[foundry27]

I get it, really I do. But do the HOAs really need financial enforcement mechanisms intended to seriously harm people, and to punish them as judge, jury and executioner? A HOA’s legal job is to maintain the common-interest property and enforce the CC&Rs. It is not a HOA’s job to extract enormous sums of money out of its members, even annoying ones. The right lever to pull to get some rich person partying at 4am and trashing the place (for example) to stop is for the HOA to file for a court injunction after repeated violations; once a judge orders “no loud music 10 pm - 7 am”, the next 4 am party will become contempt of court, which is a problem for the cops, not the HOA. Hell, 4 a.m. noise is a municipal nuisance and probably a crime; people should be calling the cops every time it happens. Individual members could even sue the owner in small-claims court for private nuisance, where judges can issue even more injunctions or award damages. All this to say, you don’t need to take people’s money to get them to stop doing bad stuff. But you do need to take people’s money to get rich, and to hurt people. This new legislation should be deeply concerning to people interested in the latter, and IMO shouldn’t really be a concern to people interested in the former.

[pandaman]

I don't know where you live, but calling cops over noise nuisance has not worked in most cities in the US for a long time. E.g. with LAPD you will be lucky if cops will show up in 4 hours and if they show up they are not going to ticket anybody. And there is nothing you can do about it. "Petty" crime is free-for-all in any city with a "restorative justice" DA. So we need to use other means to slow down our degrading quality of life.

[potato3732842]

>But do the HOAs really need financial enforcement mechanisms intended to seriously harm people, and to punish them as judge, jury and executioner?

No, they don't. But to be fair, your local enforcement agencies have the same power to unilaterally fine people insane amounts of money. So in a technical sense it makes sense that HOAs would have the same unilateral power to screw people.

[kstrauser]

Yeah, but:

1) Governments are often much easier to sway. You can get a newspaper or TV station involved. You can show up to open meetings. You can campaign against the incumbents. While you can porbably technically do some of that against rogue HOA boards, it's going to be a lot harder.

2) Governments are usually large enough not to make things a personal vendetta. That's clearly not always true; I'm only talking about trends. Meanwhile, the HOA members are your neighbors, by definition. Get on the wrong side of them and they can easily get involved in everything you do.

[potato3732842]

What I was getting at was the government shouldn't have that kind of power either even if they're marginally less likely to be dicks with it.

[kstrauser]

Ah, got it. You were saying neither part should do that. I interepreted that as HOAs should also be allowed to do that. I see what you're saying now, though.

[adolph]

> once a judge orders “no loud music 10 pm - 7 am”, the next 4 am party will become contempt of court, which is a problem for the cops, not the HOA

Even if you could get a judge to levy an order like that, are municipal police really likely to enforce such an order?

[kstrauser]

You have to phrase it properly. One time when a neighbor had a school-/work-night party that lasted until after midnight, I went over and asked them to wrap it up. When they didn't, I called the police non-emergency line and asked them to go break it up. When we were still awake from noise an hour later, I called the police again, and told them that in 15 minutes I was going back over there myself. They asked me to please not do that, and took care of it within the next 10 minutes.

They were ambivalent about dealing with noise, but were happy to stave off a riot.