HATE HOA'S Communism on a Small Scale (to buy, living)

[pink caddy]

I don't live in a HOA in Clt so excuse me if this question sounds lame.

Do the rules/by-laws of an HOA run with the deed of the house? If yes, then OP is way off base by saying a few posts back that you never "know what the rules are " until you're a member.
Clearly, at the closing, wouldn't that be part of the closing docs that buyer is accepting and agreeing to?

Now, if in- fact it is not a doc that closes with the transfer of the property, buyer still KNOWS his house is in a HOA. Right? Why would one not ask to see the by-laws, convenants ,rules, or whatever you call the operating guidelines of the HOA?

This tread is just plain silly b/c we have someone complaining about something he has never been part of and always has the opportunity to opt-in or opt-out.

[lumbollo]

Originally Posted by pink caddy

...
Do the rules/by-laws of an HOA run with the deed of the house? If yes, then OP is way off base by saying a few posts back that you never "know what the rules are " until you're a member.
Clearly, at the closing, wouldn't that be part of the closing docs that buyer is accepting and agreeing to?

Of the type of HOA being discussed here, the answer is yes. It is a deed restriction. This is where the legal contract between you and the HOA exists. You are correct, you agreed to these terms by closing on the house because it is a deed restriction.

There are also HOAs that are not deed restricted, but they don't have any bite and you don't have to join. My first neighborhood was like this.

Deed restrictions have been around for ages. From time to time some provisions will get invalidated by court decisions. For example a number of houses in Myers Park and other similar places have a "No Negros can Purchase Home" restriction. Obviously this invalidated by a number of court decisions in the 1960s. About 12 - 13 years ago, the US Congress invalidated all clauses in HOAs that attempted to restrict satellite dishes and/or TV antennas.

[Kabe]

Originally Posted by lumbollo

Goodness, line by line rebuttals, the length of a phone book, make my head hurt....Lot's of generalizations in this topic.

Line by line to provide detailed answers and avoid the "generalizations" you claim. I provided an evolution of why HOA's became necessary (or at least a vehicle to raise revenue for development specific maintenance), why they're established in virtually all new construction etc. You're statements are far more generalized than mine. There are facts that you'd like validated - that's understandable but a statement with %'s is not a generalization. With regards to general caveat statements like those concerning the majority of issues between HOA's and members - there is no quantification. It is based on my experience in development in setting up, managing, and dealing with HOA's. Much like your experience is the basis for your statements in this response.

Originally Posted by lumbollo

The vast majority of HOAs in this county exist to make it possible for a neighborhood to have a pool, playground, and some nice common grounds. The HOA is there to make sure that every household pays their share of the cost of such things........Without the ability for a neighborhood to have a HOA, there would be no neighborhood pool, playgrounds, walking trails, etc etc.

HOA's are NOT why common facilities are possible. They can exist without HOA's and at one time did. With regards to setting up a mechanism to fund these facilities that can easily be accomplished with special tax assessments - although I'm NOT claiming that HOA's are not a better way to deal with it. So claiming that without HOA's we wouldn't have these facilties is FALSE. Actually the fact that each subdivision has their own facilities in many ways creates social boundaries - an us/them mentality - it's the modern "you're from the other side of the tracks."

Originally Posted by lumbollo

Beyond that their authority to impose their will on individual homeowners is quite limited....This is the most common type of HOA but there are some planned, high profile places, where the rules are quite draconian.

Clearly from all the complaints and issues homeowners have with HOA's there are problems well beyond what you claim is "quite limited." I wouldn't call having the ability to foreclose over $100 as quite limited. Also - speaking of generalizations - how about the general statements like "lawns shall be free of weeds" or "landscaping shall be kept manicured" - these are true generalizations that offer an opportunity for the wrong BOD members to harass people even when they meet their responsibilities and the intent of the DCCR's. Advocates of HOA's acknowledge these personality issues when they advocate getting involved and becoming friends with the BOD members. Why would there be any reason to be "friends" with the BOD member? Not that I'm advocating not being friendly but why should it be a goal? If we're not friends with our Senators then should that justify them not treating us equally (let's ignore the fact that not everyone is treated equally as this is a hypothetical LOL)?

Originally Posted by lumbollo

Like everything else before you buy a home it's your responsibility to make sure you understand what you are buying. Aside from looking a sq ft, how many bathrooms, etc, it really pays to look at any easements, who owns the pretty woods behind your new home, if the NCDOT planning to put a freeway through your neighborhood, and of course read the HOA rules. A copy of these rules should be available for anyone to read before they sign the dotted line.

I agree. In NC it's a requirement to disclose the HOA and their DCCR's prior to closing. However - and I don't know how many times I have say this - the issue isn't always the DCCRS - it's the variances in aggressiveness that are not disclosed. The DCCR's should also be more specific in setting up metrics for issues like lawncare so that harassment isn't possible or at least minimized.

Originally Posted by lumbollo

This is when the words communist, socialist, dictatorship, fascist, etc get rolled out.

I agree - these soundbites are thrown around quite easily. I specifically stated that I did not believe HOA's were communist. Was that missed? I will say this though - without that level of urgency in some faction of our population we would surely lose our rights quicker than we already are. I don't advocate the position but there are people on both sides of the spectrum - and I often think their existence may be a necessity in balancing societies needs. That is a generalization

Originally Posted by lumbollo

Go to a place like London and not only do you have to worry about endless restrictions on the property, you have to figure out if you are buying just the right to live inside a building, the shell of the building or both.

Where do you think we're heading?

Originally Posted by lumbollo

Do your homework and pay attention to all the papers you are signing at closing. That is your last chance before you agree to all the restrictions that come with the property.

Again - the bigger issue is often how the HOA conducts business which is NOT disclosed. You advocate due diligence when buying a home - which I also advocate and agree that most people do not exercise adequate diligence and that leads to many problems - however you fail to see how HOA's and State laws don't require the adequate disclosure to TRULY understand the implications of buying a home in a particular HOA controlled subdivision. Your advocacy of HOA's is in direct contradiction with your advocacy of diligence when buying a home.

Originally Posted by lumbollo

The point, understand what you are getting yourself into and if you don't like that a HOA can tell you that you can't paint the house two toned purple and lime green, then go somewhere else where these kinds of things are appreciated.

Again - it's impossible to know what you're getting into when full disclosure isn't required. Your generalized statement about outlandish house colors is often the justification for HOA advocates (BTW - I kind of advocate HOA's as I will elaborate at the conclusion of this post) - and who would disagree with having a way to limit another person from such crazy behavior? It's not these scenarios that cause the problems. The friction points revolve around personalty conflicts and ego's.

Originally Posted by hooligan

I'd really like to see the sources for that 95% claim, Kabe. I absolutely cannot believe that 95% of the houses available on the market (though you didn't say what region/location that 95% covers) are part of HOAs.

Understandable question and I will post when I have time to put them in a comprehensive city-data comment friendly format. For the record - re-read my post as I stated that 95% of new housing is HOA controlled. However - your point of asking for validation is warranted and I will provide. It may take a week or so - but I will post. Thank you for reading my response and asking the question as it shows some diligence by not just accepting a statement - I wold hope that same diligence is exercised in a comprehensive objective manner when listening to advocates of HOA's.

Originally Posted by vindaloo

By the way, an HOA can be terminated with a vote for termination of over 80% by all homeowners in the community. I don't think that communists can terminate their government by votes.

You are correct. The PCA only requires 80%. However the PCA also allows the HOA's DCCR's to prescribe a higher %. Most HOA's - at least the last 15 or so years - require a much higher %. The reason again goes back to developers. They don't want a community to be able to impact their investment by dissolving an HOA and putting their marketing window at risk - especially at a critical period like the close out phase of a development when the control of the BOD is typically transitioned to the homeowners from the developer. SO you are correct - legally the bar is at 80% but functionally it's often quite higher.

Originally Posted by car421

And the DCCR's can be amended witha 75% vote. I also would like to see "real" data on the numbers that are being thrown around here.

Correct - usually - as it depends on the specific DCCR's. Amending the HOA is very difficult. Let's use 75% for the example - it's not 75% of those that vote - it's 75% of those eligible to vote. Try motivating a neighborhood the size of Highland Creek to change something - nearly impossible. NOTE - I'm not advocating a lower % as that would open the door for even more abuse of power and additional restrictions on homeowners potenitally non-consentual. However claiming that there is a way to change DCCR's to correct problems with an HOA overlooks the very significant logistics asociated with doing so. Having this ability should not invalidate complaints against HOA's who abuse power.


SUMMARY

I actually like the concept of an HOA but not for the reasons that are typically referenced. They do not have a significant impact on protecting home values and relying on them to enforce community standrads leads to abuse of power and friction between neighbors that typically was handled much more effectively on a peer-to-peer basis.

HOA's actually result in a less cohesive community. The HOA itself may offer cohesiveness but within the larger context of a city - it creates boundaries and an us/them mentality. Within the HOA it can hurt the goal of cohesiveness by allowing members to utilize the HOA anonymously to harrass people.

I would like to see HOA's operate for their intended purpose. Maintain common facilities, restrict egregious violations (not the nit picky stuff that has absolutely no bearing on life or home value), and truly promote community by leaving the responsibility of cohesiveness where it belongs - on the person-to-person basis. I would like to see the industry that has attached itself to HOA's significantly minimized as it's just another tax on homeowners. Management companies are actually incentivized to fine people as they can show an increase in cash flow to the HOA and thereby justify their existence. If an HOA promotes community why outsource to a management organization that isn't solely comprised of community residents? Their incentives are not as altruistic as HOA advocates believe. Let's not even discuss the attorneys as most people recognize that generally attorneys can really over complicate what should be a simply resolution. The attorneys make a fortune off the backs of HOA's. I know because in starting them up and managing HOA's in new developments I have paid their bills.

I'd like to see HOA's consolidate within multiple communities (only for limited functions - not necessarily consolidate BOD's) - for 2 reasons. 1) Increase their purchasing power when bidding out for services like landscaping. 2) Promote unity among multiple subdivisions rather than division as is currently done.

Why are HOA's potentially good? I'd rather have local control of community issues - like amenities - as opposed to having the gubmint mess it up. But the HOA's have greatly expanded their role well beyond what is needed. That power grab has actually resulted in negating the primary purpose of an HOA which is to promote a cohesive community. All too often the HOA's promote a mob mentality. Look at what Highland Creek has done to Wallace Farms. They don't like the smell so they literally harass the business causing them to spend $ defending their rights. This doesn't even touch on the issue of sustainability. It cracks me up when I see people in Highland Creek with bumper stickers about "green living" etc. Yet those same people are harassing a business that provides sustainable solutions like composting. The NIMBY mentality - which is absolutely detrimental - is promoted by HOA's like Highland Creek. At some point this country will need to reconcile it's rhetoric with it's practice. If we want to be sustainable then we will need to make concessions - like tolerating businesses like Wallace Farms in close proximity to homes. Let's not forget - they were have property rights too. Of course the Highland Creek mob just continues to add to that business' operating expenses by necessitating legal fees AND the legal fees the HOA expends to fight the problem is flipped by the HOA members even though the resolution to endorse opposition was DEFEATED by the members! Talk about an out of control BOD! They have been blatantly derelict in their duties on many levels.

I love seeing the Obama signs in Highland Creek. The typical hypocritical liberals that claim to be about society. Let's remember what happened when the issue of deciding between the Highland Creek Elementary school or investing in inner city school upgrades was in front of the Meck school board. Guess what - the Highland Creek mob fought for their school at the expense of children from families with less resources. Yeah - real liberals there Highland Creek lost the battle but the mob didn't stop and eventually the school was approved and built. BTW - I don't disagree with the school as it was needed - but the way Highland Creek goes about achieving their goals is nothing short of mob mentality at the expense of cohesive integration within the community at large further perpetuating the socioeconomic divides. I hate the fact that I have owned a house in Highland Creek and that my $ has supported this type of regime. I look forward to dispositioning that house and never looking back. These are the issues you don't know until after purchase. This is why I advocate greater disclosure. There are better ways to achieve mutual gaosl rather than causing friction and acting like a mob - i disagree with the approach and not necessarily the goals. Much like my position on HOA's - i disagree with the implementation not the intent.

I'd rather have local control of issues but not have all local issues controlled. Get it?

[Kabe]

Originally Posted by mullman

The complainers here are either very selfish wanting everyone to see their toy collection, lazy in keeping up their property, or late in paying their HOA dues.
Otherwise they should get involved, or get on the board and rally to change things to their liking.

Obviously, it is SO easy to be an internet genius...

Why is the flip side of the coin devalued? part of participation in changing a problem is communicating in forums - all formats - which is what we're doing here. Yet you claim it's because we're selfish? Really? I'm advocating for people's rights in scenarios that may not have affected me but I see their affect on others and I'm the one called selfish? Unbelievable.

[Kabe]

Originally Posted by pink caddy

This tread is just plain silly b/c we have someone complaining about something he has never been part of and always has the opportunity to opt-in or opt-out.

Obviously the premise of HOA's and communism is a bit silly. Since when is a citizen's concerns for other citizens in scenarios that the outspoken citizen has not been affected by but they see the plight of others been a problem? I have no children - does that mean I shouldn't be an advocate for protecting children? Does it make me less relevant in those discussions?

We are a very selfish society when we continuously fail to recognize the importance of preserving rights for everyone regardless of our personal experience and personal situation.

I'm not a duck so I guess I shouldn't have a position on protecting their environment from oil spills etc.

Contrary to what another poster has stated - I am not the one being selfish here.

[mullman]

Originally Posted by Kabe

Why is the flip side of the coin devalued? part of participation in changing a problem is communicating in forums - all formats - which is what we're doing here. Yet you claim it's because we're selfish? Really? I'm advocating for people's rights in scenarios that may not have affected me but I see their affect on others and I'm the one called selfish? Unbelievable.

Originally Posted by Kabe

Contrary to what another poster has stated - I am not the one being selfish here.

SO...

What exactly is your gripe with HOA(s) you have personally lived in?
What exactly, in bullet points, are you NOT ALLOWED to do that you WANT to do?

Make it short and to the point, your summaries are usually essays.

Do tell.

:listening:

[Kabe]

Originally Posted by mullman

My head is still rattling from reading the longest C-D reply/quote post EVER!

Thank you for reading. I do appreciate it even if I feel my points are being missed.

[Kabe]

Originally Posted by mullman

SO...

What exactly is your gripe?
I don't have time to read through your huge diatribe of words, make it short and to the point.

Do tell.

:listening:

Apparently my detailed posts didn't communicate the issues with HOA's? I really don't know how to be clearer. I understand disagreements in positions but I fail to see how you don't understand my perspective - unless my posts weren't truly read. I don't expect concurrence but i do expect understanding. I understand your positions. Apparently I am missing something here.

[mullman]

Originally Posted by Kabe

Apparently my detailed posts didn't communicate the issues with HOA's? I really don't know how to be clearer. I understand disagreements in positions but I fail to see how you don't understand my perspective - unless my posts weren't truly read. I don't expect concurrence but i do expect understanding. I understand your positions. Apparently I am missing something here.

I just am looking for a concise list of what you WISHED to do in neighborhoods YOU HAVE PERSONALLY LIVED IN, governed by HOAs, that forbade your desired behavior.

Please make a concise bullet list, not a rant about personal liberties.

[Kabe]

Originally Posted by mullman

I just am looking for a concise list of what you WISHED to do in neighborhoods YOU HAVE PERSONALLY LIVED IN, governed by HOAs, that forbade your desired behavior.

Please make a concise bullet list, not a diatribe rant about personal liberties.

It's not a rant - a rant is typically illogical statements with very little validation - which is not true about my posts. First I'm accused of generalizations then I'm accused of being too detailed? This is how debate breaks down - when one side gets' into the details - which thorough debate should involve rather than generalizations which others are using - and the the other side fails to reciprocate with a similar effort. It's sort of like avoiding the facts of the conversation by reverting to the "be more succinct" when getting into the minutiae (which all good debate involves). Debate involves details.

That stated - I understand your position. Perhaps this debate would be better accomplished on a new thread with a more relevant title. However I am hesitant to participate in that debate if the effort I provide isn't reciprocated. Perhaps some assurances that logic and effort will be recognized and mutual? We'll start with an outline of the issues - simplistic - and then get into the details. Interested?