Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pas 1846 days ago
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?
2 comments

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.

Probably there was no article in HOA rules that was applicable.
Yes, this. HOAs only have the power they are given.
> Probably there was no article in HOA rules that was applicable.

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.

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.

Edit: >= 51%

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

> 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?

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.

75% I think on my last one

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.