10 ms·

Sure if you have a separate home on your own dedicated land, but what about everyone with HOAs, property taxes, etc. to deal with? For many people they still ha

Sure if you have a separate home on your own dedicated land, but what about everyone with HOAs, property taxes, etc. to deal with? For many people they still have to pay "rent" and still can't really do whatever they want with the land and roof, so they don't see much of these benefits either, right?

b112 3y ago
This is like women's pants, and women complaining about the lack of pockets. If everyone refused to buy with a HOA, then they would vanish in new builds, and could even be uniformly voted to disband in old builds. But apparently some like HOAs (don't ask me why).
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  HOAs are the only legal mechanism for a development to assess fees to maintain common amenities. If your neighborhood hires landscapers, or has a pool, or you share literally any part of the building structure, then an HOA comes into play. Often new developments have private roads that need maintenance, snow clearing, etc.
- throwaway646465 3y ago
  Many local municipalities actually require the developer to include a new HOA as part of the permitting process for new development. This is because small local governments are often too cash poor to foot the additional road maintenance, utilities, etc so they want to offload the cost to the developers/ the developers customers.
  - hnaccount_rng 3y ago
    As a European, this really reads like the thing with the "give them 5 more minutes and they'll rediscover taxes" situation.. Yeah if you outsource government functions to private institutions you'll have to require those to exist. Just that, being private, there's no accountability to be had..
    - jen20 3y ago
      The HOA fees are _on top_ of property taxes that would make Europeans’ eyes water.
      - lostlogin 3y ago
        You you share what you pay? I don’t understand how this could be true. I’m in Auckland, New Zealand and don’t have a housing association. I pay about US$1500 per year in property tax. It covers rubbish collection, library access, street cleaning, park maintenance, subsidised public transport (which is an abysmal service) etc. https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/property-rates-valuations/your-rates-bill/Pages/what-rates-pay-for.aspx#:~:text=Services%20your%20property%20rates%20pay%20for&text=collecting%20rubbish,maintaining%20parks https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/property-rates-valuation...
        punk-coder 3y ago
        I live in Georgia, City of Decatur. My house is a 1920 craftsman, 2,800 sq ft, 4 bedroom, 3 bath. We pay ~$1,200 a month in property taxes.
        prepend 3y ago
        Decatur is usually about 1% of the home value in property taxes, right? The size of the house isn’t as important as the value. If you’re laying $14k/year in property taxes, your house is likely appraised for $1-1.5M. Nationally speaking, Decatur has pretty low property taxes. Especially since you’re probably a short distance from the Brick Store Pub.
        saltcured 3y ago
        In the SF Bay Area the property tax rate is around 1-1.25% (it varies slightly by local bonds for school districts etc.). So someone who buys a house today in a popular suburb at $1M+ will be paying $10k+ per year in property tax. My parents' home has one of these typical HOAs established by the builder. The HOA fees were $1200 last year. The HOA does have significant common areas including a pool and park that has been there since the beginning. It also has hilly open spaces that require annual weed and brush clearing for fire breaks. These areas also have landslide potential with drainage and retaining wall engineering issues, which adds to both contractor costs and also increases insurance premiums for the HOA. My parents bought their house new for under $45k in 1975 and are currently assessed at under $170k based on the Prop 13 logic. It's hard to say what the market value is since recently sold homes in the area have had significant remodeling compared to my parents' time-capsule, but I imagine they could get nearly $1M. They probably represent the lower limit of assessments in their neighborhood. Most neighboring houses have been resold and reset to market rates at least once in the past 50 years, or at least done some major renovations which also partially increase the assessment for tax purposes.
- cantaloa 3y ago
  In many places, the HOA is the only entity that will do anything about bad neighbors like a dog that barks 24/7 or someone playing music all night—things that don't necessarily break city law but do affect your life, or things that do break city law but the city won't bother enforcing. It all comes down to luck of the draw.
  - Wowfunhappy 3y ago
    Those things should break city law though! To me, this is another of privatizing what should be the government's job, resulting in less accountability and less democratic control.
    - matthewdgreen 3y ago
      I don’t know if HOAs are great or not, but I live in a mid-size city with a lot of more important problems than taking care of my neighbors’ unsightly home situations. I can’t realistically expect city government to handle it, and moreover different neighborhoods have different very comfort levels with that sort of thing. Moving that sort of “minor living arrangements” governance out of the big city government into the neighborhood actually works much better.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - seti0Cha 3y ago
      If the HOA is entirely elected by the people who live in it, it sounds as if it would be more democratic and more accountable than a town or city government. Your vote will have more power and the people elected will literally be your neighbors.
    - tzs 3y ago
      Why not have both? City law sets a baseline for the city, but that will be a one size fits all solution. Someone who wants a place quieter than the noise level the city enforces can find a development with an HOA that sets a lower level. Someone who is particularly sensitive to smoke can find a development that bans outdoor fires on more days than the city does. As long as an HOA is only limiting things that actually affect other people and maintaining common property, and it is legally structured in a way that prevents scope creep (or ensures that existing owners are grandfathered if new restrictions are imposed), I don't see anything inherently wrong with having an HOA.
- nkrisc 3y ago
  Like most things in life: it depends. I live in an HOA. We pay about $150 a year, they keep the common areas maintained, coordinate with the county for road and other municipal work, and … that’s basically it. They’re pretty much otherwise invisible and are just my neighbors. Sometimes I even break the rules and put my garbage bins out too early and leave them out too late and I’ve never heard a word about it. There was even a foreclosed house in the neighborhood that was increasingly unmaintained, and the HOA hounded the bank and got them to take better care of the property until it was finally sold. Overall, our HOA is a net positive. I also was part of an HOA for 4-unit condo building I lived in previously. It was perfectly fine and its purpose and necessity was very apparent. I’m sure there are nightmare HOAs out there, just like there are nightmare neighbors in places with no HOA.
  - grepfru_it 3y ago
    An HOA is like socialism. It's great for the first two, maybe three generations. But then new owners come in and they DGAF about HOA rules and/or the HOA (what's a measly $150/year on my sr engineer salary). And finally the HOA and/or property starts falling apart^W^Wchanging. We are witnessing this right now, having not moved from our townhome. First decade was great, everyone follow the rules, HOA cared about the look of our properties and kept everyone in check. Then HOA stopped sending letters about the dirty facades. Then the neighbors one by one all decided its okay to leave their garbage cans out even though the bylaws specifically forbid this. Then they cut back on services they offer (illegal parking is only enforced during HOA business hours, no more landscape maintenance), they stopped enforcement (neighbor has 4 pets, facades haven't been cleaned in 5-6 years, trash and toys are being left in the shared driveway). The final slap in the face, we got an email last month saying they are raising the HOA fee by 25%. Unlike socialism, I can politic my way into the board and demand change. Which looks like something I'm going to have to do to get back the HOA (and property) that I loved
    - lostlogin 3y ago
      Is the price rise a slap on the face? It sounds like it’s what you want. If you want letters to go out for minor issues and landscaping, towing etc, you need funding to do it. This has to happen before enforcement increases. I think that getting your ideal back is going to take several more big increases. > Unlike socialism, I can politic my way into the board and demand change. That sounds like the definition of socialism. What do you mean?
- mmh0000 3y ago
  I’ve posted this before and it wasn’t well received but I love HOAs. When I bought my first house, I was adamant that I didn’t want an HOA. Over the next ten years the neighborhood went to crap. I ended up living next to neighbors who didn’t maintain their yards, parked junker cars on their lawn and let their houses go to trash. When I moved, I specifically wanted an HOA. After five years, I still love my HOA. Mostly for two reasons. First, other neighbors here generally have the same mind set and care about their most expensive possession. Second when someone starts letting things slide the HOA slaps ‘‘em on the wrist.
  - harshalizee 3y ago
    I don't understand this mentality at all. Why do you care how they maintain their property if it doesn't harm you directly? I never understood why anyone would harass someone else over their lawn. It's only a matter of time where you end up with neighbors who don't share the same mindset to start micromanaging the neighborhood. I live in north Seattle area where non-HOA homes are priced higher than HOA homes. The area has a couple of older somewhat rundown houses and no one cares. Prices are still at least $100k higher than the new builds with HOAs on the next block. So there goes the old excuse for maintaining home value.
    - mmh0000 3y ago
      You don't understand why I would care about the neighborhood that I live in? My house is the most expensive thing I own, I worked incredibly hard to get it. I am proud of it. I take care of it. I want to live in a neighborhood with others who feel the same way. To your second point, yes, not all HOAs are great. If you frequent fark.com, you'll find multiple threads per month about some terrible thing an HOA is doing. But, that's why you do your due diligence when selecting an HOA. You carefully read the CC&Rs before signing on the house, you talk to others in the neighborhood before moving in. Much like selecting an insurance plan. For example, my HOA is setup so that leadership fully rotates every 3 years, with the rotations staggered. Worst case we get bad leadership for 1 year. Though, so far, in the in the 15 years the HOA has existed, they've done nothing but enforce rules everyone has agreed to. (Well that, and they killed off a bunch of common-area grass by hiring the cheapest lawn care they could find. )
- prepend 3y ago
  My HOA is pretty nice. They manage the common areas and maintain a community pool and tennis court. It was one of the positive reasons I bought my house. But they also aren’t allowed to monitor grass height and whatnot.
- l1tany11 3y ago
  The problem is that cities encourage/force HOAs to exist. The city gets the HOA to maintain the infrastructure indefinitely. So you can’t really vote with your wallet. Developers often don’t want to make HOAs, it costs more money and it’s a pain. But that’s the big thing with all construction. It’s super, super regulated. It’s probably the most heavily regulated thing there is… what gets built is the small subset of things that can both work financially and get approved. If you got on the right merry go round early enough, it’s great. It’s probably the biggest thing creating inequality. The irony is that long term, many HOAs hurt property values. But supposedly they exist to enhance property values.

b112 3y ago

This is like women's pants, and women complaining about the lack of pockets. If everyone refused to buy with a HOA, then they would vanish in new builds, and could even be uniformly voted to disband in old builds. But apparently some like HOAs (don't ask me why).

bobthepanda 3y ago
HOAs are the only legal mechanism for a development to assess fees to maintain common amenities. If your neighborhood hires landscapers, or has a pool, or you share literally any part of the building structure, then an HOA comes into play. Often new developments have private roads that need maintenance, snow clearing, etc.
throwaway646465 3y ago
Many local municipalities actually require the developer to include a new HOA as part of the permitting process for new development. This is because small local governments are often too cash poor to foot the additional road maintenance, utilities, etc so they want to offload the cost to the developers/ the developers customers.
- hnaccount_rng 3y ago
  As a European, this really reads like the thing with the "give them 5 more minutes and they'll rediscover taxes" situation.. Yeah if you outsource government functions to private institutions you'll have to require those to exist. Just that, being private, there's no accountability to be had..
  - jen20 3y ago
    The HOA fees are _on top_ of property taxes that would make Europeans’ eyes water.
    - lostlogin 3y ago
      You you share what you pay? I don’t understand how this could be true. I’m in Auckland, New Zealand and don’t have a housing association. I pay about US$1500 per year in property tax. It covers rubbish collection, library access, street cleaning, park maintenance, subsidised public transport (which is an abysmal service) etc. https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/property-rates-valuations/your-rates-bill/Pages/what-rates-pay-for.aspx#:~:text=Services%20your%20property%20rates%20pay%20for&text=collecting%20rubbish,maintaining%20parks https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/property-rates-valuation...
      - punk-coder 3y ago
        I live in Georgia, City of Decatur. My house is a 1920 craftsman, 2,800 sq ft, 4 bedroom, 3 bath. We pay ~$1,200 a month in property taxes.
        prepend 3y ago
        Decatur is usually about 1% of the home value in property taxes, right? The size of the house isn’t as important as the value. If you’re laying $14k/year in property taxes, your house is likely appraised for $1-1.5M. Nationally speaking, Decatur has pretty low property taxes. Especially since you’re probably a short distance from the Brick Store Pub.
      - saltcured 3y ago
        In the SF Bay Area the property tax rate is around 1-1.25% (it varies slightly by local bonds for school districts etc.). So someone who buys a house today in a popular suburb at $1M+ will be paying $10k+ per year in property tax. My parents' home has one of these typical HOAs established by the builder. The HOA fees were $1200 last year. The HOA does have significant common areas including a pool and park that has been there since the beginning. It also has hilly open spaces that require annual weed and brush clearing for fire breaks. These areas also have landslide potential with drainage and retaining wall engineering issues, which adds to both contractor costs and also increases insurance premiums for the HOA. My parents bought their house new for under $45k in 1975 and are currently assessed at under $170k based on the Prop 13 logic. It's hard to say what the market value is since recently sold homes in the area have had significant remodeling compared to my parents' time-capsule, but I imagine they could get nearly $1M. They probably represent the lower limit of assessments in their neighborhood. Most neighboring houses have been resold and reset to market rates at least once in the past 50 years, or at least done some major renovations which also partially increase the assessment for tax purposes.
cantaloa 3y ago
In many places, the HOA is the only entity that will do anything about bad neighbors like a dog that barks 24/7 or someone playing music all night—things that don't necessarily break city law but do affect your life, or things that do break city law but the city won't bother enforcing. It all comes down to luck of the draw.
- Wowfunhappy 3y ago
  Those things should break city law though! To me, this is another of privatizing what should be the government's job, resulting in less accountability and less democratic control.
  - matthewdgreen 3y ago
    I don’t know if HOAs are great or not, but I live in a mid-size city with a lot of more important problems than taking care of my neighbors’ unsightly home situations. I can’t realistically expect city government to handle it, and moreover different neighborhoods have different very comfort levels with that sort of thing. Moving that sort of “minor living arrangements” governance out of the big city government into the neighborhood actually works much better.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - seti0Cha 3y ago
    If the HOA is entirely elected by the people who live in it, it sounds as if it would be more democratic and more accountable than a town or city government. Your vote will have more power and the people elected will literally be your neighbors.
  - tzs 3y ago
    Why not have both? City law sets a baseline for the city, but that will be a one size fits all solution. Someone who wants a place quieter than the noise level the city enforces can find a development with an HOA that sets a lower level. Someone who is particularly sensitive to smoke can find a development that bans outdoor fires on more days than the city does. As long as an HOA is only limiting things that actually affect other people and maintaining common property, and it is legally structured in a way that prevents scope creep (or ensures that existing owners are grandfathered if new restrictions are imposed), I don't see anything inherently wrong with having an HOA.
nkrisc 3y ago
Like most things in life: it depends. I live in an HOA. We pay about $150 a year, they keep the common areas maintained, coordinate with the county for road and other municipal work, and … that’s basically it. They’re pretty much otherwise invisible and are just my neighbors. Sometimes I even break the rules and put my garbage bins out too early and leave them out too late and I’ve never heard a word about it. There was even a foreclosed house in the neighborhood that was increasingly unmaintained, and the HOA hounded the bank and got them to take better care of the property until it was finally sold. Overall, our HOA is a net positive. I also was part of an HOA for 4-unit condo building I lived in previously. It was perfectly fine and its purpose and necessity was very apparent. I’m sure there are nightmare HOAs out there, just like there are nightmare neighbors in places with no HOA.
- grepfru_it 3y ago
  An HOA is like socialism. It's great for the first two, maybe three generations. But then new owners come in and they DGAF about HOA rules and/or the HOA (what's a measly $150/year on my sr engineer salary). And finally the HOA and/or property starts falling apart^W^Wchanging. We are witnessing this right now, having not moved from our townhome. First decade was great, everyone follow the rules, HOA cared about the look of our properties and kept everyone in check. Then HOA stopped sending letters about the dirty facades. Then the neighbors one by one all decided its okay to leave their garbage cans out even though the bylaws specifically forbid this. Then they cut back on services they offer (illegal parking is only enforced during HOA business hours, no more landscape maintenance), they stopped enforcement (neighbor has 4 pets, facades haven't been cleaned in 5-6 years, trash and toys are being left in the shared driveway). The final slap in the face, we got an email last month saying they are raising the HOA fee by 25%. Unlike socialism, I can politic my way into the board and demand change. Which looks like something I'm going to have to do to get back the HOA (and property) that I loved
  - lostlogin 3y ago
    Is the price rise a slap on the face? It sounds like it’s what you want. If you want letters to go out for minor issues and landscaping, towing etc, you need funding to do it. This has to happen before enforcement increases. I think that getting your ideal back is going to take several more big increases. > Unlike socialism, I can politic my way into the board and demand change. That sounds like the definition of socialism. What do you mean?
mmh0000 3y ago
I’ve posted this before and it wasn’t well received but I love HOAs. When I bought my first house, I was adamant that I didn’t want an HOA. Over the next ten years the neighborhood went to crap. I ended up living next to neighbors who didn’t maintain their yards, parked junker cars on their lawn and let their houses go to trash. When I moved, I specifically wanted an HOA. After five years, I still love my HOA. Mostly for two reasons. First, other neighbors here generally have the same mind set and care about their most expensive possession. Second when someone starts letting things slide the HOA slaps ‘‘em on the wrist.
- harshalizee 3y ago
  I don't understand this mentality at all. Why do you care how they maintain their property if it doesn't harm you directly? I never understood why anyone would harass someone else over their lawn. It's only a matter of time where you end up with neighbors who don't share the same mindset to start micromanaging the neighborhood. I live in north Seattle area where non-HOA homes are priced higher than HOA homes. The area has a couple of older somewhat rundown houses and no one cares. Prices are still at least $100k higher than the new builds with HOAs on the next block. So there goes the old excuse for maintaining home value.
  - mmh0000 3y ago
    You don't understand why I would care about the neighborhood that I live in? My house is the most expensive thing I own, I worked incredibly hard to get it. I am proud of it. I take care of it. I want to live in a neighborhood with others who feel the same way. To your second point, yes, not all HOAs are great. If you frequent fark.com, you'll find multiple threads per month about some terrible thing an HOA is doing. But, that's why you do your due diligence when selecting an HOA. You carefully read the CC&Rs before signing on the house, you talk to others in the neighborhood before moving in. Much like selecting an insurance plan. For example, my HOA is setup so that leadership fully rotates every 3 years, with the rotations staggered. Worst case we get bad leadership for 1 year. Though, so far, in the in the 15 years the HOA has existed, they've done nothing but enforce rules everyone has agreed to. (Well that, and they killed off a bunch of common-area grass by hiring the cheapest lawn care they could find. )
prepend 3y ago
My HOA is pretty nice. They manage the common areas and maintain a community pool and tennis court. It was one of the positive reasons I bought my house. But they also aren’t allowed to monitor grass height and whatnot.
l1tany11 3y ago
The problem is that cities encourage/force HOAs to exist. The city gets the HOA to maintain the infrastructure indefinitely. So you can’t really vote with your wallet. Developers often don’t want to make HOAs, it costs more money and it’s a pain. But that’s the big thing with all construction. It’s super, super regulated. It’s probably the most heavily regulated thing there is… what gets built is the small subset of things that can both work financially and get approved. If you got on the right merry go round early enough, it’s great. It’s probably the biggest thing creating inequality. The irony is that long term, many HOAs hurt property values. But supposedly they exist to enhance property values.