Hacker News Reader

> So where are we now? Instead of the HOA president spending their day driving past "problem" houses to look for any rules violations, are we going to have them doing that with Flock cameras instead? What a dystopian nightmare.

This actually very much understates the problems. HOAs are no longer small organizations where the local biddies gather to feel like they are back in high school because they have nothing better to do with their time. They've become defacto governments.

True story I at one point bought in a development that had an HOA the rules of the development were that for the first 5 years or until have the development was done then developer would be in charge of the HOA and then it would revert to the homeowners at 4 years 6 months the HOA board (who was the developers) voted to merge with another HOA to a that ran a dozen other developments and complexes throughout the state.

HOAs are now massive multi-million dollar corporations that controls vast swathes of land, and rule over their tenants without any of the checks or balances or recourse one has available against the government.

For those who say "just buy in a non-HOA area" the problem is that almost all new builds have HOAs built in from the start as part of the developers plan and so the options for those not wanting to deal with an HOA are increasingly limited.

In short abolish HOAs. If people want to get together to form groups of homeowners that's fine but there is no world in which someone should be able to take your house because your grass is too long.

HOAs have become defacto governments.

exactly, and they should be forced to operate like one, with democratic elections, and the same checks and balances like any other part of the government.

You’re gonna run into a little bit of resistance on principles with that argument. For context, I would have absolutely no interest in living in an HOA neighborhood and I don’t support them at all.

But we do have a fairly strong precedent for freedom of association in this country and the freedom for people to join into groups and figure out how they want to live.

Not sure how you could write a law that would get rid of the kind of HOA’s. You don’t like without running straight into things like religious colonies, and a variety of other living arrangements.

Seems to me the current approach where you’ve been certain kinds of discrimination and so on is a little more sound. I could think of other reforms as well, for example perhaps a time limit on HOA‘s or the requirement of some sort of super majority or consensus to be taken at intervals to prevent automatic dissolution and restrictions on size structure.

Not sure how you could write a law that would get rid of the kind of HOA

you make HOAs be part of the government and follow democratic rules like any government, ie. they are just a smaller form of a municipality, or a subdivision of one. you do not allow the government to delegate responsibilities to private organizations. you guarantee everyone inalienable rights regarding their property that no HOA is allowed to override.

for example, even if the whole neighborhood agrees to surveillance, the right to privacy in your home/property and in certain places (like public pools) should be absolute and it should not be possible to take it away.

There are a few exceptions, I live in an odd neighborhood where a group got together and rehabbed a bunch of dilapidated homes facing an alley. They got permission from the city to make the alley a pedestrian mall and green space. Our HOA exists to maintain the pedestrian mall that is essentially our front yard.

I’m sorry but this kind of thinking is non-sense. There are surely a few cases where someone lets power go to their head, but that happens in every place where humans have any power.

I’m on an HOA board because no else wants to because it’s boring. We maintain a large green space with walking paths and a community pool, and garbage pickup. We have whites, blacks, asians, hispanics, etc and nobody cares. Sometimes there is shared land in a development that has to be managed and somebody has to do it.

Most neighborhoods don't have these, and that's kind of the problem. The city should be constructing and maintaining parks and recreation, and they should take an egalitarian approach. Meaning, don't stuff all the nicest parts in the richest areas.

Also, the history of HOAs is explicitly racist. That doesn't mean all HOAs are racist now, although I think it would be naive to assume we've 100% eliminated all the racism. Sort of the same perspective on Voter ID. It was created for racism, only racism. Now, maybe it's not but... do we really think everyone forgot?

I can’t comment on HOAs being historically racist - I’ve not seen it. But how would that work? They don’t (at least now) get to vote on who is allowed to buy. So how would they keep out whoever they decided was undesirable? Were there bylaws about skin color?

> So how would they keep out whoever they decided was undesirable? Were there bylaws about skin color?

Originally? More than just HOA bylaws: HOA’s originally were implemented as part of a belt-and-suspenders approach along with racial covenants—particularly in building out suburban developments—in part in anticipation that the racial restrictions might later be struck down (as they were. In 1948); the HOAs would allow the white majority (guaranteed initially by the racial covenants, and even without active enforcement likely to be maintained by economic inequality for long after that) to drive out non-white residents through selective enforcement of facially race-neutral rules. And, while it is still not always easy to prove, for twenty years after explicit racial covenants attached to property were ruled illegal, other private discrimination related to housing was not, so there wasn't even a legal basis to challenge this.

See, that's the great thing about America. We can have neighborhoods with HOAs and those without. You get to choose!

In most cities it's illegal to build a new neighbourhood without an HOA

See, that's the great thing about America. There's also cities where it is legal to build a new neighbourhood without an HOA. And if that at some point happens to no longer be the case in the USA, there are many more countries in America to choose from where there are places you could still live an HOA-free life, such as Canada.

No, the great thing about America is the illusion of choice. A or B? You get to decide! But the joke's on us because A and B are both owned by the same parent corporation, so either way, you're losing. In the case of HOAs and housing development, good luck finding a developer who's not going to make housing with an HOA. Why would they not have an HOA? It's in their interests to have one, so all the options end up having one, so then you don't actually get to choose to not have one!

What about an HOA for the management of roads and rainwater runoff (ponds, etc)?

The answer is likely that it makes sense for maintenance purposes, but the legal authority granted to an HOA is overly broad.

It's certainly overly broad in many circumstances. I've lived in a townhome community with overly aggressive management.

However, "There is absolutely no reason why a single family house needs to be in a mandatory HOA" is easy to refute.

HOA's provide a way for managing shared infrastructure that would not be feasible for a single home owner. Common examples of basic infrastructure include roads, storm water management, lighting, and even community wells. I would argue that is the primary purpose. Not all neighborhoods are in a municipality either.

Not all neighborhoods are in a municipality either.

why is that? and why is the county or state government not taking over the responsibility then? for example in germany a democratic local government is guaranteed by basic law, so a neighborhood outside of a municipality is practically not possible and considered a violation of basic law.

Municipalities in the US are the same type of institution as HOA, self-organized to maintain property. Just like you may not have an HOA you may not have a municipality of any kind. Counties and states are usually not equipped to do maintenance work, same as the federal government. I also don't understand the preference of city government over HOA - it's not like cities don't have codes and you can do whatever you want with your property. It's subdued now but couple years ago we had anti-zoning posts as frequently as we have anti-Flock. Who creates zoning? The city does.

the difference is that HOAs are private and not state actors, when they really should be. that has some constitutional implications. they are not democratic because usually only property owners are voting members based on the size of the property. in a municipality everyone living there gets one vote.

you are right that in practice the difference may not be that noticeable, but i believe that not being state actors is a significant distinction. if it acts like a government, and if it quacks like a government it should be a government and be subject to those same rules.

not having a municipality of any kind in my opinion is an oversight of state/federal law. people should have democratic representation whereever they live. HOAs don't provide that.

What do you mean they are "private"? HOA literally means the association of all home owners, who are members and set, follow, and enforce its bylaws. It's a public institution, same as a municipality. The difference is in how each is established and controlled, but neither is private.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_association

A homeowner association is a private, legally-incorporated organization that governs a housing community, collects dues, and sets rules for its residents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_institution_(United_Sta...

A public institution is a juristic person in the United States which is backed through public funds and controlled by the state.

HOAs are not controlled or funded by the state, no more than Private Businesses are. municipalities are controlled by the state.

if municipalities have the same reach into how people manage their homes like HOAs do then the distinction may not matter. it is however a legally significant distinction.

one point where the distinction matters is that HOAs can limit your freedom of speech, while municipalities can not.

https://www.hopb.co/blog/freedom-in-associations-exercising-...

By your definitions public companies do not exist - most public companies are not funded by state. But sure, in this framework HOA's are "private" but so are the municipalities - they are not funded by state. And, obviously, everything is controlled by state - we have laws and regulations, both from the state and from the federal government.

>if municipalities have the same reach into how people manage their homes

Municipalities have bigger reach because they also control what you do inside your home. Codes are more expansive and detailed than any HOA bylaws and cover interior much more than the exterior. And, of course, the municipality controls if you can live in your house at all and can kick you out if it wishes so.

we are simply using a different definition of public and private. i am using the legal one: public is government, private is everything else. i explained why the distinction matters and what effects it has.

your points are valid but arguing about the definition of what is public isn't helpful.

same goes for government control. you are not wrong, but again, the legal difference in what that control is matters. private entities have constitutional protection and rules that are clearly defined and distinct from the protection and rules for public institutions. the control the government has is simply different and that difference matters.

the bigger reach of municipalities doesn't go away in HOAs because most HOAs are within a municipality. that makes HOAs at best redundant, at worst you have to suffer both. at least with municipality you have democracy on your side. HOAs are controlled by owners, everyone else is second class. that's not a democracy. the result is that the combination of government and HOA gives you less freedom than government alone. HOAs don't replace the government, they don't make it go away.

HOAs in my opinion should be treated like government entities because they are given quasi government like powers without the same checks and balances that government has. they aren't and for me that's a problem.

We are not in a court, so even if there was a legal definition of "public", which does not appear to exist, it would not matter. The question is why HN "urbansits" are so livid about HOAs and want to replace them with municipalities. The reasons I see are pretty bizarre: while not having both makes some sense (in case you optimize for the absolute minimum regulations over everything else), this thread is specifically about replacing HOA with a municipality in case when only the former is present, which means more regulation. Your democracy argument makes no sense to me: the vote is always restricted, in HOA to owners (or rather to properties themselves, a husband and wife co-owning a home don't get two votes), in a city - to residents (and on some matters, to property owners only). In neither everyone can vote. HOAs are already treated as government entities - their bylaws are not different from the city ordinances, their fees are as same as city taxes and they are hard to get rid of. I imagine you mean something else since in your country the government is descending from feudal lords and your municipalities have started as fiefs. But in the US only similar government is at the state level, the states have constitutions and laws, everything else is what you would call "private" - townships, PTAs, school districts etc are essentially corporations.

In many places, the government maintains the roads and similar infrastructure. Property owners pay 'property tax' for this.