8 ms·

Florida lawmaker floats ban on HOAs amid growing backlash

56 points by bilsbie 1y ago

techpineapple 1y ago
Don’t threaten me with a good time.
justarobert 1y ago
First good idea out of Florida in a long time
ajsnigrutin 1y ago
The problem is always with the extremes. On one side, you have someone creating a car junkyard in his frontyard with a car tire bonfire behind his house and on the other, you have a random karen neigbor measuring your lawn greenness and soil humidity to see if you're not watering the lawn enough and fine your for that. Take the power from a few powertrippers and make it more democratic and you solve both issues... turn every issue into a mandatory vote, require some kind of above-majority vote (eg 70%), and you're done. If the issue is so bad, that 70% of your neighbors actually come to a meeting and vote against what you're doing, it must be something really bad.
- next_xibalba 1y ago
  I lived next to a guy who would do maintenance and repair on his motorcycle which had “pipes” until nearly midnight. I would’ve killed for an HOA back then.
  - AdmiralAsshat 1y ago
    I live in a neighborhood with an HOA, next to a guy who works on his motorcycle all day, loudly blaring his awful music, and then waking us up at 5 AM every morning when he drives the bike to work. The HOA will break down my door about grass that is not strictly manicured, or about some algae on my front siding, but you know the one thing they will not lift a finger about? Noise complaints. Funny, that.
  - olddustytrail 1y ago
    Why not kill the guy with the motorbike and cut out the middleman?
    - next_xibalba 1y ago
      It's the libertarian dream. Unfortunately, the state has an outrageous monopoly on violence.
      - olddustytrail 1y ago
        Outrageous government overreach. Why can't you just choose the corporation to pay the weregild? It would be far more efficient!
        next_xibalba 1y ago
        If we can put it on the blockchain and power it with genAI, I’ve got a term sheet for you!
  - NoGravitas 1y ago
    Your city/county police don't take noise complaints?
- mschuster91 1y ago
  > If the issue is so bad, that 70% of your neighbors actually come to a meeting and vote against what you're doing, it must be something really bad. Two dangers with that. First, mandatory votes are ... difficult. They exclude a lot of people, particularly those that gotta work two jobs to make ends meet, thus giving more power to those people who have lots of free time (i.e. pensioners, SAHM busybodies). Second, tyranny of the majority. The original intention of HOAs was to keep out Black and Asian people and, in some cases, Jews [1]. Getting the majority of 70% in a majority white 'hood is an open invitation for harrassment. If there is bad behavior, such as someone working on "car projects" at night, or letting junk pile up in their front yard, the solution is zoning, noise ordnances and environmental protection laws. Not HOAs. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_association#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_association#History
  - ajsnigrutin 1y ago
    But that's exactly why you need the 70% (example number). The current situation is, that you have pensoners, SAHM, racists and others bothering with HOA and then bothering the neighbors. The HOA board might be full of them, or consist only of them, but they don't make up the (eg.) 70% of total inhabitants of whatever neighborhood (except maybe in some extreme cases). To get such a majority, even "the others" would have to be bothered by <something> so much, that they would be willing to go out and vote (voting can be done in a way that even people with two jobs can do it, especially if vote secrecy is not required). If some Karen is bothered by a slighly brownish lawn during a draught, most people wouldn't bother and getting 70% of them to vote would be impossible. If it was a serious issue, then people would bother more.
    - mschuster91 1y ago
      > To get such a majority, even "the others" would have to be bothered by <something> so much, that they would be willing to go out and vote Forcing mandatory attendance for HOA votes won't work out, that's the thing. Too many cases of remote landlords, properties stuck in inheritance limbo, or even First Amendment issues (can you be compelled to make speech, aka participate in a vote?). Requiring a "70% of all owner shares" would flat out kill most HOAs, and requiring a "70% of present owner shares" perpetuates the status quo of giving disproportionate amounts of power to the usual suspects.
- vharuck 1y ago
  That sounds suspiciously like democratically enacting local government ordinances.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- darth_avocado 1y ago
  Getting people to vote on things for their own Benefit is surprisingly hard. My parents’ condo association is constantly fighting each other because increasing monthly dues requires 70% vote and people have been refusing year after year. And what does increase year after year is maintenance requirements. First the nice to have amenities stopped. Then the elevators stopped. Now it’s 24x7 running water because the association doesn’t have money to fix the motors. Now they’re all trying to get the building to be sold so that it can be developed into an even bigger apartment building and that is also failing because it requires 75% vote. Imagine you voting against getting a brand new apartment in 3 years that’s larger in size and you get your rent paid while it’s being built.
- llm_nerd 1y ago
  No idea why you're being downvoted, as this is 100% correct. HOAs are one of those things that seemingly no one likes, but then people look to buy a house and think it's just some weird coincidence that all of the "nice" neighbourhoods have HOAs. Everyone loves HOAs stopping their neighbours from doing obnoxious things, but are sure that the things they do should be immune from HOA influence. And FWIW, I live in Canada and here HOAs are very uncommon in subdivisions (though of course condo towers and townhouse complexes with common property and needs have strata/boards that are basically HOAs), because instead municipalities usually have many of the same sort of rules regarding how you upkeep your property, inoperable cars, etc, even if it impinges on "property rights". Indeed, exactly the same stories happen where there are tearjerker stories about how mean the city is bugging someone about their unkempt lawn or junkers in the laneway, when the city in question is coincidentally one of the most desirable cities to live in. It's like people think these are just unrelated things, when the former often follows from the latter.
  - wat10000 1y ago
    The “nice” neighborhoods often have HOAs because the government requires new developments to have HOAs as a condition for approving construction. They do this because it saves money by having the HOA maintain things instead of the government. I live in a delightful neighborhood with no HOA. There are great non-HOA neighborhoods all over for miles around. You know what the real common denominator is for nice neighborhoods? Wealth. That’s it. If you want a nice place, have money and move somewhere other people have money too.
- NoGravitas 1y ago
  Cities and counties have code enforcement to deal with the first case. You don't need another level of unaccountable private government between you and the county.
mschuster91 1y ago
> In Riverview, HOA disputes escalated into arrests and foreclosure threats. One homeowner was jailed for a week over brown grass, while another faced a lien and thousands in legal fees tied to her house paint. What, excuse me, the hell? I thought "debtor's prison" was outlawed centuries ago?
- RandomBacon 1y ago
  IIRC, they missed their court appearance and a bench warrant was issued.
  - jordanb 1y ago
    Debtors prison with extra steps?
  - javier_e06 1y ago
    VISA cannot sue me for not paying my cc. It can ruin my credit history but it cannot sue me. Wells Fargo cannot sue me for missing mortgage payments, It may repo the house but not sue me. If HOA's can sue a home owner for breach of contract, who would like to live with that hanging over their heads.
    - hollerith 1y ago
      In the US, VISA or the issuing bank can and routinely does sue card holders who do not pay. Well, usually they sell the debt to firms that specialize in collection of delinquent debts, but the effect is the same.
    - razakel 1y ago
      Your bank absolutely can and will sue you for not paying your CC. What they can't do is have you thrown in jail for not showing up to court - they'll just win by default.
bearjaws 1y ago
There will need to be some sort of carve out for towers, condos, townhomes etc. I cannot imagine running a building without an HOA, or some form of it. Who pays for the external repairs? Who pays for shared staff? AC units for a highrise are $2-5M, who is saving for that? This is just typical lawmaker BS, "oh I am going to do away with it", no real plan. If anything just remove the HOA bylaws that are clearly violating peoples rights, like not being able to have cars in your drive way or only display flags certain ways.
- reactordev 1y ago
  Those things are usually rentals here in Florida. HOAs are a real problem here due to the legal protection they have. They can literally take your house because your mailbox is blue.
  - zug_zug 1y ago
    Maybe just take away that protection? Where I live nobody is losing a house for having the wrong color mailbox, but there are certain historical protected areas where beauty is an externality — you can’t demolish a historic house in the middle of the beautiful downtown
  - squigz 1y ago
    > They can literally take your house because your mailbox is blue. This is hard to believe. Have you got a source?
    - bane 1y ago
      One of the remedies HOAs typically possess is the ability to put a lien on your property. The end game to one of these liens can be complicated, but losing your house is among them.
      - TylerE 1y ago
        There’s like 5 intermediate steps you’re just sort of glossing over there. This is like saying the inevitable result of a paper cut is losing the entire arm to gangrene.
Zigurd 1y ago
HOAs are benevolent dictatorships. That's supposed to be better than democracy. What could possibly go wrong?
- praptak 1y ago
  We don't have a procedure to reliably establish a benevolent dictatorship.
- NegativeK 1y ago
  Every HOA I've lived in had an elected board. And everyone I've ever heard complain about HOAs has never tried to serve on the board. They're not universally volunteer orgs, but a _lot_ of them are -- which means that if you run, you'll probably be elected, because nobody else wants to deal with that. HOAs are small governments, with plenty of the problems of larger governments via unhappy but nonparticipatory voters.
  - Zigurd 1y ago
    The problem is that they are untethered from other governments. Or at least less tethered. Contracts aren't constitutions or laws. There might be some benefits to that, but the downsides can be pretty outrageous.
dgfitz 1y ago
One of my only stipulations when buying a SFH for just myself at the time, 15 years ago, was no HOA. Sure I also wanted 1 full bath, a driveway, and a not-awful commute. HOAs were an instant “nope” for any listing I came across.
phendrenad2 1y ago
Don't ban it, just add a mandatory warning form that the seller of a HOA-encumbered house must get the buyer to sign. Treat it like asbestos or lead.
7174n6 1y ago
This is a huge problem in Pennsylvania also, but most of the municipalities have abdicated significant maintenance responsibilities to HOAs. They refuse to take over roads, retention ponds, and common land areas requiring the HOA to cover maintenance. Snow removal from "public" roads and landscaping of "common areas" is a significant cost for HOAs. If the municipalitiies are forced to take these dutues over it's going to be a huge hit to their budgets. I'd think this would be a hard sell to most politicians in PA.
- paul7986 1y ago
  Not here in Southern York County, PA. I would not buy any house in an HOA and all houses i have bought (sold) were not in an HOA in the various towns here.
- DanielHB 1y ago
  It is well known that all the suburbs in the US are just an economic time-bomb waiting to happen due to the maintenance cost of the public amenities (especially when water/sewage/electricity infra). Seems fair that the people who actually live in them are the ones paying for the costs instead of spreading it over to all residents of the city. Maybe we will see some suburbs converted to more dense housing once the public infrastructure needs to be replaced.
honeybadger1 1y ago
i'm ready for this new revolution that breaks hoas. i was on the board of an HOA for about 2 years for the property i own in atlanta and i figured out really quickly it is a way for the eldest residents with more capitol than the youth to essentially drain the financial life from them and protect themselves from change or new ideas. behind closed doors saying things like "that rule only exist when we don't like someone and helps us be able to get rid of them", "it's supposed to be a fair process but we just let the tenants we like and prefer know first, we will send everyone a letter so it's too late for them to respond against it". It's a small scale dictatorship.
tallanvor 1y ago
The problem you'll run into is when the HOAs are responsible for common areas or shared infrastructure. In some places the HOAs are responsible for the roads and there may be a common pool, gym, or other amenities. You'd be better off preventing HOAs from doing petty things like requiring homes to be painted certain colors and requiring them to have their books audited yearly to ensure there's no fraud or abuse going on.
- wat10000 1y ago
  We used to have local governments provide that sort of thing (and still do to an extent). One reason for the prevalence of HOAs is that they have a much easier time keeping out the riffraff with uncomfortably dark skin, but maybe people will just have to put up with them.
  - immibis 1y ago
    That can now be done at the state level.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- beAbU 1y ago
  Pretty wild that HOAs are not required to have audited books. Where I'm from HOAs are regulated by law, is registered as a legal entity, and therefore needs audited financials submitted to the tax man every year. There is also a very powerful ombud created to mediate and resolve the kind of hoa horror story bullshit we often hear about online.
- techpineapple 1y ago
  Privatize it. If I want the road in front of my house fixed, I'll pay for it, I can get a pool membership, gym membership, or other amenities ad-hoc. Fuck the HoA.
qualeed 1y ago
As a non-American, I've always been surprised with how common HOAs are, and how over-bearing they seem. I know that I only hear about the crazy ones because blogs about normal/good HOAs aren't going viral, but I've seen enough horror stories that if I ever moved to the US I would do my best to avoid one like the plague.
- organsnyder 1y ago
  They're not common everywhere in the US. Here in West Michigan I don't know of anyone that's part of one (other than condo associations, where it's part of the selling point).
- bane 1y ago
  In some places they act as a kind of local governing authority similar to a town or village council. In much of the US the lowest level of governing body us the county, and those can be pretty huge and diverse areas so HOAs are used to fill that gap.
  - wat10000 1y ago
    I live in a county with more population than most cities. It works fine. What gap would need to be filled?
  - qualeed 1y ago
    Sure, I guess I can kind of understand that. It's just not something I've experienced. I've never felt that there was a "gap" that needed to be filled. Especially not by a group that can also tell me that my paint has to be a certain color or whatever.
    - judge2020 1y ago
      Things like maintaining a community’s cohesiveness (eg via restricting exterior cosmetic changes, requiring lawn maintenance, etc) are in the HOA contract in an effort to maintain/increase the community’s home values over time. And, of course, people can choose not to buy a home in a community like this if they don’t agree to the provisions of the HOA. Even before the 2021 surge in home values, homes on city streets almost never saw as much growth in value (except for homes in the heart of metro areas where people will pay for location to work. On suburban city blocks, home values are often stagnant even in good markets)
farceSpherule 1y ago
PSA: never serve on an HOA board in Florida. You can be individually named in lawsuits involving the HOA.
OptionOfT 1y ago
In Phoenix developers cannot build new communities without HOAs. Even if your HOA is not gated and doesn't have a clubhouse, not a pool, it is the HOA that is responsible for maintaining the streets and parks. But... that is normally paid for by tax money. Yet the home owner's taxes in those communities are not lower. So the city is double dipping.
- judge2020 1y ago
  Typically there is a special tax assessment district when inside city limits - for example, my property in Georgia inside an HOA has a city millage of 0.003, but the streets of the community were indeed deeded to the city. On the other hand, if someone wants to build not actually inside city limits, of course they’ll need to pay for their own roads and utility maintenance since the county isn’t responsible for things like that.
GenerWork 1y ago
You can avoid this by not buying a home that is covered by a HOA. Snark aside, it's clear this guy hasn't thought out how condos will operate without a HOA. Going after SFH HOAs may be the best initial play here.
- wolrah 1y ago
  > You can avoid this by not buying a home that is covered by a HOA. In many areas these either do not exist or are limited to only older construction. I haven't seen a single '90s or newer neighborhood in my home shopping that didn't have one. Developers love the stupid things because it allows them greater control over how the neighborhood looks to potential buyers while they're still selling lots, and they're mandatory for new developments in some areas where the local government (reasonably) doesn't want to take on more road/utility/etc maintenance but isn't willing to actually stop sprawl. > Snark aside, it's clear this guy hasn't thought out how condos will operate without a HOA. Going after SFH HOAs may be the best initial play here. Someone else noted that in Florida the term "HOA" specifically refers to the kind affecting single-family homes. Condos have "COAs" apparently.
drewg123 1y ago
What I found ironic when I moved to suburban Virginia is that the same Tea Party, "Don't Tread on Me" conservatives that want to dismantle government love HOAs. I lived in a neighborhood full of them, with the most strict and annoying HOA. We were forced to wait several weeks to replace an actively leaking roof b/c the HOA had to sign off on the shingles -- even though they were the same color/size/etc as the shingles that the house was built with. When we bought the house, the previous owner had to pay fines for installing a fenced doghouse in his back yard w/o their permission. I really enjoyed it when a halfway house managed to find a loophole in their rules and rented a house down the street. That HOA tried and failed to kick them out..
- nkrisc 1y ago
  > "Don't Tread on Me" It's right there in the name: don't tread on me, not us. Rules for thee, not for me.
  - maxerickson 1y ago
    This sort of glib banality is tiresome.
    - jurking_hoff 1y ago
      [dead]
- _9ptr 1y ago
  Well, it's different if you're the government
firesteelrain 1y ago
I am a BOD and Officer in a HOA. This will be messy - we would have to sell all of our common amenities, parking lots, overflow parking lots, playgrounds, gym, pools etc to the government or a private company if this happens. County would have to take over maintenance of our platted common property and property that we mow (and get paid for) by the County. County would have to step up enforcement of parking on street rules, trespassing on what would become County property. What do we do with the $500k we have the operating funds and reserves collected over the past 40 years? County would have to find another place to do their voting as we have offered our clubhouse for years. We would have to fire our LCAM. County would have to maintain some expensive drainage and ponds that our HOA manages. Fountains. Weir replacement alone is $250k that we keep up. Yes, reform HOA laws but abolishing them I am not sure is the right thing to do. It would create such a massive mess and requirement for Counties to maintain things that they don’t currently manage. It may lead to these areas to incorporate because then you would end up with City based code enforcement. HOA reserve funds (not Condo) needs to be relooked at. We have healthy reserves because we have been keeping on top of reserve studies. Be careful what you ask for is all I am saying.
- gwbas1c 1y ago
  > What do we do with the $500k we have the operating funds and reserves collected over the past 40 years? Uhm, return it to the property owners? The real pattern is that HOAs have been abusing their power; or in other cases are required because municipalities don't want to do their job. As a result the lawmakers will, unfortunately, overcorrect.
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    What property owners is my point? Many are long gone and the (now) $175 a quarter we charge goes towards the common amenities. What would happen is we would have to surrender those funds to the State. So this would lead to a huge windfall for the State. States have rules for what happens when a HOA dissolves. That means the money goes right to the State including the sale of the common property.
IndrekR 1y ago
HOA = Homeowner association Took me a while to figure this out.
scarface_74 1y ago
I lived in an HOA community for eight years and I have mixed feelings. So many things can go wrong without one - old cars in the front yard, political signs (I don’t care what your political persuasion is they are tacky), yard not being kept. HOAs suck. But so do people. As another poster said, there are shared responsibility parts in some neighborhoods like pools, gyms, tennis courts etc
- NegativeK 1y ago
  I'd be super happy if the local government managed the infrastructure and shared spaces of our neighborhood. But they can't raise the taxes to do so, so HOAs end up being the smaller government that people say they want but, in practice, get zero participation from the residents and can turn into shit shows.
  - scarface_74 1y ago
    So taxpayers should be responsible for infrastructure that can only be used by owners of houses in the neighborhood?
bee_rider 1y ago
I wonder if this could be part of the Florida/Disney spat? Are some of Disney’s properties under HOA? Just random speculation, I haven’t been following it too closely. But, always got to be suspicious of a politician who suggests something that seems popular.
- wonderwonder 1y ago
  That issue was resolved several years ago. Both sides have moved on.
trbleclef 1y ago
In Florida, condominium associations (COA) and homeowners associations (HOA) are not legally the same thing, but in discussions like this people often refer to them interchangeably. There is a big difference between an HOA requiring mowed lawns and paint colors and a COA that maintains roofs, pools, playgrounds, common elements, etc. People will refer to Surfside as a reason HOAs are important but the Champlain Towers was a condo.
gwbas1c 1y ago
I volunteered to run my HOA in Massachusetts because I was afraid someone would come in and abuse their power and fine everyone for trivial matters. What I learned was that the town "forces" all new developments to have an HOA because town politics prevents the town from adopting roads from new housing developments. Thus all new neighborhoods in the town have "private" roads. It's a lot of "BS" work that's pushed on residents simply because of malfunctioning politics.
- danaris 1y ago
  Sounds to me like the more effective use of residents' time would be to get several of them together to run for town office and break the deadlocks. Assuming you can contact enough other frustrated HOA members and get them onboard, even if the problem is several town board members (or whatever body it is), it could be possible to replace them with sane people.
  - gwbas1c 1y ago
    I don't want to say too much because it would reveal where I live. But, to be general, my town has a very unique political system where a plurality of voters is the deadlock. Basically, to break the deadlock, it would require a very large plurality of people to overrule a large group of retirees who have nothing better to do but reject adopting our private roads.
wonderwonder 1y ago
There has to be nuance. If a community has shared areas then there has to be an organization to maintain and service them and that org. requires funding. This is especially true with Condo style communities. To attempt to shut that management down and replace it with either voluntary fees or some other solution seems destined to fail or to lead to outright war amongst the residents as those that don't contribute continue to use the facilities. Things start to get a little more complex with SFR communities. I have always intentionally chosen communities where there is no HOA. I have no interest in someone telling me what I can and cannot do with the property I own. This of course means that I have always intentionally purchased in areas with no common spaces. I make sure to drive the area carefully first to see who lives there and the condition of the homes. Of course this could go wrong; nothing stopping someone from selling and the new owner paints his house purple and green and changes his oil in his front yard. Its a price I am open to paying though to ensure that my property is mine fully beside government control. My MIL has a HOA and they determine what color residents can paint their homes, the type of roof tile, etc. They also have gated entrances though with security that checks Id's for entrance. No way to run that without some sort of HOA like organization. If someone wants to live in this type of community then no reason to stop it, each to their own. My major personal issue with HOA's is when they mandate the type of fencing you can have, often requiring open fences that provide no privacy. I want tall 6+ foot solid fences and even taller plant life. The more privacy I can implement the better. I am also getting a pool built and its nice knowing that no one else can have input over it except the city permitting office. I would be good with a law that says an existing community without an HOA cannot create one without 100% of the homeowners agreeing. That seems like something worth considering. Other than that its a complicated situation that I just don't think a quick law for cudos is going to solve. Simply banning something seems... not well thought out.
josefritzishere 1y ago
We need a federal level HOA ban. They serve no productive purpose. When people defend HOAs that usually boils down to them feeling like they have some right to tell other people how to live.
- delichon 1y ago
  Our HOA maintains the roads and the community water system. The county is unwilling to do either. Without the HOA I'd need a specialized vehicle to get through the mud to my driveway in the rainy season, and I'd have to haul in my water, because it's too deep for me to afford a well. So I'd probably end up living elsewhere.
  - NoGravitas 1y ago
    Those are both functions of the local government. If the county approved the development, they need to maintain the infrastructure.
bediger4000 1y ago
I live in an old neighborhood (1890s) so I'm not very familiar with HOAs, but I assumed they were the ideal solution: small government, very local, voluntary, and not government at all, they're private. These are attributes I was told made for ideal situations. What (or who!) causes this mechanism to fail?

56 points by bilsbie 1y ago

techpineapple 1y ago

Don’t threaten me with a good time.

justarobert 1y ago

First good idea out of Florida in a long time

ajsnigrutin 1y ago

The problem is always with the extremes. On one side, you have someone creating a car junkyard in his frontyard with a car tire bonfire behind his house and on the other, you have a random karen neigbor measuring your lawn greenness and soil humidity to see if you're not watering the lawn enough and fine your for that. Take the power from a few powertrippers and make it more democratic and you solve both issues... turn every issue into a mandatory vote, require some kind of above-majority vote (eg 70%), and you're done. If the issue is so bad, that 70% of your neighbors actually come to a meeting and vote against what you're doing, it must be something really bad.

next_xibalba 1y ago
I lived next to a guy who would do maintenance and repair on his motorcycle which had “pipes” until nearly midnight. I would’ve killed for an HOA back then.
- AdmiralAsshat 1y ago
  I live in a neighborhood with an HOA, next to a guy who works on his motorcycle all day, loudly blaring his awful music, and then waking us up at 5 AM every morning when he drives the bike to work. The HOA will break down my door about grass that is not strictly manicured, or about some algae on my front siding, but you know the one thing they will not lift a finger about? Noise complaints. Funny, that.
- olddustytrail 1y ago
  Why not kill the guy with the motorbike and cut out the middleman?
  - next_xibalba 1y ago
    It's the libertarian dream. Unfortunately, the state has an outrageous monopoly on violence.
    - olddustytrail 1y ago
      Outrageous government overreach. Why can't you just choose the corporation to pay the weregild? It would be far more efficient!
      - next_xibalba 1y ago
        If we can put it on the blockchain and power it with genAI, I’ve got a term sheet for you!
- NoGravitas 1y ago
  Your city/county police don't take noise complaints?
mschuster91 1y ago
> If the issue is so bad, that 70% of your neighbors actually come to a meeting and vote against what you're doing, it must be something really bad. Two dangers with that. First, mandatory votes are ... difficult. They exclude a lot of people, particularly those that gotta work two jobs to make ends meet, thus giving more power to those people who have lots of free time (i.e. pensioners, SAHM busybodies). Second, tyranny of the majority. The original intention of HOAs was to keep out Black and Asian people and, in some cases, Jews [1]. Getting the majority of 70% in a majority white 'hood is an open invitation for harrassment. If there is bad behavior, such as someone working on "car projects" at night, or letting junk pile up in their front yard, the solution is zoning, noise ordnances and environmental protection laws. Not HOAs. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_association#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_association#History
- ajsnigrutin 1y ago
  But that's exactly why you need the 70% (example number). The current situation is, that you have pensoners, SAHM, racists and others bothering with HOA and then bothering the neighbors. The HOA board might be full of them, or consist only of them, but they don't make up the (eg.) 70% of total inhabitants of whatever neighborhood (except maybe in some extreme cases). To get such a majority, even "the others" would have to be bothered by <something> so much, that they would be willing to go out and vote (voting can be done in a way that even people with two jobs can do it, especially if vote secrecy is not required). If some Karen is bothered by a slighly brownish lawn during a draught, most people wouldn't bother and getting 70% of them to vote would be impossible. If it was a serious issue, then people would bother more.
  - mschuster91 1y ago
    > To get such a majority, even "the others" would have to be bothered by <something> so much, that they would be willing to go out and vote Forcing mandatory attendance for HOA votes won't work out, that's the thing. Too many cases of remote landlords, properties stuck in inheritance limbo, or even First Amendment issues (can you be compelled to make speech, aka participate in a vote?). Requiring a "70% of all owner shares" would flat out kill most HOAs, and requiring a "70% of present owner shares" perpetuates the status quo of giving disproportionate amounts of power to the usual suspects.
vharuck 1y ago
That sounds suspiciously like democratically enacting local government ordinances.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
darth_avocado 1y ago
Getting people to vote on things for their own Benefit is surprisingly hard. My parents’ condo association is constantly fighting each other because increasing monthly dues requires 70% vote and people have been refusing year after year. And what does increase year after year is maintenance requirements. First the nice to have amenities stopped. Then the elevators stopped. Now it’s 24x7 running water because the association doesn’t have money to fix the motors. Now they’re all trying to get the building to be sold so that it can be developed into an even bigger apartment building and that is also failing because it requires 75% vote. Imagine you voting against getting a brand new apartment in 3 years that’s larger in size and you get your rent paid while it’s being built.
llm_nerd 1y ago
No idea why you're being downvoted, as this is 100% correct. HOAs are one of those things that seemingly no one likes, but then people look to buy a house and think it's just some weird coincidence that all of the "nice" neighbourhoods have HOAs. Everyone loves HOAs stopping their neighbours from doing obnoxious things, but are sure that the things they do should be immune from HOA influence. And FWIW, I live in Canada and here HOAs are very uncommon in subdivisions (though of course condo towers and townhouse complexes with common property and needs have strata/boards that are basically HOAs), because instead municipalities usually have many of the same sort of rules regarding how you upkeep your property, inoperable cars, etc, even if it impinges on "property rights". Indeed, exactly the same stories happen where there are tearjerker stories about how mean the city is bugging someone about their unkempt lawn or junkers in the laneway, when the city in question is coincidentally one of the most desirable cities to live in. It's like people think these are just unrelated things, when the former often follows from the latter.
- wat10000 1y ago
  The “nice” neighborhoods often have HOAs because the government requires new developments to have HOAs as a condition for approving construction. They do this because it saves money by having the HOA maintain things instead of the government. I live in a delightful neighborhood with no HOA. There are great non-HOA neighborhoods all over for miles around. You know what the real common denominator is for nice neighborhoods? Wealth. That’s it. If you want a nice place, have money and move somewhere other people have money too.
NoGravitas 1y ago
Cities and counties have code enforcement to deal with the first case. You don't need another level of unaccountable private government between you and the county.

mschuster91 1y ago

> In Riverview, HOA disputes escalated into arrests and foreclosure threats. One homeowner was jailed for a week over brown grass, while another faced a lien and thousands in legal fees tied to her house paint. What, excuse me, the hell? I thought "debtor's prison" was outlawed centuries ago?

RandomBacon 1y ago
IIRC, they missed their court appearance and a bench warrant was issued.
- jordanb 1y ago
  Debtors prison with extra steps?
- javier_e06 1y ago
  VISA cannot sue me for not paying my cc. It can ruin my credit history but it cannot sue me. Wells Fargo cannot sue me for missing mortgage payments, It may repo the house but not sue me. If HOA's can sue a home owner for breach of contract, who would like to live with that hanging over their heads.
  - hollerith 1y ago
    In the US, VISA or the issuing bank can and routinely does sue card holders who do not pay. Well, usually they sell the debt to firms that specialize in collection of delinquent debts, but the effect is the same.
  - razakel 1y ago
    Your bank absolutely can and will sue you for not paying your CC. What they can't do is have you thrown in jail for not showing up to court - they'll just win by default.

bearjaws 1y ago

There will need to be some sort of carve out for towers, condos, townhomes etc. I cannot imagine running a building without an HOA, or some form of it. Who pays for the external repairs? Who pays for shared staff? AC units for a highrise are $2-5M, who is saving for that? This is just typical lawmaker BS, "oh I am going to do away with it", no real plan. If anything just remove the HOA bylaws that are clearly violating peoples rights, like not being able to have cars in your drive way or only display flags certain ways.

reactordev 1y ago
Those things are usually rentals here in Florida. HOAs are a real problem here due to the legal protection they have. They can literally take your house because your mailbox is blue.
- zug_zug 1y ago
  Maybe just take away that protection? Where I live nobody is losing a house for having the wrong color mailbox, but there are certain historical protected areas where beauty is an externality — you can’t demolish a historic house in the middle of the beautiful downtown
- squigz 1y ago
  > They can literally take your house because your mailbox is blue. This is hard to believe. Have you got a source?
  - bane 1y ago
    One of the remedies HOAs typically possess is the ability to put a lien on your property. The end game to one of these liens can be complicated, but losing your house is among them.
    - TylerE 1y ago
      There’s like 5 intermediate steps you’re just sort of glossing over there. This is like saying the inevitable result of a paper cut is losing the entire arm to gangrene.

Zigurd 1y ago

HOAs are benevolent dictatorships. That's supposed to be better than democracy. What could possibly go wrong?

praptak 1y ago
We don't have a procedure to reliably establish a benevolent dictatorship.
NegativeK 1y ago
Every HOA I've lived in had an elected board. And everyone I've ever heard complain about HOAs has never tried to serve on the board. They're not universally volunteer orgs, but a _lot_ of them are -- which means that if you run, you'll probably be elected, because nobody else wants to deal with that. HOAs are small governments, with plenty of the problems of larger governments via unhappy but nonparticipatory voters.
- Zigurd 1y ago
  The problem is that they are untethered from other governments. Or at least less tethered. Contracts aren't constitutions or laws. There might be some benefits to that, but the downsides can be pretty outrageous.

dgfitz 1y ago

One of my only stipulations when buying a SFH for just myself at the time, 15 years ago, was no HOA. Sure I also wanted 1 full bath, a driveway, and a not-awful commute. HOAs were an instant “nope” for any listing I came across.

phendrenad2 1y ago

Don't ban it, just add a mandatory warning form that the seller of a HOA-encumbered house must get the buyer to sign. Treat it like asbestos or lead.

7174n6 1y ago

This is a huge problem in Pennsylvania also, but most of the municipalities have abdicated significant maintenance responsibilities to HOAs. They refuse to take over roads, retention ponds, and common land areas requiring the HOA to cover maintenance. Snow removal from "public" roads and landscaping of "common areas" is a significant cost for HOAs. If the municipalitiies are forced to take these dutues over it's going to be a huge hit to their budgets. I'd think this would be a hard sell to most politicians in PA.

paul7986 1y ago
Not here in Southern York County, PA. I would not buy any house in an HOA and all houses i have bought (sold) were not in an HOA in the various towns here.
DanielHB 1y ago
It is well known that all the suburbs in the US are just an economic time-bomb waiting to happen due to the maintenance cost of the public amenities (especially when water/sewage/electricity infra). Seems fair that the people who actually live in them are the ones paying for the costs instead of spreading it over to all residents of the city. Maybe we will see some suburbs converted to more dense housing once the public infrastructure needs to be replaced.

honeybadger1 1y ago

i'm ready for this new revolution that breaks hoas. i was on the board of an HOA for about 2 years for the property i own in atlanta and i figured out really quickly it is a way for the eldest residents with more capitol than the youth to essentially drain the financial life from them and protect themselves from change or new ideas. behind closed doors saying things like "that rule only exist when we don't like someone and helps us be able to get rid of them", "it's supposed to be a fair process but we just let the tenants we like and prefer know first, we will send everyone a letter so it's too late for them to respond against it". It's a small scale dictatorship.

tallanvor 1y ago

The problem you'll run into is when the HOAs are responsible for common areas or shared infrastructure. In some places the HOAs are responsible for the roads and there may be a common pool, gym, or other amenities. You'd be better off preventing HOAs from doing petty things like requiring homes to be painted certain colors and requiring them to have their books audited yearly to ensure there's no fraud or abuse going on.

wat10000 1y ago
We used to have local governments provide that sort of thing (and still do to an extent). One reason for the prevalence of HOAs is that they have a much easier time keeping out the riffraff with uncomfortably dark skin, but maybe people will just have to put up with them.
- immibis 1y ago
  That can now be done at the state level.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
beAbU 1y ago
Pretty wild that HOAs are not required to have audited books. Where I'm from HOAs are regulated by law, is registered as a legal entity, and therefore needs audited financials submitted to the tax man every year. There is also a very powerful ombud created to mediate and resolve the kind of hoa horror story bullshit we often hear about online.
techpineapple 1y ago
Privatize it. If I want the road in front of my house fixed, I'll pay for it, I can get a pool membership, gym membership, or other amenities ad-hoc. Fuck the HoA.

qualeed 1y ago

As a non-American, I've always been surprised with how common HOAs are, and how over-bearing they seem. I know that I only hear about the crazy ones because blogs about normal/good HOAs aren't going viral, but I've seen enough horror stories that if I ever moved to the US I would do my best to avoid one like the plague.

organsnyder 1y ago
They're not common everywhere in the US. Here in West Michigan I don't know of anyone that's part of one (other than condo associations, where it's part of the selling point).
bane 1y ago
In some places they act as a kind of local governing authority similar to a town or village council. In much of the US the lowest level of governing body us the county, and those can be pretty huge and diverse areas so HOAs are used to fill that gap.
- wat10000 1y ago
  I live in a county with more population than most cities. It works fine. What gap would need to be filled?
- qualeed 1y ago
  Sure, I guess I can kind of understand that. It's just not something I've experienced. I've never felt that there was a "gap" that needed to be filled. Especially not by a group that can also tell me that my paint has to be a certain color or whatever.
  - judge2020 1y ago
    Things like maintaining a community’s cohesiveness (eg via restricting exterior cosmetic changes, requiring lawn maintenance, etc) are in the HOA contract in an effort to maintain/increase the community’s home values over time. And, of course, people can choose not to buy a home in a community like this if they don’t agree to the provisions of the HOA. Even before the 2021 surge in home values, homes on city streets almost never saw as much growth in value (except for homes in the heart of metro areas where people will pay for location to work. On suburban city blocks, home values are often stagnant even in good markets)

farceSpherule 1y ago

PSA: never serve on an HOA board in Florida. You can be individually named in lawsuits involving the HOA.

OptionOfT 1y ago

In Phoenix developers cannot build new communities without HOAs. Even if your HOA is not gated and doesn't have a clubhouse, not a pool, it is the HOA that is responsible for maintaining the streets and parks. But... that is normally paid for by tax money. Yet the home owner's taxes in those communities are not lower. So the city is double dipping.

judge2020 1y ago
Typically there is a special tax assessment district when inside city limits - for example, my property in Georgia inside an HOA has a city millage of 0.003, but the streets of the community were indeed deeded to the city. On the other hand, if someone wants to build not actually inside city limits, of course they’ll need to pay for their own roads and utility maintenance since the county isn’t responsible for things like that.

GenerWork 1y ago

You can avoid this by not buying a home that is covered by a HOA. Snark aside, it's clear this guy hasn't thought out how condos will operate without a HOA. Going after SFH HOAs may be the best initial play here.

wolrah 1y ago
> You can avoid this by not buying a home that is covered by a HOA. In many areas these either do not exist or are limited to only older construction. I haven't seen a single '90s or newer neighborhood in my home shopping that didn't have one. Developers love the stupid things because it allows them greater control over how the neighborhood looks to potential buyers while they're still selling lots, and they're mandatory for new developments in some areas where the local government (reasonably) doesn't want to take on more road/utility/etc maintenance but isn't willing to actually stop sprawl. > Snark aside, it's clear this guy hasn't thought out how condos will operate without a HOA. Going after SFH HOAs may be the best initial play here. Someone else noted that in Florida the term "HOA" specifically refers to the kind affecting single-family homes. Condos have "COAs" apparently.

drewg123 1y ago

What I found ironic when I moved to suburban Virginia is that the same Tea Party, "Don't Tread on Me" conservatives that want to dismantle government love HOAs. I lived in a neighborhood full of them, with the most strict and annoying HOA. We were forced to wait several weeks to replace an actively leaking roof b/c the HOA had to sign off on the shingles -- even though they were the same color/size/etc as the shingles that the house was built with. When we bought the house, the previous owner had to pay fines for installing a fenced doghouse in his back yard w/o their permission. I really enjoyed it when a halfway house managed to find a loophole in their rules and rented a house down the street. That HOA tried and failed to kick them out..

nkrisc 1y ago
> "Don't Tread on Me" It's right there in the name: don't tread on me, not us. Rules for thee, not for me.
- maxerickson 1y ago
  This sort of glib banality is tiresome.
  - jurking_hoff 1y ago
    [dead]
_9ptr 1y ago
Well, it's different if you're the government

firesteelrain 1y ago

I am a BOD and Officer in a HOA. This will be messy - we would have to sell all of our common amenities, parking lots, overflow parking lots, playgrounds, gym, pools etc to the government or a private company if this happens. County would have to take over maintenance of our platted common property and property that we mow (and get paid for) by the County. County would have to step up enforcement of parking on street rules, trespassing on what would become County property. What do we do with the $500k we have the operating funds and reserves collected over the past 40 years? County would have to find another place to do their voting as we have offered our clubhouse for years. We would have to fire our LCAM. County would have to maintain some expensive drainage and ponds that our HOA manages. Fountains. Weir replacement alone is $250k that we keep up. Yes, reform HOA laws but abolishing them I am not sure is the right thing to do. It would create such a massive mess and requirement for Counties to maintain things that they don’t currently manage. It may lead to these areas to incorporate because then you would end up with City based code enforcement. HOA reserve funds (not Condo) needs to be relooked at. We have healthy reserves because we have been keeping on top of reserve studies. Be careful what you ask for is all I am saying.

gwbas1c 1y ago
> What do we do with the $500k we have the operating funds and reserves collected over the past 40 years? Uhm, return it to the property owners? The real pattern is that HOAs have been abusing their power; or in other cases are required because municipalities don't want to do their job. As a result the lawmakers will, unfortunately, overcorrect.
- firesteelrain 1y ago
  What property owners is my point? Many are long gone and the (now) $175 a quarter we charge goes towards the common amenities. What would happen is we would have to surrender those funds to the State. So this would lead to a huge windfall for the State. States have rules for what happens when a HOA dissolves. That means the money goes right to the State including the sale of the common property.

IndrekR 1y ago

HOA = Homeowner association Took me a while to figure this out.

scarface_74 1y ago

I lived in an HOA community for eight years and I have mixed feelings. So many things can go wrong without one - old cars in the front yard, political signs (I don’t care what your political persuasion is they are tacky), yard not being kept. HOAs suck. But so do people. As another poster said, there are shared responsibility parts in some neighborhoods like pools, gyms, tennis courts etc

NegativeK 1y ago
I'd be super happy if the local government managed the infrastructure and shared spaces of our neighborhood. But they can't raise the taxes to do so, so HOAs end up being the smaller government that people say they want but, in practice, get zero participation from the residents and can turn into shit shows.
- scarface_74 1y ago
  So taxpayers should be responsible for infrastructure that can only be used by owners of houses in the neighborhood?

bee_rider 1y ago

I wonder if this could be part of the Florida/Disney spat? Are some of Disney’s properties under HOA? Just random speculation, I haven’t been following it too closely. But, always got to be suspicious of a politician who suggests something that seems popular.

wonderwonder 1y ago
That issue was resolved several years ago. Both sides have moved on.

trbleclef 1y ago

In Florida, condominium associations (COA) and homeowners associations (HOA) are not legally the same thing, but in discussions like this people often refer to them interchangeably. There is a big difference between an HOA requiring mowed lawns and paint colors and a COA that maintains roofs, pools, playgrounds, common elements, etc. People will refer to Surfside as a reason HOAs are important but the Champlain Towers was a condo.

gwbas1c 1y ago

I volunteered to run my HOA in Massachusetts because I was afraid someone would come in and abuse their power and fine everyone for trivial matters. What I learned was that the town "forces" all new developments to have an HOA because town politics prevents the town from adopting roads from new housing developments. Thus all new neighborhoods in the town have "private" roads. It's a lot of "BS" work that's pushed on residents simply because of malfunctioning politics.

danaris 1y ago
Sounds to me like the more effective use of residents' time would be to get several of them together to run for town office and break the deadlocks. Assuming you can contact enough other frustrated HOA members and get them onboard, even if the problem is several town board members (or whatever body it is), it could be possible to replace them with sane people.
- gwbas1c 1y ago
  I don't want to say too much because it would reveal where I live. But, to be general, my town has a very unique political system where a plurality of voters is the deadlock. Basically, to break the deadlock, it would require a very large plurality of people to overrule a large group of retirees who have nothing better to do but reject adopting our private roads.

wonderwonder 1y ago

There has to be nuance. If a community has shared areas then there has to be an organization to maintain and service them and that org. requires funding. This is especially true with Condo style communities. To attempt to shut that management down and replace it with either voluntary fees or some other solution seems destined to fail or to lead to outright war amongst the residents as those that don't contribute continue to use the facilities. Things start to get a little more complex with SFR communities. I have always intentionally chosen communities where there is no HOA. I have no interest in someone telling me what I can and cannot do with the property I own. This of course means that I have always intentionally purchased in areas with no common spaces. I make sure to drive the area carefully first to see who lives there and the condition of the homes. Of course this could go wrong; nothing stopping someone from selling and the new owner paints his house purple and green and changes his oil in his front yard. Its a price I am open to paying though to ensure that my property is mine fully beside government control. My MIL has a HOA and they determine what color residents can paint their homes, the type of roof tile, etc. They also have gated entrances though with security that checks Id's for entrance. No way to run that without some sort of HOA like organization. If someone wants to live in this type of community then no reason to stop it, each to their own. My major personal issue with HOA's is when they mandate the type of fencing you can have, often requiring open fences that provide no privacy. I want tall 6+ foot solid fences and even taller plant life. The more privacy I can implement the better. I am also getting a pool built and its nice knowing that no one else can have input over it except the city permitting office. I would be good with a law that says an existing community without an HOA cannot create one without 100% of the homeowners agreeing. That seems like something worth considering. Other than that its a complicated situation that I just don't think a quick law for cudos is going to solve. Simply banning something seems... not well thought out.

josefritzishere 1y ago

We need a federal level HOA ban. They serve no productive purpose. When people defend HOAs that usually boils down to them feeling like they have some right to tell other people how to live.

delichon 1y ago
Our HOA maintains the roads and the community water system. The county is unwilling to do either. Without the HOA I'd need a specialized vehicle to get through the mud to my driveway in the rainy season, and I'd have to haul in my water, because it's too deep for me to afford a well. So I'd probably end up living elsewhere.
- NoGravitas 1y ago
  Those are both functions of the local government. If the county approved the development, they need to maintain the infrastructure.

bediger4000 1y ago

I live in an old neighborhood (1890s) so I'm not very familiar with HOAs, but I assumed they were the ideal solution: small government, very local, voluntary, and not government at all, they're private. These are attributes I was told made for ideal situations. What (or who!) causes this mechanism to fail?