Hacker News Reader

Comment by matsemann | Hacker News Reader

Is it some kind of bias in that one only hears about the insane cases, and there are thousands of well-run HOAs for every crazy one? Or is it really that bad?

We don't have that concept in my country. Or, we do have associations that make it so that houses in an area share the upkeep of communal stuff like a park, playground, organize events etc. All things I would think a "normal HOA" would be, but without the ability to impose fines or stuff like that. So I would feel a house with that kind of neighborhood here would be a net positive, as in costs can be shared among more.

View on HN

I lived in a community with an HOA for 5 years and never had any issue. Like you say, it existed primarily to ensure the upkeep of common facilities (pool, private road, gym, and community building). The only real rule I remember them enforcing (and fairly loosely, at that) was that residents were not allowed to park long term in visitor parking spots. Which to me seemed like a perfectly sensible rule.

Which is often the case. You tend to hear about the outliers. If a bunch of houses share a common road for example, the maintenance/plowing/etc. of that road has to be divvied up in some way--and it's a reasonable bet that, especially if it's on the longer side, there will be people who object to whatever formula is used. People will also routinely disagree about the degree of maintenance and upkeep that's necessary for any shared facility.

It's not that bad, the vast majority of people in an HOA like being in one.

Always remember: If it's in the news it's not the norm. Whatever you hear about a country via the news is the opposite of what that country typically is.

I’m in an HOA and they’re pretty fine. Mostly focus on snow removal and keeping people from parking their nine hundred snow mobiles in the guest spots.

We meet once a year to vote on crap. Key is to not have a group of people with nothing better to do.

The problem is that you have little control into when one of those people infiltrate the board. Most HOAs start with no issue. It is only after someone new joins that the rule enforcement becomes insane or the big pot of money vanishes.

This can be solved by having all members vote and not just the board.

> solved by having all members vote and not just the board

Yup. I can’t imagine what an HOA would need to be doing to meet monthly, let alone delegate decision making to a board.

The problem is people talk about HOA like they are some monolithic thing. There are HOA that are only responsible for maintenance of the subdivision sign all the way up to ones responsible for multiple skyrise condo buildings.

> HOA that are only responsible for maintenance of the subdivision sign all the way up to ones responsible for multiple skyrise condo buildings

The latter is simply incorrect. Condo associations and co-op boards are separate creatures, in part due to there being an existential necessity to their existing. (You can't have people dismantling structural members their unit abuts.)

HOAs are far more voluntary in nature. That said, I agree that we need a better framework for distinguishing those functioning as direct democracies from those where an elected board gets to appoint itself powers.

When people talk about them colloquially and dig in you’ll frequently find them being commingled.

A lot of HOAs have reasonable boards but contract out a lot of management to companies (I wouldn’t be be surprised if they were owned by private equity firms).

These companies are incentivized to find infraction to fine, and drive around regularly to make sure every rule is strictly adhered to. Trash bins out too early or late? Fine! Fence painted the wrong shade of soulless beige? Fine!

It's this bad. The problem is Boomers.

Boomers mostly worked one job between two people, and had the silent generation to take care of their kids so they had a lot of time for masterbatory lawn care/putting trashcans away the second the trash truck pulls away/nonsense.

Now they are retired and have even more time, but also authority over people far busier than they ever have been.

This is one of my favourite HN comments, it’s so true.

Here in the UK the boomers were able to work one job, get a house on an easy mortgage and now they’re old and have nothing to do they campaign against any development that might slightly inconvenience them or reduce their house price (spoiler, most developments wouldn’t)

They'll have had mortgages at 10% or higher, and tied to endowment policies that were often missold. Mortgages weren't easy for boomers, even if house prices were lower.

That is laughably incorrect. Mortgages were far easier to afford for boomers (typically 4 times income, whereas now they're more likely to be 9 or even 10 times income)

https://www.financialreporter.co.uk/income-to-house-price-ra...

OK, but you've missed the point about relative interest rates on those mortgages. You can't reasonably comment on affordability without taking that into account. As a child in the 1980s with two working "boomer" parents and a modest house in a low COL area, we had no money at all due mostly to mortgage interest rates.

The very real problems with affordability of housing in the UK have a number of causes but the key issue is supply. Successive governments have simply failed to build sufficient housing to meet demand. NIMBYism alone can't explain this lack of investment.

And how do you think NIMBY’s have influenced government policy? Perhaps by not voting for anyone who might allow houses to be built near them

I think the younger generations (me and you both included) have failed to effectively direct British political discourse towards the issues that actually matter to us. Instead, we allow lazy cliches ("blame boomers", "blame Europe", "blame immigrants") to dominate the conversation. We need to stop doing that.

"blame Europe" and "blame immigrants" have had their claws in the UK electorate for longer than the younger generations have existed.

"Blame boomers" has existed for perhaps a decade if we're being generous.

Interest rates get brought up every time this topic is discussed and the math remains the same. Even accounting for the difference in interest rates, people are much worse off today than they were in the 80s.

Far more repossessions took place in the 80s and 90s. Times were/are different, but it wasn't easy back then either.

I didn't believe your statement, so I looked up some numbers.

1989:

- Interest rate: 14.5%.

- Average house price: £58k.

- Monthly repayment: £650 (90% LTV, 25 year term).

- Average pre-tax income: £10k.

2024:

- Interest rate: 5.25%.

- Average house price: £282k.

- Monthly repayment: £1500 (90% LTV, 25 year term).

- Average pre-tax income: £35k.

So in 1989, an average mortgage was about 80% of an average gross income. In 2024, an average mortgage is about 50% of an average gross income.

I specifically chose 1989 because it was a year of high interest rates, but you can repeat the calculation for other years if you wish. I don't think the results will support your assertion.

If you got a mortgage at 14.5% you can refinance it when rates get lower, and people did.

The 2nd group can't "refinance" all the extra principal they owe.

Nationwide actually publish data about the monthly mortgage payment to take home pay ratios of first time buyers[0]. Compared to Q1 2014, repayments accounted for a lower proportion from when their data begins, in Q1 1983, until Q3 1988. Repayments remained higher until Q4 1990.

In 1989 interest rates were at record highs and mortgage interest relief was still a thing. Despite interest rates hovering between 8-12% for the rest of the 1980s, mortgage repayments were consistently a much lower proportion of income.

In 2024 there's no interest relief and we're exiting a period of record low rates. The rise to 5.25% already puts us in a worse position than when rates were at 10%, 14.5% would disastrous.

[0] https://www.nationwidehousepriceindex.co.uk/charts

A very late response, but just to say thanks for this. The full dataset you found is actually available at https://www.nationwidehousepriceindex.co.uk/download/ftb-mtg....

It is worth looking at the mid-2000s numbers (post-MIRAS, but pre-crash) and comparing them to today's numbers. They're really not so different.

No argument on the relative leverage: 10% would be impossible and 15% would probably precipitate a revolution.

Please stop with the cheap ageism. Whatever generation[1] you're in will be doing something out of your control that the next generation will look down on too.

1. ...and no, I'm not a Baby Boomer either.

you would be surprised to note as to how universally true this comment of yours is. Reporting from India. Here, these folks fight these elections as if there is a billion dollars at the end and then do moral policing ALL day long. Level of turf fights, and self importance behaviour on display at these RWAs (we call them resident welfare association and believe me there is anything there apart from welfare!) is just mind boggling. It is always boomers who win these elections and are president, secretary and treasurer of these RWAs

Either address the fundamental economic issues and how to solve them in a pragmatic fashion

... or pour oil in the fire of the great culture war, here in the secondary frontline of young vs. old, and accomplish nothing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com