Does anyone out there really like HOA's (Home Owner Associations)?

[ChristieP]

Originally Posted by BigDGeek

This demonstrates that HOAs are unnecessary for people of a certain class/level of intelligence. If you have to be restricted from doing the above things, then maybe you do need an HOA. But most reasonably intelligent, educated adults do not have to even be told not to do the above things.

Exactly!!! We Grapevine folks are pretty classy, so we don't need an HOA telling us what to do!

There are no basketball hoops in the street in my neighborhood, either. There is one house (occupied by an elderly couple who often are out working in their yard) that has a couple of angel sculptures in their front flowerbeds. They do such a good job of maintaining their yard that I'm willing to overlook the tacky sculptures...

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by FarNorthDallas

Do cities like HOA's because it transfers the cost of maintaining common areas from the city to the homeowners?

Absolutely, that's why cities are mandating them and have been mandating them for a couple of decades in Texas. The city of Garland has representatives testifying to that effect before the Texas State Legislature the last several sessions. This is a disease that has been spreading for a while. The city/county comes up with some "public benefit" that will be mandated for the property (open area, water retention, etc.) and then mandates a private method for taking care of it. Even in areas where the HOA has become defunct, the cities/counties are suing to force creation/revival of an HOA to assume those public responsibilities.

Not only does it eliminate the cost of maintaining those areas, it also ensures that the so-called common areas are privately owned and therefore subject to taxation. If the city/county owned them those areas would be exempt from the tax roles. Instead the city/county is mandating these areas in subdivisions but they are privately owned. This means they will be on the tax roles and privately maintained at the expense of the homeowners in that subdivision. The HOA owns the common area, not the homeowners.

[momof2dfw]

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

Absolutely, that's why cities are mandating them and have been mandating them for a couple of decades in Texas. The city of Garland has representatives testifying to that effect before the Texas State Legislature the last several sessions. This is a disease that has been spreading for a while. The city/county comes up with some "public benefit" that will be mandated for the property (open area, water retention, etc.) and then mandates a private method for taking care of it. Even in areas where the HOA has become defunct, the cities/counties are suing to force creation/revival of an HOA to assume those public responsibilities.

Not only does it eliminate the cost of maintaining those areas, it also ensures that the so-called common areas are privately owned and therefore subject to taxation. If the city/county owned them those areas would be exempt from the tax roles. Instead the city/county is mandating these areas in subdivisions but they are privately owned. This means they will be on the tax roles and privately maintained at the expense of the homeowners in that subdivision. The HOA owns the common area, not the homeowners.

FYI, what the private property owner HOA pays in taxes for these common areas is miniscule. Most are valued VERY LOW. For instance our neighborhood swim & rec club that has a pool, 2 story clubhouse, playground, tons of green space is valued on the DCAD at $120 TOTAL MARKET VALUE. The 2009 property taxes assessed on this piece of property are a whooping $3.07. The city is hardly getting rich off of that.

And yes, the HOA owns the common areas. I don't want to own them. That is why it is called a "common" area.