[quesera]

Keep in mind that some HOAs are cooperative organizations, and some are run by very damaged people.

Also keep in mind that getting together to organize a set of common standards and restrictions is the basis for all exclusive communities. That's OK if you are on the casual compliance side of the rules, or if you get to write them to suit your preferences. But it is discriminatory. Similar covenants have been used to keep out ethnic minorities (because of the way they live, like animals!).

Being for or against HOAs is like being for or against laws. It's meaningless without context.

Some HOAs are traffic lights. Some HOAs are civil forfeiture.

An HOA can morph from tolerable into unconscionable. Deny the HOA the right to exist in the first place, and it will never go bad. This is an appealing tradeoff for many.

[hamburglar]

> An HOA can morph from tolerable into unconscionable.

A friend of mine lived in an unconscionable one and managed to turn it tolerable by running for President on a platform of vowing not to enforce any rules. Stayed in “power” for quite a while.

[tomrod]

My neighborhood voted to abolish the HOA in 2002, about 5 years after being established. The developer has their finger in the HOA pie as a permanent seat; instead upon abolishment they were relegated to upkeeping the entryways per their sales contract and city agreements, only through voluntary funding by people in the neighborhood.

It's had mixed results. The neighborhood is surrounded by a brick wall that had a gap below (why??). The mortar is failing in several places. But the entry ways are kept pristine (developer is a big one in the area and has been slapped by lawsuits for not holding up their end before).

[OJFord]

I don't think it's quite what you're describing (sorry if it is) - but 'we [deliberately] have rules, we just don't enforce them' would probably be a pretty effective & pleasant one.

I suppose essentially that's just living in a society, i.e. as anywhere without a 'HOA', but codified.

[hamburglar]

It’s exactly as I described. He said he wouldn’t go after anyone for rules violations, and he didn’t. The previous busybody HOA President was quite bothered, but it seemed most people just wanted to be left alone.

[OJFord]

Yeah, that's how I understood it.

I just meant that you could also deliberately have rules (as opposed to come into office after them) and you do intend that people follow them, create new ones, update them, etc., but they're just not enforced, and everyone knows that.

As in just codifying some social expectations that would probably exist in roughly the same form anyway.

[hamburglar]

Oh I completely agree that that’s the effect. There were still rules, and I’m pretty sure there were even reminders sent to people breaking rules in ways that were legitimately bothersome (albeit without the teeth of enforcement fines), they just eliminated the problem of the petty rules cop fining people $50 for having their lawn a half inch out of spec.