HOA Fees On Property Lot Not In Use in VA

[TN Lily]

ICdelight, it is the buyer's responsibility to determine whether the property they are buying is subject to restrictive covenants. If you don't like them, don't buy that property. Buy something that is not subject to covenants.

Various community organizations such as HOAs are successful. Some are dysfunctional. It is democracy at its finest or its worse depending on the group. Apathetic members do not lead to a funtional HOA. If you buy into a community with an HOA, by the very act of buying, you are agreeing to abide by the covenants, the bylaws and anything else in the governing documents.

No one is forced to buy property subject to covenants. The documents may have been drafted by the developer's attorney. But no one is forced to buy property subject to these restrictions.

I disagree with you CAI. It is clear that you have a strong opinion about HOAs and the CAI. Many people rail against HOAs. The solution for people with this viewpoint is don't buy or live in a community with such an association.

HOAs do not have "unlimited authority." Like the owners, they too are subject to the governing documents.

Too often the real issue boils down to a buyer who wants to be in a nice subdivision which is nice in large part due to the covenants and their enforcement. The buyer become an owner and foolishly and often arrogantly decides that what they AGREED to by the very act of buying property subject to covenants does not apply to them. Paying assessments is one of the things a buyer agrees to do.

Good luck to the OP's friends. I am still curious to know the name of the subdivision where land values have dropped 90%.

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by TN Lily

ICdelight, it is the buyer's responsibility to determine whether the property they are buying is subject to restrictive covenants. If you don't like them, don't buy that property. Buy something that is not subject to covenants.

It's actually been a governmental mandate for several decades - the purpose being to tax homeowners without being obligated to provide services to them. So don't give silly advice since it is absurd to suggest such property is readily available to prospective purchasers to choose from.

Originally Posted by TN Lily

Various community organizations such as HOAs are successful. Some are dysfunctional. It is democracy at its finest or its worse depending on the group. Apathetic members do not lead to a funtional HOA. If you buy into a community with an HOA, by the very act of buying, you are agreeing to abide by the covenants, the bylaws and anything else in the governing documents.

Which management company/trade group do you work for ?
There is no such thing as democracy with involuntary membership, no right to vote, etc. The purpose of using a corporate form to begin with is to not be held accountable to rights that citizens have with respect to a government. You promote government power without restraint.

Democracy is a function of social compact and constitution. HOAs are corporate forms where relationships are determined by contract - a contract that no homeowner was ever at the table for. So don't absurdly suggest HOAs were there to benefit homeowners. They were designed to turn homeowners into cash cows for the developer, local government, and the HOA vendor industry.

What kind of "democracy" allows for the taking of property without compensation? What kind of "democracy" allows the HOA corporate board to decide who gets to run for office and who is allowed to vote? Who do you think you are kidding?

Originally Posted by TN Lily

No one is forced to buy property subject to covenants. The documents may have been drafted by the developer's attorney. But no one is forced to buy property subject to these restrictions.

The restrictions are non-negotiable. You are correct only in the sense that there is no obligation to purchase a specific HOA-burdened property. You are incorrect in a larger sense, however, because people are forced to choose from the housing that is available and the population far exceeds the availability of non-HOA housing.

Originally Posted by TN Lily

I disagree with you CAI. It is clear that you have a strong opinion about HOAs and the CAI. Many people rail against HOAs. The solution for people with this viewpoint is don't buy or live in a community with such an association.

So you either work for CAI or you are involved with a management company or law firm that is a CAI member? Which of the points about CAI that I made do you disagree with? The CAI positions I noted are published by CAI in its "Public Policies". You can "disagree" all you want but CAI's conduct and objectives are easy to look up. Buying a property does not mean that a homeowner agrees to be abused, threatened, "fined", etc.

Originally Posted by TN Lily

HOAs do not have "unlimited authority." Like the owners, they too are subject to the governing documents.

The "governing" documents as you like to refer to them were not written by the homeowners - they were written by the developer and HOA vendors. Rarely do the documents impose any obligation on the HOA corporation whatsoever. Feel free to identity "limits" on authority. The documents generally simply provide that the HOA corporation has authority to do something but no obligation to do anything.

Originally Posted by TN Lily

Too often the real issue boils down to a buyer who wants to be in a nice subdivision which is nice in large part due to the covenants and their enforcement. The buyer become an owner and foolishly and often arrogantly decides that what they AGREED to by the very act of buying property subject to covenants does not apply to them. Paying assessments is one of the things a buyer agrees to do.

If you want to make it about contracts then the HOA should be obligated to do something in return for receiving a payment. By "doing something" I do not mean purchasing insurance for board members and management companies nor paying various fees to management companies, consultants, and attorneys. None of these provide value or service to the homeowner. Of course if you want to focus on what the buyer "agreed to do" then shouldn't the buyer have the right to hold the HOA corporation and its vendors accountable when the "preserves property value" sales pitch is exposed as a fraud?

You also fail to address the facts again that i) the buyers nor the other property owners were responsible for those restrictive covenants, ii) the restrictive covenants can and often are changed AFTER purchase without the homeowners' consent, iii) restrictive covenants are often invalidated as being unlawful or against public policy, and iv) there is no evidence that a subdivision is "nice" due to covenants or the enforcement of those covenants - things that actually primarily benefit the management company and the HOA attorney, not the homeowners.

[cully]

Another aspect dawned on me. Your friend is retired. If he should pass away, his heir would get the lot. His heir would be saddled with a lot ....he has to PAY for (those fees). And no house on it to even rent out till it sells.

Maybe if your friend considers his heir(s) he will drop that price a greater amount.

[johnsonkk]

Originally Posted by johnsonkk

Where in Virginia has property, land property, dropped 90% in value?

If this property really did lose 90% of its value, and this property cannot sell, then it is overpriced. Again, where in Virginia is this property that lost 90% of its value? That means if this property was worth $100k, now its value is $10k. Something isn't right, HOA or no HOA.

[cully]

Yes, I am very curious where in Virginia. I have lived in and had property in No. Va. and mid Virginia. Wondering the area of such development and dreams that is now pretty much kaput.