[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.