Author Topic: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)  (Read 32788 times)

MilesTeg

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 887
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #50 on: September 01, 2016, 01:35:38 PM »

And yet people still strongly desire to live in neighborhoods with HOA's.  Probably because it rarely works out that poorly.  I would guess it's usually no worse than city government, which also often attracts busy bodies or questionable competence and will have a lot of corruption if active voters don't hold them accountable.

That's just an argumentum ad populum.

The interesting question is not "do lots of people think HOAs are a good thing". The interesting question is "do HOAs actually provide the benefits they claim to provide"? Moreover, people willing do lots of things for non-rational reasons. For an apropos example, many people 'strong desire' lots of consumer goods and go heavily into debt to get them.

I have asked others before, and never seen and evidence that HOAs actually improve property value or provide any other benefit beyond providing people with an outlet to impose their petty will on others. Obviously they provide a benefit of managing common property. Do you have such evidence showing the financial benefits claimed?

I have no clue how they impact property values overall, but for people of moderate means that want to nonetheless live in a neighborhood where yards and exteriors are maintained to a particular standard or maintain a particular character, then they provide that benefit to them (assuming the HOA actually enforces the covenants).  I would guess that for moderately priced neighborhoods, HOAs do have a slightly positive impact on home values.  I would guess well run HOAs have a bigger positive impact, but also guess that enough are poorly run (including corruption involving HOA funds but also just overzealousness to the point of scaring off buyers) that the impact overall would show up as very small. 

Lot's of guesses and assertions -- which is not what I am asking for.

Quote
But's important to realize it's not all about property values.  There is one neighborhood near me that has set up it's covenants to be a retirement community.  They literally are not supposed to have kids there.  I'm not sure those covenants are actually enforceable (when I was looking for a house I was told that nobody would try to stop us from buying even though we had kids), but that's what the HOA was originally set up for, not to maintain property values, but to maintain a neighborhood where you might have grandkids playing in teh yard, but you (presumably) wouldn't have teenagers hosting house parties.  Similarly, some people don't want to live around well maintained houses simply because of the property values, but simply because they like being surrounded by what they view as a pretty/desirable neighborhood.

In other words, exactly what I was saying: a way for people to enforce their petty desires on others and not any objective, rational reason. At the low, low cost of signing over ownership of your property to other people who may or may not exploit that arrangement for their own gain.

But like I said, if everyone had a realistic choice to avoid such idiocy it would be one thing. However, the reality for many folks is there is no realistic choice and as such they are unconscionable.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2016, 01:41:10 PM by MilesTeg »

gimp

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #51 on: September 01, 2016, 01:51:38 PM »
If my neighbor puts up a rusty middle finger statue where the middle finger is actually a dick, it's none of my goddamn business. Nor are his cars up on blocks.

Fuck HOAs.

Noise complaints already exist, so no need to bring that up.

My friend is the president of his HOA precisely so that nothing changes and nothing stupid gets put into the bylaws. I can respect that. Still terrible.

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #52 on: September 01, 2016, 02:08:27 PM »
But's important to realize it's not all about property values.  There is one neighborhood near me that has set up it's covenants to be a retirement community.  They literally are not supposed to have kids there.  I'm not sure those covenants are actually enforceable (when I was looking for a house I was told that nobody would try to stop us from buying even though we had kids), but that's what the HOA was originally set up for, not to maintain property values, but to maintain a neighborhood where you might have grandkids playing in teh yard, but you (presumably) wouldn't have teenagers hosting house parties.  Similarly, some people don't want to live around well maintained houses simply because of the property values, but simply because they like being surrounded by what they view as a pretty/desirable neighborhood.

In other words, exactly what I was saying: a way for people to enforce their petty desires on others and not any objective, rational reason. At the low, low cost of signing over ownership of your property to other people who may or may not exploit that arrangement for their own gain.[/quote]


It's as irrational as not choosing to live in a cheap to construct and maintain concrete cube.  Appearances and character matter for people, both for houses and neighborhoods.  People have an idea about what they would like their neighborhood to be.  For some areas, it's easy for people that have enough money to find a neighborhood that has the appearance and character they want and to feel confident that the high cost to live there will ensure that the appearance and character will stay the same.  But for some areas or for people that don't have enough money to get into a high priced neighborhood, neighborhoods with covenants and HOAs that enforce them provide a way for them to buy into an area that will be more likely to maintain the current appearances and character (which are apparently attractive enough to them to want to move there in the first place). 

But like I said, if everyone had a realistic choice to avoid such idiocy it would be one thing. However, the reality for many folks is there is no realistic choice and as such they are unconscionable.

Like I said, I don't like areas that are just gated community after gated community stacked against each other, but at the same time, developers buy the land and voluntarily put in covenants and an HOA structure that they think will be desirable, and people voluntarily buy homes in them.  That doesn't seem unconscionable.  I get that you say that there is no realistic choice, but what that really means is that you don't have a choice in your price range.  At the absolute worst, you could find a corner of a subdivision and negotiate to have that property removed from the HOA and associated covenants.  That's obviously expensive, but it doesn't seem to me to be any different situation from people working in a palce like Manhattan, who would say there are no realistic options for them to have a decently nice place walking distance to work.  People face trade-offs.  The fact taht some trade-offs seem to only exist because the majority of people seem to have terrible tastes doesn't seem to make the trade-off any more unconscionable that any other trade-off people face. 

MilesTeg

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 887
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #53 on: September 01, 2016, 02:42:37 PM »
It's as irrational as not choosing to live in a cheap to construct and maintain concrete cube.  Appearances and character matter for people, both for houses and neighborhoods.  People have an idea about what they would like their neighborhood to be.  For some areas, it's easy for people that have enough money to find a neighborhood that has the appearance and character they want and to feel confident that the high cost to live there will ensure that the appearance and character will stay the same.  But for some areas or for people that don't have enough money to get into a high priced neighborhood, neighborhoods with covenants and HOAs that enforce them provide a way for them to buy into an area that will be more likely to maintain the current appearances and character (which are apparently attractive enough to them to want to move there in the first place). 

No argument that people like pretty things for the sake of pretty things. However, that's not the issue. The issue is forcing others to comply with your particular perception of what's "pretty" with legal force up to an including the ability to confiscate their property for no rational reason.

For example, if you don't like the color you neighbor painted his house, why should HE be forced to move? Sounds like a personal problem for you to me.

But like I said, if everyone had a realistic choice to avoid such idiocy it would be one thing. However, the reality for many folks is there is no realistic choice and as such they are unconscionable.

Quote
Like I said, I don't like areas that are just gated community after gated community stacked against each other, but at the same time, developers buy the land and voluntarily put in covenants and an HOA structure that they think will be desirable, and people voluntarily buy homes in them.  That doesn't seem unconscionable.

It's of course not unconscionable if it's fully voluntary. But it's not, which is the problem. As this thread demonstrates, your perception that there aren't significant numbers of folks that don't want an HOA is pretty well refuted.

Quote
  I get that you say that there is no realistic choice, but what that really means is that you don't have a choice in your price range.

There are plenty of non-HOA properties in my price range, but price range is not the only consideration. There are many very rational and objective reasons. There's school districts, distance from work/stores, quality/age of construction, safety of the dwelling (asbestos/etc.), ability to make the home energy efficient (e.g. in colder climates you need a house framed in 2x6 to get acceptable R values for the house) and a myriad of other considerations. Bottom line is in many areas (including ours) if you want a decent home (as measured by those qualities) you have no option but an HOA owned property.

Quote
At the absolute worst, you could find a corner of a subdivision and negotiate to have that property removed from the HOA and associated covenants. 

LMAO. Good luck with that.

Quote
That's obviously expensive, but it doesn't seem to me to be any different situation from people working in a palce like Manhattan, who would say there are no realistic options for them to have a decently nice place walking distance to work.   People face trade-offs.  The fact taht some trade-offs seem to only exist because the majority of people seem to have terrible tastes doesn't seem to make the trade-off any more unconscionable that any other trade-off people face.

You don't see a difference in people having limited choice do purely to market conditions (e.g. Manhattan) vs. people's choice being limited by the individuals and government providing people with legal rights over other people's property purely for aesthetic reasons?

That's a very interesting position you have there.


[/quote]

Jrr85

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1204
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #54 on: September 01, 2016, 03:23:18 PM »

No argument that people like pretty things for the sake of pretty things. However, that's not the issue. The issue is forcing others to comply with your particular perception of what's "pretty" with legal force up to an including the ability to confiscate their property for no rational reason.

For example, if you don't like the color you neighbor painted his house, why should HE be forced to move? Sounds like a personal problem for you to me.


Well, it's a personal problem, unless they both essentially entered into a contract where they would agree that the HOA would have a say over it. 

There are plenty of non-HOA properties in my price range, but price range is not the only consideration. There are many very rational and objective reasons. There's school districts, distance from work/stores, quality/age of construction, safety of the dwelling (asbestos/etc.), ability to make the home energy efficient (e.g. in colder climates you need a house framed in 2x6 to get acceptable R values for the house) and a myriad of other considerations. Bottom line is in many areas (including ours) if you want a decent home (as measured by those qualities) you have no option but an HOA owned property.
Quote

Again, this all comes down to cost.  Assuming you are in an area that has any unbuilt land, you just have to buy it and build on it.  If there's not any unbuilt land, but there are houses not in HOAs, then you just have to buy and remodel or buy and tear down and rebuild.  And as I said, if you live in an area that is literally covered with nothing but HOA properties, you still can always buy out of an HOA, although there are obviously transaction costs to that in addition to just the cost of buying out of it. 



You don't see a difference in people having limited choice do purely to market conditions (e.g. Manhattan) vs. people's choice being limited by the individuals and government providing people with legal rights over other people's property purely for aesthetic reasons?

That's a very interesting position you have there.

Individuals and the government are not providing people with legal rights over other people's property.  People buying in HOA subdivisions are buying subject to recorded covenants, and are essentially, out of the "bundle of sticks" of property rights, they are never getting the "stick" that would let them do things contrary to the HOA rules. 

If you want unrestricted property, you have to buy unrestricted property, or you have to buy restricted property and then separately negotiate with to purchase away any restrictions on the property.  Again, it's not ideal in my mind that there are places where all or virtually all of the new development is subject to HOA's, but if that's what the vast majority of people want, I can't find fault in them choosing to buy in communities like that (and thereby incenting builders to do more HOA developments).  I'm much less bothered by people doing that voluntarily on the front end than by governments imposing zoning rules after the fact. 


MilesTeg

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 887
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #55 on: September 01, 2016, 04:13:57 PM »
Well, it's a personal problem, unless they both essentially entered into a contract where they would agree that the HOA would have a say over it.

You don't seem to grasp the "no realistic choice to not enter into such an agreement" part of what I am saying.

Again, this all comes down to cost.  Assuming you are in an area that has any unbuilt land, you just have to buy it and build on it.  If there's not any unbuilt land, but there are houses not in HOAs, then you just have to buy and remodel or buy and tear down and rebuild.  And as I said, if you live in an area that is literally covered with nothing but HOA properties, you still can always buy out of an HOA, although there are obviously transaction costs to that in addition to just the cost of buying out of it. 

Buying undeveloped land and building a house on it or remodeling solves _some_ of the problems I mention, but not all.

In order for any sort of realistic choice to be had, there has to be choices with comparable qualities of all types (important, objective things like access to school districts, distant from work/infrastructure, quality of construction, etc.). Once you say "if you don't like HOAs, you can buy these other properties with terrible unchangeable qualities" you are throwing away any claim to a realistic choice.

By all means, if you are so uptight that your you want to make sure your neighbor's lawn doesn't fall outside the range of 1"-2" tall, I support your right, however crazy, to fork over the legal right to own your property in order to get that. All I am saying is less insane folks should have equitable options and without that there are inherent problems with the existence of HOAs.


Individuals and the government are not providing people with legal rights over other people's property.  People buying in HOA subdivisions are buying subject to recorded covenants, and are essentially, out of the "bundle of sticks" of property rights, they are never getting the "stick" that would let them do things contrary to the HOA rules. 

As I said, things within the rules (e.g. being able to foreclose on you for petty fines) is definitely providing (insane) legal rights over other people's property. No way around that bub. And is is absolutely done by force when municipalities require HOAs

Quote
If you want unrestricted property, you have to buy unrestricted property, or you have to buy restricted property and then separately negotiate with to purchase away any restrictions on the property.  Again, it's not ideal in my mind that there are places where all or virtually all of the new development is subject to HOA's, but if that's what the vast majority of people want, I can't find fault in them choosing to buy in communities like that (and thereby incenting builders to do more HOA developments).  I'm much less bothered by people doing that voluntarily on the front end than by governments imposing zoning rules after the fact.

Once again, in many cases no unrestricted property exists which otherwise meets our needs. You have also not substantiated your claim that the overwhelming majority of folks want HOAs.

SwordGuy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6004
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #56 on: September 01, 2016, 04:25:10 PM »
I always chuckle when I hear people complain about HOAs.

I gladly pay my HOA fee every month for the peace of mind that they will bother my neighbor for any of the following:
Parking outside of a driveway or in front of their house (I don't want neighbors parking on lawns or having boats in their driveway)
Yard that looks terrible
House color that I don't approve of (neighbor wanted to paint their house so they have to come to me to sign off on their color choice before submitting it to the HOA)
Yard sculptures that are an eye sore (one neighborhood without an HOA has a huge rusted statute that is not artistically placed in a yard)

There is a neighbor that has had a car parked in the driveway without being moved for months and even that bothers me.  At least drive it so the cobwebs are gone.

I'm glad you like living in an HOA so much. 

I won't live in one because I'm unwilling to pay to be at the beck and call of people who think they have the right to meddle in my life.




bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4064
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #57 on: September 01, 2016, 04:33:23 PM »
Reminds me a lot of this video I just saw. A Lyft passenger was "offended" by a Hawaiian hula bobblehead on the driver's dash. She got into an argument with him and everything.

https://youtu.be/MMT3vuSQk3g

Some people seem determined to find something to be offended about. We do not have an obligation to such people.

She really cares about the continent of Hawaii.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4064
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #58 on: September 01, 2016, 04:53:47 PM »
In my experience only incompetent and spiteful folks desire to actually sit on an board.

Word. There's always a bored petty dictator waiting in the wings.

SeaEhm

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 448
  • The Guilt is Real
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #59 on: September 01, 2016, 05:25:11 PM »
Wow!  I should read this thread during winter with all of these blanket statements to keep me warm.


Funniest thing is that I got a text message from my mother in law this morning stating that she has received a citation for her lawn.  (Well basically what was once a lawn)  She has X number of days to develop a plan of action and send the plan to the city.

Interesting thing is that the city she lives in has no HOA that one pays for.  They just have city ordinances that enforce certain "standards".  I think it's great.  Even though I have to spend my time trying to make it look nice again.


I am a beautiful and elegant sheep that loves being part of a beautiful white herd that can be admired as we frolic in the wind with the setting sun causing our nice white wool to glow gold.



« Last Edit: September 01, 2016, 05:29:20 PM by SeaEhm »

SeaEhm

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 448
  • The Guilt is Real
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #60 on: September 01, 2016, 05:28:57 PM »
NOPE NOPE NOPE!




Rural

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4859
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #61 on: September 01, 2016, 07:12:37 PM »
 These sorts of tales (of HOA's and their "enforcement") are exactly why we chose to buy instead of rent.


If I'm not going to control where I live, I'm going to outsource risk and responsibility  for repairs to the owner as well.

Goldielocks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6538
  • Location: BC
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #62 on: September 02, 2016, 09:08:18 AM »
You realize the fact that he is talking about liking living in an HOA neighborhood means he clearly recognizes he doesn't have an inherent right to tell other people what to do with their property?  It's a mutual thing.  You give up some autonomy in exchange for assurance that the neighborhood will more or less be what you consider attractive and desirable. 

It's not that cut and dry. Like I said, in my town the city requires all new development to be done under and HOA. That means that all the most affordable housing is locked in with no option whatsoever. The city has given carte blanche over to the soulless types that love obtaining petty power over others. And my city is not unique, it's very common these days.

Give me a realistic choice and I have no problem. But when my only actual choices are

1.) Affordable modern housing near my work but with an HOA
2.) Ancient shacks that go for outrageous prices
3.) Homes outside the city with a long commute

and there is a real problem that needs to be addressed.

In the area of California I lived in, the city went with HOAs with developers for a very different reason.

Developers wanted to develop huge tracts of land, including placing very large homes close together.  The city did not feel the need for this expansion and are ok with approving, as long as the overall lot coverage ratio is there (including "parks"), and if someone else does the work, but also, in order for the homes to be that close together, the shapes and forms need to be staggered for fire code reason.  This is why the designs of homes on each lot became locked down by the devleoper....

Developers, of course, love HOAs...

I only realized this difference when I was wondering why the developers were offering no choice or design changes to a specific house plan on a specific lot, compared to the regions I had formerly lived in.   The other regions had HOAs but only to cover the landscaping and maintenance of parks, but not over the homes.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7012
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #63 on: September 02, 2016, 10:03:13 AM »
NOPE NOPE NOPE!


Have you been taking pictures in my neighborhood??

BlueHouse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3235
  • Location: WDC
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #64 on: September 02, 2016, 10:25:01 AM »
HOAs are just an excuse for people who desire it to have petty power over others. There is no evidence that they actually provide for better home values, especially when you consider the extra expense they entail.

The hyperbole on this thread is killing me. There are some good reasons for HOAs.  Some I can think of are shared costs and coordinated work effort for snow removal, lawn care, trash removal, water filtration (my city required our neighborhood to install massive water filtration systems in the sewers which requires an organization of some sort to spread the costs and force agreement on vendors.

Unfortunately, there really are asshairs out there that use the power unfairly and I've got one on my HOA.  I always thought, you read the rules, you follow the rules, how bad can it be?  And then I met this jackass.

MilesTeg

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 887
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #65 on: September 02, 2016, 10:53:07 AM »
HOAs are just an excuse for people who desire it to have petty power over others. There is no evidence that they actually provide for better home values, especially when you consider the extra expense they entail.

The hyperbole on this thread is killing me. There are some good reasons for HOAs.  Some I can think of are shared costs and coordinated work effort for snow removal, lawn care, trash removal, water filtration (my city required our neighborhood to install massive water filtration systems in the sewers which requires an organization of some sort to spread the costs and force agreement on vendors.

Unfortunately, there really are asshairs out there that use the power unfairly and I've got one on my HOA.  I always thought, you read the rules, you follow the rules, how bad can it be?  And then I met this jackass.

I have mentioned several times that community organizations/associations serve a reasonable purpose when there is real shared property. It's when they are given legal power and authority over non-shared property (with no realistic option to choose a non HOA owned property) that they become problematic.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2016, 10:54:51 AM by MilesTeg »

BlueHouse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3235
  • Location: WDC
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #66 on: September 02, 2016, 11:01:09 AM »
NOPE NOPE NOPE!


Have you been taking pictures in my neighborhood??
I would not want to have to look at this. I don't really understand why anyone would think this is okay.

I have a neighbor who has had a car bumper in their patio for two years. I don't want to look out of my bedroom window and feel like I live in a junkyard. Said neighbor has signed the same agreements that I have about what is okay to store on his patio, yet he chooses to ignore it. This weekend I will offer to take his garbage to the junkyard for him. I'm sure that will cause some offense but I am not socially aware enough to know why that is or what I can do to avoid it (short of letting his junk pile up). I can cite many reasons in the HOA Cc&r s  why he shouldn't do it, but for me, it all comes down to "I do not want to look at that".

Why is that wrong?

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1297
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #67 on: September 02, 2016, 11:19:10 AM »

I would not want to have to look at this. I don't really understand why anyone would think this is okay.


Both I and my husband would be perfectly fine living next door to the house in the photo. Estetic is just not important for us. I don't really understand why this matters. I could understand it if it caused dangerous situations, like tall trees to close to my roof, termite infections, or piles of stuff that could fall on kids and kill them. But the color of something? Who does that hurt?

We probably are the neighbours some of you are struggling with. 

BlueHouse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3235
  • Location: WDC
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #68 on: September 02, 2016, 11:42:58 AM »

I would not want to have to look at this. I don't really understand why anyone would think this is okay.


Both I and my husband would be perfectly fine living next door to the house in the photo. Estetic is just not important for us. I don't really understand why this matters. I could understand it if it caused dangerous situations, like tall trees to close to my roof, termite infections, or piles of stuff that could fall on kids and kill them. But the color of something? Who does that hurt?

We probably are the neighbours some of you are struggling with.

You saw the picture in the quote that I embedded, right?  It wasn't about the color of a house.  It was a home with FIVE massive vehicles + one mid-sized car parked in the driveway, on the front lawn, and on the verge strip which is usually city property. 

Please don't change my argument from something that is so blatantly excessive to something trivial. 

This person is using a lawn that was designed to be ornamental as a storage space and the neighbors are paying the price.  I suspect if the neighbor across the street had wanted to live in a parking lot, they would have built a house at Wal-mart.  But they didn't.  They bought in a residential neighborhood.  If you really think you are "that guy", why wouldn't you want to be respectful of your other neighbors?

BlueHouse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3235
  • Location: WDC
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #69 on: September 02, 2016, 11:49:44 AM »
Like I said, I'm not familiar with those types of areas and that seems like a bad idea to me.  Cities should at least leave the option to create a new subdivision where the developer does nothing but what is required to dedicate the streets, sewer, water, etc. and then allow the neighborhood to be just subject to whatever zoning requirements are already in place.

IMO, even that is giving the developer too much control. The street grid should be designed by the city planners and the developer should just have to accept it. And when I say "grid" I really do mean grid, implying small blocks with lots of connectivity, as opposed to the gigantic gated cul-de-sac mazes connected by six-lane arterial highways that developers are prone to building now.

Jack, I'm not sure if there is sarcasm in your statement.  You don't want to give any control to the developers who bought the land.  You want to keep 100% control so that you can enforce a rigid grid pattern with small blocks. 

I happen to like grids and small blocks, but that's an urban design.  Small blocks with lots of connectivity aren't the best solution for suburban neighborhoods where children play and run in yards and between yards.   

Anyway, I know you're very knowledgeable about city planning, I just was amused at how you don't like to give anyone too much control...unless it's you.  Like Henry Ford said....customers can have a car in any color they want, as long as it's black. 

MilesTeg

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 887
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #70 on: September 02, 2016, 11:50:38 AM »
I would not want to have to look at this. I don't really understand why anyone would think this is okay.

I have a neighbor who has had a car bumper in their patio for two years. I don't want to look out of my bedroom window and feel like I live in a junkyard. Said neighbor has signed the same agreements that I have about what is okay to store on his patio, yet he chooses to ignore it. This weekend I will offer to take his garbage to the junkyard for him. I'm sure that will cause some offense but I am not socially aware enough to know why that is or what I can do to avoid it (short of letting his junk pile up). I can cite many reasons in the HOA Cc&r s  why he shouldn't do it, but for me, it all comes down to "I do not want to look at that".

Why is that wrong?

It's wrong because it's not your property. You have no business telling the rightful owner what to do with it. Of course, I am speaking about ethics, not legality. Clearly if they are part of an HOA you've been granted the legal right to have a say in what other do, but legality and ethics don't always coincide.

If you don't like the aesthetics of their property, that's YOUR problem, not theirs. And likewise, if they don't like what you are doing it's THEIR problem, not yours.

Obviously there are good, objective reasons to restrict what people can do on their property. Mostly things that cause safety problems or do real damage to your property. In other words, things that do objectively demonstrable harm to you. But "I don't want to look at that" does not qualify as it is entirely subjective.

As another poster said, the reason HOAs (for non shared property) exist is because even corrupt municipality governments wouldn't be able to get away with infringing on property rights the way HOAs do. They are a nice "loophole" that allows government to infringe on your (constitutional) rights without getting into legal trouble.

But, if you aren't concerned about property rights there is also a very practical reason that many people have learned throughout history to mind your own business. That reason is that just because you like what's happening now doesn't mean you will always agree with it.

My neighbor learned that lesson the hard way. He was always big time into the HOA. He was always telling me how glad he was that the HOA made sure all the lawns were nice and of course the requisite "no cars on blocks!". Then, he and his wife started having financial problems. So, being a mechanically inclined guy he starts doing maintenance and repair work on his vehicle himself. Just simple, routine stuff like oil changes, tire rotations, brake jobs and the like.

Well, he had forgotten that the covenants forbid doing work on vehicles yourself unless you are completely inside the garage with the door down (which is of course utterly ridiculous for normal size, unheated/cooled garages). You see, people don't like the aesthetics of that. Apparently they "don't want to look at that" so it's banned. Long story short, he got tattled on (by some soulless Nazi asswipe probably) and suddenly had a couple hundred bucks in fines (that he couldn't afford) and could no longer save money by working on his own car.

Suddenly he was no longer much of a supporter of the HOA.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #71 on: September 02, 2016, 11:59:09 AM »
It seems this thread has turned into HOAs vs no HOAs.... They don't even have HOAs where I live (Idaho)... We mainly just have potato farms.. I've had a couple hundred rail guard ties (like rail road ties, but slightly smaller), a huge pile of dirt (that I dug out for my basement, then used to level out my yard), a shed on a trailer (where I put a lot of my tools), etc. in my yard for about a year, and had no complaints, thankfully. Personally even if there were HOAs where I lived, I'd choose to live elsewhere.... California is about last on places I want to live... Regulations out the ass and things like HOAs where people tell you what to do with your own property.... Fuck that... But if people that I would never want as neighbors, and would never want me as a neighbor, are able to pay money to not live near me... That seems like a sweet way to keep people that don't want to live near each other, not living near each other, win-win. So I guess HOAs are a good thing.

joleran

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 175
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #72 on: September 02, 2016, 12:04:42 PM »
NOPE NOPE NOPE!



I will never buy in an HOA unless it's at gunpoint, but I do have a neighbor like this a few doors down.  My wife and I have nick-named this neighbor "rust buddy".  If we were speculating on property or something, that might be annoying, but we didn't buy a house as an investment so we mostly just have fun with it.

Miss Piggy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #73 on: September 02, 2016, 12:06:28 PM »
But if people that I would never want as neighbors, and would never want me as a neighbor, are able to pay money to not live near me... That seems like a sweet way to keep people that don't want to live near each other, not living near each other, win-win. So I guess HOAs are a good thing.

This is what I keep thinking. I don't understand the big deal. HOAs are good for those of us who care about that sort of thing, and those of us who don't can live in a non-HOA neighborhood. If there are no non-HOA neighborhoods in an area, then I would have to conclude that people voted with their pens or their pocketbooks, and the majority of people in that area prefer them. Comparatively, I'm not a fan of Obama, but more people voted for him than didn't, and I have to either live with it or move away. My choice.

Jeremy E.

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1946
  • Location: Lewiston, ID
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #74 on: September 02, 2016, 12:24:47 PM »
NOPE NOPE NOPE!


Have you been taking pictures in my neighborhood??
I would not want to have to look at this. I don't really understand why anyone would think this is okay.

I have a neighbor who has had a car bumper in their patio for two years. I don't want to look out of my bedroom window and feel like I live in a junkyard. Said neighbor has signed the same agreements that I have about what is okay to store on his patio, yet he chooses to ignore it. This weekend I will offer to take his garbage to the junkyard for him. I'm sure that will cause some offense but I am not socially aware enough to know why that is or what I can do to avoid it (short of letting his junk pile up). I can cite many reasons in the HOA Cc&r s  why he shouldn't do it, but for me, it all comes down to "I do not want to look at that".

Why is that wrong?
I think it's okay, a lot of places near me look just like this. I think they are very unmustachian, but what they want to do with their money/property is their business. if you don't want to look at it, don't.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4734
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #75 on: September 02, 2016, 12:30:38 PM »
NOPE NOPE NOPE!


Have you been taking pictures in my neighborhood??
I would not want to have to look at this. I don't really understand why anyone would think this is okay.

Y'all do realize that this sort of thing does not require an HOA to prevent, right? If somebody did this around here, they would get fined by a city code enforcement officer (an actual sworn police officer), not some megalomanical jerk at the HOA.

(Also, I'm mostly in the "it's their property so they can do what they want" camp, except for the part where they're obstructing access to the sidewalk.)



Like I said, I'm not familiar with those types of areas and that seems like a bad idea to me.  Cities should at least leave the option to create a new subdivision where the developer does nothing but what is required to dedicate the streets, sewer, water, etc. and then allow the neighborhood to be just subject to whatever zoning requirements are already in place.

IMO, even that is giving the developer too much control. The street grid should be designed by the city planners and the developer should just have to accept it. And when I say "grid" I really do mean grid, implying small blocks with lots of connectivity, as opposed to the gigantic gated cul-de-sac mazes connected by six-lane arterial highways that developers are prone to building now.

Jack, I'm not sure if there is sarcasm in your statement.  You don't want to give any control to the developers who bought the land.  You want to keep 100% control so that you can enforce a rigid grid pattern with small blocks. 

I happen to like grids and small blocks, but that's an urban design.  Small blocks with lots of connectivity aren't the best solution for suburban neighborhoods where children play and run in yards and between yards.   

Anyway, I know you're very knowledgeable about city planning, I just was amused at how you don't like to give anyone too much control...unless it's you.  Like Henry Ford said....customers can have a car in any color they want, as long as it's black.

First of all, I wonder if there's a disconnect between our definitions of "suburban." There are two main kinds of suburbs: pre-WWII ones, which are made of single-family houses but which are built on a grid with small blocks (and generally narrower lots such that the houses are deeper than they are wide), and post-WWII ones, which are built in a dendritic street pattern with few ways in and out and lots of cul-de-sacs such that the residents have to drive on arterial road superblocks to get anywhere. Also consider the difference implied by the word "neighborhood" vs. the word "subdivision" -- they sometimes get used interchangeably, but they're not synonyms.

To me, the definition of "urban" depends on context (e.g. in roadway design "urban" means anything with a curb and gutter, as opposed to "rural" which means using a ditch for drainage). In this context, IMO an "urban" neighborhood implies at least townhouses/row houses/brownstones, but more likely, 3+-story apartment blocks.

FYI, in my pre-WWII suburb, it is perfectly safe for children to play in the front yards and streets, and there is about the same amount of traffic as the post-WWII suburbs I grew up in. More to the point, those kids can actually easily walk to places (school, parks, stores) whereas when I was growing up I was basically trapped in my subdivision until I got a driver's license. Small blocks with lots of connectivity are the best for kids!

Anyway, I would say that all suburbs should be of the pre-WWII type, or if you think only post-WWII suburbs are "true" suburbs then I would say that they shouldn't exist at all. Dendritic street patterns that require driving on arterials to get anywhere are harmful to lower-income people economically, human health in general (since they discourage biking and walking), and environmental sustainability. They are also much more expensive to maintain than denser, pre-WWII suburbs (both in terms of infrastructure and services like firetruck coverage, trash pickup and school busing) but on average do not generate enough extra tax revenue to make up the difference (because larger houses may be more valuable, but one on a lot twice the size is generally less than twice as valuable as two smaller homes would have been), making them economically unsustainable in the long run.

Finally, it's not about me wanting control (and I'm not a city planner anyway); it's about the fact that my tax dollars shouldn't be subsidizing unsustainable infrastructure.

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1297
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #76 on: September 02, 2016, 12:34:21 PM »

I would not want to have to look at this. I don't really understand why anyone would think this is okay.


Both I and my husband would be perfectly fine living next door to the house in the photo. Estetic is just not important for us. I don't really understand why this matters. I could understand it if it caused dangerous situations, like tall trees to close to my roof, termite infections, or piles of stuff that could fall on kids and kill them. But the color of something? Who does that hurt?

We probably are the neighbours some of you are struggling with.

You saw the picture in the quote that I embedded, right?  It wasn't about the color of a house.  It was a home with FIVE massive vehicles + one mid-sized car parked in the driveway, on the front lawn, and on the verge strip which is usually city property. 

Please don't change my argument from something that is so blatantly excessive to something trivial. 

This person is using a lawn that was designed to be ornamental as a storage space and the neighbors are paying the price.  I suspect if the neighbor across the street had wanted to live in a parking lot, they would have built a house at Wal-mart.  But they didn't.  They bought in a residential neighborhood.  If you really think you are "that guy", why wouldn't you want to be respectful of your other neighbors?

I commented on the photo that this would be a situation that honestly wouldn't bother med at all, and added an extra example that was mentioned earlier in the thread. We do our best to be good neighbours, but since this type of thing doesn't matter to us at all, we just don't see it. And I can't be bothered to go around worrying about what people might be thinking, if it isn't bad enough for them to come right out and say it.

The only complaint we ever have gotten is about a tree that gave a bit too much shade, and some rose bushes that were creeping our to their lot. We cut it down, since that made sense in a cost/benefit perspective (we did not like the roses, did not need the tree, we got firewood, the neighbours got more sunlight, and everyone appeared to be happy). If we got a complaint about something trivial like the number of cars in front of our house, the look of our postbox, or the state of our lawn, or some of the other HOA examples mentioned earlier, I admit it would take some convincing to get us to put the matter on our (very full) priority list.

ShoulderThingThatGoesUp

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3057
  • Location: Emmaus, PA
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #77 on: September 02, 2016, 12:41:03 PM »
My neighbors that park the rustiest jalopies on the street are also the ones that snowblow the whole sidewalk when it snows more than a foot.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7012
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #78 on: September 02, 2016, 01:23:25 PM »

I would not want to have to look at this. I don't really understand why anyone would think this is okay.


Both I and my husband would be perfectly fine living next door to the house in the photo. Estetic is just not important for us. I don't really understand why this matters. I could understand it if it caused dangerous situations, like tall trees to close to my roof, termite infections, or piles of stuff that could fall on kids and kill them. But the color of something? Who does that hurt?

We probably are the neighbours some of you are struggling with.

You saw the picture in the quote that I embedded, right?  It wasn't about the color of a house.  It was a home with FIVE massive vehicles + one mid-sized car parked in the driveway, on the front lawn, and on the verge strip which is usually city property. 

Please don't change my argument from something that is so blatantly excessive to something trivial. 

This person is using a lawn that was designed to be ornamental as a storage space and the neighbors are paying the price.  I suspect if the neighbor across the street had wanted to live in a parking lot, they would have built a house at Wal-mart.  But they didn't.  They bought in a residential neighborhood.  If you really think you are "that guy", why wouldn't you want to be respectful of your other neighbors?
Our city has regulations on all of this, which *can* help.

For example, in my neighborhood, most of the houses were built in the 20's and the 40s.  The lots are small (~5300 sf). Some of the houses have single-car garages, and some don't.

There was "in-fill" in the late 50's and 60's.  My house was on a "double" lot that was split in 1959.  So, the garage in the back went to the "new" house.  The driveway to the new house is on our property, but our house does not have a garage.  This was fairly common.  A few houses went through major redo's, so they may have 2-car garages in the front of the house (or behind, depending on which side of the hill that you are on).

In order to prevent the 'hood from looking "horrible" - all houses are required to have 2 parking spaces - at least 1 covered space, and 1 uncovered if you don't have 2 covered.  (Covered meaning garage or carport).  They grandfathered houses like mine.  HOWEVER, houses like mine are still required to have 2 off street spaces - and if they are directly in front of the house then they are required to be "blocked from view of the road", aka - you need a fence or a hedge to block the unsightly cars.

It still happens.  Pic #1 and 2 are examples from my neighborhood - In #2, the 2 front houses have the parking spots, and there are 2 houses in the back. #1 is the same, just one house. Pic #3. Well ugh.  Usually there's at least one other car in that driveway.  But 2 spots are covered!

Making Cookies

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1648
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #79 on: September 02, 2016, 01:31:36 PM »
When we moved into our house, someone secretly stuck a copy of the covenants into our mailbox. Maybe they didn't like my new (used) shed?

It was funny to us b/c the covenants were clearly broken years ago by existing residents - some with permanent structures like detached garages that did not exactly match their house.

A few houses down the street was the county building inspector. He broke the covenants too.

We felt pretty safe from whoever was worrying about our shed or our kids or the color of my socks or whatever they were in a tizzy about.

Never will I live under an HOA. Count me in with the Vietnam Vet with the framed complaint on the wall.

Goldielocks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6538
  • Location: BC
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #80 on: September 02, 2016, 01:37:07 PM »
With regard to the many vehicles.  I understand why the photo was taken and why the neighbor would not like it,

But other than blocking the sidewalk, and the car parked on city property (between sidewalk and road), it is much, much better than having all these vehicles parked on the street in front of my home, and just for that reason, I would suck it up and be happy with the neighbor.

We did have a neighbor with a large RV (1970's era) with a shredding blue tarp half over it, parked in front, on grass, right to the edge of the street curb (no sidewalk).   Completely against city bylaws, but no one complained/ reported it.   The elderly couple were definitely fighting hoarding / dementia or something else, and their kids were working very hard to help them.

______________________________-


WRT HOA's -- DH got himself on the board, as the compliance officer (the one who writes letters).  This was great.  In 4 years he was able to defer / slow down / prevent many many instances of inane complaints.   He wrote a total of 2 letters, one to the landlord of some pretty bad renters, and one to his wife (e.g., himself)  for painting the front door the wrong colour.

The remaining issues were related to non-payment of fees, and there was a standard practice in place about liens on properties and withholding access to common areas.

So,  if you don't like the HOA, then the solution is to take control of the board, and change it.

SeaEhm

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 448
  • The Guilt is Real
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #81 on: September 02, 2016, 07:26:35 PM »
In this thread it seems that some people are superficial and others don't care about appearances.

I happen to be pretty superficial. It extends from my clothes to my car to my house to my street to the neighborhood I live in to the city I live in.

I like things that are pretty and well maintained.



BlueHouse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3235
  • Location: WDC
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #82 on: September 02, 2016, 07:58:02 PM »

First of all, I wonder if there's a disconnect between our definitions of "suburban." There are two main kinds of suburbs: pre-WWII ones, which are made of single-family houses but which are built on a grid with small blocks (and generally narrower lots such that the houses are deeper than they are wide), and post-WWII ones, which are built in a dendritic street pattern with few ways in and out and lots of cul-de-sacs such that the residents have to drive on arterial road superblocks to get anywhere. Also consider the difference implied by the word "neighborhood" vs. the word "subdivision" -- they sometimes get used interchangeably, but they're not synonyms.

To me, the definition of "urban" depends on context (e.g. in roadway design "urban" means anything with a curb and gutter, as opposed to "rural" which means using a ditch for drainage). In this context, IMO an "urban" neighborhood implies at least townhouses/row houses/brownstones, but more likely, 3+-story apartment blocks.

FYI, in my pre-WWII suburb, it is perfectly safe for children to play in the front yards and streets, and there is about the same amount of traffic as the post-WWII suburbs I grew up in. More to the point, those kids can actually easily walk to places (school, parks, stores) whereas when I was growing up I was basically trapped in my subdivision until I got a driver's license. Small blocks with lots of connectivity are the best for kids!

Anyway, I would say that all suburbs should be of the pre-WWII type, or if you think only post-WWII suburbs are "true" suburbs then I would say that they shouldn't exist at all. Dendritic street patterns that require driving on arterials to get anywhere are harmful to lower-income people economically, human health in general (since they discourage biking and walking), and environmental sustainability. They are also much more expensive to maintain than denser, pre-WWII suburbs (both in terms of infrastructure and services like firetruck coverage, trash pickup and school busing) but on average do not generate enough extra tax revenue to make up the difference (because larger houses may be more valuable, but one on a lot twice the size is generally less than twice as valuable as two smaller homes would have been), making them economically unsustainable in the long run.

Finally, it's not about me wanting control (and I'm not a city planner anyway); it's about the fact that my tax dollars shouldn't be subsidizing unsustainable infrastructure.
Jack, thank you for the instruction and I appreciate learning these definitions. You certainly seem knowledgeable enough on the topic to be a city planner.  I agree with not wanting to pay for unsustainable infrastructure.

Now to blow even more minds:  I live in DC. The "old city" was designed with lots for homes and included in much of the design was a lot of public parks area tucked into virtually every space that wasn't someone's home. The result is that in much of the city, the property owner only owns land up to his front door. The front yard is actually city property. This is still called "public parking". Imagine telling someone that their front yard doesn't belong to them, it is actually "public parking". They imagine this means anyone can park a car in their yard, but that's not the meaning. It means it is park land for the public to enjoy and we ( the public) are meant to have an unuobstructed view of these green areas for as far as he road runs. So not only can the public not park there, but homeowners are not allowed to park in their own driveways!  They may use the driveway to get to and from a garage or a parking space that is behind the public parking area. In addition, you can't grow hedges above a certain height if they block the view for aesthetic reasons.
I am allowed to get a fence for my front yard, but I am very restricted in the fence type and height. ( black iron ornamental only). When I get the fence, I have to request a permit to perform work on public land, because it isn't my land. Crazy, right?  But it's just the way it is.


It's wrong because it's not your property. You have no business telling the rightful owner what to do with it. Of course, I am speaking about ethics, not legality. Clearly if they are part of an HOA you've been granted the legal right to have a say in what other do, but legality and ethics don't always coincide.

If you don't like the aesthetics of their property, that's YOUR problem, not theirs. And likewise, if they don't like what you are doing it's THEIR problem, not yours.
So, I actually do have a right because I am in an HOA And Because I live in a city that uses a master design plan that was created in the 18th century and is still in use today.

paddedhat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2229
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #83 on: September 03, 2016, 08:39:56 AM »

HOAs are just an excuse for people who desire it to have petty power over others. There is no evidence that they actually provide for better home values, especially when you consider the extra expense they entail.

The first sentence is just ridiculous. As for the lack of evidence, sorry but I get to see the evidence every day. I live in an area that has massive, often adjoining, vacation communities. They were all developed and marketed in the 1960's and 70's.  My home is under   contract, and brought fair market value. It is worth 30-40% more than if it was located in either of two communities on the border of this one, and 15-20% less that if I had build in the top value community in the local marketplace.  The math is a wash however, as the gain of being in the top value location would be negated by the lot purchase cost, which was 3X what I paid. Bottom line?  There are dozens of these HOA controlled communities in my region. They all got pretty much the same start in life,  small vacation home lots in beautiful rural settings, peddled by a developer who wanted to slam the project together, sell, sell, sell, then GTFO, without looking back. In every case this created the need for an HOA. The next 40-50 years of management by the HOA  created (or degraded) the value by maintaining roads, adding and maintaining amenities, and setting the overall tone of the neighborhood. The free market rates their work product, and places value on the resales and empty lots.  I chose to build here based on the obvious success of the last forty years of HOA management, and my investment performed well. Other's failed to do their due dilligence, and are paying the price, buying homes that are tough to resell, or end up selling at greatly reduced prices, due to poor management.  Having built dozens of homes in the region, It's pretty evident to me that the culture of a HOA, for better or worse, can have a massive impact on the long term value of housing in this market.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2016, 09:17:06 AM by paddedhat »

MilesTeg

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 887
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #84 on: September 03, 2016, 10:01:11 AM »

It's wrong because it's not your property. You have no business telling the rightful owner what to do with it. Of course, I am speaking about ethics, not legality. Clearly if they are part of an HOA you've been granted the legal right to have a say in what other do, but legality and ethics don't always coincide.

If you don't like the aesthetics of their property, that's YOUR problem, not theirs. And likewise, if they don't like what you are doing it's THEIR problem, not yours.
So, I actually do have a right because I am in an HOA And Because I live in a city that uses a master design plan that was created in the 18th century and is still in use today.

You quoted it, but didn't seem to comprehend the part where I state I'm talking about ETHICS, not legal rights.

MilesTeg

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 887
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #85 on: September 03, 2016, 10:14:05 AM »

HOAs are just an excuse for people who desire it to have petty power over others. There is no evidence that they actually provide for better home values, especially when you consider the extra expense they entail.

The first sentence is just ridiculous. As for the lack of evidence, sorry but I get to see the evidence every day. I live in an area that has massive, often adjoining, vacation communities. They were all developed and marketed in the 1960's and 70's.  My home is under   contract, and brought fair market value. It is worth 30-40% more than if it was located in either of two communities on the border of this one, and 15-20% less that if I had build in the top value community in the local marketplace.  The math is a wash however, as the gain of being in the top value location would be negated by the lot purchase cost, which was 3X what I paid. Bottom line?  There are dozens of these HOA controlled communities in my region. They all got pretty much the same start in life,  small vacation home lots in beautiful rural settings, peddled by a developer who wanted to slam the project together, sell, sell, sell, then GTFO, without looking back. In every case this created the need for an HOA. The next 40-50 years of management by the HOA  created (or degraded) the value by maintaining roads, adding and maintaining amenities, and setting the overall tone of the neighborhood. The free market rates their work product, and places value on the resales and empty lots.  I chose to build here based on the obvious success of the last forty years of HOA management, and my investment performed well. Other's failed to do their due dilligence, and are paying the price, buying homes that are tough to resell, or end up selling at greatly reduced prices, due to poor management.  Having built dozens of homes in the region, It's pretty evident to me that the culture of a HOA, for better or worse, can have a massive impact on the long term value of housing in this market.

That's not evidence, that's a bald claim make on an internet message board. Where's the evidence? Where's the market studies, the appraisals with associated statistical analysis, etc. There are hundreds of different reasons for differences in prices in houses. You have not even remotely isolated HOA vs. non-HOA.

Not to mention you have done nothing to account for the extra costs of an HOA vs no HOA. The purchase vs final sales price of your home is not enough information to determine the value of that turnaround. If you've been dumping hundreds or thousands of dollars into an HOA per year that seriously erodes the real return on your home.

That it's "evident to you" that it's worth it doesn't mean it's actually true. Just like it's "evident" to a lot of folks that big fancy cars and lots of gadgets will make them happy, but that doesn't make it true.

paddedhat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2229
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #86 on: September 03, 2016, 10:58:20 AM »

HOAs are just an excuse for people who desire it to have petty power over others. There is no evidence that they actually provide for better home values, especially when you consider the extra expense they entail.

The first sentence is just ridiculous. As for the lack of evidence, sorry but I get to see the evidence every day. I live in an area that has massive, often adjoining, vacation communities. They were all developed and marketed in the 1960's and 70's.  My home is under   contract, and brought fair market value. It is worth 30-40% more than if it was located in either of two communities on the border of this one, and 15-20% less that if I had build in the top value community in the local marketplace.  The math is a wash however, as the gain of being in the top value location would be negated by the lot purchase cost, which was 3X what I paid. Bottom line?  There are dozens of these HOA controlled communities in my region. They all got pretty much the same start in life,  small vacation home lots in beautiful rural settings, peddled by a developer who wanted to slam the project together, sell, sell, sell, then GTFO, without looking back. In every case this created the need for an HOA. The next 40-50 years of management by the HOA  created (or degraded) the value by maintaining roads, adding and maintaining amenities, and setting the overall tone of the neighborhood. The free market rates their work product, and places value on the resales and empty lots.  I chose to build here based on the obvious success of the last forty years of HOA management, and my investment performed well. Other's failed to do their due dilligence, and are paying the price, buying homes that are tough to resell, or end up selling at greatly reduced prices, due to poor management.  Having built dozens of homes in the region, It's pretty evident to me that the culture of a HOA, for better or worse, can have a massive impact on the long term value of housing in this market.

That's not evidence, that's a bald claim make on an internet message board. Where's the evidence? Where's the market studies, the appraisals with associated statistical analysis, etc. There are hundreds of different reasons for differences in prices in houses. You have not even remotely isolated HOA vs. non-HOA.

The evidence lies with the local appraisers, and realtors who I do business with on a regular basis.  As for proving reality to you, with "market studies"  I could give a rat's ass hair if you need proof. I made a very health living, and FIREd with a nice pile of cheddar, based on understanding the market and how HOA performance effects value.

Not to mention you have done nothing to account for the extra costs of an HOA vs no HOA. The purchase vs final sales price of your home is not enough information to determine the value of that turnaround. If you've been dumping hundreds or thousands of dollars into an HOA per year that seriously erodes the real return on your home.

Yes, HOA fees can be a huge factor. My community has the lowest in the region at $408 a YEAR, which includes seven day a week garbage service, pool, beach, 175 acre lake, clubhouse, restaurant, nicely maintained private roads, and common areas etc.. There are adjoining communities with 2-3X the annual dues, poor facilities, failed amenities, and drastically lower values as reflected in resale $/sq.ft  OTOH, There is another local community with dues 10X higher than mine, and it's a huge success, as you get an enormous amount for your money, and basically end up owning a home in the middle of a high end resort. To each his own, but in every case the caliber of the HOA  weighs heavily on the market value of individual homes.

That it's "evident to you" that it's worth it doesn't mean it's actually true. Just like it's "evident" to a lot of folks that big fancy cars and lots of gadgets will make them happy, but that doesn't make it true.

I'm not sure where your hostility originates from, but whatever. When I build a spec. house that sells in a few weeks, for exactly the targeted price, it's based on an intimate knowledge on the market. If I were to tell my broker that I got a killer deal on a lot in a  nearby development, and plan on building the next one there to increase my margins, he would state the obvious. The market determined that the lot in the less desirable community is worth half as much as my usual market area. The finished house will appraise for less that the cost savings of the dirt purchase. The home will have a lot more time on the market, and all of this is due to how these different communities were managed by their individual HOAs over the last four or five decades. All of your bullshit about fancy cars and gadgets has nothing to do with sound business decisions, and the facts I discussed.

When you start with a statement like, "HOAs are just an excuse for people who desire it to have petty power over others."  you have pretty much shown all your cards, and  aren't adding any real value to the conversation. When you have built millions of dollars worth of SFHs in HOA governed communities and understand both their value, and the tremedous effort that volunteers contribute to keeping the communities desirable locations to live, you get to see the other side to the pettiness of you opinion.



libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1372
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #87 on: September 04, 2016, 01:11:21 AM »
I'd let them know that I'd gladly drive a nicer car.

If they were willing to buy it for me.

Put up or shut up.

BlueHouse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3235
  • Location: WDC
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #88 on: September 04, 2016, 10:21:31 AM »

It's wrong because it's not your property. You have no business telling the rightful owner what to do with it. Of course, I am speaking about ethics, not legality. Clearly if they are part of an HOA you've been granted the legal right to have a say in what other do, but legality and ethics don't always coincide.

If you don't like the aesthetics of their property, that's YOUR problem, not theirs. And likewise, if they don't like what you are doing it's THEIR problem, not yours.
So, I actually do have a right because I am in an HOA And Because I live in a city that uses a master design plan that was created in the 18th century and is still in use today.

You quoted it, but didn't seem to comprehend the part where I state I'm talking about ETHICS, not legal rights.

Please provide a copy of your book of ETHICS.  Because my copy of the book says that not only should you respect the legal responsibilities of homeownership, but you should also be mindful and courteous of your neighbors, their health, and the accepted societal norms. 

If you've never lived in an urban environment, you may not be aware that litter, abandoned junk, debris, extra cars, etc all contribute to spaces that vermin can and will infest.  Constant vigilance is needed to keep people safe and healthy.  By choosing to live in any society, you have implicitly agreed to abide by their rules and regulations.  I happen to live in a country with laws that must be followed, a District (state) with additional laws, and within those rules, I have further chosen (because it had some features that I wanted) to live within a community that has an HOA.  By choosing to stay, I have agreed to follow the rules whether I agree with them all or not.  I should note that ALL of my neighbors have made the same choices. 

So please explain to me how I could be unethical by hoping my neighbor would actually do all the things he said he would do?  How am I unethical when I expect everyone to be treated the same way? 

SwordGuy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6004
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #89 on: September 04, 2016, 11:35:42 AM »


Damn!   Now there's a family that might take me boating for free!  Or might let me use an RV for an inexpensive vacation!   Might be able to rent any of those items for way under market price, plus get free lessons in how to operate them, too.

Might be a great side job, offering to wash and wax all those vehicles!

Do they invite bikini babes over to party?   'Cause I gotta tell you, there's nothing like a bunch of shapely ladies wearing bathing suits to make me seriously not notice any other scenery...

I guess it's all just how you look at a situation.


As for how people take care of their property, I draw the line when it's a health and safety issue, or if their behavior causes me to lose the proper usage of my property.

Examples:

(1) Throwing food garbage on the ground instead of in the garbage can next to it.  This attracted wild dogs to come over and get a free meal.  (And rats.)   A few years back our city council had to hire a wild game hunter to come in and hunt down and kill packs (yes plural!) of wild dogs living in a nearby wooded city park.  You know it's a bad problem when politicians vote to kill dogs.   Yep, I called the police.

(2) Playing "Proud Mary" at 3am so loudly that the police hammering the front door with their nightsticks can't be heard.   Yep, I called the police.

(3) Being a crazy cat lady who has gobs and gobs of poorly cared for, un-neutered semi-feral cats.  Not only are the cats not well cared for but the place reeks of urine so much that parts of nearby yards get hit by stench bombs depending upon which way the wind blows.   Neighbor called animal control before we moved in, we called them again.  Haven't called the police yet, but it may come to that.  If she wants to live in a house that reeks of feces and urine that's her business, but when the smell comes over the property line, it's our business.

(4) Painting a house a color I don't like.  None of my business.

(5) Parking in their yard.  None of my business.  I have been known to donate large rocks to someone's yard between occupants, though.   These wonderful landscape enhancing rocks might have contributed to the property renting so quickly.  How fortunate they coincidentally interfere with parking in the yard...    :)

(6) Dogs bark loudly all the time.  Time to call the authorities.   Our whole neighborhood removed part of a fence that was in disrepair from a back yard that was owned by an absentee landlord when the property went vacant.  The section of fence wasn't safe.  We also picked up all the dildos that were scattered around the property and disposed of them.  Our good deed paid dividends because the landlord had a habit of renting to tenants who didn't do a good job with policing their dogs.  Since the fence had a gap in it, bad dog owners didn't rent it.  And yes, some people might consider that vandalism, but the prior dog had damaged the fence and it had dangerous edges on it.

I did miss coming home from work to see the strippers sunning themselves topless on their carport roof, which was at eye level to my driveway next door...   






SeaEhm

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 448
  • The Guilt is Real
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #90 on: September 04, 2016, 11:52:43 AM »


Do they invite bikini babes over to party?   'Cause I gotta tell you, there's nothing like a bunch of shapely ladies wearing bathing suits to make me seriously not notice any other scenery...

I guess it's all just how you look at a situation.



Whatever floats your boat...(the one parked on the lawn) or whatever drives your RV (the one parked in the driveway)


As to take the higher road and to not offend anyone

[Insert]unattractive bikini clad women washing cars.jpg[/insert]

1) food on the ground is actually called compost - they are doing the ground a favor by adding nutrients.

2) So you are bothered auditorial but not by visual disgust?

3) So you are bothered by scent but not by visual disgust?

4) So you have adaptable color blindness?

5) Pretty much prove the point yourself

6) Dogs were barking because you got rid of their chew toys.

7) (regarding the carport) Like you mentioned, it really is how you LOOK AT THE SITUATION  ;P

MilesTeg

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 887
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #91 on: September 04, 2016, 01:00:20 PM »

It's wrong because it's not your property. You have no business telling the rightful owner what to do with it. Of course, I am speaking about ethics, not legality. Clearly if they are part of an HOA you've been granted the legal right to have a say in what other do, but legality and ethics don't always coincide.

If you don't like the aesthetics of their property, that's YOUR problem, not theirs. And likewise, if they don't like what you are doing it's THEIR problem, not yours.
So, I actually do have a right because I am in an HOA And Because I live in a city that uses a master design plan that was created in the 18th century and is still in use today.

You quoted it, but didn't seem to comprehend the part where I state I'm talking about ETHICS, not legal rights.

Please provide a copy of your book of ETHICS.  Because my copy of the book says that not only should you respect the legal responsibilities of homeownership, but you should also be mindful and courteous of your neighbors, their health, and the accepted societal norms. 

If you've never lived in an urban environment, you may not be aware that litter, abandoned junk, debris, extra cars, etc all contribute to spaces that vermin can and will infest.  Constant vigilance is needed to keep people safe and healthy.  By choosing to live in any society, you have implicitly agreed to abide by their rules and regulations.  I happen to live in a country with laws that must be followed, a District (state) with additional laws, and within those rules, I have further chosen (because it had some features that I wanted) to live within a community that has an HOA.  By choosing to stay, I have agreed to follow the rules whether I agree with them all or not.  I should note that ALL of my neighbors have made the same choices. 

So please explain to me how I could be unethical by hoping my neighbor would actually do all the things he said he would do?  How am I unethical when I expect everyone to be treated the same way?

As I said already several times: when there are objective reasons for certain restrictions -- such as health and safety -- those are quite reasonable. You should try reading the whole thread.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2016, 01:09:29 PM by MilesTeg »

MilesTeg

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 887
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #92 on: September 04, 2016, 01:01:39 PM »

HOAs are just an excuse for people who desire it to have petty power over others. There is no evidence that they actually provide for better home values, especially when you consider the extra expense they entail.

The first sentence is just ridiculous. As for the lack of evidence, sorry but I get to see the evidence every day. I live in an area that has massive, often adjoining, vacation communities. They were all developed and marketed in the 1960's and 70's.  My home is under   contract, and brought fair market value. It is worth 30-40% more than if it was located in either of two communities on the border of this one, and 15-20% less that if I had build in the top value community in the local marketplace.  The math is a wash however, as the gain of being in the top value location would be negated by the lot purchase cost, which was 3X what I paid. Bottom line?  There are dozens of these HOA controlled communities in my region. They all got pretty much the same start in life,  small vacation home lots in beautiful rural settings, peddled by a developer who wanted to slam the project together, sell, sell, sell, then GTFO, without looking back. In every case this created the need for an HOA. The next 40-50 years of management by the HOA  created (or degraded) the value by maintaining roads, adding and maintaining amenities, and setting the overall tone of the neighborhood. The free market rates their work product, and places value on the resales and empty lots.  I chose to build here based on the obvious success of the last forty years of HOA management, and my investment performed well. Other's failed to do their due dilligence, and are paying the price, buying homes that are tough to resell, or end up selling at greatly reduced prices, due to poor management.  Having built dozens of homes in the region, It's pretty evident to me that the culture of a HOA, for better or worse, can have a massive impact on the long term value of housing in this market.

That's not evidence, that's a bald claim make on an internet message board. Where's the evidence? Where's the market studies, the appraisals with associated statistical analysis, etc. There are hundreds of different reasons for differences in prices in houses. You have not even remotely isolated HOA vs. non-HOA.

The evidence lies with the local appraisers, and realtors who I do business with on a regular basis.  As for proving reality to you, with "market studies"  I could give a rat's ass hair if you need proof. I made a very health living, and FIREd with a nice pile of cheddar, based on understanding the market and how HOA performance effects value.

Not to mention you have done nothing to account for the extra costs of an HOA vs no HOA. The purchase vs final sales price of your home is not enough information to determine the value of that turnaround. If you've been dumping hundreds or thousands of dollars into an HOA per year that seriously erodes the real return on your home.

Yes, HOA fees can be a huge factor. My community has the lowest in the region at $408 a YEAR, which includes seven day a week garbage service, pool, beach, 175 acre lake, clubhouse, restaurant, nicely maintained private roads, and common areas etc.. There are adjoining communities with 2-3X the annual dues, poor facilities, failed amenities, and drastically lower values as reflected in resale $/sq.ft  OTOH, There is another local community with dues 10X higher than mine, and it's a huge success, as you get an enormous amount for your money, and basically end up owning a home in the middle of a high end resort. To each his own, but in every case the caliber of the HOA  weighs heavily on the market value of individual homes.

That it's "evident to you" that it's worth it doesn't mean it's actually true. Just like it's "evident" to a lot of folks that big fancy cars and lots of gadgets will make them happy, but that doesn't make it true.

I'm not sure where your hostility originates from, but whatever. When I build a spec. house that sells in a few weeks, for exactly the targeted price, it's based on an intimate knowledge on the market. If I were to tell my broker that I got a killer deal on a lot in a  nearby development, and plan on building the next one there to increase my margins, he would state the obvious. The market determined that the lot in the less desirable community is worth half as much as my usual market area. The finished house will appraise for less that the cost savings of the dirt purchase. The home will have a lot more time on the market, and all of this is due to how these different communities were managed by their individual HOAs over the last four or five decades. All of your bullshit about fancy cars and gadgets has nothing to do with sound business decisions, and the facts I discussed.

When you start with a statement like, "HOAs are just an excuse for people who desire it to have petty power over others."  you have pretty much shown all your cards, and  aren't adding any real value to the conversation. When you have built millions of dollars worth of SFHs in HOA governed communities and understand both their value, and the tremedous effort that volunteers contribute to keeping the communities desirable locations to live, you get to see the other side to the pettiness of you opinion.



And now e have a long list of various frantic and increasingly angry sounding appeals to authority, not actual evidence.

SwordGuy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6004
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #93 on: September 04, 2016, 03:27:32 PM »

Do they invite bikini babes over to party?   'Cause I gotta tell you, there's nothing like a bunch of shapely ladies wearing bathing suits to make me seriously not notice any other scenery...

I guess it's all just how you look at a situation.


Whatever floats your boat...(the one parked on the lawn) or whatever drives your RV (the one parked in the driveway)

As to take the higher road and to not offend anyone

[Insert]unattractive bikini clad women washing cars.jpg[/insert]

Not my place to body shame people.   They are welcome to do so, too. 

I won't enjoy it as much, but either way, I'm good with it.
1) food on the ground is actually called compost - they are doing the ground a favor by adding nutrients.

If it's attracting wild dogs and rats, it's a health and safety issue.  Otherwise I'm good with it.
We didn't get the authorities involved when it was just trash.
2) So you are bothered auditorial but not by visual disgust?
If those sound waves follow me into my home and wake me up at 3am and keep me from sleeping, yep.
If we cannot carry on a conversation in our home because we cannot hear one another, yep.

3) So you are bothered by scent but not by visual disgust?

We've taken no action about the stinky house as a stinky house.   We called animal control because there were lots of semi-feral animals on OUR property from that house.  We would have ignored them except they started peeing on our doors and windows.  Tomcat pee is sticky, stinky and corrosive.  Lather your house up in it some time for a festive time.
4) So you have adaptable color blindness?
No, I just mind my own business.
5) Pretty much prove the point yourself
Yep.  I was a neighborhood busybody in this instance. 

Then again, I didn't interfere with the current residents parking in their yard.  When they moved out, I added the decorative rocks to their yard.   Most people wanting to park in their yard could easily have moved the rocks.   I counted on human nature, the kind of people who would park in their yard instead of on the street are probably too lazy to do that.

So, minimal interference that didn't prevent someone who wanted to park in the yard from doing so.

Wrong?  Yep.

6) Dogs were barking because you got rid of their chew toys.
No.  Dogs had already moved out with their owners when we picked up the dildos out of the yard.   They barked on their own accord while they lived there. 
7) (regarding the carport) Like you mentioned, it really is how you LOOK AT THE SITUATION  ;P

True.   Some neighbors called the police.  I just minded my business because it didn't harm anyone.

SeaEhm

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 448
  • The Guilt is Real
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #94 on: September 04, 2016, 03:31:24 PM »

True.   Some neighbors' wives called the police.  I just minded my business because it didn't harm anyone.

Now that is probably the truth
« Last Edit: September 04, 2016, 04:04:29 PM by SeaEhm »

BlueHouse

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3235
  • Location: WDC
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #95 on: September 04, 2016, 03:54:57 PM »
As I said already several times: when there are objective reasons for certain restrictions -- such as health and safety -- those are quite reasonable. You should try reading the whole thread.

MilesTeg, this thread is getting quite tedious, and there's no need for me to re-read the entire thing because my comprehension skills are quite good.  We can squabble forever but I don't want to go tit for tat with you.  It's clear you don't like HOAs and that is okay.  There are many things about them that I don't like either.  We both have the choice to live or not to live in one.  But when I have made a choice to live in one, you cannot then tell me that I am unethical because I follow the rules and expect others to do the same. 

I won't look at your home in a non-HOA covered area and tell you how to live so please don't look at mine within an HOA and presume to tell me how I should live.  Thank you very much.   This thread was actually kind of fun until it devolved into personal opinions.


paddedhat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2229
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #96 on: September 04, 2016, 04:29:01 PM »

You are a riot. I'm kicking back, retired decades before my piers, and enjoying a nice 100K+ passive income stream, and a seven figure account parked at Vanguard. You, OTOH want to have a sword waving contest about things you know fuck all nothing about, and need to babble about evidence, as if there is some moral imperative requiring me to whip out the spread sheets, and prove anything to you. As the sweet little old ladies say down south, "well, bless your heart".  It's about hard earned knowledge, experience, and being humble enough to learn from others, not being an asshat on this forum. Try it sometime, it can really send you to places you never dreamed of. As others have pointed out, you have worn out your welcome. Surely, there is some other forum that desperately needs you?


[MOD NOTE:  The thing we do on these forums is present evidence.

If you want to argue that investing money in 'X' is a good idea, then present data.  Not anecdotes.  A series of anecdotes can not become data.  It's one thing to warn people about pitfalls.  "Watch out for a) b) and c) when you invest in 'X'."  But we can hardly draw conclusions in the grand scheme of things from your personal success or failure, or that of your peers, when an equally long list of failures can also be provided. 

If such evidence is not available, the default position is, "Don't invest in 'X'."

And if your attitude is "I'm not here to present evidence", I have to wonder why you're entering this discussion at all.]
« Last Edit: September 07, 2016, 07:56:53 PM by FrugalToque »

RosieTR

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Location: Northern CO
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #97 on: September 04, 2016, 10:55:36 PM »
In my experience, HOAs don't do jack shit to help property values. We owned 2 houses between 2008-2014, in different states. House #1 had no HOA. House #2 had an HOA. At the time of purchase of house #2, both were at about the same value by comparison on Zillow. By 2012, house #1 (no HOA) was worth probably 3x what house #2 was worth. Never mind the irritating $50 fee per month on house #2. When we finally sold house #2, it was still well below what we bought it for, and far below what house #1 was worth. Around the time we were thinking of selling house #2, neighbors a few doors down from house #1 lost their house to foreclosure. With all their shit in the driveway, they lived for a month in a camper parked in front of their former next door neighbor (who is a super nice guy), complete with an electrical cord leading into Nice Guy's house. We walked by camper each day while walking the dogs, which is our normal route. Campers eventually moved on when the month changed and they got their disability check or whatever. House #1 this whole time was still worth more than house #2, with the pleasing situation that we received no irritating letters about where our trashcan was located at any particular time, where our vehicles were parked at any particular time, etc. We did get irritating letters from our HOA for house #2 for such things.
I, for one, will happily be in a non-HOA neighborhood until I'm so old that I can't really garden or shovel snow. I'm not always fond of every single thing I ever see, but as a grown-up, I've learned to let things I see that I don't care to not bother me.

mbk

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 131
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #98 on: September 05, 2016, 10:03:35 AM »
I always chuckle when I hear people complain about HOAs.

I gladly pay my HOA fee every month for the peace of mind that they will bother my neighbor for any of the following:
Parking outside of a driveway or in front of their house (I don't want neighbors parking on lawns or having boats in their driveway)
Yard that looks terrible
House color that I don't approve of (neighbor wanted to paint their house so they have to come to me to sign off on their color choice before submitting it to the HOA)
Yard sculptures that are an eye sore (one neighborhood without an HOA has a huge rusted statute that is not artistically placed in a yard)

There is a neighbor that has had a car parked in the driveway without being moved for months and even that bothers me.  At least drive it so the cobwebs are gone.

You just made my resolve to never buy a house with HOA stronger.

Hotstreak

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 776
Re: Letter drop asking residents to devise a plan to replace "shabby" cars :)
« Reply #99 on: September 05, 2016, 07:48:59 PM »

HOAs are just an excuse for people who desire it to have petty power over others. There is no evidence that they actually provide for better home values, especially when you consider the extra expense they entail.

The first sentence is just ridiculous. As for the lack of evidence, sorry but I get to see the evidence every day. I live in an area that has massive, often adjoining, vacation communities. They were all developed and marketed in the 1960's and 70's.  My home is under   contract, and brought fair market value. It is worth 30-40% more than if it was located in either of two communities on the border of this one, and 15-20% less that if I had build in the top value community in the local marketplace.  The math is a wash however, as the gain of being in the top value location would be negated by the lot purchase cost, which was 3X what I paid. Bottom line?  There are dozens of these HOA controlled communities in my region. They all got pretty much the same start in life,  small vacation home lots in beautiful rural settings, peddled by a developer who wanted to slam the project together, sell, sell, sell, then GTFO, without looking back. In every case this created the need for an HOA. The next 40-50 years of management by the HOA  created (or degraded) the value by maintaining roads, adding and maintaining amenities, and setting the overall tone of the neighborhood. The free market rates their work product, and places value on the resales and empty lots.  I chose to build here based on the obvious success of the last forty years of HOA management, and my investment performed well. Other's failed to do their due dilligence, and are paying the price, buying homes that are tough to resell, or end up selling at greatly reduced prices, due to poor management.  Having built dozens of homes in the region, It's pretty evident to me that the culture of a HOA, for better or worse, can have a massive impact on the long term value of housing in this market.

That's not evidence, that's a bald claim make on an internet message board. Where's the evidence? Where's the market studies, the appraisals with associated statistical analysis, etc. There are hundreds of different reasons for differences in prices in houses. You have not even remotely isolated HOA vs. non-HOA.

The evidence lies with the local appraisers, and realtors who I do business with on a regular basis.  As for proving reality to you, with "market studies"  I could give a rat's ass hair if you need proof. I made a very health living, and FIREd with a nice pile of cheddar, based on understanding the market and how HOA performance effects value.

Not to mention you have done nothing to account for the extra costs of an HOA vs no HOA. The purchase vs final sales price of your home is not enough information to determine the value of that turnaround. If you've been dumping hundreds or thousands of dollars into an HOA per year that seriously erodes the real return on your home.

Yes, HOA fees can be a huge factor. My community has the lowest in the region at $408 a YEAR, which includes seven day a week garbage service, pool, beach, 175 acre lake, clubhouse, restaurant, nicely maintained private roads, and common areas etc.. There are adjoining communities with 2-3X the annual dues, poor facilities, failed amenities, and drastically lower values as reflected in resale $/sq.ft  OTOH, There is another local community with dues 10X higher than mine, and it's a huge success, as you get an enormous amount for your money, and basically end up owning a home in the middle of a high end resort. To each his own, but in every case the caliber of the HOA  weighs heavily on the market value of individual homes.

That it's "evident to you" that it's worth it doesn't mean it's actually true. Just like it's "evident" to a lot of folks that big fancy cars and lots of gadgets will make them happy, but that doesn't make it true.

I'm not sure where your hostility originates from, but whatever. When I build a spec. house that sells in a few weeks, for exactly the targeted price, it's based on an intimate knowledge on the market. If I were to tell my broker that I got a killer deal on a lot in a  nearby development, and plan on building the next one there to increase my margins, he would state the obvious. The market determined that the lot in the less desirable community is worth half as much as my usual market area. The finished house will appraise for less that the cost savings of the dirt purchase. The home will have a lot more time on the market, and all of this is due to how these different communities were managed by their individual HOAs over the last four or five decades. All of your bullshit about fancy cars and gadgets has nothing to do with sound business decisions, and the facts I discussed.

When you start with a statement like, "HOAs are just an excuse for people who desire it to have petty power over others."  you have pretty much shown all your cards, and  aren't adding any real value to the conversation. When you have built millions of dollars worth of SFHs in HOA governed communities and understand both their value, and the tremedous effort that volunteers contribute to keeping the communities desirable locations to live, you get to see the other side to the pettiness of you opinion.



And now e have a long list of various frantic and increasingly angry sounding appeals to authority, not actual evidence.


You are a riot. I'm kicking back, retired decades before my piers, and enjoying a nice 100K+ passive income stream, and a seven figure account parked at Vanguard. You, OTOH want to have a sword waving contest about things you know fuck all nothing about, and need to babble about evidence, as if there is some moral imperative requiring me to whip out the spread sheets, and prove anything to you. As the sweet little old ladies say down south, "well, bless your heart".  It's about hard earned knowledge, experience, and being humble enough to learn from others, not being an asshat on this forum. Try it sometime, it can really send you to places you never dreamed of. As others have pointed out, you have worn out your welcome. Surely, there is some other forum that desperately needs you?


Most people on this forum are only living in their houses, not building new ones to sell.  The money you made building and selling spec homes is not relevant for 99% of us.  We are interested in whether it's worth while to buy in to an HOA.  From property value perspective I don't see any evidence that it is.  From an "aesthetics" perspective each person needs to make a personal decision, but don't forget this is a forum where saving less and eschewing conventional wisdom are valued - so come with big evidence if you want to be taken seriously!