HOA: "Not mandatory" in listing

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

LOL my brain retains things on a "need to know" basis. It doesn't really matter to me whether our HOA is a corporate entity or not. I am not overly fearful or overly concerned about HOAs in general or ours in particular. It's cost is minimal. My involvement with it is minimal. What I do know and care about is that our beautiful common areas and entry ways are well maintained and that we get a financial statement each year and it all looks great and makes sense.

You have no ownership interest whatsoever in the "common areas". They are not yours.

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

Have a great day - I will have another pleasant day in my pleasant neighborhood and if the incoming storms knock down a tree in the common area (like one did a couple of years ago) the HOA will pay to have it cut up and removed so I don't have to look at it from across the road!

The HOA corporation is the entity responsible for maintaining its own property but you pay for it. Your assessments will be used to pay for tree removal from the property that belongs to the HOA corporation.

[KathrynAragon]

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

You have no ownership interest whatsoever in the "common areas". They are not yours.


The HOA corporation is the entity responsible for maintaining its own property but you pay for it. Your assessments will be used to pay for tree removal from the property that belongs to the HOA corporation.

You think I don't know all this?

I've known all this since before we bought the house and I am in full approval all of the above. I don't want to own the common areas, and I don't want to be responsible for arranging the care of the common areas, including but not limited to tree removal. All I want is for the common areas to continue to be well maintained and look beautiful in the neighborhood.

That's why I gladly pay the very reasonable dues of $125 a year. Everybody wins.

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

You think I don't know all this?

Apparently you did not. You prefaced reference to the common area with "our".

[KathrynAragon]

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

Apparently you did not. You prefaced reference to the common area with "our".

Oh please. Surely you don't think I honestly think I own the common area?

When I say "in our town, we have a (fill in the blank)" - just to clarify - I don't think I own the town either.

When I sing "My Country Tis of Thee" I don't think that I literally own the United States of America.

When I hear Art Garfunkel singing "My Little Town" I don't assume he owns the town.

Just to be overly and abundantly clear.

News flash - just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that person is an idiot. Think about it.

[turf3]

Wow, you people who have a bee in your bonnets about HOAs just can never let it freaking rest, can you?

There are some people who have had terrible experiences with HOAs. We all get that, now, since y'all have been beating us over the head with it for years on end.

There are also people who have had terrible experiences in areas that don't have an HOA, that could have been avoided had there been an HOA.

And there have been people who had terrible house ownership experiences that were unrelated to whether there was an HOA or not.

The fact of the matter is that if HOAs were so terrible, people would not buy houses in subdivisions with HOAs, and HOAs would disappear.

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by turf3

Wow, you people who have a bee in your bonnets about HOAs just can never let it freaking rest, can you?

There are some people who have had terrible experiences with HOAs. We all get that, now, since y'all have been beating us over the head with it for years on end.

There are also people who have had terrible experiences in areas that don't have an HOA, that could have been avoided had there been an HOA.

And there have been people who had terrible house ownership experiences that were unrelated to whether there was an HOA or not.

The fact of the matter is that if HOAs were so terrible, people would not buy houses in subdivisions with HOAs, and HOAs would disappear.

Your hypothesis is terribly flawed. Housing is a fundamental need. Local government has been mandating HOAs for several decades in many parts of the country. In addition to that the developers themselves prefer HOAs because the developer-controlled HOA is the mechanism for shifting legal liability away from the developer and to shift financial liability onto the homeowners.

People have to choose housing from what is available. If HOA-burdened housing is all that is available then they are stuck with choosing which HOA as opposed to whether there is one. It is not a free market as you [incorrectly] suggested. HOAs aren't going to disappear when local government mandates them or when an area's population is growing and nothing but HOA-burdened housing is built. People needing houses must choose from what is available.

Your argument is as flawed as equating numerosity to popularity. These are very different things.

[KathrynAragon]

Free enterprise. If there's enough demand for new housing that's not part of an HOA, then it will spring up.

May I suggest that those of you who are so opposed to HOAs contact some builders and contractors and investors in your area, and offer to invest in a non HOA development?

I can only speak for my area, but in my area there is plenty of housing that's not in HOAs. And then there are many HOAs - like the one in our neighborhood - which are extremely minimal in price, rules, etc. In this area, many HOAs are in place to basically control the types and sizes of homes that are being built in the neighborhood, and to keep up the entrances and common areas. That's it. I mean, there IS a cost to landscaping and maintenance and it's ongoing. Many people prefer to hand that responsibility to another entity and just pay $100 or so a year in exchange.

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

Free enterprise. If there's enough demand for new housing that's not part of an HOA, then it will spring up.

There is no "free enterprise". As stated previously involuntary membership HOAs are frequently imposed by local government as part of the development agreement. In addition, developers prefer the mechanism that allows them to shift legal liability away from the developer onto an entity that only the homeowners have financial liability for.

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

May I suggest that those of you who are so opposed to HOAs contact some builders and contractors and investors in your area, and offer to invest in a non HOA development?

See above.

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

I can only speak for my area, but in my area there is plenty of housing that's not in HOAs. And then there are many HOAs - like the one in our neighborhood - which are extremely minimal in price, rules, etc. In this area, many HOAs are in place to basically control the types and sizes of homes that are being built in the neighborhood, and to keep up the entrances and common areas.

In areas growing in population all new housing is HOA-burdened. So there really isn't a choice for the vast majority of the population. HOAs (or the people that promote them) tend to want to extend control far beyond tending to a subdivision marquee.

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

That's it. I mean, there IS a cost to landscaping and maintenance and it's ongoing. Many people prefer to hand that responsibility to another entity and just pay $100 or so a year in exchange.

The landscaping, maintenance, taxes, and insurance for property that does not belong to any of the homeowners. That money also goes to pay for insurance for the directors and officers and to assist in building the HOA's litigation warchest. Your subdivision HOA can accumulate the max annual increase to step up the assessments, impose "special" assessments, etc. to raise fees when the board wants to. Your house is security for payment of the assessment. Inevitably the HOA board tries to regulate conduct and aesthetics. You'll end up with someone like Aragon who decides she doesn't like the appearance of something (see post #30) and who expects the HOA corporation's role is to "take care of everything" for her. That usually means threatening the other property owner until their property meets Aragon's aesthetic preferences.

Fortunately the OP, eileen824, is looking for non-HOA property and I sincerely hope she succeeds in her objective.

[KathrynAragon]

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

The landscaping, maintenance, taxes, and insurance for property that does not belong to any of the homeowners. That money also goes to pay for insurance for the directors and officers and to assist in building the HOA's litigation warchest. Your subdivision HOA can accumulate the max annual increase to step up the assessments, impose "special" assessments, etc. to raise fees when the board wants to. Your house is security for payment of the assessment. Inevitably the HOA board tries to regulate conduct and aesthetics. You'll end up with someone like Aragon who decides she doesn't like the appearance of something (see post #30) and who expects the HOA corporation's role is to "take care of everything" for her. That usually means threatening the other property owner until their property meets Aragon's aesthetic preferences.

Fortunately the OP, eileen824, is looking for non-HOA property and I sincerely hope she succeeds in her objective.

I didn't answer the rest of your points because you are so obviously anti-HOA in every regard and every situation that I would have been wasting my time. In fact, I realize I'm still wasting my time but I'll address your above paragraph not so much to give you information as to give others.

The landscaping, maintenance, taxes and insurance for the common areas in many neighborhoods (mine, for instance - with it's pleasantly landscaped entrances, and well maintained park area) are paid for by the HOA via dues of $125 a year that are willingly paid by the homeowners. These beautifully maintained areas increase not only the property values of the surrounding homes, but also increase the personal satisfaction and enjoyment of the residents.

Our neighborhood is so beautiful and so full of trees and lush green common areas that people from other neighborhoods regularly walk in ours. At Halloween we often have 400 or more kids come through. We don't have 400 kids in this neighborhood. We also have a very popular little mini-library in the park that is full of books that people trade. Since I live right across the street from that park and little library hut, I see how much traffic it gets - and it's a lot. Several times a day, cars or vans of families stop and exchange books, or people walking in the neighborhood stop and pick out a book, or kids on bikes. People of all ages. This little library and the park around it are maintained by the HOA.

We just had a big neighborhood yard sale in that park. It was very well attended. It was great not to have to have it in our individual yards, and even nicer for the HOA to mow before the event.

The HOA's financial statements which are given to the homeowners every year show a very modest fund with a very modest accumulation of monies which are used almost in their entirety every year, for maintenance of the common areas. If this is a "war chest" it's not fit for much of a battle.

The HOA fees in our neighborhood have increased by a whopping $25 per year over a 20 year period. There is a board consisting of three members - this number has not changed for many years - President, Treasurer, and Secretary. Yeah, I'm not worried about some sort of corporate takeover.

As for "someone like Aragon who decides she doesn't like the appearance of something" and "expects the HOA corporation's role is to take care of everything for her" - I specifically mentioned a tree in the common area that had been knocked down by a storm. Yes, it is the HOA's responsibility to remove that tree. That's what we pay our whopping $125 a year for - maintenance of the common areas. As you so succinctly point out, that common area is not my property, so no, I shouldn't remove the tree - in fact, I am legally not allowed to remove that tree, anymore than you are legally allowed to remove a tree from someone else's property. But I'm pleased that the HOA is both able and willing to maintain the property so I don't have to look out my front door at a tree that has fallen in the park.

Of course if a tree falls on my own property, I don't expect the HOA or anyone but myself to take care of it. Same with any of our neighbors.