[7speter]

At this point, I think people of a certain age would just be happy to have a parcel of land with a roof over their head to call their own as opposed to buying a house as some sort of long term investment whose value keeps accumulating (and whose tax value will continue to increase as a result)

[notyourwork]

Exactly, I just want my own place. The land and roof to do what I want with. It’s not monopoly for most people.

[dataflow]

Sure if you have a separate home on your own dedicated land, but what about everyone with HOAs, property taxes, etc. to deal with? For many people they still have to pay "rent" and still can't really do whatever they want with the land and roof, so they don't see much of these benefits either, right?

[b112]

This is like women's pants, and women complaining about the lack of pockets.

If everyone refused to buy with a HOA, then they would vanish in new builds, and could even be uniformly voted to disband in old builds.

But apparently some like HOAs (don't ask me why).

[nkrisc]

Like most things in life: it depends. I live in an HOA. We pay about $150 a year, they keep the common areas maintained, coordinate with the county for road and other municipal work, and … that’s basically it. They’re pretty much otherwise invisible and are just my neighbors.

Sometimes I even break the rules and put my garbage bins out too early and leave them out too late and I’ve never heard a word about it.

There was even a foreclosed house in the neighborhood that was increasingly unmaintained, and the HOA hounded the bank and got them to take better care of the property until it was finally sold.

Overall, our HOA is a net positive.

I also was part of an HOA for 4-unit condo building I lived in previously. It was perfectly fine and its purpose and necessity was very apparent.

I’m sure there are nightmare HOAs out there, just like there are nightmare neighbors in places with no HOA.

[grepfru_it]

An HOA is like socialism. It's great for the first two, maybe three generations. But then new owners come in and they DGAF about HOA rules and/or the HOA (what's a measly $150/year on my sr engineer salary). And finally the HOA and/or property starts falling apart^W^Wchanging.

We are witnessing this right now, having not moved from our townhome. First decade was great, everyone follow the rules, HOA cared about the look of our properties and kept everyone in check. Then HOA stopped sending letters about the dirty facades. Then the neighbors one by one all decided its okay to leave their garbage cans out even though the bylaws specifically forbid this. Then they cut back on services they offer (illegal parking is only enforced during HOA business hours, no more landscape maintenance), they stopped enforcement (neighbor has 4 pets, facades haven't been cleaned in 5-6 years, trash and toys are being left in the shared driveway). The final slap in the face, we got an email last month saying they are raising the HOA fee by 25%.

Unlike socialism, I can politic my way into the board and demand change. Which looks like something I'm going to have to do to get back the HOA (and property) that I loved

[seanmcdirmid]

HOA is more like Democracy: you have to participate in the meetings and governance of the HOA to make sure it is run well, but people are often too lazy to vote or be informed, so it can deteriorate. The HOA isn't an independent entity, it is supposed to be collectively run and managed by all of the home owners.

[lostlogin]

Is the price rise a slap on the face? It sounds like it’s what you want. If you want letters to go out for minor issues and landscaping, towing etc, you need funding to do it. This has to happen before enforcement increases. I think that getting your ideal back is going to take several more big increases.

> Unlike socialism, I can politic my way into the board and demand change.

That sounds like the definition of socialism. What do you mean?

[nkrisc]

> An HOA is like socialism.

I have no idea what an HOA has to do at all with socialism, apart from the fact both involve groups of people.

Aside from that, an HOA functions as well as it is run. It sounds like the folks running yours aren't all the invested in it or don't have the same priorities as you. The solution is, as you stated, being the one to try and make the change by joining the HOA leadership.

In my case, I don't have that issue, and the HOA is a few years past 30 running now. I suppose I'm lucky that there's enough homeowners in the neighborhood who are both will and able to run things to an acceptable standard.

[throwaway646465]

Many local municipalities actually require the developer to include a new HOA as part of the permitting process for new development.

This is because small local governments are often too cash poor to foot the additional road maintenance, utilities, etc so they want to offload the cost to the developers/ the developers customers.

[hnaccount_rng]

As a European, this really reads like the thing with the "give them 5 more minutes and they'll rediscover taxes" situation.. Yeah if you outsource government functions to private institutions you'll have to require those to exist. Just that, being private, there's no accountability to be had..

[jen20]

The HOA fees are _on top_ of property taxes that would make Europeans’ eyes water.

[mmh0000]

I’ve posted this before and it wasn’t well received but I love HOAs.

When I bought my first house, I was adamant that I didn’t want an HOA. Over the next ten years the neighborhood went to crap. I ended up living next to neighbors who didn’t maintain their yards, parked junker cars on their lawn and let their houses go to trash.

When I moved, I specifically wanted an HOA. After five years, I still love my HOA. Mostly for two reasons. First, other neighbors here generally have the same mind set and care about their most expensive possession. Second when someone starts letting things slide the HOA slaps ‘‘em on the wrist.

[harshalizee]

I don't understand this mentality at all. Why do you care how they maintain their property if it doesn't harm you directly? I never understood why anyone would harass someone else over their lawn. It's only a matter of time where you end up with neighbors who don't share the same mindset to start micromanaging the neighborhood.

I live in north Seattle area where non-HOA homes are priced higher than HOA homes. The area has a couple of older somewhat rundown houses and no one cares. Prices are still at least $100k higher than the new builds with HOAs on the next block. So there goes the old excuse for maintaining home value.

[mmh0000]

You don't understand why I would care about the neighborhood that I live in? My house is the most expensive thing I own, I worked incredibly hard to get it. I am proud of it. I take care of it.

I want to live in a neighborhood with others who feel the same way.

To your second point, yes, not all HOAs are great. If you frequent fark.com, you'll find multiple threads per month about some terrible thing an HOA is doing. But, that's why you do your due diligence when selecting an HOA. You carefully read the CC&Rs before signing on the house, you talk to others in the neighborhood before moving in. Much like selecting an insurance plan. For example, my HOA is setup so that leadership fully rotates every 3 years, with the rotations staggered. Worst case we get bad leadership for 1 year. Though, so far, in the in the 15 years the HOA has existed, they've done nothing but enforce rules everyone has agreed to. (Well that, and they killed off a bunch of common-area grass by hiring the cheapest lawn care they could find. )

[citizen_friend]

The only reason to be focused on those things is if your main concern ins your resell value.

[bobthepanda]

HOAs are the only legal mechanism for a development to assess fees to maintain common amenities.

If your neighborhood hires landscapers, or has a pool, or you share literally any part of the building structure, then an HOA comes into play. Often new developments have private roads that need maintenance, snow clearing, etc.

[cantaloa]

In many places, the HOA is the only entity that will do anything about bad neighbors like a dog that barks 24/7 or someone playing music all night—things that don't necessarily break city law but do affect your life, or things that do break city law but the city won't bother enforcing.

It all comes down to luck of the draw.

[Wowfunhappy]

Those things should break city law though! To me, this is another of privatizing what should be the government's job, resulting in less accountability and less democratic control.

[tzs]

Why not have both? City law sets a baseline for the city, but that will be a one size fits all solution.

Someone who wants a place quieter than the noise level the city enforces can find a development with an HOA that sets a lower level. Someone who is particularly sensitive to smoke can find a development that bans outdoor fires on more days than the city does.

As long as an HOA is only limiting things that actually affect other people and maintaining common property, and it is legally structured in a way that prevents scope creep (or ensures that existing owners are grandfathered if new restrictions are imposed), I don't see anything inherently wrong with having an HOA.

[matthewdgreen]

I don’t know if HOAs are great or not, but I live in a mid-size city with a lot of more important problems than taking care of my neighbors’ unsightly home situations. I can’t realistically expect city government to handle it, and moreover different neighborhoods have different very comfort levels with that sort of thing. Moving that sort of “minor living arrangements” governance out of the big city government into the neighborhood actually works much better.

[seti0Cha]

If the HOA is entirely elected by the people who live in it, it sounds as if it would be more democratic and more accountable than a town or city government. Your vote will have more power and the people elected will literally be your neighbors.

[l1tany11]

The problem is that cities encourage/force HOAs to exist. The city gets the HOA to maintain the infrastructure indefinitely. So you can’t really vote with your wallet. Developers often don’t want to make HOAs, it costs more money and it’s a pain.

But that’s the big thing with all construction. It’s super, super regulated. It’s probably the most heavily regulated thing there is… what gets built is the small subset of things that can both work financially and get approved. If you got on the right merry go round early enough, it’s great. It’s probably the biggest thing creating inequality.

The irony is that long term, many HOAs hurt property values. But supposedly they exist to enhance property values.

[prepend]

My HOA is pretty nice. They manage the common areas and maintain a community pool and tennis court. It was one of the positive reasons I bought my house.

But they also aren’t allowed to monitor grass height and whatnot.

[scrapcode]

Not without the HOA's permission, though.

[notyourwork]

Not every house is under an HOA.

[alistairSH]

Which age do you mean? (In the US) GenZ has outpaced both GenX and Millennials in rate of home-ownership by age 25 (30% vs 28% and 27%).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/04/21/ge...

[ascotan]

https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/charts/fig07.pdf

So i think the trendline in terms of homeownership rates seems to be gently decreasing for all age groups, but there's a big spike during the 2 housing bubbles we've seen when rates were at historic lows.

[pmoriarty]

The overwhelming majority of habitable land in the world is uninhabited. The problem is most people want to live close to cities, where land and housing is expensive.

We need to decentralize.

[alistairSH]

We need to decentralize.

Hard disagree here. Decentralization might reduce housing costs, but makes many other things more expensive. More roads to pave and maintain. Higher delivery costs. More time in the car to get to work, shopping, entertainment.

What we need is more/smarter infill development. And the elimination of R1 zoning (single-family only). Let the market decide what housing density should exist on a given block (within reason).

[tzs]

> Hard disagree here. Decentralization might reduce housing costs, but makes many other things more expensive. More roads to pave and maintain. Higher delivery costs. More time in the car to get to work, shopping, entertainment.

I think when people talk about decentralization they usually mean people moving from the big cities to existing less big cities. Those less big cities are usually built on the road and/or rail networks that are used to supply the big cities.

Decentralizing to such exiting smaller cities wouldn't necessarily be costly, especially if not done too fast.

[kitsunesoba]

I think there are probably serious limits on the extent to which decentralization is viable in North America. The lifestyle that comes with rural life for example is not one that the majority of the population finds attractive, with how far removed from not only creature comforts but also employment opportunities and essential services it makes one.

There's also many things that don't work out economically for towns below a certain size. This is why little towns of 1k-10k tend to have only megacorp chain shops and restaurants — despite the cost of operations being so much cheaper than they are in more urban areas, things like little family owned bakeries, delis, etc are mostly found in cities in the US.

The latter of those paragraphs could perhaps be changed, but it'd take an earth-shattering level of infrastructural redevelopment that I don't see happening any time soon.

[ascotan]

There is a reason these places are uninhabited.

[Freire_Herval]

The reason why the US is the number 1 producer of greenhouse gases is because of decentralization.

Our cities are built unlike any other city in the world. We live in vast swaths of suburban sprawl that is so decentralized you get cities like LA where it takes over an hour to get anywhere within the city.

The problem is opposite. We aren't dense enough. No plot of land should be single family.

Sb-9 and adus are designed to help relieve this problem, but ultimately residential areas should all be apartment units 10 stories high when there's a population mismatch with housing and people. Singapore, Shenzhen, Tokyo, Shanghai and any other city evolves their urban infrastructure with a change in population. The western US chooses not to do shit.

[seanmcdirmid]

You can go an hour in Beijing or Shanghai and not get anywhere in those cities. They are sprawling also, but well, those places in Pudong eventually became popular as Shanghai became more popular.

LA traffic is way way better than Beijing traffic. They aren't even comparable, really.

[Freire_Herval]

That's different. Shanghai and Beijing are still cities that are built really densely. LA is suburban sprawl which means everybody lives on a parcel of land and has a backyard. That same parcel of land in shanghai probably has 30 people living there in a tall building.

[seanmcdirmid]

> LA is suburban sprawl which means everybody lives on a parcel of land and has a backyard.

Having lived in LA before (Westwood actually), I know that is false. While Shanghai is pretty dense, Beijing is much less so, although the notion of a city in China includes rural areas as well. Both are denser than LA, but I’m not sure Americans are ready to live in 30 story concrete boxes.

Yes, China has lots of people, but the infrastructure to support their density still isn’t that great. It has improved, driving still sucks but subway is a real option now vs in 2007.

[Freire_Herval]

Having lived in LA all my life including westwood and outside of westwood I know it's true. LA is a huge suburbia. You are biased if all you've lived in is westwood.

If you lived in westwood that means you likely went to UCLA and the neighborhood there is uniquely apartments because its for students. The majority of LA with the exception of downtown, ktown, westwood and some other neighborhoods is mostly suburban sprawl with apartments sprinkled in little pockets everywhere.

Did you have a car? you can't really completely understand the city of LA without owning a car and exploring everything. If you lived in westwood without a car as many students do then you don't really have a good perspective of the entire city.

Heck go a little south of wilshire and you'll see the apartments turn into little plots of single family houses. Go north past sunset and it's single family mansions. The westwood area is just this microcosm of transient students.

Most of california is like this because it developed after car culture. If you go to the east coast which began developing before the automobile you will see that the cities there are much more dense and much better suited for public transportation.

[joenot443]

China is, by far, the number one producer of greenhouse gases. Most estimates have it at about the rough sum of the following three countries, it’s really not even remotely close.

[Freire_Herval]

You have to measure per capita. That means greenhouse gases per person.

China has a huge population. So it's more reasonable for them to emit more gas given population size.

If we want to be pedantic, the tiny middle eastern oil rich cities are the biggest emitters per capita but their impact is small given the small population. Australia also beats the US but they are also much smaller then the US.

In terms of any reasonable impact measurement the world stands to gain the most if the US cuts down usage. Hence why I chose the US as the number one emitter. We stand to benefit if China cuts down too but they are at roughly half our emissions per capita meaning such cuts will be viciously closer to the bone if you know what I mean.

[joenot443]

Why would one have to measure per capita? The Earth isn’t measuring per capita, crap in the atmosphere is crap in the atmosphere, nature does no discerning how much of it came from one person vs a larger group.

I understand the spiritual idea of trying to measure per capita, but I think for something as severe as climate change, the only relevant metric is the absolute one.

[Freire_Herval]

Why would you measure per country? Countries don't actually exist. You think measuring it by artificial borders drawn by the imagination makes sense? No it doesn't. It makes less sense then per Capita.

Following your line of logic, Antarctica emits the least greenhouse gases of any country or continent. Per Capita doesn't matter so whatever Antarctica does, they're doing it right.. nothing to do with the fact that the country is practically empty.

It's not spiritual at all. The realistic measure is per Capita. If you aren't measuring it this way... and I say this to be factual and with no intention to offend .. but if a person isn't measuring it this way when they have awareness of the per Capita factor then that person is concretely (not spiritually) stupid.

You are not definitely not stupid. For something as severe as climate change the per Capita measurement matters absolutely.

[Gigachad]

Why on earth would I do that when I could just rent and put the money in index fund which will appreciate.

[paulcole]

It’s my belief that in a few generations in the US “owning a home” will no longer be the default dream people have.

You can kind of see a similar shift today in how teens/young adults are losing interest in driving — something their great-grandparents would have thought crazy. “But a car is what makes you free!”

[ziftface]

Maybe I'm just sandwiched between those generations but I don't see how those are equivalent. The desire for stable housing isn't a social construct. If you can't secure that you'll always be stressed.

[paulcole]

Stable housing isn’t limited to owning a single family home. Renting a small apartment can be very stable (I’ve done this for the past 15 years). Owning a small condo can be very stable. There are also many stressed homeowners who worry about making mortgage payments.

The reason many see these as unstable today is because of the default-ness of single family housing as the default goal. Similarly how driving a car was the default goal for 16 year olds for several generations.

It’s hard to imagine not wanting to purchase a home because we’ve been sold it as the smart and obvious thing to do for quite awhile now.

[ryukafalz]

Also, renting from a private landlord and owning are not the only two options that can exist. Social housing can be incredibly stable as well, and there are lots of different possible models for social housing.

I read an article recently (can't find it immediately) proposing a social housing mechanism where you pay into it via rent and gain equity not in the specific housing unit itself, but rather in the social housing program as a whole. Kind of like a REIT, only at a certain point you get an entitlement to a housing unit and no longer have to pay rent, as if you'd paid off a mortgage.

[thegginthesky]

Renting might be stable but it's very dependant on whoever owns the house and what type of regulations and protections your government has in place. Owning a home (house/apartment/land/etc) gives you more rights over where you live and more stability in most countries.

I've seen rents go up with inflation where inflation grows at 25% yoy, and I've seen people kicked out of an apartment 3 months after moving in because the owner found a buyer with a good deal.

But I agree with you, single family housing is the goal for some cultures and generations, and it was carefully crafted by governmental policy, propaganda, marketing and third party interests. We are now seeing the consequences of such.

Yet, not all people have that goal, but a lot are content to just owning a place to live even with relatives, a community or others.

I feel it's hard to not wanting to own something if it grants more rights and protections against injustices. In the countries I've lived, having a property deed of any sorts with your name on it makes your life so much better and stress free.

[paulcole]

For a counter perspective, think about home ownership as not stable, but inflexible. It doesn’t quite have the same ring to it, does it?

A lot of this comes down to what an individual values and my argument is that what individuals value when it comes to housing will change drastically over the coming 50 or so years.

[saiya-jin]

You would be surprised how adaptable people are, everybody owning their house and this being some yardstick of success is very US-centric construct.

Here in most of Europe its luxury with 2 faces - it costs significantly more of your money, time and energy to own it. Is it worth spending the little free time you have in your life with just plain stupid property maintenance? For me its a skill I happily delegate to (much) less earning fellows, and I spend that time with family, doing sports and adventures or just relaxing.

Ie in Switzerland, due to way property taxes are setup, its very ineffective to fully own your house. To inherit is sort of curse or at least a burden, you usually immediately have to sell. Nobody apart from few whiny expacts complaints about it, people have actual lives to take care of and focus on much more important matters.

[tzs]

Home ownership rates in most of Europe are higher than in the US.

Rates in European countries [1].

Rates in the US [2].

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/246355/home-ownership-ra...

[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N

[xboxnolifes]

What required maintenance are people doing all the time that is taking up their free time? Everything I can think about are things that renters still need to deal with, like cleaning. The only big US thing I can think of is lawn mowing, which, as crazy as it sounds to a lot of Americans, is not a requirement to have outside of very strict HOAs. And you can also just pay someone to do it if you still want a lawn.

[kitsunesoba]

This might be due to misunderstanding of the economics involved on my part, but I don't see this happening unless the cost of renting in desirable areas drops substantially enough that yearly price increases can no longer present a substantial risk to the average individual's financial stability. Needing to periodically move to keep rent affordable and the anxiety that comes with always having to think about where you're going to have to look next gets old really fast.

From my perspective as a mid-30s millennial, much of what's fueling desire to own a home right now is the ability to turn housing costs into a semi-fixed and mostly predictable expense, even if mortgages aren't all that much cheaper than renting in the short term. That assurance is worth quite a lot.

[paulcole]

I find that it’s difficult to change anyone’s mind on this subject, but the issues I often see are:

1. Overestimating the predictability of the costs of owning a home. As a renter, I know exactly what I will pay for the next year. A homeowner doesn’t have that same knowledge.

2. Comparing rent to mortgage for equivalent properties. Yes, renting the same property will generally compare unfavorably to purchasing it. But compare a 2-bedroom apartment to a 4-bedroom home and the apartment becomes much more competitive financially. However then it comes down to personal preference for the place you want to live, not a rational cost analysis.

3. Underestimating the stress of owning a home and overestimating the stress of renting - but this is also mostly a personal and perspective thing.

[kitsunesoba]

The calculus is naturally going to differ depending on the individual, but for points 1 and 3, if you can find newer construction within budget that's more likely to have been built to code and not in need of critical maintenance, things will likely work out in favor of homeownership.

Having previously been renting in the SF Bay Area, ownership worked out much better in my case. With the rate that rent had been increasing there it'd take several bad unexpected house repairs each year to equal the increases.

Factoring in planned improvements might make money spent over time more of a wash, but the big difference there is that I can save and plan for improvements… point in case I have planned major bathroom renovations that I've been sticking money into a high yield savings account for. If push comes to shove, don't actually need to do the renovations though, and that money can go towards other more important things helping mitigate or prevent financial disaster. On most peoples' salaries that's difficult to do when renting unless you're renting something so small that it's difficult to use as anything but a place to sleep.

[paulcole]

> On most peoples' salaries that's difficult to do when renting unless you're renting something so small that it's difficult to use as anything but a place to sleep.

This is kind of getting at my point and prediction. Cars were once seen as Freedom Machines that people were dying to operate when they turned 16.

I believe in future generations will see housing as more than a place to sleep but won’t continue to drool over a 3 or 4 bedroom single family home. People are having fewer kids and the climate is going to make maintaining a yard a bigger hassle and cost in many areas.

[astura]

> a semi-fixed and mostly predictable expense, even if mortgages aren't all that much cheaper

Sorry I break the bad news - As a homeowner, this is not an advantage of owning a home. Houses are MASSIVE money sinks. The cost of rent is MUCH more predictable.

[kitsunesoba]

Well, two years in that hasn't been my experience. Costs have so far been minimal and well below what rent increases would've been. Things can and will go wrong but it'd take something pretty crazy to nullify the money saved on rent increases already, let alone if things continue as they have been.

Even when a big unexpected house expense inevitably happens I will have had the benefit of having been able to invest the cash that would've otherwise have been spent in the meantime somewhere where it's making some interest instead of going into the black hole of rent with no returns at all.

[astura]

Well, it's easy to have two good years. It's also easy to have a bad two years with multiple major repairs.

I went one year where I spent at least $16,000 on repairs.

But that's the point - having $16,000 in repairs unexpectedly is the opposite of "semi-fixed and mostly predictable."

In the 10 years I rented I always rented from small landlords. I had three apartments during that 10 years. Because of that I've never had my rent increase without moving.

As far as black holes go - I spend more than $600/month in just property taxes and insurance. Add to that $360/month currently in interest.

[paulcole]

But if your rent is equal to your mortgage (very doable in many places, albeit for different properties), you do not need to uninvest that money for unforeseen expenses.

[Seb-C]

Those two things are only related culturally, not inherently.

I do own an individual house in Tokyo and don't have, need or want a car, so it is definitely possible when the society wants it and politics allows it.

[max_expectation]

This is already the case for people my age unless one gets a significant parental handout. Certainly for anywhere within an hour or two commute of a city where most jobs are.

[pydry]

Meanwhile other people are pretty happy with the (r>g) gradual decline into feudalism driven by asset and land ownership accumulating in fewer and richer hands.

[sooheon]

I love Piketty for bringing the data, but it's clear that r incorrectly lumps together land and capital. R can be decomposed into returns to land (rent) and returns to capital, and the former is much more pernicious.

https://equitablegrowth.org/land-rather-than-capital-the-lon...