|
> "they are just borrowing it from the HOA while paying the taxes, insurance, and doing all the work for them to keep the house up." I'm not sure if this sentence was meant to be snarky or if this was a genuine comment... if it's the former, then heheh, I will agree that the sentiment of the sentence does have some merit. But if it's the latter, I just wanted to try and clear something up -- speaking as an owner of a condo (in an HOA) and as the former president of our HOA. Typically, owners of homes within an HOA are classified as owners in a "common interest development", where owners are all equal share holders of the development as a whole. Meaning, if there are 100 homeowners in a condo community, each homeowner owns an equal share (1%) of that overall community's property. The owner is not "borrowing" anything from the HOA... especially since the HOA, itself, doesn't actually own anything at all. The HOA is technically a corporation (yes, all HOAs are incorporated as a corporation, at least in the State of California) which has been chartered to manage and maintain the common interest development property, while maintaining things like the reserve fund, enforcement of the CC&Rs, architectural reviews, etc. SO as a homeowner in the common interest, you actually own the HOA (and not the other way around). Furthermore, homeowners within an HOA are granted limited, exclusive use of a certain part of the overall property... in most cases, that is the space inside condo or townhouse unit itself, and maybe a patio or yard, etc. What's key is the limited part of "limited, exclusive use", as well as what is noted in the CC&Rs, itself, which describes the definition of what is "limited". Yes, these limitations can very well (and usually do) include provisions on what can or cannot be rented out, how long guests can stay within your home, etc. Typically, these provisions are not meant to make life difficult, but these provisions are in place to help maintain the overall property value of the all the homes in the community. But the most important thing to note is that the CC&Rs are, in fact determined by all of the homeowners, and not by some arbitrary "HOA" or "powers that be", etc. CC&Rs are (or should be) regularly reviewed by the board members of the HOA, and changes are required to be approved by a certain majority (or supermajority) of homeowners by anonymous vote (again, at least this is how it is in the State of California, as dictated by the Davis-Sterling Act). Bottom line: if you are a homeowner in a condo or townhouse community and feel like you have no freedom to do with the home that you rightfully own, just remember that you actually just own a portion of a much larger community/property, and thus, you are bound by some of the limitations / restrictions that the overall community has placed on each owner. But moreover, if you feel that some of those limitations / restrictions are unjust, unfair, or outdated, then work with the HOA Board (or better yet, actually be on the HOA board) and work with your neighbors to get those rules and regulations changed. |
You said the HOA doesn't own anything, actually they do "literally own" a portion of the thing that people pay for when buying a house. The right to deny use of your property for subletting (like airbnb). And if you don't comply, the policemen hit you with sticks until you do.
You said the HOA doesn't own anything, they own you, the human unit living in the home via dues. They also own a guarantee of income to whatever human unit lives in that house, that is a higher quality item to own than having ownership of say a cat or car. and the fact that your home serves as security for whatever liabilities the HOA corp board chooses to incur, HOA-burdened property represents a liability rather than an asset. It's a secondary level of government that resembles a banana republic.
There is also a continuing misperception that HOA corporations are miniature democracies. They are not. They have none of the protections for individual rights. So what if 50% of the neighbors don't like something. Majority rule might be fine for setting pool hours for the HOA corp's pool, but majority rule is not a democracy and it is not appropriate for what happens between the bedroom walls of "your" or more specifically "their" home.
The disputes that develop over the propriety and interpretation of restrictions is another cesspool. If there were no HOA corp, the disputes would tend to simply be differences of opinion. Natural barriers to litigation include the cost of litigation and the uncertainty of the outcome. However, the board members of an HOA corp bear no personal responsibility for financing litigation and are driven as much to harm fellow residents as they are to win. If they can cost a homeowner $20,000 and up, then their egos are satiated even if their HOA corp loses. The management companies profit from accusations of violations. The HOA attorney is likewise more concerned about provoking and maintaining the dispute for profit.
Which is why HOA's lower property values significantly by lowering the pool of available buyers.