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.
Whoa! wait just a minute- IC Delight nearly had me convinced that membership in an HOA is INVOLUNTARY. How in the world did you manage to NOT LIVE IN AN HOA BURDENED HOME? He would have you believe this is IMPOSSIBLE TO DO. Was it some kind of CHRISTMAS MIRACLE? What kind of exemptions did you have to apply for to NOT BE PART OF AN HOA? Did it take years of EFFORT? Did you have to PAY OFF a city official? Are you part of a POLITICAL ELITE? What makes you SO UNIQUE?
Or maybe you just bought one of homes available at any time on the market that wasn't burdened by an HOA. . .
Membership in HOA-burdened subdivisions is involuntary for all persons owning property in the subdivision, Kohmet.
Housing isn't "optional" for people, it is a fundamental need. Suggesting that people should be content with suffering abuse and deprivation of rights under theories of consent is as absurd as claiming they consent to eating deliberately contaminated food. Under Komeht's theories, racial covenants would be perfectly acceptable because people "chose" that. Think about that before buying any of Komeht's private government schemes, especially his "new urbanism" schemes (all of which involve HOAs and condos in implementation).
The false "choice" argument is used by Komeht and others to imply "consent" to be treated as third class citizens or worse.
Given the large (and continuing) population growth of this area and given that virtually every subdivision built since the 90s is burdened by involuntary membership HOAs, a very significant portion of the population has no choice about whether there is an HOA. Their "choice" is reduced to "which HOA" and even then choices are already constrained by other factors including income and job location.
The HOA is not created by the homeowners. It was created by a developer for the benefit primarily of the developer, vendors, and local government. The homeowners are not the beneficiaries of the HOA corporation, its vendors, or creators. The homeowners are the involuntary prey. Membership is involuntary because if given a choice homeowners would choose not to be members of organizations that work to the detriment of the homeowners.
Membership in HOA-burdened subdivisions is involuntary for all persons owning property in the subdivision, Kohmet.
First time I've ever heard you utter something remotely true. Please take this note: You must actually own property in an HOA burdened project to be subject to an HOA. Because people get to choose where they own property it means they have choice as to whether it is in a project burdened by an HOA or not.
"Housing isn't "optional" for people, it is a fundamental need."
Correct. However, there are lots of different kinds of housing, only some of which are burdened by HOAs.
"Suggesting that people should be content with suffering abuse and deprivation of rights under theories of consent is as absurd as claiming they consent to eating deliberately contaminated food."
No one is suggesting people should suffer abuse or deprivation of rights. But if you buy a property subject to an HOA you do so according to the rules. Freedom of contract - it's a *****.
"Under Komeht's theories, racial covenants would be perfectly acceptable because people "chose" that."
Racial covenants were made unconstitutional decades ago.
"Think about that before buying any of Komeht's private government schemes, especially his "new urbanism" schemes (all of which involve HOAs and condos in implementation)."
New urbanism involves an incredibly diverse array of planning issues including:
Road diets, bike lanes, transit - none of which have anything to do with HOAs.
Small parcel infill development of MF apartments - nothing to do with HOAs
Promotion of use of housing options such as accessory dwelling units, row homes and the like - nothing to do with HOAs.
Promotion of mixed use zoning - nothing to do with HOAs.
Living in close vibrant, compact, connected, livable, walkable, lovable, affordable communities - nothing to dow with HOAs.
The creation of great shared spaces - nothing to do with HOAs.
In fact the vast majority of what New Urbanism advocates for or is involved with has absolutely no relation to HOAs whatsoever.
"The false "choice" argument is used by Komeht and others to imply "consent" to be treated as third class citizens or worse."
It isn't a false choice where one purchase property - people aren't cattle put on rails and told to sign on the dotted line with a gun to their head. It's real and meaningful choice. Freedom of contract - it's a *****.
"Given the large (and continuing) population growth of this area and given that virtually every subdivision built since the 90s is burdened by involuntary membership HOAs, a very significant portion of the population has no choice about whether there is an HOA. Their "choice" is reduced to "which HOA" and even then choices are already constrained by other factors including income and job location."
There are over 500 properties listed RIGHT NOW in the City of Austin that are not subject to any HOA. Include the metro area and that number is probably 1000 or more.
"Membership is involuntary because if given a choice homeowners would choose not to be members of organizations that work to the detriment of the homeowners."
Nearly every single member of every HOA is a voluntary member having made the choice to join the HOA by purchasing a property burned by an HOA. The few exceptions would be people who inherited property - but they always have an option to sell.
People generally have the right to subject themselves to things you may find abhorrent. Freedom of contract - it's a *****.
I thank everyone for the responses, and keep them coming. Where I currently live (PA) there are no HOA's and there really are no problems with neighbors or properties. So when we started looking for building lots in Texas, I was surprised at how 95% of the properties we are finding are controlled by HOA's.
My family likes to hunt, fish, shoot firearms, enjoys farm animals, and we own a motorhome. Every property that I dug into the HOA's so far limits one or more of these activities. The HOA's that do not are probably one grumpy board member away from limiting some of the things we want to enjoy on "OUR" property.
Our property search is focusing on Dripping Springs west, out to Blanco up through Johnson City stops around Marble falls. 10-30+ acre properties that are unrestricted are difficult to find in this area. We have a line on a few and will most likely have to pay more to own this type of lot, but in order to maintain the freedoms I want on my land I don't see how we would ever fit into a HOA.
Texas developers certainly enjoy having HOA corporations to control the homeowners, homeowners' property, and as a liability-shifting device. One class of members controls the HOA corporation, another class of members is financially responsible for the liabilities incurred by the HOA board. Developers are not the only entity that makes the call whether a new subdivision has an HOA. Local government has been mandating them directly and indirectly for decades for the financial benefit of local government.
"Well-intentioned" with respect to what? Board members and vendors have abused "involuntary membership" and foreclosure for years. Current existence is a poor excuse to allow more of the same.
Exactly what legislative changes/"new rules" are you opposing/complaining of -
• open records?
• open elections (i.e., incumbents can't decide who runs for office)?
• owners' right to vote (i.e., incumbents can't deny owners a vote)?
• open meetings?
• having to get a court order authorizing foreclosure?
For me, "well-intentioned" means that I have no interest in being punitive. My goals as a board member are: to keep my neighborhood looking nice and to avoid having my neighborhood changed in ways that could lower property values. That's it. The framework for that is provided within the DCCR and that framework helps the board avoid mission creep. My board and I have no interest in micro-managing anyone's use of their property, as long as their use is in compliance with the DCCR. We like for members to make improvements, so we're not looking to put up roadblocks to prevent someone from adding a patio or replacing their roof. A rising tide floats all boats.
We're also not sitting on the edge of our seats, eagerly awaiting the next opportunity to foreclose. In fact, my board recently voted to eat the legal fees generated by a delinquency as part of a settlement to avoid a foreclosure. Fortunately, our neighborhood is full of prompt payers and we rarely have delinquencies that proceed to that stage. But if we had multiple instances of delinquency proceedings per year, we couldn't afford to eat those costs. That's what I call well-intentioned.
Open records generate administrative overhead for us. The management company would gladly provide financial records on request to any member who requests them. That's not good enough under the law anymore. We now have to publish those records online for members. So the thing nobody has ever requested in the first place, now has to be published online. That generates cost.
Open meetings laws generates hassle for us. Board meetings are open to the membership under the bylaws of our association. No one is opposed to that, yet we average less than one member visitor attending our board meetings a year. So members have shown year after year that they don't really care to attend meetings of the board. And I get that. I live in a school district that gets thousands of my tax dollars every year, but I've never attended its board meetings. But now we have to publish the board meeting agenda 3 days prior, and post it physically and online. That public version of the agenda has to be sanitized of member names to protect member privacy under privacy law. So now we can't even meet as a board unless we publish this sanitized agenda in multiple places and in a timely fashion.
The foreclosure law change generates more legal cost. The attorney has to be involved earlier in the process. The money meter is running any time the attorney is involved. In this case, we're paying for the sins of other associations that weren't well-intentioned, so I get why more protections were added. But as I explained before, this layer of protection generates very real expenses.
So all of this is a long way of explaining why it frustrates me to read posts on here that assume HOAs all over Texas are run by power-hungry despots. Mine isn't and never has been. I've met other HOA leaders in this area and none of them seem particularly despotic, either. I don't deny that some HOAs are poorly managed, but I do question the frequent assertion here that most HOAs are inherently bad.
Bo, it's not necessarily that all or even most HOA's are bad (there are many that aren't), but that they have the potential to be bad by design (thus the changes in the laws that even you acknowledge were necessary because of bad actors), and anyone who is considering buying in one needs to not only know the rules they are agreeing to but that those rules could change, by the very nature of the beast, and that that is something that they need to take into consideration and decide if they are willing, if the rules they agree to staying the same are important to them, to be actively involved with the association and the Board so it won't happen when they aren't looking.
Publishing an agenda three days ahead of a meeting, I'm sorry, is not an onerous requirement. I've been on the Board of quite a few organizations, and 7 to 10 days ahead is standard, and on some I've been on due to having to mail the agenda to the members, it's been earlier. Why is this such a problem for your Board?
I thank everyone for the responses, and keep them coming. Where I currently live (PA) there are no HOA's and there really are no problems with neighbors or properties. So when we started looking for building lots in Texas, I was surprised at how 95% of the properties we are finding are controlled by HOA's.
My family likes to hunt, fish, shoot firearms, enjoys farm animals, and we own a motorhome. Every property that I dug into the HOA's so far limits one or more of these activities. The HOA's that do not are probably one grumpy board member away from limiting some of the things we want to enjoy on "OUR" property.
Our property search is focusing on Dripping Springs west, out to Blanco up through Johnson City stops around Marble falls. 10-30+ acre properties that are unrestricted are difficult to find in this area. We have a line on a few and will most likely have to pay more to own this type of lot, but in order to maintain the freedoms I want on my land I don't see how we would ever fit into a HOA.
Is your issue that the areas you are looking in are part of HOA communities? If not, why look for one? HOA is to cover common or joint expenses. They can be all sizes from tiny community to city. Are you trying to weigh whether the amenities those joint expenses provide are worth it? You can probably look for a club to join for that matter...not an hoa to live in.
I thank everyone for the responses, and keep them coming. Where I currently live (PA) there are no HOA's and there really are no problems with neighbors or properties. So when we started looking for building lots in Texas, I was surprised at how 95% of the properties we are finding are controlled by HOA's.
My family likes to hunt, fish, shoot firearms, enjoys farm animals, and we own a motorhome. Every property that I dug into the HOA's so far limits one or more of these activities. The HOA's that do not are probably one grumpy board member away from limiting some of the things we want to enjoy on "OUR" property.
Our property search is focusing on Dripping Springs west, out to Blanco up through Johnson City stops around Marble falls. 10-30+ acre properties that are unrestricted are difficult to find in this area. We have a line on a few and will most likely have to pay more to own this type of lot, but in order to maintain the freedoms I want on my land I don't see how we would ever fit into a HOA.
I had never heard of HOA's until we started looking for a home here in Texas. I am eternally grateful that IC_deLight spoke out. We would never be happy in an HOA neighborhood. There are plenty of laws on the books already to take care of whatever "issue" anyone may or may not have.
I still cannot understand the opposing arguments here whenever IC starts to talk. It is the "other side of the story" IC is presenting. It generally does devolve into sarcasm, insults and well, you can see for yourself. The people speaking to IC purport to give people "choice" but when it comes to hearing both sides of the HOA story they don't want to hear it.
I'm so glad I learned about it beforehand from IC. Soooo, glad.
Oh yeah, I generally love the "trailer trash" arguments...gotta love it. It's just one more label I'm proud to have been a part of. We lived in one and loved it while we were there.
I support doing your homework and if you want to get permission to do something on your own property then an HOA is for you. If you don't need to ask Daddy for permission then I would support not getting into an HOA neighborhood...they're nightmares.
To the people saying those of us should look elsewhere than Texas to purchase because we would prefer something other than an HOA...wow, Texas sure has changed.
I definitely read the (few) deed restrictions on my property before I bought, and I DEFINITELY crossed HOA properties off my list. My elderly parents might be fairly happy with a HOA property, especially if it also provided services and upkeep as part of the dues. For me? No thanks.
Besides, properties in and adjacent to Austin proper are a bit too spendy for decent 1+ac lots, and I didn't like getting nickel-and-dimed by CoA utilities and every little extra fee and tax they tacked onto the bills when I rented in Oak Hill.
Our property search is focusing on Dripping Springs west, out to Blanco up through Johnson City stops around Marble falls. 10-30+ acre properties that are unrestricted are difficult to find in this area. We have a line on a few and will most likely have to pay more to own this type of lot, but in order to maintain the freedoms I want on my land I don't see how we would ever fit into a HOA.
Move east, unless your heart's set on living in the Hill Country.
I live just west of Bastrop, plenty of decent sized lots with zero HOAs. Heck, if you can push out to Smithville they're in the process of rolling out gigabit! (In my neighborhood we're stuck with 30mbps Time Warner so far :/) I have friends up in Elgin and points a bit further northeast of me, but they aren't within broadband service radii so I couldn't have lived there if I'd wanted to.
Egads, you can't buy large acreage without moving in to an HOA-controlled neighborhood, WTh? If I own a large expanse of land where I don't see a neighbor for miles, I should do as I wish without someone saying that my property must be 90% masonry/no mobile homes/blah blah blah. Suburban subdivisions with HOAs? Yeah. Acreage (10+ acres)? NO!
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.
