4 ms·

Sometimes there are no properties in a general area not subject to an HOA. People don't always buy a home with an HOA because they want "facilities"; sometimes

Sometimes there are no properties in a general area not subject to an HOA. People don't always buy a home with an HOA because they want "facilities"; sometimes they buy a home with an HOA because they have little to no choice.

nradov 7y ago
Irrelevant. If you sign a contract then you have to abide by it. You don't get to pick and choose. Furthermore your claim that there are no alternatives in some general areas is simply false. I defy you to identify a single residential area in the US where there are no non-HOA properties within 50 miles. Sure you might have to pay more or drive further but there are always alternatives.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Not everything specified in a contract is just or legal: https://bostonfairhousing.org/timeline/1920s1948-Restrictive-Covenants.html https://bostonfairhousing.org/timeline/1920s1948-Restrictive... The principle of BATNA can define the more privileged party in a contract: https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/batna/translate-your-batna-to-the-current-deal/ https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/batna/translate-your-batna...
  - nradov 7y ago
    Old racist laws from 1948 are hardly relevant to HOA contracts today. I know what a BATNA is, and those are also totally irrelevant to HOA dues and liens. No one is putting a gun to buyers' heads and forcing them to sign.
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      The example may be an old one. As such, it's a largely settled matter. The principle remains. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contracts-tips-33079.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contra... You're also simply raising objections to elements I've introduced which you claim prior knowledge of (a fact of which, if I do have privileged access, I'd be well advised to conceal, and more probably, I don't). Which begins to seem tendentious and argument for the sake of arguing. You could have introduced BATNA to the discussion. You didn't. I did. It is a valid concern and consideration: the HOA need only find another mark^Wbuyer. The buyer needs to find a property not covered by onerous HOA terms. It's also notable that the Oakland County case doesn't concern HOAs. Though complaints against HOA are certainly justified in many cases.
rtkwe 7y ago
Even if the current owner doesn't personally use the facilities, like a neighborhood pool, the house is more valuable with the community facilities. I think a lot of the regulations they tend to want to impose are crap and busy body meddling but gathering funds to maintain community facilities is one of the legitimate reasons for an HOA.

nradov 7y ago

Irrelevant. If you sign a contract then you have to abide by it. You don't get to pick and choose. Furthermore your claim that there are no alternatives in some general areas is simply false. I defy you to identify a single residential area in the US where there are no non-HOA properties within 50 miles. Sure you might have to pay more or drive further but there are always alternatives.

dredmorbius 7y ago
Not everything specified in a contract is just or legal: https://bostonfairhousing.org/timeline/1920s1948-Restrictive-Covenants.html https://bostonfairhousing.org/timeline/1920s1948-Restrictive... The principle of BATNA can define the more privileged party in a contract: https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/batna/translate-your-batna-to-the-current-deal/ https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/batna/translate-your-batna...
- nradov 7y ago
  Old racist laws from 1948 are hardly relevant to HOA contracts today. I know what a BATNA is, and those are also totally irrelevant to HOA dues and liens. No one is putting a gun to buyers' heads and forcing them to sign.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    The example may be an old one. As such, it's a largely settled matter. The principle remains. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contracts-tips-33079.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contra... You're also simply raising objections to elements I've introduced which you claim prior knowledge of (a fact of which, if I do have privileged access, I'd be well advised to conceal, and more probably, I don't). Which begins to seem tendentious and argument for the sake of arguing. You could have introduced BATNA to the discussion. You didn't. I did. It is a valid concern and consideration: the HOA need only find another mark^Wbuyer. The buyer needs to find a property not covered by onerous HOA terms. It's also notable that the Oakland County case doesn't concern HOAs. Though complaints against HOA are certainly justified in many cases.

rtkwe 7y ago

Even if the current owner doesn't personally use the facilities, like a neighborhood pool, the house is more valuable with the community facilities. I think a lot of the regulations they tend to want to impose are crap and busy body meddling but gathering funds to maintain community facilities is one of the legitimate reasons for an HOA.