3 ms·

<But that's just a straight-forward appeal-to-authority argument No, it isn't. It's a simple statement of contractual obligation. They signed a deed under the

<But that's just a straight-forward appeal-to-authority argument No, it isn't. It's a simple statement of contractual obligation. They signed a deed under the authority of an HOA so they are bound to obey the rules of the HOA. If you don't like that don't buy property beholden to an HOA.

jchw 2y ago
Yes. It's a simple statement of an obligation. The critique is against the existence of said obligation.
- toasterlovin 2y ago
  Which obligation you entered into willingly. So really you’re appealing to your own authority to legally bind yourself in contracts.
  - jchw 2y ago
    That isn't what is being questioned here. What we're calling into question the legitimacy of the agreements in the first place. When it brings up the story of the home owners unknowingly breaking their HOA agreement in the beginning, the point isn't that it's unreasonable to expect people to follow rules that they agreed to. It's really two things; it's that A.) They didn't even realize they agreed to those rules and B.) Those rules are, in our opinion, stupid and arguably harmful, and we don't have to allow them. Now you might argue, "Tough shit, their fault for agreeing to something without paying attention." I don't know if you guys happen to be homeowners, but I would dare you to even try to enumerate the number of obligations you've agreed to throughout the journey of buying a home. The enormous stack of paperwork you have to deal with is not exactly the easiest to digest, especially if you aren't a legal professional. It is fully understandable that someone would fail to grasp what they're getting into when they sign their HOA agreement, which I'm sure to many uninitiated people, is just another formality of home ownership. Most people are only aware of the practice of HOAs because of the pushback from normal people who assume when you buy a house and own land you generally are allowed to do what you want on it subject to some fairly basic legal requirements. And that's crap you have to read and understand in addition to hundreds of other such documents and contracts in your life. Cue the HumancentiPad episode of South Park here. And even if you do know what you're getting into, it might not exactly be something you want to get into. The housing market is not always in your favor, and these HOAs are quite prevalent in some localities. So while it's technically an agreement, it's often a begrudging one. People who wind up here often won't be caught by surprise by an HOA rule, like the case at the beginning of this article, but that doesn't mean they're any happier. The good news is, there is precedent here. We don't just let people agree to whatever they want, because the dynamics of some kinds of relationships are too ripe for abuse and negative outcomes for society. Just like how labor laws can restrict what employers can ask you to do, the law can also restrict what HOAs are allowed to enforce, and that's what we're after here. The rationale here is pretty straightforward; I don't give a shit about people's desire to live in neighborhoods with lawns that look like golf greens, but I do care about the ecological disaster that American lawns can be, especially depending on where you live. Now if you disagree with that premise, then fine, nobody says you have to agree with the article, and I'm not trying to convince anyone to either, but this line of argument is offensively missing the point. I promise you, nobody is misunderstanding how an agreement works.
  - watwut 2y ago
    Not when municipalities demand HOA and consequently you don't have much choice. This is not option people take because they want to, that something people have to enter because there is little other choice.

jchw 2y ago

Yes. It's a simple statement of an obligation. The critique is against the existence of said obligation.

toasterlovin 2y ago
Which obligation you entered into willingly. So really you’re appealing to your own authority to legally bind yourself in contracts.
- jchw 2y ago
  That isn't what is being questioned here. What we're calling into question the legitimacy of the agreements in the first place. When it brings up the story of the home owners unknowingly breaking their HOA agreement in the beginning, the point isn't that it's unreasonable to expect people to follow rules that they agreed to. It's really two things; it's that A.) They didn't even realize they agreed to those rules and B.) Those rules are, in our opinion, stupid and arguably harmful, and we don't have to allow them. Now you might argue, "Tough shit, their fault for agreeing to something without paying attention." I don't know if you guys happen to be homeowners, but I would dare you to even try to enumerate the number of obligations you've agreed to throughout the journey of buying a home. The enormous stack of paperwork you have to deal with is not exactly the easiest to digest, especially if you aren't a legal professional. It is fully understandable that someone would fail to grasp what they're getting into when they sign their HOA agreement, which I'm sure to many uninitiated people, is just another formality of home ownership. Most people are only aware of the practice of HOAs because of the pushback from normal people who assume when you buy a house and own land you generally are allowed to do what you want on it subject to some fairly basic legal requirements. And that's crap you have to read and understand in addition to hundreds of other such documents and contracts in your life. Cue the HumancentiPad episode of South Park here. And even if you do know what you're getting into, it might not exactly be something you want to get into. The housing market is not always in your favor, and these HOAs are quite prevalent in some localities. So while it's technically an agreement, it's often a begrudging one. People who wind up here often won't be caught by surprise by an HOA rule, like the case at the beginning of this article, but that doesn't mean they're any happier. The good news is, there is precedent here. We don't just let people agree to whatever they want, because the dynamics of some kinds of relationships are too ripe for abuse and negative outcomes for society. Just like how labor laws can restrict what employers can ask you to do, the law can also restrict what HOAs are allowed to enforce, and that's what we're after here. The rationale here is pretty straightforward; I don't give a shit about people's desire to live in neighborhoods with lawns that look like golf greens, but I do care about the ecological disaster that American lawns can be, especially depending on where you live. Now if you disagree with that premise, then fine, nobody says you have to agree with the article, and I'm not trying to convince anyone to either, but this line of argument is offensively missing the point. I promise you, nobody is misunderstanding how an agreement works.
- watwut 2y ago
  Not when municipalities demand HOA and consequently you don't have much choice. This is not option people take because they want to, that something people have to enter because there is little other choice.