Hacker News Reader

> building scaffolding on top of balconies

As a permanent structure or for temporary renovations?

> ripping up common area plants

Just for fun? Were they drunk? Or is the border between the "common area" and "their property" somewhat hazy? Are you not able to simply forward the invoice for repairs to the resident? That's not a fine and doesn't seem like it would be covered?

> parking issues (we all have garages, street parking is guest only)

This impacts property values? What about tow to impound?

> drying food on the pool deck (really)

> dumping garbage bags outside in the common area

A $100 fine is not adequate for these relatively petty issues?

It might just be me. I don't have kids and I don't spend a lot of time around home. I don't understand HOAs at all.

Yes, as a non-American, HOAs seem so strange to me. It seems like most of those issues could be resolved by the existing legal system (destroying other people's property, dumping stuff in public areas, etc.) or by the city's regulations and codes.

When you buy a house you know whether there there is an HOA, so there shouldn't be any surprises.

HOAs are interesting for cities as they cordon off certain parts for which the city pays no street maintenance, no park maintenance, yet it collects full taxes.

For people living in an HOA it can provide amenities like more private parks, pools etc.

The city doesn't govern what happens in HOA common areas, because the HOA owns that property. Destruction of other people's property - clearly yes, but destruction of the HOA's property is different, because the homeowner is part of the HOA and thus it's their own property (but shared among all the other homeowners). Thus the HOA has to come up with a set of rules to govern its own property from its own homeowners.

> homeowners are breaking rules designed to protect property or common areas

Fines are administrative. If someone is causing property damage, that’s liability—indemnification (where the homeowner pays the HOA’s legal fees) should be sufficient.

Protect property [value] may have been what they meant. For example, every single home looking like they're from a quaint village.

No, I think they meant protect property from damage. Lawsuit is a high bar for action.

If I go into a private gym and start smashing things, they would want to fine me and kick me out, but it may not be worth several thousand dollars to sue me for the damages.

> If I go into a private gym

HOAs have inherent collateral. Indemnification is the answer. If the legal fees wrack up, you take the house. But only through the courts.

You make some fair points, but it’s also worth some self-reflection as an HOA president to understand why so many people resent these institutions. I’ve given two HOAs an honest try, and both ended up reinforcing the same patterns of pettiness and overreach that give them their reputation. The structure itself seems to attract a small group exerting outsized control over others’ property. Hopefully, over time, communities can move toward simpler, more democratic systems that preserve shared spaces without breeding unnecessary conflict.

I get it, really I do. But do the HOAs really need financial enforcement mechanisms intended to seriously harm people, and to punish them as judge, jury and executioner? A HOA’s legal job is to maintain the common-interest property and enforce the CC&Rs. It is not a HOA’s job to extract enormous sums of money out of its members, even annoying ones. The right lever to pull to get some rich person partying at 4am and trashing the place (for example) to stop is for the HOA to file for a court injunction after repeated violations; once a judge orders “no loud music 10 pm - 7 am”, the next 4 am party will become contempt of court, which is a problem for the cops, not the HOA. Hell, 4 a.m. noise is a municipal nuisance and probably a crime; people should be calling the cops every time it happens. Individual members could even sue the owner in small-claims court for private nuisance, where judges can issue even more injunctions or award damages. All this to say, you don’t need to take people’s money to get them to stop doing bad stuff. But you do need to take people’s money to get rich, and to hurt people. This new legislation should be deeply concerning to people interested in the latter, and IMO shouldn’t really be a concern to people interested in the former.

>But do the HOAs really need financial enforcement mechanisms intended to seriously harm people, and to punish them as judge, jury and executioner?

No, they don't. But to be fair, your local enforcement agencies have the same power to unilaterally fine people insane amounts of money. So in a technical sense it makes sense that HOAs would have the same unilateral power to screw people.

Yeah, but:

1) Governments are often much easier to sway. You can get a newspaper or TV station involved. You can show up to open meetings. You can campaign against the incumbents. While you can porbably technically do some of that against rogue HOA boards, it's going to be a lot harder.

2) Governments are usually large enough not to make things a personal vendetta. That's clearly not always true; I'm only talking about trends. Meanwhile, the HOA members are your neighbors, by definition. Get on the wrong side of them and they can easily get involved in everything you do.

What I was getting at was the government shouldn't have that kind of power either even if they're marginally less likely to be dicks with it.

Ah, got it. You were saying neither part should do that. I interepreted that as HOAs should also be allowed to do that. I see what you're saying now, though.

> once a judge orders “no loud music 10 pm - 7 am”, the next 4 am party will become contempt of court, which is a problem for the cops, not the HOA

Even if you could get a judge to levy an order like that, are municipal police really likely to enforce such an order?

You have to phrase it properly. One time when a neighbor had a school-/work-night party that lasted until after midnight, I went over and asked them to wrap it up. When they didn't, I called the police non-emergency line and asked them to go break it up. When we were still awake from noise an hour later, I called the police again, and told them that in 15 minutes I was going back over there myself. They asked me to please not do that, and took care of it within the next 10 minutes.

They were ambivalent about dealing with noise, but were happy to stave off a riot.

I don't know where you live, but calling cops over noise nuisance has not worked in most cities in the US for a long time. E.g. with LAPD you will be lucky if cops will show up in 4 hours and if they show up they are not going to ticket anybody. And there is nothing you can do about it. "Petty" crime is free-for-all in any city with a "restorative justice" DA. So we need to use other means to slow down our degrading quality of life.

It wouldn't surprise me if it's still a net positive, even with the downsides. Also the article says there are carveouts for health and safety, I wonder if excessive noise at night counts as a health issue (there's more than enough research on how important sleep is where it wouldn't be absurd to have it as part of the health carveout).