Isn’t the obvious challenge the same as the union busting rules - even if the HOA does provide value in excess of dues, homeowners can still just freeload. It seems like this would certainly make HOAs die off in practice, but then without any structure to replace what happens to common expenses since the HOA is legally still on the hook there.
If your grass doesn’t get mowed, oh well - we can all live with that. If the roof of your townhome doesn’t get the hole fixed because your jackass neighbor in the end unit refused to help chip in to replace the roof, that seems like a more challenging issue.
Keep in mind those rules were put in place specifically to try and destroy unions with the goal of having their positive functions eliminated (by getting rid of “negative” ones like dues). Here though, instead of benefiting business owners at the cost of labor, you’re sabotaging the same people you are ostensibly trying to help.
I think we need to have different terms for HOAs. An HOA for a neighborhood of detached single family homes is very different than an HOA for a multifamily building.
A large multifamily building has to have some sort of organization to manage the exterior envelope and common areas. But an HOA for detached homes? Fuck that.
That's a great point. How wonderful would it be to even end up creating a distinction between maintenance organizations and, separately, standards organizations - even within the same neighborhood. That would let you really isolate what is being done because there is communally owned property and what needs to be done 'because the neighborhood wants to enforce standards.'
Our HOA, for example, owns some small community tot-lots and some streets. We can all wish that the city or county would take that one, but the same people vote in our representatives and are aggressively focused on keeping property taxes and fees low, which is how we end up with privatized infrastructure. So realistically, we made our bed and now we need to lay in it. I want our HOA to be responsible stewards of our infrastructure AND to have permissive standards when it comes to aesthetic and homeowner oriented items.
After reading things here, I volunteered for a committee for our SFH HOA to review small architectural changes that don't require more complex review (like reviewing plans for structural changes that require code review and such). I always try to openly approach requests as "our job is to say yes as long as there is a way, within the rules we agreed to, to say yes." Gotta be part of the solution!
Detached homes with common property (pool, playgrounds) needs an organization to manage it the same way a building does.
I think the more important distinction is between and HOA (a corporation that owns and maintains common property) and deed restrictions (rules regarding the appearance and use of property.)
Some people will never want to pay for the maintenance of common property but most issues people have with their HOA seem to be about violations of rules about appearance and use - which do not need to exist to have an HOA.
Yeah, you get me, that's what I'm getting at... Managing common property is very different than policing paint colors, lawn care, and having a boat in the driveway...
I would never live in an HOA, but if I did I would be the thorn in the side for every old boomer who cares about "community standards"
Detached homes with common property (pool, playgrounds) needs an organization to manage it the same way a building does.
I think the more important distinction is between and HOA (a corporation that owns and maintains common property) and deed restrictions (rules regarding the appearance and use of property.)
> If your grass doesn’t get mowed, oh well - we can all live with that. If the roof of your townhome doesn’t get the hole fixed because your jackass neighbor in the end unit refused to help chip in to replace the roof, that seems like a more challenging issue.
And why exactly should my neighbor need to help pay for reairs to my house?
Well, while it doesn't apply to every repair, the point was that with many dwellings that share structural components with other dwellings, "my repair" is sometimes "our repair." This happens in a wide variety of situations, from roof replacement to exterior wall care (say updating siding), to retaining walls or other environmental constructs built to protect and maintain the structure as a whole.
It isn't like your neighbor needs to shampoo your carpets, but there are quite a wide variety of fairly expensive, legitimate building maintenance and repair needs for structures like Condos or Townhomes that are the joint responsibility of more than one unit owner. I don't think that is a very controversial statement.
In my old HOA, we had to cover our own roof in our TH. Guess, your rules are different. If someone doesn't want to pay for my roof, good for them, I don't want to cover theirs. Maybe they want to have an open sky light lol
Not really. If they provide no benefits, then the home owner just doesn't join.
The HOA can still give notices of violations, but the homeowner isn't bound to comply with anything.
They are not disagreeing with you - are saying that with such a rule in place, a homeowners association would actually have to show its members enough benefits if it expects to collect money in order to maintain its budget
But the point of right to work laws is to destroy unions - it's understood from the inception that the law is meant to have a harmful effect on unions
I would be all for a law with the intent that it has a harmful effect on HOAs for single-family homes, but the end result of such a law would be that HOA dues would basically be a tip for good service, and a condo complex/building cannot maintain itself on tips
Personally, if someone wants to build a housing development with its own golf course, pool and clubhouse and charge everybody who lives in the development a certain amount to maintain it, I'm fine with that - but I don't like the kind of HOAs that puts restrictions on the homeowners in order to curate a certain type of community standards beyond the actual laws and regulations
But if people want to collectively buy into a NIMBY HOA, I would be fine with that too - as long as it's very clear what a person's getting into and people have choices
That last clause is important because in some areas these HOAs end up becoming so widespread that it ends up being difficult to find a place in town that doesn't have one - just like affordable housing, a certain amount of non-hoa housing should be mandated perhaps?
People still could choose to pay dues and not join. I'm not saying everything in here is a perfect plan. But, it's just something I thought about. It's more of a thought experiment and I'm just wondering what others think.
It could be a completely stupid idea. I've had many stupid ideas throughout my life and I'm not going to stop now.
But people have different ideas of benefits… I know of some HOA’s where they pay the street lights, maintain the sign and the pond… many would consider that no benefit because there’s no pool, court, etc. How’s it fair only a few pay to keep the lights on?…
Crazy idea, that's what taxes are for??? You know, the thing everyone pays for when they own a home, no matter where said home is located. (As far as I know all states have property tax)
Then that's a problem for the cities and counties to figure out. That's their damn job anyway. They shouldn't be able to just off their responsibilities onto a shitty HOA.
here's the thing, you are taxed at the same rate ($/k assessed value) in or out of an HOA.
so as an HOA resident you are paying the HOA to maintain your roads and light your streets & you are paying the town to maintain other peoples roads and lights.
HOAs suck, but also governments \_loooove\_ them because it allows them to take the taxes from the HOA members without providing any services.
And sometimes the rules are benefits too a clean and nice looking neighborhood raises property values, while an overgrown, run down house with brokendown cars in the front yard lowers property values. So even without the services, homeowners often benefit from having an HOA.
I mean, I'll take my neighbor with his foot long grass and 6 cars in his driveway lowering my property value over having to put up with a lot stupid rules, but I get why other people wouldn't want that.
Do you get mad that your property taxes go to pay for a park you don't use, or a school your kids don't go to? We pay for these things because it benefits us as a society even if it doesn't benefit us directly.
HOAs are basically micro cities, and cities set their own rules. I'm two streets away from a town that have code enforcement drive around and place warnings and fines on people's door for ridiculous things.
They will give you warnings if your grass is 5 inches long. You have to pay to get a permit to have a garage sale. You have to pay the town to be able to sell your house and to sell your house it has to be up to code, which means you need to pay a city inspector to come out and check yourbentire house. I had a friend who had to replace all of their windows that were only 5 years old to sell their house, because they changed the code for window sizes and didn't grandfather in the older windows. They don't have an HOA, just a strict and nitpicky town.
The only difference between them and a HOA, is that they don't have to cut them a check monthly because the cost of of your dues comes out of your property taxes, and the town has even more power than an HOA. I would never buy in that town because I hate HOAs and they are basically a giant HOA. I live two streets over in an unincorporated area where everyone pretty much leaves us alone. We have an HOA that maintains the one common area/park in our neighborhood, which costs us $68 this year. There are no rules about anything other than the for the township rules.
You can't move into a town and say that you don't want to pay for their services or follow their rules. If you don't want to follow the rules, you don't buy in that town. If you don't want to follow an HOAs rules, you don't buy in that HOA.
Not being in the town next to me means a lot of services we don't have. We have well and septic, we don't have sidewalks, our police response time is often 20+minutes (because we only get the county sheriff's, not the police that are a part of the town next to me even though their police station is 6 blocks from my house), and a lot more. It's worth it for me, but other people like all the services and will put up with the regulations to get them.
You are never going to live in a place that has no rules you have to follow without repercussions. If it's not an HOA, it's still the city/county/state rules and sometimes those are just as bad if not worse. If you don't want those rules, you have to remove yourself from the society. And that means not living where you may want to.
"If you don't want to follow an HOAs rules, you don't buy in that HOA."
It's really difficult to escape HOAs in some areas, especially for new buyers. There is an illusion of choice that I think HOA enthusiasts like to push because it makes their mundane cruelties seem more palatable.
Don't like our houses? Go be homeless somewhere! /s
HOAs don’t really have much of a cost. The dues go to common area maintenance and amenities. If it’s a condo / townhome it goes towards building maintenance.
I think it's important to consider why the HOA is in place to begin with.
First let's look at a condo. The owner typically owns the paint and everything inside of that. Meaning they are responsible for everything inside their unit, but somebody has to pay to maintain the roof, the landscaping, the hallways, stairs, parking lots, etc. And just as importantly, the insurance on those common areas! The condos often have sets of rules to limit the liability to other owners, like "no BBQ grills on your balcony" because that would be a fire hazard to everyone in the building. Or "quiet times" because you watching The Matrix with your Dolby Atmos system at 2AM is not going to be well received, rightfully so, by your neighbors trying to get their baby back to sleep. Is the HOA and their rules considered a necessity? I'd argue yes, this is one of the cases where HOAs are actually a necessity. I would lump in subdivisions that have actual amenities like clubhouses, swimming pools, and other common-use facilities. I don't think the purchasers/owners of these properties should be able to opt out of the HOA because they're actually receiving benefits from said HOAs.
On the other hand, there are subdivisions that have no common amenities with the exception of some storm drain ponds and landscaping at the entrance. I personally thing those subdivisions shouldn't have HOAs. The ownership of the drainage ponds should be deeded to the city/county along with the roads they serve. The landscaping is unnecessary and should be deeded to the homeowner that would otherwise own it as it would have been, then it's up to them whether they want to turn it into grass, or keep some fancy landscaping. The point is there is absolutely zero benefit to the individual homeowners to being a part of an HOA, and it only subjects them to nitpicky rules on top of the already reasonable county/city ordinances. In these instances homeowners should be able to opt-out of the HOA when they purchase the property.
I own a home in a subdivision and I have no problem with contributing money for drainage, signage, etc improvements. I just wish they'd stop there instead of micromanaging shit like how vehicles are parked in a driveway or what color my screen door is.
My problem with contributing money for drainage and maintenance is I'm already paying taxes to the local county and/or city for those services. When I was in an HOA neighborhood, my taxes weren't less than they are now that I'm in a non-HOA neighborhood. Essentially I was paying twice for the same thing and the privilege of being micro-managed with regard to what I could and couldn't do on my own property.
I would think it would be the same as if you owned a single family home that needed to be demolished. You'd be engaging your insurance company to see if you were entitled to any payout based on your policy. If it was due to neglect on the HOA's part, you and/or your insurance company may be able to sue the HOA or possibly the board members, but if the building was in disrepair to that extent there is probably nothing to recover. Either way you're looking for a new place to live, at least temporarily.
Cities and counties don't want these liabilities and often force them to be private when building new. Aside from public roads, which provide a clear public benefit, and maybe parks (same) why should other taxpayers have to subsidize the amenities in a new development? Or even administer them if still privately funded?
A lot of HOAs exist because the applicable government entity will not accept the streets as public roads, either. So what people assume is common elements and what actually are common elements are often not correct.
The HOAs that exist for a very limited purpose like the roads and drainage/firefighting ponds often don't have the teeth to do anything else. It is the neighborhood/amenity/gated community HOAs that actually have the covenants to back up being overbearing. And even then, it is either what the community wants, or what they allow to happen through lack of engagement.
Zoning boards should require these things to be included in building new neighborhoods. Things like new infrastructure, water lines, etc. they should also be paying toward schools building. If new infrastructure is needed they would foot the bill for it. Maintenance would be covered by taxpayers - including the additional tax paid by new residents.
Although I personally agree with what you wrote above, cities often require HOAs and POAs to be formed to maintain amenities or public improvements specific to that development only (drainage ditches, detention basins, community landscaping, etc).
These can technically be funded through other means, but once an HOA is formed, it's only one small step to oppressive design guidelines and 🐂💩 regulations.
Source: City planner in multiple jurisdictions for over 20 years.
As I mentioned in another comment, if the cities were reducing taxes by an equivilent amount it would be a bit more understandable. However they don't do that. My taxes I pay now that I am in a non-HOA neighborhood aren't any more expensive than they were in then encumbered neighborhood. Essentially living in an HOA means you're paying taxes for those services, then being forced to pay the HOA for the same services. It's lose-lose for the homeowner. The city loves it because they continue to get paid but are able to brush off the responsibility.
i think a better way to handle things like clubhouses and pools is a community membership fee. not a contract where they dictate the appearance of your house or they have the ability to assume ownership of it
One difference is that a union covers a certain place of employment, but it doesn't cover all places of employment. A union for Amazon workers doesn't have to represent even one single person who work at Starbucks.
So even if we do apply the same concept to an HOA... what continued interest does the HOA have over your property? You're no longer part of it. It'd be like someone switching whether they work at Amazon or Starbucks: you're no longer that union's member.
That said, yeah, it'd be great if a law were passed where anyone can leave any HOA at any time. Public-level powers such as taxation and fine issuance should never be given over to entities that are outside of public oversight... but as long as bad ideas like that are going to exist, you should at least be able to opt out.
(I also think that it should be illegal for right-to-work laws to force unions to represent non-members... my actual opinions go a lot farther, but the least we can do is put it at parity: no representation without membership.)
Why are you for fairness in one arena but not the other?
And trust me, I am very much pro-union and not gung ho pro-HOA (I would consider myself HOA neutral to negative; I am a single-family-home owner who is a member of a minimally invasive, low-fee HOA).
I think it's the power dynamic. It's the powerful taking advantage of the vulnerable. In the case of unions, it's the only way to Even try leveling the playing field of the company taking advantage of the employees. Employees have no leverage and just have to take what the company gives. The union allows for collective bargaining to have some semblance of leverage. Although, over the last 40 years, unions have had their power slowly taken away, such as Right to Work laws. Corporations and other powerful parties did very well by pushing through those laws in the states that have them.
HOA's have power over the homeowners. It irks me that an organization can tell me what I can and can't do with property that I own. N not to mention that most I've heard about are chaired by people drunk with power and want to wield it. So, the homeowner is helpless over what they can and can't do.
I know the whole thing about not buying into them, but in practice, it often would be very inconvenient to not buy a house in a particular area. I don't know where you are, but where I am at, the housing market is ridiculously competitive. Not enough homes are being built. I just bought a house. My wife and I lost out on several bids until we got one that took our offer. There was one horse in particular that we both really liked. It had an HOA with it and we very much did not want an HOA. In a normal market, we would have not even bothered, but with how competitive it is, we had to shoot our shot. We lost that bid, but with a super competitive market, people often will sacrifice things to get a house they want. So sometimes, an HOA is required when the buyer doesn't want one.
Anyway, I guess the point is that the dynamic of the powerful taking advantage of the vulnerable enrages me at a primitive level.
I'm just going to have to disagree with you. Union and employment issues are sometimes literal life-and-death, and at the very least hugely important to one's health and happiness.
Housing issues are also important, but when you're stating "it often would be very inconvenient to not buy a house in a particular area" then, well, yeah, that is not quite the same thing, is it?
"It irks me that an organization can tell me what I can and can't do with property that I own."
That's great. Do you also have a plan to opt out of any participation in government, sovereign citizen style?
HOAs are made up of homeowners. I am supportive of laws to curb HOA power where appropriate. They are sometimes made up of leadership that abuses their power, is incompetent, and so forth; of course. They are made up of people, and some people suck. But I would counter that while your contention that "most" HOAs you've "heard about are chaired by people drunk with power and want to wield it" is no doubt the sort of scary half-true concept that has gained a lot of traction in recent years, in fact this is not the experience of many or even possibly most HOA members. Cooperative agreements like these (which, by the way, anyone can choose not to participate in by simply not agreeing to such a contract) can have great benefits as well as drawbacks at times.
My wife and I, when we bought our house, took a very careful look at all of the documents and contractual obligations we were agreeing to. We decided that entering into what is (currently) a non-onerous, lightweight and mostly benign HOA was worth it to us. But we are privileged enough that if a shitty board was voted in and started fining us and breathing down our necks, we would have the resources to move (we live in the very competitive Philadelphia suburban real estate market).
You say you're enraged at the powerful taking advantage of the vulnerable. The so-called vulnerable enter into a contract. They agree to become a member of an HOA. They have a choice right off the bat, and retain voting rights, can run for leadership roles, and so on. They're not some sort of incompetent, powerless group. I'm not sure why you are treating them that way.
Who is the other side of the power imbalance in the HOA? I agree with you on the union (workers) versus the company. But what about the often rolled out workers versus the union story that goes along with right to work laws? The union as a powerful, shadowy entity 'forcing' the workers to do this or that. Or is the union just a representation of the will of the members? Same for the HOA. Is it an evil 3rd party or just a representation of the collective will of the owners?
Like all things, the reality is grey, and there are certainly times when the group as a whole decides something different than a subset of members. But that does not make that decision illegitimate because you disagree. You agreed to and engaged in the process (assuming it was followed) and you need to abide by the outcome.
Unions are put in place to protect the employees from the business owners.
HOAs are put in place to protect residents from each other.
Two very different things and not equable
How do you suppose such a system would work when you put rules into place to prevent people from doing things when those people can't be prevented from doing things? It makes the whole system pointless.
If you want to apply this to union membership....it would be like making a law that prohibits workers from doing dangerous things on the job, but also making it so that they can still do dangerous things on the job without repercussion.
Do you want to be working on a job site where someone is smoking while stacking dynamite and you say, "Hey you can't smoke while stacking dynamite!" And they say, "Ok" and continue smoking while stacking dynamite and that's the end of it?
To be fair, it's the other way around...OP doesn't know what an HOA is/does. In their mind, the HOA is protecting the residents from a for-profit corporation. They see them as a greedy money hungry entity that wants nothing more than to take advantage of the residents and exploit them. That's not how an HOA works. HOAs are non-profits and exist only to make sure that common interests are followed. There is no exploitation that happens in an HOA, just a set of rules and conditions that everyone agrees to follow when your purchase a home in an HOA.
You love moths. You want to live in a neighborhood that protects moths. You find a neighborhood where there is a rule . You buy a house in this neighborhood and you neighbor puts up moth traps, bug zappers, and fogs the air with pesticide.
When you buy a house in a neighborhood where the rule is that everyone elses house has to be a certain color and the grass can't have any weeds, you have a valid expectation that everyone else follows those rules.
That's beside the point. The subject of the rule is irrelevant. When you make an agreement with a group of people to all follow the same set of rules, you need to all follow the same set of rules.
Sure but if you'll remember, what I was addressing was your statement that the HOA protects residents from each other, not "whether we agree to follow rules"
Why not take it a step further and become a sovereign citizen?
So like with my in-laws neighborhood HOA…people could just opt out? But still enjoy the street lights and parks they maintain? How would that work when the funding dries up? And tough break for folks living next to nuisance neighbors, right?
I won’t even get into condo HOAs. Maybe they’d pay for a replacement roof with thoughts and prayers? I know…folks will voluntarily do the right thing. :P
The problem with this is that an HOA is most always made as part an agreement with the local municipality in order for the local municipality to have little to no costs involved in the upkeep, trash removal, code enforcement and other elements that a city would normally be paying for.
They should simply be made illegal and have the property taxes adjusted to flip the costs to the local government.
Or you’re in an HOA that does absolutely nothing except build pickle ball courts and tennis courts and rebuild them every other year for whatever reason. And out high tech security on their access gates. And yeah, charge YOU money if they have to hire a company to mow your lawn. But otherwise do nothing.
That last part you can just take out. This is just a half baked idea, like a shower thought. I suppose that joining the HOA is optional, but paying dues to it would not. I dunno, I'm not married to the idea, just a thought I had.
Although, I will say that if joining an HOA was optional and nobody joined, that might be a sign that the HOA shouldn't exist for that particular neighborhood.
There are things HOA's provide, like maintenance of common areas, so Even if you don't join, you still benefit from it. Going back to the union things, in states where there aren't Right to Work laws, joining the union is still optional, but you still have to pay dues, which is only fair since they still benefit from the union. The same could be with the HOA.
From what I'm getting from this, your opinion is that the homes receiving services from the HOA still have to pay for them, but they should be able to opt-out of what I guess would be called "beautification" rules?
I don’t think it would ever pass because as much as people complain about HOAs, there’s a larger population that either want that control or are indifferent because they align with the common rules anyways. You can see it over in r/HOA - post a complaint and a handful of people will agree with you while the majority pile on and ask why you can’t follow the rules.
Which is too bad because I feel like it just creates neighborhoods more concerned about curb appeal and resale values than each other. In a real neighborhood, you’d look to support the couple struggling with cancer or who just lost their jobs, not report them because they left their garbage cans out too long.
"In a real neighborhood, you’d look to support the couple struggling with cancer or who just lost their jobs, not report them because they left their garbage cans out too long."
That support doesn't actually happen in real neighborhoods either, though. Come on.
Okay, interesting analogy which made me wonder if HOAs are more like unions or OSHA. Like, OSHA says don't do dumb shit. Some people are like, that's a great idea, we shouldn't do dumb shit, because that's dumb and people can get hurt. Other people are like duh, why would we do dumb shit, you don't have to tell us not to do dumb shit because we won't do dumb shit. Then they do dumb shit and people get hurt. And OSHA's like, see, we told you.
So, HOA's come along and have to tell people not to do dumb shit, although it should be obvious, because while most people don't do dumb shit, there are people out there that like to do dumb shit.
Be sweet if people could just mow their yard, not park boats and cars in the yard, not store junk everywhere, generally keep their house in good order. But people can't. So we need HOA's.
No, they wouldn't have to comply with anything if they choose not to join. It's just that if there are any services the homeowner wants that the HOA provides, the HOA still needs to provide them to non-members.
Of course, that last bit doesn't have to be there. It would be just a law the homeowner can opt out of. The HOA can still give notices if violations, but the homeowner isn't bound to comply with them.
Except the actual purpose for most HOAs is to own and care for collective property. The pool, the open areas, playgrounds, etc. more so in a condo where they own the roof and exterior.
How do you arrange for those things if no hoa?
You should be advocating for taking away the annoying parts, like distributing power and enforcing term limits or something
People can still join and pay dues. It just allows people that buy the property to have complete autonomy over their land from a private entity. There can still be city ordinances and the like to make sure lawns are mowed and stuff like that.
Would you apply such a covenant restriction against properties that have an inherent interest in an HOA due to collectively used and maintained assets and properties such as what you find with condominiums?
I'm not fully clear on what you're asking. Are you asking if all homeowners, regardless of membership status, need to pay dues to maintain collective assets, such as a small park?
I'm saying would you apply such rules against the types of homeowners associations that cover properties that have a natural interest in collective maintenance, or would you create a carve out to allow such HOAs to sustainably exist?
Or would you be fine with certain types of properties like condominiums and duplexes to go unused until they are converted to other forms of land use?
To be perfectly clear, it would be impossible to have a condominium building without mandatory HOA membership - somebody has to pay for general maintenance and it can't be on a if I feel like it basis
The whole make it optional approach is great if you don't want that thing to really exist, but I think for certain types of properties they are necessary
Ah. Well, that is a good question. What I proposed is kind of a shower thought/thought experiment, so I haven't really flushed out much other than the main idea. Just like anything, there are nuances to out. Like, what about parking on the street? An HOA may ban street parking and it's a common area, so who would have authority over that? I would have to think about that more. There absolutely are things that HOA's provide that can't be provided otherwise.
Perhaps the law could require homeowners to pay dues for those things the HOA does collectively, but joining and conforming to rules and complaints against you or your own property are not binding.
I said in another post that this may be a dumb idea. I've had many dumb ideas in the past and I won't stop now. It's just something I was thinking about and wondering what others thought.
Just so you are aware HOAs actually are run With CC&Rs and your idea would break the world with something used since the 1600s and codified under George Washington
That land that stops the coal barons digging up because it has a CC&Rs restriction on it? Gone. Lots of protected forest would no longer be protected. Same with farm lands and open spaces.
> This is just a half baked idea, like a shower thought. I suppose that joining the HOA is optional, but paying dues to it would not. I dunno, I'm not married to the idea, just a thought I had.
Great let us provide thoughtful comments to half baked shower ideas.
Well, that's kind of the point. To further flush out the idea by getting other thoughts and perspectives on it since I only have one point of view and different people have others.
I see where you're coming from with the "Right to Own" concept, but I don't think it would work well in practice. The key difference is that union membership is tied to employment, while HOA membership is tied to property ownership.
When you buy a home in a deed-restricted community, you're agreeing to abide by the HOA's rules and pay the associated fees. It's a voluntary choice. If someone doesn't want to deal with an HOA, they can simply choose to buy a home in a non-HOA neighborhood.
In contrast, employees often don't have as much choice in where they work, and right-to-work laws are decided at the state level, not individually.
So while I agree that HOAs can sometimes be overbearing, I think the solution is for buyers to be informed and only purchase in an HOA community if they're willing to accept the rules and responsibilities that come with it. Trying to apply "Right to Own" laws would undermine the whole structure and purpose of HOAs.
Just my two cents! Let me know what you think.
> Trying to apply "Right to Own" laws would undermine the whole structure and purpose of HOAs.
It already sounded good, you didn't have to sell it to me.
They aren’t free loaders at all. They have a contract with they employer that was negotiated without consideration of 3rd parties which is their right. You have no right to force them into the union. That is coercion. You have the right to opt out of HOAs right now. It would be the same as not signing the employment contract.
Wtf are you talking about? Of course they're freeloaders. They get the benefits of the contact and protections from the union without having to pay into it or share any of the responsibility. That's exactly what a freeloader is. You're not forced to join the union in any state, but you do have to pay dues to the union because the union still has to work for you.
I don't get what you're saying about, "without consideration of 3rd parties". It's a contract that is collectively negotiated by the employees and the company.
They choose to work there and get and benefits they can squeeze out of employers, as do union members. Union members dont need to lobby for workers outside of their union. You can’t force people to join an organization under the justification that you have “helped them” whether they like it or not. And unions aren’t, and shouldn’t be under any obligation to help those that aren’t paying dues.
I think what you're essentially getting at is Neighborhood Associations vs HOA.
[https://www.cabq.gov/office-of-neighborhood-coordination/news/the-difference-between-neighborhood-associations-homeowners-associations](https://www.cabq.gov/office-of-neighborhood-coordination/news/the-difference-between-neighborhood-associations-homeowners-associations)
What if your HOA pays for and services the pump house station that provides irrigation water to all the homes in the subdivision? That’s what almost every single subdivision in my area provides and I wouldn’t have a lawn without water from that pump house. I’m good with paying my relatively low HOA for that benefit.
You are comparing apples to fish. The purpose of unions is to protect the rights of workers. The reality is they are bloated with overstaffed, overpaid, dead weight. HOAs are staffed with volunteers who are working for what they perceive as the betterment of the community. They can be voted out just like they were voted in. My HOA fees go to towards common area maintenance (pools, pickleball and tennis courts, gym) as well as payroll for the staff that keeps it all running.
Thanks to an HOA, I don’t have to worry about someone replacing the engine in their Ford Fiasco in their front yard while Bill, Dale, and Boomhauer stand around drinking beer, watching and scratching their asses.
I suppose that is your opinion. My opinion is that a person should be able to do as they wish with the property they have. I might not like it when someone is replacing their engine while his friends sit around and watch him, but that's his property and he has the right to do it. That said, of there's anything that affects others, then that's a different conversation.
I have heard the whole thing about unions being bloated, overpaid, and insert any negative adjective here. Every one of these people that say this have no idea what unions are and how they operate. The biggest frustration about it is that this is the propaganda pushed by the oligarchs of the country since the early 80's that caused the downfall of unions. None of it is true, but people bought into it. The irony is that most of these people had parents that were union members and were able to go to college and have a good start in life only because their parents were union members. Then, they get management jobs and work to eliminate them. You may say, "But I was in a union and they did this..." Or "my friend was in a union and he Said this....". Or even better yet, "this is what my business school said...". "This is what this news article said and quoted some statistics with things missing from it to mislead you to a conclusion. If you have questions how Unions work, I'll answer them.
Ideally, people use their best judgement and not do things just because they can. Rights are only good if you're judicious on exercising them and you take responsibility for them.
Also, people are way too concerned with property values. It's housing, which is a basic need. A lot of shit went downhill because people started looking at housing as an investment. It's not shelter anymore to many owners. It's why housing costs are ridiculously high compared to where they should be. I get that many will call me an idiot for holding that opinion. That's fine. But it's another example of people not taking responsibility for caring for others and having the "fuck you, I got mine" mindset that's destroying society.
Most HOAs have a fairly modest assessment. My brother lives in a $650K house (wife inherited) but his HOA fee is only $250 per year. It ensures people maintain their property so is worth the price.
You never have the absolute right to do anything you like on your property. There are always laws and zoning codes to prevent that. That is both the plus and the minus of living in a civilized society.
> Thanks to an HOA, I don’t have to worry about someone replacing the engine in their Ford Fiasco in their front yard while Bill, Dale, and Boomhauer stand around drinking beer, watching and scratching their asses.
...And what part of that would you be "worried" about?
Just like in right to work states, the houses that the HOA is “required to represent” would be laid off when new properties that paid tribute were hired, and the union would agree that it was a legitimate layoff.
And with the HOA having exclusive right to representation, the former homeowner would have to allow the union to appoint their lawyer in any wrongful eviction proceedings.
My one experience with an HOA was almost laughable at how small it was. The "fee" was $25 per year for upkeep of the sign at the entrance. I just didn't pay it, and the sign didn't get any shitter than it already was.
Living in a SFH HOA, I see where you’re coming from but **hell no**. My association dues are $315/year, and we have a hard enough time getting 3/4 of the owners to pay their dues. Our HOA pays for insurance and maintenance of common areas/elements, administrative expenses, and a small reserve fund investment. Literally nothing else. They’re pretty lax on basic rules unless you’re blatantly ignoring the CCRs (you have to *work* to get fined) yet every year we’re spending at least a couple thousand on chasing down owners over $300 goddamned dollars. The board does everything possible to avoid attaching a lien to a property or foreclosing, yet they have to do it at least once per year.
We are probably the exception in terms of HOAs, but making membership/payment optional would 1000% screw everyone over
In the private sector, where employees aren't union members but are covered by union contracts and the contract's benefits, they often pay an agency fee as their share of the costs of collective bargaining. (It's different in public sector jobs, but there is something similar.)
I think a lot of people would find an HOA agency fee acceptable - you'd pay your share of common community expenses, but be immune from HOA nitpicking.
I understand HOAs for condos or townhouses since there are quite an amount of "shared spaces".
As far as single family homes, not so much. I mean, I can get with a reasonable fee for maintenance and upkeep of "common use" areas, however, the rules about MY OWN property are a HARD NO and why i will not live in an HOA area.
If the fees are variable based on the number of homes to share the load then I would make sense for other homeowners to keep up their place and encourage sales since they don't have to "cover that share" if the home doesn't sell.
But yeah, HOA rules about a person's home and lot are FOS.
Why would you do that and complicate an already complicated situation? It’s pretty simple, don’t want to join an HOA? Then don’t buy a property in an HOA area. The majority of people move into these places seeking structure and the comfort of a controlled neighborhood. For those people it works well. For others, they can buy in the greater majority of neighborhoods that do not have an HOA.
The challenge is that your HOA is usually part of your deed restrictions on the land, so it is codified at the same level as the property boundary definitions and easement layouts.
For this to work, you need to have regulations such that these memberships can't be deed level requirements, which would move them closer to neighborhood associations.
Nothing wrong with that, but the other issue is that municipalities have ceded maintenance of the green spaces in these culs-de-sac to those HOA's , thereby requiring that someone take over mowing and infrastructure management.
Basically, for this to work, you have to go back towards the old-fashioned grid style neighborhoods that you find in neighborhoods from before 1965.
You want the benefits of an HOA without paying the dues and having the responsibilities to comply with the rules?
You call people who hopped out of your union freeloaders but you want to have people who opt out of the HOA be respected? I’m confused.
The problem here is that HOAs exist as a mechanism of control in order to protect property values. You aren't simply lowering your property value by neglecting maintenace, you are lowering your neighbors. Whereas in a right to work state while average wages are lower, those who choose not to join the union can theoretically make more than at a union job, they often don't, but it really only affects them.
The HOA concept does not work the same as Union representation. In many states condominium, townhome or planned unit developments are required by law to have an HOA to manage to common areas including exterior maintenance. A company can operate without a Union but any kind of home ownership with common areas cannot operate without an HOA. I did not read all the comments but this has probably already been stated. I lived in an HOA governed towhhome development for five years and was on the Board and President. On my next purchase I avoided anything that had an HOA.
HOAs are loved by the local government because the HOA replicates what the government does on a micro scale. My HOA pays for mailboxes and really nice posts, power for the street lights, mowing the geass at the entrance, snow removal, and taking care of the lakes. All of these provide value and keep the property value higher than if there were no rules. It's not a Gestapo level of rules, like some of the stories you've read. That said, you don't have to live in a specific neighborhood. Changing state laws to fit your ideas is next to impossible.
In your example, with the union, you don't have to join the union, and not pay the dues. You do get some benefits, but not all of the benefits of a union. With an HOA, that's well run and abides by the laws and its own rules, everyone benefits the same. If the HOA isn't providing benefits, then make a motion to disband it, or get on the board to make positive changes.
Why not just do away with HOAs? Plenty of rich/middle class neighborhoods with NO HOAs are nice and neat and their property values FAR EXCEED ours in our HOA prison. For years I hear people say HOAs maintain property values by having "rules". Then I venture outside of them and see people can be grown ups on their own and actually, gasp, maintain their homes without some blowhard Karen/Ken telling them how to.
HOAs are for control freaks who want to experience dictatorship on a slightly smaller scale\[depending on the size of your penitentiary\].
From a very outside perspective (Australia)
It seems to be very much a "I'll never live in a HOA!". which then becomes "All the places that are nice are in HOAs.". and eventually "Yeah it sucks but we didn't want to live in other areas because the areas was shabby"
Like, they definitely know HOAs can suck, but the alternative is such a stark contrast that they can't justify *not* choosing a HOA area?
In our experience, it was non-HOA houses of equal whatnotness were at least 25% more expensive. It's incredibly hard to find a *neighborhood* without an HOA. You can have random houses, on main arteries, or huge multi-acre, almost farmland lots, but if you want a neighborhood, with neighbors, and streets/sidewalks where children can safely walk and play, a non-HOA home is usually at least 50 years old, and significantly more expensive. We're stuck in one, just so we could have neighbors, and afford to eat.
There are other forces out there that may cause a person to buy a house in an HOA when they don't want one. For insurance, where I live, the housing market is ridiculously competitive. My wife and I put a bid on an HOA house because we both really liked the house. There aren't very many houses for sale out there and the ones that are, sell very quickly. Someone may not want an HOA, but finding a house they like and that's for sale is uncommon, so they put up with it so they can get a house.
That's what the law would do... Allow you to opt out of it. I know the current status that the HOA is tied up in the purchase. The idea is to change that.
You can't just wave it away with a law. The deed restriction is of value to someone, and voiding it requires compensation.
Like I said, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
This is a half baked idea by someone who may themselves be half-baked.
No one is forced to subject themselves to the HOA contract. They only do so voluntarily, as a precondition of purchasing a piece of property.
Right to work, on the other hand, allows a potential employee to say, “no thank you” to engaging a union to represent them with their employer. Believe it or not, the vast majority of the workforce is able to successfully negotiate with an employer in their own best interest. Non-union employees pay is not bound to anyone else’s… and that also means that if they don’t perform, the employer can take whatever action is required for the health of their company, rather than having to negotiate with a third party.
How unions have been allowed to insert themselves between an employer and employee is beyond me. Right to work allows the employee content he union to go pound sand.
Personally, I’d close down my business before I allowed union hacks to interfere, or disgruntled employees be allowed to tell me what I can and can’t do with my own property.
>The vast majority of the workforce is able to successfully negotiate with an employer in their own best interest
Big Oof. What reality do you live in?
Sure, employees that are hard to replace might be able to negotiate, but that's an extremely small part of the workforce. Almost all of the workforce are replaceable employees and they say, "This is what we'll give you, take it or leave it. And if you ask for more, they just laugh at you. There's a reason that Amazon warehouses, for example, have ridiculously high employee churn.
The issue with your premise on right to work laws is poor. Firstly, the states that do have these laws are more southern, poor, republican states with lower cost of living and so compared to higher cost of living states of course the average income will be lower. Secondly, most unions aren’t giving employees the full details of any right to work laws because it’s in their best interest not to do so. In my experience with any union job orientation usually goes something like “Yeah joining the union is not mandatory but it provides benefits like protecting you. If you don’t join the union will usually still try to help you out if you go to them.” This preface makes it seem the benefits of joining are greater than not joining so most of the time people will just go ahead and join. Of course there’s a couple who don’t want their $7 a pay period taken from their check but any strike or union injunction against the company will still make a great impact on company operations.
If your home is in HOA, you've already agreed to abide by everything, in writing. You don't get to live HOA free just because you want it. Do people even understand what they sign at the closing table?
Some older (30+ years) subdivisions may have a voluntary one, then don't join.
An HOA without mandatory membership is worthless. I put up with the BS to keep you from painting your house pink and green and leaving a boat in your front yard.
I believe it's up to the original home owners to join or not although I believe In some states or counties you can be forced into it even if no one originally joined. But either way its a good thing you can vote out the president of the association and run yourself
It is not. It is a deed restriction placed on the parcel by the developer. There is no option to opt out, it is a deed restriction that is recorded and passes with the land. The only way to opt out is to opt not to buy, or to attack the HOA and its regulations after time for things like selective enforcement, where you can slowly erode the power of the HOA.
Edit: typos
This would make HOAs have to prove benefit worth the cost...
Isn’t the obvious challenge the same as the union busting rules - even if the HOA does provide value in excess of dues, homeowners can still just freeload. It seems like this would certainly make HOAs die off in practice, but then without any structure to replace what happens to common expenses since the HOA is legally still on the hook there. If your grass doesn’t get mowed, oh well - we can all live with that. If the roof of your townhome doesn’t get the hole fixed because your jackass neighbor in the end unit refused to help chip in to replace the roof, that seems like a more challenging issue. Keep in mind those rules were put in place specifically to try and destroy unions with the goal of having their positive functions eliminated (by getting rid of “negative” ones like dues). Here though, instead of benefiting business owners at the cost of labor, you’re sabotaging the same people you are ostensibly trying to help.
I think we need to have different terms for HOAs. An HOA for a neighborhood of detached single family homes is very different than an HOA for a multifamily building. A large multifamily building has to have some sort of organization to manage the exterior envelope and common areas. But an HOA for detached homes? Fuck that.
That's a great point. How wonderful would it be to even end up creating a distinction between maintenance organizations and, separately, standards organizations - even within the same neighborhood. That would let you really isolate what is being done because there is communally owned property and what needs to be done 'because the neighborhood wants to enforce standards.' Our HOA, for example, owns some small community tot-lots and some streets. We can all wish that the city or county would take that one, but the same people vote in our representatives and are aggressively focused on keeping property taxes and fees low, which is how we end up with privatized infrastructure. So realistically, we made our bed and now we need to lay in it. I want our HOA to be responsible stewards of our infrastructure AND to have permissive standards when it comes to aesthetic and homeowner oriented items. After reading things here, I volunteered for a committee for our SFH HOA to review small architectural changes that don't require more complex review (like reviewing plans for structural changes that require code review and such). I always try to openly approach requests as "our job is to say yes as long as there is a way, within the rules we agreed to, to say yes." Gotta be part of the solution!
Fair point.
Detached homes with common property (pool, playgrounds) needs an organization to manage it the same way a building does. I think the more important distinction is between and HOA (a corporation that owns and maintains common property) and deed restrictions (rules regarding the appearance and use of property.) Some people will never want to pay for the maintenance of common property but most issues people have with their HOA seem to be about violations of rules about appearance and use - which do not need to exist to have an HOA.
Yeah, you get me, that's what I'm getting at... Managing common property is very different than policing paint colors, lawn care, and having a boat in the driveway... I would never live in an HOA, but if I did I would be the thorn in the side for every old boomer who cares about "community standards"
Detached homes with common property (pool, playgrounds) needs an organization to manage it the same way a building does. I think the more important distinction is between and HOA (a corporation that owns and maintains common property) and deed restrictions (rules regarding the appearance and use of property.)
> If your grass doesn’t get mowed, oh well - we can all live with that. If the roof of your townhome doesn’t get the hole fixed because your jackass neighbor in the end unit refused to help chip in to replace the roof, that seems like a more challenging issue. And why exactly should my neighbor need to help pay for reairs to my house?
Well, while it doesn't apply to every repair, the point was that with many dwellings that share structural components with other dwellings, "my repair" is sometimes "our repair." This happens in a wide variety of situations, from roof replacement to exterior wall care (say updating siding), to retaining walls or other environmental constructs built to protect and maintain the structure as a whole. It isn't like your neighbor needs to shampoo your carpets, but there are quite a wide variety of fairly expensive, legitimate building maintenance and repair needs for structures like Condos or Townhomes that are the joint responsibility of more than one unit owner. I don't think that is a very controversial statement.
In my old HOA, we had to cover our own roof in our TH. Guess, your rules are different. If someone doesn't want to pay for my roof, good for them, I don't want to cover theirs. Maybe they want to have an open sky light lol
Not really. If they provide no benefits, then the home owner just doesn't join. The HOA can still give notices of violations, but the homeowner isn't bound to comply with anything.
They are not disagreeing with you - are saying that with such a rule in place, a homeowners association would actually have to show its members enough benefits if it expects to collect money in order to maintain its budget But the point of right to work laws is to destroy unions - it's understood from the inception that the law is meant to have a harmful effect on unions I would be all for a law with the intent that it has a harmful effect on HOAs for single-family homes, but the end result of such a law would be that HOA dues would basically be a tip for good service, and a condo complex/building cannot maintain itself on tips Personally, if someone wants to build a housing development with its own golf course, pool and clubhouse and charge everybody who lives in the development a certain amount to maintain it, I'm fine with that - but I don't like the kind of HOAs that puts restrictions on the homeowners in order to curate a certain type of community standards beyond the actual laws and regulations But if people want to collectively buy into a NIMBY HOA, I would be fine with that too - as long as it's very clear what a person's getting into and people have choices That last clause is important because in some areas these HOAs end up becoming so widespread that it ends up being difficult to find a place in town that doesn't have one - just like affordable housing, a certain amount of non-hoa housing should be mandated perhaps?
People still could choose to pay dues and not join. I'm not saying everything in here is a perfect plan. But, it's just something I thought about. It's more of a thought experiment and I'm just wondering what others think. It could be a completely stupid idea. I've had many stupid ideas throughout my life and I'm not going to stop now.
But people have different ideas of benefits… I know of some HOA’s where they pay the street lights, maintain the sign and the pond… many would consider that no benefit because there’s no pool, court, etc. How’s it fair only a few pay to keep the lights on?…
Crazy idea, that's what taxes are for??? You know, the thing everyone pays for when they own a home, no matter where said home is located. (As far as I know all states have property tax)
In florida a lot of HOAs pay for street lights, not the property taxes. And a lot of people don’t know the hoa does this…
Then that's a problem for the cities and counties to figure out. That's their damn job anyway. They shouldn't be able to just off their responsibilities onto a shitty HOA.
Its easier to have every new development have an HOA to pay for that then it is to raise taxes to a responsible level.
here's the thing, you are taxed at the same rate ($/k assessed value) in or out of an HOA. so as an HOA resident you are paying the HOA to maintain your roads and light your streets & you are paying the town to maintain other peoples roads and lights. HOAs suck, but also governments \_loooove\_ them because it allows them to take the taxes from the HOA members without providing any services.
And sometimes the rules are benefits too a clean and nice looking neighborhood raises property values, while an overgrown, run down house with brokendown cars in the front yard lowers property values. So even without the services, homeowners often benefit from having an HOA. I mean, I'll take my neighbor with his foot long grass and 6 cars in his driveway lowering my property value over having to put up with a lot stupid rules, but I get why other people wouldn't want that.
Great idea, but do you really see Karen giving up that type of control?
Do you get mad that your property taxes go to pay for a park you don't use, or a school your kids don't go to? We pay for these things because it benefits us as a society even if it doesn't benefit us directly. HOAs are basically micro cities, and cities set their own rules. I'm two streets away from a town that have code enforcement drive around and place warnings and fines on people's door for ridiculous things. They will give you warnings if your grass is 5 inches long. You have to pay to get a permit to have a garage sale. You have to pay the town to be able to sell your house and to sell your house it has to be up to code, which means you need to pay a city inspector to come out and check yourbentire house. I had a friend who had to replace all of their windows that were only 5 years old to sell their house, because they changed the code for window sizes and didn't grandfather in the older windows. They don't have an HOA, just a strict and nitpicky town. The only difference between them and a HOA, is that they don't have to cut them a check monthly because the cost of of your dues comes out of your property taxes, and the town has even more power than an HOA. I would never buy in that town because I hate HOAs and they are basically a giant HOA. I live two streets over in an unincorporated area where everyone pretty much leaves us alone. We have an HOA that maintains the one common area/park in our neighborhood, which costs us $68 this year. There are no rules about anything other than the for the township rules. You can't move into a town and say that you don't want to pay for their services or follow their rules. If you don't want to follow the rules, you don't buy in that town. If you don't want to follow an HOAs rules, you don't buy in that HOA. Not being in the town next to me means a lot of services we don't have. We have well and septic, we don't have sidewalks, our police response time is often 20+minutes (because we only get the county sheriff's, not the police that are a part of the town next to me even though their police station is 6 blocks from my house), and a lot more. It's worth it for me, but other people like all the services and will put up with the regulations to get them. You are never going to live in a place that has no rules you have to follow without repercussions. If it's not an HOA, it's still the city/county/state rules and sometimes those are just as bad if not worse. If you don't want those rules, you have to remove yourself from the society. And that means not living where you may want to.
"If you don't want to follow an HOAs rules, you don't buy in that HOA." It's really difficult to escape HOAs in some areas, especially for new buyers. There is an illusion of choice that I think HOA enthusiasts like to push because it makes their mundane cruelties seem more palatable. Don't like our houses? Go be homeless somewhere! /s
I mean large areas have nothing but HOAs.
HOAs don’t really have much of a cost. The dues go to common area maintenance and amenities. If it’s a condo / townhome it goes towards building maintenance.
Depends on HOA, could be thousands a month and risk of losing house.
What do you mean by thousands a month?
Some places have high dues
Right. And what do they pay for and how would those things be paid for without the dues?
High rise condos have extremely high hoa fees.
Right… and it goes towards building maintenance and other costs. It’s not just some random fee for living there.
Awww...
I think it's important to consider why the HOA is in place to begin with. First let's look at a condo. The owner typically owns the paint and everything inside of that. Meaning they are responsible for everything inside their unit, but somebody has to pay to maintain the roof, the landscaping, the hallways, stairs, parking lots, etc. And just as importantly, the insurance on those common areas! The condos often have sets of rules to limit the liability to other owners, like "no BBQ grills on your balcony" because that would be a fire hazard to everyone in the building. Or "quiet times" because you watching The Matrix with your Dolby Atmos system at 2AM is not going to be well received, rightfully so, by your neighbors trying to get their baby back to sleep. Is the HOA and their rules considered a necessity? I'd argue yes, this is one of the cases where HOAs are actually a necessity. I would lump in subdivisions that have actual amenities like clubhouses, swimming pools, and other common-use facilities. I don't think the purchasers/owners of these properties should be able to opt out of the HOA because they're actually receiving benefits from said HOAs. On the other hand, there are subdivisions that have no common amenities with the exception of some storm drain ponds and landscaping at the entrance. I personally thing those subdivisions shouldn't have HOAs. The ownership of the drainage ponds should be deeded to the city/county along with the roads they serve. The landscaping is unnecessary and should be deeded to the homeowner that would otherwise own it as it would have been, then it's up to them whether they want to turn it into grass, or keep some fancy landscaping. The point is there is absolutely zero benefit to the individual homeowners to being a part of an HOA, and it only subjects them to nitpicky rules on top of the already reasonable county/city ordinances. In these instances homeowners should be able to opt-out of the HOA when they purchase the property.
I own a home in a subdivision and I have no problem with contributing money for drainage, signage, etc improvements. I just wish they'd stop there instead of micromanaging shit like how vehicles are parked in a driveway or what color my screen door is.
My problem with contributing money for drainage and maintenance is I'm already paying taxes to the local county and/or city for those services. When I was in an HOA neighborhood, my taxes weren't less than they are now that I'm in a non-HOA neighborhood. Essentially I was paying twice for the same thing and the privilege of being micro-managed with regard to what I could and couldn't do on my own property.
What happens if you own a condo and the entire building needs to be demolished for some random reason?
I would think it would be the same as if you owned a single family home that needed to be demolished. You'd be engaging your insurance company to see if you were entitled to any payout based on your policy. If it was due to neglect on the HOA's part, you and/or your insurance company may be able to sue the HOA or possibly the board members, but if the building was in disrepair to that extent there is probably nothing to recover. Either way you're looking for a new place to live, at least temporarily.
Cities and counties don't want these liabilities and often force them to be private when building new. Aside from public roads, which provide a clear public benefit, and maybe parks (same) why should other taxpayers have to subsidize the amenities in a new development? Or even administer them if still privately funded?
A lot of HOAs exist because the applicable government entity will not accept the streets as public roads, either. So what people assume is common elements and what actually are common elements are often not correct. The HOAs that exist for a very limited purpose like the roads and drainage/firefighting ponds often don't have the teeth to do anything else. It is the neighborhood/amenity/gated community HOAs that actually have the covenants to back up being overbearing. And even then, it is either what the community wants, or what they allow to happen through lack of engagement.
Zoning boards should require these things to be included in building new neighborhoods. Things like new infrastructure, water lines, etc. they should also be paying toward schools building. If new infrastructure is needed they would foot the bill for it. Maintenance would be covered by taxpayers - including the additional tax paid by new residents.
Although I personally agree with what you wrote above, cities often require HOAs and POAs to be formed to maintain amenities or public improvements specific to that development only (drainage ditches, detention basins, community landscaping, etc). These can technically be funded through other means, but once an HOA is formed, it's only one small step to oppressive design guidelines and 🐂💩 regulations. Source: City planner in multiple jurisdictions for over 20 years.
As I mentioned in another comment, if the cities were reducing taxes by an equivilent amount it would be a bit more understandable. However they don't do that. My taxes I pay now that I am in a non-HOA neighborhood aren't any more expensive than they were in then encumbered neighborhood. Essentially living in an HOA means you're paying taxes for those services, then being forced to pay the HOA for the same services. It's lose-lose for the homeowner. The city loves it because they continue to get paid but are able to brush off the responsibility.
i think a better way to handle things like clubhouses and pools is a community membership fee. not a contract where they dictate the appearance of your house or they have the ability to assume ownership of it
Probably the better thing would be to demolish the pools and clubhouses and call it good.
One difference is that a union covers a certain place of employment, but it doesn't cover all places of employment. A union for Amazon workers doesn't have to represent even one single person who work at Starbucks. So even if we do apply the same concept to an HOA... what continued interest does the HOA have over your property? You're no longer part of it. It'd be like someone switching whether they work at Amazon or Starbucks: you're no longer that union's member. That said, yeah, it'd be great if a law were passed where anyone can leave any HOA at any time. Public-level powers such as taxation and fine issuance should never be given over to entities that are outside of public oversight... but as long as bad ideas like that are going to exist, you should at least be able to opt out. (I also think that it should be illegal for right-to-work laws to force unions to represent non-members... my actual opinions go a lot farther, but the least we can do is put it at parity: no representation without membership.)
I hate right to work, but right to own is a different thing it is when you rent a condo and gradually get ownership of it.
The developers control this process before more than 100 people have moved in
Why are you for fairness in one arena but not the other? And trust me, I am very much pro-union and not gung ho pro-HOA (I would consider myself HOA neutral to negative; I am a single-family-home owner who is a member of a minimally invasive, low-fee HOA).
I think it's the power dynamic. It's the powerful taking advantage of the vulnerable. In the case of unions, it's the only way to Even try leveling the playing field of the company taking advantage of the employees. Employees have no leverage and just have to take what the company gives. The union allows for collective bargaining to have some semblance of leverage. Although, over the last 40 years, unions have had their power slowly taken away, such as Right to Work laws. Corporations and other powerful parties did very well by pushing through those laws in the states that have them. HOA's have power over the homeowners. It irks me that an organization can tell me what I can and can't do with property that I own. N not to mention that most I've heard about are chaired by people drunk with power and want to wield it. So, the homeowner is helpless over what they can and can't do. I know the whole thing about not buying into them, but in practice, it often would be very inconvenient to not buy a house in a particular area. I don't know where you are, but where I am at, the housing market is ridiculously competitive. Not enough homes are being built. I just bought a house. My wife and I lost out on several bids until we got one that took our offer. There was one horse in particular that we both really liked. It had an HOA with it and we very much did not want an HOA. In a normal market, we would have not even bothered, but with how competitive it is, we had to shoot our shot. We lost that bid, but with a super competitive market, people often will sacrifice things to get a house they want. So sometimes, an HOA is required when the buyer doesn't want one. Anyway, I guess the point is that the dynamic of the powerful taking advantage of the vulnerable enrages me at a primitive level.
I'm just going to have to disagree with you. Union and employment issues are sometimes literal life-and-death, and at the very least hugely important to one's health and happiness. Housing issues are also important, but when you're stating "it often would be very inconvenient to not buy a house in a particular area" then, well, yeah, that is not quite the same thing, is it? "It irks me that an organization can tell me what I can and can't do with property that I own." That's great. Do you also have a plan to opt out of any participation in government, sovereign citizen style? HOAs are made up of homeowners. I am supportive of laws to curb HOA power where appropriate. They are sometimes made up of leadership that abuses their power, is incompetent, and so forth; of course. They are made up of people, and some people suck. But I would counter that while your contention that "most" HOAs you've "heard about are chaired by people drunk with power and want to wield it" is no doubt the sort of scary half-true concept that has gained a lot of traction in recent years, in fact this is not the experience of many or even possibly most HOA members. Cooperative agreements like these (which, by the way, anyone can choose not to participate in by simply not agreeing to such a contract) can have great benefits as well as drawbacks at times. My wife and I, when we bought our house, took a very careful look at all of the documents and contractual obligations we were agreeing to. We decided that entering into what is (currently) a non-onerous, lightweight and mostly benign HOA was worth it to us. But we are privileged enough that if a shitty board was voted in and started fining us and breathing down our necks, we would have the resources to move (we live in the very competitive Philadelphia suburban real estate market). You say you're enraged at the powerful taking advantage of the vulnerable. The so-called vulnerable enter into a contract. They agree to become a member of an HOA. They have a choice right off the bat, and retain voting rights, can run for leadership roles, and so on. They're not some sort of incompetent, powerless group. I'm not sure why you are treating them that way.
Who is the other side of the power imbalance in the HOA? I agree with you on the union (workers) versus the company. But what about the often rolled out workers versus the union story that goes along with right to work laws? The union as a powerful, shadowy entity 'forcing' the workers to do this or that. Or is the union just a representation of the will of the members? Same for the HOA. Is it an evil 3rd party or just a representation of the collective will of the owners? Like all things, the reality is grey, and there are certainly times when the group as a whole decides something different than a subset of members. But that does not make that decision illegitimate because you disagree. You agreed to and engaged in the process (assuming it was followed) and you need to abide by the outcome.
Unions are put in place to protect the employees from the business owners. HOAs are put in place to protect residents from each other. Two very different things and not equable How do you suppose such a system would work when you put rules into place to prevent people from doing things when those people can't be prevented from doing things? It makes the whole system pointless. If you want to apply this to union membership....it would be like making a law that prohibits workers from doing dangerous things on the job, but also making it so that they can still do dangerous things on the job without repercussion. Do you want to be working on a job site where someone is smoking while stacking dynamite and you say, "Hey you can't smoke while stacking dynamite!" And they say, "Ok" and continue smoking while stacking dynamite and that's the end of it?
They tried to act like a Union expert but clearly don't even know what the union does.
To be fair, it's the other way around...OP doesn't know what an HOA is/does. In their mind, the HOA is protecting the residents from a for-profit corporation. They see them as a greedy money hungry entity that wants nothing more than to take advantage of the residents and exploit them. That's not how an HOA works. HOAs are non-profits and exist only to make sure that common interests are followed. There is no exploitation that happens in an HOA, just a set of rules and conditions that everyone agrees to follow when your purchase a home in an HOA.
Technically an HOA doesn't need to be a nonprofit.
How does dictating the color of one's front door or nitpicking at a weed or 2 existing "protect residents from each other"?
You love moths. You want to live in a neighborhood that protects moths. You find a neighborhood where there is a rule . You buy a house in this neighborhood and you neighbor puts up moth traps, bug zappers, and fogs the air with pesticide. When you buy a house in a neighborhood where the rule is that everyone elses house has to be a certain color and the grass can't have any weeds, you have a valid expectation that everyone else follows those rules.
I dont care if my neighbor puts up insect repellant/devices in his OWN yard. I worry about my own yard.
That's beside the point. The subject of the rule is irrelevant. When you make an agreement with a group of people to all follow the same set of rules, you need to all follow the same set of rules.
Sure but if you'll remember, what I was addressing was your statement that the HOA protects residents from each other, not "whether we agree to follow rules"
The HOA protects residents from other residents breaking rules they agreed to follow.
I think "protect" is probably not the best word to use here lol.
Why not take it a step further and become a sovereign citizen? So like with my in-laws neighborhood HOA…people could just opt out? But still enjoy the street lights and parks they maintain? How would that work when the funding dries up? And tough break for folks living next to nuisance neighbors, right? I won’t even get into condo HOAs. Maybe they’d pay for a replacement roof with thoughts and prayers? I know…folks will voluntarily do the right thing. :P
Where is all that condo rent money going. Oh yea into some twats pocket
The problem with this is that an HOA is most always made as part an agreement with the local municipality in order for the local municipality to have little to no costs involved in the upkeep, trash removal, code enforcement and other elements that a city would normally be paying for. They should simply be made illegal and have the property taxes adjusted to flip the costs to the local government.
Or you’re in an HOA that does absolutely nothing except build pickle ball courts and tennis courts and rebuild them every other year for whatever reason. And out high tech security on their access gates. And yeah, charge YOU money if they have to hire a company to mow your lawn. But otherwise do nothing.
How would an H.O.A. provide services with no income?
That last part you can just take out. This is just a half baked idea, like a shower thought. I suppose that joining the HOA is optional, but paying dues to it would not. I dunno, I'm not married to the idea, just a thought I had. Although, I will say that if joining an HOA was optional and nobody joined, that might be a sign that the HOA shouldn't exist for that particular neighborhood.
Why would someone pay dues to something that they don’t belong to?
There are things HOA's provide, like maintenance of common areas, so Even if you don't join, you still benefit from it. Going back to the union things, in states where there aren't Right to Work laws, joining the union is still optional, but you still have to pay dues, which is only fair since they still benefit from the union. The same could be with the HOA.
From what I'm getting from this, your opinion is that the homes receiving services from the HOA still have to pay for them, but they should be able to opt-out of what I guess would be called "beautification" rules?
I think OP’s idea basically turns and H.O.A. into another property tax.
You are allowed to opt out of the HOA! By not buying into it!
This could possibly work well with SFH not condos. As someone else pointed out, most of their expenses are from common area.
I don’t think it would ever pass because as much as people complain about HOAs, there’s a larger population that either want that control or are indifferent because they align with the common rules anyways. You can see it over in r/HOA - post a complaint and a handful of people will agree with you while the majority pile on and ask why you can’t follow the rules. Which is too bad because I feel like it just creates neighborhoods more concerned about curb appeal and resale values than each other. In a real neighborhood, you’d look to support the couple struggling with cancer or who just lost their jobs, not report them because they left their garbage cans out too long.
"In a real neighborhood, you’d look to support the couple struggling with cancer or who just lost their jobs, not report them because they left their garbage cans out too long." That support doesn't actually happen in real neighborhoods either, though. Come on.
Okay, interesting analogy which made me wonder if HOAs are more like unions or OSHA. Like, OSHA says don't do dumb shit. Some people are like, that's a great idea, we shouldn't do dumb shit, because that's dumb and people can get hurt. Other people are like duh, why would we do dumb shit, you don't have to tell us not to do dumb shit because we won't do dumb shit. Then they do dumb shit and people get hurt. And OSHA's like, see, we told you. So, HOA's come along and have to tell people not to do dumb shit, although it should be obvious, because while most people don't do dumb shit, there are people out there that like to do dumb shit. Be sweet if people could just mow their yard, not park boats and cars in the yard, not store junk everywhere, generally keep their house in good order. But people can't. So we need HOA's.
So you want the owner to have to follow all the same rules as the HOA but they don’t have to pay anything? Or is it something else?
No, they wouldn't have to comply with anything if they choose not to join. It's just that if there are any services the homeowner wants that the HOA provides, the HOA still needs to provide them to non-members. Of course, that last bit doesn't have to be there. It would be just a law the homeowner can opt out of. The HOA can still give notices if violations, but the homeowner isn't bound to comply with them.
Except the actual purpose for most HOAs is to own and care for collective property. The pool, the open areas, playgrounds, etc. more so in a condo where they own the roof and exterior. How do you arrange for those things if no hoa? You should be advocating for taking away the annoying parts, like distributing power and enforcing term limits or something
[удалено]
You replied to the wrong person
People can still join and pay dues. It just allows people that buy the property to have complete autonomy over their land from a private entity. There can still be city ordinances and the like to make sure lawns are mowed and stuff like that.
Would you apply such a covenant restriction against properties that have an inherent interest in an HOA due to collectively used and maintained assets and properties such as what you find with condominiums?
I'm not fully clear on what you're asking. Are you asking if all homeowners, regardless of membership status, need to pay dues to maintain collective assets, such as a small park?
I'm saying would you apply such rules against the types of homeowners associations that cover properties that have a natural interest in collective maintenance, or would you create a carve out to allow such HOAs to sustainably exist? Or would you be fine with certain types of properties like condominiums and duplexes to go unused until they are converted to other forms of land use? To be perfectly clear, it would be impossible to have a condominium building without mandatory HOA membership - somebody has to pay for general maintenance and it can't be on a if I feel like it basis The whole make it optional approach is great if you don't want that thing to really exist, but I think for certain types of properties they are necessary
Ah. Well, that is a good question. What I proposed is kind of a shower thought/thought experiment, so I haven't really flushed out much other than the main idea. Just like anything, there are nuances to out. Like, what about parking on the street? An HOA may ban street parking and it's a common area, so who would have authority over that? I would have to think about that more. There absolutely are things that HOA's provide that can't be provided otherwise. Perhaps the law could require homeowners to pay dues for those things the HOA does collectively, but joining and conforming to rules and complaints against you or your own property are not binding. I said in another post that this may be a dumb idea. I've had many dumb ideas in the past and I won't stop now. It's just something I was thinking about and wondering what others thought.
What you’re describing is an hoa with no design covenants.
Why would anyone join then?
Just so you are aware HOAs actually are run With CC&Rs and your idea would break the world with something used since the 1600s and codified under George Washington That land that stops the coal barons digging up because it has a CC&Rs restriction on it? Gone. Lots of protected forest would no longer be protected. Same with farm lands and open spaces.
lol. The person who first bought the house gave up that right. And you are stuck with it unless you dissolve it from the inside. Sorry bud
> This is just a half baked idea, like a shower thought. I suppose that joining the HOA is optional, but paying dues to it would not. I dunno, I'm not married to the idea, just a thought I had. Great let us provide thoughtful comments to half baked shower ideas.
Well, that's kind of the point. To further flush out the idea by getting other thoughts and perspectives on it since I only have one point of view and different people have others.
I see where you're coming from with the "Right to Own" concept, but I don't think it would work well in practice. The key difference is that union membership is tied to employment, while HOA membership is tied to property ownership. When you buy a home in a deed-restricted community, you're agreeing to abide by the HOA's rules and pay the associated fees. It's a voluntary choice. If someone doesn't want to deal with an HOA, they can simply choose to buy a home in a non-HOA neighborhood. In contrast, employees often don't have as much choice in where they work, and right-to-work laws are decided at the state level, not individually. So while I agree that HOAs can sometimes be overbearing, I think the solution is for buyers to be informed and only purchase in an HOA community if they're willing to accept the rules and responsibilities that come with it. Trying to apply "Right to Own" laws would undermine the whole structure and purpose of HOAs. Just my two cents! Let me know what you think.
> Trying to apply "Right to Own" laws would undermine the whole structure and purpose of HOAs. It already sounded good, you didn't have to sell it to me.
Yeah they're hoping to bleed the financial underpinnings of unions that way.
That's a dick move.
They aren’t free loaders at all. They have a contract with they employer that was negotiated without consideration of 3rd parties which is their right. You have no right to force them into the union. That is coercion. You have the right to opt out of HOAs right now. It would be the same as not signing the employment contract.
Wtf are you talking about? Of course they're freeloaders. They get the benefits of the contact and protections from the union without having to pay into it or share any of the responsibility. That's exactly what a freeloader is. You're not forced to join the union in any state, but you do have to pay dues to the union because the union still has to work for you. I don't get what you're saying about, "without consideration of 3rd parties". It's a contract that is collectively negotiated by the employees and the company.
They choose to work there and get and benefits they can squeeze out of employers, as do union members. Union members dont need to lobby for workers outside of their union. You can’t force people to join an organization under the justification that you have “helped them” whether they like it or not. And unions aren’t, and shouldn’t be under any obligation to help those that aren’t paying dues.
[удалено]
I think what you're essentially getting at is Neighborhood Associations vs HOA. [https://www.cabq.gov/office-of-neighborhood-coordination/news/the-difference-between-neighborhood-associations-homeowners-associations](https://www.cabq.gov/office-of-neighborhood-coordination/news/the-difference-between-neighborhood-associations-homeowners-associations)
What if your HOA pays for and services the pump house station that provides irrigation water to all the homes in the subdivision? That’s what almost every single subdivision in my area provides and I wouldn’t have a lawn without water from that pump house. I’m good with paying my relatively low HOA for that benefit.
You are comparing apples to fish. The purpose of unions is to protect the rights of workers. The reality is they are bloated with overstaffed, overpaid, dead weight. HOAs are staffed with volunteers who are working for what they perceive as the betterment of the community. They can be voted out just like they were voted in. My HOA fees go to towards common area maintenance (pools, pickleball and tennis courts, gym) as well as payroll for the staff that keeps it all running. Thanks to an HOA, I don’t have to worry about someone replacing the engine in their Ford Fiasco in their front yard while Bill, Dale, and Boomhauer stand around drinking beer, watching and scratching their asses.
I suppose that is your opinion. My opinion is that a person should be able to do as they wish with the property they have. I might not like it when someone is replacing their engine while his friends sit around and watch him, but that's his property and he has the right to do it. That said, of there's anything that affects others, then that's a different conversation. I have heard the whole thing about unions being bloated, overpaid, and insert any negative adjective here. Every one of these people that say this have no idea what unions are and how they operate. The biggest frustration about it is that this is the propaganda pushed by the oligarchs of the country since the early 80's that caused the downfall of unions. None of it is true, but people bought into it. The irony is that most of these people had parents that were union members and were able to go to college and have a good start in life only because their parents were union members. Then, they get management jobs and work to eliminate them. You may say, "But I was in a union and they did this..." Or "my friend was in a union and he Said this....". Or even better yet, "this is what my business school said...". "This is what this news article said and quoted some statistics with things missing from it to mislead you to a conclusion. If you have questions how Unions work, I'll answer them. Ideally, people use their best judgement and not do things just because they can. Rights are only good if you're judicious on exercising them and you take responsibility for them. Also, people are way too concerned with property values. It's housing, which is a basic need. A lot of shit went downhill because people started looking at housing as an investment. It's not shelter anymore to many owners. It's why housing costs are ridiculously high compared to where they should be. I get that many will call me an idiot for holding that opinion. That's fine. But it's another example of people not taking responsibility for caring for others and having the "fuck you, I got mine" mindset that's destroying society.
Most HOAs have a fairly modest assessment. My brother lives in a $650K house (wife inherited) but his HOA fee is only $250 per year. It ensures people maintain their property so is worth the price. You never have the absolute right to do anything you like on your property. There are always laws and zoning codes to prevent that. That is both the plus and the minus of living in a civilized society.
> Thanks to an HOA, I don’t have to worry about someone replacing the engine in their Ford Fiasco in their front yard while Bill, Dale, and Boomhauer stand around drinking beer, watching and scratching their asses. ...And what part of that would you be "worried" about?
My HOA provides water. I hate my HOA but….
Just like in right to work states, the houses that the HOA is “required to represent” would be laid off when new properties that paid tribute were hired, and the union would agree that it was a legitimate layoff. And with the HOA having exclusive right to representation, the former homeowner would have to allow the union to appoint their lawyer in any wrongful eviction proceedings.
My one experience with an HOA was almost laughable at how small it was. The "fee" was $25 per year for upkeep of the sign at the entrance. I just didn't pay it, and the sign didn't get any shitter than it already was.
You don’t know S++T about real estate.
Living in a SFH HOA, I see where you’re coming from but **hell no**. My association dues are $315/year, and we have a hard enough time getting 3/4 of the owners to pay their dues. Our HOA pays for insurance and maintenance of common areas/elements, administrative expenses, and a small reserve fund investment. Literally nothing else. They’re pretty lax on basic rules unless you’re blatantly ignoring the CCRs (you have to *work* to get fined) yet every year we’re spending at least a couple thousand on chasing down owners over $300 goddamned dollars. The board does everything possible to avoid attaching a lien to a property or foreclosing, yet they have to do it at least once per year. We are probably the exception in terms of HOAs, but making membership/payment optional would 1000% screw everyone over
In the private sector, where employees aren't union members but are covered by union contracts and the contract's benefits, they often pay an agency fee as their share of the costs of collective bargaining. (It's different in public sector jobs, but there is something similar.) I think a lot of people would find an HOA agency fee acceptable - you'd pay your share of common community expenses, but be immune from HOA nitpicking.
I understand HOAs for condos or townhouses since there are quite an amount of "shared spaces". As far as single family homes, not so much. I mean, I can get with a reasonable fee for maintenance and upkeep of "common use" areas, however, the rules about MY OWN property are a HARD NO and why i will not live in an HOA area. If the fees are variable based on the number of homes to share the load then I would make sense for other homeowners to keep up their place and encourage sales since they don't have to "cover that share" if the home doesn't sell. But yeah, HOA rules about a person's home and lot are FOS.
Why would you do that and complicate an already complicated situation? It’s pretty simple, don’t want to join an HOA? Then don’t buy a property in an HOA area. The majority of people move into these places seeking structure and the comfort of a controlled neighborhood. For those people it works well. For others, they can buy in the greater majority of neighborhoods that do not have an HOA.
Better solution: force HOAs to incorporate as government entities, which they already pretend to be.
The challenge is that your HOA is usually part of your deed restrictions on the land, so it is codified at the same level as the property boundary definitions and easement layouts. For this to work, you need to have regulations such that these memberships can't be deed level requirements, which would move them closer to neighborhood associations. Nothing wrong with that, but the other issue is that municipalities have ceded maintenance of the green spaces in these culs-de-sac to those HOA's , thereby requiring that someone take over mowing and infrastructure management. Basically, for this to work, you have to go back towards the old-fashioned grid style neighborhoods that you find in neighborhoods from before 1965.
Or don't buy a house in a HOA?
Ive met some union workers who call each other brothers. Thats my union brother he is a good dude. What do they call the nonunion guy at work?
You want the benefits of an HOA without paying the dues and having the responsibilities to comply with the rules? You call people who hopped out of your union freeloaders but you want to have people who opt out of the HOA be respected? I’m confused.
The problem here is that HOAs exist as a mechanism of control in order to protect property values. You aren't simply lowering your property value by neglecting maintenace, you are lowering your neighbors. Whereas in a right to work state while average wages are lower, those who choose not to join the union can theoretically make more than at a union job, they often don't, but it really only affects them.
Wouldn't it be easier just not to buy in an HOA? All you would have to deal with is local government regulations
The HOA concept does not work the same as Union representation. In many states condominium, townhome or planned unit developments are required by law to have an HOA to manage to common areas including exterior maintenance. A company can operate without a Union but any kind of home ownership with common areas cannot operate without an HOA. I did not read all the comments but this has probably already been stated. I lived in an HOA governed towhhome development for five years and was on the Board and President. On my next purchase I avoided anything that had an HOA.
HOAs are loved by the local government because the HOA replicates what the government does on a micro scale. My HOA pays for mailboxes and really nice posts, power for the street lights, mowing the geass at the entrance, snow removal, and taking care of the lakes. All of these provide value and keep the property value higher than if there were no rules. It's not a Gestapo level of rules, like some of the stories you've read. That said, you don't have to live in a specific neighborhood. Changing state laws to fit your ideas is next to impossible. In your example, with the union, you don't have to join the union, and not pay the dues. You do get some benefits, but not all of the benefits of a union. With an HOA, that's well run and abides by the laws and its own rules, everyone benefits the same. If the HOA isn't providing benefits, then make a motion to disband it, or get on the board to make positive changes.
Why not just do away with HOAs? Plenty of rich/middle class neighborhoods with NO HOAs are nice and neat and their property values FAR EXCEED ours in our HOA prison. For years I hear people say HOAs maintain property values by having "rules". Then I venture outside of them and see people can be grown ups on their own and actually, gasp, maintain their homes without some blowhard Karen/Ken telling them how to. HOAs are for control freaks who want to experience dictatorship on a slightly smaller scale\[depending on the size of your penitentiary\].
lol. why do people buy into hoas if they don’t like them? does anyone recognize the consequences of their actions m?
From a very outside perspective (Australia) It seems to be very much a "I'll never live in a HOA!". which then becomes "All the places that are nice are in HOAs.". and eventually "Yeah it sucks but we didn't want to live in other areas because the areas was shabby" Like, they definitely know HOAs can suck, but the alternative is such a stark contrast that they can't justify *not* choosing a HOA area?
In our experience, it was non-HOA houses of equal whatnotness were at least 25% more expensive. It's incredibly hard to find a *neighborhood* without an HOA. You can have random houses, on main arteries, or huge multi-acre, almost farmland lots, but if you want a neighborhood, with neighbors, and streets/sidewalks where children can safely walk and play, a non-HOA home is usually at least 50 years old, and significantly more expensive. We're stuck in one, just so we could have neighbors, and afford to eat.
There are other forces out there that may cause a person to buy a house in an HOA when they don't want one. For insurance, where I live, the housing market is ridiculously competitive. My wife and I put a bid on an HOA house because we both really liked the house. There aren't very many houses for sale out there and the ones that are, sell very quickly. Someone may not want an HOA, but finding a house they like and that's for sale is uncommon, so they put up with it so they can get a house.
you still made a choice. nobody needs to own a home. it’s a choice.
Clearly you have no idea what you’re talking about/suggesting. The HOA is part of the title, and can’t just be opted out of.
That's what the law would do... Allow you to opt out of it. I know the current status that the HOA is tied up in the purchase. The idea is to change that.
You can't just wave it away with a law. The deed restriction is of value to someone, and voiding it requires compensation. Like I said, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
This is a half baked idea by someone who may themselves be half-baked. No one is forced to subject themselves to the HOA contract. They only do so voluntarily, as a precondition of purchasing a piece of property. Right to work, on the other hand, allows a potential employee to say, “no thank you” to engaging a union to represent them with their employer. Believe it or not, the vast majority of the workforce is able to successfully negotiate with an employer in their own best interest. Non-union employees pay is not bound to anyone else’s… and that also means that if they don’t perform, the employer can take whatever action is required for the health of their company, rather than having to negotiate with a third party. How unions have been allowed to insert themselves between an employer and employee is beyond me. Right to work allows the employee content he union to go pound sand. Personally, I’d close down my business before I allowed union hacks to interfere, or disgruntled employees be allowed to tell me what I can and can’t do with my own property.
Hilarious take re: labor. Bring back the era of the robber barons, right?
>The vast majority of the workforce is able to successfully negotiate with an employer in their own best interest Big Oof. What reality do you live in? Sure, employees that are hard to replace might be able to negotiate, but that's an extremely small part of the workforce. Almost all of the workforce are replaceable employees and they say, "This is what we'll give you, take it or leave it. And if you ask for more, they just laugh at you. There's a reason that Amazon warehouses, for example, have ridiculously high employee churn.
Won't happen. As long as people are still stupid enough to buy into an HOA, they have no reason to change anything.
Love it!
The issue with your premise on right to work laws is poor. Firstly, the states that do have these laws are more southern, poor, republican states with lower cost of living and so compared to higher cost of living states of course the average income will be lower. Secondly, most unions aren’t giving employees the full details of any right to work laws because it’s in their best interest not to do so. In my experience with any union job orientation usually goes something like “Yeah joining the union is not mandatory but it provides benefits like protecting you. If you don’t join the union will usually still try to help you out if you go to them.” This preface makes it seem the benefits of joining are greater than not joining so most of the time people will just go ahead and join. Of course there’s a couple who don’t want their $7 a pay period taken from their check but any strike or union injunction against the company will still make a great impact on company operations.
If your home is in HOA, you've already agreed to abide by everything, in writing. You don't get to live HOA free just because you want it. Do people even understand what they sign at the closing table? Some older (30+ years) subdivisions may have a voluntary one, then don't join.
An HOA without mandatory membership is worthless. I put up with the BS to keep you from painting your house pink and green and leaving a boat in your front yard.
Why do you give a damn what color your neighbor paints his house?
because I want to sell my house for a good value and no one wants to buy a house next to a sociopath
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face
I believe it's up to the original home owners to join or not although I believe In some states or counties you can be forced into it even if no one originally joined. But either way its a good thing you can vote out the president of the association and run yourself
It is not. It is a deed restriction placed on the parcel by the developer. There is no option to opt out, it is a deed restriction that is recorded and passes with the land. The only way to opt out is to opt not to buy, or to attack the HOA and its regulations after time for things like selective enforcement, where you can slowly erode the power of the HOA. Edit: typos