3 ms·
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 th
by 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.
- ajsnigrutin 1y agoSo, no vote then, no action, same as in every other non-HOA neighborhood. But if something bothers 70%+ of people enough to come and vote, it gets resolved HOA-style.