9 ms·

Probably there was no article in HOA rules that was applicable.

by mynegation 5y ago

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.
        igetspam 5y ago
        This. They have the strength of law up to the point where they conflict with local laws and they are rarely optional. I moved to a property whose restrictions expired 20 years ago and only one home owner wants an HOA. The rest of us just ignore his letters. The land is unrestricted, we have mineral rightS and when the neighbor's cows got out and pooped in my lawn, we laughed about.
        Nursie 5y ago
        > 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. Then that sounds terrible.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        How else should people govern themselves?
        Nursie 5y ago
        Not at the neighbourhood level? Sure, democracy that works by majority (or majority party) or whatever makes sense for actual government. But my street is not a government, and devolving the sort of power to change rules and impose fines, liens or whatever on my house to the rest of the folks in the street, without even requiring unanimous agreement on the rules by all the property owners, is just nuts. I would never put myself at the mercy of whoever I happen to live on a street with like that. I'm glad these things are rare to non-existent in the UK.
  - igetspam 5y ago
    At least where I am, the HOA exists to serve the developer until X% of the land is built and sold. Until that time, the developer has <= 51% of the voting rights and the board is run by a third party. There is literally no way to vote for or against anything that isn't in the sole interest of the developer. The land deed restrictions are time based, so even when you finally can take over the board, you can't amend the restrictions without a majority vote of homeowners, not just people willing to vote. Bylaws are almost impossible to change in large communities and it's just as impossible to oust the third party from the board, for the same reasons For what's it's worth, these are POAs until the developer has sold off most of the land. After that point, you can establish an HOA.
    - igetspam 5y ago
      Edit: >= 51% Sure that was obvious but in case anyone points it out. Sleepy brain.
  - brianwawok 5y ago
    75% I think on my last one Tried to pass racist new bylaws, but never quite made the hurdle
- dabbledash 5y ago
  Hopefully the HOA can’t just leverage unlimited power by voting to give itself that power.

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.
      - igetspam 5y ago
        This. They have the strength of law up to the point where they conflict with local laws and they are rarely optional. I moved to a property whose restrictions expired 20 years ago and only one home owner wants an HOA. The rest of us just ignore his letters. The land is unrestricted, we have mineral rightS and when the neighbor's cows got out and pooped in my lawn, we laughed about.
      - Nursie 5y ago
        > 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. Then that sounds terrible.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        How else should people govern themselves?
        Nursie 5y ago
        Not at the neighbourhood level? Sure, democracy that works by majority (or majority party) or whatever makes sense for actual government. But my street is not a government, and devolving the sort of power to change rules and impose fines, liens or whatever on my house to the rest of the folks in the street, without even requiring unanimous agreement on the rules by all the property owners, is just nuts. I would never put myself at the mercy of whoever I happen to live on a street with like that. I'm glad these things are rare to non-existent in the UK.
- igetspam 5y ago
  At least where I am, the HOA exists to serve the developer until X% of the land is built and sold. Until that time, the developer has <= 51% of the voting rights and the board is run by a third party. There is literally no way to vote for or against anything that isn't in the sole interest of the developer. The land deed restrictions are time based, so even when you finally can take over the board, you can't amend the restrictions without a majority vote of homeowners, not just people willing to vote. Bylaws are almost impossible to change in large communities and it's just as impossible to oust the third party from the board, for the same reasons For what's it's worth, these are POAs until the developer has sold off most of the land. After that point, you can establish an HOA.
  - igetspam 5y ago
    Edit: >= 51% Sure that was obvious but in case anyone points it out. Sleepy brain.
- brianwawok 5y ago
  75% I think on my last one Tried to pass racist new bylaws, but never quite made the hurdle
dabbledash 5y ago
Hopefully the HOA can’t just leverage unlimited power by voting to give itself that power.