11 ms·

I think there is a high variance in how involved different HOAs are, so it's hard to make a blanket statement that you should totally avoid considering buying a

I think there is a high variance in how involved different HOAs are, so it's hard to make a blanket statement that you should totally avoid considering buying a property that's in an HOA. My current house is in an HOA that's around ~$20 / month (which pays to keep some of the common spaces of the development maintained), has never gone up in ~4 years, and we've never been notified about anything needing to look better even when our lawn was in pretty rough shape the summer we moved in. We did some research and were pretty confident going into it that we weren't going to be dealing with an overbearing HOA, and I also like that the development and community areas (including a tennis court and basketball court) stay well maintained. In our case, it feels like we're getting a good deal for the cost.

yabones 5y ago
Is that any different from paying +$240/year in your property taxes? My small town in canada has those amenities as well, sans HOA. All municipal, and managed by the town's parks department.
- desert_boi 5y ago
  Property taxes can go to _those people_ who can't afford to live in your burbclave.
- compiler-guy 5y ago
  The difference is that you only need the local neighborhood to agree that it wants a well maintained park, not the city, which may have other priorities.
  - sofixa 5y ago
    But if the neighborhood can't afford a new park, there is no new park, while the city's priorities are(or should be) the wellbeing or its citizens.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Is the city going to build a swimming pool and a set of tennis courts that can be walked to in every neighborhood or are they going to build one or two large ones in a central location that almost everyone will need to drive to? Also not everyone wants a pool and tennis courts so they can choose a neighborhood without them. Some neighborhoods where I used to live had soccer pitches instead of tennis court because that's what was popular with the people who lived there. It was much easier for the neighborhood to be responsive to what the people in the neighborhood wanted than it would have been to convince someone at city hall to build less tennis courts at the municipal park complex and build more soccer fields, which once again, would only be in walking distance of a small number of city residents. Letting residents decide for themselves what amenities they want in their neighborhoods instead of begging for permission from bureaucrats meant they were able to get what best suited that neighborhood and in a timely manner.
  - syshum 5y ago
    >>Is the city going to build a swimming pool and a set of tennis courts that can be walked to in every neighborhood or are they going to build one or two large ones in a central location that almost everyone will need to drive to? Also not everyone wants a pool and tennis courts so they can choose a neighborhood without them. This is one of the reasons I always prefer no HOA's and when possible in Unincorporated land as I want none of those things to be provided by the city. years ago when i was looking for an apartment I remember the leasing agents showing how they had a pool, or community center, or gym, etc etc etc. My response was always "will you discount the rent if I agree to never use any of these things I have no interest in" Of course the answer was always no, so I found an apartment that has no pool, no gym, no anything just the apartment, there was not even a Rental Office on the property. It was quite, and about 20-30% cheaper than the "full featured" units with all the amenities I would never use nor have the time to use.
- Black101 5y ago
  HOAs are like mini cities but usually with much stricter rules, or at least actively enforced rules unlike most cities that wait for complaints.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  Local govs are generally less likely to heap the sort of overt abuse on homeowners that HOAs do.
rantwasp 5y ago
depends on the HOA. 20$/month is enough to paint the community sign and maybe look at egregious violations of the rules, but not much more. this article talks more about 500$/month HOAs with free spirits that optimize everything
- dgfitz 5y ago
  Must be some very expensive paint if that’s the case. A whole neighborhood paying $20 a month to have a sign painted once a year? I realize you were speaking in hyperbole. The math of, let’s say 50 homes paying $20 a month each: 50 * 20 * 12. Twelve thousand dollars a year is quite a bit of money for an HOA to manage.
  - Google234 5y ago
    That sounds like nothing to me. Are you aware how expensive doing anything is today? That’s probably not enough to maintain a neighborhood pool.
    - sjg007 5y ago
      Pools certainly do not cost that much.
      - rantwasp 5y ago
        there is cost and there is “cost”. most money go into labor and actually getting someone to get out there. they need to be bonded and insured. they also need to get the job done. it’s a hassle
  - rantwasp 5y ago
    lol. you have the board (which is a bunch of volunteers with a lot of time on their hands) and you usually have a management company that implements all the batshit insane rules the “volunteers” make up. Now I ask you: how much would you pay someone to actually write up “violations” and get people to follow the rules? the reality is that these management companies usually do more than 1 hoa (a lot more) and are usually done for profit. at the end of the day, if the sign is painted every year on a 20$/month hoa, I call it a great success.
londons_explore 5y ago
Some of these things can be guaranteed by writing them into the rules of the HOA. Eg. "The HOA shall not have income (including fines and charges) totalling greater than 0.01% of the value of the houses under its control." "The HOA president shall sit a maximum term of 1 year, after which they shall be barred from all roles within the HOA for 3 years"
- Arainach 5y ago
  Term limits don't work - in large governments or small. Some HOAs may have abusive governments (which should be voted out by the owners), but plenty of others operate fine and you don't hear about them because no one complains. Our neighborhood has dues around $35 (they've actually dropped in the last 5 years due to sufficient reserves and lower than anticipated maintenance costs). Our HOA President has lived in the neighborhood since it was built and been the President for many years, and they do a fine job - they've been around enough to know who to talk to in city government if there's a problem, who in the neighborhood can be counted on for a quick favor (need to dig a posthole to install a new sign, etc.), contacts in nearby neighborhoods for coordination, etc. They do plenty of work, things run well, and there haven't been any issues. The HOA in general avoids the overbearing nature described here. It mediates disputes between neighbors, approves property changes (emphasis on "approves" - I've been on the board, and while they'll often give feedback such as "please add another plant here", they almost never end up rejecting a request), and doesn't make too many demands. It recently requested the homes get repainted, but the last time it was required was 15 years ago, so that doesn't seem out of line to me. Frankly, I have no complaints.
- giardini 5y ago
  london_explore "The HOA president shall sit a maximum term of 1 year, after which they shall be barred from all roles within the HOA for 3 years" To do this would be foolish. It take years to fully understand what can happen in any HOA. A one year term limit would create problems that allow other parties to manipulate the HOA. This would also encourage the use of a "management association(MA)", an outside contractor who signs a contract with the HOA giving all HOA control to the MA. Having an MA does allow "things to get done" but also increases costs radically and usually removes control from the HOA officers. So your choice is: a ) Have an HOA - you must deal with crazy people (about 1/3 of your membership - seriously), or b) Have an MA - you will have to pay more because you have given up HOA control. The modern condominium agreement is a well-examined standard document that almost works. There is one problem with most condominium agreements: they allow owners to rent their units. Once this begins to happen, then entrepreneurs move in and work to take over the condominium, drive the condominium value down, buy everyone out at a low price and resell at a high price. This may also involve tearing down and rebuilding/repurposing land. Altering the condominium agreement to disallow owners from renting units would correct this weakness. But most people find this an offense against ownership. Nonetheless condominium unit rental is a weakness that should be eliminated from most condominium agreements.
scheme271 5y ago
That sounds like a pretty good deal. But are you really protected from a new board being elected to the HOA and the board instituting restrictive rules and increasing fees for the "common good"?
- shados 5y ago
  HOAs generally don't work like a republic. The board has some level of minimal discretionary power (eg: in our HOA the trustees can decide if and when to increase dues within certain boundaries), but the actual rules are another story, and require a super majority ownership to change (I'm sure "default" bylaws vary by region, but everywhere I've lived it's been about 2/3rd stake to change rules). The board voted in cannot change the rules, they always have to be voted on by everyone. For example, in our HOA, everyone on the board wants to make the common area non-smoking, but they haven't been able to get people to vote on it at this time, therefor there's f* all the board can do about it, even if everyone agreed to it. It has to be voted on, on paper, signed and submitted to the land court.
- wil421 5y ago
  The board can’t just create new rules. Everyone has the opportunity to vote and the HOA is restricted by the bylaws.
01100011 5y ago
My old HOA was $20/month in SoCal and got me access to the community pool with well maintained lawn around it. The HOA was basically powerless otherwise. We tried to use it to stop an old, reclusive guy from feeding crows and releasing his pigeons(literally blanketing the surrounding backyards with bird shit), but they couldn't do anything. HOAs vary quite a bit. The older I get, the more I want to live in a strict HOA community though. I want the stability and improved neighbor relations(the HOA is the bad guy, not me, when the neighbor stops maintaining their property). I understand why people don't like HOAs. Yes they were born out of racism. I don't think that invalidates the concept.
- pas 5y ago
  Could you explain why the HOA was powerless to stop the bird shitter problem? Was it powerless in a legal way? Was it powerless in a members did not care enough way?
  - salawat 5y ago
    I think that'd be an interesting feat, moreso in the "don't screw with people crows like" sort of way. They are crazy smart birds. They'd familiarize themselves with people that'd give the old man a hard time, and would either avoid those people, or execute Avian justice. They'd also communicate the same to the rest of the murder. Pidgeons, I can't really abide. Crows are cool though.
  - mynegation 5y ago
    Probably there was no article in HOA rules that was applicable.
    - 01100011 5y ago
      Yes, this. HOAs only have the power they are given.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
dheera 5y ago
Personally I don't get HOAs at all. You either own something, or you don't. If you actually do own something, you shouldn't owe anything to anyone. No dues, no rules, no crap. It's your goddamn property, it's your rules. You decide what fence you put, what flowers you put, and what color car you have, and where you park your car on your property. Those idiots who think they have power over your property can get lost. My 2 cents.
- mantas 5y ago
  Frequently your lot borders another lot and both your and the other lots are quite small. So what you do in yours affect your neighbour in an objective way. E.g. you planting a tree right next to a fence may soon block sun to neighbour for a big part of the day. On top of that, sometimes there's shared infrastructure. Access roads, water, waste, community space etc. You do own a small part of it.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    > So what you do in yours affect your neighbour in an objective way. E.g. you planting a tree right next to a fence may soon block sun to neighbour for a big part of the day. The problem with HOAs is that often, your next-door neighbor (the only one actually affected) doesn't care, but Karen 15 doors down does, so you have to remove the tree for no good reason.
    - mantas 5y ago
      Yes, power corrupts. Thus all organisations with power should have good safeguards. On the other hand, sometimes stuff that happens 15 houses away may affect you quite a bit. E.g. loud partying, neglecting the yard and breeding nasty flora/fauna. It's all about the balance.
  - dheera 5y ago
    > E.g. you planting a tree right next to a fence may soon block sun to neighbour for a big part of the day. The solution to this is to define land ownership as a 3D space and not a 2D space. It should be a 3D trapezoidal sort of shape, and as long as you keep everything within that it should be allowed. > Access roads, water, waste These are utilities. You pay for access to them > , community space etc This should be optional and you pay IF you want access But hell no they should not be governing aesthetics of something you own. If you can get the right architectural permits and whatnot you should even be allowed to rebuild your house in a different style. That's what ownership means.
Black101 5y ago
> I think there is a high variance in how involved different HOAs are, so it's hard to make a blanket statement that you should totally avoid considering buying a property that's in an HOA. The problem is that they can get involved at any time whether you like it or not and if you don't want to lose your home, you will have to comply.
banana_giraffe 5y ago
Yep, my current HOA charges an optional $40 a year. It's basically enough to do some upkeep on the neighborhood entrance area, along with some cash for incidental expenses for neighborhood events. I've lived on both extremes of HOAs, from this current one to one where I got fined for opening the hood of my car in my driveway to replace a headlight (working on your car in view of others was specifically called out as not allowed). I can see why people would want the more extreme HOAs, but it's generally not for me.
smitty1e 5y ago
I pay $100/mo for these proto-fascists to explain to me why the pool and other amenities are unavailable. They do a decent job with the common grounds and the trash contract, so there's that.
- igetspam 5y ago
  Sounds like every subdivision in the Austin metro.
lelanthran 5y ago
> I think there is a high variance in how involved different HOAs are, so it's hard to make a blanket statement that you should totally avoid considering buying a property that's in an HOA. I don't think it was a blanket statement; he differentiated between voluntary and mandatory HOA. The mandatory ones can, at any time, turn into a nightmare. I'm part of a voluntary one. They don't have actual rules for the homeowners, but they do use the money to keep the area clean, run cameras on our suburb's entrances, etc. They've been nothing but helpful and don't get involved if two neighbours have a disagreement (My two nieghbours both launched different lawsuits against each other, and HOA persons they each contacted declined to get involved). OTOH, in a mandatory HOA (I've lived in one of those too) the neighbour with the best friendship of the board will basically get their way. The board members themselves get their way all the time.
syshum 5y ago
The core problem with HOA's, like someone else mentioned, is they are not Static. Sure TODAY your HOA may be ok but what if in 5 years the HOA is taken over by a bunch of people that want to use their Authority to bass new bylaws, and do much more aggressive actions and/or apply strict "standards" on the community This ability to in effect seize your ownership rights away from you post sale is the core of the problem with HOA's. If rule changes by the HOA's required unanimous consent of all owners then maybe but they dont, they only require a simply majority of the board members...

yabones 5y ago

Is that any different from paying +$240/year in your property taxes? My small town in canada has those amenities as well, sans HOA. All municipal, and managed by the town's parks department.

desert_boi 5y ago
Property taxes can go to _those people_ who can't afford to live in your burbclave.
compiler-guy 5y ago
The difference is that you only need the local neighborhood to agree that it wants a well maintained park, not the city, which may have other priorities.
- sofixa 5y ago
  But if the neighborhood can't afford a new park, there is no new park, while the city's priorities are(or should be) the wellbeing or its citizens.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Mountain_Skies 5y ago
Is the city going to build a swimming pool and a set of tennis courts that can be walked to in every neighborhood or are they going to build one or two large ones in a central location that almost everyone will need to drive to? Also not everyone wants a pool and tennis courts so they can choose a neighborhood without them. Some neighborhoods where I used to live had soccer pitches instead of tennis court because that's what was popular with the people who lived there. It was much easier for the neighborhood to be responsive to what the people in the neighborhood wanted than it would have been to convince someone at city hall to build less tennis courts at the municipal park complex and build more soccer fields, which once again, would only be in walking distance of a small number of city residents. Letting residents decide for themselves what amenities they want in their neighborhoods instead of begging for permission from bureaucrats meant they were able to get what best suited that neighborhood and in a timely manner.
- syshum 5y ago
  >>Is the city going to build a swimming pool and a set of tennis courts that can be walked to in every neighborhood or are they going to build one or two large ones in a central location that almost everyone will need to drive to? Also not everyone wants a pool and tennis courts so they can choose a neighborhood without them. This is one of the reasons I always prefer no HOA's and when possible in Unincorporated land as I want none of those things to be provided by the city. years ago when i was looking for an apartment I remember the leasing agents showing how they had a pool, or community center, or gym, etc etc etc. My response was always "will you discount the rent if I agree to never use any of these things I have no interest in" Of course the answer was always no, so I found an apartment that has no pool, no gym, no anything just the apartment, there was not even a Rental Office on the property. It was quite, and about 20-30% cheaper than the "full featured" units with all the amenities I would never use nor have the time to use.
Black101 5y ago
HOAs are like mini cities but usually with much stricter rules, or at least actively enforced rules unlike most cities that wait for complaints.
WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
Local govs are generally less likely to heap the sort of overt abuse on homeowners that HOAs do.

rantwasp 5y ago

depends on the HOA. 20$/month is enough to paint the community sign and maybe look at egregious violations of the rules, but not much more. this article talks more about 500$/month HOAs with free spirits that optimize everything

dgfitz 5y ago
Must be some very expensive paint if that’s the case. A whole neighborhood paying $20 a month to have a sign painted once a year? I realize you were speaking in hyperbole. The math of, let’s say 50 homes paying $20 a month each: 50 * 20 * 12. Twelve thousand dollars a year is quite a bit of money for an HOA to manage.
- Google234 5y ago
  That sounds like nothing to me. Are you aware how expensive doing anything is today? That’s probably not enough to maintain a neighborhood pool.
  - sjg007 5y ago
    Pools certainly do not cost that much.
    - rantwasp 5y ago
      there is cost and there is “cost”. most money go into labor and actually getting someone to get out there. they need to be bonded and insured. they also need to get the job done. it’s a hassle
- rantwasp 5y ago
  lol. you have the board (which is a bunch of volunteers with a lot of time on their hands) and you usually have a management company that implements all the batshit insane rules the “volunteers” make up. Now I ask you: how much would you pay someone to actually write up “violations” and get people to follow the rules? the reality is that these management companies usually do more than 1 hoa (a lot more) and are usually done for profit. at the end of the day, if the sign is painted every year on a 20$/month hoa, I call it a great success.

londons_explore 5y ago

Some of these things can be guaranteed by writing them into the rules of the HOA. Eg. "The HOA shall not have income (including fines and charges) totalling greater than 0.01% of the value of the houses under its control." "The HOA president shall sit a maximum term of 1 year, after which they shall be barred from all roles within the HOA for 3 years"

Arainach 5y ago
Term limits don't work - in large governments or small. Some HOAs may have abusive governments (which should be voted out by the owners), but plenty of others operate fine and you don't hear about them because no one complains. Our neighborhood has dues around $35 (they've actually dropped in the last 5 years due to sufficient reserves and lower than anticipated maintenance costs). Our HOA President has lived in the neighborhood since it was built and been the President for many years, and they do a fine job - they've been around enough to know who to talk to in city government if there's a problem, who in the neighborhood can be counted on for a quick favor (need to dig a posthole to install a new sign, etc.), contacts in nearby neighborhoods for coordination, etc. They do plenty of work, things run well, and there haven't been any issues. The HOA in general avoids the overbearing nature described here. It mediates disputes between neighbors, approves property changes (emphasis on "approves" - I've been on the board, and while they'll often give feedback such as "please add another plant here", they almost never end up rejecting a request), and doesn't make too many demands. It recently requested the homes get repainted, but the last time it was required was 15 years ago, so that doesn't seem out of line to me. Frankly, I have no complaints.
giardini 5y ago
london_explore "The HOA president shall sit a maximum term of 1 year, after which they shall be barred from all roles within the HOA for 3 years" To do this would be foolish. It take years to fully understand what can happen in any HOA. A one year term limit would create problems that allow other parties to manipulate the HOA. This would also encourage the use of a "management association(MA)", an outside contractor who signs a contract with the HOA giving all HOA control to the MA. Having an MA does allow "things to get done" but also increases costs radically and usually removes control from the HOA officers. So your choice is: a ) Have an HOA - you must deal with crazy people (about 1/3 of your membership - seriously), or b) Have an MA - you will have to pay more because you have given up HOA control. The modern condominium agreement is a well-examined standard document that almost works. There is one problem with most condominium agreements: they allow owners to rent their units. Once this begins to happen, then entrepreneurs move in and work to take over the condominium, drive the condominium value down, buy everyone out at a low price and resell at a high price. This may also involve tearing down and rebuilding/repurposing land. Altering the condominium agreement to disallow owners from renting units would correct this weakness. But most people find this an offense against ownership. Nonetheless condominium unit rental is a weakness that should be eliminated from most condominium agreements.

scheme271 5y ago

That sounds like a pretty good deal. But are you really protected from a new board being elected to the HOA and the board instituting restrictive rules and increasing fees for the "common good"?

shados 5y ago
HOAs generally don't work like a republic. The board has some level of minimal discretionary power (eg: in our HOA the trustees can decide if and when to increase dues within certain boundaries), but the actual rules are another story, and require a super majority ownership to change (I'm sure "default" bylaws vary by region, but everywhere I've lived it's been about 2/3rd stake to change rules). The board voted in cannot change the rules, they always have to be voted on by everyone. For example, in our HOA, everyone on the board wants to make the common area non-smoking, but they haven't been able to get people to vote on it at this time, therefor there's f* all the board can do about it, even if everyone agreed to it. It has to be voted on, on paper, signed and submitted to the land court.
wil421 5y ago
The board can’t just create new rules. Everyone has the opportunity to vote and the HOA is restricted by the bylaws.

01100011 5y ago

My old HOA was $20/month in SoCal and got me access to the community pool with well maintained lawn around it. The HOA was basically powerless otherwise. We tried to use it to stop an old, reclusive guy from feeding crows and releasing his pigeons(literally blanketing the surrounding backyards with bird shit), but they couldn't do anything. HOAs vary quite a bit. The older I get, the more I want to live in a strict HOA community though. I want the stability and improved neighbor relations(the HOA is the bad guy, not me, when the neighbor stops maintaining their property). I understand why people don't like HOAs. Yes they were born out of racism. I don't think that invalidates the concept.

pas 5y ago
Could you explain why the HOA was powerless to stop the bird shitter problem? Was it powerless in a legal way? Was it powerless in a members did not care enough way?
- salawat 5y ago
  I think that'd be an interesting feat, moreso in the "don't screw with people crows like" sort of way. They are crazy smart birds. They'd familiarize themselves with people that'd give the old man a hard time, and would either avoid those people, or execute Avian justice. They'd also communicate the same to the rest of the murder. Pidgeons, I can't really abide. Crows are cool though.
- mynegation 5y ago
  Probably there was no article in HOA rules that was applicable.
  - 01100011 5y ago
    Yes, this. HOAs only have the power they are given.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

dheera 5y ago

Personally I don't get HOAs at all. You either own something, or you don't. If you actually do own something, you shouldn't owe anything to anyone. No dues, no rules, no crap. It's your goddamn property, it's your rules. You decide what fence you put, what flowers you put, and what color car you have, and where you park your car on your property. Those idiots who think they have power over your property can get lost. My 2 cents.

mantas 5y ago
Frequently your lot borders another lot and both your and the other lots are quite small. So what you do in yours affect your neighbour in an objective way. E.g. you planting a tree right next to a fence may soon block sun to neighbour for a big part of the day. On top of that, sometimes there's shared infrastructure. Access roads, water, waste, community space etc. You do own a small part of it.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > So what you do in yours affect your neighbour in an objective way. E.g. you planting a tree right next to a fence may soon block sun to neighbour for a big part of the day. The problem with HOAs is that often, your next-door neighbor (the only one actually affected) doesn't care, but Karen 15 doors down does, so you have to remove the tree for no good reason.
  - mantas 5y ago
    Yes, power corrupts. Thus all organisations with power should have good safeguards. On the other hand, sometimes stuff that happens 15 houses away may affect you quite a bit. E.g. loud partying, neglecting the yard and breeding nasty flora/fauna. It's all about the balance.
- dheera 5y ago
  > E.g. you planting a tree right next to a fence may soon block sun to neighbour for a big part of the day. The solution to this is to define land ownership as a 3D space and not a 2D space. It should be a 3D trapezoidal sort of shape, and as long as you keep everything within that it should be allowed. > Access roads, water, waste These are utilities. You pay for access to them > , community space etc This should be optional and you pay IF you want access But hell no they should not be governing aesthetics of something you own. If you can get the right architectural permits and whatnot you should even be allowed to rebuild your house in a different style. That's what ownership means.

Black101 5y ago

> I think there is a high variance in how involved different HOAs are, so it's hard to make a blanket statement that you should totally avoid considering buying a property that's in an HOA. The problem is that they can get involved at any time whether you like it or not and if you don't want to lose your home, you will have to comply.

banana_giraffe 5y ago

Yep, my current HOA charges an optional $40 a year. It's basically enough to do some upkeep on the neighborhood entrance area, along with some cash for incidental expenses for neighborhood events. I've lived on both extremes of HOAs, from this current one to one where I got fined for opening the hood of my car in my driveway to replace a headlight (working on your car in view of others was specifically called out as not allowed). I can see why people would want the more extreme HOAs, but it's generally not for me.

smitty1e 5y ago

I pay $100/mo for these proto-fascists to explain to me why the pool and other amenities are unavailable. They do a decent job with the common grounds and the trash contract, so there's that.

igetspam 5y ago
Sounds like every subdivision in the Austin metro.

lelanthran 5y ago

> I think there is a high variance in how involved different HOAs are, so it's hard to make a blanket statement that you should totally avoid considering buying a property that's in an HOA. I don't think it was a blanket statement; he differentiated between voluntary and mandatory HOA. The mandatory ones can, at any time, turn into a nightmare. I'm part of a voluntary one. They don't have actual rules for the homeowners, but they do use the money to keep the area clean, run cameras on our suburb's entrances, etc. They've been nothing but helpful and don't get involved if two neighbours have a disagreement (My two nieghbours both launched different lawsuits against each other, and HOA persons they each contacted declined to get involved). OTOH, in a mandatory HOA (I've lived in one of those too) the neighbour with the best friendship of the board will basically get their way. The board members themselves get their way all the time.

syshum 5y ago

The core problem with HOA's, like someone else mentioned, is they are not Static. Sure TODAY your HOA may be ok but what if in 5 years the HOA is taken over by a bunch of people that want to use their Authority to bass new bylaws, and do much more aggressive actions and/or apply strict "standards" on the community This ability to in effect seize your ownership rights away from you post sale is the core of the problem with HOA's. If rule changes by the HOA's required unanimous consent of all owners then maybe but they dont, they only require a simply majority of the board members...