[toast0]

Tax foreclosure generally leads to a property free and clear of all encumberances. It's a bit of a pain to arrange though. :P

A federal opt out would be a huge intrusion into contract law, IMHO.

It's pretty easy to avoid HOAs, they have to be disclosed. It may be hard to buy where you want to buy and avoid HOAs though. But my parents' house doesn't have an HOA (but does have pretty picky city code enforcement), and the two houses I've owned didn't either; although the first did have a dry covenant that everyone I talked to said is unenforcable and I found amusing. Tends to mean older lots or more rural, because new developments like to setup HOAs, presumably because the buyers of new homes don't reject them.

Some sort of association is also more or less required if there's any form of shared responsibility, like in a condo.

[Evil_Saint]

It is the government's job to make sure we have fair contracts to protect consumers right? Contacts are not always enforceable.

Land is a limited resource. We are not making any more of it. Sometimes just looking farther away is an option but often times it isn't.

HOA's being required on certain properties is bonkers to me. It feels like extortion. Either agree to these onerous terms or get nothing.

[kcplate]

> It's pretty easy to avoid HOAs, they have to be disclosed.

This is why I always cringe when my neighbors on social media bitch about HOA. It just floors me that there are people who simply do not read HOA covenants before they buy their homes.

[throwaway173738]

It wouldn’t be bad except that the board and the members can change the bylaws and rules at any time. I would be fine with an HOA where no power existed to change the rules but they’ve never been like that.

[kcplate]

Not where I am. They need a majority vote from homeowners, which is almost always impossible to get in large associations

[toasterlovin]

And also that this from OP may actually be a causal relationship for many:

> It may be hard to buy where you want to buy and avoid HOAs though.

Gotta fully accept the tradeoffs you make.

[kcplate]

Exactly. I’m no fan of them and have had a battle or two in the past with a previous house I owned. My issue was not due to ignorance, but a weird interpretation of a statute. I had a tree die. I removed it because it was unsightly. I was dinged because I wanted to replace it when the season was appropriate for planting another tree. Had I left it in I wouldn’t be in violation. So I had to plant a tree (that subsequently died), just to plant another when the season was right. Just dumb.

I swore I’d never buy in an HOA community angain after that, but around me, non-HOA communities are crap. I want to maximize value and opportunity to resell so, HOA it is.

[Bluestrike2]

A bit of common sense and understanding would go a long way to eliminating half the complaints you hear about HOAs.

If you know the tree is going to immediately start dying, you're just going to find the cheapest, least healthy sapling at the nursery. Had they let you wait until the tree is more likely to survive, there's a better chance you'd be willing to spend a bit more to buy an older/larger sapling that'll look better and provide more shade from the start. Plus, the temporary tree slowly dying would probably be less visually appealing than an empty spot for a few months.

There are reasons why we plant street trees: improved aesthetics, increased home value, shade along the street and sidewalks, traffic calming effects, etc. By ignoring the reason behind them and just focusing on checking the box, your HOA was just begging for some malicious compliance that undermined the benefits of the replacement tree.