I ask this every time this comes up, and have yet to get an answer: in what way are "property taxes" for residents of a development not just "condo fees"?
I have to be missing _something_
I have to be missing _something_
That inclusivity on the basis of legal status, citizenship rather than asset ownership/wealth, is the difference between civil government and a private club requiring buy-in. The requirement to own property in order to participate in government was abandoned long ago, with good cause. That system was horrible.
Your friend could escape the HOA by moving across the street when her lease ends. Her landlord would have to sell the condo. Opting out of Sidewalk Labs would mean moving out of the district and maybe getting a new job.
Ah interesting, so your interpretation of sandworm's point _is_ explicitly saying that condominiums become abusive above a certain area/size. Thank you, this is a novel point that I hadn't yet heard.
That being said, the ambitious version of this development (before the reduction in land made available to them) is 1.5 sq mi. This means that you can pretty easily do the equivalent of "moving across the street": if I'm doing my math right, someone living in the most suboptimal possible dead-center of the community will have a minimum of a staggering....0.7 miles added to their commute.
This seems a whole lot closer to my friend's situation than paying property taxes to live in a city does.