3 ms·
> I've seen HOAs where they require everyone in the building to have window curtains of certain colors, and that's just ridiculous. But if you're moving into a
by gwd 4y ago
> I've seen HOAs where they require everyone in the building to have window curtains of certain colors, and that's just ridiculous.
But if you're moving into a house with a HOA with a total of 8 houses; and it has a certain "look" in part because everyone has white frilly curtains in their windows; and most of the people in that area want to maintain that look... then, what's the problem? Surely not every HOA in a city will have people who all want white frilly window curtains, so you can find some other HOA?
Unless, of course, the problem is that the rules are set up so that a minority can impose their will on the majority; and in that case, the problem isn't so much the existence of the HOA itself, but the bylaws which let it happen.
Similar, in a lot of ways to the government: Either the government really does represent the will of the people, in which case people complaining about "the government" are really complaining about their fellow citizens; or, the government doesn't represent the will of the people, in which case the voting system &c needs to be fixed so that it does.
I do agree that there is a larger societal value to having limits on what kinds of rules there are; just as we have state laws which limit what a city council can do, and federal laws limiting what a state can do, and a constitution limiting what the federal government can do. "HOAs may not outlaw pollenator-friendly plants" seems like a good rule; "HOAs may not require frilly white window curtains" I'm not convinced of.
- c22 4y agoI think putting restrictions on what kinds of rules there are has potential to hamstring future generations in novel predicaments. Better, I think, to make all rules decay and require periodic re-affirmation to remain in effect. The temporal stickiness of laws is perhaps the greatest barrier to truly representative democracy.