[adriand]

I think having property standards is an important part of ensuring that people keep up their properties and by extension, maintain (and ideally beautify) their neighbourhoods. I can see how someone who puts the time and effort into creating an alternative to a lawn (such as a garden featuring wild species) may take issue with an ordnance that doesn't take into account alternatives to a traditional lawn, but when people don't maintain their properties and their yards are full of tall grass and weeds, or worse, tall grass, weeds, trash and dog shit (it all kind of goes together), it's unsightly.

[mattnewton]

> it's unsightly.

Personally I think the burden of unsightly-ness is usually far overblown. I just don’t think it’s that big of a deal if my neighbors don’t maintain their lawn as long as it doesn’t spill into mine.

[cmh89]

>I think having property standards is an important part of ensuring that people keep up their properties and by extension, maintain (and ideally beautify) their neighbourhoods.

Most places I've seen that have strict property standards end up being ugly swaths of green lawn with absolutely nothing pretty growing.

[hgsgm]

Why would trash and dog feces go together with a meadow?

The trash is obviously a problem, which can be addressed directly.

[floatrock]

Because by lumping them together, the pearl-clutchers create an association between people who go for alternative lawns with degenerates who leave dog feces lying around.

We've been suggesting The Others are dirty, unkempt, and irresponsible in order to ostracize them since the dawn of protectionism.

[wkdneidbwf]

there’s definitely a difference between a meadow (and the suburban front yard conversion thereof) and an unkempt traditional grass lawn. the latter suggests a resident that doesn’t keep up their property.

[hgsgm]

Your prejudice shouldn't be my problem.

[NoZebra120vClip]

I would definitely take issue with ordnance on my lawn. I wouldn't want my children blown to bits by accident.

[acapybara]

There's a big assumption persisting throughout this thread which I will challenge.

That is: that HOA rules and enforcement results in better-maintained properties.

What I have observed as a near-universal property of neighborhoods is that there are good neighborhoods and bad neighborhoods. This always correlates with the quality of the population of the surrounding area, and sometimes (but not always) correlates with its socioeconomic status and property vales.

Anecdotally, where I have seen the most overgrown grass, dogshit, and intra-community hostility, there typically is a HOA present. While one could argue that these communities have an insufficient level of rule enforcement, this is contrary to the reality where some neighbors are constantly surveiling and reporting others and compliance notices and warnings are sent out regularly.

The best neighborhoods, as measured by low crime, well-maintained properties, sense of community, and so-on, are often those without an HOA at all. They tend to be expensive, but aren't necessarily so. Here, a compliance notice or warning is unheard of. Generally, neighbors know and help one another and there is a broad, unspoken social contract concerning the way things ought to be. People do the right thing because they know they ought to, not because someone is holding a big stick over their head.

For maximizing both quality-of-life and net worth, it's therefore a good idea to target these neighborhoods as a primary residence, even if it means allocating significantly more capital to acquire the asset. Going hand-in-hand with this, it is also inherently a good idea to uphold the social contracts and take care of one's own property, as interests are aligned throughout the community.

[adriand]

We're from different places, clearly - where I live (in a mid-sized Canadian city), there are no HOAs. In fact, I'm not sure they're a thing in Canada more generally. Here, property standards are part of municipal bylaws.

Many of the neighbourhoods in this city are quite diverse - in Canada more generally, I've never noticed the sudden, obvious changes in socioeconomic status that you notice after crossing a street or railway in the US. Along with that come wide variances in the degree of effort and care that people put into their properties. When the amount of care falls below a certain (legally defined) standard, then I do think those bylaws are helpful.

My next door neighbour at my last house was a cop and at some point he just decided he didn't care any more about his property, and his front yard was all weeds and his backyard was all dog shit. There was no amount of "sense of community" that was going to get him to keep his property tidy. He just...stopped caring.

There is also a legal (not to mention moral and ethical) requirement to clear snow from the sidewalk in front of your property within 24 hours of a snowfall. This is generally complied with, but the ~5% of people who do not comply make travelling along city sidewalks hazardous for the elderly and handicapped in the winter months. A "sense of community" is not sufficient to ensure prompt snow clearance, and once again, enforcement measures are helpful.

[balfirevic]

> There is also a legal (not to mention moral and ethical) requirement to clear snow from the sidewalk in front of your property within 24 hours of a snowfall.

What happens if you're away from home for a week (or a month)?

[adriand]

You either have to arrange for someone else to do it, or, the city will do it and issue a fine / charge.

In practice, enforcement is complaint-driven, so the city won’t generally do anything until someone takes the time to report it.

Reporting it may sound meddlesome, but watching an elderly person trying to move around the day after a heavy snowfall is nothing short of tragic. It’s a real issue of equity that needs to be taken more seriously than it is.