[stakecounter]

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.

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.

[01100011]

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.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> 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.

[pixl97]

>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.

[akudha]

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

[pixl97]

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.

[8note]

An opt out sounds better.

They should have to show they're up to snuff for your membership

[lostcolony]

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.

[WarOnPrivacy]

>> 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'.

[jjeaff]

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.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> 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.

[pixl97]

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.

[klyrs]

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.

[jjeaff]

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.

[giardini]

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?

[WarOnPrivacy]

The restrictions mandating rug-like lawns, which require heavy, continuous treatments of fertilizers and pesticides.

[skissane]

> 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.

[8note]

Did they mainly cater to white settlers?

If so, it's likely a racist institution

[strken]

They date back to 1961 as a legal device to represent ownership of flats in large blocks, and have literally nothing to do with settlers, white or otherwise.

[mc32]

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.

[pas]

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?

[salawat]

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.

[mynegation]

Probably there was no article in HOA rules that was applicable.

[01100011]

Yes, this. HOAs only have the power they are given.

[lelanthran]

> Probably there was no article in HOA rules that was applicable.

So? Nothing to stop them adding it in.

[igetspam]

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.

[Nursie]

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.

[igetspam]

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.

[chrisseaton]

> 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?

[brianwawok]

75% I think on my last one

Tried to pass racist new bylaws, but never quite made the hurdle

[dabbledash]

Hopefully the HOA can’t just leverage unlimited power by voting to give itself that power.

[smitty1e]

I pay $100/mo for these proto-fascists to explain to me why the pool and other amenities are unavailable.

They do a decent job with the common grounds and the trash contract, so there's that.

[igetspam]

Sounds like every subdivision in the Austin metro.

[londons_explore]

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"

[Arainach]

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.

[giardini]

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.

[yabones]

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.

[compiler-guy]

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.

[sofixa]

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.

[WarOnPrivacy]

Local govs are generally less likely to heap the sort of overt abuse on homeowners that HOAs do.

[Mountain_Skies]

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.

[syshum]

>>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.

[desert_boi]

Property taxes can go to _those people_ who can't afford to live in your burbclave.

[Black101]

HOAs are like mini cities but usually with much stricter rules, or at least actively enforced rules unlike most cities that wait for complaints.

[lelanthran]

> 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.

[banana_giraffe]

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.

[dheera]

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.

[shados]

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.

[dheera]

> 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.

[shados]

> 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.

[D13Fd]

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.

[shados]

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?

[D13Fd]

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.

[shados]

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.

[pixl97]

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.

[steelframe]

> 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.

[D13Fd]

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.

[smegger001]

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?

[shados]

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.

[unishark]

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.

[shados]

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.

[chasd00]

Side note, I thought when you buy a company all contracts are voided and new ones must be made.

[shados]

Contracts follow the company unless they have an assignment clause or a condition that says otherwise.

[pixl97]

> 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.

[JMTQp8lwXL]

Why should the previous owner's interests matter once the property is sold?

[pixl97]

Because that is how deed restrictions work.

[lotsofpulp]

> 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.

[dheera]

Okay, so set up a device to do facial recognition and glitter and fart spray any HOA directors that set foot on your property?

[goalieca]

City bylaws can be nearly as strict as HOA with lots of stylistic rules such as no laundry lines even in non-heritage neighbourhoods.

[dheera]

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.

[mantas]

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.

[josephcsible]

> 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.

[mantas]

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.

[dheera]

> 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.

[mantas]

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...

[pixl97]

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.

[foogazi]

Yes all of that is possible - just don’t buy into an HOA condominium arrangement.

[scheme271]

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"?

[shados]

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.

[wil421]

The board can’t just create new rules. Everyone has the opportunity to vote and the HOA is restricted by the bylaws.

[Black101]

> 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.

[syshum]

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...

[rantwasp]

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

[dgfitz]

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.

[Google234]

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.

[sjg007]

Pools certainly do not cost that much.

[rantwasp]

there is cost and there is “cost”. most money go into labor and actually getting someone to get out there. they need to be bonded and insured. they also need to get the job done. it’s a hassle

[rantwasp]

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.