7 ms·

On the contrary, local governments typically require HOAs for new housing developments, at least here on the East Coast. Those cul-de-sacs & neighborhood street

On the contrary, local governments typically require HOAs for new housing developments, at least here on the East Coast. Those cul-de-sacs & neighborhood streets need to be plowed and maintained, common areas need maintenance, and often large chunks of the infrastructure (e.g. storm sewers, shared propane tanks) are also the responsibility of the HOA. The local governments don't want those new maintenance costs on their books, so they make it a requirement for the builder (and later the homeowners) to cover that in perpetuity. Of course, there's no break on local taxes; so you pay the same local taxes as established, non-HOA developments, plus your HOA dues. None of that requires the HOAs to establish draconian rules on paint colors or maximum-grass-blade heights, but the builder usually establishes some rules upfront (they want to sell all the lots quickly), and the residents inherit that structure. Personally, I hate them, but I'm always surprised to see how some people seem to defend their HOAs. It's like Stockholm syndrome: it's always the same, tired line about 'neighbors with junk cars in their front yard blah blah'.

analog31 4y ago
The streets can be plowed and maintained by the city. That's how it works in my locale. If the city needs aesthetic standards, they can enact them city-wide. Good luck. In my neighborhood, front yards range from fully wooded, to manicured grass, and everything in between.
- ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
  Completely ignoring the brokenness that is HOAs, it makes logical sense to have hyper-local taxes for infrastructure in places which vary in population density: dense neighborhoods will have lower per capita infrastructure maintainance costs, and it would be regressive to burden them with the costs of the (likely richer) sprawl.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - analog31 4y ago
    That's fair. One issue is that the collection of city taxes is severely constrained by the state (at least where I'm at). Maybe the richer sprawl is paying on a higher valuation, but I don't know if that's enough to even things out.
    - joshu 4y ago
      https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/8/10/i-did-the-math-on-my-towns-cul-de-sacs https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/8/10/i-did-the-math...
      - Jap2-0 4y ago
        This is very much a tangent, but that article seems to state that per mile, a sidewalk costs about twice as much as a road. Does anyone know why that is?
        r_hoods_ghost 4y ago
        That's interesting. Pure speculation but I can imagine they have a higher material and labour cost per sq meter. The Installation of curbs and curb cuts must make a difference. Also, in the UK at least, while low traffic pavements (sidewalks) are generally tarmac, in high traffic areas they're often paving stones, brick or even concrete. These must be more expensive. I'd guess you're also more likely to hit utilities. Whenever I see workmen installing or fixing water pipes, sewers, fiber atc they're usually doing it along the side of the road or under the pavement as this means you only have to close one half of the road.
        amanaplanacanal 4y ago
        From looking at repairs around me, the road stuff is mostly done with large machines, whereas sidewalks are very much a manual hands on process.
  - 015a 4y ago
    A problem is: this functionally isn't how HOAs end up working. The opposite is true: higher density living areas (in order of decreasing density: apartments, condos, suburban subdivisions/cul-de-sacs) generally have HOAs. Lower density areas (rural) don't. In the US, in most cities and counties, the "sprawl" isn't rich; its poor. At the high-end of the high density spectrum, it does make some logical sense that there are communal resources and structures which the local government has never traditionally paid for; roofing, plumbing inside the structure, pools, 24/7 security, whatever. Its the middle-point in that spectrum where things become less defensible. A road is a road; water is water; keeping these maintained is literally why we pay taxes. Local governments have essentially figured out how to have their cake and eat it too: property developers come in and make the investment to develop some former farming land or whatever. Tons of new houses go up, which brings in people, who pay taxes to the local government. Then, the local government gets to wash their hands and say, we're not maintaining it (depending on the development; not all work like this), as if what happened is different in any way from how land development has traditionally happened, except that they got a private company to foot the upfront bill. Power-hungry HOA rules are a really similar thread of reasoning. Traditionally, we had this thing called "a shitty neighbor"; and if they got really shitty, you'd call the police. HOAs move the goalpost on the definition of "shitty", then bypass the police in their enforcement mechanism; also saving the city money. The argument is, generally; that shitty neighbors depress property values; but the largest negative impact you'll ever see to property value is the HOA fee itself. So, the final argument for HOAs: Just don't buy a house with one. The US housing situation is already at an absolutely critical point. There's little empty land left that is affordable for private individuals to develop. There are huge amounts of large plots; usually former farm-land or factory sites; which get purchased by development organizations, developed, and HOA'd. Removing HOA'd houses removes the vast majority of new constructions in most metro-adjacent counties; which turns the already-critical housing shortage into a nightmare. I think its reasonable to assert that HOA fees can exist toward the maintenance of either a shared structure, or generally, shared resources which don't fall under the responsibility of the county's municipal functions (e.g. pools). Everything beyond that is extremely difficult to defend, and literally needs to be made illegal. I understand that this isn't as easy as signing a bill, if only because overnight many counties would see their burden of responsibility increase dramatically; but it needs to be done.
  - forgotusername6 4y ago
    Society should look after everyone. This means regardless of where people live. You shouldn't be directly on the hook for communal services that you use. You solve inequality with taxation.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      This usually means looking after less fortunate, and not by choice. Here we are taking money from those who are living constrained, and giving it to people loving in greater luxury. This does not make sence.
      - forgotusername6 4y ago
        You tax at a more macro level. The more you localise the tax take, the more you disadvantage people somehow. It works both ways. Saying that HOAs should pay for their fancy lawns in rich neighborhoods also means poor people have to foot the bill in their poor neighborhoods. Instead, you tax at a national level and clean all the streets. That way everyone gets the shared benefit and everyone pays proportionally to what they can afford.
        c22 4y ago
        Why stop at the national level? Wouldn't it be better to tax globally and clean the streets everywhere?
        ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        Your sarcastically make a good point - we couls have globally accessible sanitation and basic education for pennies, and lift like a billion people out of poverty.
        c22 4y ago
        Could we, though? I suspect some residents of the world don't care about clean streets and don't want to pay for them. Some other maladjusted individuals might even prefer dirty streets. It seems like if we could build a global utopia where everyone agrees to the same homogeneous rules and values that we'd have done this already. Also, I think pennies is the wrong unit of currency to use when budgeting for this harmonious future.
- ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
  Columbia, MD is a "planned" community. They probably have more laws about aesthetics, than many towns. The town might not be much better than the HOA.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    In California if the hoa gets too uppity the state declares it a town. And there are limits on what a town can do.
- AndrewKemendo 4y ago
  The trend since the 1970s has been to privatize everything that was once public, shifting the cost burden to the individual and family This is bad But it's the reality on the ground and it's going to take generations to unwind
  - throwaway6734 4y ago
    For sewer & road infrastructure this is good. The cost of providing infrastructure should be clear to homeowners and residents so smart long term financial planning can be done. It's too easy for people to kick the can down the road for future generations to deal with.
    - mumblemumble 4y ago
      Having seen what happens when the HOA members not affected by infrastructure problems vote for the health of their wallets rather than their neighbors, I cannot agree that this is an unequivocal good. You're right, it is too easy for people to kick the can down the road. Making it even easier for them to do so will not help.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - c22 4y ago
        Do you think unrelated tax payers and voters on the other side of the city will act differently?
    - _aavaa_ 4y ago
      This may be naive, but shifting the cost towards families doesn't immediately mean that it must be privatized. Can you not achieve the same goal, making it clear that if your house in a specific area requires higher sewer and infrastructure costs, through something like property taxes? This way you don't get the problems of a HOA?
      - 4y ago
emodendroket 4y ago
> It's like Stockholm syndrome: it's always the same, tired line about 'neighbors with junk cars in their front yard blah blah'. It's not a tired stock line if you actually live next to that person.
- wintermutestwin 4y ago
  There are usually county-level laws to deal with "junkyard Jims."
toofy 4y ago
> neighborhood streets need to be plowed and maintained...large chunks of the infrastructure (e.g. storm sewers, shared propane tanks) are also the responsibility of the HOA. the city should be doing these things, not the brother of the HOA president.
- josephd79 4y ago
  This.
watwut 4y ago
> Those cul-de-sacs & neighborhood streets need to be plowed and maintained, common areas need maintenance, and often large chunks of the infrastructure (e.g. storm sewers, shared propane tanks) are also the responsibility of the HOA. None of that requires HOA with power to dictate what you do on your property. As in, the fact that it is possible for them to make those rules is result of legal framework that should change.
mcv 4y ago
HOAs are great and necessary for maintaining common property. For the building I live in, it would be awkward if everybody had to hire their own painters for the outside woodwork, for example. Parts of the building would be maintained poorly, and that ultimately affects everybody. If you want to change something structurally about your house (for example, we wanted to cut some windows in a blind wall), that could also influence the structural integrity of the building as a whole, so you need permission for the HOA for that (we did). Our HOA does a lot more than that: organise the occasional party, drink, or movie, manage a street-side gallery that's part of the building, manage a commonly owned apartment that can be rented for guests or other purposes, etc. But regulating people's gardens is just weird. Well, trimming the commonly owned greenery is also something the HOA members do together and we're always asked to help (and never do), and of course we discuss stuff that affects our neighbours with those neighbours, and we barely have gardens because we live in a city, but anything interesting garden-wise is generally welcomed. The idea of a HOA banning vegetable or eco-friendly gardens is nuts. And this is in a single building. If you're talking US-style free-standing suburban houses, it quickly gets a lot more ridiculous.
- teux 4y ago
  We have the equivalent of HOAs in Norway, I think, for large buildings. You usually buy, not rent, an apartment, and the building has a board, or group of residents that manages the property, carries out infrastructure work (sewer and water plumbing, facade repairs, common area maintenance). Usually when you buy the apartment you’re made aware of the outstanding balance on the building’s maintenance fund and everyone pays an equal share of this each month. Sometimes they get a little picky on things but never to the craziness that I see in the US. Mostly it’s handled with common sense and the lives (and finances) of the residents in mind.
  - nkrisc 4y ago
    It’s essentially the same in the US for a large, multi-tenant building. Though in the US an apartment typically refers to a unit in a building with a single owner that rents the units and a condominium is a building where all the units are individually owned. In the latter case most states and/or municipalities require a condo association, much as you described, to jointly maintain the common elements of the building. Whereas in the case of an apartment building it’s much simpler as the owner of the building is responsible for all maintenance.
iso1631 4y ago
This Americanization is another feature the UK has adopted over the last decade or so, it's called "Fleecehold", although often in the UK the residents don't even get to vote for a management company. In my experience new homes in the UK are well built, but the outsourcing of public space to unregulated uncontrolled private maintenance companies means I won't buy anything post c. 2005 again.
counttheforks 4y ago
> The local governments don't want those new maintenance costs on their books I also want things without having to pay for them. These governments should reconsider if they should be issuing building permits for new houses if they can't afford the maintenance of the public infrastructure required. What are they spending those taxes on?
- c22 4y ago
  The local governments aren't the ones building these houses...
  - naasking 4y ago
    They're issuing the permits though.
    - c22 4y ago
      I agree that it would be better if we just stopped issuing building permits, but a lot of people are more into "progress" and vote accordingly. Also, in argument of fairness, many places have laws on the books guaranteeing that you can develop private property to a level commensurate with neighboring properties.
      - naasking 4y ago
        > Also, in argument of fairness, many places have laws on the books guaranteeing that you can develop private property to a level commensurate with neighboring properties. That seems silly. That's basically a loop with no termination condition, ie. buy property at the edge of a city, now I can build it up same as next-to-last property, repeat.
        c22 4y ago
        As I said, I don't personally agree. It is what it is. Edit: Also, you keep editing comments I've already replied to, which is making this conversation a little disjointed, but usually undeveloped property "on the edge of the city" is not, in fact, incorporated into the city at all. Cities tend to incorporate these areas after they experience some development.
helen___keller 4y ago
> it's always the same, tired line about 'neighbors with junk cars in their front yard blah blah'. As a new homeowner I think it's just a mindset thing. I have a few eccentric neighbors, including one that commits just about every HOA sin imaginable. I don't consider this negative but rather adding flavor to the neighborhood. Life should have variety. But then, I live in a major city (albeit a bedroom community near the edge of the city). In my view, having a few eccentric neighbors is vastly preferable to having a lifeless neighborhood (aside from some joggers and dog walkers) with manicured lawns and pristine fences. Despite people's intuition, I think home prices are more or less detached from these details. Atleast around here, home values are mostly dictated by pay and job growth in biotech and similar.

analog31 4y ago

The streets can be plowed and maintained by the city. That's how it works in my locale. If the city needs aesthetic standards, they can enact them city-wide. Good luck. In my neighborhood, front yards range from fully wooded, to manicured grass, and everything in between.

ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
Completely ignoring the brokenness that is HOAs, it makes logical sense to have hyper-local taxes for infrastructure in places which vary in population density: dense neighborhoods will have lower per capita infrastructure maintainance costs, and it would be regressive to burden them with the costs of the (likely richer) sprawl.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- analog31 4y ago
  That's fair. One issue is that the collection of city taxes is severely constrained by the state (at least where I'm at). Maybe the richer sprawl is paying on a higher valuation, but I don't know if that's enough to even things out.
  - joshu 4y ago
    https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/8/10/i-did-the-math-on-my-towns-cul-de-sacs https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/8/10/i-did-the-math...
    - Jap2-0 4y ago
      This is very much a tangent, but that article seems to state that per mile, a sidewalk costs about twice as much as a road. Does anyone know why that is?
      - r_hoods_ghost 4y ago
        That's interesting. Pure speculation but I can imagine they have a higher material and labour cost per sq meter. The Installation of curbs and curb cuts must make a difference. Also, in the UK at least, while low traffic pavements (sidewalks) are generally tarmac, in high traffic areas they're often paving stones, brick or even concrete. These must be more expensive. I'd guess you're also more likely to hit utilities. Whenever I see workmen installing or fixing water pipes, sewers, fiber atc they're usually doing it along the side of the road or under the pavement as this means you only have to close one half of the road.
      - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
        From looking at repairs around me, the road stuff is mostly done with large machines, whereas sidewalks are very much a manual hands on process.
- 015a 4y ago
  A problem is: this functionally isn't how HOAs end up working. The opposite is true: higher density living areas (in order of decreasing density: apartments, condos, suburban subdivisions/cul-de-sacs) generally have HOAs. Lower density areas (rural) don't. In the US, in most cities and counties, the "sprawl" isn't rich; its poor. At the high-end of the high density spectrum, it does make some logical sense that there are communal resources and structures which the local government has never traditionally paid for; roofing, plumbing inside the structure, pools, 24/7 security, whatever. Its the middle-point in that spectrum where things become less defensible. A road is a road; water is water; keeping these maintained is literally why we pay taxes. Local governments have essentially figured out how to have their cake and eat it too: property developers come in and make the investment to develop some former farming land or whatever. Tons of new houses go up, which brings in people, who pay taxes to the local government. Then, the local government gets to wash their hands and say, we're not maintaining it (depending on the development; not all work like this), as if what happened is different in any way from how land development has traditionally happened, except that they got a private company to foot the upfront bill. Power-hungry HOA rules are a really similar thread of reasoning. Traditionally, we had this thing called "a shitty neighbor"; and if they got really shitty, you'd call the police. HOAs move the goalpost on the definition of "shitty", then bypass the police in their enforcement mechanism; also saving the city money. The argument is, generally; that shitty neighbors depress property values; but the largest negative impact you'll ever see to property value is the HOA fee itself. So, the final argument for HOAs: Just don't buy a house with one. The US housing situation is already at an absolutely critical point. There's little empty land left that is affordable for private individuals to develop. There are huge amounts of large plots; usually former farm-land or factory sites; which get purchased by development organizations, developed, and HOA'd. Removing HOA'd houses removes the vast majority of new constructions in most metro-adjacent counties; which turns the already-critical housing shortage into a nightmare. I think its reasonable to assert that HOA fees can exist toward the maintenance of either a shared structure, or generally, shared resources which don't fall under the responsibility of the county's municipal functions (e.g. pools). Everything beyond that is extremely difficult to defend, and literally needs to be made illegal. I understand that this isn't as easy as signing a bill, if only because overnight many counties would see their burden of responsibility increase dramatically; but it needs to be done.
- forgotusername6 4y ago
  Society should look after everyone. This means regardless of where people live. You shouldn't be directly on the hook for communal services that you use. You solve inequality with taxation.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    This usually means looking after less fortunate, and not by choice. Here we are taking money from those who are living constrained, and giving it to people loving in greater luxury. This does not make sence.
    - forgotusername6 4y ago
      You tax at a more macro level. The more you localise the tax take, the more you disadvantage people somehow. It works both ways. Saying that HOAs should pay for their fancy lawns in rich neighborhoods also means poor people have to foot the bill in their poor neighborhoods. Instead, you tax at a national level and clean all the streets. That way everyone gets the shared benefit and everyone pays proportionally to what they can afford.
      - c22 4y ago
        Why stop at the national level? Wouldn't it be better to tax globally and clean the streets everywhere?
        ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        Your sarcastically make a good point - we couls have globally accessible sanitation and basic education for pennies, and lift like a billion people out of poverty.
        c22 4y ago
        Could we, though? I suspect some residents of the world don't care about clean streets and don't want to pay for them. Some other maladjusted individuals might even prefer dirty streets. It seems like if we could build a global utopia where everyone agrees to the same homogeneous rules and values that we'd have done this already. Also, I think pennies is the wrong unit of currency to use when budgeting for this harmonious future.
ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
Columbia, MD is a "planned" community. They probably have more laws about aesthetics, than many towns. The town might not be much better than the HOA.
- bombcar 4y ago
  In California if the hoa gets too uppity the state declares it a town. And there are limits on what a town can do.
AndrewKemendo 4y ago
The trend since the 1970s has been to privatize everything that was once public, shifting the cost burden to the individual and family This is bad But it's the reality on the ground and it's going to take generations to unwind
- throwaway6734 4y ago
  For sewer & road infrastructure this is good. The cost of providing infrastructure should be clear to homeowners and residents so smart long term financial planning can be done. It's too easy for people to kick the can down the road for future generations to deal with.
  - mumblemumble 4y ago
    Having seen what happens when the HOA members not affected by infrastructure problems vote for the health of their wallets rather than their neighbors, I cannot agree that this is an unequivocal good. You're right, it is too easy for people to kick the can down the road. Making it even easier for them to do so will not help.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - c22 4y ago
      Do you think unrelated tax payers and voters on the other side of the city will act differently?
  - _aavaa_ 4y ago
    This may be naive, but shifting the cost towards families doesn't immediately mean that it must be privatized. Can you not achieve the same goal, making it clear that if your house in a specific area requires higher sewer and infrastructure costs, through something like property taxes? This way you don't get the problems of a HOA?
    - 4y ago

emodendroket 4y ago

> It's like Stockholm syndrome: it's always the same, tired line about 'neighbors with junk cars in their front yard blah blah'. It's not a tired stock line if you actually live next to that person.

wintermutestwin 4y ago
There are usually county-level laws to deal with "junkyard Jims."

toofy 4y ago

> neighborhood streets need to be plowed and maintained...large chunks of the infrastructure (e.g. storm sewers, shared propane tanks) are also the responsibility of the HOA. the city should be doing these things, not the brother of the HOA president.

josephd79 4y ago
This.

watwut 4y ago

> Those cul-de-sacs & neighborhood streets need to be plowed and maintained, common areas need maintenance, and often large chunks of the infrastructure (e.g. storm sewers, shared propane tanks) are also the responsibility of the HOA. None of that requires HOA with power to dictate what you do on your property. As in, the fact that it is possible for them to make those rules is result of legal framework that should change.

mcv 4y ago

HOAs are great and necessary for maintaining common property. For the building I live in, it would be awkward if everybody had to hire their own painters for the outside woodwork, for example. Parts of the building would be maintained poorly, and that ultimately affects everybody. If you want to change something structurally about your house (for example, we wanted to cut some windows in a blind wall), that could also influence the structural integrity of the building as a whole, so you need permission for the HOA for that (we did). Our HOA does a lot more than that: organise the occasional party, drink, or movie, manage a street-side gallery that's part of the building, manage a commonly owned apartment that can be rented for guests or other purposes, etc. But regulating people's gardens is just weird. Well, trimming the commonly owned greenery is also something the HOA members do together and we're always asked to help (and never do), and of course we discuss stuff that affects our neighbours with those neighbours, and we barely have gardens because we live in a city, but anything interesting garden-wise is generally welcomed. The idea of a HOA banning vegetable or eco-friendly gardens is nuts. And this is in a single building. If you're talking US-style free-standing suburban houses, it quickly gets a lot more ridiculous.

teux 4y ago
We have the equivalent of HOAs in Norway, I think, for large buildings. You usually buy, not rent, an apartment, and the building has a board, or group of residents that manages the property, carries out infrastructure work (sewer and water plumbing, facade repairs, common area maintenance). Usually when you buy the apartment you’re made aware of the outstanding balance on the building’s maintenance fund and everyone pays an equal share of this each month. Sometimes they get a little picky on things but never to the craziness that I see in the US. Mostly it’s handled with common sense and the lives (and finances) of the residents in mind.
- nkrisc 4y ago
  It’s essentially the same in the US for a large, multi-tenant building. Though in the US an apartment typically refers to a unit in a building with a single owner that rents the units and a condominium is a building where all the units are individually owned. In the latter case most states and/or municipalities require a condo association, much as you described, to jointly maintain the common elements of the building. Whereas in the case of an apartment building it’s much simpler as the owner of the building is responsible for all maintenance.

iso1631 4y ago

This Americanization is another feature the UK has adopted over the last decade or so, it's called "Fleecehold", although often in the UK the residents don't even get to vote for a management company. In my experience new homes in the UK are well built, but the outsourcing of public space to unregulated uncontrolled private maintenance companies means I won't buy anything post c. 2005 again.

counttheforks 4y ago

> The local governments don't want those new maintenance costs on their books I also want things without having to pay for them. These governments should reconsider if they should be issuing building permits for new houses if they can't afford the maintenance of the public infrastructure required. What are they spending those taxes on?

c22 4y ago
The local governments aren't the ones building these houses...
- naasking 4y ago
  They're issuing the permits though.
  - c22 4y ago
    I agree that it would be better if we just stopped issuing building permits, but a lot of people are more into "progress" and vote accordingly. Also, in argument of fairness, many places have laws on the books guaranteeing that you can develop private property to a level commensurate with neighboring properties.
    - naasking 4y ago
      > Also, in argument of fairness, many places have laws on the books guaranteeing that you can develop private property to a level commensurate with neighboring properties. That seems silly. That's basically a loop with no termination condition, ie. buy property at the edge of a city, now I can build it up same as next-to-last property, repeat.
      - c22 4y ago
        As I said, I don't personally agree. It is what it is. Edit: Also, you keep editing comments I've already replied to, which is making this conversation a little disjointed, but usually undeveloped property "on the edge of the city" is not, in fact, incorporated into the city at all. Cities tend to incorporate these areas after they experience some development.

helen___keller 4y ago

> it's always the same, tired line about 'neighbors with junk cars in their front yard blah blah'. As a new homeowner I think it's just a mindset thing. I have a few eccentric neighbors, including one that commits just about every HOA sin imaginable. I don't consider this negative but rather adding flavor to the neighborhood. Life should have variety. But then, I live in a major city (albeit a bedroom community near the edge of the city). In my view, having a few eccentric neighbors is vastly preferable to having a lifeless neighborhood (aside from some joggers and dog walkers) with manicured lawns and pristine fences. Despite people's intuition, I think home prices are more or less detached from these details. Atleast around here, home values are mostly dictated by pay and job growth in biotech and similar.