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.
Most HOAs that have garage parking rules say that if you have three cars, three garages, they all must be parked inside. But if you have four cars, three garages, the fourth can park outside.
I am unaware of places where all cars have to be parked inside.
However, I want pitch one argument to both sides that is largely being ignored.
HOAs are something people self-select to move into and be apart of. Personal choice is involved when a HOA already exists when people move in.
This may have been true at one time. However, local governments have been 'load-shedding' their fiscal responsibilities unto developers by requiring the formation of HOAs to manage the physical infrastructure, even if only a retention pond, of new developments.
According to the AP, 80% of new homes across the country are now under the HOA form of involuntary government, especially in the southeast and west. Thus, there is very little consumer choice, and what choice does exist involves choosing between no HOA and a 50 mile commute or an HOA close to work and schools.
This may have been true at one time. However, local governments have been 'load-shedding' their fiscal responsibilities unto developers by requiring the formation of HOAs to manage the physical infrastructure, even if only a retention pond, of new developments.
I would think many people would support this, as so many people don't want government paying for anything that doesn't directly impact themselves. Now your tax dollars aren't paying to keep up my neighborhood. As an aside, I am not one of these minimalist-government types.
I might support your anger if it's true that the government "forces" HOAs in all new neighborhoods. However, I still don't support the argument that HOAs should' exist. Some people simply desire the types of protections/services that an HOA provides. My neighborhood simply couldn't work without one, unless somehow everyone volunteered to equally pay for all the services, which someone would have to manage. And that's the way I like it.
If you don't like them, that is fine. But all this involuntary oppression talk is really over the top.
I would think many people would support this, as so many people don't want government paying for anything that doesn't directly impact themselves. Now your tax dollars aren't paying to keep up my neighborhood. As an aside, I am not one of these minimalist-government types.
I might support your anger if it's true that the government "forces" HOAs in all new neighborhoods. However, I still don't support the argument that HOAs should' exist. Some people simply desire the types of protections/services that an HOA provides. My neighborhood simply couldn't work without one, unless somehow everyone volunteered to equally pay for all the services, which someone would have to manage. And that's the way I like it.
If you don't like them, that is fine. But all this involuntary oppression talk is really over the top.
They are involuntary. "Mandatory" is a euphemism for "involuntary" for marketing purposes. The prior poster was absolutely correct about local government (and federal) mandating HOAs. To claim that there is a feasible choice when virtually all new development for the last few decades has been burdened with involuntary membership HOA corporations is ignoring reality.
People are already paying taxes, they should not have to pay private taxes for "services" local government taxed for but did not provide. As far as picking and choosing HOAs and services, frequently local government has already mandated requirements such as "open space", "green belts", etc. which they also require a private entity to care for and maintain. "Choice" becomes "which HOA" as opposed to "HOA or no-HOA" due to these local government mandates.
If you want a government then you can use a different vehicle such as a district to accomplish that end. However, the objective of an HOA corporation is to disenfranchise property owners, to shift liability from developers and local government onto the property owners, and to thwart fundamental restrictions that apply to actual governmental entities.
HOAs don't provide protection at all. The existence of an HOA represents a huge risk to any owner. Claiming that HOAs must exist for the reasons given is like claiming slavery should continue because too many plantations and commerce depends upon it. You can provide governmental functions through a legitimate governmental entity - but the HOA corporation is no such animal.
You can provide governmental functions through a legitimate governmental entity - but the HOA corporation is no such animal.
So a governmental agency will clean the pool? Maintain the tennis courts? Maintain the playground? Not everyone wants to deal with public versions of these things. How is a townhome building maintained?
These are still things you haven't answered. How do you do this without an HOA? Government? Really?
I guess this thread is basically gone off the deep end, but anyway. We live in a nice little neighborhood delineated by a sign that says Wentworth Estates. The neighborhood is circa 1989, and although there was an HOA when the neighborhood was new, there were never any dues and there is no active board....just a few guidelines such as those big old satelite dishes were forbidden in the front yard, etc.
This past summer the sign was replaced because almost everyone in the neighborhood agreed to chip in the money to get it replaced. During this fund raising, the subject of reinstating the HOA came up. The basic answer was Hell No, this is anti American. I should add the neighborhood is largely older, and Conservative.
This being said, there are a few less than well kept yards which would benefit from a letter from an HOA, but I would not ever vote for one.
So a governmental agency will clean the pool? Maintain the tennis courts? Maintain the playground? Not everyone wants to deal with public versions of these things. How is a townhome building maintained?
These are still things you haven't answered. How do you do this without an HOA? Government? Really?
HOA corporations are not governments and should not be empowered to act as governments, period. Giving a private corporation unlimited "tax and spend" powers with the proposition that any conduct can be rationalized under the pretext of "preserving property values" does not lead to any positive outcome except for the vendors that represent the HOA.
If there is an entity tasked with these things that is going to be "involuntary membership" then a legitimate governmental entity is the only acceptable approach. One implementation could be the formation of a district specific to the subdivision. Political subdivisions of the state are obligated to follow US and state constitutional limits applicable to governmental authority.
Perhaps the mandate of a pool should be re-examined to begin with. If people want such things then voluntary membership should be adequate to take care of them. If the things you are talking about are so undesirable that they couldn't possibly be supported by a voluntary membership, then perhaps they should go out of business. If you need an entity with governmental powers then form a legitimate government complete with the restraints that apply to governmental entities You don't need HOA corporations.
I think we'll agree to disagree on this one. All your lawyer-style talk is doing nothing for me. Talk like a normal person, and I may not nod off.
I will accept your point about government mandating HOAs to shirk off some of their work onto an HOA, but I hardly think any of them mandate a pool, tennis courts, or a playground. However, I simply do not think that government is the only way, and it is surely far more inefficient. If a neighborhood wants to form an HOA, and be able to deal with their problems locally rather than through government (which typically takes eons), they should be able to. If I want to live in an HOA development, I should be able to. And I don't see how it could necessarily be run voluntarily. I do think some HOAs take things wayyyyy too seriously. There's no need to sue someone for leaving their garage door open or something.
I'm pretty damn liberal, but even I don't think that government needs to dig that far into things. The last thing I'd want to deal with is Atlanta City government when we needed our pool cleaned, to enforce the no-glass-in-the-pool rule, or to fix a broken piece of fence around the dog park. There are way too many little details to have a government entity deal with it all. I know the amount of email that our HOA board receives, and that's for a dense neighborhood of 410 homes. Now, multiply that by hundreds. Why not take care of those issues at the neighborhood level? I can call one of my neighbors to deal with any issues, not some big government office.
As for "no positive outcome", that is complete hogwash. Our HOA has been instrumental in dealing with the numerous building problems in our finished neighborhood, and dealing with the builder on that. And so far, at no extra cost to us homeowners. We also get lawn maintenance, our decks pressure washed and stained, new paint every few years, a clean pool with new furniture, a dog park (which was fully repaired quickly after a homeowner flipped his truck into it), and a guarded gated entrance. How is that not all positive? And I can think of plenty of negatives about not having an HOA, with the aforementioned rusted out vans, overgrown yard, and a backyard kennel. All possible. And none of it good.
HOAs shouldn't be mandated, and no, they are not always needed, but they certainly shouldn't be forbidden. Choice is the key here. And my choice is to live in an HOA community. You don't have to. So don't. Something tells me you have some control issues and don't like anyone telling you anything that you can or can't do at any time ever.
I really don't have anything more to say. You don't like them. I do. And I don't think they are going anywhere. Sucks for you, I guess!
I think we'll agree to disagree on this one. All your lawyer-style talk is doing nothing for me. Talk like a normal person, and I may not nod off.
I will accept your point about government mandating HOAs to shirk off some of their work onto an HOA, but I hardly think any of them mandate a pool, tennis courts, or a playground.
Governments mandate things and then require a non-governmental entity to be tasked with taking care of them. Examples include open space, retention basin, medians, noise barriers, etc.
Quote:
However, I simply do not think that government is the only way, and it is surely far more inefficient. If a neighborhood wants to form an HOA, and be able to deal with their problems locally rather than through government (which typically takes eons), they should be able to.
Now you are not making any sense. The example provided was of a district specific to the subdivision. As far as "neighborhoods wanting to form an HOA", let's be clear first of all that "neighborhoods" don't usually form them - the property in the subdivision is burdened with them by a developer - often pursuant to a development agreement between the developer and the city or county - before the first lot is sold.
Let's also be clear that in the case where a group of ne'er-do-wells is trying to impose one after the fact, they aren't looking to impose a voluntary HOA. They are looking to impose an involuntary HOA. "The neighborhood" is an abstract, meaningless concept. However, if you mean "the people owning property in the subdivision" - what is the basis for rationalizing that they should have perpetual liens on their property that can never be paid off just because OTHER property owners wanted something like that? Just because other property owners are foolish enough to burden their land in such fashion is not sufficient rationale to burden the property of those who bought their property free and clear of perpetual liens and involuntary membership to be burdened with it.
Quote:
If I want to live in an HOA development, I should be able to. And I don't see how it could necessarily be run voluntarily. I do think some HOAs take things wayyyyy too seriously. There's no need to sue someone for leaving their garage door open or something.
There are lots of things you can't do just because you want to.
You support a involuntary membership private corporation with none of the restraints that a government would have. The inevitable result each and every time is an oppressive regime.
No doubt in the event you find yourself the target of lawsuits such as you have described, you will receive recommendations from real estate agents to sell and buy elsewhere. Of course, you can't do that easily when you are in such a lawsuit - and the real estate agent's solutions are beneficial to the real estate sales industry, not you.
Quote:
I'm pretty damn liberal, but even I don't think that government needs to dig that far into things. The last thing I'd want to deal with is Atlanta City government when we needed our pool cleaned, to enforce the no-glass-in-the-pool rule, or to fix a broken piece of fence around the dog park. There are way too many little details to have a government entity deal with it all. I know the amount of email that our HOA board receives, and that's for a dense neighborhood of 410 homes. Now, multiply that by hundreds. Why not take care of those issues at the neighborhood level? I can call one of my neighbors to deal with any issues, not some big government office.
No one said "Atlanta city government". The proponents of HOAs love to falsely compare the HOA corporation with "democracies" and "government" yet a corporation is used precisely to avoid any obligation to a democracy or a legitimate government. If you want governmental powers then you can form a district.
Quote:
As for "no positive outcome", that is complete hogwash. Our HOA has been instrumental in dealing with the numerous building problems in our finished neighborhood, and dealing with the builder on that. And so far, at no extra cost to us homeowners. We also get lawn maintenance, our decks pressure washed and stained, new paint every few years, a clean pool with new furniture, a dog park (which was fully repaired quickly after a homeowner flipped his truck into it), and a guarded gated entrance. How is that not all positive?
Ah, the nanny mentality. You probably have no idea what the cost is in dollars or otherwise.
Quote:
And I can think of plenty of negatives about not having an HOA, with the aforementioned rusted out vans, overgrown yard, and a backyard kennel. All possible. And none of it good.
You have the ability to enforce restrictive covenants. There is a natural resistance to individuals going on a litigation spree. However, you obviously expect an HOA corporation to go around dictating what cars people can drive or own, what constitutes "overgrown", and whether they are allowed pets. It should be no surprise that it doesn't take long for "private police" to get out of hand. Again, if you want governmental type powers then form a legitimate district.
Quote:
HOAs shouldn't be mandated, and no, they are not always needed, but they certainly shouldn't be forbidden. Choice is the key here. And my choice is to live in an HOA community. You don't have to. So don't. Something tells me you have some control issues and don't like anyone telling you anything that you can or can't do at any time ever.
HOAs are mandated for new developments. They are never needed and they should be forbidden just as slavery was - at least as to non-condominium properties. Choice is quite illusory. Your arguments don't hold water. The OP's issue is that someone is trying to form an involuntary membership HOA corporation in his neighborhood. Your position seems to be that is perfectly alright "if the neighborhood wants it". What does that mean? What about the right of the OP to remain free from one?
The issues regarding control are laughable. It seems that there is no end of people that want to exert control over everyone else - you know, the type of people that want to force everyone into an involuntary membership HOA. The controllers aren't just content with control they want to be funded by their victims.
Quote:
I really don't have anything more to say. You don't like them. I do. And I don't think they are going anywhere. Sucks for you, I guess!
HOA burdened property is prevalent due to local government and developer mandate, not market demand. In other words, numerosity does not equate to popularity. I agree that you will have lots of failing, deteriorating HOA-burdened property to choose from for a long time.
No one said "Atlanta city government". The proponents of HOAs love to falsely compare the HOA corporation with "democracies" and "government" yet a corporation is used precisely to avoid any obligation to a democracy or a legitimate government. If you want governmental powers then you can form a district.
OK. So who would run this district? What rules could be made? Who would make those rules? Who would enforce them? Would property taxes be set by amenities available in each district to cover costs? I'm just trying to figure out how this would work.
Or, is your position that the owner of each and every parcel of property anywhere should be completely free to do whatever they want? Can there be no neighborhood/development with amenities specific to that neighborhood? I know this is a popular position, and if that's for you, then great. It is for many.
I just don't wish to live in a free-for-all area at the moment.
Quote:
Ah, the nanny mentality. You probably have no idea what the cost is in dollars or otherwise.
I think I've explained enough times (maybe the tin foil is blocking your view?) that I live in a town home community. I don't own the building of nine units and there's no specific area of yard or landscaping that is defined to my unit or anyone's unit. So yes, "socializing" the maintenance is almost necessary. And we are kept up to date on almost all costs, since we do pay for it.
Last edited by samiwas1; 10-16-2012 at 06:40 PM..
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.
Not Much Choice Going On
