4 ms·

It can work for a time but just makes everyone pissed at you and in the end if you get sued everyone loses. Those are not powertripping demands those are offici

It can work for a time but just makes everyone pissed at you and in the end if you get sued everyone loses. Those are not powertripping demands those are official rules which required majority vote. Ime folks like you love to say this shit until you’re the one on the receiving end of it

kstrauser 1y ago
A lot of those are absolutely, positively powertripping demands, even if a bunch of people showed up on voting night and decided to enact them. My friend installed a door that had a round arch over it instead of a square arch, and the HOA lost their mind because it wasn't on their list of approved designs. No one was harmed by his choice of doors. It didn't "lower property value". It wasn't a health or safety issue. It didn't prevent his neighbors from enjoying their own properties. It was a victimless crime, and yet still turned into a total fiasco with an insane HOA board who wanted to levy daily fines until he ripped it out and replaced it. It is literally impossible to convince me that such things benefit anyone except the bored sociopaths who charged themselves with enforcement. If an HOA wants to maintain the sidewalks, build a pool, and pick up trash, right on. If that's what the neighbors want, then go for it. But when they want to dictate the harmless ways people can live, I lose all interest. And yes, I lived next door to a guy who liked to park his fishing boat next to his driveway. I wasn't thrilled about it, but that was his right. He bought and paid for a house with a driveway, and if he wants to use part of the pavement he owns to park his own personal boat, darned if I can imagine any right by which I can say he shouldn't be allowed to do so.
- dilyevsky 1y ago
  It’s obviously a matter of precedent. If hoa allows that and then someone else decides to do something crazier, then association is liable for selective enforcement. Your neighbors could buy a remote lot with no neighbors or even unincorporated land and just knock themselves out. Instead they (presumably) read the rules, put their signature on it but then decided that actually they are special and the rules dont apply to them
  - kstrauser 1y ago
    > If hoa allows that and then someone else decides to do something crazier, then association is liable for selective enforcement. "Oh, no, the Torkelsens put in a bay window!" > Your neighbors could [...] Oh, come one. We both know that's not realistically possible. I think in most cases HOAs are tolerated as something nearly impossible to avoid, and buyers weigh how likely they are to run afoul of the dumb rules. And as I've said elsewhere, governments appropriately limit the kinds of onerous conditions a contract can inflict upon you. That's something we've elected them to do for us so that people with an unreasonable power advantage can't railroad everyone else into agreeing to their bad ideas.
    - dilyevsky 1y ago
      Yes similarly how sf voters elected government to appropriately limit the kind of onerous police enforcement and now their city is a dump. Also just fyi - 100% of fines that i can recall over past 5ish years went to rented properties. So it’s not even active members of the community that are doing this crap - just absentee landlords who offload their costs to their neighbors
  - jjav 1y ago
    > It’s obviously a matter of precedent. If hoa allows that and then someone else decides to do something crazier, then association is liable for selective enforcement. The obvious solution is to make it illegal for HOAs to have any say whatsoever in individual private property. Shared spaces, shared amenities, common areas, sure. That's what it's for. On private property, no absolutely not, that needs to be illegal.

kstrauser 1y ago

A lot of those are absolutely, positively powertripping demands, even if a bunch of people showed up on voting night and decided to enact them. My friend installed a door that had a round arch over it instead of a square arch, and the HOA lost their mind because it wasn't on their list of approved designs. No one was harmed by his choice of doors. It didn't "lower property value". It wasn't a health or safety issue. It didn't prevent his neighbors from enjoying their own properties. It was a victimless crime, and yet still turned into a total fiasco with an insane HOA board who wanted to levy daily fines until he ripped it out and replaced it. It is literally impossible to convince me that such things benefit anyone except the bored sociopaths who charged themselves with enforcement. If an HOA wants to maintain the sidewalks, build a pool, and pick up trash, right on. If that's what the neighbors want, then go for it. But when they want to dictate the harmless ways people can live, I lose all interest. And yes, I lived next door to a guy who liked to park his fishing boat next to his driveway. I wasn't thrilled about it, but that was his right. He bought and paid for a house with a driveway, and if he wants to use part of the pavement he owns to park his own personal boat, darned if I can imagine any right by which I can say he shouldn't be allowed to do so.

dilyevsky 1y ago
It’s obviously a matter of precedent. If hoa allows that and then someone else decides to do something crazier, then association is liable for selective enforcement. Your neighbors could buy a remote lot with no neighbors or even unincorporated land and just knock themselves out. Instead they (presumably) read the rules, put their signature on it but then decided that actually they are special and the rules dont apply to them
- kstrauser 1y ago
  > If hoa allows that and then someone else decides to do something crazier, then association is liable for selective enforcement. "Oh, no, the Torkelsens put in a bay window!" > Your neighbors could [...] Oh, come one. We both know that's not realistically possible. I think in most cases HOAs are tolerated as something nearly impossible to avoid, and buyers weigh how likely they are to run afoul of the dumb rules. And as I've said elsewhere, governments appropriately limit the kinds of onerous conditions a contract can inflict upon you. That's something we've elected them to do for us so that people with an unreasonable power advantage can't railroad everyone else into agreeing to their bad ideas.
  - dilyevsky 1y ago
    Yes similarly how sf voters elected government to appropriately limit the kind of onerous police enforcement and now their city is a dump. Also just fyi - 100% of fines that i can recall over past 5ish years went to rented properties. So it’s not even active members of the community that are doing this crap - just absentee landlords who offload their costs to their neighbors
- jjav 1y ago
  > It’s obviously a matter of precedent. If hoa allows that and then someone else decides to do something crazier, then association is liable for selective enforcement. The obvious solution is to make it illegal for HOAs to have any say whatsoever in individual private property. Shared spaces, shared amenities, common areas, sure. That's what it's for. On private property, no absolutely not, that needs to be illegal.