5 ms·

> if I want to sell my house it has less value if my neighbors are filthy Cry me a river about your house value. If you want to invest then invest in people. H

> if I want to sell my house it has less value if my neighbors are filthy Cry me a river about your house value. If you want to invest then invest in people. Homes should not be your investment vehicle. Homes should be homes. If you have a filthy neighbor then you should help them to not be filthy. Unfortunately laws can have real costs that some people can't afford. Does your neighbor have a garbage dump on their property? Perhaps you should offer to take their garbage to the dump. Perhaps you should offer to pay for their garbage service. Perhaps you should offer to help them store their collectibles somewhere that won't destroy them from the elements. Perhaps you should try to understand your neighbor instead of decrying your precious lost home value.

showerst 4y ago
I have experience on this, and let me tell you, some of the people who believe in the 'fundamental right to have broken down cars in my yard' are _not_ the sort of suffering neighbors who need a community and some understanding. When one of these folks moved in next to my parents my attempt to come introduce myself and drop off a sixer of beer was met with a shotgun.
- inetknght 4y ago
  > I have experience on this, and let me tell you I also have experience on this, and let me tell you: neighbors' rights end at the property line (laws otherwise notwithstanding). I don't give a flying fuck about your resale value. It's certainly not neighborly to be asocial but there's absolutely nothing wrong it and I'm glad you learned quickly that your new neighbor doesn't want to be disturbed. Again, I don't care about your home's sale value. But demonstrate to me that something I'm doing on my property affects your safety and I will take action to rectify the problem. If I don't then you certainly have laws that can help you.
  - showerst 4y ago
    That's nice that you don't care, people who cost others money rarely do. I hope you move somewhere next to other neighbors who are on the same page, and it all works out fine, and i mean that non-sarcastically. That's why I'm a proponent of these types of laws. You take an action that costs me $X, and then the state comes along and says and you can undo the damage, (easy in this case), compensate me, or go to jail and they'll sell your house. Again, just to be crystal clear here: I don't think there should be a law punishing you for working on your car, or painting your house an ugly shade of green or growing your own tomatoes or whatever. But here in the United States houses are the biggest purchase most people make and if go to such an extreme you make it so I can't sell mine, that's no longer you living your life without hurting anybody. In the case with the gun-toting the rude neighbor, he ended up being more than rude, and went to prison for abusing his children. The bank that took his house cleaned it up, so it all ended sort of tragically. I often wonder what could've gone differently to lead to a better outcome there.
    - inetknght 4y ago
      > That's nice that you don't care, people who cost others money rarely do That's quite reductive and very typical of people who only care about money. > I hope you move somewhere next to other neighbors who are on the same page, and it all works out fine, and i mean that non-sarcastically. I did, in fact, move where there isn't an HOA. > here in the United States houses are the biggest purchase most people make Yes, they are. > and if go to such an extreme you make it so I can't sell mine, that's no longer you living your life without hurting anybody. I completely disagree. It's not that you can't sell yours. It's that you can't sell yours for a profit. Too bad, homes should not be profits. If you want your home to be for-profit then you should run a home business instead. Then it's crystal clear that you don't own a home but instead own an investment vehicle with all of the not-caring-about-actual-humans that goes along with it and all of the business taxes for it too.
    - showerst 4y ago
      inetknght it looks like we hit the flame war reply limit. Only thing i'd like to respond to is that my view has nothing to do with making money or using the house as a business. Whether the house is worth the same, more, less than I bought it for is irrelevant to the question of if I am suffering financial harm from my neighbor's action. If you do something that costs people money, then you make them whole, whether in occurs on your property or not, and whether they're in a mansion in the hills or a 500sf 1br condo. I agree that houses shouldn't be investments and our current system is crazy, but it's completely orthogonal to the point at hand, except in the case of pushing more Karen types to take their financial stresses out on their neighbors =P.
      - inetknght 4y ago
        > If you do something that costs people money, then you make them whole, whether in occurs on your property or not By that logic, you're costing me money simply by owning land instead of me, or by working for yourself instead of for me. I demand you make me whole! /s No, that logic does not hold up to the reality that people matter and that different people have different opinions about what to lawfully do on their own property. That inherent difference is fundamentally what is at discussion here. I argue that it is effectively impossible to hold your neighbors' (and their properties) responsible for your own properties value unless you can demonstrate problems with safety or the environment.
underdeserver 4y ago
I agree. Homes should be homes, not garbage dumps. I'm not a real estate investor. Let's say I'm moving to a big city. My current house's value is the difference between a 2 bedroom and a 3 bedroom apartment there.
- inetknght 4y ago
  > Homes should be homes, not garbage dumps. Sure, absolutely. But different people have different definitions of "garbage dumps". To me, the only real garbage dump is that wherein pests can thrive or toxic materials can leak. I've seen the other side of things where something that's simply "not new" but completely functional is considered garbage. > Let's say I'm moving to a big city. My current house's value is the difference between a 2 bedroom and a 3 bedroom apartment there. If that's a problem then that's your problem. I assume you'd be moving for work, in which case bring it up with your employer. You should not treat your home as a monetary investment vehicle. If I were moving for family or to get away from neighbors, then that's simply the cost for peace of mind. That's a cost that I have decided to take upon myself. That's a cost that I will have decided to spend to improve myself. That's absolutely not a cost that the neighbor has imposed upon me.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
chasd00 4y ago
> Cry me a river about your house value. you're the reason HOAs exist, it's a shame because HOAs suck but at least you have some idea of standards the neighborhood shares and holds themselves to.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > you're the reason HOAs exist Racism is the reason HOAs exist (both originally, and, though their direct ability to implement it has been reduced, still in their major function and effect.)
  - mc32 4y ago
    India has seen an increase in RWAs recently. Sometimes people want a system to govern their community outside of government but also within laws. I don't think one can say racism is the major function, especially in other societies that have HOA-like systems. Admittedly they tend to be the lighter version of HOAs and not the type that act like Disney Village dictatorships who find any excuse to fine residents. If the HOA is made up of residents (rather than administered by an outside party) they tend to be more representative of the wants and needs of the development and inhabitants they govern.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > India has seen an increase in RWAs recently Not talking about RWAs in India, but, since you bring it up, there's been plenty of coverage of an upswing in racism in India, too. > I don't think one can say racism is the major function, Its fairly well-documented as both a historical motivation and a current function. > especially in other societies that have HOA-like systems. I’m not talking about “other societies” and “HOA likr systems”. > [...] they tend to be more representative of the wants and needs of the development and inhabitants they govern. And when those residents were selected for racism by advertising the development with (for older developments) direct and (for newer ones) coded appeals to racism, guess what one of the prominent shared wants is?

showerst 4y ago

I have experience on this, and let me tell you, some of the people who believe in the 'fundamental right to have broken down cars in my yard' are _not_ the sort of suffering neighbors who need a community and some understanding. When one of these folks moved in next to my parents my attempt to come introduce myself and drop off a sixer of beer was met with a shotgun.

inetknght 4y ago
> I have experience on this, and let me tell you I also have experience on this, and let me tell you: neighbors' rights end at the property line (laws otherwise notwithstanding). I don't give a flying fuck about your resale value. It's certainly not neighborly to be asocial but there's absolutely nothing wrong it and I'm glad you learned quickly that your new neighbor doesn't want to be disturbed. Again, I don't care about your home's sale value. But demonstrate to me that something I'm doing on my property affects your safety and I will take action to rectify the problem. If I don't then you certainly have laws that can help you.
- showerst 4y ago
  That's nice that you don't care, people who cost others money rarely do. I hope you move somewhere next to other neighbors who are on the same page, and it all works out fine, and i mean that non-sarcastically. That's why I'm a proponent of these types of laws. You take an action that costs me $X, and then the state comes along and says and you can undo the damage, (easy in this case), compensate me, or go to jail and they'll sell your house. Again, just to be crystal clear here: I don't think there should be a law punishing you for working on your car, or painting your house an ugly shade of green or growing your own tomatoes or whatever. But here in the United States houses are the biggest purchase most people make and if go to such an extreme you make it so I can't sell mine, that's no longer you living your life without hurting anybody. In the case with the gun-toting the rude neighbor, he ended up being more than rude, and went to prison for abusing his children. The bank that took his house cleaned it up, so it all ended sort of tragically. I often wonder what could've gone differently to lead to a better outcome there.
  - inetknght 4y ago
    > That's nice that you don't care, people who cost others money rarely do That's quite reductive and very typical of people who only care about money. > I hope you move somewhere next to other neighbors who are on the same page, and it all works out fine, and i mean that non-sarcastically. I did, in fact, move where there isn't an HOA. > here in the United States houses are the biggest purchase most people make Yes, they are. > and if go to such an extreme you make it so I can't sell mine, that's no longer you living your life without hurting anybody. I completely disagree. It's not that you can't sell yours. It's that you can't sell yours for a profit. Too bad, homes should not be profits. If you want your home to be for-profit then you should run a home business instead. Then it's crystal clear that you don't own a home but instead own an investment vehicle with all of the not-caring-about-actual-humans that goes along with it and all of the business taxes for it too.
  - showerst 4y ago
    inetknght it looks like we hit the flame war reply limit. Only thing i'd like to respond to is that my view has nothing to do with making money or using the house as a business. Whether the house is worth the same, more, less than I bought it for is irrelevant to the question of if I am suffering financial harm from my neighbor's action. If you do something that costs people money, then you make them whole, whether in occurs on your property or not, and whether they're in a mansion in the hills or a 500sf 1br condo. I agree that houses shouldn't be investments and our current system is crazy, but it's completely orthogonal to the point at hand, except in the case of pushing more Karen types to take their financial stresses out on their neighbors =P.
    - inetknght 4y ago
      > If you do something that costs people money, then you make them whole, whether in occurs on your property or not By that logic, you're costing me money simply by owning land instead of me, or by working for yourself instead of for me. I demand you make me whole! /s No, that logic does not hold up to the reality that people matter and that different people have different opinions about what to lawfully do on their own property. That inherent difference is fundamentally what is at discussion here. I argue that it is effectively impossible to hold your neighbors' (and their properties) responsible for your own properties value unless you can demonstrate problems with safety or the environment.

underdeserver 4y ago

I agree. Homes should be homes, not garbage dumps. I'm not a real estate investor. Let's say I'm moving to a big city. My current house's value is the difference between a 2 bedroom and a 3 bedroom apartment there.

inetknght 4y ago
> Homes should be homes, not garbage dumps. Sure, absolutely. But different people have different definitions of "garbage dumps". To me, the only real garbage dump is that wherein pests can thrive or toxic materials can leak. I've seen the other side of things where something that's simply "not new" but completely functional is considered garbage. > Let's say I'm moving to a big city. My current house's value is the difference between a 2 bedroom and a 3 bedroom apartment there. If that's a problem then that's your problem. I assume you'd be moving for work, in which case bring it up with your employer. You should not treat your home as a monetary investment vehicle. If I were moving for family or to get away from neighbors, then that's simply the cost for peace of mind. That's a cost that I have decided to take upon myself. That's a cost that I will have decided to spend to improve myself. That's absolutely not a cost that the neighbor has imposed upon me.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

chasd00 4y ago

> Cry me a river about your house value. you're the reason HOAs exist, it's a shame because HOAs suck but at least you have some idea of standards the neighborhood shares and holds themselves to.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> you're the reason HOAs exist Racism is the reason HOAs exist (both originally, and, though their direct ability to implement it has been reduced, still in their major function and effect.)
- mc32 4y ago
  India has seen an increase in RWAs recently. Sometimes people want a system to govern their community outside of government but also within laws. I don't think one can say racism is the major function, especially in other societies that have HOA-like systems. Admittedly they tend to be the lighter version of HOAs and not the type that act like Disney Village dictatorships who find any excuse to fine residents. If the HOA is made up of residents (rather than administered by an outside party) they tend to be more representative of the wants and needs of the development and inhabitants they govern.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > India has seen an increase in RWAs recently Not talking about RWAs in India, but, since you bring it up, there's been plenty of coverage of an upswing in racism in India, too. > I don't think one can say racism is the major function, Its fairly well-documented as both a historical motivation and a current function. > especially in other societies that have HOA-like systems. I’m not talking about “other societies” and “HOA likr systems”. > [...] they tend to be more representative of the wants and needs of the development and inhabitants they govern. And when those residents were selected for racism by advertising the development with (for older developments) direct and (for newer ones) coded appeals to racism, guess what one of the prominent shared wants is?