4 ms·

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 enforce

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

> 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.