4 ms·

Those are all things the town should be doing, not some private organization. Fence needs to meet zoning rules and get a permit if it doesn't. Renovation, demol

Those are all things the town should be doing, not some private organization. Fence needs to meet zoning rules and get a permit if it doesn't. Renovation, demolition, expansion, all something controlled through the permiting and zoning process. Disabled cars? The town again. Neighbor not mowing their lawn? Code enforcement. So I really really don't see the point of an HOA.

logfromblammo 10y ago
No, no, no. Those are things that no one should be doing. If you want to control an entire community to the extent that most zoning boards and HOAs do, the proper thing to do would be to retain ownership of the property and write the restrictions into your leases. Your neighbors' property is not your property. If they wish to make their home into an eyesore, that's unfortunate for you, but they really like being able to dispose of their owned property as they see fit. If they wish to use their yard to grow nothing but dandelions, tamp down on your outrage and let them; for all you know, they will be using them for organic salads and floral wine, and to stop them would be taking food out of their mouths. The only thing that the county/municipality should be doing is to assess and levy the costs of any externalities upon the property owners, and to ensure that no property owner can cause so much damage that they cannot subsequently pay to repair it. No amateur nuclear reactors in the backyards, for instance. No dumping PCBs into the creek. That car on blocks should be fine, provided that any parts containing toxic pollutants have been removed and disposed of properly. Once you remove the lead-acid battery, gas tank, and exhaust system, then drain the fluids, there isn't much left in it to worry about. You don't, after all, have any property interest whatsoever in the view from your front porch. The more you forcibly remove the illusion of control that people have over their own lives, the greater the number who will crack and become les petits Napoleons, seeking to control others in petty ways. Some number of HOA officers follow the mentality "if I can't have a purple garage door, then no one else can do what they want, either".
- GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
  This is wrong. There are reasons for the town to control what you can build on your property. My neighbor should not be able to tear down his two story house and replace it with a five story apartment building built up to the property line. My neighbors should not be allowed to leave a rusting hulk in their front yard, nor should I. We shouldn't be allowed to not mow the lawn for a month, pissing everyone else off (they were not growing dandelions, they were simply neglecting their property out of laziness). And no, I really do have a property interest in the view from my porch. And so do my neighbors. Which is why I don't care if you have a rusting hulk in your backyard, or you never mow it. There is a very large difference between "you cannot allow your property to go derelict" and "you must paint your house this shade of puce."
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    You do not have a property interest in your scenic view. That would require a view easement on someone else's property, which only some states have. California is one of them, but many of the US do not currently allow them. But no state allows a negative prescriptive easement. That means if you want a (inherently negative) view easement, you have to buy it, create it on your own property before selling it, or convince a court to award it to you. HOAs have their power because the subdivision developer put the easements and covenants in place before selling off the lots. Zoning or ordinance changes by the municipality are simply a [usually uncompensated] taking of your rights in your own property. There may be an argument to be made that eminent domain allows a municipality to do this, but doing so without just compensation is illegal in the US. So if the town passes an ordinance banning storage of derelict cars wholly visible from every point on the road frontage property boundary, it needs to pay everyone something to compensate for that. The amount of such compensation may be as little as $1 per owner, but even that would place a limit on how many arbitrary property-use rules a town can impose on its residents. That's a good thing. It encourages governing bodies to prioritize their meddling, such that the derelict car rule goes in before the anti-dandelion rule. Ownership rights and property laws are several of the foundation stones underlying all of human civilization. As such, there is a right way (pay for what you take) and a wrong way (take whatever you can) to manage property. My opinion is that the number of vague and arbitrary rules that are placed into HOA covenants are such that they are more suited for leases, such that each lessee must read and agree to them each time they sign, and the market can respond more readily to discount the lease price in accord with the burden of the restrictions. Have you ever read any of those HOA covenants? I'm surprised anyone would buy property with even half the restrictions on it.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  No, now this is far too far to the other side. You are not an island, and your actions can and will affect others. Therefore, in a community, you need to take that into account. Don't want to do that? Move out to the middle of nowhere, where you won't be affecting others. And no, if you are in a neighborhood, a car on blocks should never be acceptable.
jasode 10y ago
>Those are all things the town should be doing, not some private organization. [...] So I really really don't see the point of an HOA. The private HOA of a particular neighborhood can enforce higher standards of appearance than the town/city codes. For example, the HOA can require that any fence must be wrought-iron[1] instead of chain-link or wood, or brick&stone mailboxes instead wooden posts. A town can't formally codify such rules because many neighborhoods within the city limits will be lower-income homes that can't afford upscale building materials. It would be an unfair rule to enforce for the entire city. Therefore, town codes have to address the lowest common denominator. A town code will have some baseline standards such as disallowing cars to be propped up on cement blocks in the front yard. Therefore, an HOA would not have to specifically address that in its covenants. Another reason for HOAs is gated neighborhoods. The town typically is not required to spend tax dollars to maintain roads inside the gates. Therefore, the HOA is the entity that accumulates money in the treasury for any road repairs. Also, keep in mind that HOA is a voluntary organization and many people willingly buy into HOA neighborhoods. They don't want their neighbors' homes to degrade into a substandard appearance which would negatively affect their property values. If the majority of homeowners truly hated their HOA, they could vote to remove all cosmetic covenants from the bylaws and only keep the HOA corporate entity to maintain the common landscaping areas. However, no HOA voters choose that path so there must be a reason why. All that said, the HOA has a board and although the members are voted in by the homeowners (usually annually), the positions often does seem to attract a peculiar type of tyrannical overzealous personality. [1]https://www.google.com/search?q=wrought+iron+fence+yards&biw=1227&bih=1467&source=lnms&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=wrought+iron+fence+yards&biw...
- st3v3r 10y ago
  "Also, keep in mind that HOA is a voluntary organization and many people willingly buy into HOA neighborhoods." That's not entirely true. If the only homes in the area that you can buy within a reasonable commute to work are HOA properties, you didn't exactly choose to be a part of an HOA, did you? "If the majority of homeowners truly hated their HOA, they could vote to remove all cosmetic covenants from the bylaws and only keep the HOA corporate entity to maintain the common landscaping areas. However, no HOA voters choose that path so there must be a reason why." Not every HOA allows such things. "All that said, the HOA has a board and although the members are voted in by the homeowners (usually annually), the positions often does seem to attract a peculiar type of tyrannical overzealous personality." Not every HOA allows such things.

logfromblammo 10y ago

No, no, no. Those are things that no one should be doing. If you want to control an entire community to the extent that most zoning boards and HOAs do, the proper thing to do would be to retain ownership of the property and write the restrictions into your leases. Your neighbors' property is not your property. If they wish to make their home into an eyesore, that's unfortunate for you, but they really like being able to dispose of their owned property as they see fit. If they wish to use their yard to grow nothing but dandelions, tamp down on your outrage and let them; for all you know, they will be using them for organic salads and floral wine, and to stop them would be taking food out of their mouths. The only thing that the county/municipality should be doing is to assess and levy the costs of any externalities upon the property owners, and to ensure that no property owner can cause so much damage that they cannot subsequently pay to repair it. No amateur nuclear reactors in the backyards, for instance. No dumping PCBs into the creek. That car on blocks should be fine, provided that any parts containing toxic pollutants have been removed and disposed of properly. Once you remove the lead-acid battery, gas tank, and exhaust system, then drain the fluids, there isn't much left in it to worry about. You don't, after all, have any property interest whatsoever in the view from your front porch. The more you forcibly remove the illusion of control that people have over their own lives, the greater the number who will crack and become les petits Napoleons, seeking to control others in petty ways. Some number of HOA officers follow the mentality "if I can't have a purple garage door, then no one else can do what they want, either".

GunboatDiplomat 10y ago
This is wrong. There are reasons for the town to control what you can build on your property. My neighbor should not be able to tear down his two story house and replace it with a five story apartment building built up to the property line. My neighbors should not be allowed to leave a rusting hulk in their front yard, nor should I. We shouldn't be allowed to not mow the lawn for a month, pissing everyone else off (they were not growing dandelions, they were simply neglecting their property out of laziness). And no, I really do have a property interest in the view from my porch. And so do my neighbors. Which is why I don't care if you have a rusting hulk in your backyard, or you never mow it. There is a very large difference between "you cannot allow your property to go derelict" and "you must paint your house this shade of puce."
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  You do not have a property interest in your scenic view. That would require a view easement on someone else's property, which only some states have. California is one of them, but many of the US do not currently allow them. But no state allows a negative prescriptive easement. That means if you want a (inherently negative) view easement, you have to buy it, create it on your own property before selling it, or convince a court to award it to you. HOAs have their power because the subdivision developer put the easements and covenants in place before selling off the lots. Zoning or ordinance changes by the municipality are simply a [usually uncompensated] taking of your rights in your own property. There may be an argument to be made that eminent domain allows a municipality to do this, but doing so without just compensation is illegal in the US. So if the town passes an ordinance banning storage of derelict cars wholly visible from every point on the road frontage property boundary, it needs to pay everyone something to compensate for that. The amount of such compensation may be as little as $1 per owner, but even that would place a limit on how many arbitrary property-use rules a town can impose on its residents. That's a good thing. It encourages governing bodies to prioritize their meddling, such that the derelict car rule goes in before the anti-dandelion rule. Ownership rights and property laws are several of the foundation stones underlying all of human civilization. As such, there is a right way (pay for what you take) and a wrong way (take whatever you can) to manage property. My opinion is that the number of vague and arbitrary rules that are placed into HOA covenants are such that they are more suited for leases, such that each lessee must read and agree to them each time they sign, and the market can respond more readily to discount the lease price in accord with the burden of the restrictions. Have you ever read any of those HOA covenants? I'm surprised anyone would buy property with even half the restrictions on it.
st3v3r 10y ago
No, now this is far too far to the other side. You are not an island, and your actions can and will affect others. Therefore, in a community, you need to take that into account. Don't want to do that? Move out to the middle of nowhere, where you won't be affecting others. And no, if you are in a neighborhood, a car on blocks should never be acceptable.

jasode 10y ago

>Those are all things the town should be doing, not some private organization. [...] So I really really don't see the point of an HOA. The private HOA of a particular neighborhood can enforce higher standards of appearance than the town/city codes. For example, the HOA can require that any fence must be wrought-iron[1] instead of chain-link or wood, or brick&stone mailboxes instead wooden posts. A town can't formally codify such rules because many neighborhoods within the city limits will be lower-income homes that can't afford upscale building materials. It would be an unfair rule to enforce for the entire city. Therefore, town codes have to address the lowest common denominator. A town code will have some baseline standards such as disallowing cars to be propped up on cement blocks in the front yard. Therefore, an HOA would not have to specifically address that in its covenants. Another reason for HOAs is gated neighborhoods. The town typically is not required to spend tax dollars to maintain roads inside the gates. Therefore, the HOA is the entity that accumulates money in the treasury for any road repairs. Also, keep in mind that HOA is a voluntary organization and many people willingly buy into HOA neighborhoods. They don't want their neighbors' homes to degrade into a substandard appearance which would negatively affect their property values. If the majority of homeowners truly hated their HOA, they could vote to remove all cosmetic covenants from the bylaws and only keep the HOA corporate entity to maintain the common landscaping areas. However, no HOA voters choose that path so there must be a reason why. All that said, the HOA has a board and although the members are voted in by the homeowners (usually annually), the positions often does seem to attract a peculiar type of tyrannical overzealous personality. [1]https://www.google.com/search?q=wrought+iron+fence+yards&biw=1227&bih=1467&source=lnms&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q=wrought+iron+fence+yards&biw...

st3v3r 10y ago
"Also, keep in mind that HOA is a voluntary organization and many people willingly buy into HOA neighborhoods." That's not entirely true. If the only homes in the area that you can buy within a reasonable commute to work are HOA properties, you didn't exactly choose to be a part of an HOA, did you? "If the majority of homeowners truly hated their HOA, they could vote to remove all cosmetic covenants from the bylaws and only keep the HOA corporate entity to maintain the common landscaping areas. However, no HOA voters choose that path so there must be a reason why." Not every HOA allows such things. "All that said, the HOA has a board and although the members are voted in by the homeowners (usually annually), the positions often does seem to attract a peculiar type of tyrannical overzealous personality." Not every HOA allows such things.