5 ms·

Most people in the US don't live in an HOA. You may join one and enjoy its benefits, or not. Nobody is forced to. Many people want to join an HOA to enjoy its b

by Lendal 2y ago

Most people in the US don't live in an HOA. You may join one and enjoy its benefits, or not. Nobody is forced to. Many people want to join an HOA to enjoy its benefits but not obey its rules. These are the type of people who believe they are the center of the universe yet are in such a unique position that the laws of the rest of the universe don't apply to them.

_heimdall 2y ago
Its worth noting that its common, at least in my experience, for HOA membership to be part of a real estate purchase contract. Meaning, if you want to buy a house and it happens to be in a neighborhood with an HOA, you don't have the option to buy that house and not join the HOA. I've never understood why we allow that to be legal, just like neighborhoods or complexes that are age restricted, but we allow it none the less.
- mattmaroon 2y ago
  We allow it to be legal because: 1. Most homes aren’t in an HOA, so you have plenty of options if you don’t like it. 2. It prevents all sorts of tragedies of the commons. 3. HOAs would have no power at all if you could opt out. It has to be part of the contract. They can be dissolved entirely, but that’s the only mechanism for getting out. 4. We believe in individual freedom, which includes the ability to chose to trade freedom for certain benefits. I trade my freedom to leave a rusty old boat in my driveway for the benefit of not having my neighbors do that. Most of us don’t have or want the sorts of things that bring down property values and don’t want to suddenly find ourselves living next to people who do. This is perhaps a symptom of a larger problem: homes are very expensive. If homes were cheap and moving were easy, perhaps HOAs would never have been invented. But for most Americans who own one a home is a substantial portion of their net worth. We want to protect it. People who complain about HOAs existing are the same as the people who complain about EVs. If you don’t want one, don’t buy it.
  - supplied_demand 2y ago
    ==If homes were cheap and moving were easy, perhaps HOAs would never have been invented. But for most Americans who own one a home is a substantial portion of their net worth. We want to protect it.== It may not have been the reason for their invention (I can't find information on that), but they certainly exploded in popularity in an effort to restrict people from selling their homes to non-white people (see: Racially Restrictive Covenants). It's kind of ironic to see people laud them as a form of "freedom" while their history as a tool of blatant racial discrimination is available for all to read. ==People who complain about HOAs existing are the same as the people who complain about EVs. If you don’t want one, don’t buy it.== Doesn't this act as a type of restriction on housing supply thus increasing the upward pressure on housing costs by limiting options? Not to mention the actual costs of funding the HOA, which directly increases housing prices.
    - mattmaroon 2y ago
      I would not be surprised if it once served a racist function, a lot of things did, and I’m glad that’s now illegal. I wouldn’t be surprised if it still happens sometimes but I’m sure it’s the exception rather than the rule. Most HOAs don’t even have the right to screen tenants, if you can purchase the house and will sign the contract you’re in and have the same voting rights and responsibilities as the other residents.
      - supplied_demand 2y ago
        ==I would not be surprised if it once served a racist function== It is a verifiable fact found across the country [0]. Many of the covenants still exist today, although they are legally unenforceable. That said, I have read many comments on this site about how non-competes have long been considered legally unenforceable, but can still have a chilling effect on those impacted (Thankfully, this has recently changed). I think the more interesting aspect, in regards to today's world, is how HOAs lead to even higher housing costs during a housing affordability crisis. This happens through both explicit expenses (monthly HOA dues) and implicit expenses (lawn maintenance, regulation of architectural changes/additions, rental restrictions, etc.) on homeowners. [0] https://www.npr.org/2021/11/17/1049052531/racial-covenants-housing-discrimination https://www.npr.org/2021/11/17/1049052531/racial-covenants-h...
- freeopinion 2y ago
  Let's say I sell you a basketball with some restrictions. For instance, you are never allowed to kick the ball. If you ever kick the ball, some pre-defined penalty is imposed. You might say that I didn't sell the ball. I sold a bundle of rights regarding the ball, but I retained some other bundle of rights. Your gym membership accords you some rights, but not all rights to the gym equipment. Do you think that should be illegal? As long as a contract clearly delineates which rights are included and excluded I don't understand why you would want this to be illegal. You might question why somebody would buy a car that contains a radio but the purchase of the car doesn't include the radio and the new owner is not allowed to manipulate the radio. It may not make sense to you. But that doesn't make the arrangement illegal.
  - SpaceNoodled 2y ago
    Illegality and immorality are too often at odds.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Laws that the majority view as immoral should just be abolished. We don't do that nearly enough, but that'd be a part of any functional legal system that's actually designed by and for the people.
- hylaride 2y ago
  I don't understand it myself, but some people like the forced conformity and the legal requirement to fund and maintain certain amenities, including streets, etc. Maybe it's an (over)reaction to "to much freedom" in some sense of the phrase. It's probably also a way to bypass greater government and keep infrastructure funds more hyper-local, which can have social consequences. That being said I live in a condominium, but it's an apartment-style one. It's the only way I can afford to live in the central city. In that case there needs to be some setup to maintain the elevators, overall structure, and other common elements. But if I owned a house with actual land, the only restrictions I'd want are on actual nuisances (mostly continuous noise - a party once in awhile is fine) or safety.

by Lendal 2y ago

_heimdall 2y ago

Its worth noting that its common, at least in my experience, for HOA membership to be part of a real estate purchase contract. Meaning, if you want to buy a house and it happens to be in a neighborhood with an HOA, you don't have the option to buy that house and not join the HOA. I've never understood why we allow that to be legal, just like neighborhoods or complexes that are age restricted, but we allow it none the less.

mattmaroon 2y ago
We allow it to be legal because: 1. Most homes aren’t in an HOA, so you have plenty of options if you don’t like it. 2. It prevents all sorts of tragedies of the commons. 3. HOAs would have no power at all if you could opt out. It has to be part of the contract. They can be dissolved entirely, but that’s the only mechanism for getting out. 4. We believe in individual freedom, which includes the ability to chose to trade freedom for certain benefits. I trade my freedom to leave a rusty old boat in my driveway for the benefit of not having my neighbors do that. Most of us don’t have or want the sorts of things that bring down property values and don’t want to suddenly find ourselves living next to people who do. This is perhaps a symptom of a larger problem: homes are very expensive. If homes were cheap and moving were easy, perhaps HOAs would never have been invented. But for most Americans who own one a home is a substantial portion of their net worth. We want to protect it. People who complain about HOAs existing are the same as the people who complain about EVs. If you don’t want one, don’t buy it.
- supplied_demand 2y ago
  ==If homes were cheap and moving were easy, perhaps HOAs would never have been invented. But for most Americans who own one a home is a substantial portion of their net worth. We want to protect it.== It may not have been the reason for their invention (I can't find information on that), but they certainly exploded in popularity in an effort to restrict people from selling their homes to non-white people (see: Racially Restrictive Covenants). It's kind of ironic to see people laud them as a form of "freedom" while their history as a tool of blatant racial discrimination is available for all to read. ==People who complain about HOAs existing are the same as the people who complain about EVs. If you don’t want one, don’t buy it.== Doesn't this act as a type of restriction on housing supply thus increasing the upward pressure on housing costs by limiting options? Not to mention the actual costs of funding the HOA, which directly increases housing prices.
  - mattmaroon 2y ago
    I would not be surprised if it once served a racist function, a lot of things did, and I’m glad that’s now illegal. I wouldn’t be surprised if it still happens sometimes but I’m sure it’s the exception rather than the rule. Most HOAs don’t even have the right to screen tenants, if you can purchase the house and will sign the contract you’re in and have the same voting rights and responsibilities as the other residents.
    - supplied_demand 2y ago
      ==I would not be surprised if it once served a racist function== It is a verifiable fact found across the country [0]. Many of the covenants still exist today, although they are legally unenforceable. That said, I have read many comments on this site about how non-competes have long been considered legally unenforceable, but can still have a chilling effect on those impacted (Thankfully, this has recently changed). I think the more interesting aspect, in regards to today's world, is how HOAs lead to even higher housing costs during a housing affordability crisis. This happens through both explicit expenses (monthly HOA dues) and implicit expenses (lawn maintenance, regulation of architectural changes/additions, rental restrictions, etc.) on homeowners. [0] https://www.npr.org/2021/11/17/1049052531/racial-covenants-housing-discrimination https://www.npr.org/2021/11/17/1049052531/racial-covenants-h...
freeopinion 2y ago
Let's say I sell you a basketball with some restrictions. For instance, you are never allowed to kick the ball. If you ever kick the ball, some pre-defined penalty is imposed. You might say that I didn't sell the ball. I sold a bundle of rights regarding the ball, but I retained some other bundle of rights. Your gym membership accords you some rights, but not all rights to the gym equipment. Do you think that should be illegal? As long as a contract clearly delineates which rights are included and excluded I don't understand why you would want this to be illegal. You might question why somebody would buy a car that contains a radio but the purchase of the car doesn't include the radio and the new owner is not allowed to manipulate the radio. It may not make sense to you. But that doesn't make the arrangement illegal.
- SpaceNoodled 2y ago
  Illegality and immorality are too often at odds.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    Laws that the majority view as immoral should just be abolished. We don't do that nearly enough, but that'd be a part of any functional legal system that's actually designed by and for the people.
hylaride 2y ago
I don't understand it myself, but some people like the forced conformity and the legal requirement to fund and maintain certain amenities, including streets, etc. Maybe it's an (over)reaction to "to much freedom" in some sense of the phrase. It's probably also a way to bypass greater government and keep infrastructure funds more hyper-local, which can have social consequences. That being said I live in a condominium, but it's an apartment-style one. It's the only way I can afford to live in the central city. In that case there needs to be some setup to maintain the elevators, overall structure, and other common elements. But if I owned a house with actual land, the only restrictions I'd want are on actual nuisances (mostly continuous noise - a party once in awhile is fine) or safety.