3 ms·

>That's disingenuous to pretend its not compulsory, just don't buy the house! We all understand it to mean, to live in a certain area its compulsory to belong t

by ancap 10y ago

>That's disingenuous to pretend its not compulsory, just don't buy the house! We all understand it to mean, to live in a certain area its compulsory to belong to the HOA. What you are saying is the equivalent of "I don't like wearing a shirt. Walmart wants to compel me to wear a shirt to go in their store and it's a flagrant un-freedom and un-American policy". Similar to buying a home in an established HOA, when you buy certain pieces of software, or use countless websites, you agree to their Terms of Service. There is no compulsion involved because you make the decision on whether to limit yourself. Everyone who chooses to do so, does it because they believe they will be better off engaging in the agreement than not. >Buying a house is a contract between the seller and the buyer regarding personal property. To be required to include a third party (the HOA) is strange. There's nothing strange about it at all. When you buy a house you have to ensure the seller has clear claim to the title. You have to make sure there are not any liens on the property. Is that strange to involve those third parties? Hardly. When an HOA is formed, those in the neighborhood contractually agree to do certain things and not do other things. They do so of their own accord. They also agree that the HOA has a claim on the house so that when sold, the contract remains in force. Do you disagree with the concept of contracts?

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Except, again, that's ignoring the fact that I don't own WalMart. And the HOA doesn't own my house. And I was never part of the HOA, yet am required (compelled) to join and abide by it. Its a strange old conservative view that neighbors can dictate what color to paint your front door, to suit some groupthink. Maybe this is a liberal vs conservative issue? Contracts are irrelevant - to be valid a contract has to have something called 'value received' in exchange for stipulations. You can't just write anything in a contract - for instance, the penalty of violating a term is generally a payment of money. What does it cost to get out of the HOA?
- ancap 10y ago
  >the HOA doesn't own my house. The HOA doesn't need ownership. They have a valid contractual claim to limit the use of the property based on the person who originally owned the property and elected to make it a part of the HOA. Any buyer accepts those limitations. When you purchase a piece of property you are not always getting rights to everything you might think. You may not have mineral or water rights. The property may have an easement in place. >And I was never part of the HOA, yet am required (compelled) to join and abide by it. You are never forced to join an HOA. A piece of property is part of an HOA or it is not. You choose whether you want that property or not. There is no force and no compulsion involved. >Contracts are irrelevant On the contrary. It is all about contracts.
  - Frondo 10y ago
    Heh, I couldn't help it! What you said, up there, is basically that some owner in the distant past could make a contract with an HOA that, despite the property changing hands, grants the HOA some power over that property forever. What on earth kind of freedom is that? If I want to buy a house that some previous owner inducted into an HOA, and I don't want to join the HOA, why should I have to? That sounds like government, but worse, because I can't vote the bums out! And if you're about to say "you don't have to buy a home within an HOA neighborhood, buy one without," well, what if I want to buy this house, but don't want to join the HOA? Why should some private organization be able to force me to join them for no reason other than some previous owner had an agreement with them? You know, the more we explore the HOA idea, the worse it seems like being any kind of freedom at all. How about it, ancap? Gonna rethink your ideas at all?
    - ancap 10y ago
      >What you said, up there, is basically that some owner in the distant past could make a contract with an HOA that, despite the property changing hands, grants the HOA some power over that property forever. >What on earth kind of freedom is that? If I want to buy a house that some previous owner inducted into an HOA, and I don't want to join the HOA, why should I have to? Do you disagree with the concept of someone owning mineral rights and someone else owning the land for the same piece of property?
      - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        Getting very strained. The HOA's entire point is to interfere in your private enjoyment of your private property. Not abstract rights to something underground that you don't care about.

by ancap 10y ago

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

Except, again, that's ignoring the fact that I don't own WalMart. And the HOA doesn't own my house. And I was never part of the HOA, yet am required (compelled) to join and abide by it. Its a strange old conservative view that neighbors can dictate what color to paint your front door, to suit some groupthink. Maybe this is a liberal vs conservative issue? Contracts are irrelevant - to be valid a contract has to have something called 'value received' in exchange for stipulations. You can't just write anything in a contract - for instance, the penalty of violating a term is generally a payment of money. What does it cost to get out of the HOA?

ancap 10y ago
>the HOA doesn't own my house. The HOA doesn't need ownership. They have a valid contractual claim to limit the use of the property based on the person who originally owned the property and elected to make it a part of the HOA. Any buyer accepts those limitations. When you purchase a piece of property you are not always getting rights to everything you might think. You may not have mineral or water rights. The property may have an easement in place. >And I was never part of the HOA, yet am required (compelled) to join and abide by it. You are never forced to join an HOA. A piece of property is part of an HOA or it is not. You choose whether you want that property or not. There is no force and no compulsion involved. >Contracts are irrelevant On the contrary. It is all about contracts.
- Frondo 10y ago
  Heh, I couldn't help it! What you said, up there, is basically that some owner in the distant past could make a contract with an HOA that, despite the property changing hands, grants the HOA some power over that property forever. What on earth kind of freedom is that? If I want to buy a house that some previous owner inducted into an HOA, and I don't want to join the HOA, why should I have to? That sounds like government, but worse, because I can't vote the bums out! And if you're about to say "you don't have to buy a home within an HOA neighborhood, buy one without," well, what if I want to buy this house, but don't want to join the HOA? Why should some private organization be able to force me to join them for no reason other than some previous owner had an agreement with them? You know, the more we explore the HOA idea, the worse it seems like being any kind of freedom at all. How about it, ancap? Gonna rethink your ideas at all?
  - ancap 10y ago
    >What you said, up there, is basically that some owner in the distant past could make a contract with an HOA that, despite the property changing hands, grants the HOA some power over that property forever. >What on earth kind of freedom is that? If I want to buy a house that some previous owner inducted into an HOA, and I don't want to join the HOA, why should I have to? Do you disagree with the concept of someone owning mineral rights and someone else owning the land for the same piece of property?
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Getting very strained. The HOA's entire point is to interfere in your private enjoyment of your private property. Not abstract rights to something underground that you don't care about.