[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.