8 ms·

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 t

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]
  - lelanthran 5y ago
    > Probably there was no article in HOA rules that was applicable. So? Nothing to stop them adding it in.
    - igetspam 5y ago
      You ever tried to get a quorum of disinterested people? Most of the HOAs I've had to suffer through were created for the benefit of the developer and the people who wanted to dump them couldn't get enough people together to even have a vote for or against. Newer HOAs are not on your side.
    - Nursie 5y ago
      Surely you’d need unanimous consent to add a new restriction in? Otherwise this feels seriously off - just being able to add new rules that people must adhere to whether they agree or not.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        > Otherwise this feels seriously off - just being able to add new rules that people must adhere to whether they agree or not. Have you heard of 'democracy'? When your government writes a new law by majority do you have to adhere to it whether you agree or not?
        Nursie 5y ago
        Democracy is not a contract with a homeowners organisation. HOAs are not government.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        > Democracy is not a contract with a homeowners organisation. It's the same mechanism. The only difference is you agree to be bound by the rules of the HOA - contract rather than common law. The HOA is a direct democracy. It can vote to change the rules - you can give your input as a vote, but you're bound by the majority. It's the same system. > HOAs are not government. They're a form of local government.
WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
> The older I get, the more I want to live in a strict HOA community though. You'd love mine. Fabricated violations. Select residents targeted by obsessed board members. No political signage from one party. Sidebar: Our HOA restrictions insure that every waterway that feeds from this neighborhood is hopelessly polluted. Lots of HOAs work to achieve that tho.
- pixl97 5y ago
  >No political signage from one party. Um, ya, if they are dumb enough to write that in the bylaws feel free take them both to state and federal court for civil rights violations.
  - lostcolony 5y ago
    If you can demonstrate a pattern of ignoring complaints about signage re: one party, and enforcement of signage for another, regardless of what is written in the bylaws, you probably have a solid case.
  - jjeaff 5y ago
    I think you would only have a case if that -wasn't- written into your bylaws and they were still doing it. I don't think there is any law that keeps you from creating a private agreement that only signage from one party is allowed.
    - pixl97 5y ago
      Uuuhhh, again, that is a direct civil and voting rights violation. Please tell me that have that written in the bylaws. Lawyers would have a field day.
      - jjeaff 5y ago
        Is there a specific law forbidding the creation of a private agreement that stipulates as such? I ask because I'm not sure. There are obviously some limitations to what a private contract can require, but i don't think this is one of those things.
skissane 5y ago
> I understand why people don't like HOAs. Yes they were born out of racism. I don't think that invalidates the concept. Other countries have similar concepts to HOAs, often without any particular history of racism behind it. For example, here in Australia we have "strata corporations", "owners corporations", "strata title", "strata schemes" (different states call it by slightly different names, but they're all the same basic concept). Individually owned lots attached to common property, with a corporate body whose voting members are the lot owners, which controls the common property, and also has the power to charge fees to the lot owners and impose rules on the lot owners (and their tenants). They are most commonly found in apartment buildings, but are also used for housing estates of townhouses / semidetached houses, and even (albeit more rarely) detached houses. When applied to housing estates, they are rather comparable to HOAs in the US. But, as far as I am aware, there is no particular history of racism behind strata schemes in Australia.
- 8note 5y ago
  Did they mainly cater to white settlers? If so, it's likely a racist institution
  - strken 5y ago
    They date back to 1961 as a legal device to represent ownership of flats in large blocks, and have literally nothing to do with settlers, white or otherwise.
mc32 5y ago
HOAs are a microcosm of politics and essentially living with other people under a common framework: some people are truly looking for a good balance and some people are petty and pay attention to the smallest "infractions". It’s both the best in people and the worst in people at the same time. So, on the one hand they get in everybody's business, on the other hand, they prevent things going sideways when you have "characters" in the neighborhood. So I agree, it depends on the HOA.

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]
- lelanthran 5y ago
  > Probably there was no article in HOA rules that was applicable. So? Nothing to stop them adding it in.
  - igetspam 5y ago
    You ever tried to get a quorum of disinterested people? Most of the HOAs I've had to suffer through were created for the benefit of the developer and the people who wanted to dump them couldn't get enough people together to even have a vote for or against. Newer HOAs are not on your side.
  - Nursie 5y ago
    Surely you’d need unanimous consent to add a new restriction in? Otherwise this feels seriously off - just being able to add new rules that people must adhere to whether they agree or not.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      > Otherwise this feels seriously off - just being able to add new rules that people must adhere to whether they agree or not. Have you heard of 'democracy'? When your government writes a new law by majority do you have to adhere to it whether you agree or not?
      - Nursie 5y ago
        Democracy is not a contract with a homeowners organisation. HOAs are not government.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        > Democracy is not a contract with a homeowners organisation. It's the same mechanism. The only difference is you agree to be bound by the rules of the HOA - contract rather than common law. The HOA is a direct democracy. It can vote to change the rules - you can give your input as a vote, but you're bound by the majority. It's the same system. > HOAs are not government. They're a form of local government.

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago

> The older I get, the more I want to live in a strict HOA community though. You'd love mine. Fabricated violations. Select residents targeted by obsessed board members. No political signage from one party. Sidebar: Our HOA restrictions insure that every waterway that feeds from this neighborhood is hopelessly polluted. Lots of HOAs work to achieve that tho.

pixl97 5y ago
>No political signage from one party. Um, ya, if they are dumb enough to write that in the bylaws feel free take them both to state and federal court for civil rights violations.
- lostcolony 5y ago
  If you can demonstrate a pattern of ignoring complaints about signage re: one party, and enforcement of signage for another, regardless of what is written in the bylaws, you probably have a solid case.
- jjeaff 5y ago
  I think you would only have a case if that -wasn't- written into your bylaws and they were still doing it. I don't think there is any law that keeps you from creating a private agreement that only signage from one party is allowed.
  - pixl97 5y ago
    Uuuhhh, again, that is a direct civil and voting rights violation. Please tell me that have that written in the bylaws. Lawyers would have a field day.
    - jjeaff 5y ago
      Is there a specific law forbidding the creation of a private agreement that stipulates as such? I ask because I'm not sure. There are obviously some limitations to what a private contract can require, but i don't think this is one of those things.

skissane 5y ago

> I understand why people don't like HOAs. Yes they were born out of racism. I don't think that invalidates the concept. Other countries have similar concepts to HOAs, often without any particular history of racism behind it. For example, here in Australia we have "strata corporations", "owners corporations", "strata title", "strata schemes" (different states call it by slightly different names, but they're all the same basic concept). Individually owned lots attached to common property, with a corporate body whose voting members are the lot owners, which controls the common property, and also has the power to charge fees to the lot owners and impose rules on the lot owners (and their tenants). They are most commonly found in apartment buildings, but are also used for housing estates of townhouses / semidetached houses, and even (albeit more rarely) detached houses. When applied to housing estates, they are rather comparable to HOAs in the US. But, as far as I am aware, there is no particular history of racism behind strata schemes in Australia.

8note 5y ago
Did they mainly cater to white settlers? If so, it's likely a racist institution
- strken 5y ago
  They date back to 1961 as a legal device to represent ownership of flats in large blocks, and have literally nothing to do with settlers, white or otherwise.

mc32 5y ago

HOAs are a microcosm of politics and essentially living with other people under a common framework: some people are truly looking for a good balance and some people are petty and pay attention to the smallest "infractions". It’s both the best in people and the worst in people at the same time. So, on the one hand they get in everybody's business, on the other hand, they prevent things going sideways when you have "characters" in the neighborhood. So I agree, it depends on the HOA.