If I move next-door to you and start a garbage dump out front, this affects you substantially doesn't it? People should have to pay for their externalities.
I think the policy in question is stupid, but so is being absolutist about it.
I think the policy in question is stupid, but so is being absolutist about it.
We already have laws re environment.
What really seems to happen with these discussions is dog whistles for “i don’t want them poors next door.”
But the “concept” of one’s property as investment “outranking” one’s property as a homestead is, in my mind, part of the core concern here. Maybe it’s too “meta” but we already have laws re noise, etc as well as a system in place to modify broken laws.
Appreciate your reply!
In my neighborhood, with lot sizes around 6000-9000 square feet, this seems like a reasonable compromise.
I'm happy to live next door to a grumpy old dude with six derelict cars rotting in his back yard. It keeps my property value low, which in turn keeps my taxes low and keeps the type of people away who would otherwise have an issue with my doing metalworking in my own workshop because of the noise.
They implement this entirely through covenants and deed restrictions, with no state involvement at all, as I understand things.
Literally, the sights and sounds of the neighbor running a garbage dump is less reprehensible to me than dealing with a bunch of racist busybodies in an HOA. At least if you have a problem with the neighbor, you you can put on some headphones or build a privacy hedge. If you have a problem with the HOA they can fine you indefinitely because they don’t like you (with some convenient excuse like the flower beds aren’t trimmed right or the grass isn’t green enough), and then foreclose on your house, kicking you out on to the street.
These are homes. Property value whiners need to find a neighborhood of empty investment houses to police.
I keep my property simple and tidy, but if anyone dared complain about it I would seek out the most absurd yard art possible in hopes of offending them and anyone that thinks like them out of my neighborhood.
If my property just looks untidy, it's much harder for me to accept you have a case.
There's not a lot of room for downsizing.
Cry me a river about your house value. If you want to invest then invest in people. Homes should not be your investment vehicle. Homes should be homes.
If you have a filthy neighbor then you should help them to not be filthy. Unfortunately laws can have real costs that some people can't afford.
Does your neighbor have a garbage dump on their property? Perhaps you should offer to take their garbage to the dump. Perhaps you should offer to pay for their garbage service. Perhaps you should offer to help them store their collectibles somewhere that won't destroy them from the elements. Perhaps you should try to understand your neighbor instead of decrying your precious lost home value.
When one of these folks moved in next to my parents my attempt to come introduce myself and drop off a sixer of beer was met with a shotgun.
I also have experience on this, and let me tell you: neighbors' rights end at the property line (laws otherwise notwithstanding). I don't give a flying fuck about your resale value.
It's certainly not neighborly to be asocial but there's absolutely nothing wrong it and I'm glad you learned quickly that your new neighbor doesn't want to be disturbed.
Again, I don't care about your home's sale value. But demonstrate to me that something I'm doing on my property affects your safety and I will take action to rectify the problem. If I don't then you certainly have laws that can help you.
That's why I'm a proponent of these types of laws. You take an action that costs me $X, and then the state comes along and says and you can undo the damage, (easy in this case), compensate me, or go to jail and they'll sell your house.
Again, just to be crystal clear here: I don't think there should be a law punishing you for working on your car, or painting your house an ugly shade of green or growing your own tomatoes or whatever. But here in the United States houses are the biggest purchase most people make and if go to such an extreme you make it so I can't sell mine, that's no longer you living your life without hurting anybody.
In the case with the gun-toting the rude neighbor, he ended up being more than rude, and went to prison for abusing his children. The bank that took his house cleaned it up, so it all ended sort of tragically. I often wonder what could've gone differently to lead to a better outcome there.
That's quite reductive and very typical of people who only care about money.
> I hope you move somewhere next to other neighbors who are on the same page, and it all works out fine, and i mean that non-sarcastically.
I did, in fact, move where there isn't an HOA.
> here in the United States houses are the biggest purchase most people make
Yes, they are.
> and if go to such an extreme you make it so I can't sell mine, that's no longer you living your life without hurting anybody.
I completely disagree. It's not that you can't sell yours. It's that you can't sell yours for a profit. Too bad, homes should not be profits.
If you want your home to be for-profit then you should run a home business instead. Then it's crystal clear that you don't own a home but instead own an investment vehicle with all of the not-caring-about-actual-humans that goes along with it and all of the business taxes for it too.
Only thing i'd like to respond to is that my view has nothing to do with making money or using the house as a business. Whether the house is worth the same, more, less than I bought it for is irrelevant to the question of if I am suffering financial harm from my neighbor's action.
If you do something that costs people money, then you make them whole, whether in occurs on your property or not, and whether they're in a mansion in the hills or a 500sf 1br condo.
I agree that houses shouldn't be investments and our current system is crazy, but it's completely orthogonal to the point at hand, except in the case of pushing more Karen types to take their financial stresses out on their neighbors =P.
By that logic, you're costing me money simply by owning land instead of me, or by working for yourself instead of for me. I demand you make me whole! /s
No, that logic does not hold up to the reality that people matter and that different people have different opinions about what to lawfully do on their own property. That inherent difference is fundamentally what is at discussion here. I argue that it is effectively impossible to hold your neighbors' (and their properties) responsible for your own properties value unless you can demonstrate problems with safety or the environment.
I'm not a real estate investor. Let's say I'm moving to a big city. My current house's value is the difference between a 2 bedroom and a 3 bedroom apartment there.
Sure, absolutely. But different people have different definitions of "garbage dumps". To me, the only real garbage dump is that wherein pests can thrive or toxic materials can leak.
I've seen the other side of things where something that's simply "not new" but completely functional is considered garbage.
> Let's say I'm moving to a big city. My current house's value is the difference between a 2 bedroom and a 3 bedroom apartment there.
If that's a problem then that's your problem. I assume you'd be moving for work, in which case bring it up with your employer. You should not treat your home as a monetary investment vehicle. If I were moving for family or to get away from neighbors, then that's simply the cost for peace of mind. That's a cost that I have decided to take upon myself. That's a cost that I will have decided to spend to improve myself. That's absolutely not a cost that the neighbor has imposed upon me.
you're the reason HOAs exist, it's a shame because HOAs suck but at least you have some idea of standards the neighborhood shares and holds themselves to.
Racism is the reason HOAs exist (both originally, and, though their direct ability to implement it has been reduced, still in their major function and effect.)
I don't think one can say racism is the major function, especially in other societies that have HOA-like systems. Admittedly they tend to be the lighter version of HOAs and not the type that act like Disney Village dictatorships who find any excuse to fine residents. If the HOA is made up of residents (rather than administered by an outside party) they tend to be more representative of the wants and needs of the development and inhabitants they govern.
Not talking about RWAs in India, but, since you bring it up, there's been plenty of coverage of an upswing in racism in India, too.
> I don't think one can say racism is the major function,
Its fairly well-documented as both a historical motivation and a current function.
> especially in other societies that have HOA-like systems.
I’m not talking about “other societies” and “HOA likr systems”.
> [...] they tend to be more representative of the wants and needs of the development and inhabitants they govern.
And when those residents were selected for racism by advertising the development with (for older developments) direct and (for newer ones) coded appeals to racism, guess what one of the prominent shared wants is?
In my experience, HOAs hurt mostly retirees who don't have the same cash flow as recent purchasers of homes. Again, in my experience, newcomers to the States seem to be the most vocal in asserting the bylaws, presumably to ensure their investment keeps increasing its value. In second place come the people who are considering selling their house and also want to maximize value.
Artificial human created abstract excuses to save a buck are not real externalities, they're problems people create for themselves and therefore nobody else's problem.
Your house NEEDS TO BE MAINTANED. If paint is chipping and looking awful THE CITY will force you to take care of it.
But there is a big difference between that which concretely harms you in the moment, and that which makes your home more or less attractive to home buyers.
People who don't want to risk having an eyesore next to their house should choose to move to a neighborhood with an HOA. People who value personal freedom on their property should choose to move to an area without that. In theory, everybody should be happier.
HOAs only have power of people who actually care about being a good neighbor. They're basically only useful for harassing honest people and maintaining shared spaces. You only need a HOA if your community has a pool/park/community center/parking lot that is owned by said community.
Because if the proponents expressed their real reason, it would sound petty or racist, and as they don't want to sound petty or racist, they have to invent "ridiculous over the top st[r]awmen" to hide their real underlying reason from view.
I think this sounds nice in theory, but you open to door to neighbours expecting payment for positive externalities as well. "I just renovated my driveway and slightly increased your property value, pay me."
It also seems absurd to manage relationships between people living meters from each other by the same mechanisms we manage the operations of multi-billion dollar corporations. What next? Charging your kids for services rendered after raising them?
Sounds similar to the result of having an HOA/condo association, shared payment for maintenance upkeep and improvements
Source: I live by a dump. You wouldn't even know it was there if it weren't for the obvious dump traffic.
Military vehicles often have dedicated drip pans that they put under the vehicle every time they are parked because it's easier to do that than fix the leaks.
In the units I was in, any vehicle that had any fluids in the drip pan would get a thorough check next Monday to find the leak and would be in the shop as soon as the part came in.
Sure this isn't going to be an issue with a car on blocks for a few months, even a year, but I've seen cars essentially abandoned long enough if you wanted to move them you'll have to literally dig them out and remove them in pieces.
I'm positing (without evidence) that for most people it would be a factor, so the home owner would suffer some amount of real money harm. Much less harm in rural Alabama, much more harm in lower Manhattan.
I would not even accept a free home in an HOA neighborhood.
Out of curiosity, do you also think that the majority of Americans feel that way? My guess is it's gotta be at least 90/10 that would be less likely to move next to a broken down car place, certainly enough to affect the buyer pool in a city.