3 ms·

Most HOAs where I live do no maintenance.[1] They don't even claim to. They exist purely to enforce rules (no window ACs showing, front yard maintained etc). O

Most HOAs where I live do no maintenance.[1] They don't even claim to. They exist purely to enforce rules (no window ACs showing, front yard maintained etc). Oh, and also, the vast majority of houses under HOAs do not have private roads or communal property. The only useful thing I see in some HOAs in my area is snow ploughing because the city really sucks at that. [1] Unless they're for condos.

tdeck 4y ago
Here's one thing I don't understand: how did it get this way? It seems like a generational thing, but I can't relate at all to people's petty concerns about neighbors' lawn maintenance and paint colors and AC units. It's waning now but evidently there were several decades in American culture where these things were of paramount importance to a vast swath of the population. Why? Has anyone read a good book about this phenomenon?
- BeetleB 4y ago
  I honestly don't know. I always assumed racism was a significant factor at some point (let's make rules that seem innocent but target a particular demographic). From what I can find on the Internet, while they existed for over 100 years, they were rare. The main growth of HOAs has been since the 60's, as people moved to the suburbs.
  - emodendroket 4y ago
    Suburban development requires new infrastructure to serve a relatively small number of homes so it is logical that we'd see more of them if more people are living in suburbs.
- dangerlibrary 4y ago
  "The Color of Law" covers it a bit. HOAs became popular as a means to enforce racial covenants on property deeds after courts ruled that the only parties "harmed" (and therefore with standing to bring a suit) when a racial covenant was violated were the previous deed holders. Previous deed holders often were no longer around / didn't care if their house was now owned by someone with an incorrect amount of melanin in their skin. HOAs were a legal entity that could be a party to the lawsuit that suffered harm from the breach of the racial covenants, occasionally succeeding in getting courts to evict the new owners. This is why you so often hear that their purpose is "protecting property values" - the concern was that property values would tank when black and brown people moved to the neighborhood. This was a valid concern, not solely because of any racial animus on the part of the neighbors (though there was plenty of that to go around). When any black and brown people moved in, the Federal Housing Administration might redline the neighborhood, and then nobody could get FHA loans to buy a house there. Once the Fair Housing Act of 1968 banned racial covenants and curbed the practice of redlining explicitly based on race, their usefulness in court rapidly declined. I assume dues were still collected and there were still meetings to attend, and so they started inventing new ways of harassing undesirable neighbors...
- kneebonian 4y ago
  It's very simple. Imagine the people with the least amount going on in their lives, the pettiest most small people, the people whose children refuse to talk to them because they are narcissistic nutcases, the people who don't have any friends because people can't stand to be around them, the people who when they see you driving quickly purposefully slowdown and get this feeling of satisfaction and moral superiority. The people that in older days would've ended up getting punched in the face regularly. Take those people and give them a legal mechanism to pass any rule they want, to inflict terror upon their neighbors and to control their lives at the threat of their homes. It's pretty easy how it quickly becomes a situation in which "Reasonable men must sometimes do unreasonable things"[1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer
abnercoimbre 4y ago
Can you clarify, are we saying most HOAs charge (often exorbitant) monthly fees... only to enforce rules? Rules they wrote themselves?
- BeetleB 4y ago
  Yes. Whether they wrote them or some previous tenants wrote them is moot. The point is where I live, few HOAs are responsible for any communal areas, because there aren't any. The city maintains the roads, sidewalks, etc. The HOA's existence in these neighborhoods has nothing to do with paying to maintain anything.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  Many are like this. FWIW, I have two HOAs where I live. The first deals just with my cluster of homes, which is about 40 townhomes. The second deals with the larger community, which is effectively a midsize town. Between both my annual fees add up to about $1000. For this I get plowed streets, garbage pick up, and community area maintenance (including ample tennis courts, sports fields, pools, walking paths). I have my own small front yard to maintain. And pay for utilities and exterior maintenance. Some of the rules for paint colors and such-like are a bit draconian, but for an outer suburb, property values are pretty darn high and it’s a pleasant place to live. And nobody moves here without knowing what their getting into. Also, despite the paint color rules, many homes do have “English garden” or other non-turf gardens. But, they’re well kept, not wild meadow.

tdeck 4y ago

Here's one thing I don't understand: how did it get this way? It seems like a generational thing, but I can't relate at all to people's petty concerns about neighbors' lawn maintenance and paint colors and AC units. It's waning now but evidently there were several decades in American culture where these things were of paramount importance to a vast swath of the population. Why? Has anyone read a good book about this phenomenon?

BeetleB 4y ago
I honestly don't know. I always assumed racism was a significant factor at some point (let's make rules that seem innocent but target a particular demographic). From what I can find on the Internet, while they existed for over 100 years, they were rare. The main growth of HOAs has been since the 60's, as people moved to the suburbs.
- emodendroket 4y ago
  Suburban development requires new infrastructure to serve a relatively small number of homes so it is logical that we'd see more of them if more people are living in suburbs.
dangerlibrary 4y ago
"The Color of Law" covers it a bit. HOAs became popular as a means to enforce racial covenants on property deeds after courts ruled that the only parties "harmed" (and therefore with standing to bring a suit) when a racial covenant was violated were the previous deed holders. Previous deed holders often were no longer around / didn't care if their house was now owned by someone with an incorrect amount of melanin in their skin. HOAs were a legal entity that could be a party to the lawsuit that suffered harm from the breach of the racial covenants, occasionally succeeding in getting courts to evict the new owners. This is why you so often hear that their purpose is "protecting property values" - the concern was that property values would tank when black and brown people moved to the neighborhood. This was a valid concern, not solely because of any racial animus on the part of the neighbors (though there was plenty of that to go around). When any black and brown people moved in, the Federal Housing Administration might redline the neighborhood, and then nobody could get FHA loans to buy a house there. Once the Fair Housing Act of 1968 banned racial covenants and curbed the practice of redlining explicitly based on race, their usefulness in court rapidly declined. I assume dues were still collected and there were still meetings to attend, and so they started inventing new ways of harassing undesirable neighbors...
kneebonian 4y ago
It's very simple. Imagine the people with the least amount going on in their lives, the pettiest most small people, the people whose children refuse to talk to them because they are narcissistic nutcases, the people who don't have any friends because people can't stand to be around them, the people who when they see you driving quickly purposefully slowdown and get this feeling of satisfaction and moral superiority. The people that in older days would've ended up getting punched in the face regularly. Take those people and give them a legal mechanism to pass any rule they want, to inflict terror upon their neighbors and to control their lives at the threat of their homes. It's pretty easy how it quickly becomes a situation in which "Reasonable men must sometimes do unreasonable things"[1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Heemeyer

abnercoimbre 4y ago

Can you clarify, are we saying most HOAs charge (often exorbitant) monthly fees... only to enforce rules? Rules they wrote themselves?

BeetleB 4y ago
Yes. Whether they wrote them or some previous tenants wrote them is moot. The point is where I live, few HOAs are responsible for any communal areas, because there aren't any. The city maintains the roads, sidewalks, etc. The HOA's existence in these neighborhoods has nothing to do with paying to maintain anything.
alistairSH 4y ago
Many are like this. FWIW, I have two HOAs where I live. The first deals just with my cluster of homes, which is about 40 townhomes. The second deals with the larger community, which is effectively a midsize town. Between both my annual fees add up to about $1000. For this I get plowed streets, garbage pick up, and community area maintenance (including ample tennis courts, sports fields, pools, walking paths). I have my own small front yard to maintain. And pay for utilities and exterior maintenance. Some of the rules for paint colors and such-like are a bit draconian, but for an outer suburb, property values are pretty darn high and it’s a pleasant place to live. And nobody moves here without knowing what their getting into. Also, despite the paint color rules, many homes do have “English garden” or other non-turf gardens. But, they’re well kept, not wild meadow.