Hacker News Reader

Comment by soco | Hacker News Reader

There are many countries in the world which don't measure their freedom in eagles per square burger yet are totally free to associate, and they do. I cannot do much in my neighborhood either (Switzerland here) but there is a respected process for raising cases and handling exceptions and all that. We call this the rule of law, by no means perfect either. This doesn't seem to be the case with the HOA where the system guarantees you living under the will of the leadership - be they idiots or geniuses. So if liberty is defined by randomness, yes, HOA defines the land of the free. Otherwise please allows us to scoff.

View on HN

That is not how HOAs work. They have a very defined set of rules, and a very defined process for changing and enforcing those rules. You are not at the mercy of anyone.

Local laws supersede HOA rules where they conflict and often cause “grandfathering” when HOA rules change. For instance, my condo board tried to get me to remove my grill. I pointed out that nowhere in the condo bylaws was a grill mentioned. They said something about city fire codes, so I got a note from the fire department. They were unable to force me to do anything.

HOAs in my city have passed rules saying owners may not use their condos for short term rental. But my city law says that changes do not apply to people who owned their rentals before the rules changed. So new owners may not but old ones still can.

Rule of law still applies, and everything is agreed to when you buy the property. You could simply buy a home outside of an HOA, so this is, squarely, freedom of association.

Nobody was implying that other countries do not have this freedom, in fact, he said the fact that they do is why he did not need to justify it.

> You are not at the mercy of anyone.

In many jurisdictions within the United States, an HOA can assess fines for exceedingly trivial violations, then after the fines remain unpaid for a time period as short as 6 weeks, file to sell your home at auction to pay the fees. They can take your home from you, evict you from it, and this is deemed perfectly legal. Do they have to provide proof, for instance, that your grass was actually one half inch too tall? No, there is no adversarial process where they would have to prove that were the case.

> I pointed out that nowhere in the condo bylaws was a grill mentioned. They said something about city fire codes, so I got a note from the fire department. They were unable to force me to do anything.

It must be very thrilling to be able to be an amateur lawyer and win a case. Have fun, because those people tend to hold grudges. My experience is that you'll never have a week of peace for as long as you live there again.

This all happened 3 years ago. I’ve never heard a word from my HOA since. I think the HOA board actually believed it was against fire code, but it turns out that’s only true if you’re not on the ground floor. (My community is 4 stories so 3/4 of people cannot have grills). Other grills have appeared since.

They can only assess you fines for violations of rules you agreed to. And fines are usually small. For instance, in my last HOA, they fined me $15 for having A flag holder. I ignored the warning because it was there when I bought the place and I didn’t really want it anyway, and then when the fine came, I simply removed the flag holder and paid $15. Most of the cases were the end up confiscating somebody’s property is because they are simply egregiously not doing something they had already signed a contract saying they would do. I am sure there are cases, they always are, but it isn’t a legitimate problem.

> That is not how HOAs work. They have a very defined set of rules, and a very defined process for changing and enforcing those rules. You are not at the mercy of anyone.

This. I live in a drama-free HOA and appreciate it for what it is and does. I had to review and agree to the covenants of my HOA as a condition for closing. The rule most likely to be in violation here is something along the lines of “only operational automobiles in good condition are permitted to be parked in the driveway; any boats, recreational vehicles, broken down or unsightly vehicles must be behind a fence”. The whole point is to maintain a clean, safe, attractive, and ultimately desirable neighborhood so as to protect property values on behalf of the association’s members.

Although this homeowner’s actions are characteristic of malicious compliance, I believe the net effect is precisely in line with the stated purpose of the HOA: in compliance with the rules, an elegant mural depicting a pristine boat now adorns a new fence that restricts sight of and access to a boat of unknown condition. Anyone driving by looking to buy might come away with a chuckle and the sense that the neighborhood is committed to maintaining a safe and attractive environment for homeowners.

> That is not how HOAs work. They have a very defined set of rules, and a very defined process for changing and enforcing those rules. You are not at the mercy of anyone.

This is very idealistic, but not quite how it works. HOA boards can and do constantly violate with impunity the rules they are supposed to follow. Most often to embezzle funds but also to enforce their personal will.

You can contest this of course, you can go to court. It takes pretty deep pockets to pay for lawyers and years of persistence. I know multiple people in years-and-years-long legal battles with HOAs. Those who have enough money to see it through often usually win, but it takes a lot of patience and money. Most people don't have that kind of cash to blow on fighting corrupt HOAs.

Switzerland is an "ultra-localist" country according to Nassim Nicholas Taleb and I'd agree. The Kantons have more power than the federal government. So in essence, Switzerland and the USA are much alike. It's just that the USA has a flavor of this localism so extreme and chaotic that the resident in a way is supposed to relocate to a better place if they don't like it (see residents fleeing California for better places). Switzerland seems to have a more orderly form of localism where instead of the resident, the representative moves.

Most people in the US don't live in an HOA. You may join one and enjoy its benefits, or not. Nobody is forced to. Many people want to join an HOA to enjoy its benefits but not obey its rules. These are the type of people who believe they are the center of the universe yet are in such a unique position that the laws of the rest of the universe don't apply to them.

Its worth noting that its common, at least in my experience, for HOA membership to be part of a real estate purchase contract. Meaning, if you want to buy a house and it happens to be in a neighborhood with an HOA, you don't have the option to buy that house and not join the HOA.

I've never understood why we allow that to be legal, just like neighborhoods or complexes that are age restricted, but we allow it none the less.

We allow it to be legal because:

1. Most homes aren’t in an HOA, so you have plenty of options if you don’t like it.

2. It prevents all sorts of tragedies of the commons.

3. HOAs would have no power at all if you could opt out. It has to be part of the contract. They can be dissolved entirely, but that’s the only mechanism for getting out.

4. We believe in individual freedom, which includes the ability to chose to trade freedom for certain benefits. I trade my freedom to leave a rusty old boat in my driveway for the benefit of not having my neighbors do that. Most of us don’t have or want the sorts of things that bring down property values and don’t want to suddenly find ourselves living next to people who do.

This is perhaps a symptom of a larger problem: homes are very expensive. If homes were cheap and moving were easy, perhaps HOAs would never have been invented. But for most Americans who own one a home is a substantial portion of their net worth. We want to protect it.

People who complain about HOAs existing are the same as the people who complain about EVs. If you don’t want one, don’t buy it.

==If homes were cheap and moving were easy, perhaps HOAs would never have been invented. But for most Americans who own one a home is a substantial portion of their net worth. We want to protect it.==

It may not have been the reason for their invention (I can't find information on that), but they certainly exploded in popularity in an effort to restrict people from selling their homes to non-white people (see: Racially Restrictive Covenants). It's kind of ironic to see people laud them as a form of "freedom" while their history as a tool of blatant racial discrimination is available for all to read.

==People who complain about HOAs existing are the same as the people who complain about EVs. If you don’t want one, don’t buy it.==

Doesn't this act as a type of restriction on housing supply thus increasing the upward pressure on housing costs by limiting options? Not to mention the actual costs of funding the HOA, which directly increases housing prices.

I would not be surprised if it once served a racist function, a lot of things did, and I’m glad that’s now illegal. I wouldn’t be surprised if it still happens sometimes but I’m sure it’s the exception rather than the rule.

Most HOAs don’t even have the right to screen tenants, if you can purchase the house and will sign the contract you’re in and have the same voting rights and responsibilities as the other residents.

==I would not be surprised if it once served a racist function==

It is a verifiable fact found across the country [0]. Many of the covenants still exist today, although they are legally unenforceable. That said, I have read many comments on this site about how non-competes have long been considered legally unenforceable, but can still have a chilling effect on those impacted (Thankfully, this has recently changed).

I think the more interesting aspect, in regards to today's world, is how HOAs lead to even higher housing costs during a housing affordability crisis. This happens through both explicit expenses (monthly HOA dues) and implicit expenses (lawn maintenance, regulation of architectural changes/additions, rental restrictions, etc.) on homeowners.

[0] https://www.npr.org/2021/11/17/1049052531/racial-covenants-h...

> 1. Most homes aren’t in an HOA, so you have plenty of options if you don’t like it.

That'd be an interesting stat to see, I assume it varies greatly by location.

> 2. It prevents all sorts of tragedies of the commons.

How so? Collective power can make tragedy of the commons problems worse. While a single family likely wouldn't buy up an adjacent piece of woods to clear for a neighborhood park, an HOA may be able to do that before someone else buys and develops the woods.

> 3. HOAs would have no power at all if you could opt out. It has to be part of the contract. They can be dissolved entirely, but that’s the only mechanism for getting out.

HOAs have whatever power the community gives them, there's nothing saying an HOA couldn't be optional. I actually lived in a neighborhood outside of Seattle with an optional HOA, it worked just fine.

> 4. We believe in individual freedom, which includes the ability to chose to trade freedom for certain benefits. I trade my freedom to leave a rusty old boat in my driveway for the benefit of not having my neighbors do that. Most of us don’t have or want the sorts of things that bring down property values and don’t want to suddenly find ourselves living next to people who do.

And that's totally reasonable. My point wasn't that there aren't incentives for homeowners to make that choice for themselves, only that it has always felt like an infringement of rights to legally bind a property to HOA governance.

> People who complain about HOAs existing are the same as the people who complain about EVs. If you don’t want one, don’t buy it.

I'm not sure where you're getting this anecdote, but here I am complaining about HOAs and I own an EV. This analogy really doesn't fit, one person's decision to buy an EV has no impact on other's right to choose what to buy where as an HOA does.

I suppose the commons issue depends on how you define the commons. HOAs often have communal areas like a pool. A communal pool with many owners no HOA would quickly become a disaster and probably form something like an HOA really fast.

An optional HOA would just be opted out of by the worst offenders. If the whole goal is to keep your neighbors from ruining your property value, the ones who do would just opt out. The guy with the car on blocks can just sell himself his own house to get out of it.

How is anything you get into willingly an infringement on your rights? Nobody ever had to buy a house that had to remain inside an HOA. They chose to and can choose not to.

That’s what I meant by the EV thing. You’re complaining about a choice other people made willingly. Why not just not make the choice and let others do it?

That's interesting, I'm not actually sure how a community pool would really exist without an entity that's responsible for it (either an HOA, the city/county, or a private club).

> How is anything you get into willingly an infringement on your rights?

Sure, once you sign the contract you've agreed to it. My point is just that it seems unreasonable for an HOA to effectively claim authority or ownership over a piece of property. I once lived in an HOA neighborhood that was in legal proceedings with a neighbor who refused to play along, the neighborhood was pretty damn close to foreclosing on the property before the owner finally sold and left.

The EV example is still very different though. Buyers can choose to but any vehicle they want, there is no higher authority attempting to claim authority over some vehicles and requiring you submit to their rules and pay a membership fee. Buy an EV or don't, its totally up to the buyer. Additionally, when an EV owner wants to sell they aren't limited to the pool of buyers willing to join a private club, you just sell the car.

Well again, the person who the HOA was in legal proceedings against signed a document saying they would do “x” then did not do “x”. The document also outlined what happens if they didn’t do it, including, at the very end, taking the house. I believe every state has laws that make it very hard for an HOA to foreclose, they do not just do it on a whim. It’s simple contract enforcement, just as you’d get your house taken if you didn’t pay your mortgage or city property taxes. I don’t see what the issue is. I’m sure there are some egregious corner cases, there always are, but as a rule I see no problem with someone who signs a contract being bound by the terms of the contract, in fact I’d see a problem if they weren’t.

My point about the EVs is people who hate EVs and do ridiculous stuff like block chargers are simply getting mad about other people’s decisions that don’t effect them. I don’t want an EV so I don’t own one, but I’m in no way angry that they exist or that you do.

Hating your own HOA I totally understand, there are days I hate mine, but hating the idea that someone else is in an HOA willingly I do not.

> Most homes aren’t in an HOA, so you have plenty of options if you don’t like it.

If we are talking about suburban/urban homes, some large percentage are in an HOA. Most people who own instead of renting do have to contend with HOAs. There are not plenty of options. In many cases, there are no other options at all.

> It prevents all sorts of tragedies of the commons.

What sort of "tragedy of the commons" does it prevent, exactly? That because I was laid off and had to take a lower-paying, higher-houred job, my house goes unpainted a little too long, and now the paint's peeling and chipping? That because of weather, I had to wait 3 extra weekends to mow the lawn (can't do it when I go home after work, not allowed to do it after 6pm or whatever) and now it's too tall?

These aren't tragedies.

> HOAs would have no power at all if you could opt out.

Exactly. But you never bothered to ask why they should ever have power at all. The people who have these powers are people who should never have power under any conceivable circumstances. If there were a way to somehow discover people who craved to be on HOA boards, I would support a constitutional amendment to rescind their voting rights.

> We believe in individual freedom, which includes the ability to chose

Spoken by the sort of person who cheers on as the non-HOA choices dwindle to nothing.

I have a compromise that just occurred to me. If, for instance, only 1.2% of homes within a given region (perhaps legislative districts) could be included within an HOA, and if the HOAs had to bid on an HOA license, such that they're competing with each other to be included in the HOA... then the true cost of HOA apologism could be factored into the market. If you want to live in one, and if that HOA has to pay for a $12 million annual license (they could easily be bid up this high, and if you're honest with yourself you know I'm right), then who am I to tell you HOAs are bad? You're paying a premium for it and it's restricted to a tiny fraction of all available homes.

> If homes were cheap and moving were easy, perhaps HOAs would never have been invented.

Not even close to how this works. The people who favor HOAs are emotionally invested in how others manage their own households. They're not the kind of people who are easily chased away. Quite the contrary, they want to chase others away. You know, the wrong kind of people.

> People who complain about HOAs existing are the same as the people who complain about EVs. If you don’t want one, don’t buy it.

Funny that example, you belong to a political constituency that is doing whatever they can to make it illegal to sell any non-EV.

I thought you were an idiot until the last sentence and now I know it. "Eighty-nine percent of homeowners who live under an HOA say the HOA's rules protect and enhance property values". You can't tell someone's political constituency when they belong to the same group as 90% of people. You're certainly wrong about mine, and nearly everything else you said, to the point where there's nothing here worth responding to. This drivel belongs on Reddit.

Let's say I sell you a basketball with some restrictions. For instance, you are never allowed to kick the ball. If you ever kick the ball, some pre-defined penalty is imposed.

You might say that I didn't sell the ball. I sold a bundle of rights regarding the ball, but I retained some other bundle of rights.

Your gym membership accords you some rights, but not all rights to the gym equipment. Do you think that should be illegal?

As long as a contract clearly delineates which rights are included and excluded I don't understand why you would want this to be illegal.

You might question why somebody would buy a car that contains a radio but the purchase of the car doesn't include the radio and the new owner is not allowed to manipulate the radio. It may not make sense to you. But that doesn't make the arrangement illegal.

Illegality and immorality are too often at odds.

Laws that the majority view as immoral should just be abolished. We don't do that nearly enough, but that'd be a part of any functional legal system that's actually designed by and for the people.

I don't understand it myself, but some people like the forced conformity and the legal requirement to fund and maintain certain amenities, including streets, etc. Maybe it's an (over)reaction to "to much freedom" in some sense of the phrase. It's probably also a way to bypass greater government and keep infrastructure funds more hyper-local, which can have social consequences.

That being said I live in a condominium, but it's an apartment-style one. It's the only way I can afford to live in the central city. In that case there needs to be some setup to maintain the elevators, overall structure, and other common elements. But if I owned a house with actual land, the only restrictions I'd want are on actual nuisances (mostly continuous noise - a party once in awhile is fine) or safety.

As an American with a strong general preference for the metric system, "eagles per square burger" is my new favorite sarcastic unit.

> So if liberty is defined by randomness, yes, HOA defines the land of the free

It’s the freedom to choose an HOA, or alternatively, anything else you like.

Also, while HOAs might make decisions stupidly, I don’t think they do it randomly.

they are doing it to exclude those that don't fit into their style of life. it's discrimination, plain and simple.

to compare with europe: as far as i know germany or austria don't have the equivalent of a HOA, but what is allowed and what isn't is defined by local law. the closest example i could find are rules a landlord is allowed to impose on their tenants. for example, if i rent a house with garden, then the landlord can demand that i take care of the garden, but they can not specify how often i am supposed to mow the lawn or how high i let it grow.

if not even a landlord can make such rules for their own property, then a HOA would have even less chance to make such rules for homeowners.

that said, local laws can be quite far reaching, especially when it comes to aspects that affect the character of a neighborhood which includes rules on the outside design of the house and the front yard. not something i am happy about myself. beyond that these rules are mostly about things directly affect and cause problems for the neighbors. otherwise a homeowner has the right to do whatever they want on their property.

as for the freedom to choose an HOA. no such freedom exists. because my choice of where i live is not defined by the HOA but by other considerations like location and cost and most importantly, availability. the argument that i could have moved somewhere else if i didn't like this HOA is not really reasonable given the housing shortage in most places.

the right to live somewhere trumps the freedom of association

In Germany there is the in some - but not all - aspects similar concept of WEG (Wohneigentumsgemeinschaft).

ah, right, but those are only in apartment buildings. it's a good place to research though what responsibilities and powers those have.

In buildings with differently owned apartments it's required but in theory (and in some places in practice) you could also setup multiple buildings on a common plot of land with one.

> they are doing it to exclude those that don't fit into their style of life. it's discrimination, plain and simple.

Freedom of association is the freedom to associate with whoever you choose and not to associate with anybody you choose not to. You can’t have feeedom of association without the freedom to discriminate against people you don’t want to associate with.

> the argument that i could have moved somewhere else if i didn't like this HOA is not really reasonable given the housing shortage in most places.

Less than a third of US households are a part of HOAs, with most of them being apartments (where that type of regulation is typical almost everywhere in the world). Your argument that HOAs are monopolising housing supply doesn’t stand up to the facts.

> You can’t have feeedom of association without the freedom to discriminate against people you don’t want to associate with.

So I should be free to leave an HOA? No wait, I can't without selling my house as well. Restricting the right to free association as a condition for purchasing housing seems onerous.

How could you end up in an HOA without choosing the be in one? You couldn’t…

Freedom of association isn’t a magic ability that means you can never regret entering a contract.

how? by not being able to find a house that is not governed by an HOA

Don't be ridiculous. Every metropolitan area has some homes for sale which aren't part of an HOA. If you don't like the price or location or school district or something then that's your problem, not an issue with the concept of HOAs.

But you can, so what are you even complaining about?

80% of homes on sale today come with an HOA (according to john oliver)

In the United States it would be discrimination if, for example, the rules were selectively enforced against people of a certain protected class such as race or religion.

HOA control is simply a covenant written into the deed of certain properties by the original developer that is then inherited in perpetuity by future deed holders.

The deeds of all properties on certain blocks in my neighborhood have a similar covenant saying that your building must be set back 14 feet from the curb in order to create a luxury boulevard-width sidewalk.

A homeowner can’t sell me the right to build up to the curb or the right to ignore the HOA because they can’t sell a right they never owned in the first place.

Freedom of association is not relevant here.

it is also discrimination if a rule applies to everyone, but only a certain group is actually affected by the rule. for example forbidding to build a ramp would be discriminating against wheelchair users, whereas others don't even need a ramp.

> In the United States it would be discrimination if, for example, the rules were selectively enforced against people of a certain protected class such as race or religion.

To modernize an old sawhorse, those don't-lie-down-here spikes on flat surfaces make it impossible for millionaires and the homeless alike to sleep in many places. That's not so much of a problem for the millionaires.

You do not have the freedom to choose an HOA, only the freedom to move somewhere else. Unless you define "freedom" as "not held captive", I don't think that really counts.

A fun John Oliver video on how corrupt HOA's are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrizmAo17Os

I think HOAs are dumb, but who had ever been forced to buy a home that’s part of an HOA?

according to the video, that would be 80% of those buying a home today.

It's not a force, it's a choice. When we bought our home every home built in the area in the last 40 years had an HOA. The only non-HOA choices are basically taking a giant gamble on how terribly the previous owners updated it to modern standards, instead of buying something built with modern plumbing and electrics. So sure, the HOA was a choice. But it was forced.

Freedom? You usually have to live somewhere near your work or where other family lives, and most HOAs have very similar cookie-cutter rules with the differences determined by something akin to mob rule.

Most housing in the US is not part of an HOA. In fact, around half is apartments, and apartment dwellers are subject to rules made by their landlords. In an HOA (or condo association), at least you can vote on the rules or join the board.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com