5 ms·

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

by 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.
  - pixl97 5y ago
    Your definition of ownership is not the Texas definition of ownership, for example. Water and mineral rights are totally different kinds of ownership and will generally be owned by someone else.
  - mantas 5y ago
    I'm not from US so my experience is different, but anyway... > 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. We already have somewhat similar solution. Some stuff is allowed no closer than 3m to fence or needs written neighbour permission. But it does not solve a lot of edge cases. Some fence types need written permission based on how much sun passes through. > These are utilities. You pay for access to them It's common that developer builds local private infrastructure for the project. City and/or utility companies manage up to private lot and don't want to take over the last mile. > This should be optional and you pay IF you want access And many smartasses would skip paying but jump the fence. Those community spaces do help their property value too. At the very least paying for access would have to include all costs to install it, not just run. > 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. Wait till you hear restrictions in historical neighbourhoods...
goalieca 5y ago
City bylaws can be nearly as strict as HOA with lots of stylistic rules such as no laundry lines even in non-heritage neighbourhoods.
- dheera 5y ago
  Yeah that's bullshit. If someone wants to save energy they should be allowed to do so. Preserving historic neighborhoods are fine. There's a historic value to them, and it's not some arbitrary group of old people with nothing better to do walking around getting pissed off at peoples' decorations.
shados 5y ago
Did you ever get married, or owned stocks in a company? Have you ever entered into a signed agreement with someone? Signed a contract on anything? What about signed a lease on an apartment? That's pretty common. The landlord owns it, but you have rights on it and they can't do whatever they want with their own property anymore. Why does it surprise you that someone can own something but sign some of their ownership rights away? People literally do this all the time for a million reasons.
- D13Fd 5y ago
  Funny thing with HOAs is that they are usually based on covenants that run with the land, so you don’t actually sign anything. You just bought property subject to covenants.
  - shados 5y ago
    I don't know about where you live, but when I bought my place, there sure as hell was a note on the deed that I signed that said I was bound by the rules of the bylaws. Is there a state where you can buy a house without signing anything? How do you transfer deeds over there?
    - D13Fd 5y ago
      My point is that you purchased the land but never signed a contract with the HOA. The deed was the agreement with the previous owner to legally transfer the land. The benefits and burdens run with the land.
      - pixl97 5y ago
        Yes, just like when you bought the land you were under many other non-HOA restrictions, like you couldn't install a waste processing plant where your house is. Many Americans idea of freedom is completely out of touch with the reality on how land contract law works.
      - shados 5y ago
D13Fd 5y ago
HOAs typically only have teeth when they are based on covenants that run with the land, which in most cases means that they started as a single property (e.g. a farm) and were split out into a planned neighborhood. In other words, the owner of that farm had the right to split it up into little chunks that have restrictions and sell them. When you buy into the neighborhood, you are buying the property burdened by the covenants the previous owner attached. So your full rights would interfere with the previous owner’s effort to do what THEY wanted with the property.
- JMTQp8lwXL 5y ago
  Why should the previous owner's interests matter once the property is sold?
  - pixl97 5y ago
    Because that is how deed restrictions work.
- smegger001 5y ago
  yet they sold it, why should someone who no longer has ownership be allowed control of something they sold? their wants to and desires should cease to be of concern once they agree to accept the money of the buyer. can you imagine Say ford telling someone "hey that car i sold you your not allowed to paint it green." no that would be ridiculous. why are homes any different?
  - shados 5y ago
    They don't, but the property is burdened. A car is probably a bad analogy here. Think of it more like buying a company. If you start your own company, then sign a contract with your suppliers, then sell it to me. I now am bound by the contract because it came with the company.
    - chasd00 5y ago
      Side note, I thought when you buy a company all contracts are voided and new ones must be made.
steelframe 5y ago
> You either own something, or you don't. If only the world were that simple. Mineral rights is one of many examples of how complicated and nuanced things can get.
foogazi 5y ago
Yes all of that is possible - just don’t buy into an HOA condominium arrangement.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
> You either own something, or you don't. If you really want to break the laws of nature down, you either have the capacity to take and defend something, or you don’t.
- dheera 5y ago
  Okay, so set up a device to do facial recognition and glitter and fart spray any HOA directors that set foot on your property?

by dheera 5y ago

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.
- pixl97 5y ago
  Your definition of ownership is not the Texas definition of ownership, for example. Water and mineral rights are totally different kinds of ownership and will generally be owned by someone else.
- mantas 5y ago
  I'm not from US so my experience is different, but anyway... > 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. We already have somewhat similar solution. Some stuff is allowed no closer than 3m to fence or needs written neighbour permission. But it does not solve a lot of edge cases. Some fence types need written permission based on how much sun passes through. > These are utilities. You pay for access to them It's common that developer builds local private infrastructure for the project. City and/or utility companies manage up to private lot and don't want to take over the last mile. > This should be optional and you pay IF you want access And many smartasses would skip paying but jump the fence. Those community spaces do help their property value too. At the very least paying for access would have to include all costs to install it, not just run. > 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. Wait till you hear restrictions in historical neighbourhoods...

goalieca 5y ago

City bylaws can be nearly as strict as HOA with lots of stylistic rules such as no laundry lines even in non-heritage neighbourhoods.

dheera 5y ago
Yeah that's bullshit. If someone wants to save energy they should be allowed to do so. Preserving historic neighborhoods are fine. There's a historic value to them, and it's not some arbitrary group of old people with nothing better to do walking around getting pissed off at peoples' decorations.

shados 5y ago

Did you ever get married, or owned stocks in a company? Have you ever entered into a signed agreement with someone? Signed a contract on anything? What about signed a lease on an apartment? That's pretty common. The landlord owns it, but you have rights on it and they can't do whatever they want with their own property anymore. Why does it surprise you that someone can own something but sign some of their ownership rights away? People literally do this all the time for a million reasons.

D13Fd 5y ago
Funny thing with HOAs is that they are usually based on covenants that run with the land, so you don’t actually sign anything. You just bought property subject to covenants.
- shados 5y ago
  I don't know about where you live, but when I bought my place, there sure as hell was a note on the deed that I signed that said I was bound by the rules of the bylaws. Is there a state where you can buy a house without signing anything? How do you transfer deeds over there?
  - D13Fd 5y ago
    My point is that you purchased the land but never signed a contract with the HOA. The deed was the agreement with the previous owner to legally transfer the land. The benefits and burdens run with the land.
    - pixl97 5y ago
      Yes, just like when you bought the land you were under many other non-HOA restrictions, like you couldn't install a waste processing plant where your house is. Many Americans idea of freedom is completely out of touch with the reality on how land contract law works.
    - shados 5y ago

D13Fd 5y ago

HOAs typically only have teeth when they are based on covenants that run with the land, which in most cases means that they started as a single property (e.g. a farm) and were split out into a planned neighborhood. In other words, the owner of that farm had the right to split it up into little chunks that have restrictions and sell them. When you buy into the neighborhood, you are buying the property burdened by the covenants the previous owner attached. So your full rights would interfere with the previous owner’s effort to do what THEY wanted with the property.

JMTQp8lwXL 5y ago
Why should the previous owner's interests matter once the property is sold?
- pixl97 5y ago
  Because that is how deed restrictions work.
smegger001 5y ago
yet they sold it, why should someone who no longer has ownership be allowed control of something they sold? their wants to and desires should cease to be of concern once they agree to accept the money of the buyer. can you imagine Say ford telling someone "hey that car i sold you your not allowed to paint it green." no that would be ridiculous. why are homes any different?
- shados 5y ago
  They don't, but the property is burdened. A car is probably a bad analogy here. Think of it more like buying a company. If you start your own company, then sign a contract with your suppliers, then sell it to me. I now am bound by the contract because it came with the company.
  - chasd00 5y ago
    Side note, I thought when you buy a company all contracts are voided and new ones must be made.

steelframe 5y ago

> You either own something, or you don't. If only the world were that simple. Mineral rights is one of many examples of how complicated and nuanced things can get.

foogazi 5y ago

Yes all of that is possible - just don’t buy into an HOA condominium arrangement.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

> You either own something, or you don't. If you really want to break the laws of nature down, you either have the capacity to take and defend something, or you don’t.

dheera 5y ago
Okay, so set up a device to do facial recognition and glitter and fart spray any HOA directors that set foot on your property?