Avoid buying in HOA neighborhoods (2014)(outofyourrut.com)
outofyourrut.com
Avoid buying in HOA neighborhoods (2014)
https://outofyourrut.com/avoid-buying-hoa-neighborhoods/
468 comments
My old HOA was $20/month in SoCal and got me access to the community pool with well maintained lawn around it. The HOA was basically powerless otherwise. We tried to use it to stop an old, reclusive guy from feeding crows and releasing his pigeons(literally blanketing the surrounding backyards with bird shit), but they couldn't do anything.
HOAs vary quite a bit. The older I get, the more I want to live in a strict HOA community though. I want the stability and improved neighbor relations(the HOA is the bad guy, not me, when the neighbor stops maintaining their property).
I understand why people don't like HOAs. Yes they were born out of racism. I don't think that invalidates the concept.
HOAs vary quite a bit. The older I get, the more I want to live in a strict HOA community though. I want the stability and improved neighbor relations(the HOA is the bad guy, not me, when the neighbor stops maintaining their property).
I understand why people don't like HOAs. Yes they were born out of racism. I don't think that invalidates the concept.
> The older I get, the more I want to live in a strict HOA community though.
You'd love mine. Fabricated violations. Select residents targeted by obsessed board members. No political signage from one party.
Sidebar: Our HOA restrictions insure that every waterway that feeds from this neighborhood is hopelessly polluted. Lots of HOAs work to achieve that tho.
You'd love mine. Fabricated violations. Select residents targeted by obsessed board members. No political signage from one party.
Sidebar: Our HOA restrictions insure that every waterway that feeds from this neighborhood is hopelessly polluted. Lots of HOAs work to achieve that tho.
>No political signage from one party.
Um, ya, if they are dumb enough to write that in the bylaws feel free take them both to state and federal court for civil rights violations.
Um, ya, if they are dumb enough to write that in the bylaws feel free take them both to state and federal court for civil rights violations.
I'd like to live in peace, keep to myself etc. Sure you can take them to court, spend time/money/energy fighting them - is that what you want to do with your resources though?
The older I get, the more careful I want to pick my fights. I'd rather spend some time and find a good HOA (or no HOA) than having to deal with petty people
The older I get, the more careful I want to pick my fights. I'd rather spend some time and find a good HOA (or no HOA) than having to deal with petty people
I believe most of us would like to live in peace, but the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
An HOA is not a static thing. You must be part of it and actively prevent it from becoming a thing worthy of hating.
An HOA is not a static thing. You must be part of it and actively prevent it from becoming a thing worthy of hating.
An opt out sounds better.
They should have to show they're up to snuff for your membership
They should have to show they're up to snuff for your membership
If you can demonstrate a pattern of ignoring complaints about signage re: one party, and enforcement of signage for another, regardless of what is written in the bylaws, you probably have a solid case.
>> No political signage from one party.
> Um, ya, if they are dumb enough to write that in the bylaws
Written into the bylaws? I never considered that. Likely for a good reason.
Anyhoo, I'd say that fits better under 'selective enforcement'.
> Um, ya, if they are dumb enough to write that in the bylaws
Written into the bylaws? I never considered that. Likely for a good reason.
Anyhoo, I'd say that fits better under 'selective enforcement'.
I think you would only have a case if that -wasn't- written into your bylaws and they were still doing it.
I don't think there is any law that keeps you from creating a private agreement that only signage from one party is allowed.
I don't think there is any law that keeps you from creating a private agreement that only signage from one party is allowed.
> I think you would only have a case if that -wasn't- written into your bylaws and they were still doing it.
> I don't think there is any law that keeps you from creating a private agreement that only signage from one party is allowed.
Okay the ongoing presumption here that enforcement is limited to bylaws is weird.
They simply wrote up homes w/ signs from one party and ignored those from the other party.
> I don't think there is any law that keeps you from creating a private agreement that only signage from one party is allowed.
Okay the ongoing presumption here that enforcement is limited to bylaws is weird.
They simply wrote up homes w/ signs from one party and ignored those from the other party.
Uuuhhh, again, that is a direct civil and voting rights violation. Please tell me that have that written in the bylaws. Lawyers would have a field day.
This is super fascinating, and not at all clear-cut.
https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center...
It appears that a HOA is not the government, and you can give up your first amendment rights. Moreover, political opinions aren't protected -- this isn't discrimination, and isn't a civil rights violation to my understanding.
Can you cite a law or precedent supporting your claim that this is a voting rights violation? Genuinely curious
Rulings that establish HOAs as not standing for "government" is really interesting to me. Contrast to Marsh v. Alabama, where company towns were ruled to be standing in for government, so they couldn't forbid proselytizing. Very curious.
https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center...
It appears that a HOA is not the government, and you can give up your first amendment rights. Moreover, political opinions aren't protected -- this isn't discrimination, and isn't a civil rights violation to my understanding.
Can you cite a law or precedent supporting your claim that this is a voting rights violation? Genuinely curious
Rulings that establish HOAs as not standing for "government" is really interesting to me. Contrast to Marsh v. Alabama, where company towns were ruled to be standing in for government, so they couldn't forbid proselytizing. Very curious.
Is there a specific law forbidding the creation of a private agreement that stipulates as such?
I ask because I'm not sure. There are obviously some limitations to what a private contract can require, but i don't think this is one of those things.
I ask because I'm not sure. There are obviously some limitations to what a private contract can require, but i don't think this is one of those things.
I agree with you on that, but it seems weird that these so called "inalienable" rights can be alienated
WarOnPrivacy says: "Sidebar: Our HOA restrictions insure that every waterway that feeds from this neighborhood is hopelessly polluted. Lots of HOAs work to achieve that tho."
How? What restrictions are you referring to?
How? What restrictions are you referring to?
The restrictions mandating rug-like lawns, which require heavy, continuous treatments of fertilizers and pesticides.
> I understand why people don't like HOAs. Yes they were born out of racism. I don't think that invalidates the concept.
Other countries have similar concepts to HOAs, often without any particular history of racism behind it.
For example, here in Australia we have "strata corporations", "owners corporations", "strata title", "strata schemes" (different states call it by slightly different names, but they're all the same basic concept). Individually owned lots attached to common property, with a corporate body whose voting members are the lot owners, which controls the common property, and also has the power to charge fees to the lot owners and impose rules on the lot owners (and their tenants). They are most commonly found in apartment buildings, but are also used for housing estates of townhouses / semidetached houses, and even (albeit more rarely) detached houses. When applied to housing estates, they are rather comparable to HOAs in the US. But, as far as I am aware, there is no particular history of racism behind strata schemes in Australia.
Other countries have similar concepts to HOAs, often without any particular history of racism behind it.
For example, here in Australia we have "strata corporations", "owners corporations", "strata title", "strata schemes" (different states call it by slightly different names, but they're all the same basic concept). Individually owned lots attached to common property, with a corporate body whose voting members are the lot owners, which controls the common property, and also has the power to charge fees to the lot owners and impose rules on the lot owners (and their tenants). They are most commonly found in apartment buildings, but are also used for housing estates of townhouses / semidetached houses, and even (albeit more rarely) detached houses. When applied to housing estates, they are rather comparable to HOAs in the US. But, as far as I am aware, there is no particular history of racism behind strata schemes in Australia.
HOAs are a microcosm of politics and essentially living with other people under a common framework: some people are truly looking for a good balance and some people are petty and pay attention to the smallest "infractions". It’s both the best in people and the worst in people at the same time.
So, on the one hand they get in everybody's business, on the other hand, they prevent things going sideways when you have "characters" in the neighborhood.
So I agree, it depends on the HOA.
So, on the one hand they get in everybody's business, on the other hand, they prevent things going sideways when you have "characters" in the neighborhood.
So I agree, it depends on the HOA.
Could you explain why the HOA was powerless to stop the bird shitter problem? Was it powerless in a legal way? Was it powerless in a members did not care enough way?
I think that'd be an interesting feat, moreso in the "don't screw with people crows like" sort of way. They are crazy smart birds. They'd familiarize themselves with people that'd give the old man a hard time, and would either avoid those people, or execute Avian justice. They'd also communicate the same to the rest of the murder.
Pidgeons, I can't really abide. Crows are cool though.
Pidgeons, I can't really abide. Crows are cool though.
Probably there was no article in HOA rules that was applicable.
> Probably there was no article in HOA rules that was applicable.
So? Nothing to stop them adding it in.
So? Nothing to stop them adding it in.
You ever tried to get a quorum of disinterested people? Most of the HOAs I've had to suffer through were created for the benefit of the developer and the people who wanted to dump them couldn't get enough people together to even have a vote for or against. Newer HOAs are not on your side.
Surely you’d need unanimous consent to add a new restriction in?
Otherwise this feels seriously off - just being able to add new rules that people must adhere to whether they agree or not.
Otherwise this feels seriously off - just being able to add new rules that people must adhere to whether they agree or not.
> Otherwise this feels seriously off - just being able to add new rules that people must adhere to whether they agree or not.
Have you heard of 'democracy'?
When your government writes a new law by majority do you have to adhere to it whether you agree or not?
Have you heard of 'democracy'?
When your government writes a new law by majority do you have to adhere to it whether you agree or not?
Democracy is not a contract with a homeowners organisation. HOAs are not government.
> Democracy is not a contract with a homeowners organisation.
It's the same mechanism. The only difference is you agree to be bound by the rules of the HOA - contract rather than common law. The HOA is a direct democracy. It can vote to change the rules - you can give your input as a vote, but you're bound by the majority. It's the same system.
> HOAs are not government.
They're a form of local government.
It's the same mechanism. The only difference is you agree to be bound by the rules of the HOA - contract rather than common law. The HOA is a direct democracy. It can vote to change the rules - you can give your input as a vote, but you're bound by the majority. It's the same system.
> HOAs are not government.
They're a form of local government.
This. They have the strength of law up to the point where they conflict with local laws and they are rarely optional. I moved to a property whose restrictions expired 20 years ago and only one home owner wants an HOA. The rest of us just ignore his letters. The land is unrestricted, we have mineral rightS and when the neighbor's cows got out and pooped in my lawn, we laughed about.
> The HOA is a direct democracy. It can vote to change the rules - you can give your input as a vote, but you're bound by the majority. It's the same system.
Then that sounds terrible.
Then that sounds terrible.
How else should people govern themselves?
Not at the neighbourhood level?
Sure, democracy that works by majority (or majority party) or whatever makes sense for actual government. But my street is not a government, and devolving the sort of power to change rules and impose fines, liens or whatever on my house to the rest of the folks in the street, without even requiring unanimous agreement on the rules by all the property owners, is just nuts.
I would never put myself at the mercy of whoever I happen to live on a street with like that. I'm glad these things are rare to non-existent in the UK.
Sure, democracy that works by majority (or majority party) or whatever makes sense for actual government. But my street is not a government, and devolving the sort of power to change rules and impose fines, liens or whatever on my house to the rest of the folks in the street, without even requiring unanimous agreement on the rules by all the property owners, is just nuts.
I would never put myself at the mercy of whoever I happen to live on a street with like that. I'm glad these things are rare to non-existent in the UK.
I don't think that democracy is not synonymous with a 51% majority. There's super-majorities, consensus, and unanimous votes.
A lot of people who strongly believe in democracy (real democracy) don't believe that 51% of the people should be allowed to impose their views on the other 49%. That can lead to big problems. They would say to keep talking, negotiating, and compromising, and that it you can't reach consensus then the proposal should not be passed.
A lot of people who strongly believe in democracy (real democracy) don't believe that 51% of the people should be allowed to impose their views on the other 49%. That can lead to big problems. They would say to keep talking, negotiating, and compromising, and that it you can't reach consensus then the proposal should not be passed.
At least where I am, the HOA exists to serve the developer until X% of the land is built and sold. Until that time, the developer has <= 51% of the voting rights and the board is run by a third party. There is literally no way to vote for or against anything that isn't in the sole interest of the developer. The land deed restrictions are time based, so even when you finally can take over the board, you can't amend the restrictions without a majority vote of homeowners, not just people willing to vote. Bylaws are almost impossible to change in large communities and it's just as impossible to oust the third party from the board, for the same reasons
For what's it's worth, these are POAs until the developer has sold off most of the land. After that point, you can establish an HOA.
For what's it's worth, these are POAs until the developer has sold off most of the land. After that point, you can establish an HOA.
Edit: >= 51%
Sure that was obvious but in case anyone points it out. Sleepy brain.
Sure that was obvious but in case anyone points it out. Sleepy brain.
75% I think on my last one
Tried to pass racist new bylaws, but never quite made the hurdle
Tried to pass racist new bylaws, but never quite made the hurdle
Hopefully the HOA can’t just leverage unlimited power by voting to give itself that power.
Some of these things can be guaranteed by writing them into the rules of the HOA.
Eg. "The HOA shall not have income (including fines and charges) totalling greater than 0.01% of the value of the houses under its control."
"The HOA president shall sit a maximum term of 1 year, after which they shall be barred from all roles within the HOA for 3 years"
Eg. "The HOA shall not have income (including fines and charges) totalling greater than 0.01% of the value of the houses under its control."
"The HOA president shall sit a maximum term of 1 year, after which they shall be barred from all roles within the HOA for 3 years"
Term limits don't work - in large governments or small. Some HOAs may have abusive governments (which should be voted out by the owners), but plenty of others operate fine and you don't hear about them because no one complains.
Our neighborhood has dues around $35 (they've actually dropped in the last 5 years due to sufficient reserves and lower than anticipated maintenance costs). Our HOA President has lived in the neighborhood since it was built and been the President for many years, and they do a fine job - they've been around enough to know who to talk to in city government if there's a problem, who in the neighborhood can be counted on for a quick favor (need to dig a posthole to install a new sign, etc.), contacts in nearby neighborhoods for coordination, etc. They do plenty of work, things run well, and there haven't been any issues.
The HOA in general avoids the overbearing nature described here. It mediates disputes between neighbors, approves property changes (emphasis on "approves" - I've been on the board, and while they'll often give feedback such as "please add another plant here", they almost never end up rejecting a request), and doesn't make too many demands. It recently requested the homes get repainted, but the last time it was required was 15 years ago, so that doesn't seem out of line to me. Frankly, I have no complaints.
Our neighborhood has dues around $35 (they've actually dropped in the last 5 years due to sufficient reserves and lower than anticipated maintenance costs). Our HOA President has lived in the neighborhood since it was built and been the President for many years, and they do a fine job - they've been around enough to know who to talk to in city government if there's a problem, who in the neighborhood can be counted on for a quick favor (need to dig a posthole to install a new sign, etc.), contacts in nearby neighborhoods for coordination, etc. They do plenty of work, things run well, and there haven't been any issues.
The HOA in general avoids the overbearing nature described here. It mediates disputes between neighbors, approves property changes (emphasis on "approves" - I've been on the board, and while they'll often give feedback such as "please add another plant here", they almost never end up rejecting a request), and doesn't make too many demands. It recently requested the homes get repainted, but the last time it was required was 15 years ago, so that doesn't seem out of line to me. Frankly, I have no complaints.
london_explore "The HOA president shall sit a maximum term of 1 year, after which they shall be barred from all roles within the HOA for 3 years"
To do this would be foolish. It take years to fully understand what can happen in any HOA. A one year term limit would create problems that allow other parties to manipulate the HOA. This would also encourage the use of a "management association(MA)", an outside contractor who signs a contract with the HOA giving all HOA control to the MA.
Having an MA does allow "things to get done" but also increases costs radically and usually removes control from the HOA officers. So your choice is:
a ) Have an HOA - you must deal with crazy people (about 1/3 of your membership - seriously), or
b) Have an MA - you will have to pay more because you have given up HOA control.
The modern condominium agreement is a well-examined standard document that almost works. There is one problem with most condominium agreements: they allow owners to rent their units. Once this begins to happen, then entrepreneurs move in and work to take over the condominium, drive the condominium value down, buy everyone out at a low price and resell at a high price. This may also involve tearing down and rebuilding/repurposing land.
Altering the condominium agreement to disallow owners from renting units would correct this weakness. But most people find this an offense against ownership. Nonetheless condominium unit rental is a weakness that should be eliminated from most condominium agreements.
To do this would be foolish. It take years to fully understand what can happen in any HOA. A one year term limit would create problems that allow other parties to manipulate the HOA. This would also encourage the use of a "management association(MA)", an outside contractor who signs a contract with the HOA giving all HOA control to the MA.
Having an MA does allow "things to get done" but also increases costs radically and usually removes control from the HOA officers. So your choice is:
a ) Have an HOA - you must deal with crazy people (about 1/3 of your membership - seriously), or
b) Have an MA - you will have to pay more because you have given up HOA control.
The modern condominium agreement is a well-examined standard document that almost works. There is one problem with most condominium agreements: they allow owners to rent their units. Once this begins to happen, then entrepreneurs move in and work to take over the condominium, drive the condominium value down, buy everyone out at a low price and resell at a high price. This may also involve tearing down and rebuilding/repurposing land.
Altering the condominium agreement to disallow owners from renting units would correct this weakness. But most people find this an offense against ownership. Nonetheless condominium unit rental is a weakness that should be eliminated from most condominium agreements.
Is that any different from paying +$240/year in your property taxes? My small town in canada has those amenities as well, sans HOA. All municipal, and managed by the town's parks department.
The difference is that you only need the local neighborhood to agree that it wants a well maintained park, not the city, which may have other priorities.
But if the neighborhood can't afford a new park, there is no new park, while the city's priorities are(or should be) the wellbeing or its citizens.
Local govs are generally less likely to heap the sort of overt abuse on homeowners that HOAs do.
Is the city going to build a swimming pool and a set of tennis courts that can be walked to in every neighborhood or are they going to build one or two large ones in a central location that almost everyone will need to drive to? Also not everyone wants a pool and tennis courts so they can choose a neighborhood without them. Some neighborhoods where I used to live had soccer pitches instead of tennis court because that's what was popular with the people who lived there. It was much easier for the neighborhood to be responsive to what the people in the neighborhood wanted than it would have been to convince someone at city hall to build less tennis courts at the municipal park complex and build more soccer fields, which once again, would only be in walking distance of a small number of city residents. Letting residents decide for themselves what amenities they want in their neighborhoods instead of begging for permission from bureaucrats meant they were able to get what best suited that neighborhood and in a timely manner.
>>Is the city going to build a swimming pool and a set of tennis courts that can be walked to in every neighborhood or are they going to build one or two large ones in a central location that almost everyone will need to drive to? Also not everyone wants a pool and tennis courts so they can choose a neighborhood without them.
This is one of the reasons I always prefer no HOA's and when possible in Unincorporated land as I want none of those things to be provided by the city.
years ago when i was looking for an apartment I remember the leasing agents showing how they had a pool, or community center, or gym, etc etc etc. My response was always "will you discount the rent if I agree to never use any of these things I have no interest in" Of course the answer was always no, so I found an apartment that has no pool, no gym, no anything just the apartment, there was not even a Rental Office on the property. It was quite, and about 20-30% cheaper than the "full featured" units with all the amenities I would never use nor have the time to use.
This is one of the reasons I always prefer no HOA's and when possible in Unincorporated land as I want none of those things to be provided by the city.
years ago when i was looking for an apartment I remember the leasing agents showing how they had a pool, or community center, or gym, etc etc etc. My response was always "will you discount the rent if I agree to never use any of these things I have no interest in" Of course the answer was always no, so I found an apartment that has no pool, no gym, no anything just the apartment, there was not even a Rental Office on the property. It was quite, and about 20-30% cheaper than the "full featured" units with all the amenities I would never use nor have the time to use.
[deleted]
Property taxes can go to _those people_ who can't afford to live in your burbclave.
HOAs are like mini cities but usually with much stricter rules, or at least actively enforced rules unlike most cities that wait for complaints.
> I think there is a high variance in how involved different HOAs are, so it's hard to make a blanket statement that you should totally avoid considering buying a property that's in an HOA.
I don't think it was a blanket statement; he differentiated between voluntary and mandatory HOA. The mandatory ones can, at any time, turn into a nightmare.
I'm part of a voluntary one. They don't have actual rules for the homeowners, but they do use the money to keep the area clean, run cameras on our suburb's entrances, etc.
They've been nothing but helpful and don't get involved if two neighbours have a disagreement (My two nieghbours both launched different lawsuits against each other, and HOA persons they each contacted declined to get involved).
OTOH, in a mandatory HOA (I've lived in one of those too) the neighbour with the best friendship of the board will basically get their way. The board members themselves get their way all the time.
I don't think it was a blanket statement; he differentiated between voluntary and mandatory HOA. The mandatory ones can, at any time, turn into a nightmare.
I'm part of a voluntary one. They don't have actual rules for the homeowners, but they do use the money to keep the area clean, run cameras on our suburb's entrances, etc.
They've been nothing but helpful and don't get involved if two neighbours have a disagreement (My two nieghbours both launched different lawsuits against each other, and HOA persons they each contacted declined to get involved).
OTOH, in a mandatory HOA (I've lived in one of those too) the neighbour with the best friendship of the board will basically get their way. The board members themselves get their way all the time.
Yep, my current HOA charges an optional $40 a year.
It's basically enough to do some upkeep on the neighborhood entrance area, along with some cash for incidental expenses for neighborhood events.
I've lived on both extremes of HOAs, from this current one to one where I got fined for opening the hood of my car in my driveway to replace a headlight (working on your car in view of others was specifically called out as not allowed).
I can see why people would want the more extreme HOAs, but it's generally not for me.
It's basically enough to do some upkeep on the neighborhood entrance area, along with some cash for incidental expenses for neighborhood events.
I've lived on both extremes of HOAs, from this current one to one where I got fined for opening the hood of my car in my driveway to replace a headlight (working on your car in view of others was specifically called out as not allowed).
I can see why people would want the more extreme HOAs, but it's generally not for me.
Personally I don't get HOAs at all.
You either own something, or you don't. If you actually do own something, you shouldn't owe anything to anyone. No dues, no rules, no crap. It's your goddamn property, it's your rules. You decide what fence you put, what flowers you put, and what color car you have, and where you park your car on your property. Those idiots who think they have power over your property can get lost.
My 2 cents.
You either own something, or you don't. If you actually do own something, you shouldn't owe anything to anyone. No dues, no rules, no crap. It's your goddamn property, it's your rules. You decide what fence you put, what flowers you put, and what color car you have, and where you park your car on your property. Those idiots who think they have power over your property can get lost.
My 2 cents.
Did you ever get married, or owned stocks in a company? Have you ever entered into a signed agreement with someone? Signed a contract on anything?
What about signed a lease on an apartment? That's pretty common. The landlord owns it, but you have rights on it and they can't do whatever they want with their own property anymore.
Why does it surprise you that someone can own something but sign some of their ownership rights away? People literally do this all the time for a million reasons.
What about signed a lease on an apartment? That's pretty common. The landlord owns it, but you have rights on it and they can't do whatever they want with their own property anymore.
Why does it surprise you that someone can own something but sign some of their ownership rights away? People literally do this all the time for a million reasons.
> What about signed a lease on an apartment? That's pretty common. The landlord owns it, but you have rights on it and they can't do whatever they want with their own property anymore.
Of course they can, they just need to wait till the lease is over.
With HOAs on the other hand they're forever restricted by some old farts who have nothing better to do than nose their way into other peoples' private lives.
Of course they can, they just need to wait till the lease is over.
With HOAs on the other hand they're forever restricted by some old farts who have nothing better to do than nose their way into other peoples' private lives.
> Of course they can, they just need to wait till the lease is over.
My property is on a land lease. The term of the lease will literally outlive the owner. Again, consenting adults are allowed to sign papers to come into an agreement that binds both sides. This is nothing weird or nothing new.
The only thing that is a bit unique about HOAs is that there's rarely an easy way out in the agreement, which kind of makes sense since you can't just move the land away. Once large scale teleportation is a thing we'll be able to solve that issue.
My property is on a land lease. The term of the lease will literally outlive the owner. Again, consenting adults are allowed to sign papers to come into an agreement that binds both sides. This is nothing weird or nothing new.
The only thing that is a bit unique about HOAs is that there's rarely an easy way out in the agreement, which kind of makes sense since you can't just move the land away. Once large scale teleportation is a thing we'll be able to solve that issue.
Funny thing with HOAs is that they are usually based on covenants that run with the land, so you don’t actually sign anything. You just bought property subject to covenants.
I don't know about where you live, but when I bought my place, there sure as hell was a note on the deed that I signed that said I was bound by the rules of the bylaws.
Is there a state where you can buy a house without signing anything? How do you transfer deeds over there?
Is there a state where you can buy a house without signing anything? How do you transfer deeds over there?
My point is that you purchased the land but never signed a contract with the HOA. The deed was the agreement with the previous owner to legally transfer the land. The benefits and burdens run with the land.
Yes, just like when you bought the land you were under many other non-HOA restrictions, like you couldn't install a waste processing plant where your house is.
Many Americans idea of freedom is completely out of touch with the reality on how land contract law works.
Many Americans idea of freedom is completely out of touch with the reality on how land contract law works.
That's just to simplify things though. We have enough papers to sign when buying property as is. If it was necessary to make things work they'd make you sign it. Either way, the owner of the property cannot sell it to someone who won't agree to be part of it. Everything else is just implementation details.
> You either own something, or you don't.
If only the world were that simple. Mineral rights is one of many examples of how complicated and nuanced things can get.
If only the world were that simple. Mineral rights is one of many examples of how complicated and nuanced things can get.
HOAs typically only have teeth when they are based on covenants that run with the land, which in most cases means that they started as a single property (e.g. a farm) and were split out into a planned neighborhood.
In other words, the owner of that farm had the right to split it up into little chunks that have restrictions and sell them. When you buy into the neighborhood, you are buying the property burdened by the covenants the previous owner attached. So your full rights would interfere with the previous owner’s effort to do what THEY wanted with the property.
In other words, the owner of that farm had the right to split it up into little chunks that have restrictions and sell them. When you buy into the neighborhood, you are buying the property burdened by the covenants the previous owner attached. So your full rights would interfere with the previous owner’s effort to do what THEY wanted with the property.
yet they sold it, why should someone who no longer has ownership be allowed control of something they sold? their wants to and desires should cease to be of concern once they agree to accept the money of the buyer. can you imagine Say ford telling someone "hey that car i sold you your not allowed to paint it green." no that would be ridiculous. why are homes any different?
They don't, but the property is burdened. A car is probably a bad analogy here. Think of it more like buying a company. If you start your own company, then sign a contract with your suppliers, then sell it to me. I now am bound by the contract because it came with the company.
A contract is supposed to benefit both sides though. So maybe it's like an HOA that pays for a pool, as a benefit that comes with owning the house. But when it comes to things like you neighbors' ability to dictate your use of the property, it's more like a company that you only partly own because you bought most of it but there's others with part ownership and voting rights against your operating decisions. Point is, ownership is a set of rights, and the less rights you have, the less you own it.
The HOA is benefiting both people. It's basically a "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" agreement. The issue here is that you don't care about back scratches, so you feel like it's a one way contract.
> why should someone who no longer has ownership be allowed control of something they sold?
Because the law gives them that right, and you are not going to find any kind of majority that is going to change that.
Because the law gives them that right, and you are not going to find any kind of majority that is going to change that.
Why should the previous owner's interests matter once the property is sold?
Because that is how deed restrictions work.
> You either own something, or you don't.
If you really want to break the laws of nature down, you either have the capacity to take and defend something, or you don’t.
If you really want to break the laws of nature down, you either have the capacity to take and defend something, or you don’t.
Okay, so set up a device to do facial recognition and glitter and fart spray any HOA directors that set foot on your property?
City bylaws can be nearly as strict as HOA with lots of stylistic rules such as no laundry lines even in non-heritage neighbourhoods.
Yeah that's bullshit. If someone wants to save energy they should be allowed to do so.
Preserving historic neighborhoods are fine. There's a historic value to them, and it's not some arbitrary group of old people with nothing better to do walking around getting pissed off at peoples' decorations.
Preserving historic neighborhoods are fine. There's a historic value to them, and it's not some arbitrary group of old people with nothing better to do walking around getting pissed off at peoples' decorations.
Frequently your lot borders another lot and both your and the other lots are quite small. So what you do in yours affect your neighbour in an objective way. E.g. you planting a tree right next to a fence may soon block sun to neighbour for a big part of the day.
On top of that, sometimes there's shared infrastructure. Access roads, water, waste, community space etc. You do own a small part of it.
On top of that, sometimes there's shared infrastructure. Access roads, water, waste, community space etc. You do own a small part of it.
> So what you do in yours affect your neighbour in an objective way. E.g. you planting a tree right next to a fence may soon block sun to neighbour for a big part of the day.
The problem with HOAs is that often, your next-door neighbor (the only one actually affected) doesn't care, but Karen 15 doors down does, so you have to remove the tree for no good reason.
The problem with HOAs is that often, your next-door neighbor (the only one actually affected) doesn't care, but Karen 15 doors down does, so you have to remove the tree for no good reason.
Yes, power corrupts. Thus all organisations with power should have good safeguards. On the other hand, sometimes stuff that happens 15 houses away may affect you quite a bit. E.g. loud partying, neglecting the yard and breeding nasty flora/fauna. It's all about the balance.
> E.g. you planting a tree right next to a fence may soon block sun to neighbour for a big part of the day.
The solution to this is to define land ownership as a 3D space and not a 2D space. It should be a 3D trapezoidal sort of shape, and as long as you keep everything within that it should be allowed.
> Access roads, water, waste
These are utilities. You pay for access to them
> , community space etc
This should be optional and you pay IF you want access
But hell no they should not be governing aesthetics of something you own. If you can get the right architectural permits and whatnot you should even be allowed to rebuild your house in a different style. That's what ownership means.
The solution to this is to define land ownership as a 3D space and not a 2D space. It should be a 3D trapezoidal sort of shape, and as long as you keep everything within that it should be allowed.
> Access roads, water, waste
These are utilities. You pay for access to them
> , community space etc
This should be optional and you pay IF you want access
But hell no they should not be governing aesthetics of something you own. If you can get the right architectural permits and whatnot you should even be allowed to rebuild your house in a different style. That's what ownership means.
I'm not from US so my experience is different, but anyway...
> The solution to this is to define land ownership as a 3D space and not a 2D space. It should be a 3D trapezoidal sort of shape, and as long as you keep everything within that it should be allowed.
We already have somewhat similar solution. Some stuff is allowed no closer than 3m to fence or needs written neighbour permission. But it does not solve a lot of edge cases. Some fence types need written permission based on how much sun passes through.
> These are utilities. You pay for access to them
It's common that developer builds local private infrastructure for the project. City and/or utility companies manage up to private lot and don't want to take over the last mile.
> This should be optional and you pay IF you want access
And many smartasses would skip paying but jump the fence. Those community spaces do help their property value too.
At the very least paying for access would have to include all costs to install it, not just run.
> If you can get the right architectural permits and whatnot you should even be allowed to rebuild your house in a different style. That's what ownership means.
Wait till you hear restrictions in historical neighbourhoods...
> The solution to this is to define land ownership as a 3D space and not a 2D space. It should be a 3D trapezoidal sort of shape, and as long as you keep everything within that it should be allowed.
We already have somewhat similar solution. Some stuff is allowed no closer than 3m to fence or needs written neighbour permission. But it does not solve a lot of edge cases. Some fence types need written permission based on how much sun passes through.
> These are utilities. You pay for access to them
It's common that developer builds local private infrastructure for the project. City and/or utility companies manage up to private lot and don't want to take over the last mile.
> This should be optional and you pay IF you want access
And many smartasses would skip paying but jump the fence. Those community spaces do help their property value too.
At the very least paying for access would have to include all costs to install it, not just run.
> If you can get the right architectural permits and whatnot you should even be allowed to rebuild your house in a different style. That's what ownership means.
Wait till you hear restrictions in historical neighbourhoods...
Your definition of ownership is not the Texas definition of ownership, for example. Water and mineral rights are totally different kinds of ownership and will generally be owned by someone else.
Yes all of that is possible - just don’t buy into an HOA condominium arrangement.
That sounds like a pretty good deal. But are you really protected from a new board being elected to the HOA and the board instituting restrictive rules and increasing fees for the "common good"?
HOAs generally don't work like a republic. The board has some level of minimal discretionary power (eg: in our HOA the trustees can decide if and when to increase dues within certain boundaries), but the actual rules are another story, and require a super majority ownership to change (I'm sure "default" bylaws vary by region, but everywhere I've lived it's been about 2/3rd stake to change rules). The board voted in cannot change the rules, they always have to be voted on by everyone.
For example, in our HOA, everyone on the board wants to make the common area non-smoking, but they haven't been able to get people to vote on it at this time, therefor there's f* all the board can do about it, even if everyone agreed to it. It has to be voted on, on paper, signed and submitted to the land court.
For example, in our HOA, everyone on the board wants to make the common area non-smoking, but they haven't been able to get people to vote on it at this time, therefor there's f* all the board can do about it, even if everyone agreed to it. It has to be voted on, on paper, signed and submitted to the land court.
The board can’t just create new rules. Everyone has the opportunity to vote and the HOA is restricted by the bylaws.
> I think there is a high variance in how involved different HOAs are, so it's hard to make a blanket statement that you should totally avoid considering buying a property that's in an HOA.
The problem is that they can get involved at any time whether you like it or not and if you don't want to lose your home, you will have to comply.
The problem is that they can get involved at any time whether you like it or not and if you don't want to lose your home, you will have to comply.
The core problem with HOA's, like someone else mentioned, is they are not Static. Sure TODAY your HOA may be ok but what if in 5 years the HOA is taken over by a bunch of people that want to use their Authority to bass new bylaws, and do much more aggressive actions and/or apply strict "standards" on the community
This ability to in effect seize your ownership rights away from you post sale is the core of the problem with HOA's.
If rule changes by the HOA's required unanimous consent of all owners then maybe but they dont, they only require a simply majority of the board members...
This ability to in effect seize your ownership rights away from you post sale is the core of the problem with HOA's.
If rule changes by the HOA's required unanimous consent of all owners then maybe but they dont, they only require a simply majority of the board members...
depends on the HOA. 20$/month is enough to paint the community sign and maybe look at egregious violations of the rules, but not much more.
this article talks more about 500$/month HOAs with free spirits that optimize everything
this article talks more about 500$/month HOAs with free spirits that optimize everything
Must be some very expensive paint if that’s the case. A whole neighborhood paying $20 a month to have a sign painted once a year?
I realize you were speaking in hyperbole. The math of, let’s say 50 homes paying $20 a month each: 50 * 20 * 12. Twelve thousand dollars a year is quite a bit of money for an HOA to manage.
I realize you were speaking in hyperbole. The math of, let’s say 50 homes paying $20 a month each: 50 * 20 * 12. Twelve thousand dollars a year is quite a bit of money for an HOA to manage.
That sounds like nothing to me. Are you aware how expensive doing anything is today? That’s probably not enough to maintain a neighborhood pool.
lol. you have the board (which is a bunch of volunteers with a lot of time on their hands) and you usually have a management company that implements all the batshit insane rules the “volunteers” make up. Now I ask you: how much would you pay someone to actually write up “violations” and get people to follow the rules? the reality is that these management companies usually do more than 1 hoa (a lot more) and are usually done for profit.
at the end of the day, if the sign is painted every year on a 20$/month hoa, I call it a great success.
I like our HOA. They do a good job maintaining all of the common property, including the pool, the shuttle system, and the copious grassy areas and parks that are part of our neighborhood.
There are rules here that are related to maintenance, but since there are so many common areas (and roofs and walls, there are a lot of town houses) one person's deferred maintenance can easily become costly for others.
I don't find the HOA oppressive our violating my rights at all. I was completely free to not buy a home in this development, and the HOA documents were shared with us early and often in the buying process. I feel more like our HOA is about buying into the community, and getting the benefits of pooled resources. If that's not your thing, keep looking.
There are rules here that are related to maintenance, but since there are so many common areas (and roofs and walls, there are a lot of town houses) one person's deferred maintenance can easily become costly for others.
I don't find the HOA oppressive our violating my rights at all. I was completely free to not buy a home in this development, and the HOA documents were shared with us early and often in the buying process. I feel more like our HOA is about buying into the community, and getting the benefits of pooled resources. If that's not your thing, keep looking.
The problem is HOAs are spreading across the country like a fungus, and it's becoming increasingly hard to find an area that isn't an HOA area.
Mandatory HOAs should be outlawed, plain and simple. Optional participation in return for access to common areas (e.g. a gym/pool membership) is fine, but hell no they're not telling me how to decorate something I own. Tell them to look up what "own" means in the Oxford English Dictionary if they have a problem with it.
Mandatory HOAs should be outlawed, plain and simple. Optional participation in return for access to common areas (e.g. a gym/pool membership) is fine, but hell no they're not telling me how to decorate something I own. Tell them to look up what "own" means in the Oxford English Dictionary if they have a problem with it.
So you wouldn't have any problem with your neighbor decorating their house to look like some kind of brothel? Or your other neighbor using his front yard as an auto parts storage area? Or another letting their grass grow so high that it starts attracting wild animals and snakes that keep spilling over into your backyard?
Something even as small as a bunch of junk in a yard that fills with rain water can bring a plague of mosquitos upon an entire neighborhood in certain areas.
Something even as small as a bunch of junk in a yard that fills with rain water can bring a plague of mosquitos upon an entire neighborhood in certain areas.
The biggest problem is that these hypothetical situations are incredibly rare unless you're buying into an already bad/trashy neighborhood. Some of the nicest neighborhoods in the area I searched when house hunting (North Austin) had no HOA but were more expensive nicer homes.
It's always amusing to me that people that live under HOA's don't realize that city governments exist.
There are many things that city governments do not have regulations against.
Some people wish to live in a place with a bit higher standards than their municipality sets. Because municipalities have to set rules and standards that make sense in both the lower and middle class neighborhoods as well as the rich ones.
Some people wish to live in a place with a bit higher standards than their municipality sets. Because municipalities have to set rules and standards that make sense in both the lower and middle class neighborhoods as well as the rich ones.
Yeah and other people don't like fines for painting their window trim the wrong color.
> So you wouldn't have any problem with your neighbor decorating their house to look like some kind of brothel?
No, I don't care. If there is evidence that it is a brothel that is illegal where I live and I'd report it, but decorated like one? It's not my house, and not my right to decide.
But have you considered that most people aren't going to make their house look like a Brothel? More realistically I might want to make my house look like an awesome fairy tale house, would love to see the other creative houses around me, and most HOAs would not "allow" that.
I currently rent but there's a non-HOA neighborhood near me and it's a pleasure to walk those streets. One house looks like a traditional Japanese house, another has some Black Lives Matter signs on it, another has a mini forest in their front yard and it looks like something that came out of Harry Potter. I love it.
There's also an HOA neighborhood near me. Boring as fuck.
> Or your other neighbor using his front yard as an auto parts storage area?
No. I don't care. I'll just build wood furniture in my front yard and maybe we'd have some nice conversations and maybe I'd pay them to fix my car. Auto repair next door sounds kinda nice actually.
> Or another letting their grass grow so high that it starts attracting wild animals and snakes that keep spilling over into your backyard?
I don't care about their grass. Most wild animals aren't actually nuisances. Snakes would probably just stay in the tall grass and are unlikely to migrate to open areas, that's just how they behave. If there are nuisance pests then it's their responsibility to find a way to not impact my property, but it's not upto me how they exercise that responsibility. If they want their tall grass and a fence, fine, if they want to cut the grass short, fine, if they want to spray their property with some anti-pest stuff, fine, that's upto them.
> Something even as small as a bunch of junk in a yard that fills with rain water can bring a plague of mosquitos upon an entire neighborhood in certain areas.
Yes, if the mosquitoes are flying into other peoples' properties, that's not okay. But if they want to build a pond in their front yard AND take responsibility to make sure there aren't mosquitoes by spraying it appropriately or installing a fountain to keep the water moving or build a greenhouse over it or however other way they choose to avoid impacting others, that's their right to decorate their place however they want. An HOA would probably be stubborn and say "no ponds". I say let them have whatever they want as long as they aren't releasing mosquitoes into my property.*
No, I don't care. If there is evidence that it is a brothel that is illegal where I live and I'd report it, but decorated like one? It's not my house, and not my right to decide.
But have you considered that most people aren't going to make their house look like a Brothel? More realistically I might want to make my house look like an awesome fairy tale house, would love to see the other creative houses around me, and most HOAs would not "allow" that.
I currently rent but there's a non-HOA neighborhood near me and it's a pleasure to walk those streets. One house looks like a traditional Japanese house, another has some Black Lives Matter signs on it, another has a mini forest in their front yard and it looks like something that came out of Harry Potter. I love it.
There's also an HOA neighborhood near me. Boring as fuck.
> Or your other neighbor using his front yard as an auto parts storage area?
No. I don't care. I'll just build wood furniture in my front yard and maybe we'd have some nice conversations and maybe I'd pay them to fix my car. Auto repair next door sounds kinda nice actually.
> Or another letting their grass grow so high that it starts attracting wild animals and snakes that keep spilling over into your backyard?
I don't care about their grass. Most wild animals aren't actually nuisances. Snakes would probably just stay in the tall grass and are unlikely to migrate to open areas, that's just how they behave. If there are nuisance pests then it's their responsibility to find a way to not impact my property, but it's not upto me how they exercise that responsibility. If they want their tall grass and a fence, fine, if they want to cut the grass short, fine, if they want to spray their property with some anti-pest stuff, fine, that's upto them.
> Something even as small as a bunch of junk in a yard that fills with rain water can bring a plague of mosquitos upon an entire neighborhood in certain areas.
Yes, if the mosquitoes are flying into other peoples' properties, that's not okay. But if they want to build a pond in their front yard AND take responsibility to make sure there aren't mosquitoes by spraying it appropriately or installing a fountain to keep the water moving or build a greenhouse over it or however other way they choose to avoid impacting others, that's their right to decorate their place however they want. An HOA would probably be stubborn and say "no ponds". I say let them have whatever they want as long as they aren't releasing mosquitoes into my property.*
>There's also an HOA neighborhood near me. Boring as fuck.
HOA neighborhoods is an extension of the phenomenon of paving everything. HOA neighborhoods look like someone paved over everyone's soul.
I think a big problem is that one single thing is paramount in housing: selling the house later for a profit. People get this idea that because their property value fluctuates that you owe them something. Everyone must sanitize every aspect of their lives lest some random stranger get a whiff of it. I can't wait til all this horse shit resolves itself and all these people who treat housing like the stock market are underwater and signing divorce papers.
HOA neighborhoods is an extension of the phenomenon of paving everything. HOA neighborhoods look like someone paved over everyone's soul.
I think a big problem is that one single thing is paramount in housing: selling the house later for a profit. People get this idea that because their property value fluctuates that you owe them something. Everyone must sanitize every aspect of their lives lest some random stranger get a whiff of it. I can't wait til all this horse shit resolves itself and all these people who treat housing like the stock market are underwater and signing divorce papers.
>But if they want to build a pond in their front yard AND take responsibility to make sure there aren't mosquitoes by spraying it appropriately
Well, then you are going to need an HOA to enforce that unless you live in a municipality that already does.
Well, then you are going to need an HOA to enforce that unless you live in a municipality that already does.
No, the HOA would just say no ponds allowed, and oh by the way, you have to chop down that tree [that has every right to live as a living being]. Oh and yeah you can't paint your house blue.
Fuck that. The municipality on the other hand will only care about the mosquitoes and such public health issues and unless it's a historic neighborhood they couldn't care less about what color your house is. That's the way it should be.
And if the municipality doesn't care, go to a city council meeting with the 20 other people who are affected and make them care.
Fuck that. The municipality on the other hand will only care about the mosquitoes and such public health issues and unless it's a historic neighborhood they couldn't care less about what color your house is. That's the way it should be.
And if the municipality doesn't care, go to a city council meeting with the 20 other people who are affected and make them care.
>> I don't find the HOA oppressive our violating my rights at all.
But this is addressed in the article: HOAs may not feel oppressive... until they do. And if that happens, then you'll essentially be powerless because in most jurisdictions, the law heavily favors HOAs.
But this is addressed in the article: HOAs may not feel oppressive... until they do. And if that happens, then you'll essentially be powerless because in most jurisdictions, the law heavily favors HOAs.
I would've loved to have not bought a home in an HOA area, unfortunately there seems to be now development built these days that isn't under the control of an HOA that is in turned controlled by the developer that is actually an umbrella HOA that controls everything and isn't part of my neighborhood at all.
Exactly - I have 0 issues with mine either. I'd love to build a big garage in the yard, but I realize I can't for the better of the neighborhood aesthetics, and I'm fine with it.
Are you allowed to paint your house what you want or are you restricted to something like ten shades of beige?
From what I’ve seen, Non-hoa areas tend to have more variety in landscaping and color and are more pleasant to look at while hoa areas are drab and have a monoculture office park landscaping that some how makes plants feel lifeless and can’t be environmentally friendly.
They do prevent trashed houses and a number of other ills, but they do it by forcing everyone to be equally mediocre. They are like the porridge of architecture and landscaping.
And a lot of them claim to be about maximizing home values which is definitely not true. They are about preventing a house from lowering the values of the neighborhood, but that usually means preventing nicely done houses raising the value of the neighborhood.
From what I’ve seen, Non-hoa areas tend to have more variety in landscaping and color and are more pleasant to look at while hoa areas are drab and have a monoculture office park landscaping that some how makes plants feel lifeless and can’t be environmentally friendly.
They do prevent trashed houses and a number of other ills, but they do it by forcing everyone to be equally mediocre. They are like the porridge of architecture and landscaping.
And a lot of them claim to be about maximizing home values which is definitely not true. They are about preventing a house from lowering the values of the neighborhood, but that usually means preventing nicely done houses raising the value of the neighborhood.
> I like our HOA. They do a good job maintaining all of the common property, including the pool, the shuttle system, and the copious grassy areas and parks that are part of our neighborhood.
This is the part I dont understand. Is an HOA really the best way to handle this? Isnt there some company that could be hired to handle these maintenance tasks?
This is the part I dont understand. Is an HOA really the best way to handle this? Isnt there some company that could be hired to handle these maintenance tasks?
That's....exactly what the HOA does though in this case - it vets said companies and pays them, through the HOA dues paid by Homeowners. Homeowners typically elect folk(s) to the Board who then make those decisions. That person usually lives in the neighborhood (at least in HOA's I'm familiar with) so they've got a vested interest in keeping things 'their best'
It's like a mini government, for the neighborhood. Then they contract out work that needs to be done to care for the things they cover (like the common property/green areas, pools, etc.), review/revise rules as times change, resolve HOA-rule-related disputes, etc.
It's like a mini government, for the neighborhood. Then they contract out work that needs to be done to care for the things they cover (like the common property/green areas, pools, etc.), review/revise rules as times change, resolve HOA-rule-related disputes, etc.
Why are covenants allowed to run with the land? There's no other kind of ownership that can control people forever like it can. Regular contract law seems way more restrained in comparison. If there were a new blanket rule that covenants couldn't run with the land, wouldn't that completely and immediately defang every mandatory HOA (effectively turning them into the benign voluntary HOAs) with no other negative side effects?
The covenant is simply something you have agreed to with the purchase of the property. And yes, you agree not to sell to anyone who doesn't also agree to the covenant. Are you saying that after you have signed this contract you should be suddenly let out of it? That could create actual damage to other property owners (via lower property values) who only bought there because everyone has to abide by the covenant.
> The covenant is simply something you have agreed to with the purchase of the property. And yes, you agree not to sell to anyone who doesn't also agree to the covenant.
That makes it sound like covenants that run with the land are something you could simply implement via contract law, binding the first purchaser to them via contract and requiring that they only sell to people who sign a contract agreeing to being bound and the propagating the covenant.
In fact, covenants that run with the land are stronger than that. The contract approach might work as long as the land was only conveyed through contractual arrangements between the conveyor and the conveyee. But there are other ways land can be conveyed.
My land could be seized by the state because I stopped paying taxes and then sold at auction, for instance. Or I might die intestate and with no close relatives, and the land ends up with some distant relative I've never met or had contact with. Or I go bankrupt and the bankruptcy trustee sells my land to pay my creditors. These and many other ways could result in my land ending up owned by someone else with no contract between me and them, and hence no way for me to impose the restrictions on them.
A covenant that runs with the land would still work after all of those. I've not looked into the history of it, but I'd guess that the need to have a way for arrangements to stick no matter how the land is conveyed is why covenants that run with the land were developed.
That makes it sound like covenants that run with the land are something you could simply implement via contract law, binding the first purchaser to them via contract and requiring that they only sell to people who sign a contract agreeing to being bound and the propagating the covenant.
In fact, covenants that run with the land are stronger than that. The contract approach might work as long as the land was only conveyed through contractual arrangements between the conveyor and the conveyee. But there are other ways land can be conveyed.
My land could be seized by the state because I stopped paying taxes and then sold at auction, for instance. Or I might die intestate and with no close relatives, and the land ends up with some distant relative I've never met or had contact with. Or I go bankrupt and the bankruptcy trustee sells my land to pay my creditors. These and many other ways could result in my land ending up owned by someone else with no contract between me and them, and hence no way for me to impose the restrictions on them.
A covenant that runs with the land would still work after all of those. I've not looked into the history of it, but I'd guess that the need to have a way for arrangements to stick no matter how the land is conveyed is why covenants that run with the land were developed.
You can't do that kind of thing with a will. If we ban that for wills, it seems equally proper to ban it for pieces of property.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities
> with no other negative side effects
Try that with townhomes with shared walls and ceilings and you'll see negative side effects pretty quick.
Try that with townhomes with shared walls and ceilings and you'll see negative side effects pretty quick.
Funny, I live in a townhouse with shared walls, there’s no HOA here and there have never been any issues.
Hell, “terraced” or “mews” housing is incredibly common in the UK and HOAs are effectively unheard of.
Hell, “terraced” or “mews” housing is incredibly common in the UK and HOAs are effectively unheard of.
Townhomes with shared walls and ceilings are closer to condominiums.
Okay, let me clarify/amend: keep condos and other cases of split ownership of a single building as they are now, but do what I said for single-family homes and other cases where every structure is wholly owned by a single person.
A large amount of HOAs are on land leases, so they ARE shared ownership.
If you made the rule you suggest, all it would change is that new HOAs would all be on long term land leases (and you'd have a lot of chaos in the current ones that didn't do this because with existing laws it was not necessary).
If you made the rule you suggest, all it would change is that new HOAs would all be on long term land leases (and you'd have a lot of chaos in the current ones that didn't do this because with existing laws it was not necessary).
I said shared ownership of buildings and structures, not of land. Wouldn't that eliminate that loophole?
Sure, but that would be a hell of a change to real estate property laws.
And if you did that, stuff like making a pool would no longer be possible.
And if you did that, stuff like making a pool would no longer be possible.
Seems like it would be better to have a pool (or other common amenities) via voluntary contributions, leaving out the rules forced on homeowners' properties.
And a voluntarily financed pool makes a certain amount of sense. Why should someone who doesn't want to be involved be forced to contribute against their will? That's not easy to justify.
And a voluntarily financed pool makes a certain amount of sense. Why should someone who doesn't want to be involved be forced to contribute against their will? That's not easy to justify.
The side effect is that people who like their hoa’s would vote you out.
It isn’t popular on the internet, but many people prefer their hoa. So you would be solving a problem that many people don’t believe exist.
It isn’t popular on the internet, but many people prefer their hoa. So you would be solving a problem that many people don’t believe exist.
I'm not talking about banning HOAs, just defanging them. So people who just like being in them wouldn't mind, since they could stay in them. The only people who would mind are those who like forcing all of their neighbors to be in them against their will.
Of course they would mind. The fact that they can enforce their vision of the neighborhood is exactly why people like them.
You make a choice to live in a neighborhood with an hoa. If you don’t like it, leave or don’t buy. Not sure why we should pull the rug out from under those who choose to live their because others would prefer not to.
And I say this as someone who does not live in a neighborhood with an hoa.
You make a choice to live in a neighborhood with an hoa. If you don’t like it, leave or don’t buy. Not sure why we should pull the rug out from under those who choose to live their because others would prefer not to.
And I say this as someone who does not live in a neighborhood with an hoa.
> The fact that they can enforce their vision of the neighborhood is exactly why people like them.
I wonder if the love/hate opinion on HOAs boils down to that, i.e. some like forcing others to their way of thinking, and others are very opposed to such things.
I wonder if the love/hate opinion on HOAs boils down to that, i.e. some like forcing others to their way of thinking, and others are very opposed to such things.
I don't think it is about forcing others to their own way of thinking. Rather, I think it is about having a community that works according to one's own vision of the good life.
Some people want to live in Bohemia; some people want to live in vibrant cities; some people want to live in places where all the lawns are nicely manicured and Billy Bob down the street can't have his car up on blocks and Jennifer next door can't have a stream of cars showing up for her private pilates class.
The world is filled with many different kinds of people, with many different visions of the good life. Just because one particular vision doesn't match mine doesn't mean it should be banned or destroyed, or that they are terrible people.
Some people want to live in Bohemia; some people want to live in vibrant cities; some people want to live in places where all the lawns are nicely manicured and Billy Bob down the street can't have his car up on blocks and Jennifer next door can't have a stream of cars showing up for her private pilates class.
The world is filled with many different kinds of people, with many different visions of the good life. Just because one particular vision doesn't match mine doesn't mean it should be banned or destroyed, or that they are terrible people.
>The only people who would mind are those who like forcing all of their neighbors to be in them against their will.
You mean the people that actually vote, right?
You may think you belong to the majority view on this, but I believe you're incorrect.
You mean the people that actually vote, right?
You may think you belong to the majority view on this, but I believe you're incorrect.
Those things were getting so obnoxious that the US federal government had to make a law that overrode the HOAs to allowe TV antennas and satellite dishes:
* https://www.fcc.gov/media/over-air-reception-devices-rule
* https://www.fcc.gov/media/over-air-reception-devices-rule
Homeowners also have rights to financial reports, and to display the American flag, https://www.hoamanagement.com/homeowners-rights-against-hoa/
I used to feel very strongly against HOAs, but for the past year or so I have been dealing with a neighbor who puts out bulk trash improperly (basically a big pile of random trash) and doesn't call it for pickup so it sits for weeks if not months. This is more than an eyesore. It often includes glass and other items that kids (including theirs) break in the road where I walk my dog. He had a splinter of wood from their garbage pile go straight through his foot, but luckily is fine.
A few houses down the bank owns a house that was a foreclosure three years ago that no one lives in and is falling apart. I guess they were not able to get any money at auction for it so now are just sitting on it until they can write it off as a total loss and sell the property for land value.
Apparently no one can do anything about either problem.
A few houses down the bank owns a house that was a foreclosure three years ago that no one lives in and is falling apart. I guess they were not able to get any money at auction for it so now are just sitting on it until they can write it off as a total loss and sell the property for land value.
Apparently no one can do anything about either problem.
Every municipality I've lived in has laws on the books against putting out trash too early, and also about condemning property (which I am admittedly not as familiar with, but I assume priorities safety over aesthetics, which makes sense). Municipalities have code enforcement and city councils to enforce the above rules.
I've seen municipalities that do a better job at these kind of things than HOAs. I've also seen HOAs that don't do a good job of enforcing their laws, seemingly falling apart. (I wonder if they can be sued in these cases?) For example, I've seen HOA neighborhoods with cars parked everywhere - driveways, street, blocking driveways, and on lawns, because the houses were unaffordable unless four or more working people lived there, and there was no way to get anywhere except via car.
I've seen municipalities that do a better job at these kind of things than HOAs. I've also seen HOAs that don't do a good job of enforcing their laws, seemingly falling apart. (I wonder if they can be sued in these cases?) For example, I've seen HOA neighborhoods with cars parked everywhere - driveways, street, blocking driveways, and on lawns, because the houses were unaffordable unless four or more working people lived there, and there was no way to get anywhere except via car.
Yes and No, it could be worth it depending on the HOA board. I successfully penetrated my HOA board (24 years old with no experience) and in 2 years became the president. I then rewrote the HOA covenant to be more sensible and cut the fees by 50% with a plan to phase them out in 3-5 years. 98% of the neighborhood voted my changes in. I only put leans on houses that absolutely refused to cut their lawn for multiple months and pay their HOA dues.
Could you share a bit about your motivation and resources, tools or mentorship that helped with this achievement?
I was motivated to change some of the sillier rules that I knew could bite me in the butt, like the rules around putting up seasonal decorations and allowing garbage bins to be out for more than 24 hours. I had a friend who also sat on a completely different HOA board as president and he mentored and enabled my success in many ways (His neighborhood and board was over 2x the size of mine and offered many more benefits). My neighborhood was 238 households (single family homes), 2 playgrounds, 2 large common areas for cookouts, 2 entrances and a single pool. My HOA collected $450 dollars yearly from every household to maintain all of the above and threw 4 community parties yearly.
That said, is there something specific you wanna chat about?
That said, is there something specific you wanna chat about?
Thanks for the additional detail. It's a rare success story among hundreds of negative stories. You might want to write it up, likely many outlets (both pro and anti HOA) would be interested in publishing, because it shows the system working as designed, and breaks the stereotype of older people monopolizing HOA boards. You could inspire an entire generation to take an interest in practical local governance :)
Oh dang, I really like my HOA. I don’t hear much from them and it’s only $250 twice a year. However, it’s been helpful in rare cases where our neighbor had obnoxious election signs up til after February 2020. They are also helpful for managing the roads and nudging the community to install fiber.
> it’s only $250 twice a year
I'd rather $0 than your $250
> However, it’s been helpful in rare cases where our neighbor had obnoxious election signs up til after February 2020
Why do you care? It's their property, as long as they aren't putting election signs on your property or blasting noise that affects you, they have a right of free speech.
I'd rather $0 than your $250
> However, it’s been helpful in rare cases where our neighbor had obnoxious election signs up til after February 2020
Why do you care? It's their property, as long as they aren't putting election signs on your property or blasting noise that affects you, they have a right of free speech.
Yeah. The parent post really drives home the point made in the article: HOAs are simply a mechanism to make other people conform to one's wishes.
Here in South Texas the lawns were getting real loud when we bought our first home in December, so I think I was more willing to enter a social contract that was mostly hands off and had some limits on signage. We looked at many communities without HOAs and ultimately the location of our home was a big draw.
In other words, they're a local form of government.
Not quite. No actual government will force people to remove political signs on people's front lawns, thanks to the First Amendment.
You’re missing the point. If the board makes a decision you don’t like, you can vote them out. They are elected officials meant to represent you so that the average homeowner doesn’t have to get into the minutia of contracts or managing common property.
No, I believe it is you who is missing the point. All government bodies in the United States are required to abide by the Constitution. Except for, apparently, HOAs.
"You can vote them out" is not an argument. The article goes into several factors that make it very difficult to dislodge the types of power-hungry individuals who tend to dominate HOAs. Perhaps you should read it again.
"You can vote them out" is not an argument. The article goes into several factors that make it very difficult to dislodge the types of power-hungry individuals who tend to dominate HOAs. Perhaps you should read it again.
Their "decisions" over my freedom of speech (and artistic expression) should not be something that is voted on.
My last HOA was pretty good. I was on the board. We weren't overly invasive. My preferred approach was lining up help for homeowners who were in tough situations.
My present HOA is a well-known nightmare. I lament the lack of options that led to me being here.
My present HOA is a well-known nightmare. I lament the lack of options that led to me being here.
True, I tried to do some research on how invasive they were before buying. The community looked great and our agenda usually just focuses on improving park/street lighting, clean up from storms, and street crack and seal.
> it’s only $250 twice a year.
Lucky you. Mine is over $250 a month, and half the board seem to hate the residents. They have made life difficult for families with kids, to the point where several are looking at legal options.
Lucky you. Mine is over $250 a month, and half the board seem to hate the residents. They have made life difficult for families with kids, to the point where several are looking at legal options.
A lot of the appeal of HOAs como from the obsession americans have of seeing their homes as investments. An illusion conveniently fueled by the marketing of banks and realtors.
Americans usually have this idea that a home is a valuing asset, because they mistake price inflation, fueled mostly by a constrained supply in some growing markets, with true asset valuation.
It is not like something magic happened in the bay area and trillions of dollars have magically been added as true value for the existing house, it was just price inflation most of the time.
When Detroit was an american economic power-house people probably thought that their properties would value indefinitelly.
But the thing is, even if a local supply constraint is sustainable over time, either because of real space limits (like in Manhattan where the only way to build new space is by first demolishing something) or because of zoning restrictions, nothing guarantees that the demand will stay strong forever. And even if local demand stay strong, we can expect it to decrease globally some moment in the future, as we enter a demographic transition where population starts to actually shrink instead of grow.
Take out the my-home-as-a-valuing-asset notion, and a lot of the drawbacks of this style of community (lack of privacy due to the absence of front yard fences/block walls, increasing fees, annoying restrictions) become more salient.
Americans usually have this idea that a home is a valuing asset, because they mistake price inflation, fueled mostly by a constrained supply in some growing markets, with true asset valuation.
It is not like something magic happened in the bay area and trillions of dollars have magically been added as true value for the existing house, it was just price inflation most of the time.
When Detroit was an american economic power-house people probably thought that their properties would value indefinitelly.
But the thing is, even if a local supply constraint is sustainable over time, either because of real space limits (like in Manhattan where the only way to build new space is by first demolishing something) or because of zoning restrictions, nothing guarantees that the demand will stay strong forever. And even if local demand stay strong, we can expect it to decrease globally some moment in the future, as we enter a demographic transition where population starts to actually shrink instead of grow.
Take out the my-home-as-a-valuing-asset notion, and a lot of the drawbacks of this style of community (lack of privacy due to the absence of front yard fences/block walls, increasing fees, annoying restrictions) become more salient.
Plenty of people have made more money from home appreciation and downsizing than working. That's a problem imho, but you can't blame others for wanting to do the same thing...
And of course, if you buy in such a market, you are all the more desperate (quite logically) to keep it that way.
And of course, if you buy in such a market, you are all the more desperate (quite logically) to keep it that way.
Sure. Don't deny that. I just question the wisdom that on the long run this is healthy or sustainable to believe that houses are always appreaciating assets when usually gains come from asset price inflation not inherent value increase.
The question is what we replace it with. One of the reasons we bailed everyone out in 2008 was because no one could convincingly sell a model other than keeping on the same as before...
I grew up with an HOA and we'd always get letters about the halloween decorations (I've always done it big, ever since I was a kid) that alone made me anti HOA my whole life. Obviously not to mention how the goal of many HOAs just below the surface is to keep their neighborhood as white as possible.
> keep their neighborhood as white as possible
I know that these same mechanisms were used to keep out minorities in the past. But I'd say now that they are more about forcing conformity to stereotypical average white middle class appearances than against minorities per say. Variety is not tolerated. It is ok to be a minority, as long as you don't ever act like one.
I personally think that's oppressive, even scary, and not good for the culture over the long term. But some people are into that.
I know that these same mechanisms were used to keep out minorities in the past. But I'd say now that they are more about forcing conformity to stereotypical average white middle class appearances than against minorities per say. Variety is not tolerated. It is ok to be a minority, as long as you don't ever act like one.
I personally think that's oppressive, even scary, and not good for the culture over the long term. But some people are into that.
I see this mentioned a lot but you know what?
One of the best lawns in my neighborhood is owned by an African American family. Impeccable.
The worst lawns are owned by white folks.
Doesn’t this comment assume that “only white people mow their grass?”
We’ve had issues with our HOA, and I wish they weren’t necessary, but some people won’t take care of their lawns unless they’re threatened with fines. Otherwise, they’ll let the jungle grow in their yards, and leave a couch by the sidewalk.
On the topic of race, homeownership, I’ve heard, is usually one main way in which a family can build wealth; if we’re concerned (as we should be) about racial inequality (financial inequality being a sub portion of it), any self-governance that encourages homes to be well-maintained, lawns to be kept, trees and bushes trimmed, and junk vehicles not parked in the yard is a benefit to any family’s net worth, since a main concern of an HOA is preservation of property values.
Real Estate is a supply/demand game. The nicer your home and neighborhood look, the higher the market value, which is of upmost concern if homeowner is trying to increase wealth.
One of the best lawns in my neighborhood is owned by an African American family. Impeccable.
The worst lawns are owned by white folks.
Doesn’t this comment assume that “only white people mow their grass?”
We’ve had issues with our HOA, and I wish they weren’t necessary, but some people won’t take care of their lawns unless they’re threatened with fines. Otherwise, they’ll let the jungle grow in their yards, and leave a couch by the sidewalk.
On the topic of race, homeownership, I’ve heard, is usually one main way in which a family can build wealth; if we’re concerned (as we should be) about racial inequality (financial inequality being a sub portion of it), any self-governance that encourages homes to be well-maintained, lawns to be kept, trees and bushes trimmed, and junk vehicles not parked in the yard is a benefit to any family’s net worth, since a main concern of an HOA is preservation of property values.
Real Estate is a supply/demand game. The nicer your home and neighborhood look, the higher the market value, which is of upmost concern if homeowner is trying to increase wealth.
It always amuses me when people talk about "buying" a property under HOA control. You're not buying anything. You're agreeing to an indefinite lease with a majority share of profit upon transfer of the lease. If someone else can decide what color your house is, you don't own it.
By this argument nobody owns anything because there is always some level of state authority that can make rules about what you’re allowed to do with it. What’s the fundamental difference between an HOA and a small local government?
Not the person you originally asked, but an HOA is an additional layer for a start. Moreover it tends to have more restrictions, of a kind that would seem ridiculous at the level of local government (e.g. what color your curtains can be, in the case of the condo I'm currently renting.)
That would piss me off even as a renter.
> By this argument nobody owns anything because there is always some level of state authority that can make rules about what you’re allowed to do with it.
You're right, and that's bad, too.
If what you're doing isn't affecting anyone else, you should be free to do it.
You're right, and that's bad, too.
If what you're doing isn't affecting anyone else, you should be free to do it.
The color (and much more importantly the condition) of your house certainly does affect someone else.
[deleted]
ownership isnt black or white.
its on a spectrum.
property rights are given to us by the government with certain limitations. dont pay your taxes and your property goes away. HOAs is one additional restriction.
its on a spectrum.
property rights are given to us by the government with certain limitations. dont pay your taxes and your property goes away. HOAs is one additional restriction.
People also talk about buying stocks but you also can't control the direction of a company as a minority shareholder. People also buy non-physical things like music or software, and things that exist only for a moment in time, like experiences.
It would seem that most people's definition of "buying" works for HOA-controlled properties. What's your definition?
It would seem that most people's definition of "buying" works for HOA-controlled properties. What's your definition?
Software, music, stocks are things that you can do with what you please, but not if it's on a subscription basis. My definition of ownership really comes down to the inability for others to take away my control over it. In a sense, a mortgaged property is an acceptable risk in that the bank has limited financial control over your house as debt, but anything beyond that and nobody should really be able to tell me to not paint my house blue.
Just buy a house outside of an HOA or city historical restrictions. You'll have to shop around, and you wont get exactly what you want, but that is life.
I'm not in the market for a house at all, that's just my definition of ownership. I clearly wouldn't buy in an HOA or a historically restricted property.
You also can't discharge a gun pointed at another human, or even in most public places, so do you really 'own' that gun?
Did you just compare homicide to painting your own house’s door blue? smh
I'm showing an extreme example of the OP's logic. There are laws and regulations around items and property that people ""own"" that prevent how they use their property yet it doesn't change that they do still own it.
There rules with owning almost anything. HOAs are on the far end of the spectrum, but you get the appreciation if property values go up, which is one of the main reasons for owning property
I've lived in both. HOAs have their place, and really I think it depends on the person. Going into a home purchase, you have to sign the HOA agreement, so you know the rules they set forth. They keep the neighborhood looking a certain way, which is something some people want.
I've met plenty of people that don't like HOAs and purposely avoid them, which is fine also. But be prepared for a much wider variation of look and style of a neighborhood. It makes it much easier for a house to get run-down as well.
One thing not mentioned in this post is that HOAs can be dissolved. A friend had voted to dissolve his HOA (which was successful), due to too many problems. Common-land that the HOA owned becomes a problem, but it can all be worked out.
I've met plenty of people that don't like HOAs and purposely avoid them, which is fine also. But be prepared for a much wider variation of look and style of a neighborhood. It makes it much easier for a house to get run-down as well.
One thing not mentioned in this post is that HOAs can be dissolved. A friend had voted to dissolve his HOA (which was successful), due to too many problems. Common-land that the HOA owned becomes a problem, but it can all be worked out.
Rules do change all the time. My Coop (in NYC) decided to impose a 2% transaction fee, which works out about 10k on a 500k apt. They also can raise then fees anytime.
That’s why HOAs can be a problem if they have too much power. The fact is that most HOA board members/directors tend to be older folks that have more time on their hands than you do. And they set the agenda. Good luck with that.
That’s why HOAs can be a problem if they have too much power. The fact is that most HOA board members/directors tend to be older folks that have more time on their hands than you do. And they set the agenda. Good luck with that.
It becomes a small government. A lot of small governments are dysfunctional, but quite a lot more work for their community members.
People vote for the co-op board members. Why not vote the people out?
I just want a place to live, not become a political campaigner.
I just want to come home and chill dude. Not have to lobby all my neighbors, just not to get fleeced out of my money.
The fact is that most HOA board members/directors tend to be older folks that have more time on their hands than you do. And they set the agenda. Good luck with that.
I just want to come home and chill dude. Not have to lobby all my neighbors, just not to get fleeced out of my money.
The fact is that most HOA board members/directors tend to be older folks that have more time on their hands than you do. And they set the agenda. Good luck with that.
Don't join a club if you don't want to do club stuff.
And most of the time, board members are "older folks" not because they have more time on their hands. It's because they got burnt enough and figure being part of the board is an easier way to deal with the bullshit.
Hell, in the HOA I'm in, the board members are trying to give the spots away but no one want it. Unfortunately someone has to make sure the common elements get maintained, and even if you hire someone to do it, someone has to be accountable for making sure the person hired does their job.
And most of the time, board members are "older folks" not because they have more time on their hands. It's because they got burnt enough and figure being part of the board is an easier way to deal with the bullshit.
Hell, in the HOA I'm in, the board members are trying to give the spots away but no one want it. Unfortunately someone has to make sure the common elements get maintained, and even if you hire someone to do it, someone has to be accountable for making sure the person hired does their job.
Your first statement is no different than saying "I want to life in a safe democratic country, but dont want to dealing with all that politics and voting stuff"
People complain about their governments all the time, few are willing to do anything.
People complain about their governments all the time, few are willing to do anything.
No, it's not the same thing. Participating in a system that controls a navy or decides if murderers get executed or not is not the same thing as having to play politics with busybody nosy neighbors with too much time on their hands telling you you can't build a camaro with your son in your driveway or put a leg lamp in your window.
Then why would you choose to live among a community of people who agree to live by a set of standards with respect to their property if all you want to do is go home and chill?
HOAs exist mostly for those who want to live in a community of people where everyone else does care about one another, where there are common properties that are shared and taken care of, and where everyone has a responsibility to maintain their property.
That is not for everyone, absolutely, but if it's not for you, then don't live there. From the way your post is written, it suggests you wanted the benefit of living in an HOA without contributing to any of the responsibilities.
HOAs exist mostly for those who want to live in a community of people where everyone else does care about one another, where there are common properties that are shared and taken care of, and where everyone has a responsibility to maintain their property.
That is not for everyone, absolutely, but if it's not for you, then don't live there. From the way your post is written, it suggests you wanted the benefit of living in an HOA without contributing to any of the responsibilities.
You know rules on the day you sign. They can change.
Unfortunately, in competitive markets like the Bay Area, HOA neighborhoods are the only option available to you in your price range for most people starting out. Your other options are to rent, or to move to a location far from where you work. (Or to live with your family if that is available to you, and all parties agree on it).
Now, of course, if you can and prefer to permanently work remotely, then moving to a further location from where you work may be a good option for you. But then you will have to consider the risk of you being able to continue to have a job that allows permanent remote work.
Now, of course, if you can and prefer to permanently work remotely, then moving to a further location from where you work may be a good option for you. But then you will have to consider the risk of you being able to continue to have a job that allows permanent remote work.
What competitive Bay Area markets are you referring to? We've bought here a couple times, and although we looked at a few properties that were part of a 3-5 unit "HOA", most of the homes we saw (and both of the ones we bought) were not anywhere near HOAs. In fact, we currently live on a street that is not a public road, but which is apparently maintained by neighbors without resorting to an official HOA.
Where are the HOAs around here?
Where are the HOAs around here?
I guess it depends on what your price range is. For most people starting out, the price range is generally less than $1M. At that price, you will generally only have townhouses or condos available to you, which will generally have HOAs. It sounds like the properties you have been looking at are more akin to "multi-tenant" units in which it is much easier for all owners to collaborate. The properties I'm referring to are those with many more units, and in these communities, an official HOA is usually already set in place long before the first unit was purchased (agreement already set with the builders).
That said, I should probably qualify my original comment with "Bay Area within 1 hour of typical office locations in the Bay Area on typical rush hour commute". Here, "typical office locations" will include San Francisco County, San Mateo County, and Santa Clara County. This then limits your property locations to San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, and Alameda County. In _these_ locations, $1M can generally only get you a condo or townhouse with many units (at least the last time I checked).
That said, I should probably qualify my original comment with "Bay Area within 1 hour of typical office locations in the Bay Area on typical rush hour commute". Here, "typical office locations" will include San Francisco County, San Mateo County, and Santa Clara County. This then limits your property locations to San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, and Alameda County. In _these_ locations, $1M can generally only get you a condo or townhouse with many units (at least the last time I checked).
I guess I think of HOAs as being organizations that are not necessary and that govern single-family homes. Townhomes that have adjoining roofs and condos that have shared roofs/elevators/hallways/etc. require some sort of governance to handle maintenance of common areas.
It's true that the most egregious complaints about power-hungry board members can be similar among HOAs and condo/coop boards, but in my mind HOAs are different in that they are not strictly necessary.
I would agree that in the areas you mention, $1M doesn't cover a single-family home, or even undeveloped land for a home. But I would guess that many first-time buyers in this area actually buy homes that cost a good deal more than $1M, with cash from IPOs or acquisitions. We got new neighbors after the FB IPO and the Nest acquisition, for example.
It's true that the most egregious complaints about power-hungry board members can be similar among HOAs and condo/coop boards, but in my mind HOAs are different in that they are not strictly necessary.
I would agree that in the areas you mention, $1M doesn't cover a single-family home, or even undeveloped land for a home. But I would guess that many first-time buyers in this area actually buy homes that cost a good deal more than $1M, with cash from IPOs or acquisitions. We got new neighbors after the FB IPO and the Nest acquisition, for example.
Indeed. If I buy (as a first time homeowner), it’ll be for 2-3m. Our next door neighbors are first time homeowners and bought for $2m (not including the $200k+ in renovation costs).
I’m pretty sure the people buying townhouses aren’t just people trying to get into the market but also people who will not likely be able to afford more. The gap between a townhouse and a decent standalone house is still a large gap and it only gets wider as time goes on. Thus it becomes even harder to go from townhouse to sfh even if you already own a townhouse...
I’m pretty sure the people buying townhouses aren’t just people trying to get into the market but also people who will not likely be able to afford more. The gap between a townhouse and a decent standalone house is still a large gap and it only gets wider as time goes on. Thus it becomes even harder to go from townhouse to sfh even if you already own a townhouse...
A couple of stories about one notorious Florida HOA
Man jailed over brown sod: https://jonathanturley.org/2008/10/12/putting-the-prude-back...
EMTs finish heart attack victim's sod job so he'll go to the ER: http://www.ccfj.net/HOAFLFirefFinLawnw.html
Man jailed over brown sod: https://jonathanturley.org/2008/10/12/putting-the-prude-back...
EMTs finish heart attack victim's sod job so he'll go to the ER: http://www.ccfj.net/HOAFLFirefFinLawnw.html
That first one really tells you what this becomes: a layer of bureaucracy in between you and your neighbors. And that's just how the busybodies like it, because they're cowards. They don't care about you. Mandatory HOAs aren't about keeping a neighborhood a certain way, they're about taking control over other people's lives. They disconnect us all from each other, they become the go to replacement for neighborhood relationships. And they give the worst of us a cudgel to wield over our neighbors.
Not just jailed, but "in jail indefinitely".
> Not just jailed, but "in jail indefinitely".
A legendary HOA victory if there ever was one.
A legendary HOA victory if there ever was one.
Yeah, nobody likes an HOA. We all want to be allowed to do whatever we want. That's why I live in a neighborhood without one.
Leave the kids toys and trash cans out for a day? A week? Forever? No problem! But I can't complain about similar things my neighbors might do. Or, I can complain, directly to them. If I care enough.
Neighbors replaced their roof a year ago. Left the old shingles on the lawn, for a year. Did I like it? No. Did I care enough to complain to them about it? Also no. That's the kind of neighborhood I want to live in though. You want a neighborhood where the houses are in perfect cookie cutter shape? You need an HOA neighborhood, and you get the pluses with the minuses.
What I think most of us really want is to be able to do whatever we want, while also being able to tell others what to do. That doesn't work. You have to choose to either rely on your neighbors being decent, or suffer through life under an HOA.
Leave the kids toys and trash cans out for a day? A week? Forever? No problem! But I can't complain about similar things my neighbors might do. Or, I can complain, directly to them. If I care enough.
Neighbors replaced their roof a year ago. Left the old shingles on the lawn, for a year. Did I like it? No. Did I care enough to complain to them about it? Also no. That's the kind of neighborhood I want to live in though. You want a neighborhood where the houses are in perfect cookie cutter shape? You need an HOA neighborhood, and you get the pluses with the minuses.
What I think most of us really want is to be able to do whatever we want, while also being able to tell others what to do. That doesn't work. You have to choose to either rely on your neighbors being decent, or suffer through life under an HOA.
>What I think most of us really want is to be able to do whatever we want, while also being able to tell others what to do.
I think some people really do want this. But I don't. I really just want to be able to do whatever I want, and then want other people to do whatever they want, as long as it isn't doing material harm to someone. The problem can come down to defining 'harm' since some people try to define it in their own image of what they wish wasn't allowed, but I hope there are still people out there who espouse these values, because it's the world I would prefer to live in :\
The problem is that people think like this everywhere, because it's exceptionally easy to just lie to yourself and convince yourself that in your case, it's justified to tell others what to do. And you get a lot of mental gymnastics out of that.
I do understand that sometimes it might not be out of a strict desire to prevent people from doing stuff that they do not personally agree with. For example, maybe someone's primary concern is property value, or hell, just having a nice looking neighborhood. But honestly, if I see a neighborhood with a very tasteless looking front yard with shit scattered about, then at least that's a sign that the neighborhood is chill.
edit: And it shall be noted I am trying to make a case against HOAs. I think my note about “harm” was a bit ambiguous. In general I want the legal system to define what is harmful enough to be actionable. Imperfect? Yes. A sort of “nobody’s favorite, but everybody’s favorite” -type situation, in my view.
I think some people really do want this. But I don't. I really just want to be able to do whatever I want, and then want other people to do whatever they want, as long as it isn't doing material harm to someone. The problem can come down to defining 'harm' since some people try to define it in their own image of what they wish wasn't allowed, but I hope there are still people out there who espouse these values, because it's the world I would prefer to live in :\
The problem is that people think like this everywhere, because it's exceptionally easy to just lie to yourself and convince yourself that in your case, it's justified to tell others what to do. And you get a lot of mental gymnastics out of that.
I do understand that sometimes it might not be out of a strict desire to prevent people from doing stuff that they do not personally agree with. For example, maybe someone's primary concern is property value, or hell, just having a nice looking neighborhood. But honestly, if I see a neighborhood with a very tasteless looking front yard with shit scattered about, then at least that's a sign that the neighborhood is chill.
edit: And it shall be noted I am trying to make a case against HOAs. I think my note about “harm” was a bit ambiguous. In general I want the legal system to define what is harmful enough to be actionable. Imperfect? Yes. A sort of “nobody’s favorite, but everybody’s favorite” -type situation, in my view.
Yea, it really all comes down to what you define "harm" as.
If I haven't updated my house in 60 years, paint falling off, lawn completely dead, park my rusted out 1983 honda civic with flat tires on my front lawn, and have a pile of garbage 10 feet high in the driveway...
Does that cause harm to you, or do you just define that as "chill"?
It's going to entirely depend on who you're asking, at what stage of life they are in, etc.
I'm glad HOA neighborhoods exist for people who are at a position in their life (generally financially well off) to enjoy one. On the other hand, I'm glad not all neighborhoods are that way and you can find some where being a bit behind on maintenance isn't a crime.
If I haven't updated my house in 60 years, paint falling off, lawn completely dead, park my rusted out 1983 honda civic with flat tires on my front lawn, and have a pile of garbage 10 feet high in the driveway...
Does that cause harm to you, or do you just define that as "chill"?
It's going to entirely depend on who you're asking, at what stage of life they are in, etc.
I'm glad HOA neighborhoods exist for people who are at a position in their life (generally financially well off) to enjoy one. On the other hand, I'm glad not all neighborhoods are that way and you can find some where being a bit behind on maintenance isn't a crime.
I'm good with all of that except the pile of garbage. The remedy for that here is to call the town refuse and recycling department and ask them to assess whether it's a health hazard.
One of the benefits of living in a middling-urban city in a state where government more or less works is that it's really difficult to build up a 10 foot pile of garbage -- because once a week the town sends a refuse truck and a recycling truck to pick up things at the end of your driveway.
I had a neighbor up the street with a commercial dumpster in their driveway for about six months; I assume they were doing interior construction and demolition. I'm sure nobody complained about it. Construction debris doesn't attract rats and raccoons the way food debris does.
One of the benefits of living in a middling-urban city in a state where government more or less works is that it's really difficult to build up a 10 foot pile of garbage -- because once a week the town sends a refuse truck and a recycling truck to pick up things at the end of your driveway.
I had a neighbor up the street with a commercial dumpster in their driveway for about six months; I assume they were doing interior construction and demolition. I'm sure nobody complained about it. Construction debris doesn't attract rats and raccoons the way food debris does.
Exactly. If your pile of tires starts lowering my property’s value, are you doing me harm?
In my opinion the answer to that question is actually clear: No. Simply because an investment or asset of yours loses value for reasons outside of your control is not reason to then decide that you’ve been harmed, more than if actions or conditions entirely outside of your control lifts the value of your investments or assets.
IMO, a reasonable viewpoint is that an HOA is a communal way to fix the “out of your control” part at the cost of some personal freedoms. But some people err on the side of the personal freedoms. I know it’s easy to say on an online forum and bad experiences can change one’s mind, but I am comfortable in saying that I would most likely keep this viewpoint in the face of challenges, and instead prefer to push for the law to be amended if it is necessary...
So yes, I think the answer here is no even regardless of whether you would prefer an HOA, but I still upvoted your comment though as I think it raises the important question.
IMO, a reasonable viewpoint is that an HOA is a communal way to fix the “out of your control” part at the cost of some personal freedoms. But some people err on the side of the personal freedoms. I know it’s easy to say on an online forum and bad experiences can change one’s mind, but I am comfortable in saying that I would most likely keep this viewpoint in the face of challenges, and instead prefer to push for the law to be amended if it is necessary...
So yes, I think the answer here is no even regardless of whether you would prefer an HOA, but I still upvoted your comment though as I think it raises the important question.
Is it a violation of the non aggression principle to not wear a mask? Or to force someone to wear a mask? As an analogous example.
The connection to property values is a bit ethereal IMO.
The connection to property values is a bit ethereal IMO.
> The problem can come down to defining 'harm'
Indeed. If I, say, allow drug addicts to camp out on my front lawn and defecate on it, I'm probably going to make the neighborhood as a whole less desirable to live in and hence reduce property values. The net effect of that is the same as literally taking money from you. Is that harm? Because it's really hard to draw a sharp line between that and the wrong color of shutters.
Aside: I lived in HOA neighborhoods and non-HOA neighborhoods. On the whole I prefer the later, but I have horror stories from both.
Indeed. If I, say, allow drug addicts to camp out on my front lawn and defecate on it, I'm probably going to make the neighborhood as a whole less desirable to live in and hence reduce property values. The net effect of that is the same as literally taking money from you. Is that harm? Because it's really hard to draw a sharp line between that and the wrong color of shutters.
Aside: I lived in HOA neighborhoods and non-HOA neighborhoods. On the whole I prefer the later, but I have horror stories from both.
This is the sand heap fallacy. Even if you can't tell where the line is, it's obvious that turning your front yard into a mini-San Francisco is on one side of it, and that painting your shutters the wrong color is on the other side of it. We shouldn't have to pick the wrong answer for one of these bright-line cases just because there's some gray cases.
> it's obvious that ... painting your shutters the wrong color is on the other side of it
It might be obvious to you (it's obvious to me too), but it was manifestly not obvious to the board members who voted to enforce the shutter-color policy, nor to the people who voted for them.
It might be obvious to you (it's obvious to me too), but it was manifestly not obvious to the board members who voted to enforce the shutter-color policy, nor to the people who voted for them.
> it was manifestly not obvious to the board members who voted to enforce the shutter-color policy
I'm not even sure that's the case. I can conceive of a board that previously had a house like this[0] (first result of google image search for "garish house colors"), had a big back and forth on what to do about it, and wants to avoid getting into the same fight again. The resolution from last time was to establish some boundary and to enforce it rigorously, even if that excludes some colors that are acceptable. The current board knows that the shutter-color enforcement is ridiculous, but can't make an exception for the general house colors without giving ammunition to the person who painted their house neon green with pink polka dots.
Not saying that that is the reasoning of any one particular board, but rather saying that I can conceive of cases where a person or group takes actions they know to be unreasonable in themselves, but may be reasonable in a wider context.
[0] https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a3/9b/35/a39b35132a3c1cc219a7...
I'm not even sure that's the case. I can conceive of a board that previously had a house like this[0] (first result of google image search for "garish house colors"), had a big back and forth on what to do about it, and wants to avoid getting into the same fight again. The resolution from last time was to establish some boundary and to enforce it rigorously, even if that excludes some colors that are acceptable. The current board knows that the shutter-color enforcement is ridiculous, but can't make an exception for the general house colors without giving ammunition to the person who painted their house neon green with pink polka dots.
Not saying that that is the reasoning of any one particular board, but rather saying that I can conceive of cases where a person or group takes actions they know to be unreasonable in themselves, but may be reasonable in a wider context.
[0] https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a3/9b/35/a39b35132a3c1cc219a7...
But that's just making the observation that things that may seem obvious at first glance may not be obvious once you think more deeply about them. It doesn't really matter why they are not obvious. What matters is that they are not obvious.
Good point, and thank you for the clarification. I had been interpreting "manifestly not obvious" as a rhetorical device to state that the board were clearly decided and set that shutter-colors were within the scope of what an HOA board might reasonably decide, and therefore it is "manifestly not obvious" that it is outside the scope. (Sort of how somebody saying the words "There are some here who may disagree with you." is implicitly stating that they disagree and is inviting others to join in disagreement.)
I agree that it is not obvious where the line is, and was attempting to a hypothetical where even a single person might be unsure.
I agree that it is not obvious where the line is, and was attempting to a hypothetical where even a single person might be unsure.
That's a cute house.
Hence why you are seeing the argument made on this thread that those boards should just not exist. There are always going to be people that find some excuse to believe it is their duty to bug the hell out of everyone. "Nobody has a right to bug Tue hell out of anyone" is a time tested solution to this problem.
Well, this example is a bit extreme. There’s some nuisance behavior that is made illicit on the basis that it is harm to the public as a whole. Having people defecate on your front lawn in view of everyone probably runs afoul of something in most jurisdictions.
What happens behind closed doors is mostly still fine, though, even though it can lower property value. A lot of things can lower property value that aren’t fair to you, and the mere fact that they happen doesn’t mean you personally were wronged nor does it mean anything illicit has happened. Could be a nearby factory shuttering causing the local economy to struggle, or something.
What happens behind closed doors is mostly still fine, though, even though it can lower property value. A lot of things can lower property value that aren’t fair to you, and the mere fact that they happen doesn’t mean you personally were wronged nor does it mean anything illicit has happened. Could be a nearby factory shuttering causing the local economy to struggle, or something.
A lot of things can raise the property value too. New metro station opens, pushing your value up 300k? Do people say “hey that’s not right, here you take the money mr metro man”?
> Indeed. If I, say, allow drug addicts to camp out on my front lawn and defecate on it, I'm probably going to make the neighborhood as a whole less desirable to live in and hence reduce property values. The net effect of that is the same as literally taking money from you. Is that harm? Because it's really hard to draw a sharp line between that and the wrong color of shutters.
It's really easy - the former example is actually illegal in most places and the local LE will deal with you if someone complains. No HOA needed.
It's really easy - the former example is actually illegal in most places and the local LE will deal with you if someone complains. No HOA needed.
That's begging the question [1]. An HOA is just another form of government.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
Yes, but if you don't have it the other forms of government handle the former example in the post I replied to.
I fail to see how this is circular reasoning. Can you explain?
I fail to see how this is circular reasoning. Can you explain?
The point is that these decisions -- whether it is acceptable to allow drug addicts to sleep on the lawn or to pain the shutters pink -- have to be made by someone. Either those decisions get made by the owner of the property, or they get made by someone else. It doesn't matter whether that "someone else" is "the government" or "the HOA board", and it doesn't matter whether infringing on the decision made by someone else is "illegal" or merely "against HOA policy". These are just labels. What matters is that the decisions about what you can and can't do with your house (and, for that matter, in every aspect of your life) are either yours to make, or they are someone else's, and it is not a slam-dunk which one leads to better outcomes.
I still don't see how that is circular reasoning. Where do you find a conclusion that is supported by itself?
> It doesn't matter whether that "someone else" is "the government" or "the HOA board"
It's not an "or", it's an "and" and that makes all the difference.
The reality is that in all cases, having both a Party A AND a Party B make your decisions for you is objectively worse than simply having Party A or Party B make the decision.
Having an HOA make you decisions for you doesn't make the state's decisions go away. Doing away with the HOA only leaves a single irritation.
> What matters is that the decisions about what you can and can't do with your house (and, for that matter, in every aspect of your life) are either yours to make, or they are someone else's,
There is a large distinction of "having many different parties with authority over you" and "having one party with authority over you".
The HOA isn't a single party that has authority over you, it is composed of multiple people who make take turns invoking the HOA rules against you. The state is a different matter - there are repercussions to individuals and appeals to an impartial third-party when the state invokes a rule against you.
You simply cannot equivocate an HOA with the state. People have recourse against the state.
> It doesn't matter whether that "someone else" is "the government" or "the HOA board"
It's not an "or", it's an "and" and that makes all the difference.
The reality is that in all cases, having both a Party A AND a Party B make your decisions for you is objectively worse than simply having Party A or Party B make the decision.
Having an HOA make you decisions for you doesn't make the state's decisions go away. Doing away with the HOA only leaves a single irritation.
> What matters is that the decisions about what you can and can't do with your house (and, for that matter, in every aspect of your life) are either yours to make, or they are someone else's,
There is a large distinction of "having many different parties with authority over you" and "having one party with authority over you".
The HOA isn't a single party that has authority over you, it is composed of multiple people who make take turns invoking the HOA rules against you. The state is a different matter - there are repercussions to individuals and appeals to an impartial third-party when the state invokes a rule against you.
You simply cannot equivocate an HOA with the state. People have recourse against the state.
> I still don't see how that is circular reasoning. Where do you find a conclusion that is supported by itself?
Here:
> > it's really hard to draw a sharp line between that and the wrong color of shutters.
> It's really easy - the former example is actually illegal in most places and the local LE will deal with you
How do you think HOAs enforce their restrictions? When push comes to shove, disputes with HOAs get settled in courts, which are an arm of the state.
> You simply cannot equivocate an HOA with the state. People have recourse against the state.
People have the exact same recourse against HOAs as they have against the state because the HOA's authority derives entirely from the state. HOAs do not have their own enforcement mechanisms. And HOA boards are elected just like the people who run the state(s) in the USA. It really is just another level of government.
Here:
> > it's really hard to draw a sharp line between that and the wrong color of shutters.
> It's really easy - the former example is actually illegal in most places and the local LE will deal with you
How do you think HOAs enforce their restrictions? When push comes to shove, disputes with HOAs get settled in courts, which are an arm of the state.
> You simply cannot equivocate an HOA with the state. People have recourse against the state.
People have the exact same recourse against HOAs as they have against the state because the HOA's authority derives entirely from the state. HOAs do not have their own enforcement mechanisms. And HOA boards are elected just like the people who run the state(s) in the USA. It really is just another level of government.
>> I still don't see how that is circular reasoning. Where do you find a conclusion that is supported by itself?
>
>Here:
>
>> it's really hard to draw a sharp line between that and the wrong color of shutters.
>
>> It's really easy - the former example is actually illegal in most places and the local LE will deal with you
>
> How do you think HOAs enforce their restrictions? When push
> comes to shove, disputes with HOAs get settled in courts,
> which are an arm of the state.
So? That doesn't make it illegal; going to court against an HOA is a civil matter, so the issue of whether something is illegal or not is irrelevant. Going to court because you broke the state's rules is a criminal matter.
When something is illegal, you call the cops and let the state prosecution handle it. When something isn't illegal, you have to directly sue the respondent(s) yourself and handle the matter yourself.
So, yeah, there's a big difference between getting prosecuted by the state in criminal court for defecating on your lawn and getting sued in civil court by the HOA for breaking the contract.
There's no circular reasoning there at all: one of those things ends up in a certain type of court, the other ends up in a different type of court.
> People have the exact same recourse against HOAs as they have against the state because the HOA's authority derives entirely from the state.
No, you have more recourse against the state when the state breaks the rules, and not just because the state has many more limitations on their rules than a HOA. For just one example, the state may not prohibit political speech of one party and encourage political speech of another party, while the HOA has no such limitation.
For that you have no recourse agains the HOA, but you *will* have recourse if the state attempted it.
> It really is just another level of government.
It really isn't.
There's a particularly large difference between criminal and civil trials.
There's a difference between what a juristic person is allowed and what an arm of the state is allowed (one of those two aren't allowed to suppress speech, for example, while the other can).
There's a difference in the enforcement that is allowed (for HOA: fines only, and then go to civil court for an order, for the state: arrest, then prosecution).
There's a difference in the levels of enforcement allowed (HOA has no choice but to launch civil proceedings, while the state is fully within its rights to use force, deadly or otherwise).
They really aren't the same. The rules of an HOA is a meeting-of-the-minds contract between two juristic persons. Any "contract" is not a contract if one of those people don't agree (signed under duress, for example).
The laws of the state does not require the citizen to agree; there is no contract because the citizen has to abide by those laws whether or not they agree to them.
>
>Here:
>
>> it's really hard to draw a sharp line between that and the wrong color of shutters.
>
>> It's really easy - the former example is actually illegal in most places and the local LE will deal with you
>
> How do you think HOAs enforce their restrictions? When push
> comes to shove, disputes with HOAs get settled in courts,
> which are an arm of the state.
So? That doesn't make it illegal; going to court against an HOA is a civil matter, so the issue of whether something is illegal or not is irrelevant. Going to court because you broke the state's rules is a criminal matter.
When something is illegal, you call the cops and let the state prosecution handle it. When something isn't illegal, you have to directly sue the respondent(s) yourself and handle the matter yourself.
So, yeah, there's a big difference between getting prosecuted by the state in criminal court for defecating on your lawn and getting sued in civil court by the HOA for breaking the contract.
There's no circular reasoning there at all: one of those things ends up in a certain type of court, the other ends up in a different type of court.
> People have the exact same recourse against HOAs as they have against the state because the HOA's authority derives entirely from the state.
No, you have more recourse against the state when the state breaks the rules, and not just because the state has many more limitations on their rules than a HOA. For just one example, the state may not prohibit political speech of one party and encourage political speech of another party, while the HOA has no such limitation.
For that you have no recourse agains the HOA, but you *will* have recourse if the state attempted it.
> It really is just another level of government.
It really isn't.
There's a particularly large difference between criminal and civil trials.
There's a difference between what a juristic person is allowed and what an arm of the state is allowed (one of those two aren't allowed to suppress speech, for example, while the other can).
There's a difference in the enforcement that is allowed (for HOA: fines only, and then go to civil court for an order, for the state: arrest, then prosecution).
There's a difference in the levels of enforcement allowed (HOA has no choice but to launch civil proceedings, while the state is fully within its rights to use force, deadly or otherwise).
They really aren't the same. The rules of an HOA is a meeting-of-the-minds contract between two juristic persons. Any "contract" is not a contract if one of those people don't agree (signed under duress, for example).
The laws of the state does not require the citizen to agree; there is no contract because the citizen has to abide by those laws whether or not they agree to them.
These are distinctions without differences. The point is that someone other than the homeowner is making the decisions. The details of how that other entity is organized, or the source of the power that it has to enforce its decisions, or the specific mechanisms it uses to punish you, don't matter.
But just for the record, you are factually incorrect about a number of your claims.
First, if push really comes to shove, the HOA can force a sale of your house in order to pay your delinquent fines. If you refuse to vacate, the cops will come and they will arrest you and take you to jail. So there really is no difference at all other than the number of steps that it takes to get to that point.
Second, there is no "meeting of the minds" with regards to HOAs because there is no other mind. The HOA CC&Rs are established by the original developer long before anyone joins, and they are take-it-or-leave-it. There is no negotiation. Joining an HOA is exactly the same as becoming a legal resident or naturalized citizen of a country. There are restrictions on your behavior. Whether those restrictions are called "laws" or "HOA rules" is immaterial. If you choose to join, you have to abide by those restrictions or face punishment. If you don't like the terms, your only recourse is to try to effect change via the governing body or leave.
Third, you are factually incorrect about the nature of laws against allowing people to camp on your lawn. Those are generally zoning or public health laws, and violating them is generally a civil offense, not a criminal one. But violations are nonetheless generally prosecuted by the state. Even in private lawsuits, an individual has to show that a law was violated in order to prevail.
You are correct that HOAs are not bound by Constitutional constraints, but I fail to see how that is germane to the matter at hand. Different governmental and quasi-governmental entities have different powers. So what? That doesn't change the central point: either you get decide what you can and can't do with your house, or someone else does. It really is that simple. Attaching a label to the entity that makes the decisions changes nothing. If it quacks like a government...
But just for the record, you are factually incorrect about a number of your claims.
First, if push really comes to shove, the HOA can force a sale of your house in order to pay your delinquent fines. If you refuse to vacate, the cops will come and they will arrest you and take you to jail. So there really is no difference at all other than the number of steps that it takes to get to that point.
Second, there is no "meeting of the minds" with regards to HOAs because there is no other mind. The HOA CC&Rs are established by the original developer long before anyone joins, and they are take-it-or-leave-it. There is no negotiation. Joining an HOA is exactly the same as becoming a legal resident or naturalized citizen of a country. There are restrictions on your behavior. Whether those restrictions are called "laws" or "HOA rules" is immaterial. If you choose to join, you have to abide by those restrictions or face punishment. If you don't like the terms, your only recourse is to try to effect change via the governing body or leave.
Third, you are factually incorrect about the nature of laws against allowing people to camp on your lawn. Those are generally zoning or public health laws, and violating them is generally a civil offense, not a criminal one. But violations are nonetheless generally prosecuted by the state. Even in private lawsuits, an individual has to show that a law was violated in order to prevail.
You are correct that HOAs are not bound by Constitutional constraints, but I fail to see how that is germane to the matter at hand. Different governmental and quasi-governmental entities have different powers. So what? That doesn't change the central point: either you get decide what you can and can't do with your house, or someone else does. It really is that simple. Attaching a label to the entity that makes the decisions changes nothing. If it quacks like a government...
> These are distinctions without differences.
>
That's an interesting opinion.
> But just for the record, you are factually incorrect about a number of your claims. > > First, if push really comes to shove, the HOA can force a sale of your house in order to pay your delinquent fines.
No different than any creditor, that doesn't mean all your creditors are a form of government over you.
> If you refuse to vacate, the cops will come and they will arrest you and take you to jail.
For breaking a law - contempt of court. The same as with any creditor. The cops cannot and will not get involved until you break a law, which means that the HOA has to first go through civil proceedings and get a court to issue an order against you. At that point no crime has been committed. Failing to comply with the order is a crime, at which point the cops can and will get involved.
> So there really is no difference at all other than the number of steps that it takes to get to that point. >
Other than the fact that they are doing what every creditor does? Do you also consider your credit card company a form of government? Because they can force the sale of your house to pay your debts, and if you don't leave the house the cops will forcibly remove you.
Any creditor can do that. I fail to see why you think the HOA is special in that regard. > > Second, there is no "meeting of the minds" with regards to HOAs because there is no other mind. The HOA CC&Rs are established by the original developer long before anyone joins, and they are take-it-or-leave-it.
Believe it or not, that actually is a contract. If you take it, that's a meeting of minds. Look it up.
> There is no negotiation.
No one said there was, nor does there have to be. All that is required is that both parties agree. If you take it, you agree and it's a contract like any other contract.
> Joining an HOA is exactly the same as becoming a legal resident or naturalized citizen of a country.
Or signing a contract.
> There are restrictions on your behavior.
Just like the clauses in every contract.
> Whether those restrictions are called "laws" or "HOA rules" is immaterial.
They are very material - criminal offences are processed differently to civil suits.
> If you choose to join, you have to abide by those restrictions or face punishment.
In the form of fines, certainly. And if those fines don't work, then the HOA has to sue you like any other creditor would.
> If you don't like the terms, your only recourse is to try to effect change via the governing body or leave. > > Third, you are factually incorrect about the nature of laws against allowing people to camp on your lawn. Those are generally zoning or public health laws, and violating them is generally a civil offense, not a criminal one.
I'll grant you this, because I am not sure which jurisdiction you are in. In my jurisdiction pulling down your drawers in your front lawn is a criminal offense. Then proceeding to defecate is also a criminal offense. My understanding is that, in the US, you can get onto the Sex Offenders List just by peeing in public - that's a criminal offense.
> But violations are nonetheless generally prosecuted by the state. Even in private lawsuits, an individual has to show that a law was violated in order to prevail.
Depends on the suit - if you are suing someone for contempt of court (because they refuse to follow through on a judgement against them) then that is criminal. If you are suing to get that judgement in the first place, it's purely civil. Law enforcement does not get involved when you ignore the HOA and they sue you (because it is not a crime). Law enforcement only gets involved when you don't adhere to the judgement (because not adhering to a court order is a crime).
> You are correct that HOAs are not bound by Constitutional constraints, but I fail to see how that is germane to the matter at hand. Different governmental and quasi-governmental entities have different powers. So what? That doesn't change the central point: either you get decide what you can and can't do with your house, or someone else does.
Having one less outside party having authority over you is relevant. If you view outside parties as an irritation, the more parties there are that get to tell you what to do, the more irritation there is.
> It really is that simple. Attaching a label to the entity that makes the decisions changes nothing. If it quacks like a government...
Accuracy matters. Precision matters. HOA are not anywhere close to being some sort of government. They lack too many of the legal requirements.
Will all that being said, I'm probably not in your jurisdiction, so the cases I've presented to the court (in both criminal and civil matters) may not matter to you. The best way to proceed, if you want to stick to the claim that HOA have quasi-governmental powers, is for you to list the ways that they differ from any other contract that you sign, and then breech.
Because, from what I can see, the consequences of breeching the HOA rules is no different to the consequences of breeching any other contract.
In what way are the HOA rule-violations different from other contract-violations?
That's an interesting opinion.
> But just for the record, you are factually incorrect about a number of your claims. > > First, if push really comes to shove, the HOA can force a sale of your house in order to pay your delinquent fines.
No different than any creditor, that doesn't mean all your creditors are a form of government over you.
> If you refuse to vacate, the cops will come and they will arrest you and take you to jail.
For breaking a law - contempt of court. The same as with any creditor. The cops cannot and will not get involved until you break a law, which means that the HOA has to first go through civil proceedings and get a court to issue an order against you. At that point no crime has been committed. Failing to comply with the order is a crime, at which point the cops can and will get involved.
> So there really is no difference at all other than the number of steps that it takes to get to that point. >
Other than the fact that they are doing what every creditor does? Do you also consider your credit card company a form of government? Because they can force the sale of your house to pay your debts, and if you don't leave the house the cops will forcibly remove you.
Any creditor can do that. I fail to see why you think the HOA is special in that regard. > > Second, there is no "meeting of the minds" with regards to HOAs because there is no other mind. The HOA CC&Rs are established by the original developer long before anyone joins, and they are take-it-or-leave-it.
Believe it or not, that actually is a contract. If you take it, that's a meeting of minds. Look it up.
> There is no negotiation.
No one said there was, nor does there have to be. All that is required is that both parties agree. If you take it, you agree and it's a contract like any other contract.
> Joining an HOA is exactly the same as becoming a legal resident or naturalized citizen of a country.
Or signing a contract.
> There are restrictions on your behavior.
Just like the clauses in every contract.
> Whether those restrictions are called "laws" or "HOA rules" is immaterial.
They are very material - criminal offences are processed differently to civil suits.
> If you choose to join, you have to abide by those restrictions or face punishment.
In the form of fines, certainly. And if those fines don't work, then the HOA has to sue you like any other creditor would.
> If you don't like the terms, your only recourse is to try to effect change via the governing body or leave. > > Third, you are factually incorrect about the nature of laws against allowing people to camp on your lawn. Those are generally zoning or public health laws, and violating them is generally a civil offense, not a criminal one.
I'll grant you this, because I am not sure which jurisdiction you are in. In my jurisdiction pulling down your drawers in your front lawn is a criminal offense. Then proceeding to defecate is also a criminal offense. My understanding is that, in the US, you can get onto the Sex Offenders List just by peeing in public - that's a criminal offense.
> But violations are nonetheless generally prosecuted by the state. Even in private lawsuits, an individual has to show that a law was violated in order to prevail.
Depends on the suit - if you are suing someone for contempt of court (because they refuse to follow through on a judgement against them) then that is criminal. If you are suing to get that judgement in the first place, it's purely civil. Law enforcement does not get involved when you ignore the HOA and they sue you (because it is not a crime). Law enforcement only gets involved when you don't adhere to the judgement (because not adhering to a court order is a crime).
> You are correct that HOAs are not bound by Constitutional constraints, but I fail to see how that is germane to the matter at hand. Different governmental and quasi-governmental entities have different powers. So what? That doesn't change the central point: either you get decide what you can and can't do with your house, or someone else does.
Having one less outside party having authority over you is relevant. If you view outside parties as an irritation, the more parties there are that get to tell you what to do, the more irritation there is.
> It really is that simple. Attaching a label to the entity that makes the decisions changes nothing. If it quacks like a government...
Accuracy matters. Precision matters. HOA are not anywhere close to being some sort of government. They lack too many of the legal requirements.
Will all that being said, I'm probably not in your jurisdiction, so the cases I've presented to the court (in both criminal and civil matters) may not matter to you. The best way to proceed, if you want to stick to the claim that HOA have quasi-governmental powers, is for you to list the ways that they differ from any other contract that you sign, and then breech.
Because, from what I can see, the consequences of breeching the HOA rules is no different to the consequences of breeching any other contract.
In what way are the HOA rule-violations different from other contract-violations?
Where do you (personally) draw the line at material harm...? We already have a system (the courts) for redressing material harms.
Many HOA bylaws (house color, RV parking, minimal landscaping requirements, etc etc etc) aren't material harms. They are "harms by association" -- e.g. my house value goes down because you have bad taste in paint colors. Hence "Home Owner Associations".
Many HOA bylaws (house color, RV parking, minimal landscaping requirements, etc etc etc) aren't material harms. They are "harms by association" -- e.g. my house value goes down because you have bad taste in paint colors. Hence "Home Owner Associations".
I think some are misinterpreting my post as being in favor of HOAs, but actually I am saying that if someone is not doing something outright illegal I’m generally in favor of them being able to do it.
> We already have a system (the courts) for redressing material harms.
Laws are a baseline. People can build on top of that. Just like there are laws that define what should happen when a couple divorce, many people will sign a prenup to add extra rules they mutually agree to that not EVERYONE would agree to, for each other's benefits. You or I certainly don't get to decide what's reasonable or what's silly in someone else's prenup. HOA bylaws are just a bigger version of that.
Laws are a baseline. People can build on top of that. Just like there are laws that define what should happen when a couple divorce, many people will sign a prenup to add extra rules they mutually agree to that not EVERYONE would agree to, for each other's benefits. You or I certainly don't get to decide what's reasonable or what's silly in someone else's prenup. HOA bylaws are just a bigger version of that.
And what happens when you disagree?
With what? I am painting a viewpoint against HOAs.
edit: I think I understand why people are reading it this way, so I added a bit onto my original post.
edit: I think I understand why people are reading it this way, so I added a bit onto my original post.
I personally chose to live in an incorporated city but not an HOA. There are city ordinances with actual real government representation and force of law behind them for serious health and safety concerns but we can paint our houses whatever color we want and build sheds under a certain size any way we like etc. The important thing with choosing a place to live is to honestly assess what you want and how much you want your neighbors to be able to do. There are plusses and minuses under any living arrangement. Personally I would never live under a HOA but in exchange I have to put up with the stuff that is under the level of city enforcement, things like boom cars and a few unkept lawns. In exchange I can work on my truck in my driveway without some busybody stopping me.
Same here. Live in a nice part of a large city without an HOA. All the homes look different — it's a mix of single-family and multi-family housing — and it's delightful.
Whole (most of) Europe works without an HOA, why USA can’t?
In the Netherlands we have somewhat similar arrangement in appartement buildings.
Even the name is (translated) the same and operates like the described condo HOA from the article.
It’s annoying as fuck. We want to put up sun screens as our windows are facing south so in summer the house is an oven.
Nope can’t do, _everyone_ needs to agree that yes we can install them and what type and colour and whatnot. We have to call a meeting for that, guess how many people show up?
Our next house is definitely not going to have such a thing if I can help it
Nope can’t do, _everyone_ needs to agree that yes we can install them and what type and colour and whatnot. We have to call a meeting for that, guess how many people show up?
Our next house is definitely not going to have such a thing if I can help it
I've hear that villages in the netherlands have municipal (if that's the right term) policies in this vein, particularly picky about the colour of doors.
There is indeed the “welstandscommissie”, no clue how to translate that.
It’s meant to keep everything looking “nice and neat”. Depends a lot on what city/village it is but basically I think they try to avoid people painting their house purple or something.
"HOA Neighborhoods" as the author defines them are largely a suburban construct IMO. In a large city like SF for example, single family homes aren't typically a part of an HOA -- you're free to extend your home as you see fit (with the right permits from the city), and you're also responsible for all costs including roofs and front porch areas. This is also true in rural America where you fully own your property and there are virtually no restrictions in what you can do.
I'm not very familiar with Europe but the couple of times I've been there it seemed somewhat similar to denser American cities and charming rural villages. I didn't see a parallel to "cookie cutter" American suburbia. I'm no expert on Europe but that's probably why HOAs aren't that common.
I'm not very familiar with Europe but the couple of times I've been there it seemed somewhat similar to denser American cities and charming rural villages. I didn't see a parallel to "cookie cutter" American suburbia. I'm no expert on Europe but that's probably why HOAs aren't that common.
On the contrary, especially old towns in Europe have HOAs, as they want to preserve the old town look as to keep attracting tourists (and preserve history, although I think the income from tourism is generally their highest priority).
Are those private entities enforcing that though? Usually preserving the historical look of an area is more of a government-enforced thing than a private leasing arrangement.
Yes, but the effect is the same.
I don't think suburbs are a complete explanation for this though. HOAs are super rare in Canada (outside of apartment buildings and maybe townhouses), and we have just as much suburban sprawl as the U.S.
Based on people mentioning maintaining commons (i.e. building parks, etc.) maybe it's a function of having comparatively less government provided common services in American suburbs? That would fit the stereotype in my head, but I admit I don't have a lot of solid data one way or another.
Based on people mentioning maintaining commons (i.e. building parks, etc.) maybe it's a function of having comparatively less government provided common services in American suburbs? That would fit the stereotype in my head, but I admit I don't have a lot of solid data one way or another.
In the USA, they exploded in popularity when people realized you could ban black people from living in your community with them.
Americans chafe at city government aggressively enforcing code. So cities have kicked that unpleasant task down a level to HOAs. As an added bonus, the cost of this regulation is now a HOA fee not a tax which is much harder to pass.
HOAs seem to be more common in certain parts of the country, especially in the south and west. I've never encountered one in my state (Massachusetts) outside of retirement communities.
Most of the US isn't under HOA, either.
i don’t know which part of Europe you’re referring to, but i’ve noticed various restrictions, from what kind of front door you’re allowed to install, house color, roof color/type etc etc they’re not called HOAs thou, but the effect is similar.
We have HOA in France, it is called "copropriété".
The one I have is the "condominium HOA" kind, that is the reasonable kind according to the article because of the nature of buildings. But the bad "mandatory HOA" kind also exists, with the same kind of rules as the article mentions. It is just that US-style suburban areas are less common.
It looks like copropriétés in France are less focused on property value and the process sounds more democratic since every decision typically require a direct vote and most of the process is defined by law. However, it doesn't stop them from being a major pain in the ass sometimes.
The one I have is the "condominium HOA" kind, that is the reasonable kind according to the article because of the nature of buildings. But the bad "mandatory HOA" kind also exists, with the same kind of rules as the article mentions. It is just that US-style suburban areas are less common.
It looks like copropriétés in France are less focused on property value and the process sounds more democratic since every decision typically require a direct vote and most of the process is defined by law. However, it doesn't stop them from being a major pain in the ass sometimes.
Right, they have formal laws that cover the things an HOA in the US would normally prohibit or restrict.
Go mow your lawn on Sunday in Germany and let me know how long until someone tells Ruhetag at you.
Go mow your lawn on Sunday in Germany and let me know how long until someone tells Ruhetag at you.
There’s a thing called a Parish council and that strikes me as similar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parish_councils_in_England
There was a recent event gained notoriety in the UK for the pettiness these bodies sometimes have https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jB3P_0GAi0I
There was a recent event gained notoriety in the UK for the pettiness these bodies sometimes have https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jB3P_0GAi0I
Not really the same thing, I don't think. Most of the time, parish councils just do boring but necessary things like emptying the dog poo bins, maintaining the village hall, keeping the playing fields trimmed and clean, that kind of upkeep of minor but very visible shared resources.
This is exactly what most HOAs do also.
I wonder if it holds e.g. for Germany. Maybe it's not HOA but the town magistrate, etc?
If you want real HOA vibes in Germany, visit a Schrebergarten (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allotment_(gardening)#Germany)!
Bingo. In Germany, regulations enacted by municipal governments definitely cover a lot of points mentioned in the article. The main differences are that they are not quite as intrusive in what they cover (their goal is not explicitly to maintain property values), and you have legal recourse.
There's no such thing in Germany apart from eg leasehold of holiday homes, rented garden houses (Kleingartenvereine) etc. but there are municipal usage restrictions according to Baunutzungverordnung to the effect you can't repurpose residential areas as a commercial space, and local zoning rules according to a Bebauungplan or equivalent for eg how many storeys are allowed, building lines, distances, materials to choose, a duty for at least an effort to gardening, etc., but it depends greatly where you live, ranging from very strict to everything goes.
Edit: IANAL
Edit: IANAL
[deleted]
HOA's were created to get around the supreme court ruling that racial covenants were unenforceable.
> We all want to be allowed to do whatever we want
Ehh, not everyone's that selfish.
I for one am perfectly happy with compromising so that my neighbors are happier with what I do, but only if they return the favor. At a small scale we can have a handshake agreement, but for something more long term or with a lot more people, it's great to be able to put it on paper.
Ehh, not everyone's that selfish.
I for one am perfectly happy with compromising so that my neighbors are happier with what I do, but only if they return the favor. At a small scale we can have a handshake agreement, but for something more long term or with a lot more people, it's great to be able to put it on paper.
>You have to choose to either rely on your neighbors being decent, or suffer through life under an HOA.
Local Governments traditionally played this role. Problem is that some people hate governments simply because they are governments so they make private governments. I guess that makes sense to them?
In my (non HOA) neighborhood leaving shingles on your lawn comes with a $100/day fine.
The people who were cleaning out the house next door to me (they inherited it) were leaving piles of garbage outside. I saw the blight officer leave a notice in their mailbox and the garbage was gone the next day. (I assume it was a warning rather than a fine, but idk.)
Local Governments traditionally played this role. Problem is that some people hate governments simply because they are governments so they make private governments. I guess that makes sense to them?
In my (non HOA) neighborhood leaving shingles on your lawn comes with a $100/day fine.
The people who were cleaning out the house next door to me (they inherited it) were leaving piles of garbage outside. I saw the blight officer leave a notice in their mailbox and the garbage was gone the next day. (I assume it was a warning rather than a fine, but idk.)
It’s easier to live somewhere with a decent HOA than to rely on each of your neighbors being decent.
Otherwise, the only other way to ensure neighbors don’t bother you without an HOA is to live somewhere with lots of land around homes so that neighbors are very spaced out, and hopefully they will be far enough from you to not be bothered by their filth, and putting up high hedges and trees should be enough to block them from your sight.
Otherwise, the only other way to ensure neighbors don’t bother you without an HOA is to live somewhere with lots of land around homes so that neighbors are very spaced out, and hopefully they will be far enough from you to not be bothered by their filth, and putting up high hedges and trees should be enough to block them from your sight.
Exactly.
That’s why you live in an HOA area, but become the ruler.
Rules for thee, but not for me!
That’s why you live in an HOA area, but become the ruler.
Rules for thee, but not for me!
[deleted]
[deleted]
Right. I've always thought that HOAs seem kind of un-American. Being how Americans are all pro-freedom and anti-socialist , having some social construct dictating what you can do in your house AND paying it yo do so seems quite far from US values.
And I am not American and I'm pretty socialist myself.
And I am not American and I'm pretty socialist myself.
I've never lived in a neighborhood where the houses must be in "perfect cookie cutter shape", nor would I ever want to. I want my neighborhood to be diverse and interesting. HOA neighborhoods sound soul-crushing to me.
'Perfect cookie cutter shape' can be charming and historically significant. I'm glade there is an association maintaining the character of a village I used to live in, and that people aren't free to remodel them on a whim, permanently damaging cultural property.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Sunlight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Sunlight
That could be an exception. However, when I hear "HOA", the kind of neighborhood that comes to mind is "insipid, yet pretentious suburb".
When I hear "historically significant" I think of segregationist NIMBYs. The future is more important than the past.
Actually part of the job the association does in the village I lived in was to own some of the houses and rent them out as registered social landlord (meaning you can rent to people using social security.) They also helped to maintain museums, cultural spaces, and green spaces, for everyone.
Destroying cultural property to install a satellite dish is not making 'the future more important than the past'.
Destroying cultural property to install a satellite dish is not making 'the future more important than the past'.
Historic preservation often involves rejecting things like solar panels on rooftops. That is 100% privileging the past over the future.
[deleted](1)
I'm sure there are extremely strict HOAs out there with insane people on boards that horror stories originate from.
We've always lived in HOA homes (in our 4th now) and they have all been very laid back.
This kind of HOA I belong to is basically the "anti-hillbilly" HOA. You aren't allowed to own 50 cats and dogs free roaming and crapping everywhere, don't leave your rusted out broken down beater in the front lawn, don't let your lawn go to 4 foot weeds (but by all means grow some 6ft tomato plants), your backyard is not your personal firing range, you aren't allowed to have a personal dump of trash that you clear every 6 months, etc.
Our HOA does are for snow/ice services, long term repairs on our private road, and the front entrance maintenance.
Every house is very distinct, some I don't prefer the styling/color, but I enjoy the diversity way better than a cookie cutter subdivision.
Soul crushing to me are people who don't take care of their property and enjoy living in neglect (which plenty of people out there manage just fine without an HOA, I just dont want to roll the dice)
We've always lived in HOA homes (in our 4th now) and they have all been very laid back.
This kind of HOA I belong to is basically the "anti-hillbilly" HOA. You aren't allowed to own 50 cats and dogs free roaming and crapping everywhere, don't leave your rusted out broken down beater in the front lawn, don't let your lawn go to 4 foot weeds (but by all means grow some 6ft tomato plants), your backyard is not your personal firing range, you aren't allowed to have a personal dump of trash that you clear every 6 months, etc.
Our HOA does are for snow/ice services, long term repairs on our private road, and the front entrance maintenance.
Every house is very distinct, some I don't prefer the styling/color, but I enjoy the diversity way better than a cookie cutter subdivision.
Soul crushing to me are people who don't take care of their property and enjoy living in neglect (which plenty of people out there manage just fine without an HOA, I just dont want to roll the dice)
> Soul crushing to me are people who don't take care of their property and enjoy living in neglect.
Why is it soul crushing to you that others enjoy their lives without worrying about their property?
Why is it soul crushing to you that others enjoy their lives without worrying about their property?
Here's the problem I fundementally have with HOA's even ones that are "laid back" is that at any point in time they can decide to not be "laid back" you get one bad idiot in charge of the HOA and then suddenly they start passing all sorts of rules. That is the problem they might be benign but when they fall into the wrong hands they become terrible quickly and in the process can destroy lives and livelihoods.
You may want to make sure you understand how HOAs work before having "fundamental problems" with something.
One bad idiot cannot start passing "all sorts of rules". Getting a super majority vote, doing all the paper work and registering it with the land court all while following applicable laws and statutes isn't something that just randomly happen.
One bad idiot cannot start passing "all sorts of rules". Getting a super majority vote, doing all the paper work and registering it with the land court all while following applicable laws and statutes isn't something that just randomly happen.
It takes a vote by the community (the ones I live in) to enact new rules.
If I had that many terrible neighbors I'd want to move regardless
If I had that many terrible neighbors I'd want to move regardless
Why does this post read like an over the top and rather extreme representation of non-HOA neighborhoods to the point of being just short of a false-dichotomy altogether? It sounds like an awful situation you have but it’s not as if this is how every neighborhood is that isn’t united and governed by HOAs.
my last non hoa neighborhood was worse than that so it read as tame
It turns out a lot of Americans are selfish and their property is a disaster. Getting into rentals can be even worse since they tend to care less.
This guy's understanding of what constitutes "horror" is really high strung.
Like yeah, this stuff might be irritating. Maybe you wanted pinker shutters. But who really cares? Imagine getting bent out of shape about the color of your shutters or having to put up curtains.
Like yeah, this stuff might be irritating. Maybe you wanted pinker shutters. But who really cares? Imagine getting bent out of shape about the color of your shutters or having to put up curtains.
I've lived in a few HOAs in my lifetime.
Ive had my car towed multiple times when I was parked in my designated spot with my parking tag in my window. They didn't care, they just towed it and claimed they coudln't see the tag. Every time it cost me > $300.
I've had the HOA manager show up when I had friends over because it was technically over the allotted "2 guest maximum" for the area. I was just having a game night, it wasn't even an outdoor party.
I've had them literally show up with a measuring tape to check the distance from the curb one of my guests was parked and then come knock on the door to inform me that they were illegally parked and would be towed in the next hour if they didn't move.
yeah, all of that? That's a horror story. Basically every HOA I've ever interacted with or lived under has been nothing but a thinly veiled legally-backed racket to kick back money to towing and lawn care companies.
Ive had my car towed multiple times when I was parked in my designated spot with my parking tag in my window. They didn't care, they just towed it and claimed they coudln't see the tag. Every time it cost me > $300.
I've had the HOA manager show up when I had friends over because it was technically over the allotted "2 guest maximum" for the area. I was just having a game night, it wasn't even an outdoor party.
I've had them literally show up with a measuring tape to check the distance from the curb one of my guests was parked and then come knock on the door to inform me that they were illegally parked and would be towed in the next hour if they didn't move.
yeah, all of that? That's a horror story. Basically every HOA I've ever interacted with or lived under has been nothing but a thinly veiled legally-backed racket to kick back money to towing and lawn care companies.
> over the allotted "2 guest maximum"
How is it even possible that something like that exists...
How is it even possible that something like that exists...
I honestly don't know. It was seriously extreme. Technically you were even supposed to call and alert the HOA manager if you were having any guests over, period, but that wasn't enforced. Like I've said elsewhere in this thread, selective enforcement was the name of the game.
You're entirely missing the point. Yes, having to re-paint your shutters is an annoyance in the scheme of things, but why should you _have_ to? It's your house; why should you _have_ to do what a committee demands?
And yes, you can say that he has to because he's signed the papers, but you'd still be missing the point.
And yes, you can say that he has to because he's signed the papers, but you'd still be missing the point.
> but you'd still be missing the point.
No, I don't think they are. The key thing is that you sign the papers and so does everyone else.
No, I don't think they are. The key thing is that you sign the papers and so does everyone else.
you may have singed the paper but the HOA can change the rules after the fact.
> Imagine getting bent out of shape about the color of your shutters
If you think that that is trivial, imagine how much more trivial and petty it is to get bent out of shape about the color of someone elses shutters.
He's not complaining about not being allowed pink shutters, he's complaining that his neighbours are far too petty because they're getting bent out of shape about the color of someone elses shutters.
If you think that that is trivial, imagine how much more trivial and petty it is to get bent out of shape about the color of someone elses shutters.
He's not complaining about not being allowed pink shutters, he's complaining that his neighbours are far too petty because they're getting bent out of shape about the color of someone elses shutters.
Imagine getting bent out of shape about someone else getting bent out of shape over the color of shutters? Its pure spite.
Yeah, imagine!
I sure would. Where I live, you do you, I do me, they do them.
It is great!
Sometimes we have a chat. Berry vines out of control, or maybe someone needs something. Whatever. That gets done and people are pretty happy.
Want to pick the shutter and trim colors? Several people here would be happy to entertain that so long as the ones wanting to pick are paying.
Me? Nope. And the bonus is nobody will hear from me about the colors, unless it is complementary. Who doesn't like that sort of thing?
Crazy cat lady down the street has a whole garden growing in the easement in front of her house. Passersby will pick and eat some of it. Pretty sure that makes her happy.
I could go on, but the place is very human, at times vibrant and has soul.
Yeah, bent right out of shape. There is just not enough time and energy to deal with all the meta associated with the more strongly regulated neighborhoods.
I basically have every other possible thing to do before worrying about what the other people are doing and so forth. Mutual respect and consideration are lean, easy, human, and definitely the way I want to play it.
All that said, yeah! Some people seem to need all that meta mess. Great! We have places for them to get it, thankfully.
I sure would. Where I live, you do you, I do me, they do them.
It is great!
Sometimes we have a chat. Berry vines out of control, or maybe someone needs something. Whatever. That gets done and people are pretty happy.
Want to pick the shutter and trim colors? Several people here would be happy to entertain that so long as the ones wanting to pick are paying.
Me? Nope. And the bonus is nobody will hear from me about the colors, unless it is complementary. Who doesn't like that sort of thing?
Crazy cat lady down the street has a whole garden growing in the easement in front of her house. Passersby will pick and eat some of it. Pretty sure that makes her happy.
I could go on, but the place is very human, at times vibrant and has soul.
Yeah, bent right out of shape. There is just not enough time and energy to deal with all the meta associated with the more strongly regulated neighborhoods.
I basically have every other possible thing to do before worrying about what the other people are doing and so forth. Mutual respect and consideration are lean, easy, human, and definitely the way I want to play it.
All that said, yeah! Some people seem to need all that meta mess. Great! We have places for them to get it, thankfully.
Imagine caring that your neighbors have pinker shutters or don't have curtains? Imagine caring enough to fine them until they either comply or have to move out?
you’d be surprised. these people exist and are a PITA
Yup. My parents live in an HOA that used to have a woman (who had no official capacity with the HOA other than living in it) drive around in her golf cart every day with a clipboard to note down any violations she spotted. One of her favorite rules to enforce was one that indicated how long you could have your garage door open for (something like 20 mins). Like another commenter's experience above, she too had a ruler she would use to measure various shrubs etc. in hopes of finding a violation.
not a fan of fighting back, but you need to fight back against these type of people.
i would report suspicious activity both to the HOA board and the police. let’s see how they handle this.
Isn’t that exactly what HOAs do? Get bent out of shape and demand home owners paint their shutters the proper shade of beige or they will literally lose their house.
Yeah imagine that. Oh wait that is exactly what the HOA is getting bent out of shape over, and forcing their arbitrary rules on others with escalating fines.
> Imagine getting bent out of shape about the color of your shutters or having to put up curtains.
No need to imagine, as that seems to be exactly what their HOA does.
No need to imagine, as that seems to be exactly what their HOA does.
Seeing lots of posts in this thread about "Americans" and "freedom", but these posters I think are forgetting that the only thing Americans love more than "freedom" (quotes intentional) are controlling other people, which HOAs allow.
Many like "freedom for me but not for thee." Not everybody though. It's more common that I feel comfortable with.
This kind of reminds me of those for and against CoC (Code of Conducts). Some people find them unnecessary and insulting, others can't imagine working/contributing without them. Different strokes for different folks I suppose.
Super interesting downvotes.
Unfathomable downvoting is recently endemic. IDK why.
I've been upvoting as I see cases of it.
I've been upvoting as I see cases of it.
I really wish HN would reapproach their strategy for downvoting. It seems like all too often users take the Reddit-esque "Downvote = Disagree" strategy, which is just absolutely terrible for cultivating legitimate conversation between people that might disagree (but are being respectful and have valid points like the post above).
>I really wish HN would reapproach their strategy for downvoting.
Perhaps a cooling off period after 4 or so.
Lately tho, I can't ascribe many DVs to anything - reasonable or not. It's fairly baffling.
Perhaps a cooling off period after 4 or so.
Lately tho, I can't ascribe many DVs to anything - reasonable or not. It's fairly baffling.
I pay around 15 bucks a month for my HOA. They take care of common land and also the 3 kids playgrounds in the neighborhood. They also have to approve any changes to the exterior of a house which can be annoying.
One interesting thing they do is that for things like new decks or replaced ones, you need to submit an application for approval which should include a building permit by the county. It gives prospective home buyers assurance that certain things were done correctly. Before a house is sold, the seller needs to provide an HOA disclosure which triggers an inspection for which a seller needs to ensure all changes were made with the approval of the HOA. Our seller (an investment property management company) had to fix several things in our house to being them up to code to get those approvals, which helped me as a home buyer.
Besides that, the HOA has been very responsive, we did replace our windows without their approval but it was relatively easy to fix given that they were similar windows.
One interesting thing they do is that for things like new decks or replaced ones, you need to submit an application for approval which should include a building permit by the county. It gives prospective home buyers assurance that certain things were done correctly. Before a house is sold, the seller needs to provide an HOA disclosure which triggers an inspection for which a seller needs to ensure all changes were made with the approval of the HOA. Our seller (an investment property management company) had to fix several things in our house to being them up to code to get those approvals, which helped me as a home buyer.
Besides that, the HOA has been very responsive, we did replace our windows without their approval but it was relatively easy to fix given that they were similar windows.
[deleted]
What I find interesting about where I currently live is rules you'd expect at the HOA level are actually at the township level: how tall your grass can be before it must be cut, how many cars you can park outside and where, maintaining exterior structures like fences, etc. All are laws in the town I live in. I've never seen that before.
HOAs allow townships to kick enforcement of these minor things down a level. They also get to dodge asking voters to approve a tax as it's now in the form of an HOA fee.
This is exactly what they do - They're just another corporation with state backing that you have to pay to live. State capitalism.
I think the difference would be that with an HOA there is a resource of people eager to enforce these rules vs the township that probably can’t be bothered to?
I haven't lived here too long yet. But I have noticed several notices placed on lawns regarding the length of the grass. At first I assumed they were HOA notices, but upon closer inspection they were from the city.
edit: here is one of the notices if curious: https://i.imgur.com/xJABpPf.jpg
edit: here is one of the notices if curious: https://i.imgur.com/xJABpPf.jpg
This grass look pretty good to me. I expect mowing grass almost to the ground and then watering and fertilizing so it would not die from such abuse is a huge waste of resources on a national scale. Obsession with low mowed lawns is something I just cannot understand.
I haven't had any issues with my HOA. There are bad HOAs, but I feel like for the average person they're fine. Beats having a neighbor that decides to put junk in the front yard, including a toilet. That happened to my parents, who don't live in an HOA neighborhood.
We rented for a year in a town sized HOA that had pools, playgrounds, pools, and other ammenities. A seemingly very nice area in one of the top median income counties in the country.
They ran a contest to see who had the most amazing yard. The first, second, and third place finishers all ended up with massive fines, and had to tear out tens of thousands of dollars worth of landscaping.
It turns out that their wonderful yards had not complied with every policy and procedure of the HOA.
We purposely have bought in non HOA areas now and almost every year hear horror stories from co-workers and friends that confirm our choice.
Incidentally, when we moved out of the rental and bought our non HOA house, our car insurance dropped substantially. The crime in the HOA town was much higher.
They ran a contest to see who had the most amazing yard. The first, second, and third place finishers all ended up with massive fines, and had to tear out tens of thousands of dollars worth of landscaping.
It turns out that their wonderful yards had not complied with every policy and procedure of the HOA.
We purposely have bought in non HOA areas now and almost every year hear horror stories from co-workers and friends that confirm our choice.
Incidentally, when we moved out of the rental and bought our non HOA house, our car insurance dropped substantially. The crime in the HOA town was much higher.
Sounds like the HOA people were angry they didn't win...
[deleted]
I think an important thing is that there is not much common property in the HOA's domain, which therefore limits the fees the can collect. When there are high fees, HOA's attract the worst of society.
My HOA is $100/yr and the only common property are some pillars at the 2 entrances. We do have rules that I actually like, for example:
- don't leave your trash cans visible from the street
- no driveway basketball goals or other sports equipment
- no motor homes or boats parked in driveways
- no long-term parking on the street; guests for parties are fine
- fences have to be approved. We have 5-6 different kinds that they accept, but not 30
- sheds and other detached storage buildings have to be approved. Anything attached to the house doesn't require approval
These rules to me are to maintain property values of the neighborhood. It's not like the HOA's that insist you get a new roof every 10 years or paint your house every 5 years, or the HOA hires someone to do it and sends you the bill. My sister was in one of those in FL for a vacation home and she sold it, not just for that reason, but it was definitely a factor.
My HOA is $100/yr and the only common property are some pillars at the 2 entrances. We do have rules that I actually like, for example:
- don't leave your trash cans visible from the street
- no driveway basketball goals or other sports equipment
- no motor homes or boats parked in driveways
- no long-term parking on the street; guests for parties are fine
- fences have to be approved. We have 5-6 different kinds that they accept, but not 30
- sheds and other detached storage buildings have to be approved. Anything attached to the house doesn't require approval
These rules to me are to maintain property values of the neighborhood. It's not like the HOA's that insist you get a new roof every 10 years or paint your house every 5 years, or the HOA hires someone to do it and sends you the bill. My sister was in one of those in FL for a vacation home and she sold it, not just for that reason, but it was definitely a factor.
> My HOA is $100/yr and the only common property are some pillars at the 2 entrances.
Yeah well that's a lot of price to be paying for a couple of pillars. I'd rather pay $0. I'm not paying $100 to some random dude. They aren't the IRS.
> We do have rules that I actually like, for example:
That doesn't mean I have to like them. I shouldn't have to pay my $100 to be subject to restrictions.
> - no driveway basketball goals or other sports equipment
> - no motor homes or boats parked in driveways
What? Why do you care? It's not your home, let them do what they want
> - fences have to be approved. We have 5-6 different kinds that they accept, but not 30
I'll build my own damn fence. I'll build my fence how I like it.
> - sheds and other detached storage buildings have to be approved. Anything attached to the house doesn't require approval
I think this is a city building code issue for safety reasons, in any case the HOA should have no say over it.
> These rules to me are to maintain property values of the neighborhood.
I have ZERO responsibility to maintain YOUR property value. And if I truly own it (i.e. not under mortgage), I have ZERO responsibility to maintain my own property value. I only have responsibility to be a good citizen and not be a nuisance or public health hazard to you. A boat in my driveway does nothing to you, and it's not upto you to tell me where to put my boat.
Yeah well that's a lot of price to be paying for a couple of pillars. I'd rather pay $0. I'm not paying $100 to some random dude. They aren't the IRS.
> We do have rules that I actually like, for example:
That doesn't mean I have to like them. I shouldn't have to pay my $100 to be subject to restrictions.
> - no driveway basketball goals or other sports equipment
> - no motor homes or boats parked in driveways
What? Why do you care? It's not your home, let them do what they want
> - fences have to be approved. We have 5-6 different kinds that they accept, but not 30
I'll build my own damn fence. I'll build my fence how I like it.
> - sheds and other detached storage buildings have to be approved. Anything attached to the house doesn't require approval
I think this is a city building code issue for safety reasons, in any case the HOA should have no say over it.
> These rules to me are to maintain property values of the neighborhood.
I have ZERO responsibility to maintain YOUR property value. And if I truly own it (i.e. not under mortgage), I have ZERO responsibility to maintain my own property value. I only have responsibility to be a good citizen and not be a nuisance or public health hazard to you. A boat in my driveway does nothing to you, and it's not upto you to tell me where to put my boat.
The way to beat your fence restriction is to make a fence-like installation of solar panels. There are laws to stop HOAs from blocking solar panels. This is also a great trick to get past zoning restrictions on fence height. It's not a fence, it's solar.
Unfortunately, in some areas you just cannot find one without HOA.
How much of a US-specific problem is this? Do similar entities exist in most countries, and do they work any better?
In France it's usually limited to a single building or a few building built at the same time, and usually called a "copropriété". People can have their vote if they own their appartment. They decide things like "don't hang dry your clothes on the balcony", "don't change the way window blinds look", "here are the trees that we're going to plant in the park", "this is how garbage is handled", "should we have an employee taking care of cleaning and garbage, or should we use an exterior service?". They usually work mostly fine.
Edit: a sibling comment mentionned something about a village where you can't freely change the color of your blinds. We also have that, usually on the municipal level, to preserve heritage/the way a place look. For example, some communes from the "Pays des Pierres Dorées" have strict rules about this https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierres_dor%C3%A9es
Edit: a sibling comment mentionned something about a village where you can't freely change the color of your blinds. We also have that, usually on the municipal level, to preserve heritage/the way a place look. For example, some communes from the "Pays des Pierres Dorées" have strict rules about this https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierres_dor%C3%A9es
I lived in a village in the UK where windows and doors had to be painted a certain way, you couldn't have visible satellite dishes, you couldn't change the structure, and there were other rules about random things like no tents on front lawns (for some reason? nobody does anyway though.) I think it's pretty uncommon here.
I liked it - mostly sensible rules designed to preserve heritage for everyone.
I liked it - mostly sensible rules designed to preserve heritage for everyone.
Yes, in the UK, most blocks and estates where they’re dominated by leaseholds (as opposed to freeholds) have a property management company that will outsource that to an agent.
Conceptually, that sounds similar to these HOAs in the US, so I don’t get why the difference in attitude towards them.
Conceptually, that sounds similar to these HOAs in the US, so I don’t get why the difference in attitude towards them.
In cities of India, condo building are called society, & the HOA equivalent is also called Society. Old or near to retire or retired uncles serve on those Society boards. they make rules like not allowing any occupant renter or homeowner from different religion or with different food preference or singles or Bachelors or different sexual preferences.
It’s pretty common in Scandinavia I don’t know about other European countries. But there are many advantages and disadvantages to HOA. They can negotiate collective deals on internet and tv etc but a lot of mandatory expenses are pushed on you.
HOAs are really just another form of government.
You -> HOA -> City/Town -> State -> Federal
You pay fees and taxes to all of them.
You -> HOA -> City/Town -> State -> Federal
You pay fees and taxes to all of them.
Sort of. They function just like another layer of government, but the problem is that they're not actually part of the government, so they don't have checks and balances and they're not held to the same standards.
And in theory, HOA's compete with each other. One HOA with a $500 monthly fee will likely be outcompeted by a neighboring one with a $20 monthly fee (all else being equal)
You know what is worse than living with a HOA? Running one. I live in a small townhouse complex. Just a dozen units. Nobody wants to be HOA president but we legally need one. I've been de facto forced to run the HOA. It is a joyless thankless task. The number of times I've had to deal with improperly dumped furniture or the city inspector demanding fire extinguisher inspections in insane! My next house will be in a hoa-free area So i can avoid having to work for free.
> Nobody wants to be HOA president but we legally need one.
Usually, there's a process to change the rules or extinguish the HOA by majority vote. If no one thinks it is important enough to be worth running, extinguishment sounds like a good idea.
Not volunteering for the job would probably help move that process along.
> My next house will be in a hoa-free area So i can avoid having to work for free.
Most HOA’s have plenty of people willing to fill leadership positions (and then hire an HOA management company to do virtually all the actual work.)
Usually, there's a process to change the rules or extinguish the HOA by majority vote. If no one thinks it is important enough to be worth running, extinguishment sounds like a good idea.
Not volunteering for the job would probably help move that process along.
> My next house will be in a hoa-free area So i can avoid having to work for free.
Most HOA’s have plenty of people willing to fill leadership positions (and then hire an HOA management company to do virtually all the actual work.)
Can you just be HOA president and route all emails about it to the Trash?
Postpone all HOA meetings indefinitely... Let all requests go to voicemail, etc...
If anyone accosts you about HOA matters in the street say "I think that's best bought up after the next HOA presidential election"
Postpone all HOA meetings indefinitely... Let all requests go to voicemail, etc...
If anyone accosts you about HOA matters in the street say "I think that's best bought up after the next HOA presidential election"
What I find really interesting is that I keep hearing how Americans love their freedom and hate being told what to do and how to behave. Yet HOAs are such stereotypical American institution....I've lived in a few different countries and I can't think of anything as opressive to your homeowner rights as American HOAs. And people enter them willingly? Can someone explain why? Are the benefits of living in a managed neighbourhood really worth being told when to cut your grass and when you can take your bins out and what you can and cannot park in your own paid for driveway?
Freedom is generally understood to be a trade-off with various levels of control and power. There's a lot of subjectivity in the freedom concept, especially in America. In other countries it's treated more monolithically when talking about America, but that's not always fair.
An HOA itself also falls under various systems of control, from interpersonal social control e.g. within its board, to the levels of legal systems inside of which it operates.
The benefits really depend on you. Some people like the HOA for perfectly fine social reasons. Are you after status? Maybe the strictest HOA neighborhood just has it. Are you after structure and control at a fine-grained level? Great, and might as well get on the board while you are at it. More structure makes a lot of people feel safer and even more free inside their own skin (freedom to see one's preferred perspectives celebrated! Feels good in that you can be yourself); that's just how psychology works.
Another important factor: Will you even be home much? Do you just need a place to stay that's orderly, pleasant, and convenient, and you can afford to hire people to take care of upkeep? Or is your home more of the main place for you, a subjectively calibrated environment? A big part of your identity?
Instead of bashing HOAs I think it's a good idea to educate people in living and lifestyle design. You can then find your best-fit from the inside (of you) out, and it's less about avoiding stuff like the HOA.
An HOA itself also falls under various systems of control, from interpersonal social control e.g. within its board, to the levels of legal systems inside of which it operates.
The benefits really depend on you. Some people like the HOA for perfectly fine social reasons. Are you after status? Maybe the strictest HOA neighborhood just has it. Are you after structure and control at a fine-grained level? Great, and might as well get on the board while you are at it. More structure makes a lot of people feel safer and even more free inside their own skin (freedom to see one's preferred perspectives celebrated! Feels good in that you can be yourself); that's just how psychology works.
Another important factor: Will you even be home much? Do you just need a place to stay that's orderly, pleasant, and convenient, and you can afford to hire people to take care of upkeep? Or is your home more of the main place for you, a subjectively calibrated environment? A big part of your identity?
Instead of bashing HOAs I think it's a good idea to educate people in living and lifestyle design. You can then find your best-fit from the inside (of you) out, and it's less about avoiding stuff like the HOA.
> And people enter them willingly? Can someone explain why?
For some, the house they want happens to be in an HOA neighborhood, so they oblige. For others, they like the "order" that the HOA demands of the homeowners that live in that zone - grass and roofs and paints are all "approved" which definitely provides some semblance of consistency.
In my experience, HOAs are exactly like this article describes. People that like power for power's sake becoming anal about the people they have control over, under the guise of "consistency" and "order".
For some, the house they want happens to be in an HOA neighborhood, so they oblige. For others, they like the "order" that the HOA demands of the homeowners that live in that zone - grass and roofs and paints are all "approved" which definitely provides some semblance of consistency.
In my experience, HOAs are exactly like this article describes. People that like power for power's sake becoming anal about the people they have control over, under the guise of "consistency" and "order".
People that like power for power's sake becoming anal about the people they have control over, under the guise of "consistency" and "order"
It's easy to say this if you've never been on one, where you see how unbelievably petty and stupid people can be about sliding their own exceptions by, or just trying to get away with not obeying the rules until someone demands they do, or you have to mediate a real dispute between neighbours that's sort-of-but-not-really covered by the rules.
Nothing has corroded my belief that humanity is capable of governing itself in a sane, common sense manner, as much as serving on Strata (Canadian version of an HOA for a condo building) for several years.
It's easy to say this if you've never been on one, where you see how unbelievably petty and stupid people can be about sliding their own exceptions by, or just trying to get away with not obeying the rules until someone demands they do, or you have to mediate a real dispute between neighbours that's sort-of-but-not-really covered by the rules.
Nothing has corroded my belief that humanity is capable of governing itself in a sane, common sense manner, as much as serving on Strata (Canadian version of an HOA for a condo building) for several years.
> Nothing has corroded my belief that humanity is capable of governing itself in a sane, common sense manner, as much as serving on Strata (Canadian version of an HOA for a condo building) for several years.
People cannot govern without injecting extreme bias. With regard to something like home ownership, I'd like my home to be subject to only my own biases. Power corrupts absolutely, even at the smallest scale.
People cannot govern without injecting extreme bias. With regard to something like home ownership, I'd like my home to be subject to only my own biases. Power corrupts absolutely, even at the smallest scale.
This is a truism that extends to any governing body. But there are people that having lived under the tyranny of power mongering HOAs, work to keep the rules to a minimum.
We love our freedom, but also love our property values and really don't seem to value the freedom of others as much as we should. Add the love of power tripping and some spots of actual corruption, and you get the American HOA. Its like the local PTA with fines. In a lot of ways, you can think of it as American who just want to be left alone taken advantage of by busy bodies with the rule of law on their side. When it breaks, it breaks badly.
You don’t get the hoa for the rules, but for keeping the kind of people who wouldn’t like those rules out.
> Americans love their freedom and hate being told what to do and how to behave.... And people enter them willingly
I think you answered your own statement. Americans don't blanket hate being told what to do, they hate being told to do X when they haven't agreed beforehand what they could be nagged to do X. Seems pretty reasonable.
For completeness, I'm sure that there is also a segment that on joining an HOA is a "temporarily inconvenienced dictator" that imagines themselves ascending to the HOA board and being able to write the rules, so they won't ever have to be told what to do, they'll do the telling.
I think you answered your own statement. Americans don't blanket hate being told what to do, they hate being told to do X when they haven't agreed beforehand what they could be nagged to do X. Seems pretty reasonable.
For completeness, I'm sure that there is also a segment that on joining an HOA is a "temporarily inconvenienced dictator" that imagines themselves ascending to the HOA board and being able to write the rules, so they won't ever have to be told what to do, they'll do the telling.
>> I've lived in a few different countries and I can't think of anything as opressive to your homeowner rights as American HOAs.
Try Japan. Could tell you plenty of stories, but patio11's stories about being an entrepreneur and trying to rent an apartment sum it up pretty well.
Try Japan. Could tell you plenty of stories, but patio11's stories about being an entrepreneur and trying to rent an apartment sum it up pretty well.
Americans are full of contradictions like that. They formed their nation out of spite for monarchy, but every chance they get they try to install their own. The Bushes, the Clintons, the Kennedys.
The real power of the US lies in Congress and the judicial system. The president is really just an administrative role, and that's over a lifetime bureaucracy that has managed presidential power for decades. Executive orders are more a thing now, but they can be overridden by the next administration. Sure the president has veto power, but even it can be overridden.
Dynasty is what you're thinking, and really, our federal system is designed so one person can't have much power at all, other than the power of the pulpit.
Nothing like a lifetime, and multi-generational monarchy.
Dynasty is what you're thinking, and really, our federal system is designed so one person can't have much power at all, other than the power of the pulpit.
Nothing like a lifetime, and multi-generational monarchy.
When state institutions act in a way that benefits them (keep out the riff raff, support real estate appreciation) or they think the force of government will only fall on others there are fewer cries of "freedom"/"liberty." For another example see the reactionary movement "all lives matter."
Is it bad to want state institutions to act in a way that benefits you? Isn't that "government for the people"?
No. I guess my point is that self-interest trumps high minded ideals.
In some regions of the country, HOA's are more or less a given if you want a newer house.
I don't necessarily want to live in one, but there are essentially no houses built in the last 50 years in my area for sale that don't sit in an HOA.
I don't necessarily want to live in one, but there are essentially no houses built in the last 50 years in my area for sale that don't sit in an HOA.
You can buy a plot of land and hire a homebuilder.
That ends up being easier said than done, too.
Most "buildable lots" tend to be in subdivisions ... which already have HOAs. "Infill lots" tend to either be in terrible neighborhoods or amazing neighborhoods that are out of reach, budget-wise, for most.
Building on a rural "plot of land" is often more restricted than you'd think, due to zoning regs on minimum lot sizes and rules about water meter availability. And frankly, buying and caring for 10 acres puts the whole project out of reach for most.
Not to mention internet availability is problematic as you get into rural locations with more flexibility.
Most "buildable lots" tend to be in subdivisions ... which already have HOAs. "Infill lots" tend to either be in terrible neighborhoods or amazing neighborhoods that are out of reach, budget-wise, for most.
Building on a rural "plot of land" is often more restricted than you'd think, due to zoning regs on minimum lot sizes and rules about water meter availability. And frankly, buying and caring for 10 acres puts the whole project out of reach for most.
Not to mention internet availability is problematic as you get into rural locations with more flexibility.
Don’t forget that most people live in towns/cities, counties, states, etc. All levels can and have made idiotic rules. Does anyone really think that the FCC’s current interpretation of Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 is anything other than the droolings of a moron? The congress that wrote the act was apparently not firing on all cylinders either, but at least the act is pretty coherent.
Also, don’t forget that not all HOAs make the stereotypical idiotic rules about grass length and garbage bins. Some of them have invented entirely novel classes of idiotic rules! And many of them are just boring and stick to maintaining common areas for the use of residents. Cleaning the neighborhood pool, mowing the median of an avenue or two, trimming the trees, and so on.
Also, don’t forget that not all HOAs make the stereotypical idiotic rules about grass length and garbage bins. Some of them have invented entirely novel classes of idiotic rules! And many of them are just boring and stick to maintaining common areas for the use of residents. Cleaning the neighborhood pool, mowing the median of an avenue or two, trimming the trees, and so on.
> people enter them willingly?
Sometimes a developer builds a group of homes, offers parks, gym, walkways, street lights etc, and until all homes are not sold yet, or build, manages those common things. Buyers of those houses willingly by a house with a perspective HOA. Once all homes are sold, developer hands over the maintenance responsibility to group of elected home owners.
Now if a colony already has a HOA and somebody sells their house, the buyer has to be in the HOA in most of the cases, very few exceptions like if seller fails to disclose that it's HOA, seller does not give the HOA paperwork to sign and such.
I think there's a price difference also between a HOA homes and non HOA homes.
Sometimes a developer builds a group of homes, offers parks, gym, walkways, street lights etc, and until all homes are not sold yet, or build, manages those common things. Buyers of those houses willingly by a house with a perspective HOA. Once all homes are sold, developer hands over the maintenance responsibility to group of elected home owners.
Now if a colony already has a HOA and somebody sells their house, the buyer has to be in the HOA in most of the cases, very few exceptions like if seller fails to disclose that it's HOA, seller does not give the HOA paperwork to sign and such.
I think there's a price difference also between a HOA homes and non HOA homes.
People who love freedom tend to also love the freedom to tell others what to do.
Americans love things that keep the "undesirable" people out. HOAs are basically just white gatekeepers. They're legally backed rackets in every instance I've ever had to interact with them.
This does not match my personal experience. I live in a 10,000 person neighborhood that is covered by an HOA, and it is a very diverse place. In fact, one of the things that I like about living here is that there are people from all over the world living here.
I'm genuinely glad that is the experience you've had. I hope that model would be the one that's more common.
Unfortunately in my experience it's the exact opposite. Here they're used and abused by exclusively rich, mostly-white neighborhoods to keep them that way.
Unfortunately in my experience it's the exact opposite. Here they're used and abused by exclusively rich, mostly-white neighborhoods to keep them that way.
You may be conflating class and race (it's a common error). A neighborhood of wealthier, successful people (regardless of race) probably want their neighborhood to be a quieter, nice-looking, pleasant place.
I've lived in both HOA and non-HOA neighborhoods. If there's a barrier to entry such as price, then generally a more successful (and hopefully more refined) type of person will move in, and generally the homes will stay nice-looking without rules. Without that, then an HOA to try to maintain an aesthetic baseline can be very helpful. All the homeowners benefit from maintaining an attractive neighborhood, in that their home values will be higher.
I've lived in both HOA and non-HOA neighborhoods. If there's a barrier to entry such as price, then generally a more successful (and hopefully more refined) type of person will move in, and generally the homes will stay nice-looking without rules. Without that, then an HOA to try to maintain an aesthetic baseline can be very helpful. All the homeowners benefit from maintaining an attractive neighborhood, in that their home values will be higher.
This matches my experience. Our neighborhood is rich in a mix of housing. There are large apartment buildings with small, relatively affordable apartments, townhouse of 2 sizes, and then single family homes that run from large to very large. I assume that the many people who own one-bedroom condos are just as interested as the people who own the six-bedroom houses in keeping the common areas well maintained.
I'm not conflating class and race, I'm establishing a connection between the two. I'm very aware that it's generally a "rich" thing. That doesn't mean that race plays no factor, and even then, if it's purely a class issue then it's still an issue in my eyes.
Please elaborate on how they keep "undesirable" people out - a statement like this has no meaning without any evidence. The HOA is not involved in the purchase of a house in any way.
Most HOAs have enough legalese baked into them that they can even hold eviction over tenants heads. It's absolutely a class weapon that gets used as a bludgeon. And if they can't technically evict you, they sure can make your life hell until you leave. Selective enforcement is the name of the game with these types.
[deleted]
American Dad covered this - Roger decided to get back at Stan so corrupted the HOA and did all sorts of things like arranging trash pickup, installing a hydrant on his lawn, etc.
If the HOA don’t like you, it seems there little recourse.
If the HOA don’t like you, it seems there little recourse.
They can't keep you from moving in, but once you do, they can nickel and dime you with fines and make your life miserable until you move out.
And they absolutely will. After I moved out of my last HOA, I found out the towing company had a flat rate kickback to the HOA organization for every tow they made. Genuinely baffles me how it's even legal.
My HOA has rules designed to prevent blue collar people from living in the neighborhood. No work icons on any vehicle parked outside a garage.
The HOA can not restrict purchase sure, but can specifically target PoC for "violations" while ignoring the white households who are committing violations. This has the effect of working to force these folks out and maintaining the racial status quo of the HOA.
In the 70s (I think) and before, HOA were definitely active gatekeepers though against PoC, and then after that with new laws passed, moved to these more "subtle" methods.
In the 70s (I think) and before, HOA were definitely active gatekeepers though against PoC, and then after that with new laws passed, moved to these more "subtle" methods.
[deleted]
How do they keep people out? The HOA wouldn't prevent someone from "buying in" would they? It's not that there is an interview process, is there?
That was the original reason for HOA's. After the supreme court ruled racial covenants were unenforceable the idea was that HOA's could enforce them.
How though? Many people seem to claim that that's what's being done, I'm wondering how.
The HOA's had rules that black and other undesirables weren't allowed. Enforceable since HOA's were a private associations.
However the supreme court also ruled that was unenforceable too.
But that didn't happen before developers realized that they could use HOA's as a cash cow. You sell a house once. But you can collect HOA dues for a couple of decades after. There is a case in Daily City where it took decades for home owners to get rid of the HOA. That collected dues and provided absolutely nothing in return.
However the supreme court also ruled that was unenforceable too.
But that didn't happen before developers realized that they could use HOA's as a cash cow. You sell a house once. But you can collect HOA dues for a couple of decades after. There is a case in Daily City where it took decades for home owners to get rid of the HOA. That collected dues and provided absolutely nothing in return.
Depending on the hoa of course, but my answer is yes. Yes it is. As long as I’m on the board ;)
In all seriousness though, I hate the bureaucracy but being on the board gives me the opportunity to keep things in check.
In all seriousness though, I hate the bureaucracy but being on the board gives me the opportunity to keep things in check.
This is a weird comment. You acknowledge that people enter these arrangements willingly, yet call the arrangements oppressive and wonder why anybody would submit to them. People form or join HOAs because they want to. You ask whether the benefits are worth it... surely you realize "worth it" is inherently subjective and is up for any individual to decide themselves.
> "I keep hearing how Americans love their freedom and hate being told what to do and how to behave"
Consider that most Americans do not live under HOAs. Don't you think it likely that the Americans who exemplify the stereotypical traits you list are likely not the ones choosing to live under HOAs?
> "I keep hearing how Americans love their freedom and hate being told what to do and how to behave"
Consider that most Americans do not live under HOAs. Don't you think it likely that the Americans who exemplify the stereotypical traits you list are likely not the ones choosing to live under HOAs?
It doesn't seem like they do it that willingly. You can't just buy a house in the HoA area and opt out.
If that's the definition of willingly, than i suppose most citizens of dictatorships are willing participants.
If that's the definition of willingly, than i suppose most citizens of dictatorships are willing participants.
Are you telling me that you can just opt of the democracy you currently live in? HOA's have rules and votes. The bylaws can be changed. It just may hurt your idealisms that most people in them are either apathetic or like the rules the way they are.
>People form or join HOAs because they want to
Not from my experience. Try finding a non-HOA house near any major city. From all the friends I know who are homeowners, not a single one got into HOA willingly.
One managed to find a home about 20 miles from Seattle that wasn't HOA-managed. The others had to settle for an HOA house, because there were none available within a reasonable driving distance from the city that weren't HOA.
Sure, this is just my anecdata. But you should check how many people explicitly are looking for HOA vs. how many just settle for it. I hate HOAs with passion, but when I decide to buy a house, I am already mentally getting ready to settle for an HOA one, simply because of the location.
Not from my experience. Try finding a non-HOA house near any major city. From all the friends I know who are homeowners, not a single one got into HOA willingly.
One managed to find a home about 20 miles from Seattle that wasn't HOA-managed. The others had to settle for an HOA house, because there were none available within a reasonable driving distance from the city that weren't HOA.
Sure, this is just my anecdata. But you should check how many people explicitly are looking for HOA vs. how many just settle for it. I hate HOAs with passion, but when I decide to buy a house, I am already mentally getting ready to settle for an HOA one, simply because of the location.
Who do you think you're fooling? HOAs are not termite damage concealed from buyers at the time of purchase. The existence of HOAs is disclosed before the sale and every single person who chooses to buy a home in an HOA neighborhood has weighed the pros and cons and decided the pros outweighted the cons. I have never lived in an HOA neighborhood and, for as long as my preferences remain the same, I never will. I have never and will never be forced to buy a home in an HOA neighborhood against my will.
Somebody living in an HOA neighborhood might reasonably claim to regret their decision, but it was their decision. Some people want to have their cake and eat it too; they want to live in that nice pretty HOA neighborhood but don't want the HOA that made it a nice neighborhood. Such people are immature. You may as well choose to live in the woods, then complain about trees.
Somebody living in an HOA neighborhood might reasonably claim to regret their decision, but it was their decision. Some people want to have their cake and eat it too; they want to live in that nice pretty HOA neighborhood but don't want the HOA that made it a nice neighborhood. Such people are immature. You may as well choose to live in the woods, then complain about trees.
> Who do you think you're fooling? HOAs are not termite damage concealed from buyers at the time of purchase.
At no point I claimed it was concealed ahead of purchase. It wasn't, it was known.
>Somebody living in an HOA neighborhood might reasonably claim to regret their decision, but it was their decision.
Yeah, it was their decision. They did it, despite hating the idea of joining an HOA. Simply because there were no houses for acceptable prices within a driving distance from the city. That's the complaint. No one is saying "they got tricked into it" or something.
At no point I claimed it was concealed ahead of purchase. It wasn't, it was known.
>Somebody living in an HOA neighborhood might reasonably claim to regret their decision, but it was their decision.
Yeah, it was their decision. They did it, despite hating the idea of joining an HOA. Simply because there were no houses for acceptable prices within a driving distance from the city. That's the complaint. No one is saying "they got tricked into it" or something.
Done it many times, no problem. People who say "there are no HOA neighborhoods" typically mean there are not any neighborhoods that don't have HOAs but look like those that do have HOAs.
It's not always willingly, there are plenty of times I've been forced into moving into an HOA because of lack of choice and availability, or them being the only option in a given area, etc...
> It's not always willingly, there are plenty of times I've been forced into moving into an HOA because of lack of choice and availability, or them being the only option in a given area,
This is exactly the reason we're in our current HOA home. It was the only viable option at that time.
It's been a fairly terrible experience w/ the HOA inventing absurd crap some times (non-existent shed on thimble-sized front lawn) and selectively enforcing other times (reporting my kid's grad sign & residents' Biden signs but not Trump signs).
This is exactly the reason we're in our current HOA home. It was the only viable option at that time.
It's been a fairly terrible experience w/ the HOA inventing absurd crap some times (non-existent shed on thimble-sized front lawn) and selectively enforcing other times (reporting my kid's grad sign & residents' Biden signs but not Trump signs).
Surely there’s a separation of powers between those that make the rules and those who judge if they have been broken?
No. Just one board doing both.
It's also common for HOA boards members to post their friends for elections. I was on the board in our last neighborhood. All members are pals after a few months.
It's also common for HOA boards members to post their friends for elections. I was on the board in our last neighborhood. All members are pals after a few months.
Report both signs and then sue for civil rights violations if one side is ignored.
Typically there are some benefits, like a community pool or just mowing common areas. But yeah, if I could have found a house without an HOA I would have.
The mundane answer is that you don't necessarily have a choice within your desired combination of budget + location + quality + ...
It protects property values for the entire neighborhood.
It's very hard to sell homes for top dollar when your next door neighbor has old toilets in their drive way, or parked cars on cinder blocks. Or someone who wants to raise chickens in their backyard. Just makes the entire place look bad and property values will diminish, affecting one of your biggest investments.
It's very hard to sell homes for top dollar when your next door neighbor has old toilets in their drive way, or parked cars on cinder blocks. Or someone who wants to raise chickens in their backyard. Just makes the entire place look bad and property values will diminish, affecting one of your biggest investments.
[deleted]
> Can someone explain why?
I like order, and I do not trust most people to behave responsibly. I am more than happy to be told when to cut my grass if it also comes with the guarantee that my next-door neighbor is not going to be throwing wild house parties after dark, or turning his driveway into a junkyard, or running a kennel in his backyard, etc. Some people might be willing to tolerate this kind of barbarism, but not me, so I will gladly consign myself to the restrictions of HOAs.
I like order, and I do not trust most people to behave responsibly. I am more than happy to be told when to cut my grass if it also comes with the guarantee that my next-door neighbor is not going to be throwing wild house parties after dark, or turning his driveway into a junkyard, or running a kennel in his backyard, etc. Some people might be willing to tolerate this kind of barbarism, but not me, so I will gladly consign myself to the restrictions of HOAs.
Question out of curiosity:
I’m German so I don’t know the US law that well but don’t you for example have laws that forbid being noisy after a certain hour of the day?
If my neighbours were throwing a loud party past 10pm I could simply call the police/ Ordnungsamt (police light) and they’d tell them to quiet down.
If my neighbours were throwing a loud party past 10pm I could simply call the police/ Ordnungsamt (police light) and they’d tell them to quiet down.
It depends on where you live. In an incorporated area (town/city) generally yes. An issue though is in a city the enforcement of these kinds of things can be low priority, an HOA is generally more effective from that standpoint.
Local noise ordinances are only as effective as the police force which enforces them. Where I live, the police do not take this responsibility seriously. The hammer of the HOA is a necessity to ensure that peace and quiet is maintained.
You could also swap out the sheriff, there's a vote for that. Conversely, I once rented from a landlord who was financially overextended, and the first sign of that was that he stopped paying for trash removal. The following week, the heating failed. One call to code enforcement (this was NY State) was enough to get things fixed until we moved out. It's hard to imagine tenant's safety and comfort to be high priority in a HOA, their purpose is to keep property values up.
I'm in Sydney Australia and whole-city laws cover noise. Yes, Police can be called for excessive noise outside the permitted hours.
Several years ago, our next door neighbour decided to get into the meat delivery business and parked his van in his front yard overnight. It had a petrol engine for a refrigeration unit that ran constantly. The Police came around and advised them to switch it off or move it somewhere else.
Several years ago, our next door neighbour decided to get into the meat delivery business and parked his van in his front yard overnight. It had a petrol engine for a refrigeration unit that ran constantly. The Police came around and advised them to switch it off or move it somewhere else.
Throwing a late house party is barbarism?
Yes, it is--at least to those of us who respect our neighbors and do not think we have the right to impair their enjoyment of peace and quiet within the four corners of their residences.
I mean, it's not all black and white though, right? I'd absolutely call police if my neighbours were throwing a party every evening for 6 months a year, but an occasional party that goes to 3am on a warm summer night? I'm probably not going to. It seems like HOA would pursue the second one with full force, even though there is such thing as common sense.
As a brit I find these interesting. We don't have them. Planning law is a bit tighter. And there are laws about party walls. But HoAs just aren't a thing here...
In many areas, the local government _requires_ an HOA for all new developments. It's an awful situation.
I'll never live in an HOA neighborhood if I can help it!
I'll never live in an HOA neighborhood if I can help it!
I wonder if HOA neighbourhoods are cheaper for the city?
I could imagine costs of policing being lower and various kinds of complaints being dealt with by the HOA before it gets up to the city.
I could imagine costs of policing being lower and various kinds of complaints being dealt with by the HOA before it gets up to the city.
HOAs could be studied as what happens with poor government models.
If you ever thought you want single party rule, you might be able to look to HOAs as a cautionary tale.
I’m biased, lived in one that a lemonade stand war that would have made Animal Farm seem like a lesson in good government. The sex scandal and the embezzlement didn’t help change my opinion later.
If you ever thought you want single party rule, you might be able to look to HOAs as a cautionary tale.
I’m biased, lived in one that a lemonade stand war that would have made Animal Farm seem like a lesson in good government. The sex scandal and the embezzlement didn’t help change my opinion later.
I'm planning to buy an apartment in Chicago (Lincoln Park). All these apartment buildings have HOA fees from $500 to $1k per month, so it seems to be pretty unavoidable here. Does this mean I should just avoid buying in the city all together? Renting for a lifetime doesn't seem great either.
The article addresses this early on and mentions that it is specifically critiquing detached dwelling ("neighborhood") HOAs.
> condominiums are a different animal entirely in which you share ownership of the home with the HOA, who provides very specific and substantial services. As well, with condos most people recognize that property use is both restricted and totally necessary due to the communal nature of the arrangement.
> What I'm going to focus on from here on are mandatory HOAs in non-condominium neighborhoods
> condominiums are a different animal entirely in which you share ownership of the home with the HOA, who provides very specific and substantial services. As well, with condos most people recognize that property use is both restricted and totally necessary due to the communal nature of the arrangement.
> What I'm going to focus on from here on are mandatory HOAs in non-condominium neighborhoods
Those fees pay for common property (walls, elevators, roof—everything outside the paint) and amenities. They can be spendy, but they’re unavoidable. You pay them whether you rent or own, the only question is how.
If you buy a house, you don’t pay those fees, but you still pay to replace the roof, paint the house, deal with water intrusion, etc. Such are the joys of being a homeowner.
If you buy a house, you don’t pay those fees, but you still pay to replace the roof, paint the house, deal with water intrusion, etc. Such are the joys of being a homeowner.
I don’t know about Chicago specifically, but HOAs in buildings are generally pretty different from hoas in neighborhoods.
They tend to handle all the common space issues like roofs and elevators, so they serve a real purpose other than being the property value police, which is also why they cost more.
Because you’re shoulder to shoulder with more people, rules enforcement is more important as well, although as always YMMV.
As a data point contrary to all the horror stories, I’ve been in a HOA in a small building for years and always appreciated what they got done.
They tend to handle all the common space issues like roofs and elevators, so they serve a real purpose other than being the property value police, which is also why they cost more.
Because you’re shoulder to shoulder with more people, rules enforcement is more important as well, although as always YMMV.
As a data point contrary to all the horror stories, I’ve been in a HOA in a small building for years and always appreciated what they got done.
In Lincoln Park as well, pretty much the only way to avoid HOAs are townhomes (which is the route we went, because of my prior condo experience)
The HOAs are so high they also make the economics of rental income very hard, so unless they provide amenities that have resale or rental pricing value you are just paying a monthly compliance fee. How they became so common boggles my mind.
The HOAs are so high they also make the economics of rental income very hard, so unless they provide amenities that have resale or rental pricing value you are just paying a monthly compliance fee. How they became so common boggles my mind.
Illinois condo law operates under the principal of no surprises. When you sign the sales contract, the HOA must give you a big dump of their records. You and your real estate attorney get a few days (I forget if it is 2 or 5) to look through it, ask questions, etc. You can cancel the contract and get your earnest money back if you don’t like anything at all. No joke - get a good real estate attorney.
Buildings with a reputation for being well-run sell for a higher price per square foot. Buildings that are really poorly run sell for cash only - banks refuse to write mortgages on them. In between the two extremes is just about everything else.
My advice is to look for a building that has lots of kids and lots of dogs. If the HOA is filled with crazy people that want to control every bit of your life, parents and dog owners will move out long before the single people will.
Buildings with a reputation for being well-run sell for a higher price per square foot. Buildings that are really poorly run sell for cash only - banks refuse to write mortgages on them. In between the two extremes is just about everything else.
My advice is to look for a building that has lots of kids and lots of dogs. If the HOA is filled with crazy people that want to control every bit of your life, parents and dog owners will move out long before the single people will.
The building that I'm renting in in Chicago basically just has quiet hours, regulations on certain types of home renovations (the pipes are partially owned by the building not the individual units, any structural or wall changes, etc), and a few rules about use of the property (pets must go through the alleyway entrance not the front lobby and packages must be picked up from the lobby or placed in the stairwell within one day). It also has things like a management contractor for dealing with things like shoveling snow on the side walks (all tenants and property owners in the city are responsible for making sure this is done). And they do other stuff like trash collection and removal among other things.
Largely, just read the rules and make sure you want to live by them. Most are very reasonable at least in the city.
Largely, just read the rules and make sure you want to live by them. Most are very reasonable at least in the city.
I don't think you're going to find many (any?) apartments for sale (so, condos or co-ops) anywhere that don't have an equivalent to an HOA/condo association/etc. The common ownership of the building, common areas, and so on pretty much demand that kind of structure.
HOA fees and other variable costs are usually rolled into the market price implicitly. Even in Manhattan, you see apartments with exorbitant HOA fees selling at sometimes significantly lower prices than ones without them. In fact, this can often be an exploitable pricing discrepancy if you're willing to run the numbers since all you really care about is the total monthly payment.
1k a month!? Why would anyone pay that? There must be some great facilities I guess (pool? gym?)
It's important for the condo to build up a substantial amount of cash in case there is a necessary high capital outlay needed. Sit on a condo board for a while and look at all of the expenses, and then also imagine saving up enough because, at a minimum, you will need a new roof in 20 years, etc...
Also, deferred maintenance will destroy a condo, and the ability for any owners to sell. If the board has to recover from previous years of deferred maintenance while also building a fund for the future, people will simply have to face the reality and pay until the problem is fixed.
Also, deferred maintenance will destroy a condo, and the ability for any owners to sell. If the board has to recover from previous years of deferred maintenance while also building a fund for the future, people will simply have to face the reality and pay until the problem is fixed.
Where on Earth do you have to pay $1000/mo for a gym membership? I find condo fees staggeringly hard to justify.
Those fees are for a lot more than gym membership. Take a large building - have you ever looked at the maintenance costs for something like that? If you haven't the good news is that annual budgets and statements for the past x number of years are publicly available for these associations (at least where I live that is true). Before you buy a place, a good realtor will walk you through the association's finances and give you an idea of how well the property is managed.
One issue is that developers will often set an attractive low rate to sell the initial units, and it doesn't get appropriately adjusted as the building ages. Then down the road, when expensive stuff (roof, elevators, etc) need to get fixed or replaced, there isn't enough capital banked and the fees spike dramatically.
At my complex, the majority of the HOA dues are going to elevator and roof repairs (or rather, going to replenish reserves that were depleted due to those repairs)
Some of the money also goes to utilities (water, sewer, trash) which I suspect are cheaper to do communally than individually
Some of the money also goes to utilities (water, sewer, trash) which I suspect are cheaper to do communally than individually
1k/mo sounds high, but if you’re paying for elevator upkeep and inspections, landscaping, shared space HVAC, and door and maintenance people it’s easy to rocket past that.
Some fees also include water and trash.
It just depends how nice the services are, and/or how old the building is.
Some fees also include water and trash.
It just depends how nice the services are, and/or how old the building is.
$1K/mo in Chicago is high but not abnormally high. It's basically a sign that they condo didn't have enough cash for repairs in the past.
No, that is a condo association that is necessary in a building with shared structure that needs to be maintained. Not quite the same as a HOA that doesn’t have any purpose besides forcing people to conform with dumb rules on their own property.
Yeah, if I owned a condo you'd bet I'd want an HOA. It's one thing when everyone owns their own roof and yard, but quite another when it's a single building that multiple owners are sharing.
The article specifically says it's not talking about condo HOAs like the ones you're describing:
> What I'm going to focus on from here on are mandatory HOAs in non-condominium neighborhoods.
> What I'm going to focus on from here on are mandatory HOAs in non-condominium neighborhoods.
You do the best you can. If that's the market in Chicago you are better off buying.
Does Chicago have co-op building? They have different rules.
Also note that some HOA's are "voluntary". Check with a realtor first to make sure that means they have no teeth with regard to covenants, etc. Basically, if they can't put a lien on your property, they have no teeth.
How common are HOAs? I’ve lived in an urban area my entire adult life and I don’t think there are any HOAs. My parents lived in one tho in the suburbs and I don’t recall them liking it. Is there any reason to actually buy a home in one?
In places where new communities are being developed HOA and CCRs (the actual rules) are extremely common. In fact in my area they’re required for all new home building communities.
Who requires them, and on what grounds?
I guess if you're into living in a picture perfect neighborhood and don't want to have to look at anything especially weird or different, and have a "council" you can complain to if there's a problem, you'd buy into that. A lot of condo complexes have them as well. HOA fees also go to gardening and other people involved in exterior maintenance.
HOAs are a kink, for people who like to be controlled or for people who like to control others. Being in a HOA is like being in a BDSM relationship. Some people like this sort of thing.
HOAs hate is a fascinating topic to me. Not because I care/don't care about HOAs themselves, but because it really shows how loud a vocal minority can be.
The usual narrative is the evil HOA trustees who enforce their selfish greedy wants on everyone else and rule with an iron fist. The reality though is that in most HOAs, they have very little discretionary power beyond what's in the bylaws. What's in the bylaws is agreed upon by the owners. If "everyone hates being told what to do", it's pretty simple to get the rules changed or to vote out the trustees. But it doesn't happen. Why?
Generally one of three things
A) The inhabitants aren't the owners and thus can't change the rules. Ok, fair enough if that's the situation, that's going to suck.
B) People hate the rules, but they don't hate them ENOUGH to go through the trouble of changing them, and some people who likes the rules are enforcing them. IMO ignoring rules you don't like shouldn't be an option (and is why we have so many bad laws at all levels of governments. If everyone who hates them got together to change them, not even the super rich could prevent it from happening).
C) The most common one from my experience: turns out a whole lot of people actually agree with the rules. All the talk of freedom, but that includes the right of consenting adults to come into a legal agreement about...stuff. As long as nothing they agree on is illegal to put in your contract, why shouldn't they be allowed? If a bunch of people want to sign an agreement to reach a global maximum instead of a bunch of local maxima that make everyone miserable, why not?
Turns out not everyone is cool with the "I do whatever I want and you do whatever you want", and "let's get together and make a compromise so we can both be a little happier" is actually fairly popular too. And thus HOAs are a thing.
But I hear the reply already: "In X area everything's governed by HOAs! We have no choice!". Well, either change the rules (after all, if they're THAT damn, it shouldn't be too hard to get enough votes to get them changed), or buy elsewhere. We're talking about buying here, so it implies a certain level of privilege, after all.
The usual narrative is the evil HOA trustees who enforce their selfish greedy wants on everyone else and rule with an iron fist. The reality though is that in most HOAs, they have very little discretionary power beyond what's in the bylaws. What's in the bylaws is agreed upon by the owners. If "everyone hates being told what to do", it's pretty simple to get the rules changed or to vote out the trustees. But it doesn't happen. Why?
Generally one of three things
A) The inhabitants aren't the owners and thus can't change the rules. Ok, fair enough if that's the situation, that's going to suck.
B) People hate the rules, but they don't hate them ENOUGH to go through the trouble of changing them, and some people who likes the rules are enforcing them. IMO ignoring rules you don't like shouldn't be an option (and is why we have so many bad laws at all levels of governments. If everyone who hates them got together to change them, not even the super rich could prevent it from happening).
C) The most common one from my experience: turns out a whole lot of people actually agree with the rules. All the talk of freedom, but that includes the right of consenting adults to come into a legal agreement about...stuff. As long as nothing they agree on is illegal to put in your contract, why shouldn't they be allowed? If a bunch of people want to sign an agreement to reach a global maximum instead of a bunch of local maxima that make everyone miserable, why not?
Turns out not everyone is cool with the "I do whatever I want and you do whatever you want", and "let's get together and make a compromise so we can both be a little happier" is actually fairly popular too. And thus HOAs are a thing.
But I hear the reply already: "In X area everything's governed by HOAs! We have no choice!". Well, either change the rules (after all, if they're THAT damn, it shouldn't be too hard to get enough votes to get them changed), or buy elsewhere. We're talking about buying here, so it implies a certain level of privilege, after all.
We will be moving soon, ended up with an HOA, I am currently doing everything in my power to end up on that HOA board to Ron Swanson it up hard, including throwing BBQs for neighbors, making contacts with everyone in the neighborhood and picking up trash.
But I didn't want to, I want to spend my life doing other things, but now I've been forced into being a local politician simply because I can't run the risk of some nosy moral (racist) busy-bodies putting a lien on my home because the tree in the front yard died.
But I didn't want to, I want to spend my life doing other things, but now I've been forced into being a local politician simply because I can't run the risk of some nosy moral (racist) busy-bodies putting a lien on my home because the tree in the front yard died.
> I am currently doing everything in my power
Right, because you have to convince people of what you want. If it was absolutely no brainer obvious and everyone felt the same way as you, you wouldn't have to do that. The election would come up, people would vote and it would be over. You also knew there was an HOA when you got into it.
That's my point. People in posts like these make it sound like NO ONE wants this. If it was true, it would be gone pretty quick. Turns out people are generally either happy with the status quo, or at least don't hate it enough to change it without some convincing.
Btw, I don't know about your bylaws, but usually you don't have to be on the HOA board to change the rules. If you get the votes you can get them changed. Get a lawyer to write a new set of bylaws as per your state's requirements, get people to vote on them, register them, don't even need to change the board to gut it.
Right, because you have to convince people of what you want. If it was absolutely no brainer obvious and everyone felt the same way as you, you wouldn't have to do that. The election would come up, people would vote and it would be over. You also knew there was an HOA when you got into it.
That's my point. People in posts like these make it sound like NO ONE wants this. If it was true, it would be gone pretty quick. Turns out people are generally either happy with the status quo, or at least don't hate it enough to change it without some convincing.
Btw, I don't know about your bylaws, but usually you don't have to be on the HOA board to change the rules. If you get the votes you can get them changed. Get a lawyer to write a new set of bylaws as per your state's requirements, get people to vote on them, register them, don't even need to change the board to gut it.
I've found it's not a matter of "no one wants it" it is a matter of there are only so many hours in a day and most people are focusing on family, or career, or schooling or something else.
This is a terrible argument because under this argument everyone really is "okay with the massive warrentless government wiretapping going on because they aren't voting against it." People are "okay with the Chinese genocide of the Uighers because they aren't doing anything to stop it."
It's not that they want it that way it's that most people are in the business of living their lives and don't want to constantly have to dedicate their lives to vicious neighborhood politics and so they tolerate it for now because it is a higher barrier to do something about it.
This is a terrible argument because under this argument everyone really is "okay with the massive warrentless government wiretapping going on because they aren't voting against it." People are "okay with the Chinese genocide of the Uighers because they aren't doing anything to stop it."
It's not that they want it that way it's that most people are in the business of living their lives and don't want to constantly have to dedicate their lives to vicious neighborhood politics and so they tolerate it for now because it is a higher barrier to do something about it.
Well, first, people are born into a country. Most people aren't born owning a house (and if they are, I don't particularly feel bad for them). Second, most HOAs are actual democracies, not representative democracies like the country.
It's probably a bad idea to become part of an association you don't want to deal with. To continue with the awful government analogies, in an HOA, you're not just a citizen. You're a governor of your state (or part of the senate or whatever you want to use: you are the representative leader of your "state"). So yeah, you're gonna have to be involved. Unless you don't care anyway.
It's probably a bad idea to become part of an association you don't want to deal with. To continue with the awful government analogies, in an HOA, you're not just a citizen. You're a governor of your state (or part of the senate or whatever you want to use: you are the representative leader of your "state"). So yeah, you're gonna have to be involved. Unless you don't care anyway.
>buy elsewhere
In my experience discussing the topic, the people who claim there are absolutely no properties anywhere not in an HOA are not very truthful. Similarly, they're also makes outlandish claims about how there is only one job they can do and it's only located in this one city so they have absolutely no choice in the matter. It is simply impossible for them to live anywhere else except in this one town that only has HOA properties. The reality is that they want to live in an HOA but they don't want any of the obligations that come with it. They want their neighbors all bound by the rules but they should be granted exceptions because they're special.
Personally I would never live in an HOA with tons of rules and design standards but that's what some people like and are free to join. It's their choice. There are plenty of HOAs that just want you to keep your yard mowed twice a month and not keep junk cars and old appliances outside. It's a continuum but far too many want the surroundings of a strong intrusive HOA and the obligations on them of a weak or non-existent HOA.
In my experience discussing the topic, the people who claim there are absolutely no properties anywhere not in an HOA are not very truthful. Similarly, they're also makes outlandish claims about how there is only one job they can do and it's only located in this one city so they have absolutely no choice in the matter. It is simply impossible for them to live anywhere else except in this one town that only has HOA properties. The reality is that they want to live in an HOA but they don't want any of the obligations that come with it. They want their neighbors all bound by the rules but they should be granted exceptions because they're special.
Personally I would never live in an HOA with tons of rules and design standards but that's what some people like and are free to join. It's their choice. There are plenty of HOAs that just want you to keep your yard mowed twice a month and not keep junk cars and old appliances outside. It's a continuum but far too many want the surroundings of a strong intrusive HOA and the obligations on them of a weak or non-existent HOA.
There are entire cities in Texas where every single residential property is covered by a HOA. Some times there literally isn't anywhere with sewer lines without an HOA.
If people really hated HOAs that much, that would be an amazing opportunity to make a buck. People in an HOA just vote together to dissolve it. Boom, property value skyrocket as anyone who doesn't want HOAs now can buy one of these elusive properties.
I’d love to see some national crackdown on HOA/CCR rules. In particular you should never be stopped from growing food on your own property. If covid taught us anything it’s that the food chain is fragile.
The people who run these organizations would literally rather die than see a few corn stocks drying in the backyard of a neighbor.
The people who run these organizations would literally rather die than see a few corn stocks drying in the backyard of a neighbor.
I hate HOAs, but if all parties involved agreed to this "contract", the Government shouldn't tear it up and throw it away.
Similarly, while I am for solar panels and flying the American flag, I don't like politicians who pass laws forcing HOAs to allow both:
https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/720.304#:~:text=...
and
https://www.solarunitedneighbors.org/florida/learn-the-issue....
I feel if I was smart/savvy enough to buy a home where I'm allowed to fly a flag or have a solar panel, the people who agreed not to should have to suffer with the devalued property they chose to create.
Similarly, while I am for solar panels and flying the American flag, I don't like politicians who pass laws forcing HOAs to allow both:
https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/720.304#:~:text=...
and
https://www.solarunitedneighbors.org/florida/learn-the-issue....
I feel if I was smart/savvy enough to buy a home where I'm allowed to fly a flag or have a solar panel, the people who agreed not to should have to suffer with the devalued property they chose to create.
> I hate HOAs, but if all parties involved agreed to this "contract
Most legally binding agreements require all parties to know and understand what they are singing up to.
If the HOA can make new rules anytime about anything, can you really claim that the house owner knew what they were signing up to when they bought the house?
Most legally binding agreements require all parties to know and understand what they are singing up to.
If the HOA can make new rules anytime about anything, can you really claim that the house owner knew what they were signing up to when they bought the house?
Not only that, but CCR rules are intentionally written in an extremely vague way. Even placing a small pebble on your property requires approval according to the rules. (“Anything placed anywhere on the property or its surroundings”)
Selective enforcement is a great evil. You’re fine until you make someone on the committee mad, and they have an unusually high degree of power or you.
Selective enforcement is a great evil. You’re fine until you make someone on the committee mad, and they have an unusually high degree of power or you.
> if all parties involved agreed to this "contract"
Imagine that your grandfather bought a house in an HOA, then he died and you inherited it. You're now bound by a "contract" that you never signed or agreed to. Actual contracts can't bind next of kin, only those who actually signed them.
Imagine that your grandfather bought a house in an HOA, then he died and you inherited it. You're now bound by a "contract" that you never signed or agreed to. Actual contracts can't bind next of kin, only those who actually signed them.
I guess you bound yourself to that contract by accepting your inheritance from your grandfather. Various other contracts can be passed on this way too.
You always had the option to say no after all, and not take the house.
You always had the option to say no after all, and not take the house.
What sorts of other contracts can bind heirs?
Any kind of transferrable contract that has 'positive value'.
For example "Bob agrees to lend $5k to Fred, and to ensure Fred is given flowers every day for 10 years. Fred agrees to repay Bob $10k in 10 years time".
If bob dies, bobs heir can take on bobs side of that contract of delivering flowers, and getting the 10k end-of-contract payment from Fred.
For example "Bob agrees to lend $5k to Fred, and to ensure Fred is given flowers every day for 10 years. Fred agrees to repay Bob $10k in 10 years time".
If bob dies, bobs heir can take on bobs side of that contract of delivering flowers, and getting the 10k end-of-contract payment from Fred.
That seems less powerful to me. Another user summed up why better than I could: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27350024
Had a fun little exercise with our HOA recently. Seven member board, and each year half the seats are open for election.
Over the years, two rules have come into tension. First, in order for a new candidate to be elected, they have to get a majority (not just a plurality) of the votes - 50% + 1. I think the original thought was that if a large number of candidates ran and no one got over 30% of the votes or something, they shouldn't be eligible for the board. If not enough new candidates get 50% support, then the incumbent can keep their seat, in order of votes.
The second rule is that you can only vote for a number of candidates matching the number of openings. So if there are only three openings, and seven people are running, you can only vote for three of them. If you vote for more, your ballot gets thrown out.
The board has had problems lately so we had a lot of candidates in a recent election. I remember liking five of them, but I could only vote for three. There were roughly 1000 votes, and the most popular "reform" candidates got around 490, 460, 450, 420 votes, so none of them made it in (they clearly had split the vote). The incumbents that retained their seats got vote totals like 350, 275 - one incumbent got the second lowest of all running candidates, but got to keep his seat.
Obviously anti-democratic - as interest increases in replacing board members, it becomes less possible to do so. There are remedies such as Instant Runoff voting, but the way we vote and count is that you get your ballot in the mail, put a checkmark next to the names you want, and then counting teams count up the checkmarks (discarding the ballots with "too many" checkmarks). Manually counting IRV was deemed too onerous for our process.
Another, and my favored solution for this sort of scenario, is Approval Voting, where you simply put a checkmark next to all the candidates you approve of, and then all the checkmarks are counted by the same counting teams, without discarding the ballots with "too many" checkmarks, since it's no longer possible for there to be "too many" checkmarks on a ballot.
We gave presentations to the board, explained it as thoroughly as possible, made the case that what the elections were doing (due to the 50% rule) was measuring the level of support for each candidate, and that only Approval Voting was capable of measuring that accurately, subject to our other restrictions.
It failed on a 4-3 vote. Of the votes against, one was "it's been working fine the way it is", another was "It sounds funny", one gave no explanation, and one indicated the lawyers were of the opinion it wasn't allowable. In the next election, the three "yes" votes chose not to run for re-election and were replaced.
Over the years, two rules have come into tension. First, in order for a new candidate to be elected, they have to get a majority (not just a plurality) of the votes - 50% + 1. I think the original thought was that if a large number of candidates ran and no one got over 30% of the votes or something, they shouldn't be eligible for the board. If not enough new candidates get 50% support, then the incumbent can keep their seat, in order of votes.
The second rule is that you can only vote for a number of candidates matching the number of openings. So if there are only three openings, and seven people are running, you can only vote for three of them. If you vote for more, your ballot gets thrown out.
The board has had problems lately so we had a lot of candidates in a recent election. I remember liking five of them, but I could only vote for three. There were roughly 1000 votes, and the most popular "reform" candidates got around 490, 460, 450, 420 votes, so none of them made it in (they clearly had split the vote). The incumbents that retained their seats got vote totals like 350, 275 - one incumbent got the second lowest of all running candidates, but got to keep his seat.
Obviously anti-democratic - as interest increases in replacing board members, it becomes less possible to do so. There are remedies such as Instant Runoff voting, but the way we vote and count is that you get your ballot in the mail, put a checkmark next to the names you want, and then counting teams count up the checkmarks (discarding the ballots with "too many" checkmarks). Manually counting IRV was deemed too onerous for our process.
Another, and my favored solution for this sort of scenario, is Approval Voting, where you simply put a checkmark next to all the candidates you approve of, and then all the checkmarks are counted by the same counting teams, without discarding the ballots with "too many" checkmarks, since it's no longer possible for there to be "too many" checkmarks on a ballot.
We gave presentations to the board, explained it as thoroughly as possible, made the case that what the elections were doing (due to the 50% rule) was measuring the level of support for each candidate, and that only Approval Voting was capable of measuring that accurately, subject to our other restrictions.
It failed on a 4-3 vote. Of the votes against, one was "it's been working fine the way it is", another was "It sounds funny", one gave no explanation, and one indicated the lawyers were of the opinion it wasn't allowable. In the next election, the three "yes" votes chose not to run for re-election and were replaced.
HOA is a broad term. The cost/requirements vary. I wouldn't want to try to sell my house if the guy next door parked an RV on the lawn. Things like a community swimming pool and fighting the wrong type of development are a definite plus.
I've been president of my condo board for several years now, for a Condo corporation in Canada for a high-rise building. I'm seeing lots of comments around residential HOAs which might be a different story.
From what I've observed from only one board, talking with various property managers, industry reading, and reading legal case summaries, I do believe there is a lot of variability in different areas and corporations. Which to a degree makes sense, these are basically small businesses government by a board of random strangers with no special qualifications and are managing $125 million in assets or more. In my building we need to find 5 boards members out of ~150 units. Sure, you hire a property management company and a property manager to do day to day operations, but ultimately the board is responsible for all financial and strategic decisions. It's especially tricky because many of those decisions are going to be based off of imperfect and limited information.
Having done this for several years, I do believe many don't understand their requirements by purchasing a property government by a condo or HOA, and the notion that it's their own property they should be able to do what they want. I certainly did not understand my obligations when I bought my unit compared to several years on the board. With freehold it might be a different story, but in a highrise shared structure I think it's clear that we need some sort of contract that outlines the requirements, and that contract to be enforceable to the property owner.
One of our lawyers explained it to me once in a way that really resonated. The Condominium Act (The legislation in Ontario that governs condos) is designed as consumer protection law. But it's not consumer protection law in the sense of a consumer vs the corporation, it's consumer protection law as a protection from having to bear costs created by your neighbors. So there are lots of rules in place on how you get a board, how you pass rules, how you manage disputes through tribunals or the courts, what types of liabilities the board can take, what types of expenses go to an individual unit owner (IE damage), with the ultimate outcome meant to protect owners from costs created by their neighbors. So the example of someone losing their job and not wanting to pay the maintenance fee's, well the structure of the contractor is everyone pays their share, if you don't, it means a neighbor would have to. Who would want to take on liabilities of shared spaces if their neighbors might be insolvent and the remaining are left holding the expenses. And yes, part of this bears the requirement to manage a community and disputes that may arise.
Are their bad boards... definitely, there are plenty to go around. Are there ways for boards to create lots of hidden debt which will impact the owner... absolutely, I'd suspect mostly by deferring or not understand required maintenance, not paying attention to poor vendor performance and maintenance practices, and in some cases not understanding the differences in bids and picking the lowest bid from someone clearly going to cut corners. It's also happened to us once where all bids were so high that we couldn't understand, so we split up the project and rebid for 50% of the cost... other boards may have just accepted it. Are there board members who join to take advantage of the corporation to break the rules or take advantage of the decision making power, I'm sure there are plenty of example as well.
But on average I would expect most people join the boards in a good faith effort to protect their own investments and the common interest of all owners.
If living by this set of community rules isn't for you, then don't buy into a condo or HOA. But if you want the advantages of what a HOA/Condo provides, understand the risks, sometimes don't mind volunteering the work yourself (join the board), then a condo or HOA might be for you.
And try and give those random strangers some credit, and understand that they're probably making the best decisions they can on the information they have available to them (doesn't mean be hands off or not to ask questions, just make a good faith effort). They might also be tackling significant problems, like a health crisis, or having to lobby the government to prevent a 39% increase in utility rates by reclassifying the common elements from residential to commercial utility rates.
From what I've observed from only one board, talking with various property managers, industry reading, and reading legal case summaries, I do believe there is a lot of variability in different areas and corporations. Which to a degree makes sense, these are basically small businesses government by a board of random strangers with no special qualifications and are managing $125 million in assets or more. In my building we need to find 5 boards members out of ~150 units. Sure, you hire a property management company and a property manager to do day to day operations, but ultimately the board is responsible for all financial and strategic decisions. It's especially tricky because many of those decisions are going to be based off of imperfect and limited information.
Having done this for several years, I do believe many don't understand their requirements by purchasing a property government by a condo or HOA, and the notion that it's their own property they should be able to do what they want. I certainly did not understand my obligations when I bought my unit compared to several years on the board. With freehold it might be a different story, but in a highrise shared structure I think it's clear that we need some sort of contract that outlines the requirements, and that contract to be enforceable to the property owner.
One of our lawyers explained it to me once in a way that really resonated. The Condominium Act (The legislation in Ontario that governs condos) is designed as consumer protection law. But it's not consumer protection law in the sense of a consumer vs the corporation, it's consumer protection law as a protection from having to bear costs created by your neighbors. So there are lots of rules in place on how you get a board, how you pass rules, how you manage disputes through tribunals or the courts, what types of liabilities the board can take, what types of expenses go to an individual unit owner (IE damage), with the ultimate outcome meant to protect owners from costs created by their neighbors. So the example of someone losing their job and not wanting to pay the maintenance fee's, well the structure of the contractor is everyone pays their share, if you don't, it means a neighbor would have to. Who would want to take on liabilities of shared spaces if their neighbors might be insolvent and the remaining are left holding the expenses. And yes, part of this bears the requirement to manage a community and disputes that may arise.
Are their bad boards... definitely, there are plenty to go around. Are there ways for boards to create lots of hidden debt which will impact the owner... absolutely, I'd suspect mostly by deferring or not understand required maintenance, not paying attention to poor vendor performance and maintenance practices, and in some cases not understanding the differences in bids and picking the lowest bid from someone clearly going to cut corners. It's also happened to us once where all bids were so high that we couldn't understand, so we split up the project and rebid for 50% of the cost... other boards may have just accepted it. Are there board members who join to take advantage of the corporation to break the rules or take advantage of the decision making power, I'm sure there are plenty of example as well.
But on average I would expect most people join the boards in a good faith effort to protect their own investments and the common interest of all owners.
If living by this set of community rules isn't for you, then don't buy into a condo or HOA. But if you want the advantages of what a HOA/Condo provides, understand the risks, sometimes don't mind volunteering the work yourself (join the board), then a condo or HOA might be for you.
And try and give those random strangers some credit, and understand that they're probably making the best decisions they can on the information they have available to them (doesn't mean be hands off or not to ask questions, just make a good faith effort). They might also be tackling significant problems, like a health crisis, or having to lobby the government to prevent a 39% increase in utility rates by reclassifying the common elements from residential to commercial utility rates.
Also a small update, to those who are annoyed by overly draconian enforcement of the rules. This is what the legislation says in my jurisdiction.
s.17(3) of the act: The corporation has a duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the owners, the occupiers of units, the lessees of the common elements and the agents and employees of the corporation comply with this Act, the declaration, the by-laws and the rules.
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98c19#BK96
s.17(3) of the act: The corporation has a duty to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the owners, the occupiers of units, the lessees of the common elements and the agents and employees of the corporation comply with this Act, the declaration, the by-laws and the rules.
https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/98c19#BK96
[deleted]
[deleted]
It’s fine as long as they’re reasonable. I don’t want random people in my neighborhood to pain their house pink with yellow flowers either.
Why not?
People use "neighbors paint their house pink" as some sort of canonical example here, but I've lived in neighborhoods with pink houses and ugly houses and unkempt lawns and so-over-the-top-it-borders-on-creepy Christmas decorations and it has never bothered me enough to care.
Why does it actually bother you?
People use "neighbors paint their house pink" as some sort of canonical example here, but I've lived in neighborhoods with pink houses and ugly houses and unkempt lawns and so-over-the-top-it-borders-on-creepy Christmas decorations and it has never bothered me enough to care.
Why does it actually bother you?
Because no one wants to buy a house next door to a pink house with the creepy year-round Christmas decorations. That directly affects the valuation on someone's biggest investment they may ever make in life.
Treating housing as an investment is a horrible mistake.
It's an expensive durable good, policy should be focused on making it cheaper over time.
(while maintaining or increasing suitability/utility, not by letting it decay)
It's an expensive durable good, policy should be focused on making it cheaper over time.
(while maintaining or increasing suitability/utility, not by letting it decay)
> Treating housing as an investment is a horrible mistake.
In terms of policy I totally agree, but as an individual, nothing has done more for my personal wealth than my real estate transactions. Of course, a lot of that is my location, but in general, real estate (much like stock) goes up.
In terms of policy I totally agree, but as an individual, nothing has done more for my personal wealth than my real estate transactions. Of course, a lot of that is my location, but in general, real estate (much like stock) goes up.
Outside of the last two decades, real estate historically stayed the same price in constant dollars.
Really depends on location: https://www.hicentral.com/oahu-historical-data.php
Treating it like an investment IS the prudent thing to do. Is vs. what you want it to be theoretically are 2 different things.
What's prudent about it?
My argument is that treating housing as an investment drives costs up over time and that at a policy level we should not seek to do that, we should seek to lower the cost of housing (while maintaining quality and so on).
My argument is that treating housing as an investment drives costs up over time and that at a policy level we should not seek to do that, we should seek to lower the cost of housing (while maintaining quality and so on).
All policy decisions aside… At an individual level (in the US), it’s prudent because over the last 50 years homes have been shown to keep their value and beat inflation. For many people it’s a rare chance to accumulate wealth, especially if there is a bubble forming in their market. Therefore, they have an interest in whether their neighbors make decisions that lower their home value.
> Why does it actually bother you?
Depends entirely on what the particularly awe inspiring monstrosity is.
Obviously I don’t have any issues with it in a practical sense. It’s just the difference between hanging a nice oil painting and the latest abstract fetish. Some people love it, and others do not.
If it’s on the outside of the house everyone has to enjoy it regardless of whether they want to do so.
While I’m mostly on the side of letting someone do what they want, I think there is a limit.
Depends entirely on what the particularly awe inspiring monstrosity is.
Obviously I don’t have any issues with it in a practical sense. It’s just the difference between hanging a nice oil painting and the latest abstract fetish. Some people love it, and others do not.
If it’s on the outside of the house everyone has to enjoy it regardless of whether they want to do so.
While I’m mostly on the side of letting someone do what they want, I think there is a limit.
Controlling paint color is a bit extreme IMO, but people like to decorate their home and it makes sense to me that the view from their home is part of that. I don't necessarily support it, but I understand the desire to have a nice home in all aspects.
My current house is in an HOA that's around ~$20 / month (which pays to keep some of the common spaces of the development maintained), has never gone up in ~4 years, and we've never been notified about anything needing to look better even when our lawn was in pretty rough shape the summer we moved in. We did some research and were pretty confident going into it that we weren't going to be dealing with an overbearing HOA, and I also like that the development and community areas (including a tennis court and basketball court) stay well maintained. In our case, it feels like we're getting a good deal for the cost.