Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryandrake | Hacker News Reader

I think the point is that not all HOAs exist for a good reason, but some do. As OP points out, it's important to distinguish between HOAs that act as stewards of a shared building or shared infrastructure, and HOAs that try to govern what individual homeowners do with individual plots of land with individual homes on them. Unfortunately we use "HOA" to describe both of them.

View on HN

>Unfortunately we use "HOA" to describe both of them.

That's not an accident anymore than the name of the patriot act was an accident.

Historically "HOA" sounded way less scary and conjured up images of condo/apartment building associations. If you're a developer who had to trade way your customer's freedom to use the product in order to create the product in the first place marketing it that way is just a no brainer.

It's only now after decades of HOAs that have way too much (morally speaking, they have just the right amount from a law and compliance perspective) power attracting people who use of that power does the term have any negative connotation.

Is there anything stopping one kind from turning into the other kind after the fact though?

The fact that you can't turn a condo into a development of single family homes, and vice versa?

I looked at the rules for dissolving an HOA in lived in. There were a couple of procedural barriers, but the biggest one was that it required 75% of homeowners to sign a petition within a 3 month period. That’s a pretty high bar and lets a minority perpetuate the HOA.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com