7 ms·

These sorts of land use restrictions should be illegal. It's basically a corporation trying to act as a pseudogovernment, enforcing regulations on land that the

These sorts of land use restrictions should be illegal. It's basically a corporation trying to act as a pseudogovernment, enforcing regulations on land that they no longer own themselves. One could argue that HOAs are kind of a similar issue, acting like a pseudogovernment, with restrictions on housing passing on down indefinitely, even to new owners who may not have wanted to agree to them (but with housing being as constrained as it is, you may not always have a realistic choice). As a general rule, prior owners probably shouldn't be getting a say in what future owners do with land. Why? Because land is inherently limited in a way in which most other property is not, which reduces the ability of new entrants to 'disrupt' the market by offering people more choice. If my town only has one car dealership with shitty business practices, no biggie, it's not too hard to go to another town and buy a car, then bring it back. But I can't buy land and bring it back to use it, I'm stuck with whatever's already there.

gruez 2y ago
How are HOAs any different than a city council, except on a smaller scale? In both cases they're democratically elected, and they enact restrictions that can't be opted out of.
- bluGill 2y ago
  HOAs often enacts rules that would be illegal for a city council to enact. (between the US constitution, US federal laws, State constitution, State laws, and county laws there are often strict limits to what can be done that HOAs are not effected by). Courts have reigned in some of that, but there is still a lot that a HOA can do. HOAs also tend to be too small - it is hard to find someone qualified who wants to be in charge and so they are often forced to accept some busybody nobody really likes because at least that person wants the job. As you get larger you get a choice of qualified people for the job (but of course also large enough for corruption to take effect).
  - Loughla 2y ago
    My sister just moved into a place that has an HOA. She's actively trying to get it suspended permanently. They live on a lake that attracts very aggressive Canadian geese. The geese do geese things like eat and poop lots of poop. The HOA fined them before they moved into the house for having goose poop in their back yard. For me, it's hilarious. I take handfuls of corn and stuff to throw around their backyard when I go visit. She has started a genuine campaign to have the HOA removed. She's so salty all the time now. It is top 10 things that has happened in my life.
    - searealist 2y ago
      I don't want to live in a neighborhood where my neighbor's yards are full of poop. This is true even if the unit is unoccupied.
      - AlexandrB 2y ago
        Goose poop is not very smelly since it's mostly fibre from their all-grass diet. It's not like a backyard full of dog poop. It's no worse than applying manure to fertilize the soil. Source: I've stepped in goose poop many, many times up here in Canada and it's the least bad poop to step in.
      - AngryData 2y ago
        If a deer walks through your yard and poops in it do you go out there and pick it up? Like these are wild animals, they aren't talking about a someone raising geese or something. Wild animals poop, it will quickly disintegrate into the soil. At worst you might run a lawn mower over it to spread it out better.
        searealist 2y ago
        Yes. It's your responsibility to maintain your property if you choose to live in an HOA.
        kelnos 2y ago
  - gruez 2y ago
    >HOAs often enacts rules that would be illegal for a city council to enact. (between the US constitution, US federal laws, State constitution, State laws, and county laws there are often strict limits to what can be done that HOAs are not effected by). Courts have reigned in some of that, but there is still a lot that a HOA can do. Can you give some examples that are applicable today? >HOAs also tend to be too small - it is hard to find someone qualified who wants to be in charge and so they are often forced to accept some busybody nobody really likes because at least that person wants the job. As you get larger you get a choice of qualified people for the job (but of course also large enough for corruption to take effect). This might vary on a state by state basis, but there are some pretty "cities" in some states. In Florida, there are plenty with population in the hundreds. In some cases it's due to it being rural, but there's plenty of cases where the city is simply small. For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briny_Breezes,_Florida https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briny_Breezes,_Florida more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_municipalities_in_Florida https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_municipalities_in_Flor...
    - dghlsakjg 2y ago
      > Can you give some examples that are applicable today? HOAs are pretty famously restrictive of free speech (house color restrictions, yard sign restrictions, political activism restrictions), and free association (visitor restrictions). Their are some speech restrictions that governments apply to historic structures, but you would have a hard time as a government trying to register the name of every visitor to a residence, or restricting hours that visitors can come, or how long they can stay, but those are all things that HOAs try to control.
      - gruez 2y ago
        >house color restrictions And have courts ruled that cities (or other governments) can't impose color restrictions? >yard sign restrictions, political activism restrictions Not sure what's meant by "political activism restrictions", but cities most definitely have restrictions on signs. You can't put a brightly flashing LED sign next to a busy intersection, or plant a billboard to make some money on the side. >and free association (visitor restrictions). ??? I've literally never encountered this, unless you count having to register to use the visitor parking.
  - otterley 2y ago
    > between the US constitution, US federal laws, State constitution, State laws, and county laws there are often strict limits to what can be done that HOAs are not effected (sic) by HOAs cannot enforce rules that conflict with State or Federal law or the Constitution.
    - sokoloff 2y ago
      Are you sure [in the context of GP's claim]? The Federal government could not pass a law prohibiting me from painting my front door purple (that would be an infringement on my 1A rights). As I understand it, an HOA can enforce such a prohibition as a private entity (and use the courts to back them, ultimately).
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Federal government could not pass a law prohibiting me from painting my front door purple (that would be an infringement on my 1A rights) Uh, D.C. has plenty of aesthetic restrictions.
        ttyprintk 2y ago
        Background: Washington, D.C. is not a state and in theory the US Congress performs state legislative practices for it. In practice, Congress has devolved civil policy to a mayor and devolved state court functions to a superior court. Purple door disputes wouldn’t be a Federal issue, but one of the D.C. superior court. The Feds have only intervened four times, and it was over much bigger features than HOAs. And the Supreme Court has actively closed loopholes where local issues relevant to any other state could become Federally interesting.
    - dmd 2y ago
      But they do, every day, because fighting is far more expensive than acceding.
      - ttyprintk 2y ago
- colechristensen 2y ago
  HOAs go well beyond what any government is allowed to impose on you. They don’t have to follow the same rules a government does.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  formation or joining of HOAs are entirely voluntary. On the other hand, cities can unilaterally claim jurisdiction. If you were to draw a comparison, HOAs are far more consensual.
  - psunavy03 2y ago
    They're not really "voluntary" when the majority (if not all) of new construction uses them.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      it's still more voluntary than the city. An HOA can't claim a non HOA house. If you think avoiding an HOA is hard, do you really think it's easier to avoid a city government?
  - DrillShopper 2y ago
    The basis of HOAs is a history of racial covenants. While facially racial covenants are illegal, the enforcement of HOA restrictions is based in racism so the entire concept is rotten to the core.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Nonsense. Theological concepts of original sin don't apply to contract law. Just because there were racist HOAs in the 1950s or whatever doesn't mean a new HOA is tainted. You're not even trying to make a logical argument
deprecative 2y ago
It's literally just capitalism. This is the point of the economic system. Why are people surprised? Is the propaganda just that good?
- kulahan 2y ago
  It's literally just regulatory capture. It has nothing to do with capitalism. In a truly capitalistic economy, there would be no regulations preventing competitors from coming in and creating competition. The propaganda doesn't have to be good when nobody understands what is and isn't capitalism anyways.
  - falcolas 2y ago
    This isn't regulatory capture, this is deed restrictions. HOAs, water rights, mineral rights et.al. use this same mechanism.
    - bigstrat2003 2y ago
      To be honest, I think all of those should be abolished as well.
    - ttyprintk 2y ago
      That’s correct: Albertsons is responsible for upholding the deed restrictions, and can use any legal means to do so. The regulators could have said that a monopoly has grown too big to enjoy good standing in court, but instead of that they chose a small fee.
  - immibis 2y ago
    When the incumbent owns the vacant lot, it's capitalism. Free formation of contracts (saying you promise not to open a grocery store there, in exchange for getting the land at all) is also a big part of capitalism.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    You are incorrect. This has nothing to do with regulations. It's the same as a farmer secretly buying up neighboring already irrigated fields from bankrupt farmers, and not planting on them in order to be able to raise the price on their own crops, assuming that the cost of importing the same crops from elsewhere is prohibitive and there is no other readily arable land nearby (thus they have a monopoly on the local market). So it's cheaper for them to leave the purchased fields fallow, and raise prices, than grow more crops. This is the type of predatory capitalist practices for which we need regulation in the first place.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> These sorts of land use restrictions should be illegal An easier solution is mandatory sunsets after a period of time. Because the flip side of making them illegal is you'll have a lot more land with conservation easements being exploited for resources.
- TulliusCicero 2y ago
  That is indeed a downside, but the expectation there should be that the government should be restricting resource exploitation where that's undesirable.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > the expectation there should be that the government should be restricting resource exploitation where that's undesirable That's a system that fails more catasrophically than private easements.
    - daveguy 2y ago
      That's a bold statement. Would you mind providing an example or argument?
- mmanfrin 2y ago
  > conservation easements I.e. easements that come from law rather than seller stipulation? Seems an easy distinction to make.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > I.e. easements that come from law rather than seller stipulation? A lot of convservation land in America is put under non-governmental easement [1]. The owner puts a restriction on the deed prohibiting development. They typically require emininet domain powers to be removed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_easement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_easement
elihu 2y ago
It seems they already are illegal, at least in some jurisdictions. > "In June, for instance, Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who is also litigating against the merger, fined Albertsons $25,000 for imposing a land use restriction on a store it sold in 2018 in a low-income section of Bellingham, Washington. As part of the sale, the supermarket giant put a requirement on the deed that no grocery store could open there until 2038. Ferguson found this provision was a violation of the state antitrust law." The fine imposed doesn't seem all that significant though. Perhaps they could also be prosecuted under federal antitrust law?
- TulliusCicero 2y ago
  I'm curious, did that action also result in the requirement becoming invalid?
- dhfuuvyvtt 2y ago
  Precedent is the win, not the fine. Now anyone can file the same suit and they'll need to settle.
  - whythre 2y ago
    That depends on which court ruled against Albertsons in the above case. Higher courts are under no obligation to honor a lower court’s ruling; they can and do overturn them.
LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago
To stay with your car analogy... Your not stuck if you get an RV/Camper, and move with that, to whereever it fits (you).
nicknow 2y ago
There is a difference with an HOA. The HOA can be removed if enough members agree. It's not a restriction added by a past owner that can't be removed by the current owner.

gruez 2y ago

How are HOAs any different than a city council, except on a smaller scale? In both cases they're democratically elected, and they enact restrictions that can't be opted out of.

bluGill 2y ago
HOAs often enacts rules that would be illegal for a city council to enact. (between the US constitution, US federal laws, State constitution, State laws, and county laws there are often strict limits to what can be done that HOAs are not effected by). Courts have reigned in some of that, but there is still a lot that a HOA can do. HOAs also tend to be too small - it is hard to find someone qualified who wants to be in charge and so they are often forced to accept some busybody nobody really likes because at least that person wants the job. As you get larger you get a choice of qualified people for the job (but of course also large enough for corruption to take effect).
- Loughla 2y ago
  My sister just moved into a place that has an HOA. She's actively trying to get it suspended permanently. They live on a lake that attracts very aggressive Canadian geese. The geese do geese things like eat and poop lots of poop. The HOA fined them before they moved into the house for having goose poop in their back yard. For me, it's hilarious. I take handfuls of corn and stuff to throw around their backyard when I go visit. She has started a genuine campaign to have the HOA removed. She's so salty all the time now. It is top 10 things that has happened in my life.
  - searealist 2y ago
    I don't want to live in a neighborhood where my neighbor's yards are full of poop. This is true even if the unit is unoccupied.
    - AlexandrB 2y ago
      Goose poop is not very smelly since it's mostly fibre from their all-grass diet. It's not like a backyard full of dog poop. It's no worse than applying manure to fertilize the soil. Source: I've stepped in goose poop many, many times up here in Canada and it's the least bad poop to step in.
    - AngryData 2y ago
      If a deer walks through your yard and poops in it do you go out there and pick it up? Like these are wild animals, they aren't talking about a someone raising geese or something. Wild animals poop, it will quickly disintegrate into the soil. At worst you might run a lawn mower over it to spread it out better.
      - searealist 2y ago
        Yes. It's your responsibility to maintain your property if you choose to live in an HOA.
        kelnos 2y ago
- gruez 2y ago
  >HOAs often enacts rules that would be illegal for a city council to enact. (between the US constitution, US federal laws, State constitution, State laws, and county laws there are often strict limits to what can be done that HOAs are not effected by). Courts have reigned in some of that, but there is still a lot that a HOA can do. Can you give some examples that are applicable today? >HOAs also tend to be too small - it is hard to find someone qualified who wants to be in charge and so they are often forced to accept some busybody nobody really likes because at least that person wants the job. As you get larger you get a choice of qualified people for the job (but of course also large enough for corruption to take effect). This might vary on a state by state basis, but there are some pretty "cities" in some states. In Florida, there are plenty with population in the hundreds. In some cases it's due to it being rural, but there's plenty of cases where the city is simply small. For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briny_Breezes,_Florida https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briny_Breezes,_Florida more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_municipalities_in_Florida https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_municipalities_in_Flor...
  - dghlsakjg 2y ago
    > Can you give some examples that are applicable today? HOAs are pretty famously restrictive of free speech (house color restrictions, yard sign restrictions, political activism restrictions), and free association (visitor restrictions). Their are some speech restrictions that governments apply to historic structures, but you would have a hard time as a government trying to register the name of every visitor to a residence, or restricting hours that visitors can come, or how long they can stay, but those are all things that HOAs try to control.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >house color restrictions And have courts ruled that cities (or other governments) can't impose color restrictions? >yard sign restrictions, political activism restrictions Not sure what's meant by "political activism restrictions", but cities most definitely have restrictions on signs. You can't put a brightly flashing LED sign next to a busy intersection, or plant a billboard to make some money on the side. >and free association (visitor restrictions). ??? I've literally never encountered this, unless you count having to register to use the visitor parking.
- otterley 2y ago
  > between the US constitution, US federal laws, State constitution, State laws, and county laws there are often strict limits to what can be done that HOAs are not effected (sic) by HOAs cannot enforce rules that conflict with State or Federal law or the Constitution.
  - sokoloff 2y ago
    Are you sure [in the context of GP's claim]? The Federal government could not pass a law prohibiting me from painting my front door purple (that would be an infringement on my 1A rights). As I understand it, an HOA can enforce such a prohibition as a private entity (and use the courts to back them, ultimately).
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Federal government could not pass a law prohibiting me from painting my front door purple (that would be an infringement on my 1A rights) Uh, D.C. has plenty of aesthetic restrictions.
      - ttyprintk 2y ago
        Background: Washington, D.C. is not a state and in theory the US Congress performs state legislative practices for it. In practice, Congress has devolved civil policy to a mayor and devolved state court functions to a superior court. Purple door disputes wouldn’t be a Federal issue, but one of the D.C. superior court. The Feds have only intervened four times, and it was over much bigger features than HOAs. And the Supreme Court has actively closed loopholes where local issues relevant to any other state could become Federally interesting.
  - dmd 2y ago
    But they do, every day, because fighting is far more expensive than acceding.
    - ttyprintk 2y ago
colechristensen 2y ago
HOAs go well beyond what any government is allowed to impose on you. They don’t have to follow the same rules a government does.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
formation or joining of HOAs are entirely voluntary. On the other hand, cities can unilaterally claim jurisdiction. If you were to draw a comparison, HOAs are far more consensual.
- psunavy03 2y ago
  They're not really "voluntary" when the majority (if not all) of new construction uses them.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    it's still more voluntary than the city. An HOA can't claim a non HOA house. If you think avoiding an HOA is hard, do you really think it's easier to avoid a city government?
- DrillShopper 2y ago
  The basis of HOAs is a history of racial covenants. While facially racial covenants are illegal, the enforcement of HOA restrictions is based in racism so the entire concept is rotten to the core.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Nonsense. Theological concepts of original sin don't apply to contract law. Just because there were racist HOAs in the 1950s or whatever doesn't mean a new HOA is tainted. You're not even trying to make a logical argument

deprecative 2y ago

It's literally just capitalism. This is the point of the economic system. Why are people surprised? Is the propaganda just that good?

kulahan 2y ago
It's literally just regulatory capture. It has nothing to do with capitalism. In a truly capitalistic economy, there would be no regulations preventing competitors from coming in and creating competition. The propaganda doesn't have to be good when nobody understands what is and isn't capitalism anyways.
- falcolas 2y ago
  This isn't regulatory capture, this is deed restrictions. HOAs, water rights, mineral rights et.al. use this same mechanism.
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    To be honest, I think all of those should be abolished as well.
  - ttyprintk 2y ago
    That’s correct: Albertsons is responsible for upholding the deed restrictions, and can use any legal means to do so. The regulators could have said that a monopoly has grown too big to enjoy good standing in court, but instead of that they chose a small fee.
- immibis 2y ago
  When the incumbent owns the vacant lot, it's capitalism. Free formation of contracts (saying you promise not to open a grocery store there, in exchange for getting the land at all) is also a big part of capitalism.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  You are incorrect. This has nothing to do with regulations. It's the same as a farmer secretly buying up neighboring already irrigated fields from bankrupt farmers, and not planting on them in order to be able to raise the price on their own crops, assuming that the cost of importing the same crops from elsewhere is prohibitive and there is no other readily arable land nearby (thus they have a monopoly on the local market). So it's cheaper for them to leave the purchased fields fallow, and raise prices, than grow more crops. This is the type of predatory capitalist practices for which we need regulation in the first place.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> These sorts of land use restrictions should be illegal An easier solution is mandatory sunsets after a period of time. Because the flip side of making them illegal is you'll have a lot more land with conservation easements being exploited for resources.

TulliusCicero 2y ago
That is indeed a downside, but the expectation there should be that the government should be restricting resource exploitation where that's undesirable.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > the expectation there should be that the government should be restricting resource exploitation where that's undesirable That's a system that fails more catasrophically than private easements.
  - daveguy 2y ago
    That's a bold statement. Would you mind providing an example or argument?
mmanfrin 2y ago
> conservation easements I.e. easements that come from law rather than seller stipulation? Seems an easy distinction to make.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > I.e. easements that come from law rather than seller stipulation? A lot of convservation land in America is put under non-governmental easement [1]. The owner puts a restriction on the deed prohibiting development. They typically require emininet domain powers to be removed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_easement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_easement

elihu 2y ago

It seems they already are illegal, at least in some jurisdictions. > "In June, for instance, Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who is also litigating against the merger, fined Albertsons $25,000 for imposing a land use restriction on a store it sold in 2018 in a low-income section of Bellingham, Washington. As part of the sale, the supermarket giant put a requirement on the deed that no grocery store could open there until 2038. Ferguson found this provision was a violation of the state antitrust law." The fine imposed doesn't seem all that significant though. Perhaps they could also be prosecuted under federal antitrust law?

TulliusCicero 2y ago
I'm curious, did that action also result in the requirement becoming invalid?
dhfuuvyvtt 2y ago
Precedent is the win, not the fine. Now anyone can file the same suit and they'll need to settle.
- whythre 2y ago
  That depends on which court ruled against Albertsons in the above case. Higher courts are under no obligation to honor a lower court’s ruling; they can and do overturn them.

LargoLasskhyfv 2y ago

To stay with your car analogy... Your not stuck if you get an RV/Camper, and move with that, to whereever it fits (you).

nicknow 2y ago

There is a difference with an HOA. The HOA can be removed if enough members agree. It's not a restriction added by a past owner that can't be removed by the current owner.