3 ms·

> The problem can come down to defining 'harm' Indeed. If I, say, allow drug addicts to camp out on my front lawn and defecate on it, I'm probably going to ma

by lisper 5y ago

> The problem can come down to defining 'harm' Indeed. If I, say, allow drug addicts to camp out on my front lawn and defecate on it, I'm probably going to make the neighborhood as a whole less desirable to live in and hence reduce property values. The net effect of that is the same as literally taking money from you. Is that harm? Because it's really hard to draw a sharp line between that and the wrong color of shutters. Aside: I lived in HOA neighborhoods and non-HOA neighborhoods. On the whole I prefer the later, but I have horror stories from both.

josephcsible 5y ago
This is the sand heap fallacy. Even if you can't tell where the line is, it's obvious that turning your front yard into a mini-San Francisco is on one side of it, and that painting your shutters the wrong color is on the other side of it. We shouldn't have to pick the wrong answer for one of these bright-line cases just because there's some gray cases.
- lisper 5y ago
  > it's obvious that ... painting your shutters the wrong color is on the other side of it It might be obvious to you (it's obvious to me too), but it was manifestly not obvious to the board members who voted to enforce the shutter-color policy, nor to the people who voted for them.
  - MereInterest 5y ago
    > it was manifestly not obvious to the board members who voted to enforce the shutter-color policy I'm not even sure that's the case. I can conceive of a board that previously had a house like this[0] (first result of google image search for "garish house colors"), had a big back and forth on what to do about it, and wants to avoid getting into the same fight again. The resolution from last time was to establish some boundary and to enforce it rigorously, even if that excludes some colors that are acceptable. The current board knows that the shutter-color enforcement is ridiculous, but can't make an exception for the general house colors without giving ammunition to the person who painted their house neon green with pink polka dots. Not saying that that is the reasoning of any one particular board, but rather saying that I can conceive of cases where a person or group takes actions they know to be unreasonable in themselves, but may be reasonable in a wider context. [0] https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a3/9b/35/a39b35132a3c1cc219a7600b78f625a1.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a3/9b/35/a39b35132a3c1cc219a7...
    - lisper 5y ago
      But that's just making the observation that things that may seem obvious at first glance may not be obvious once you think more deeply about them. It doesn't really matter why they are not obvious. What matters is that they are not obvious.
      - MereInterest 5y ago
        Good point, and thank you for the clarification. I had been interpreting "manifestly not obvious" as a rhetorical device to state that the board were clearly decided and set that shutter-colors were within the scope of what an HOA board might reasonably decide, and therefore it is "manifestly not obvious" that it is outside the scope. (Sort of how somebody saying the words "There are some here who may disagree with you." is implicitly stating that they disagree and is inviting others to join in disagreement.) I agree that it is not obvious where the line is, and was attempting to a hypothetical where even a single person might be unsure.
    - betwixthewires 5y ago
      That's a cute house.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    Hence why you are seeing the argument made on this thread that those boards should just not exist. There are always going to be people that find some excuse to believe it is their duty to bug the hell out of everyone. "Nobody has a right to bug Tue hell out of anyone" is a time tested solution to this problem.
jchw 5y ago
Well, this example is a bit extreme. There’s some nuisance behavior that is made illicit on the basis that it is harm to the public as a whole. Having people defecate on your front lawn in view of everyone probably runs afoul of something in most jurisdictions. What happens behind closed doors is mostly still fine, though, even though it can lower property value. A lot of things can lower property value that aren’t fair to you, and the mere fact that they happen doesn’t mean you personally were wronged nor does it mean anything illicit has happened. Could be a nearby factory shuttering causing the local economy to struggle, or something.
- midasuni 5y ago
  A lot of things can raise the property value too. New metro station opens, pushing your value up 300k? Do people say “hey that’s not right, here you take the money mr metro man”?
lelanthran 5y ago
> Indeed. If I, say, allow drug addicts to camp out on my front lawn and defecate on it, I'm probably going to make the neighborhood as a whole less desirable to live in and hence reduce property values. The net effect of that is the same as literally taking money from you. Is that harm? Because it's really hard to draw a sharp line between that and the wrong color of shutters. It's really easy - the former example is actually illegal in most places and the local LE will deal with you if someone complains. No HOA needed.
- lisper 5y ago
  That's begging the question [1]. An HOA is just another form of government. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
  - lelanthran 5y ago
    Yes, but if you don't have it the other forms of government handle the former example in the post I replied to. I fail to see how this is circular reasoning. Can you explain?
    - lisper 5y ago
      The point is that these decisions -- whether it is acceptable to allow drug addicts to sleep on the lawn or to pain the shutters pink -- have to be made by someone. Either those decisions get made by the owner of the property, or they get made by someone else. It doesn't matter whether that "someone else" is "the government" or "the HOA board", and it doesn't matter whether infringing on the decision made by someone else is "illegal" or merely "against HOA policy". These are just labels. What matters is that the decisions about what you can and can't do with your house (and, for that matter, in every aspect of your life) are either yours to make, or they are someone else's, and it is not a slam-dunk which one leads to better outcomes.
      - lelanthran 5y ago

by lisper 5y ago

josephcsible 5y ago

This is the sand heap fallacy. Even if you can't tell where the line is, it's obvious that turning your front yard into a mini-San Francisco is on one side of it, and that painting your shutters the wrong color is on the other side of it. We shouldn't have to pick the wrong answer for one of these bright-line cases just because there's some gray cases.

lisper 5y ago
> it's obvious that ... painting your shutters the wrong color is on the other side of it It might be obvious to you (it's obvious to me too), but it was manifestly not obvious to the board members who voted to enforce the shutter-color policy, nor to the people who voted for them.
- MereInterest 5y ago
  > it was manifestly not obvious to the board members who voted to enforce the shutter-color policy I'm not even sure that's the case. I can conceive of a board that previously had a house like this[0] (first result of google image search for "garish house colors"), had a big back and forth on what to do about it, and wants to avoid getting into the same fight again. The resolution from last time was to establish some boundary and to enforce it rigorously, even if that excludes some colors that are acceptable. The current board knows that the shutter-color enforcement is ridiculous, but can't make an exception for the general house colors without giving ammunition to the person who painted their house neon green with pink polka dots. Not saying that that is the reasoning of any one particular board, but rather saying that I can conceive of cases where a person or group takes actions they know to be unreasonable in themselves, but may be reasonable in a wider context. [0] https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a3/9b/35/a39b35132a3c1cc219a7600b78f625a1.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a3/9b/35/a39b35132a3c1cc219a7...
  - lisper 5y ago
    But that's just making the observation that things that may seem obvious at first glance may not be obvious once you think more deeply about them. It doesn't really matter why they are not obvious. What matters is that they are not obvious.
    - MereInterest 5y ago
      Good point, and thank you for the clarification. I had been interpreting "manifestly not obvious" as a rhetorical device to state that the board were clearly decided and set that shutter-colors were within the scope of what an HOA board might reasonably decide, and therefore it is "manifestly not obvious" that it is outside the scope. (Sort of how somebody saying the words "There are some here who may disagree with you." is implicitly stating that they disagree and is inviting others to join in disagreement.) I agree that it is not obvious where the line is, and was attempting to a hypothetical where even a single person might be unsure.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    That's a cute house.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  Hence why you are seeing the argument made on this thread that those boards should just not exist. There are always going to be people that find some excuse to believe it is their duty to bug the hell out of everyone. "Nobody has a right to bug Tue hell out of anyone" is a time tested solution to this problem.

jchw 5y ago

Well, this example is a bit extreme. There’s some nuisance behavior that is made illicit on the basis that it is harm to the public as a whole. Having people defecate on your front lawn in view of everyone probably runs afoul of something in most jurisdictions. What happens behind closed doors is mostly still fine, though, even though it can lower property value. A lot of things can lower property value that aren’t fair to you, and the mere fact that they happen doesn’t mean you personally were wronged nor does it mean anything illicit has happened. Could be a nearby factory shuttering causing the local economy to struggle, or something.

midasuni 5y ago
A lot of things can raise the property value too. New metro station opens, pushing your value up 300k? Do people say “hey that’s not right, here you take the money mr metro man”?

lelanthran 5y ago

> Indeed. If I, say, allow drug addicts to camp out on my front lawn and defecate on it, I'm probably going to make the neighborhood as a whole less desirable to live in and hence reduce property values. The net effect of that is the same as literally taking money from you. Is that harm? Because it's really hard to draw a sharp line between that and the wrong color of shutters. It's really easy - the former example is actually illegal in most places and the local LE will deal with you if someone complains. No HOA needed.

lisper 5y ago
That's begging the question [1]. An HOA is just another form of government. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
- lelanthran 5y ago
  Yes, but if you don't have it the other forms of government handle the former example in the post I replied to. I fail to see how this is circular reasoning. Can you explain?
  - lisper 5y ago
    The point is that these decisions -- whether it is acceptable to allow drug addicts to sleep on the lawn or to pain the shutters pink -- have to be made by someone. Either those decisions get made by the owner of the property, or they get made by someone else. It doesn't matter whether that "someone else" is "the government" or "the HOA board", and it doesn't matter whether infringing on the decision made by someone else is "illegal" or merely "against HOA policy". These are just labels. What matters is that the decisions about what you can and can't do with your house (and, for that matter, in every aspect of your life) are either yours to make, or they are someone else's, and it is not a slam-dunk which one leads to better outcomes.
    - lelanthran 5y ago