[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.

[8note]

I agree with you on that, but it seems weird that these so called "inalienable" rights can be alienated

[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.

[igetspam]

Edit: >= 51%

Sure that was obvious but in case anyone points it out. Sleepy brain.

[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?

[Nursie]

Democracy is not a contract with a homeowners organisation. HOAs are not government.

[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.