HOA hell

[Necronic]

Dunno if this is the place for it, but this is incredible. First is an article about HOA's in general that focuses a bit on one particularly bad HOA

http://www.courierpress.com/news/20...stle-homeowners-associations/?partner=popular

But this is the best. This is a recorded conversation with the head of the HOA at issue. Absolute must listen

http://www.courierpress.com/videos/detail/a-conversation-with-stonecreek-hoa-president-steph/

 

[sixpackshaker]

Then you have the reason for HOA's

http://www.joespc.com/carlos/redneck.htm

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

I never want to own a home.

 

[GasBandit]

There should be right-to-own legislation that prohibits the requiring of participating in an HOA to buy property, same as there is right-to-work legislation that prohibits the requirement of union membership for employment.

 

[Azurephoenix]

I never want to own a home.

You want a castle right? You must want a castle.

 

[strawman]

There should be right-to-own legislation that prohibits the requiring of participating in an HOA to buy property, same as there is right-to-work legislation that prohibits the requirement of union membership for employment.

WARBGLARBLE THAT WOULD DEFEAT THE POINT OF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS.

/warbglarble

 

[Adam]

There should be right-to-own legislation that prohibits the requiring of participating in an HOA to buy property, same as there is right-to-work legislation that prohibits the requirement of union membership for employment.

HOA = Private, non-profit government = Libertarian panacea

It's just that the people fuck it up.

 

[GasBandit]

HOA = Private, non-profit government = Libertarian panacea

It's just that the people fuck it up.

That's not the case. It's the absolute opposite of a Libertarian endeavor - it completely micromanages and overregulates every single aspect of what you do with your own property, even if what you do is not actually in violation of real laws. It is the complete antithesis of Libertarianism.[DOUBLEPOST=1358207058][/DOUBLEPOST]

WARBGLARBLE THAT WOULD DEFEAT THE POINT OF HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS.

/warbglarble

World's tiniest violin playing JUST for the HOAs.

 

[Adam]

That's not the case. It's the absolute opposite of a Libertarian endeavor - it completely micromanages and overregulates every single aspect of what you do with your own property, even if what you do is not actually in violation of real laws. It is the complete antithesis of Libertarianism.

It's you entering with full knowledge into a legal contract with a private entity. It is the spirit and letter of Libertarianism. If you don't want to be part of the HOA, you don't live there. Very simply it's avoidable governance. The fact that they manage and regulate parts of your property is something that you explicitly choose to participate in with the reward being potentially more stable house prices.

 

[GasBandit]

It's you entering with full knowledge into a legal contract with a private entity. It is the spirit and letter of Libertarianism. If you don't want to be part of the HOA, you don't live there. Very simply it's avoidable governance. The fact that they manage and regulate parts of your property is something that you explicitly choose to participate in with the reward being potentially more stable house prices.

Ah, so now it's not a government, now it's just a contract with a private entity. Goalposts, they are a movin'.

Just because something is a contract you "agreed" to doesn't necessarily mean it is or should be legal or enforceable.

Plus, if the new owner of a piece of property elects not to enter into a contract with a third party that only had a contract with the old owner up to that point, only the old owner should really be in a position to be held accountable to the third party (HOA).

 

[Adam]

Ah, so now it's not a government, now it's just a contract with a private entity. Goalposts, they are a movin'.

Just because something is a contract you "agreed" to doesn't necessarily mean it is or should be legal or enforceable.

How very anti-libertarian of you.

A contract between two individuals is at the core of libertarian philosophy; with the bookends of property rights. Granted, an HOA is a form of governance, and that's a good thing. Libertarians aren't against governance; they are against violations of property rights. Governance is a necessary means to the enforcement of property rights. (This is true even for anarchocapitalists.) The crucial difference between an HOA and a statist organization is that an HOA originates as a unanimous contract. The ability to form contracts is crucial for libertarian theory as well for the development of the economy.

If a contract is 'unfair', tough shit. Don't sign it. And certainly don't go crying to the next level of government about it.

But don't take MY word for it; what does The Mises Institute have to say about HOAs?

http://mises.org/community/forums/t/18417.aspx

 

[Eriol]

I'm with Adam on this one. HOAs are the spawn of the devil, but you know it going into it.

Why government is different IMO is that you don't have a choice to be a part of or subject to it.

 

[GasBandit]

How very anti-libertarian of you.

A contract between two individuals is at the core of libertarian philosophy; with the bookends of property rights. Granted, an HOA is a form of governance, and that's a good thing. Libertarians aren't against governance; they are against violations of property rights. Governance is a necessary means to the enforcement of property rights. (This is true even for anarchocapitalists.) The crucial difference between an HOA and a statist organization is that an HOA originates as a unanimous contract. The ability to form contracts is crucial for libertarian theory as well for the development of the economy.

If a contract is 'unfair', tough shit. Don't sign it. And certainly don't go crying to the next level of government about it.

Heh, I sure hope you've read every TOS/EULA for every piece of software you've ever run

Yes, contracts are important. No, a contract is not sancrosanct just by virtue of it being a contract. For example, if a contract requires a party to perform an illegal act, it is illegal and unenforceable.

In truly Libertarian setting, if a property owner sells their property without getting the new owner to agree to join the HOA first, then the only person the HOA can take it up with is the old owner. The new owner would not be able to be forced into a contract simply by virtue of purchasing property.

And really, by virtue of all such HOAs being involuntary and having no means for dissolution of the agreement, they pretty much become illegitimate constructs straight from inception.

Hence, why I said there should be right-to-own laws to clarify this.

 

[Adam]

I fucking hate HOAs with a passion, but you still aren't arguing that they're the antithesis of Libertarianism. You're arguing that contract law sucks.

From http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opinion/105977-2012-02-24-the-dysfunctional-hoa-of-the-usa.htm

First, HOAs are based on the libertarian principle of voluntary association. People move to HOAs voluntarily and with full knowledge of the rules and regulations. In that sense, they are similar to legal immigrants who move to the USA.
Second, the rules and regulations of normal HOAs are based on another libertarian principle of people being allowed to do whatever they want--as long as they don’t harm others, infringe on the rights of others, take the property of others, disturb others, or behave in ways that negatively impact the value of other people’s property. It is none of the HOA’s business if a resident smokes pot, is in a gay marriage, is in the one percent or 99 percent, is an atheist or God-fearing, or buys stuff from suppliers outside of the HOA. Moreover, HOAs don’t invade other HOAs to force them to adopt the invader’s rules and regulations.
Third, HOA fees are based on services rendered, such as the maintenance of common areas and streets. Residents cannot vote to give themselves free stuff at the expense of other residents or to redistribute the fees in order to satisfy their yearning to be charitable with other people’s money. Also, thankfully, HOAs cannot engage in deficit spending by printing fiat money and issuing HOA bonds. Residents are free to help the association and their neighbors through volunteering and free choice, or, if they prefer, to be left alone.

 

[blotsfan]

But I think the point is that its an outside entity. If you want to buy a house, the terms of the sale should only be between you and the previous owner. Unless if the previous owner says "I'm only going to sell you this house if you join the HOA", someone buying a house shouldn't be forced to join it.

 

[Eriol]

But I think the point is that its an outside entity. If you want to buy a house, the terms of the sale should only be between you and the previous owner. Unless if the previous owner says "I'm only going to sell you this house if you join the HOA", someone buying a house shouldn't be forced to join it.

There's some sense to this IMO. If it's different, then they need to maintain a certain percentage of ownership, and thus you don't own 100% of the property. Or something. But if they're not owners even in part, they should have no say. I'll admit I like the parallels to Union membership, which IMO shouldn't be compulsory either.

 

[MindDetective]

But I think the point is that its an outside entity. If you want to buy a house, the terms of the sale should only be between you and the previous owner. Unless if the previous owner says "I'm only going to sell you this house if you join the HOA", someone buying a house shouldn't be forced to join it.

What if the very first buyer chooses to sign a contract that stipulates that the sale of the house must include an HOA clause, which stipulates the next buyer must also include the clause upon the sale of the house, etc.? Basically, you can build it into the DNA of the contract so that it is always internal to the contract, known to all buyers/sellers, and not a top-down imposition.

 

[Dei]

In the town I live in, HoAs are basically a fact of life. The town itself doesn't pay for things like park management or snow removal in our neighborhoods, so the HoA has to deal with it. This is mostly due to the fact that our town went from 3 streets in the middle of nowhere to population explosion new neighborhoods everywhere OMG. When the housing bubble burst and a bunch of houses went into foreclosure, a lot of open space turned into ant and weed infested grossness because the HoA didn't have the money to maintain more than the playground greenery. Not even going to discuss how terrible our streets always are unless I'm on a main road in the winter. But for the most part, other than giving us a "max percentage" of grass we're allowed to have in our yards (which is honestly due more to reducing water usage since we do have to worry about that around here in the summer), they don't do shit.

That said, I have relatives who have moved into snooty HoA controlled neighborhoods and the stories never fail to make me laugh at them for living there.

 

[strawman]

What if the very first buyer chooses to sign a contract that stipulates that the sale of the house must include an HOA clause, which stipulates the next buyer must also include the clause upon the sale of the house, etc.? Basically, you can build it into the DNA of the contract so that it is always internal to the contract, known to all buyers/sellers, and not a top-down imposition.

That's how they are written. The owner cannot sell the house without the purchaser, including the lending bank, agreeing to the terms of the HOA.

Contrary to popular belief, though, HOAs can be dissolved, but that's up to the articles of incorporation of the association, which is a legal entity. Most of them require the homeowners within the association to agree to dissolution. So if you can convince the enough homeowners to dissolve the association, it can be done.

There are other ways an HOA can fail, and if it does then the contract ceases to remain in effect as well.

And this is a two way street. You pay for certain services, so if the HOA doesn't fulfill them, you can sue.

I don't really oppose HOAs. If you move into a "nice" neighborhood, you should understand there's a reason it's "nice" and that reason restricts you from doing certain things other people don't think is nice.

Buyer beware.

I think what /should/ happen is that realtors be required to provide all HOA documentation, contracts, costs, and contact info for all board members and leadership of the HOA and explicitly agree to the terms of the HOA prior to the offer being accepted.

If anyone, seller, realtor, HOA, is hiding the HOA and relying on obfuscation to trick people into buying into an HOA, then they are not using the HOA for the right reasons. They're only inviting people into the neighborhood that will eventually cause problems. People should want to live under an HOA if they're moving into one.

The current laws which allow realtors to gloss over it are bad, not HOAs.

 

[PatrThom]

There are other ways an HOA can fail, and if it does then the contract ceases to remain in effect as well.

For instance, if so many people move away that the only people left living in a subdivision are the three officers of the HOA and 27 empty houses, they might get the idea that nobody want to join their crappy HOA.

--Patrick

 

[Bubble181]

Okay, so, home ownership usually works differently over here, and though I do own a home, I'm not really in any association over it....So allow me to ask stupid questions.
Say I buy a house in a nice little suburb. All the owners of the houses in that suburb, are (required to be) part of the HOA. That organization tries to take care of a certain number of things for the general benefit of all the home owners. Depending on where and when and so on, it could be about not allowing too big a tree in your front yard, it could be not painting your house bright yellow, it could be organizing a snow plough in winter, whatever. Fine.

Now, if you're legally obligated to be part of this HOA, if you buy a house in this suburb, how is that any more or less "free choice" than government? You can choose not to live in the US and thus avoid US legislation, just like you can choose to live in this particular suburb or not - but in both cases, the place you live determines and requires you to become part of a greater whole/organisation.

 

[Necronic]

One funny thing I read recently was the idea to buy a lot directly outside of an HOA development, then build a crazy looking house and paint it two colors, put a giant slide from the second story roof to the driveway, and use a mailbox made in your steel shop. Every day the HOA people will drive by it and either look at it wistfully or be pretty mad about it.

 

[sixpackshaker]

My brother once put up a Halloween Wreath. It looked like a skeleton ripping the door open and poking his head out the hole. On November 1st the HOA asked him to take it down.

It stayed up until Easter.

 

[strawman]

Now, if you're legally obligated to be part of this HOA, if you buy a house in this suburb, how is that any more or less "free choice" than government?

Pretty much. I could choose to live in Ohio and still work in Michigan if I thought the tax/property/etc laws better fit my needs there.

An HOA is even easier to choose or opt out of - shop around and you'll find homes in your living area that are under HOA and homes that are not. Chances are you'll find a few HOAs, and you can compare them and choose.

The real problem is when people move into one without understanding what it is and the terms of the contract they must sign. Unfortunately state laws are often written such that it's easy to bury the details in the paperwork, and owners are rushed through the signing/closing process so they don't have time to read everything.

Even worse, both the buyer's and seller's realtor are interested in having the sale completed, so the buyer may not be represented well. There are a ton of conflicts of interest in the world of realestate, and both the buyer and seller have to keep a sharp eye on the process to make sure nothing is missed.

 

[PatrThom]

Pretty much. I could choose to live in Ohio and still work in Michigan if I thought the tax/property/etc laws better fit my needs there.

Really, all of us are probably only one Portal gun away from "The Ideal Living Situation."

--Patrick

 

[Necronic]

pfff. My house has Farcasters.

 

[Zappit]

How do you create an HOA?

-Be an asshole neighbor.
-Gather a group of fellow, completely miserable and judgmental assholes from the neighborhood.
-See if one of those assholes is a lawyer. Betcha there's at least one.
-Craft a charter that allows you to enforce completely arbitrary rules on people who move into empty houses after acquiring them.
-Literally shriek about children being on the lawn.
-Fine harmless people for living their lives.
-Take comfort in the fact that while you're still an asshole, you get to do it professionally.

 

[strawman]

It's very hard to set up one after the subdivision is developed. Most are started by the developer.

You can't force someone into a new HOA, you have to convince each owner to voluntarily join the HOA.