3 ms·

Beside the mass surveillance issues that are very real, let me just add that HOAs need to be made illegal except for condo buildings that obviously need to main

by jmyeet 2mo ago

Beside the mass surveillance issues that are very real, let me just add that HOAs need to be made illegal except for condo buildings that obviously need to maintain and manage that building. There is absolutely no reason why a single family house needs to be in a mandatory HOA. We've all heard or experienced the silly rules about how your house must look and the fines associated with it. None of that should be legal. The one thing HOAs do is trash pickup but that should be a municipal government function. It is it everywhere else in the developed world. And why do they exist? If you find yourself asking that about anything uniquely American the answer is almost always "systemic racism". And that's the case here. HOAs became popularized in the 20th century with racially restrictive covenants (ie to prevent the owner selling to black people) [1]. So where are we now? Instead of the HOA president spending their day driving past "problem" houses to look for any rules violations, are we going to have them doing that with Flock cameras instead? What a dystopian nightmare. [1]: https://www.bostonfairhousing.org/timeline/1920s1948-Restrictive-Covenants.html https://www.bostonfairhousing.org/timeline/1920s1948-Restric...

thedougd 2mo ago
What about an HOA for the management of roads and rainwater runoff (ponds, etc)?
- lumost 2mo ago
  The answer is likely that it makes sense for maintenance purposes, but the legal authority granted to an HOA is overly broad.
  - thedougd 2mo ago
    It's certainly overly broad in many circumstances. I've lived in a townhome community with overly aggressive management. However, "There is absolutely no reason why a single family house needs to be in a mandatory HOA" is easy to refute. HOA's provide a way for managing shared infrastructure that would not be feasible for a single home owner. Common examples of basic infrastructure include roads, storm water management, lighting, and even community wells. I would argue that is the primary purpose. Not all neighborhoods are in a municipality either.
    - em-bee 2mo ago
      Not all neighborhoods are in a municipality either. why is that? and why is the county or state government not taking over the responsibility then? for example in germany a democratic local government is guaranteed by basic law, so a neighborhood outside of a municipality is practically not possible and considered a violation of basic law.
      - pandaman 2mo ago
        Municipalities in the US are the same type of institution as HOA, self-organized to maintain property. Just like you may not have an HOA you may not have a municipality of any kind. Counties and states are usually not equipped to do maintenance work, same as the federal government. I also don't understand the preference of city government over HOA - it's not like cities don't have codes and you can do whatever you want with your property. It's subdued now but couple years ago we had anti-zoning posts as frequently as we have anti-Flock. Who creates zoning? The city does.
        em-bee 2mo ago
        the difference is that HOAs are private and not state actors, when they really should be. that has some constitutional implications. they are not democratic because usually only property owners are voting members based on the size of the property. in a municipality everyone living there gets one vote. you are right that in practice the difference may not be that noticeable, but i believe that not being state actors is a significant distinction. if it acts like a government, and if it quacks like a government it should be a government and be subject to those same rules. not having a municipality of any kind in my opinion is an oversight of state/federal law. people should have democratic representation whereever they live. HOAs don't provide that.
        pandaman 2mo ago
        What do you mean they are "private"? HOA literally means the association of all home owners, who are members and set, follow, and enforce its bylaws. It's a public institution, same as a municipality. The difference is in how each is established and controlled, but neither is private.
- michaelt 2mo ago
  In many places, the government maintains the roads and similar infrastructure. Property owners pay 'property tax' for this.
mattw2121 2mo ago
See, that's the great thing about America. We can have neighborhoods with HOAs and those without. You get to choose!
- stevecoalbear 2mo ago
  In most cities it's illegal to build a new neighbourhood without an HOA
  - heffer 2mo ago
    See, that's the great thing about America. There's also cities where it is legal to build a new neighbourhood without an HOA. And if that at some point happens to no longer be the case in the USA, there are many more countries in America to choose from where there are places you could still live an HOA-free life, such as Canada.
- fragmede 2mo ago
  No, the great thing about America is the illusion of choice. A or B? You get to decide! But the joke's on us because A and B are both owned by the same parent corporation, so either way, you're losing. In the case of HOAs and housing development, good luck finding a developer who's not going to make housing with an HOA. Why would they not have an HOA? It's in their interests to have one, so all the options end up having one, so then you don't actually get to choose to not have one!
CPLX 2mo ago
You’re gonna run into a little bit of resistance on principles with that argument. For context, I would have absolutely no interest in living in an HOA neighborhood and I don’t support them at all. But we do have a fairly strong precedent for freedom of association in this country and the freedom for people to join into groups and figure out how they want to live. Not sure how you could write a law that would get rid of the kind of HOA’s. You don’t like without running straight into things like religious colonies, and a variety of other living arrangements. Seems to me the current approach where you’ve been certain kinds of discrimination and so on is a little more sound. I could think of other reforms as well, for example perhaps a time limit on HOA‘s or the requirement of some sort of super majority or consensus to be taken at intervals to prevent automatic dissolution and restrictions on size structure.
- em-bee 2mo ago
  Not sure how you could write a law that would get rid of the kind of HOA you make HOAs be part of the government and follow democratic rules like any government, ie. they are just a smaller form of a municipality, or a subdivision of one. you do not allow the government to delegate responsibilities to private organizations. you guarantee everyone inalienable rights regarding their property that no HOA is allowed to override. for example, even if the whole neighborhood agrees to surveillance, the right to privacy in your home/property and in certain places (like public pools) should be absolute and it should not be possible to take it away.
weard_beard 2mo ago
There are a few exceptions, I live in an odd neighborhood where a group got together and rehabbed a bunch of dilapidated homes facing an alley. They got permission from the city to make the alley a pedestrian mall and green space. Our HOA exists to maintain the pedestrian mall that is essentially our front yard.
gustavus 2mo ago
> So where are we now? Instead of the HOA president spending their day driving past "problem" houses to look for any rules violations, are we going to have them doing that with Flock cameras instead? What a dystopian nightmare. This actually very much understates the problems. HOAs are no longer small organizations where the local biddies gather to feel like they are back in high school because they have nothing better to do with their time. They've become defacto governments. True story I at one point bought in a development that had an HOA the rules of the development were that for the first 5 years or until have the development was done then developer would be in charge of the HOA and then it would revert to the homeowners at 4 years 6 months the HOA board (who was the developers) voted to merge with another HOA to a that ran a dozen other developments and complexes throughout the state. HOAs are now massive multi-million dollar corporations that controls vast swathes of land, and rule over their tenants without any of the checks or balances or recourse one has available against the government. For those who say "just buy in a non-HOA area" the problem is that almost all new builds have HOAs built in from the start as part of the developers plan and so the options for those not wanting to deal with an HOA are increasingly limited. In short abolish HOAs. If people want to get together to form groups of homeowners that's fine but there is no world in which someone should be able to take your house because your grass is too long.
- em-bee 2mo ago
  HOAs have become defacto governments. exactly, and they should be forced to operate like one, with democratic elections, and the same checks and balances like any other part of the government.
DougN7 2mo ago
I’m sorry but this kind of thinking is non-sense. There are surely a few cases where someone lets power go to their head, but that happens in every place where humans have any power. I’m on an HOA board because no else wants to because it’s boring. We maintain a large green space with walking paths and a community pool, and garbage pickup. We have whites, blacks, asians, hispanics, etc and nobody cares. Sometimes there is shared land in a development that has to be managed and somebody has to do it.
- preg_match 2mo ago
  Most neighborhoods don't have these, and that's kind of the problem. The city should be constructing and maintaining parks and recreation, and they should take an egalitarian approach. Meaning, don't stuff all the nicest parts in the richest areas. Also, the history of HOAs is explicitly racist. That doesn't mean all HOAs are racist now, although I think it would be naive to assume we've 100% eliminated all the racism. Sort of the same perspective on Voter ID. It was created for racism, only racism. Now, maybe it's not but... do we really think everyone forgot?
  - DougN7 2mo ago
    I can’t comment on HOAs being historically racist - I’ve not seen it. But how would that work? They don’t (at least now) get to vote on who is allowed to buy. So how would they keep out whoever they decided was undesirable? Were there bylaws about skin color?
    - dragonwriter 2mo ago
      > So how would they keep out whoever they decided was undesirable? Were there bylaws about skin color? Originally? More than just HOA bylaws: HOA’s originally were implemented as part of a belt-and-suspenders approach along with racial covenants—particularly in building out suburban developments—in part in anticipation that the racial restrictions might later be struck down (as they were. In 1948); the HOAs would allow the white majority (guaranteed initially by the racial covenants, and even without active enforcement likely to be maintained by economic inequality for long after that) to drive out non-white residents through selective enforcement of facially race-neutral rules. And, while it is still not always easy to prove, for twenty years after explicit racial covenants attached to property were ruled illegal, other private discrimination related to housing was not, so there wasn't even a legal basis to challenge this.

by jmyeet 2mo ago

thedougd 2mo ago

What about an HOA for the management of roads and rainwater runoff (ponds, etc)?

lumost 2mo ago
The answer is likely that it makes sense for maintenance purposes, but the legal authority granted to an HOA is overly broad.
- thedougd 2mo ago
  It's certainly overly broad in many circumstances. I've lived in a townhome community with overly aggressive management. However, "There is absolutely no reason why a single family house needs to be in a mandatory HOA" is easy to refute. HOA's provide a way for managing shared infrastructure that would not be feasible for a single home owner. Common examples of basic infrastructure include roads, storm water management, lighting, and even community wells. I would argue that is the primary purpose. Not all neighborhoods are in a municipality either.
  - em-bee 2mo ago
    Not all neighborhoods are in a municipality either. why is that? and why is the county or state government not taking over the responsibility then? for example in germany a democratic local government is guaranteed by basic law, so a neighborhood outside of a municipality is practically not possible and considered a violation of basic law.
    - pandaman 2mo ago
      Municipalities in the US are the same type of institution as HOA, self-organized to maintain property. Just like you may not have an HOA you may not have a municipality of any kind. Counties and states are usually not equipped to do maintenance work, same as the federal government. I also don't understand the preference of city government over HOA - it's not like cities don't have codes and you can do whatever you want with your property. It's subdued now but couple years ago we had anti-zoning posts as frequently as we have anti-Flock. Who creates zoning? The city does.
      - em-bee 2mo ago
        the difference is that HOAs are private and not state actors, when they really should be. that has some constitutional implications. they are not democratic because usually only property owners are voting members based on the size of the property. in a municipality everyone living there gets one vote. you are right that in practice the difference may not be that noticeable, but i believe that not being state actors is a significant distinction. if it acts like a government, and if it quacks like a government it should be a government and be subject to those same rules. not having a municipality of any kind in my opinion is an oversight of state/federal law. people should have democratic representation whereever they live. HOAs don't provide that.
        pandaman 2mo ago
        What do you mean they are "private"? HOA literally means the association of all home owners, who are members and set, follow, and enforce its bylaws. It's a public institution, same as a municipality. The difference is in how each is established and controlled, but neither is private.
michaelt 2mo ago
In many places, the government maintains the roads and similar infrastructure. Property owners pay 'property tax' for this.

mattw2121 2mo ago

See, that's the great thing about America. We can have neighborhoods with HOAs and those without. You get to choose!

stevecoalbear 2mo ago
In most cities it's illegal to build a new neighbourhood without an HOA
- heffer 2mo ago
  See, that's the great thing about America. There's also cities where it is legal to build a new neighbourhood without an HOA. And if that at some point happens to no longer be the case in the USA, there are many more countries in America to choose from where there are places you could still live an HOA-free life, such as Canada.
fragmede 2mo ago
No, the great thing about America is the illusion of choice. A or B? You get to decide! But the joke's on us because A and B are both owned by the same parent corporation, so either way, you're losing. In the case of HOAs and housing development, good luck finding a developer who's not going to make housing with an HOA. Why would they not have an HOA? It's in their interests to have one, so all the options end up having one, so then you don't actually get to choose to not have one!

CPLX 2mo ago

You’re gonna run into a little bit of resistance on principles with that argument. For context, I would have absolutely no interest in living in an HOA neighborhood and I don’t support them at all. But we do have a fairly strong precedent for freedom of association in this country and the freedom for people to join into groups and figure out how they want to live. Not sure how you could write a law that would get rid of the kind of HOA’s. You don’t like without running straight into things like religious colonies, and a variety of other living arrangements. Seems to me the current approach where you’ve been certain kinds of discrimination and so on is a little more sound. I could think of other reforms as well, for example perhaps a time limit on HOA‘s or the requirement of some sort of super majority or consensus to be taken at intervals to prevent automatic dissolution and restrictions on size structure.

em-bee 2mo ago
Not sure how you could write a law that would get rid of the kind of HOA you make HOAs be part of the government and follow democratic rules like any government, ie. they are just a smaller form of a municipality, or a subdivision of one. you do not allow the government to delegate responsibilities to private organizations. you guarantee everyone inalienable rights regarding their property that no HOA is allowed to override. for example, even if the whole neighborhood agrees to surveillance, the right to privacy in your home/property and in certain places (like public pools) should be absolute and it should not be possible to take it away.

weard_beard 2mo ago

There are a few exceptions, I live in an odd neighborhood where a group got together and rehabbed a bunch of dilapidated homes facing an alley. They got permission from the city to make the alley a pedestrian mall and green space. Our HOA exists to maintain the pedestrian mall that is essentially our front yard.

gustavus 2mo ago

> So where are we now? Instead of the HOA president spending their day driving past "problem" houses to look for any rules violations, are we going to have them doing that with Flock cameras instead? What a dystopian nightmare. This actually very much understates the problems. HOAs are no longer small organizations where the local biddies gather to feel like they are back in high school because they have nothing better to do with their time. They've become defacto governments. True story I at one point bought in a development that had an HOA the rules of the development were that for the first 5 years or until have the development was done then developer would be in charge of the HOA and then it would revert to the homeowners at 4 years 6 months the HOA board (who was the developers) voted to merge with another HOA to a that ran a dozen other developments and complexes throughout the state. HOAs are now massive multi-million dollar corporations that controls vast swathes of land, and rule over their tenants without any of the checks or balances or recourse one has available against the government. For those who say "just buy in a non-HOA area" the problem is that almost all new builds have HOAs built in from the start as part of the developers plan and so the options for those not wanting to deal with an HOA are increasingly limited. In short abolish HOAs. If people want to get together to form groups of homeowners that's fine but there is no world in which someone should be able to take your house because your grass is too long.

em-bee 2mo ago
HOAs have become defacto governments. exactly, and they should be forced to operate like one, with democratic elections, and the same checks and balances like any other part of the government.

DougN7 2mo ago

I’m sorry but this kind of thinking is non-sense. There are surely a few cases where someone lets power go to their head, but that happens in every place where humans have any power. I’m on an HOA board because no else wants to because it’s boring. We maintain a large green space with walking paths and a community pool, and garbage pickup. We have whites, blacks, asians, hispanics, etc and nobody cares. Sometimes there is shared land in a development that has to be managed and somebody has to do it.

preg_match 2mo ago
Most neighborhoods don't have these, and that's kind of the problem. The city should be constructing and maintaining parks and recreation, and they should take an egalitarian approach. Meaning, don't stuff all the nicest parts in the richest areas. Also, the history of HOAs is explicitly racist. That doesn't mean all HOAs are racist now, although I think it would be naive to assume we've 100% eliminated all the racism. Sort of the same perspective on Voter ID. It was created for racism, only racism. Now, maybe it's not but... do we really think everyone forgot?
- DougN7 2mo ago
  I can’t comment on HOAs being historically racist - I’ve not seen it. But how would that work? They don’t (at least now) get to vote on who is allowed to buy. So how would they keep out whoever they decided was undesirable? Were there bylaws about skin color?
  - dragonwriter 2mo ago
    > So how would they keep out whoever they decided was undesirable? Were there bylaws about skin color? Originally? More than just HOA bylaws: HOA’s originally were implemented as part of a belt-and-suspenders approach along with racial covenants—particularly in building out suburban developments—in part in anticipation that the racial restrictions might later be struck down (as they were. In 1948); the HOAs would allow the white majority (guaranteed initially by the racial covenants, and even without active enforcement likely to be maintained by economic inequality for long after that) to drive out non-white residents through selective enforcement of facially race-neutral rules. And, while it is still not always easy to prove, for twenty years after explicit racial covenants attached to property were ruled illegal, other private discrimination related to housing was not, so there wasn't even a legal basis to challenge this.