any means. It would be very difficult to legally build a casita of any substantial size while adhering to all setback requirements, codes, observing easements, etc.

Regardless, this entire paragraph WOHA sent out is kind of funny because building a casita and hosting parties are unrelated things.  It's silly to imply every accessory dwelling unit is immediately a party house. I know of no one that uses a casita to party. This entire statement is a commentary on parties and noise but everyone I personally know who has ever built a casita has done it in order to care for an elderly relative while still being able to maintain their home as their personal space. 

I'd love to build a casita, you know what I'd use it for? Housing a family member. I'm pretty sure that's why it's also often called a "mother-in-law unit". It's where you house your family that you want to keep close but not too close.

This paragraph about parties and noise is totally out in left field and is fearmongering. It sounds like WOHA maybe intended to write an amendment about noise restrictions and got distracted.

How do you even throw a properly loud party in a casita? It's a casita, how many people are you going to be able to fit in there anyway?

If you have a problem with parties and noise, propose an amendment about parties and noise.

"The home next to yours is bought by an out-of-state investor whose local manager rarely swings by. Soon the once pristine front yard is consistently full of waist-high weeds which attract vermin.  A dead tree drops branches on your roof. There's junk furniture on the front porch. It's a real mess.  Your repeated calls to 311 get city staff to issue periodic warnings but any improvements are never long lasting. The cycle of neglect repeats itself over and over  for years. You live adjacent to a problematic eyesore and wonder how this could happening in beautiful Whispering Oaks. 

Amendment #4 enables you to solve problems without relying upon city staff."

Oh boy, this is wild.  How is this investor making any money off of this property if it's so neglected? Investors tend to need their houses to look nice in order to rent them out, right? 

Waist high weeds are not allowed by the city. The City of San Antonio requires grass to be under 12 inches and they will issue citations. 

Dead trees are also enforced by the city. And yes, they do issue citations, they take this one very seriously.

The city already has ordinances pertaining to junk furniture on the front porch. Yes, they will issue citations.

Fines are usually around $500. Why would an investor want to sit on a property that just gets them fined over and over again?

"WOHA can no longer afford to pay over $25,000 annually to maintain the community's common areas because of soaring inflation. There's no money to fix broken irrigation or pay the SAWS bill, so the shrubs at our prominent entrances die.  Weeds grow high along Wurzbach. A few retired neighbors step forward to manage the huge task, but their efforts are inconsistent in the Texas heat.  Soon visitors think Whispering Oaks looks rundown and fewer home buyers want to move into our subdivision so everyone's home values suffer."

This statement is absurdly contradictory when considering the double standard it promotes. The authors urge residents to contribute funds due to "soaring inflation" affecting common area upkeep, lamenting the challenges of heat and costs. Yet, they simultaneously advocate for imposing stringent yard maintenance requirements on homeowners, who would face the same financial and physical burdens of keeping up with these standards. Homeowners, too, are grappling with rising expenses and the grueling Texas heat. They would either need to spend additional money on upkeep or personally handle maintenance under the same conditions the authors are decrying. This inconsistency reveals a lack of consideration for the shared challenges within the community. Any push for maintenance standards should be balanced with empathy and understanding for the realities we all face. 

"The quirky neighbor directly behind your home decides to keep a donkey, a goat and a rooster alongside your back fence. Yes, city ordinances allow all three! And although the Community Covenants prohibit all farm animals, the neighbor lives in a different Unit so you have no legal authority to demand compliance. And neither does WOHA. The noise wakes you up every morning and the smell is overwhelming on a hot day. The intrusive violation drags on for years and your hands are tied. You consider moving, but your agent insists the problem be disclosed to potential buyers and warns you you'll get fewer offers."

No donkeys allowed, they say... but somehow the board meetings still manage to bring in a few stubborn asses. 

If I could have a donkey in this neighborhood I would. I'd make a paddock in the front yard and train it to spit at solicitors. But our existing restrictive covenants prohibit donkeys. We can't have donkeys. Period. 

Their statement is a prime example of circular logic at its finest. The authors lament that restrictive covenants are unenforceable across different units, yet in the same breath, they’re pushing for additional covenants as a supposed solution to neighborhood issues. 

The irony is hard to miss: if existing covenants can’t be enforced on neighbors in separate units, why assume that adding more will somehow solve everything? This approach overlooks the real problems and instead doubles down on restrictions that may ultimately lack practical enforcement, leading to frustration for residents without addressing core issues. Rather than piling on more unenforceable covenants, perhaps the focus should be on fostering realistic, community-driven solutions that don’t hinge on rules that only apply selectively.

Property Values

The emphasis on property values is a recurring topic that I find to be a strange fixation to have unless you are in the middle of selling your home. 

Focusing heavily on property values as a homeowner can be misguided, especially considering the impact of rising property taxes. High property values may sound appealing, but they lead to higher annual taxes—a burden felt every year, not just when you sell. 

In reality, most of us bought our homes to live in them, not as a speculative investment hoping for a small profit decades down the line. 

Putting so much energy into increasing property values can distract from the true purpose of a home: creating a comfortable, enjoyable space where you want to spend your life. 

Moreover, this focus on value can lead to restrictive rules that stifle personal expression and push homeowners into making costly, unnecessary upgrades to keep up with an artificial standard.

 Instead of striving to make our homes look like market-ready listings year-round, we should prioritize making them places that reflect our lives, where we can truly relax and feel at home. 

I'd also like to throw some math out there: The average person lives in their home for 13 years before moving. Back of the napkin math says that if your property value increased by $20,000 over that time period your actual profit would only be about $12,000 due to increased property taxes and real estate agent commission. 

If you are concerned about the appreciation of your property, keep in mind that endorsing an HOA may not contribute to that end.

Many believe that Homeowners Associations (HOAs) enhance property values, some studies suggest the opposite. Research by Leon S. Robertson indicates that homes in HOA-governed communities may experience lower returns on investment compared to those without such associations. His analysis revealed that properties outside HOAs appreciated at a higher rate over time, challenging the notion that HOAs universally boost property values.

https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=824905

Understanding the Real Reasons for Neighborhood Decline

The true reasons for neighborhood decline often go beyond superficial appearances and are rooted in economic and demographic realities. 

In today’s challenging economy, the cost of essential repairs and maintenance has skyrocketed, especially in skilled trades like plumbing, electrical work, and landscaping, making upkeep unaffordable for many. 

This is especially difficult in an older neighborhood with an aging population, where many homeowners are no longer able-bodied enough to handle maintenance themselves. As some residents pass away, their homes may sit vacant, further adding to the decline. 

Blaming individuals for declining curb appeal overlooks the real issues: a tough economy and an aging community where basic home maintenance is increasingly out of reach.

To counter these challenges, we can focus on creating supportive solutions that strengthen our community despite economic and physical limitations. 

Organizing neighborhood volunteer days for yard work, repairs, or upkeep of common areas can make a real difference, especially for elderly or less able residents. 

Encouraging a sense of community support, where neighbors look out for each other and offer help when needed, can enhance both property conditions and quality of life. 

By focusing on collective action and practical solutions, we can work together to maintain the character and charm of our neighborhood in ways that are sustainable and inclusive. 

What Makes A Good Neighbor?

Introduce Yourself – If you’re new or see a new neighbor moving in, take a moment to say hello and introduce yourself. A simple greeting can go a long way in building rapport.

Handle Issues Directly and Respectfully – If a concern arises, approach your neighbor in person rather than leaving anonymous notes or escalating too quickly.

Offer Help to Elderly or Disabled Neighbors – Simple acts like bringing over a meal, pulling their bin up to the curb, or helping with household tasks can make a world of difference.

Share Local Resources – If you know about a reliable handyman, local events, or nearby services, share that information with neighbors—it’s especially helpful for newcomers.

Communicate Before Hosting Large Gatherings – If you’re planning a party or event, let your neighbors know in advance, especially if parking or noise might be an issue.

Check In During Emergencies – After a severe storm or power outage, check on your neighbors to ensure everyone is safe and has what they need.

Offer to Help with Small Tasks – Offer to lend a hand with tasks like carrying heavy items, leafblowing, or picking up mail if a neighbor is out of town.

*We vacuumed all of the old rotten insulation out of our attic into these huge bags provided to us by the vacuum rental company. They were huge and we really had no idea how heavy and unwieldy they would be. We learned after the fact that you're supposed to setup the bag in the back of a truck as you vacuum so you don't have to hoist it anywhere. Those bags sat in our driveway for weeks. We wanted them gone. Who wants a giant bag of insulation on their driveway? We literally could not move it. Believe me, we tried. We have no family to help and all of our friends had recently had major life events. We had no idea how we were going to get rid of it.  Our neighbors finally came over and said directly, "Do you need help?" We were able to lift it into their truck with all 4 of us and some quirky engineering and the eyesore was gone. 

It was that easy. All we needed was a little help. 

-Shell