3 ms·

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 muni

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 1mo 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 1mo 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.
  - em-bee 1mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_association A homeowner association is a private, legally-incorporated organization that governs a housing community, collects dues, and sets rules for its residents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_institution_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_institution_(United_Sta... A public institution is a juristic person in the United States which is backed through public funds and controlled by the state. HOAs are not controlled or funded by the state, no more than Private Businesses are. municipalities are controlled by the state. if municipalities have the same reach into how people manage their homes like HOAs do then the distinction may not matter. it is however a legally significant distinction. one point where the distinction matters is that HOAs can limit your freedom of speech, while municipalities can not. https://www.hopb.co/blog/freedom-in-associations-exercising-free-speech-rights-in-an-hoa https://www.hopb.co/blog/freedom-in-associations-exercising-...
    - pandaman 1mo ago
      By your definitions public companies do not exist - most public companies are not funded by state. But sure, in this framework HOA's are "private" but so are the municipalities - they are not funded by state. And, obviously, everything is controlled by state - we have laws and regulations, both from the state and from the federal government. >if municipalities have the same reach into how people manage their homes Municipalities have bigger reach because they also control what you do inside your home. Codes are more expansive and detailed than any HOA bylaws and cover interior much more than the exterior. And, of course, the municipality controls if you can live in your house at all and can kick you out if it wishes so.
      - em-bee 1mo ago
        we are simply using a different definition of public and private. i am using the legal one: public is government, private is everything else. i explained why the distinction matters and what effects it has. your points are valid but arguing about the definition of what is public isn't helpful. same goes for government control. you are not wrong, but again, the legal difference in what that control is matters. private entities have constitutional protection and rules that are clearly defined and distinct from the protection and rules for public institutions. the control the government has is simply different and that difference matters. the bigger reach of municipalities doesn't go away in HOAs because most HOAs are within a municipality. that makes HOAs at best redundant, at worst you have to suffer both. at least with municipality you have democracy on your side. HOAs are controlled by owners, everyone else is second class. that's not a democracy. the result is that the combination of government and HOA gives you less freedom than government alone. HOAs don't replace the government, they don't make it go away. HOAs in my opinion should be treated like government entities because they are given quasi government like powers without the same checks and balances that government has. they aren't and for me that's a problem.
        pandaman 1mo ago
        We are not in a court, so even if there was a legal definition of "public", which does not appear to exist, it would not matter. The question is why HN "urbansits" are so livid about HOAs and want to replace them with municipalities. The reasons I see are pretty bizarre: while not having both makes some sense (in case you optimize for the absolute minimum regulations over everything else), this thread is specifically about replacing HOA with a municipality in case when only the former is present, which means more regulation. Your democracy argument makes no sense to me: the vote is always restricted, in HOA to owners (or rather to properties themselves, a husband and wife co-owning a home don't get two votes), in a city - to residents (and on some matters, to property owners only). In neither everyone can vote. HOAs are already treated as government entities - their bylaws are not different from the city ordinances, their fees are as same as city taxes and they are hard to get rid of. I imagine you mean something else since in your country the government is descending from feudal lords and your municipalities have started as fiefs. But in the US only similar government is at the state level, the states have constitutions and laws, everything else is what you would call "private" - townships, PTAs, school districts etc are essentially corporations.

em-bee 1mo 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 1mo 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.
- em-bee 1mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_association A homeowner association is a private, legally-incorporated organization that governs a housing community, collects dues, and sets rules for its residents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_institution_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_institution_(United_Sta... A public institution is a juristic person in the United States which is backed through public funds and controlled by the state. HOAs are not controlled or funded by the state, no more than Private Businesses are. municipalities are controlled by the state. if municipalities have the same reach into how people manage their homes like HOAs do then the distinction may not matter. it is however a legally significant distinction. one point where the distinction matters is that HOAs can limit your freedom of speech, while municipalities can not. https://www.hopb.co/blog/freedom-in-associations-exercising-free-speech-rights-in-an-hoa https://www.hopb.co/blog/freedom-in-associations-exercising-...
  - pandaman 1mo ago
    By your definitions public companies do not exist - most public companies are not funded by state. But sure, in this framework HOA's are "private" but so are the municipalities - they are not funded by state. And, obviously, everything is controlled by state - we have laws and regulations, both from the state and from the federal government. >if municipalities have the same reach into how people manage their homes Municipalities have bigger reach because they also control what you do inside your home. Codes are more expansive and detailed than any HOA bylaws and cover interior much more than the exterior. And, of course, the municipality controls if you can live in your house at all and can kick you out if it wishes so.
    - em-bee 1mo ago
      we are simply using a different definition of public and private. i am using the legal one: public is government, private is everything else. i explained why the distinction matters and what effects it has. your points are valid but arguing about the definition of what is public isn't helpful. same goes for government control. you are not wrong, but again, the legal difference in what that control is matters. private entities have constitutional protection and rules that are clearly defined and distinct from the protection and rules for public institutions. the control the government has is simply different and that difference matters. the bigger reach of municipalities doesn't go away in HOAs because most HOAs are within a municipality. that makes HOAs at best redundant, at worst you have to suffer both. at least with municipality you have democracy on your side. HOAs are controlled by owners, everyone else is second class. that's not a democracy. the result is that the combination of government and HOA gives you less freedom than government alone. HOAs don't replace the government, they don't make it go away. HOAs in my opinion should be treated like government entities because they are given quasi government like powers without the same checks and balances that government has. they aren't and for me that's a problem.
      - pandaman 1mo ago
        We are not in a court, so even if there was a legal definition of "public", which does not appear to exist, it would not matter. The question is why HN "urbansits" are so livid about HOAs and want to replace them with municipalities. The reasons I see are pretty bizarre: while not having both makes some sense (in case you optimize for the absolute minimum regulations over everything else), this thread is specifically about replacing HOA with a municipality in case when only the former is present, which means more regulation. Your democracy argument makes no sense to me: the vote is always restricted, in HOA to owners (or rather to properties themselves, a husband and wife co-owning a home don't get two votes), in a city - to residents (and on some matters, to property owners only). In neither everyone can vote. HOAs are already treated as government entities - their bylaws are not different from the city ordinances, their fees are as same as city taxes and they are hard to get rid of. I imagine you mean something else since in your country the government is descending from feudal lords and your municipalities have started as fiefs. But in the US only similar government is at the state level, the states have constitutions and laws, everything else is what you would call "private" - townships, PTAs, school districts etc are essentially corporations.