8 ms·

HOA's then need to reduce their scope. Creating Disneyland-like tracts of grass and groomed plants, and other things that don't have to do with the longevity of

• Arainach 4y ago
  It turns out that many people want such things
  • kelnos 4y ago
    And many people don't. What's your point? I generally think we should err on the side of fewer restrictions when there's disagreement around the existence of things like this.
    • Arainach 4y ago
      You're not obligated to buy a home in such a community. Even in areas where it's not practical to find a home with no HOA, the vast majority of them are low maintenance and don't do or cost a ton. You just don't hear people complaining about those.
      • heleninboodler 4y ago
        Yeah, it seems like if you want to form an association of homes where everyone has agreed that the houses must be beige, you should be free to do that.
        • BeetleB 4y ago
          I think if a group of homes wants to enter into a voluntary contract that has penalties if they changed the color of their house, that's fine. The problem arises when that contract is binding on future homeowners. The even bigger problem is that if you are in a reasonable HOA, draconian rules can be enacted that you disagree with - as long as the majority agree.
      • JoshTriplett 4y ago
        > Even in areas where it's not practical to find a home with no HOA Which is quite a lot of them; there are cities where you're unlikely to find anything reasonable in city limits. > the vast majority of them are low maintenance Most HOAs can become worse on a moment's notice depending on who has power in them, because most people (reasonably) don't want to spend the energy fighting in bitter ridiculous politics.
      • BeetleB 4y ago
        > the vast majority of them are low maintenance and don't do or cost a ton. You just don't hear people complaining about those. I've lived in a country ruled by a dictator. I can assure you - in most such countries the majority of the folks are happy with the status quo. It's only a small percentage that is badly abused. Therefore we should all be OK surrendering our rights to the government, right? And so it is with HOAs. The majority don't screw you, but I don't want them to have the power to screw me.
  • yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
    Then those people can do those things? Unless what they want is to control other people's property, which is unreasonable.
    • Gigachad 4y ago
      Those people chose to buy in an area with those rules.
      • JoshTriplett 4y ago
        Some of those people chose to have a reasonable commute distance, and thus had literally no options that didn't have an HOA. In some cities, good luck getting anything in city limits that doesn't have an HOA.
        • Gigachad 4y ago
          Should you expect to impose yourself on these areas and go against the existing residents wishes? If you are living in an inner area, it’s a more communal thing than some rural farm.
          • JoshTriplett 4y ago
            If you want to control what happens on a property, either own the property, make a case to a court that you are substantially negatively affected in a way for which you have any basis for expecting otherwise, make a case to an actual government that something is a safety hazard to neighbors or similar, or get over it. Or, you know, actually talk to your neighbors and ask nicely, and have reasonable requests like "please don't park your RV where I can't see to pull out of my driveway" instead of "don't paint your house purple". I would like to see an equivalent of "right of first sale" for homes, that disallows attaching conditions to future sales (such as "must be a member of this HOA"), and disallows HOAs any ability to make liens or otherwise have any teeth whatsoever to enforcement more stringent than a passive-aggressive note.