Hacker News Reader

Comment by stormdennis | Hacker News Reader

We once rented a flat, in a nice building housing mainly retired people. One day we gave the place a good cleaning and hung out a mat to dry on the balcony. Within half an hour the residents association which we didn't know existed were knocking on our door and demanding we take in the offending item.

View on HN

I will never until my dying day, live under the thumb of an association. Its a magnet for pedantic busybodies.

Which is also why I lean towards libertarianism...

Sometimes your choice is between a shorter commute and an HOA. Avoiding an HOA may cost you 5-10 extra minutes twice a day, 5 days a week.

I completely agree with you, and at the same time, that criteria can turn an already difficult search into an impossible one.

Just to bring this into sharper focus: 10 minutes a day, twice a day, 5 times a week for 50 weeks a year amounts to 5000 minutes per year, or just a little over 83 hours. Personally, I would find that acceptable just to not have to live in a place where people tell me what signs I can place in my lawn or what color I can paint my front door, but opinions can and do vary from person to person.

Oh, and BTW, the word "criteria" is plural. Its singular form is "criterion." Not that it takes away from your point, but consider it a tiny piece of friendly advice.

> Just to bring this into sharper focus: 10 minutes a day, twice a day, 5 times a week for 50 weeks a year amounts to 5000 minutes per year, or just a little over 83 hours.

Or two full-time work-weeks worth of extra time, just spent commuting, every year. Definitely not worth it to me; in practice, the primary interaction I have with my HOA is the continued requirement to pay them.

(All else being equal, I'd much rather not have one, but I wanted a walkable commute more.)

> Oh, and BTW, the word "criteria" is plural. Its singular form is "criterion."

Not anymore: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criterion#usage-1 . "The plural criteria has been used as a singular for over half a century." Much like "data" and "datum", it's no longer an observed distinction; "this data" and "this criteria" are entirely correct.

But in any case, I was talking about both HOAs and distance, so a more elaborate form would have been "that combination of criteria". One could also argue that an HOA is a whole collection of related problems in and of itself.

Its not like the commute is useless time. I did it for years, and being alone with my thoughts (or the radio or an audiobook) was just another part of my life. Still I prefer not doing it, agreed.

Anyway, false dichotomy? Not all housing choices within range are burdened with an association?

> Anyway, false dichotomy? Not all housing choices within range are burdened with an association?

That depends on where you are; in some cities, the vast majority of housing developments have an HOA.

As someone without a hope in the world for owning a house any time soon, what kind of teeth do these associations actually have to enforce their whims?

If in the US, in some states even up until foreclosure.

Depends on the HOA's, which I would avoid at all costs.

As part of the purchase, you are given the deed restrictions and you contractually agree in the closing process to follow them. We once backed out of a purchase when we read the overly strict restrictions.

You also contractually agree that the association has the ability to fine you for violations and put a lien on your property if you don't pay. There are plusses and minuses. The minuses are obvious - PITA, picky busybodies, limited paint colors, landscaping restrictions, etc. The plusses are that in general, the whole neighborhood is typically better maintained - paint, lawn, general upkeep, etc. which affects your property value.

Can't you buy from the owner and not sign the contract with the HOA? Presumably the HOA has a contractual grievance with the prior-owner; or are such HOA contracts enshrined in criminal law?

My guess is that the restriction is already on the existing deed, originating with the first sale from the builder of the community. So it transfers with the property.

HOA restrictions/membership are part of the deed of the property, so you can only acquire the property subject to those restrictions/that membership.

It depends. Unless membership is optional, I would consider it a lesser value home. Which is ironic given its intended function is to (possibly) keep one asshole from ruining property values, in exchange for a different set of assholes (possibly) destroying value in another way.

The history of government is trying to trade out different sets of assholes. It's a hard problem.

Exactly.

HOAs sound crappy but they're better than living next to assholes/slobs when you have zero recourse. HOA is really the only entity that will care about assholes. The problem with buying a home is that you don't know what your neighbors are like ahead of time.

FYI, some municipalities have democratically driven regulations; this seems like a much better course if you’re not trying to make a homogenous neighborhood.

Depending on the municipality, "democratically driven regulations" are there to make it harder to deal with the asshole neighbor, not less.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com