5 ms·

Freedom of association is missing the point when it comes to HOAs. There's some very significant differences between freedom to associate in a book club and fr

Freedom of association is missing the point when it comes to HOAs. There's some very significant differences between freedom to associate in a book club and freedom to associate in an HOA. If you don't like a book club, there is no scenario in which you are contractually obligated to join it and pay membership fees indefinitely. And the bookclub doesn't have broad legal authority, backed by the courts, to dictate how you maintain, use, and sell your personal property or even aspects of your lifestyle.

db48x 2y ago
I never said that all groups were equivalent, only that they are similar. Book clubs have rules, and if you violate them they will punish you. Very likely the punishment will be limited to not inviting you back, but that is because book clubs are very informal. HOAs are formal, and are formed for the specific purpose of regulating the use of property, particularly common property. Thus it should be no surprise that they do so.
- kashunstva 2y ago
  > regulating the use of property, particularly common property I don’t think anyone would argue with their regulation of common property; it’s their petty interference in private property that’s the rub.
  - db48x 2y ago
    Remember that everyone disagrees about what is petty and what is not. Take the current article: some would argue that requiring a vehicle (such as the boat) to be parked in a place where it cannot be seen from the street is petty, and that the HOA is petty for having such a rule. Yet many many cities and towns across America have similar parking rules. They were put in place by a reasonably democratic process, so it must be that there is a fair amount of disagreement over whether they are petty or not. You have the same recourse in both cases: vote, join the local government, or move somewhere less petty.
dullcrisp 2y ago
Book clubs aside, the ability to join a HOA is a freedom. Contrarily, if the Supreme Court forces New York City to allow guns in its Walmarts, that would be a restriction of freedom. Freedom isn’t the same as lawlessness.
- hiatus 2y ago
  Businesses can't discriminate against different races either, you give up some freedoms when you hold yourself open to the public.
  - dullcrisp 2y ago
    You’re right, disallowing race-based discrimination is also a restriction of freedom. I’m not arguing that all freedoms are good.
- 15155 2y ago
  NYC banning guns in Walmart is a restriction of freedom, per Bruen.
  - dullcrisp 2y ago
    The SCOTUS doesn’t define the concept of freedom.
- gpvos 2y ago
  It would be a freedom if you could own a house in that area and not join the HOA.
- madeofpalk 2y ago
  Is there a freedom to not join a HOA? Freedom to not associate?
  - db48x 2y ago
    Of course there is; just don't buy a house that is part of an HOA. Most houses in the US are not part of any HOA. Apartments are also not part of HOAs (but of course anyone living there has to follow the rules put down by the owners, and it’s not like the residents get to vote on those). Condos are always part of a condo association, but those are a fraction of the housing in the US. Also, if your neighbor asks you to vote to create an HOA, vote against it.

db48x 2y ago

I never said that all groups were equivalent, only that they are similar. Book clubs have rules, and if you violate them they will punish you. Very likely the punishment will be limited to not inviting you back, but that is because book clubs are very informal. HOAs are formal, and are formed for the specific purpose of regulating the use of property, particularly common property. Thus it should be no surprise that they do so.

kashunstva 2y ago
> regulating the use of property, particularly common property I don’t think anyone would argue with their regulation of common property; it’s their petty interference in private property that’s the rub.
- db48x 2y ago
  Remember that everyone disagrees about what is petty and what is not. Take the current article: some would argue that requiring a vehicle (such as the boat) to be parked in a place where it cannot be seen from the street is petty, and that the HOA is petty for having such a rule. Yet many many cities and towns across America have similar parking rules. They were put in place by a reasonably democratic process, so it must be that there is a fair amount of disagreement over whether they are petty or not. You have the same recourse in both cases: vote, join the local government, or move somewhere less petty.

dullcrisp 2y ago

Book clubs aside, the ability to join a HOA is a freedom. Contrarily, if the Supreme Court forces New York City to allow guns in its Walmarts, that would be a restriction of freedom. Freedom isn’t the same as lawlessness.

hiatus 2y ago
Businesses can't discriminate against different races either, you give up some freedoms when you hold yourself open to the public.
- dullcrisp 2y ago
  You’re right, disallowing race-based discrimination is also a restriction of freedom. I’m not arguing that all freedoms are good.
15155 2y ago
NYC banning guns in Walmart is a restriction of freedom, per Bruen.
- dullcrisp 2y ago
  The SCOTUS doesn’t define the concept of freedom.
gpvos 2y ago
It would be a freedom if you could own a house in that area and not join the HOA.
madeofpalk 2y ago
Is there a freedom to not join a HOA? Freedom to not associate?
- db48x 2y ago
  Of course there is; just don't buy a house that is part of an HOA. Most houses in the US are not part of any HOA. Apartments are also not part of HOAs (but of course anyone living there has to follow the rules put down by the owners, and it’s not like the residents get to vote on those). Condos are always part of a condo association, but those are a fraction of the housing in the US. Also, if your neighbor asks you to vote to create an HOA, vote against it.