Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You seem uncomfortable with the right of free association, which is odd given the earlier claim of conservatism.
No one forces anyone to live in an HOA-regulated development. When you choose to buy a property in an HOA-regulated development, you agree to all the Bylaws and other sundry regulations. If you don't agree, then don't buy and don't move in.
HOA's may perform some "government-like" roles, but they aren't governments. They don't have the same powers and obligations.
Conservatives don't like HOA's becase they intrude on private property rights. In this area, it is difficult to find a house without an HOA. It may even be that any new neighborhood will required have to have an HOA in this area.
Do I really have to list the private property abuses made by HOA's such as banning American flags in your front yard, ticketing you for paint that is slightly off-shade in a house that you bought that way, and unnecessary special assessments for thousands of dollars? HOA's are mini governments filled with petty little crooks.
You seem to have missed the whole concept of private property rights. This is the second time I have seen you use them as a cover for more control over people. You are not a conservative. Stop pretending.
Directing this to the thread in general, I like this (conservative state of) Texas law:
When my wife and I were looking for houses, a HOA was an automatic disqualification. We didn't have much problem inside the Beltway. It seems that most of the HOAs are in more recent developments further out in the suburbs. Not to play the political side too much, but since it came up, I think it goes without saying that there is a much higher % of conservative-minded people buying into HOA neighborhoods. Likely for a variety of reasons, some which would spark more discussion than is appropriate.
HOAs have most of the power of governments with none of the accountability. At least IMO.
Why would you say that? They're beholden to the members of the community, which votes in the BoD and can usually vote to override them. They're also required by state law to do nearly everything with full disclosure.
Conservatives don't like HOA's becase they intrude on private property rights. In this area, it is difficult to find a house without an HOA. It may even be that any new neighborhood will required have to have an HOA in this area.
I don't see the evidence that all or any new neighborhood will be required to have an HOA. Please provide some if you have any.
As for private property rights, a true respect for those rights mean one understands one has the choice to give up or trade away some of those rights for other benefits. Conservatism is most certainly NOT about making that choice, deriving benefits of that voluntary and free association thereafter and then demanding that government come in and reduce one's obligations to the free association to which one willingly attached.
It's really very simple. If one doesn't like the HOA's rules and regulations, finances, fees, etc., DON'T buy into the HOA.
Quote:
Do I really have to list the private property abuses made by HOA's such as banning American flags in your front yard, ticketing you for paint that is slightly off-shade in a house that you bought that way, and unnecessary special assessments for thousands of dollars? HOA's are mini governments filled with petty little crooks.
See above. Plus, if you don't like the way an HOA is run, you can organize other disgruntled home owners and/or run for the Board and change the way it runs or you could disassociate yourself from the HOA by disposing of the property.
Quote:
You seem to have missed the whole concept of private property rights. This is the second time I have seen you use them as a cover for more control over people. You are not a conservative. Stop pretending.
That's a strange accusation from someone who wants THE GOVERNMENT to intrude into the business of a voluntary and free association of a group of home owners. Cafeteria conservatism isn't conservatism at all.
If an HOA doesn't allow the American flag, I would 1) not buy a house in that HOA, 2) advocate that others not buy a house there, 3) advocate that businesses boycott that HOA and 4) advocate the residents in that HOA vote out the bums on its board and replace with pro-American flag directors.
I wouldn't get THE GOVERNMENT to compel a free association of people to behave the way *I* want it to behave.
Quote:
Directing this to the thread in general, I like this (conservative state of) Texas law:
I rather like a lot of things about Texas, but whatever the government of Texas does is not automatically conservative. Does the HPV vaccine mandate ring a bell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallout Zone
Not to play the political side too much, but since it came up, I think it goes without saying that there is a much higher % of conservative-minded people buying into HOA neighborhoods.
I noticed this as well. As a rule, conservatives prefer HOAs over incorporation while those on the left are the opposite.
I don't see the evidence that all or any new neighborhood will be required to have an HOA. Please provide some if you have any.
Here is why HOA's are and will continue to proliferate:
Quote:
The Federal Housing Administration in 1963 authorized federal home mortgage insurance exclusively for condominiums or for homes in subdivisions where there was a qualifying homeowner association. The rationale was that developers wanted to get around density laws. The effect, however, was to divert investment from multifamily housing and home construction or renovation in the inner cities, speeding a middle-class exodus to the suburbs and into common-interest housing. The federal highways program further facilitated the process. In the 1970s, a growing scarcity of land for suburban development resulted in escalating land costs, prompting developers to increase the density of homes on the land. In order to do this while still retaining a suburban look, they clustered homes around green open areas maintained by associations. These associations provided services that formerly had been provided by municipal agencies funded by property taxes; yet, the residents were still required to pay those taxes. Accordingly, local governments began promoting subdivision development as a means of improving their cash flow.
Another primary driver in the proliferation of single family homeowners' associations was the U.S. Clean Water Act of 1977, which required all new real estate developments to detain storm water so that flow to adjoining properties was no greater than the pre-development runoff. This law required nearly all residential developments to construct detention or retention areas to hold excess storm water until it could be released at the pre-development flow level. Since these detention areas serve multiple residences, they are almost always designated as "common" areas, which becomes a reason to create a homeowner association. Although these areas can be placed on an individual homeowner's lot, eliminating the need for an association, nearly all U.S. municipalities now require these areas to be part of a common area to ensure an entity, rather than an individual or the municipality itself, has maintenance responsibility. Real estate developers, therefore, have established homeowner associations to maintain these federally mandated common areas. With the homeowner association already in place, the developers have expanded their scope to provide other requirements and amenities that they believe will help them sell homes.
This is why every state needs to have certain protections in place such as those I mentioned in my previous post that are proposed by a Houston attorney.
HOA's can be good, but only as good as the people in them. Buy into one without reading the CC&Rs or without willingness to participate in and monitor the people in charge---well you get the same thing that you get in politics at the local, state, and federal level--lack of accountability.
The last two years of my working career, after retiring from the insurance field, I served as administrative assistant to the president of a small Homeowners Management company (55-60 communities). I saw HOA's that worked well, and several that were completely dysfunctional.
I also served on the board of directors of my own HOA. When I was selected to replace a board member that was leaving, I discovered a community in total disarray. Board meetings would be attended by people screaming and shouting and calling one another names. People from more than half of the 192 units would show up to voice opinions. Within two months of being on the board there was a recall election and all of us were nearly thrown out---fell short by about four or five votes. No one even knew me, but considered me to be a part of the problem because I'd been selected by the current board.
Two months after that was annual election time. Two of the five board positions were up for election, and two of the existing board members decided to resign. My term was to continue for another year, so I chose to stay on. The new board members were part of the "opposition". The old board members wanted to sue the builder for construction defects, the new board members did not want to face the attorney litigation.
The first thing the HOA management company we had did was resign. We would have fired them anyway. We hired another, more compotent firm that came in. Our manager was a former city councilwoman who knew how to handle outbreaks in a meeting. The first time someone jumped up and began shouting she said, "Sir, you will sit down and wait your turn to address the board." He said he would say what he liked when he wanted to, and she replied, "Sir if you do so again, I have 911 on speed dial. The police will be summoned and even if you return to your home they will be at your door."
No one EVER interrupted proceedings again.
My suggestion was that maybe we should call in some outside inspectors to review construction. Ultimately the new board did that and discovered serious construction defects, the worst being that no plastic sheathing was placed between the outer walls and the siding and was resulting in some mold.
Despite the discovery many were still concerned about suing the developer. It took us almost three years to get everyone on the same page--and we did try negotiating with the builder, but of course he had insurance and had to defer any agreement to them--so the lawsuit is STILL in process seven years after it all began. But by now everyone knows that there are serious construction defects on the property.
I left it all (Colorado) in 2010 when we moved to Texas. Served just over three years on the board and was elected twice. Well before I left, we no longer had to hire another facility to hold our board meetings (because of the number of people attending), we could use our clubhouse. Only a dozen or so people would normally show up.
Remember this, boards on HOAs are made up of amateurs. But these amateurs potentially hold your future in the balance. You need to monitor them by attending meetings, requesting copies of minutes (or better still urging the minutes be placed on a website). We posted our budget on a private website including income/expense reports. We sent a newsletter out every other month posting reminders, telling people what was under consideration, and would send out a special letter if any major changes were being considered on the rules in order to get feedback. Our biggest homeowner problem was the limited visitor parking and the narrow streets. We could not allow anyone to park in the the streets because it could potentially block emergency vehicles. We could not allow homeowners to park in the visitor parking areas because there wasn't enough for visitors.
So, like any political organization that is controlled by people, the people have to control it or situations can deteriorate. If you are going to live in an HOA, and since 62 million people already do, make sure you keep your irons in the fire. Be proactive rather than reactive. Insist on regular communication from the board to the members.
In almost every situation, the people most unhappy with HOAs have failed to be involved in the governance of their community.
Again, I suggest every state adopt the AARP Bill of Rights for HOA members. It provides a fair and balanced approach to the responsibilities of boards and the rights of members.
Here is why HOA's are and will continue to proliferate:
Yes I agree that HOAs will continue to proliferate. They are a market response to a variety of regulatory, demographic, social and market conditions.
But that is NOT the same thing as what another poster claimed -- that any new neighborhood will be REQUIRED to have an HOA.
Quote:
HOA's can be good, but only as good as the people in them. Buy into one without reading the CC&Rs or without willingness to participate in and monitor the people in charge---well you get the same thing that you get in politics at the local, state, and federal level--lack of accountability.
[snip]
In almost every situation, the people most unhappy with HOAs have failed to be involved in the governance of their community.
I agree whole-heartedly. Like any church, club, association, etc., membership makes the difference on whether or not an entity is successful. Should any of these other free and voluntary associations of people fail to flourish, should a disgruntled member be empowered to bring the coercive power of the state to bear on the organization?
The fact remains that there are alternatives to HOA-run developments in our area and quite a few of them. If one is insistent on being able to control the exterior paint color of the house, the costs for maintaining pools and trash service, hanging decorations outside, etc., one can simply buy a stand-alone property with no HOA.
Yes I agree that HOAs will continue to proliferate. They are a market response to a variety of regulatory, demographic, social and market conditions.
But that is NOT the same thing as what another poster claimed -- that any new neighborhood will be REQUIRED to have an HOA.
I agree whole-heartedly. Like any church, club, association, etc., membership makes the difference on whether or not an entity is successful. Should any of these other free and voluntary associations of people fail to flourish, should a disgruntled member be empowered to bring the coercive power of the state to bear on the organization?
The fact remains that there are alternatives to HOA-run developments in our area and quite a few of them. If one is insistent on being able to control the exterior paint color of the house, the costs for maintaining pools and trash service, hanging decorations outside, etc., one can simply buy a stand-alone property with no HOA.
You are correct that it is entirely possible that not all neighborhoods may be required to have an HOA, although there are incentives to municipalities to help proliferate them (as in we, the city of ________, get your tax money, but you get to pay for all the upkeep within your community confines).
I truly despise statements that say ALL HOA's are bad, or that ALL HOA's are good. Like many other types of dogmatic statements, both statements are erroneous. HOA communities should not be bought into by folks who won't read in advance the CC&Rs or who are unwilling to participate in the governance of the community by either volunteering to be on the board, or by carefully monitoring what such board does.
Multi-unit housing like condominiums and townhomes almost always have some type of HOA because there is no way to govern commonly owned areas. Some people choose those type of communities to avoid having to mow lawns, shovel snow, or to have enhanced security. Nothing wrong with those goals. Just requires active participation to make sure all is handled properly.
If that is too much for someone, they should choose to live elsewhere.
I still urge the adoption by every state of the AARP HOA homeowner rights previously mentioned. It would provide some legislative guidance to the courts which are sometimes called upon to make settlements between HOAs and one or more of their members.
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, formerly NoVA and Phila
9,777 posts, read 15,788,843 times
Reputation: 10886
In North Carolina, if a development has more than 20 homes, by NC law there MUST be an HOA. It's very hard to find a development around here (The Triangle) without an HOA unless it was built before a certain date (sigh).
In North Carolina, if a development has more than 20 homes, by NC law there MUST be an HOA. It's very hard to find a development around here (The Triangle) without an HOA unless it was built before a certain date (sigh).
I would oppose such a law in NoVA. It's one thing to create a regulatory environment friendly to HOAs, it's quite another to mandate them by fiat.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
HOA proliferation
