The Money Mustache Community
Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: AliEli on August 30, 2016, 05:26:04 PM
-
Gold :)
http://www.domain.com.au/news/residents-told-to-replace-cars-that-could-affect-their-neighbours-house-sales-20160815-gqsjd7/
-
I would respond by threatening to place a large penis sculpture in my front yard if the note-dropper didn't own up within 3 days. Then, after 3 days, I'd find or create such a sculpture regardless of whether the culprit was found. There are chainsaw artists in town who could easily be persuaded to work for a commission, and I also know where I can find a sizable 100-150 kilogram log.
-
"Screw you."
-
I would respond by threatening to place a large penis sculpture in my front yard if the note-dropper didn't own up within 3 days. Then, after 3 days, I'd find or create such a sculpture regardless of whether the culprit was found. There are chainsaw artists in town who could easily be persuaded to work for a commission, and I also know where I can find a sizable 100-150 kilogram log.
Eh, that might fall afoul of public obscenity laws. I'd suggest a large middle finger instead.
-
I would respond by threatening to place a large penis sculpture in my front yard if the note-dropper didn't own up within 3 days. Then, after 3 days, I'd find or create such a sculpture regardless of whether the culprit was found. There are chainsaw artists in town who could easily be persuaded to work for a commission, and I also know where I can find a sizable 100-150 kilogram log.
Omg grim squeaker, i fucking LOVE YOU! Thank you for making my day!
-
Having all of one's net worth tied up in a single house brings out the worst in people.
-
This place is very near where I live. Not known for it's diversity and tolerance. Called Whitby but often nicknamed 'Whiteby' or 'Shitby'. It's that pocket of sparkly new McMansions uncomfortably close to an cold suburb where poor people live. I love the penis statue idea. I was thinking a few old rusty car bodies on the lawn just to raise the bloodpressure of the neighbourhood.
-
Wow, it sounds like there's a real busybody living in that neighborhood! If the note-writer wants to buy me a new car, okay, sounds great; otherwise, F off!
-
Cinder blocks: $5 each
Non-running cars: $150 each
Putting ten cars up on blocks in your front lawn to piss off whoever wrote the note: priceless
-
I would respond by threatening to place a large penis sculpture in my front yard if the note-dropper didn't own up within 3 days. Then, after 3 days, I'd find or create such a sculpture regardless of whether the culprit was found. There are chainsaw artists in town who could easily be persuaded to work for a commission, and I also know where I can find a sizable 100-150 kilogram log.
Eh, that might fall afoul of public obscenity laws. I'd suggest a large middle finger instead.
It might depend on the jurisdiction. But if the Venus de Milo is art, and Michelangelo's statue of David is art, who's to say that a recently erected (pardon the pun) chainsaw sculpture cannot also be art?
-
I was at an estate sale last weekend, old salty long tabber Nam vet. Walk in the front door and hanging there was a framed note from his HOA. Amongst the complaints was that he allowed a local Indian couple to sell their wares on his lawn at a yardsale (we don't like THOSE people here), that his dehumidifier hummed too loud, and that he needs to stop cleaning his guns in the BACK yard (which was fenced). He had written FU over it in red pen, matted it, and hung it in a decorative frame so that it was the first thing you saw when you walked in the door. I REALLY wish I had met that guy while he was alive, I totally would have given him a high five.
-
I'd suggest a large middle finger instead.
The world needs another one of these. My biggest regret from our brief time in Milan was not getting to see this statue in person.
(https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-BA671A_Flipo_DV_20110512193318.jpg)
-
I have two neighbors on my street who have cars they have just let sit out at the curb for over a year. One is an old Ford Mustang with a damaged front end that they threw a tarp over. The other is an SUV with flat tires.
You know why I haven't complained to either of them about it? Because I mind my own damn business just like anybody else in their right mind. And they aren't bad people. One of those neighbors kindly clears our sidewalk for us in the winter because we don't own a snowblower.
-
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.
-
Funny bit about being offended https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceS_jkKjIgo
-
I was at an estate sale last weekend, old salty long tabber Nam vet. Walk in the front door and hanging there was a framed note from his HOA. Amongst the complaints was that he allowed a local Indian couple to sell their wares on his lawn at a yardsale (we don't like THOSE people here), that his dehumidifier hummed too loud, and that he needs to stop cleaning his guns in the BACK yard (which was fenced). He had written FU over it in red pen, matted it, and hung it in a decorative frame so that it was the first thing you saw when you walked in the door. I REALLY wish I had met that guy while he was alive, I totally would have given him a high five.
I like this guy.
-
I have just a little bit of sympathy.
Years ago my next door neighbor tore up his concrete driveway and to pour a new one.
The concrete got piled in the front yard, and then he had this artistic flash.
He dug a swimmimg pool size hole in the middle of his front yard, and had a plan to line the inside
of the hole with tiered sections of concrete as a landscaping beautification.
(Where is the sarcasm imoje when you need it.)
The concrete sat stacked in the front yard for at least two years with no progess.
I decided to sell my house, not because of the neighbors mess.
Every person I showed the house to ask about the neighbors pile of concrete
and the big hole in the yard. I'm finally did sell the house, but it did cost me to have such
a mess next door.
I'm now in a different state in a great neighborhood, oh,
except for the meth heads across the street
and the herion dealer next door. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Not so bad, the herion dealer got caught, 4 years in jail.
Neither of these were here 22 years ago when I moved in.
Now if they would just mow their lawns more often.
-
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 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 always 'chuckle' at people who think they have some inherent right to tell other people what to do with their property. I'd have no issue with HOAs though if they were truly optional, but in many municipalities they are mandatory for all new development.
-
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.
Are you serious?
You pay money every month because you are worried about someone putting a boat on their driveway or parking in the street?
That's a real first world problem. I recommend an immediate dose of reality check.
There are people in this world with real problems, go and ask a cancer patient if they care what colour their neighbours house is. Absolutely ridiculous.
-
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.
Hahaha, that's pretty much the reason I'd also never consider a development with an HOA. We bought a sizeable property (2.1 acres) with a fixxer upper 1950s house and a separate 2 story barn built in the 80s in a pretty nice neighborhood near a large lake in NY. We saw it as a diamond in the rough and much like a diamond, it's taking a long time to get the "rough" out of it. At random times throughout the year we may have a giant pile of brush and trees piled high waiting for a good day for me to burn it all. Big piles of rocks or dirt or sand from "in progress" landscaping improvements. Boats on stands in the driveway being worked on (sometimes for weeks) and other boats parked on the property (since I'll babysit my friends' boats too given this much space). I know (or hope, rather) that one day our property will get fully cleaned up and shine but for now it's definitely NOT in the same league as the manicured homes of some of my neighbors. I'm glad they can't force me to do anything about it :D
-
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 also love HOAs because it keeps all the control freaks in one area and frees the rest of us who don't desire to lord over each others' property to do what we like with our own stuff.
-
I always chuckle when I hear people complain about HOAs.
Hahaha, that's pretty much the reason I'd also never consider a development with an HOA. We bought a sizeable property (2.1 acres) with a fixxer upper 1950s house and a separate 2 story barn built in the 80s in a pretty nice neighborhood near a large lake in NY. We saw it as a diamond in the rough and much like a diamond, it's taking a long time to get the "rough" out of it. At random times throughout the year we may have a giant pile of brush and trees piled high waiting for a good day for me to burn it all. Big piles of rocks or dirt or sand from "in progress" landscaping improvements. Boats on stands in the driveway being worked on (sometimes for weeks) and other boats parked on the property (since I'll babysit my friends' boats too given this much space). I know (or hope, rather) that one day our property will get fully cleaned up and shine but for now it's definitely NOT in the same league as the manicured homes of some of my neighbors. I'm glad they can't force me to do anything about it :D
Yeah, but once you get your diamond all polished, are you going to care about what your neighbor's properties look like then? If you decide to sell, will you clean it up so you can get "top dollar"?
Re: HOAs, what gets me the most is whether you own or rent, you knew there was a HOA when you moved in. Nobody forces anyone to buy into an HOA. Therefore, people who did and then complain just don't seem very smart. Further, everyone who complains without having read their CC&Rs, or attended a board meeting should just stop their damn whining. Better still, sell up and move. Sure, it's a free country, but you voluntarily agreed to the restrictions when you signed the documents before you moved in. What? You didn't bother to read and understand them? Tough luck, Charlie.
-
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.
Hahaha, that's pretty much the reason I'd also never consider a development with an HOA. We bought a sizeable property (2.1 acres) with a fixxer upper 1950s house and a separate 2 story barn built in the 80s in a pretty nice neighborhood near a large lake in NY. We saw it as a diamond in the rough and much like a diamond, it's taking a long time to get the "rough" out of it. At random times throughout the year we may have a giant pile of brush and trees piled high waiting for a good day for me to burn it all. Big piles of rocks or dirt or sand from "in progress" landscaping improvements. Boats on stands in the driveway being worked on (sometimes for weeks) and other boats parked on the property (since I'll babysit my friends' boats too given this much space). I know (or hope, rather) that one day our property will get fully cleaned up and shine but for now it's definitely NOT in the same league as the manicured homes of some of my neighbors. I'm glad they can't force me to do anything about it :D
This. We've got about 1/4 of a dump truck load of topsoil still on the side of our driveway waiting for the end of one project (finished last weeked) so that we can truck it to the back of the house via wheelbarrow. It's been there since spring. Who cares? Not our neighbors.
Similarly, our house is a nice pale green, and we like it. Our neighbors have wood clapboard, painted (currently) a darker green. And sure, they could paint it hot pink next - 'cause it's their damned house, and it ain't mine. If it bothers me, I'll plant some trees and bushes and hide the view and then look the other way. WTF. Their house ain't mine, why the hell would I get a say.
-
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 always 'chuckle' at people who think they have some inherent right to tell other people what to do with their property. I'd have no issue with HOAs though if they were truly optional, but in many municipalities they are mandatory for all new development.
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.
I live in an extremely small subdivision with an HOA that doesn't enforce any of the covenants. We are luckily small enough that if you have a problem, you can just talk about it with your neighbor. There are a few blatant violations that nobody is crazy about, but people don't say anything because everybody is pretty much a good neighbor and every house is more or less maintained in a way that doesn't negatively impact other people's property values. But it's nice to know that if we ended up with a neighbor that wanted to put up a rusty sculpture of a combined penis and middle finger, we wouldn't have to just live with it.
I'm not familiar with municipalities making HOA's mandatory for new developments. That seems odd, although it wouldn't be a problem as long as HOA restrictions have to be filed (as they are in our jurisdiction). The idea of simply being able to file the existence of an HOA and then the HOA being able to impose new requirements after the property is purchased simply by majority vote seems like a terrible idea.
-
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.
Are you serious?
You pay money every month because you are worried about someone putting a boat on their driveway or parking in the street?
That's a real first world problem. I recommend an immediate dose of reality check.
There are people in this world with real problems, go and ask a cancer patient if they care what colour their neighbours house is. Absolutely ridiculous.
I happen to be one of those "control freaks" who strongly agrees with SeaEhm on this. I don't want to feel like I live in a trailer park with no standards.
And for the record, I've been that cancer patient, and yes, I still cared what color my neighbor's house was and how much crap they had in their yard.
To each his/her own. We all care about different things.
-
I'd have no issue with HOAs though if they were truly optional, but in many municipalities they are mandatory for all new development.
Ours is fully voluntary. But this association isn't about keeping up appearances of individual properties - it does things like sponsor potlucks and 5Ks in the neighborhood and sends a newsletter. Biggest project I'm aware of has been putting up signs welcoming folks to the neighborhood. Donation of $10 / year gets you into the association, $5 / year if you've lived here 20 years or more.
-
I always chuckle when I hear people complain about HOAs.
Hahaha, that's pretty much the reason I'd also never consider a development with an HOA. We bought a sizeable property (2.1 acres) with a fixxer upper 1950s house and a separate 2 story barn built in the 80s in a pretty nice neighborhood near a large lake in NY. We saw it as a diamond in the rough and much like a diamond, it's taking a long time to get the "rough" out of it. At random times throughout the year we may have a giant pile of brush and trees piled high waiting for a good day for me to burn it all. Big piles of rocks or dirt or sand from "in progress" landscaping improvements. Boats on stands in the driveway being worked on (sometimes for weeks) and other boats parked on the property (since I'll babysit my friends' boats too given this much space). I know (or hope, rather) that one day our property will get fully cleaned up and shine but for now it's definitely NOT in the same league as the manicured homes of some of my neighbors. I'm glad they can't force me to do anything about it :D
Yeah, but once you get your diamond all polished, are you going to care about what your neighbor's properties look like then? If you decide to sell, will you clean it up so you can get "top dollar"?
Re: HOAs, what gets me the most is whether you own or rent, you knew there was a HOA when you moved in. Nobody forces anyone to buy into an HOA. Therefore, people who did and then complain just don't seem very smart. Further, everyone who complains without having read their CC&Rs, or attended a board meeting should just stop their damn whining. Better still, sell up and move. Sure, it's a free country, but you voluntarily agreed to the restrictions when you signed the documents before you moved in. What? You didn't bother to read and understand them? Tough luck, Charlie.
But what if I DO read the rules, and they are reasonable to me, and I agree, and then after I move in some douchey busybody gets him/herself elected to the board and puts in much stricter rules that I'm suddenly subject to?
Fuck that noise.
The answer is usually "well, you need to be active on the board to prevent that" which seems absurd to me, I am now obligated to do shit to make sure that no one can create new rules I have to be subjected to? Thanks but no thanks.
And I'm fortunate enough to have a choice not to live in an HOA; in some areas in order to be in a decent school district/neighborhood/etc it's essentially mandatory that you buy into an HOA because there aren't any good alternatives.
-
My city is uninterested in enforcing their own damn code. For example, the rules cap overnight parking at 72 hours, but it's never enforced. This vehicle hasn't moved in years. He has in effect, created his own middle finger statue. Notice where he's parked and still no action from any public agency. If he gets to park in front of a fire hydrant indefinitely, how can anyone else be cited for blocking any hydrant they choose?
-
I don't mind being in an HOA neighborhood, but I did read carefully what we would be subjected to. There are some neighborhoods who are crazy around here (and expensive), and ours seems reasonable. I don't mind that we've all agreed to no political signs, no yardsales (we have a community sale group on facebook), no cars out on the street overnight, trashcans brought in the same day, no window a/c units, no overgrown yard, mailbox in good repair. These are things that help keep the value of the neighborhood up. We pay $250 per year and with that money our neighborhood association throws a few social events and has built a neighborhood playground.
I'm so glad that we each get to choose what type of street/ neighborhood / countryside we get to live in -- those who aren't bothered by cars on blocks can choose that, those who would rather have a more uniform / neat look can pick that (and there's much in between).
-
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 also love HOAs because it keeps all the control freaks in one area and frees the rest of us who don't desire to lord over each others' property to do what we like with our own stuff.
Hear, hear. Screw HOAs. Y'all have fun telling each other what to do. I'll keep minding my own business and not giving a shit what my neighbors do with their personal property.
-
Re: HOAs, what gets me the most is whether you own or rent, you knew there was a HOA when you moved in. Nobody forces anyone to buy into an HOA.
The trouble is when every house in your area/price range/style is in an HOA. It is entirely possible to end up with a job in one of those suburban office parks somewhere that literally has zero non-HOA housing within reasonable commuting distance.
HOAs are evil abominations designed to allow bigots to enforce "rules" that would be unconstitutional and discriminatory if they were laws. (HOA apologists can deny that their particular HOA is that way all they want, but if you look into the history of HOAs the facts are irrefutable. They were literally invented because the laws against segregationist zoning kept getting struck down.)
-
And I'm fortunate enough to have a choice not to live in an HOA; in some areas in order to be in a decent school district/neighborhood/etc it's essentially mandatory that you buy into an HOA because there aren't any good alternatives.
Do you think it's possible that might be sort of related? Maybe people that tend to be good neighbors and contribute to a nice neighborhood tend to voluntarily choose to live in a neighborhood where everybody agrees to the type of standards they would follow anyway? So when the people that don't want to be held to those standards end up in non-HOA areas, and make those areas less desirable.
No doubt some HOA's are awful, and there is always going to be a tendency for busybodies with no sense of perspective to be over represented in HOA leadership roles, because taking a leadership role with a HOA is just going to be more attractive to those types. But there's a reason people look around and say "all the good neighborhoods have HOAs". HOAs deal with the type of things that keep a neighborhood nice that municipalities often no longer have the resources or interest to deal with.
-
And I'm fortunate enough to have a choice not to live in an HOA; in some areas in order to be in a decent school district/neighborhood/etc it's essentially mandatory that you buy into an HOA because there aren't any good alternatives.
Do you think it's possible that might be sort of related? Maybe people that tend to be good neighbors and contribute to a nice neighborhood tend to voluntarily choose to live in a neighborhood where everybody agrees to the type of standards they would follow anyway? So when the people that don't want to be held to those standards end up in non-HOA areas, and make those areas less desirable.
No doubt some HOA's are awful, and there is always going to be a tendency for busybodies with no sense of perspective to be over represented in HOA leadership roles, because taking a leadership role with a HOA is just going to be more attractive to those types. But there's a reason people look around and say "all the good neighborhoods have HOAs". HOAs deal with the type of things that keep a neighborhood nice that municipalities often no longer have the resources or interest to deal with.
Maybe maybe not. I live in an excellent neighborhood with excellent schools now, and no HOA.
-
And I'm fortunate enough to have a choice not to live in an HOA; in some areas in order to be in a decent school district/neighborhood/etc it's essentially mandatory that you buy into an HOA because there aren't any good alternatives.
Do you think it's possible that might be sort of related? Maybe people that tend to be good neighbors and contribute to a nice neighborhood tend to voluntarily choose to live in a neighborhood where everybody agrees to the type of standards they would follow anyway? So when the people that don't want to be held to those standards end up in non-HOA areas, and make those areas less desirable.
No doubt some HOA's are awful, and there is always going to be a tendency for busybodies with no sense of perspective to be over represented in HOA leadership roles, because taking a leadership role with a HOA is just going to be more attractive to those types. But there's a reason people look around and say "all the good neighborhoods have HOAs". HOAs deal with the type of things that keep a neighborhood nice that municipalities often no longer have the resources or interest to deal with.
Maybe maybe not. I live in an excellent neighborhood with excellent schools now, and no HOA.
This. I mean, I posted above that my neighbor's house is none of my damned business (and I live on a dirt road in the country, so...) but honestly, these are all people who maintain flower beds and mow their lawns (... occasionally it gets kinda raggedy and long, but that's life, sometimes other things take priority), we have BBQs with people who care enough to respect other peoples food preferences, etc.
It is possible to simultaneously believe that your neighbor has no damned right to tell you what to do with your property, AND to believe that you want to have a nice house and invite your neighbors for a BBQ every so often and bring over flowers when your peonies bloomed and theirs didn't.
You can believe that your property is your business, and their property is THEIR business and not yours, while simultaneously not being a jackass about it.
-
And I'm fortunate enough to have a choice not to live in an HOA; in some areas in order to be in a decent school district/neighborhood/etc it's essentially mandatory that you buy into an HOA because there aren't any good alternatives.
Do you think it's possible that might be sort of related? Maybe people that tend to be good neighbors and contribute to a nice neighborhood tend to voluntarily choose to live in a neighborhood where everybody agrees to the type of standards they would follow anyway? So when the people that don't want to be held to those standards end up in non-HOA areas, and make those areas less desirable.
Total B.S. Many of the really nice neighborhoods in my town are NOT HOA ruled. Typically from before the time the city decided it wanted no responsibility to provide and maintain common spaces (but still wants the tax money!). They are very nice neighborhoods -- with nice architecture, decent size lots, great locations, etc. -- and also completely unaffordable due to those same reasons. You can't get even sniff a 100 sqft gutted 'fixxer upper' house for less than $600k in a town where the average home price is ~$250k.
Sure, there are a couple poorly maintained residences, but that somehow doesn't stop these houses from being extremely high value.
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.
-
Re: HOAs, what gets me the most is whether you own or rent, you knew there was a HOA when you moved in. Nobody forces anyone to buy into an HOA.
The trouble is when every house in your area/price range/style is in an HOA. It is entirely possible to end up with a job in one of those suburban office parks somewhere that literally has zero non-HOA housing within reasonable commuting distance.
HOAs are evil abominations designed to allow bigots to enforce "rules" that would be unconstitutional and discriminatory if they were laws. (HOA apologists can deny that their particular HOA is that way all they want, but if you look into the history of HOAs the facts are irrefutable. They were literally invented because the laws against segregationist zoning kept getting struck down.)
This is indeed the problem. Truly optional HOAs are fine (or HOAs that stick to the only ethical purpose -- to maintain actual common property!), but when circumstances prevent a realistic alternative, they become intolerable.
-
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.
-
And I'm fortunate enough to have a choice not to live in an HOA; in some areas in order to be in a decent school district/neighborhood/etc it's essentially mandatory that you buy into an HOA because there aren't any good alternatives.
Do you think it's possible that might be sort of related? Maybe people that tend to be good neighbors and contribute to a nice neighborhood tend to voluntarily choose to live in a neighborhood where everybody agrees to the type of standards they would follow anyway? So when the people that don't want to be held to those standards end up in non-HOA areas, and make those areas less desirable.
Total B.S. Many of the really nice neighborhoods in my town are NOT HOA ruled. Typically from before the time the city decided it wanted no responsibility to provide and maintain common spaces (but still wants the tax money!). They are very nice neighborhoods -- with nice architecture, decent size lots, great locations, etc. -- and also completely unaffordable due to those same reasons. You can't get even sniff a 100 sqft gutted 'fixxer upper' house for less than $600k in a town where the average home price is ~$250k.
Sure, there are a couple poorly maintained residences, but that somehow doesn't stop these houses from being extremely high value.
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.
I was referring to the poster who said there weren't any decent neighborhoods without HOAs in some areas. There is no doubt that once you get to a certain property value, they become much less needed for property values. If you're in a neighborhood with an entry level price point that is 5 or 6 times the median income for an area, the type of people that can afford to be there will generally want to keep the neighborhood nice regardless, and when you have a few that don't, it's not enough to significantly impact the neighborhood. And of course some areas are lucky enough to have people that generally don't have to be reigned in by an HOA period.
In my area, which I'm not sure is typical, pretty much the only neighborhoods with active homeowner's associations are neighborhoods with entry and midlevel homes. The two nicest local neighborhoods don't have them at all. They have covenants, but no mandatory HOA charged with enforcing them. If somebody has a problem with someone breaking a covenant, they ahve to go talk to the other owner about it, and if they care enough and it's necessary, they would have to take them to court to enforce the covenant. I'm not aware of anybody ever trying to enforce them. The people that can afford to be in those neighborhoods and are willing to pay to be in them overwhelmingly care about it being nice.
The more entry and midlevel neighborhoods are more likely to deal with people that will leave cars on blocks, or park in the yard and street, not mow the yard, etc., so they are more likely to have HOAs that actively police their covenants. I can't blame people that can only afford an entry or midlevel home for wanting the option of living in a neighborhood that is kept up.
-
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 used to be very anti-HOA. My friends live in an HOA community, and they just bought a second house there. And there's a house for sale across the street from their house.
(A coworker lives there, bought when it was built, and got into trouble for having tomato plants in front of the house...he didn't plant them, they just "came up" on their own, before the builder had done the landscaping. Anyway.)
I like my 'hood and my neighbors. Next door neighbors painted their house bright blue. It's really cute.
But it's an older 'hood. And...the parking. A lot of people have added units (legal or not) to their small 5000 sf lots. And now you have many houses (half?) with 4-5 cars each. Some of the houses only have space for one car in the driveway, and the garage, if you have one, is too small for a car.
Visiting my friends recently, I thought "it's not so bad".
First, cars must be parked in the driveway or in the garage. There is limited off-street space.
Second, they have an on-site gym and two pools. And a basketball court, and other open space.
Third, they are really close to the elementary school. And Costco. And the movie theater.
However, they are also very close to the university, so there is traffic. They are across the street from some student housing, so there may be noise.
There are positives and negatives to HOAs, and like others said - whether or not you can find a nice house without one, will depend a lot on the area.
I live in a very HCOL place, but there's prop 13 here. So in a "mixed" neighborhood like mine, you have 1920's homes that have been doubled in size. So, someone had the money to put down $300k or $500k (depending on when they bought) and then do construction. Or if you bought post-construction, then $1.1M.
Other 2BR 1BA houses are selling for about $750k, and these tend to be 1940's originals, no updates, some 90-year old couple/ person just died. Clearly you have to be able to buy in and fix up. I'm sure the neighbors would prefer our yard look ... decent, but we've got 2 kids and 2 FT jobs, so ... you'll be waiting awhile.
Some of the houses have several generations, so there is again the parking issue.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
HOAs are awful (lived in one once in a rental for a year, never again), but sometimes local code enforcement can be almost as bad.
This spring I got yelled at (no ticket though) for the grass in my (fenced!) back yard "looking bad." I pointed out the fact that I had just dug up nearly the whole thing and put down seed, but that didn't seem to matter...
They had to come back in 60 days to make sure it had grown and was between x inches and y inches in length. Dumb dumb dumb.
-
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.
I hate areas that are just a bunch of gated communities adjacent to each other like you are describing, but I think the problem is that the city is not the ones building the roads. They are happy to get the tax revenue from new homes and to have the infrastructure built out by the developer. It'd be nice if they just set the grid and the developers had to follow it, even if they are building the road, but we're apparently in the minority, as it seems most people, taking into account price, are happier with the benefits and tradeoffs of the developments you are describing. I live in small town/city (<200k MSA) with a nice downtown and there are still tons of gated communities going up on the outer limits of the town while there is usable land walking distance to downtown. Not even land where you have to tear down blight and rebuild, just usable land. Of course the people that own the land are wanting high dollar for it, which is part of what makes the developments on the outer limits of town desirable. They get a lot of sq. ft. and large lot for a cheap price.
-
HOAs are awful (lived in one once in a rental for a year, never again), but sometimes local code enforcement can be almost as bad.
This spring I got yelled at (no ticket though) for the grass in my (fenced!) back yard "looking bad." I pointed out the fact that I had just dug up nearly the whole thing and put down seed, but that didn't seem to matter...
They had to come back in 60 days to make sure it had grown and was between x inches and y inches in length. Dumb dumb dumb.
In my experience only incompetent and spiteful folks desire to actually sit on an board. For example, we had to take our HOA to arbitration to get them to stop using dues for contracts they had signed that were not authorized by the governing documents. Note to HOA board members: no, you can't do whatever you want with the association's funds no matter how 'good' your intentions are. You must comply with the contractual terms of the association.
I also had to threaten them with legal action when they attempted to enforce covenants that were not allowable under state law (in particular, covenants trying to prevent xeroscaping and use of evaporative coolers). Luckily there are enough non-crazy legislators in the state that a least some of the stupid of HOAs is mitigated.
HOAs are a cancer that should be stripped of any and all authority over anything but real shared property (pools, condos, etc.). They provide no actual benefit and are just another level of (extremely poorly controlled) bureaucracy.
Does anyone here actually think it's a good idea to hand over ownership of 'your' property to other people? And to be clear, that EXACTLY what you are doing. If you read your contract, you will note that you are signing over right of first lien to the association, which means the association is the effective owner of your property, not you. Don't pay your due's or a $50 petty fine? They can take your entire property from you and sell it off to recover that "debt".
All other things aside, it's utter insanity to think that is a good idea no matter what benefit you might think you get from an HOA.
-
HOAs are awful (lived in one once in a rental for a year, never again), but sometimes local code enforcement can be almost as bad.
This spring I got yelled at (no ticket though) for the grass in my (fenced!) back yard "looking bad." I pointed out the fact that I had just dug up nearly the whole thing and put down seed, but that didn't seem to matter...
They had to come back in 60 days to make sure it had grown and was between x inches and y inches in length. Dumb dumb dumb.
In my experience only incompetent and spiteful folks desire to actually sit on an board. For example, we had to take our HOA to arbitration to get them to stop using dues for contracts they had signed that were not authorized by the governing documents. Note to HOA board members: no, you can't do whatever you want with the association's funds no matter how 'good' your intentions are. You must comply with the contractual terms of the association.
I also had to threaten them with legal action when they attempted to enforce covenants that were not allowable under state law (in particular, covenants trying to prevent xeroscaping and use of evaporative coolers). Luckily there are enough non-crazy legislators in the state that a least some of the stupid of HOAs is mitigated.
HOAs are a cancer that should be stripped of any and all authority over anything but real shared property (pools, condos, etc.). They provide no actual benefit and are just another level of (extremely poorly controlled) bureaucracy.
Does anyone here actually think it's a good idea to hand over ownership of 'your' property to other people? And to be clear, that EXACTLY what you are doing. If you read your contract, you will note that you are signing over right of first lien to the association, which means the association is the effective owner of your property, not you. Don't pay your due's or a $50 petty fine? They can take your entire property from you and sell it off to recover that "debt".
All other things aside, it's utter insanity to think that is a good idea no matter what benefit you might think you get from an HOA.
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.
-
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 willingly do lots of things for non-rational reasons. For an apropos example, many people 'strongly desire' lots of consumer goods because they think they will make them happy.
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?
-
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?
It's like people have been brainwashed by the HOA ideal.
They believe that if they didn't live somewhere with charges then all the neighbours would immediately leave half destroyed cars on their 3ft tall lawns around their bright pink houses.
Seriously, the fears are unfounded and ridiculous.
-
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.
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.
-
You have to weigh any potential upside of an HOA against losing buyers who will not buy into an HOA no matter what. We are out there and there are more of us than you think.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
-
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.
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.
-
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
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
NOPE NOPE NOPE!
(http://www.tampabay.com/resources/images/dti/rendered/2012/03/ntp_vehicles030912_213291a_8col.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
-
NOPE NOPE NOPE!
(http://www.tampabay.com/resources/images/dti/rendered/2012/03/ntp_vehicles030912_213291a_8col.jpg)
Have you been taking pictures in my neighborhood??
-
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.
-
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.
-
NOPE NOPE NOPE!
(http://www.tampabay.com/resources/images/dti/rendered/2012/03/ntp_vehicles030912_213291a_8col.jpg)
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 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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
NOPE NOPE NOPE!
(http://www.tampabay.com/resources/images/dti/rendered/2012/03/ntp_vehicles030912_213291a_8col.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
NOPE NOPE NOPE!
(http://www.tampabay.com/resources/images/dti/rendered/2012/03/ntp_vehicles030912_213291a_8col.jpg)
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.
-
NOPE NOPE NOPE!
(http://www.tampabay.com/resources/images/dti/rendered/2012/03/ntp_vehicles030912_213291a_8col.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
(http://www.tampabay.com/resources/images/dti/rendered/2012/03/ntp_vehicles030912_213291a_8col.jpg)
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...
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
True. Some neighbors' wives called the police. I just minded my business because it didn't harm anyone.
Now that is probably the truth
-
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.
-
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.]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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!
I'm not sure how an HOA affects property values except to ensure that you never have to live next door to the person with multiple RVs, Boats, or vehicles parked on the lawn. Is this what people mean when they say it affects property values? If so, doesn't it just make sure that you're property value doesn't fall due to neighbors?
-
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.
If I lived in a neighborhood with a HOA, I most likely wouldn't be allowed to have a rooftop TV antenna. They would also probably have guidelines for what kind of fencing I can use, whether I could have certain kinds of gardens, whether I could wash my car in my driveway, whether I could have a rain barrel, etc. People who move into subdivisions with a HOA should be aware that when they do that they are handing over control of their property to other people. It's bad enough that you have to deal with stupid property laws from the government, but just imagine also having to follow the commands of a bunch of Anti-Mustachian idiots in your neighborhood as well.
-
I believe this forum wins the award for the highest percentage of "complainypants"
-
Woah
I believe this forum wins the award for the highest percentage of "complainypants"
This thread seems to have gone off the rails after about reply #18... I laughed so hard when I read that article that I had to share it, but I seem to have triggered strong emotions and flashbacks for the americans on here... Does NZ even have HOAs? I thought NZ was just run by hobbits.
(For any offended kiwis - I'm just basing by belief about hobbits running your country from the about of hobbit-related artefacts at Wellington airport 🤗).
-
I'm not offended. I've never come across HOA. We do have building covenants. In our subdivision the covenants expire after 15 years.
-
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!
I'm not sure how an HOA affects property values except to ensure that you never have to live next door to the person with multiple RVs, Boats, or vehicles parked on the lawn. Is this what people mean when they say it affects property values? If so, doesn't it just make sure that you're property value doesn't fall due to neighbors?
It can but it really depends on the area.
- In some cases, it can decrease prop values compared to a similarly priced property, because of:
1. The rules (people don't like them)
2. The cost (HOAs here range from $125/ month to $600 a month - and maybe more). So, that has a tendency to depress the price of the house in many cases.
- HOAs can increase property values by
1. Maintaining aesthetics
2. Providing amenities. We have planned developments and just older neighborhoods with HOAs that have private swimming pools. A big bonus. Other HOAs have party rooms, tennis courts, basketball courts, gyms.
3. Improving the "quality" of people in the area. This is more of a planned development thing. Example - some of the PUDs are *new* and the new houses are bigger than houses built in 1960, so they are more expensive. Thus, wealthier people end up there. Then this improves the school district, making the house even more valuable. I saw this with a friend's house. The location of the PUD wasn't great. The local school got a 3 or 4, because it was mostly poor people living in apartments next to the university. With a few professor's kids who lived in faculty housing. Then the PUD went in. Fast forward 10-15 years, and slowly the professional couples who lived there, and had kids, started sending their kids there instead of private school. And now the school is an 8, and won the district math bowl this year.
(I put "quality" in quotes on purpose - not a fan of judging the "quality" of various people by their income.)
-
People who move into subdivisions with a HOA should be aware that when they do that they are handing over control of their property to other people. It's bad enough that you have to deal with stupid property laws from the government, but just imagine also having to follow the commands of a bunch of Anti-Mustachian idiots in your neighborhood as well.
It converts the "owning" experience to "renting" IMHO. If you are okay with that then enjoy. Not me, not mine.
I think HOAs are a great thing for people who like to lounge next to a pool, sit inside, or play golf. Perhaps good for people who like to do tabletop hobbies (small hobbies).
For the rest of us, a regular neighborhood is the better bet and we try to be good neighbors. There is always that chance you'll have a turkey neighbor that you'd rather not have but it happens. In our neighborhood it is the lead-footed neighbors. Fortunately they are driving slower with age and their teenagers are growing up and away.
-
Personally, I am not a huge fan of HOA's. Part of me greatly resents giving up part of my rights as a property owner to someone else. However, I currently choose to live where there is an HOA for several reasons:
1. I'm in a townhouse and they maintain the lawn and shrubbery. I can still plant flowers and putter, but don't have to mow on the weekends or repair sprinkler systems. They are also responsible for the roof and exterior maintenance. They also maintain the common area landscaping. The townhouses are a small part of the larger community which is mainly single family.
2. Our HOA is currently run by a commercial group, although at some point I think it will be turned over to the owners (dreading that day). The response time to any issues I've had have been great.
3. There are numerous amenities throughout the community that the HOA administers and maintains.
5. The HOA also sponsors many neighborhood events throughout the year which helps promote the sense of living in a community.
6. This is not a gated community, so we don't have to maintain the streets.
I previously lived in a very small gated HOA. I ended up getting railroaded into being the president about 15 years ago because no one wanted to do it. It was a thankless job and I got to deal with people who wanted to either complain that the gate needed repairs or complained that the repairs were too expensive or whatnot. Since it was gated, the road was private and had to be maintained by the neighborhood. Special assessments and all that stuff. All the neighbors generally got along well,so it could have been worse.
So yes, sometimes it can be good and sometimes it can be bad.
-
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?
Apparently I struck a nerve. You're becoming quite unhinged. I asked for evidence, and all you provide is bluster and various logical fallacies. No one is requiring that you participate.
-
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.
Apparently your comprehension is NOT so good. As I have said repeatedly, I have no problem with HOAs IFF they are entirely voluntary. It's that they are NOT entirely voluntary that causes the problem.
-
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.
I think where you're ethics arguments are running off the rails is with respect to your attitude that people are just "granted the legal right to have a say in what other do." That's not what is happening at all. People aren't just granted legal rights; they essentially exchange legal rights. What you're argument comes down to is you want a right for a particular property that is not for sale (or at least not economically negotiated for).
-
From a logistics and administrative perspective, there's a world of difference between a condo complex, a gated community with some shared resources, and an established neighborhood full of single family dwellings. Whether a HOA is a good idea depends in part on what kind of community it is and whether there are shared resources that need to be managed or paid for.
In a condo, the general rule is that you "own" everything from the sheetrock in, and there are some shared resources that might include a pool, a driveway, and the roof. These resources require upkeep of some kind, and the upkeep is not free, so there's got to be some means for paying for it and making sure everyone pays their fair share. Generally that service is provided by a HOA and the work is often outsourced to a property management company, but a big enough building may have its own staff. So, to live in a co-op or condo, people trade off some freedom in exchange for a higher standard of living. They get the pool, the park, the snow removal service, and whatever else. But they don't have to cover the entire cost. The HOA has a laundry list of rules generally intended to help everyone get along and enjoy their property equally, and my right to swing my proverbial fist ends where someone else's nose begins. Exactly what that means varies from one complex to the next. The more swanky the complex, the more restrictive the covenants. Also, there are going to be regular dues plus special assessments for large purchases. The more shared goodies there are, the more it's going to cost to live in the building.
Realistically there's not going to be any way to manage a condo complex like that if participation is voluntary, because there will always be people who don't think they should have to contribute to things they don't use. They won't want to fork out an extra $1,000 here and there for a new roof when they live on the ground floor and won't directly benefit, or they'll object to the clubhouse renovations because they don't use the clubhouse. If participation is voluntary, it's going to be less than 100%, and that means a lot of necessary repairs just don't get done. If something happens to the HOA and the work doesn't get done, the property starts to deteriorate for lack of repair, and that affects everybody's property value. But because of the amount of money involved, there tends to be a lot more resident oversight and fewer opportunities for corruption or mismanagement.
At the other extreme, a neighborhood with no shared resources can get by just fine without a HOA. With no signs, medians, grassy areas, or anything else to maintain, there aren't any shared costs. So the only way a HOA can add value is to maintain order and standards in a neighborhood. They generally do this by enforcing restrictive standards that exceed the existing local ordinances for zoning, building, pets, or parking. Whether this contributes to overall property value is currently the subject of debate. Many people on this board have had bad experiences with corruption and selective rule enforcement (A and B both have tall weeds in the front yard, but only A gets a ticket for it). Their complaints are legitimate. But there are also people who care about neighborhood look and feel. They don't want to look at ugly things on someone else's property, they don't want large amounts of traffic on their street, and they care whether non-native plants and trees are being introduced into the ecosystem to compete with the native ecology. People who care about that sort of thing and are willing to spend money to get it tend to keep their own property up pretty well. A HOA helps guarantee that they're surrounded by other people who feel the same way, and who are willing and able to spend money on atmosphere. It also helps them shun and get rid of People Different From Themselves.
In between these extremes there are communities where shared resources exist. Consider a gated community. Each household gets to decide whether to replace their own roof, but everyone has to chip in for the gate and driveway. Do the gate and fence add value from a security perspective? In some markets, yes they do. There's a direct relationship between whether a HOA or similar governing body exists, and the quality of life you experience while living in the neighborhood.
-
Bad things can happen when you have a condo or townhouse without an HOA. Most of the posts here seem to be about the evils of HOAs on detached homes, but HOA's exist for a very good reason...
Mainly that your neighbor can do whatever they like to their home (within the city building code and bylaws), and can let their side become run-down, causing potential damage to your home.
See pics...
-
Why has this thread been hijacked by ppl from North America and their issues with HOAs? So much space on this forum is dedicated to North America already - do none of you have any curiousity about New Zealand??? This thread has gone in a really weird and irrelevant direction.
-
Why has this thread been hijacked by ppl from North America and their issues with HOAs? So much space on this forum is dedicated to North America already - do none of you have any curiousity about New Zealand??? This thread has gone in a really weird and irrelevant direction.
+1.
As far as I know NZ doesn't have HOAs, unless it's an apartment building and then they're body corps. Not for detached homes though, so your (collective you) arguments are irrelevant.
-
Why has this thread been hijacked by ppl from North America and their issues with HOAs? So much space on this forum is dedicated to North America already - do none of you have any curiousity about New Zealand??? This thread has gone in a really weird and irrelevant direction.
Fascism is never irrelevant, and that's pretty much what most HOA's devolve into.
And as you may have guessed, I have scrupulously avoided HOA's like the plague that they are.
Well, we have a voluntary HOA, and I contribute every year, but I'd never live in a place where some brown shirt comes around and measures the length of your grass looking for violations.
-
Why has this thread been hijacked by ppl from North America and their issues with HOAs? So much space on this forum is dedicated to North America already - do none of you have any curiousity about New Zealand??? This thread has gone in a really weird and irrelevant direction.
Fascism is never irrelevant, and that's pretty much what most HOA's devolve into.
And as you may have guessed, I have scrupulously avoided HOA's like the plague that they are.
Well, we have a voluntary HOA, and I contribute every year, but I'd never live in a place where some brown shirt comes around and measures the length of your grass looking for violations.
Seriously, WTF does this have to do with NZ and the article I posted??? I feel like the people who have posted beyond reply 18 haven't even read the article and it's just become a slanging match between a whole lot of yanks with issues :s The person who wrote the letter in Whitby was probably a busybody with too much time on their hands, but they have nothing to do with Americans and their problems with HOAs in an entirely different hemisphere :s
This article (and the act) were hilarious - what's wrong that 80%+ of responses dont seem to care to have read the article????
-
Why has this thread been hijacked by ppl from North America and their issues with HOAs? So much space on this forum is dedicated to North America already - do none of you have any curiousity about New Zealand??? This thread has gone in a really weird and irrelevant direction.
Fascism is never irrelevant, and that's pretty much what most HOA's devolve into.
And as you may have guessed, I have scrupulously avoided HOA's like the plague that they are.
Well, we have a voluntary HOA, and I contribute every year, but I'd never live in a place where some brown shirt comes around and measures the length of your grass looking for violations.
Seriously, WTF does this have to do with NZ and the article I posted??? I feel like the people who have posted beyond reply 18 haven't even read the article and it's just become a slanging match between a whole lot of yanks with issues :s The person who wrote the letter in Whitby was probably a busybody with too much time on their hands, but they have nothing to do with Americans and their problems with HOAs in an entirely different hemisphere :s
This article (and the act) were hilarious - what's wrong that 80%+ of responses dont seem to care to have read the article????
I'm not sure how to fix this. Maybe the mods can set up a separate forum for New Zealand issues and the 12 New Zealanders on these boards can go there an hash things out?
in the mean time, the evil HOAs must be stopped, before they take over the world!
-
Why has this thread been hijacked by ppl from North America and their issues with HOAs? So much space on this forum is dedicated to North America already - do none of you have any curiousity about New Zealand??? This thread has gone in a really weird and irrelevant direction.
Fascism is never irrelevant, and that's pretty much what most HOA's devolve into.
And as you may have guessed, I have scrupulously avoided HOA's like the plague that they are.
Well, we have a voluntary HOA, and I contribute every year, but I'd never live in a place where some brown shirt comes around and measures the length of your grass looking for violations.
Seriously, WTF does this have to do with NZ and the article I posted??? I feel like the people who have posted beyond reply 18 haven't even read the article and it's just become a slanging match between a whole lot of yanks with issues :s The person who wrote the letter in Whitby was probably a busybody with too much time on their hands, but they have nothing to do with Americans and their problems with HOAs in an entirely different hemisphere :s
This article (and the act) were hilarious - what's wrong that 80%+ of responses dont seem to care to have read the article????
Oh, I read it, and the article was great fun to read and laugh at.... triggering memories of my DH forced to write such a letter to me, his wife, about our newly painted door (because of HOA)... my first response..
Then the image of the vehicles on the lawn was just too much to resist, and it was much, much, much more fun to read the panty-twisting responses over HOAs and reply to the on-going stream / current of the thread.
I am sure NZ and Australia have property / community boards for townhomes and apartments, so you can surely relate to the general tone of those americans! Your letter writer is exactly the type that desires those community boards and block standards.
This has been a terrific thread. Started strong with your letter, then went in a (predictable) but very enthusiastic alternate direction. Complete with eye catching photos.
This stopped being your thread around the third reply, I think. Welcome to the forum.
-
I appreciated that the letter-recipient posted the letter and asked for clarification. In addition, he was not afraid to identify his own "shitty" cars so everyone knew who the recipient was. This is a great tactic in shutting down bullies and stops new ones from joining in because they know the target won't be shamed into modifying behavior. Good job to the letter recipient.
But if he is parking his car in the wrong direction as accused in the article, he needs a letter for that because there are covenants against that. Those of us with mild OCD would have an issue. ;)
-
So, perhaps the real issue here is how New Zealand has managed to stay free of homeowners' associations. Why didn't they catch on?
-
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?
Apparently I struck a nerve. You're becoming quite unhinged. I asked for evidence, and all you provide is bluster and various logical fallacies. No one is requiring that you participate.
Actually, reading as a disinterested outsider, I'd say it's the other way around. Doesn't sound unhinged at all.
-
So, perhaps the real issue here is how New Zealand has managed to stay free of homeowners' associations. Why didn't they catch on?
They do. Apparently called "Body Corporates". Likely only used for multi-teannanted structures, rather than detached homes / neighborhoods.
Use of HOA's on detached homes was pretty rare, here, too, but becoming more common in mixed type developments that include a lot of townhomes and recreational facilities.
-
HOAs are awful (lived in one once in a rental for a year, never again), but sometimes local code enforcement can be almost as bad.
This spring I got yelled at (no ticket though) for the grass in my (fenced!) back yard "looking bad." I pointed out the fact that I had just dug up nearly the whole thing and put down seed, but that didn't seem to matter...
They had to come back in 60 days to make sure it had grown and was between x inches and y inches in length. Dumb dumb dumb.
YUP. I discovered this after I bought a house - a few months went by and I got a letter from the city complaining that a dead tree in my yard (50ft from the street) was a "blight" and I had to remove it within 10 days or pay a fine.
They also can fine you if your grass is too long or if you have anything other than the city trash cans visible from the street.
-
HOAs are awful (lived in one once in a rental for a year, never again), but sometimes local code enforcement can be almost as bad.
This spring I got yelled at (no ticket though) for the grass in my (fenced!) back yard "looking bad." I pointed out the fact that I had just dug up nearly the whole thing and put down seed, but that didn't seem to matter...
They had to come back in 60 days to make sure it had grown and was between x inches and y inches in length. Dumb dumb dumb.
YUP. I discovered this after I bought a house - a few months went by and I got a letter from the city complaining that a dead tree in my yard (50ft from the street) was a "blight" and I had to remove it within 10 days or pay a fine.
They also can fine you if your grass is too long or if you have anything other than the city trash cans visible from the street.
WHAT!
THE!
%$^%!
They allow you to have your trash cans viewable from the street? EWW!!!
-
Within the city limits here in flyover country they have similar rules established by the city. Don't mow your grass? They mow it for you and send you a bill. Admittedly it has to really get out of hand. There is also another rule within the city limits about defunct vehicles. You are required to keep them registered and thus insured - this is supposedly to encourage folks to not just park a car in the driveway forever but to sell it if they aren't using it. Or put it inside a garage.
I heard one from a guy in the Tidewater area of VA where he had a property inspector crawl over the homeowner's fence into the back yard to look at a car parked behind a garage and was peeking into the homeowner's garage at another. Words were exchanged and the police was called - and the inspector had to leave... ;) They weren't visible from the street and nobody had complained so the inspector was beyond his authority.
-
Apparently I struck a nerve. You're becoming quite unhinged. I asked for evidence, and all you provide is bluster and various logical fallacies. No one is requiring that you participate.
Given your arrogance, I could in fact waste my time providing all manner of current resale $/sq.ft data. for the communities I live in, and do business in, and you would respond as you have with anything that doesn't parrot your thinking, by being condecending and nasty. I live in a rural area where decades, often a half century, have passed since most communities have formed their HOAs. Currently the value of these communities vary greatly, as does the quality of life they offer. Since, like many rural HOAs, these organizations perform as defacto municipal governments, by providing, managing, and maintaining, infrastructure and services, along with amenities, it's not only logical, but evident, that the quality of life in individual communities can varied greatly, and rises and falls with the caliber of the management of the HOA. Over a fifty year span, two adjoining cities, towns, or rural communities can come to have huge differences in worth and livability based on the elected officials who run them, the HOA controlled communities in my region are no different. This is common sense, and has nothing to do with your needless attacks, and drivel about imaginary bluster and logical fallacies.
There are over a third of a million HOAs in the US. and over half of all owner occupied dwellings are covered by them. If you are shopping in a rural area, and find that the majority of the available homes and/or land is located within HOA communities, take the time to get a feel for how well they are run, and specifically how they compare to the market area. Regardless of the noise generated by Miles Teg, the quality and long term performance of the HOA can have a radical impact on your investment, particularly in a rural area, Also, be very wary of sellers and agents who are marketing properties that are "coming out of the ground", as in, they have a long history of troubled management, but everything is better now. The "new sheriff in town mentality" can be a two sided coin.These can be places where things are, in reality, really improving, after a long drought of poor management, or owners who refused to spend what it takes to keep the place in shape. However, it may also be hiding board members with big dreams, and plans that need unworkable dues or assessments to fund. Finally, when it comes to rural HOAs, it's counterintuitive, but bigger can be better. Mine has enough income that they can drop anywhere from a 1/4 to a full million on road work every year. There are nearby communities, that won't spend that in the next decade. The reason is that they draw from a pool of dozens of property owners, not thousands.
-
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.
Are you serious?
You pay money every month because you are worried about someone putting a boat on their driveway or parking in the street?
That's a real first world problem. I recommend an immediate dose of reality check.
There are people in this world with real problems, go and ask a cancer patient if they care what colour their neighbours house is. Absolutely ridiculous.
just reminds me of how i think of americans. They are the most easily offended people in the world almost about anything.
-
As an immigrant (and naturalized US citizen) from East Africa, I told my wife I don't want a house with a HOA. I live in a free country and I shall not be regulated on the color of my house, the grass isn't green when we have drought conditions, and other first world problems. I work with the military on a military base and there are real issues out there to deal with daily, e.g. Daesh.
-
just reminds me of how i think of americans. They are the most easily offended people in the world almost about anything.
OMG I can't believe you just said that. Get the mods in here!
-
just reminds me of how i think of americans. They are the most easily offended people in the world almost about anything.
OMG I can't believe you just said that. Get the mods in here!
Seriously!
How does one build a wall... A GIANT WALL...THE GREATEST WALL EVER BUILT on the internet?
-
just reminds me of how i think of americans. They are the most easily offended people in the world almost about anything.
OMG I can't believe you just said that. Get the mods in here!
Seriously!
How does one build a wall... A GIANT WALL...THE GREATEST WALL EVER BUILT on the internet?
I don't know, but the MODS ARE GOING TO PAY FOR IT!
-
just reminds me of how i think of americans. They are the most easily offended people in the world almost about anything.
OMG I can't believe you just said that. Get the mods in here!
Seriously!
How does one build a wall... A GIANT WALL...THE GREATEST WALL EVER BUILT on the internet?
a FIRE wall?
-
How about a PAY-wall. And then retire on the income?
-
How about a PAY-wall. And then retire on the income?
Great idea! Can we get an HOA side and a non HOA side. I want to live on the HOA side though because it will look consistent from one end to the other. Repetition good. Repetition good. Good. Good. Comforting. Comfort.
-
just reminds me of how i think of americans. They are the most easily offended people in the world almost about anything.
OMG I can't believe you just said that. Get the mods in here!
I'm American, but I'm not offended by this statement. USA is a young civilization compared to other countries that have thousands of years of traditions. We are in our adolescence and are therefore whiny and entitled.
I think the USA is a toddler, stumbling around the world and leaving behind a mess. I say this as an American.
-
just reminds me of how i think of americans. They are the most easily offended people in the world almost about anything.
OMG I can't believe you just said that. Get the mods in here!
I'm American, but I'm not offended by this statement. USA is a young civilization compared to other countries that have thousands of years of traditions. We are in our adolescence and are therefore whiny and entitled.
I think the USA is a toddler, stumbling around the world and leaving behind a mess. I say this as an American.
Those of us who live in the USA are also participating in a very big sociological experiment, where an entire system of government was set up not in response to supply and demand but to follow a theoretical model. It's hard to not feel a little bit like a lab rat.
-
just reminds me of how i think of americans. They are the most easily offended people in the world almost about anything.
OMG I can't believe you just said that. Get the mods in here!
I'm American, but I'm not offended by this statement. USA is a young civilization compared to other countries that have thousands of years of traditions. We are in our adolescence and are therefore whiny and entitled.
I think the USA is a toddler, stumbling around the world and leaving behind a mess. I say this as an American.
OT, but my son is learning about the American Revolution now (grade 9). Seeing it taught from a non-USA perspective is quite different than when my daughter studied it when we lived in California...
-
just reminds me of how i think of americans. They are the most easily offended people in the world almost about anything.
OMG I can't believe you just said that. Get the mods in here!
I'm American, but I'm not offended by this statement. USA is a young civilization compared to other countries that have thousands of years of traditions. We are in our adolescence and are therefore whiny and entitled.
I think the USA is a toddler, stumbling around the world and leaving behind a mess. I say this as an American.
OT, but my son is learning about the American Revolution now (grade 9). Seeing it taught from a non-USA perspective is quite different than when my daughter studied it when we lived in California...
Although I was born State-side I grew up outside the country and learned history from a non-USA perspective. Reading it from the other side has been most interesting.
-
Please, both of you tell us more about this different perspective.
-
I remember touring Benedict Arnold's house in Montreal, where he was described as a "Loyalist". Being an American, that was quite a change of perspective.
-
I remember touring Benedict Arnold's house in Montreal, where he was described as a "Loyalist". Being an American, that was quite a change of perspective.
People who supported the Crown during the American Revolution are called "Loyalists" in history class in US schools too, I think.
-
Not Benedict Arnold. In US history books he is called "Traitor", and is famous as one of the greatest in our history.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/benedict-arnold-american-traitor-born
-
Please, both of you tell us more about this different perspective.
Warning -- OT foam continues below -- bypass at will!
Well, for Canada, the teaching of the American Revolutions starts with the British defeating the French in what was "lower canada" in 1760, (allowing for soldiers to honorably return to their home countries) then issuing a proclamation in 1763 declaring the colony boundaries of Quebec (and Florida and grenada), giving Governor powers, identifying land territories set aside for the "Indians without harrassment or intrusion", etc. This document is important as it outlines some of the early terms with the native populations, that were continuously eroded upon in future years (an important theme in Canadian social studies throughout school years)
Of course, the Quebec colony boundaries completely encompassed the St. Lawrence seaway on BOTH north and south sides (through Lake Champlain), and was likely a trigger issue for the 13 colonies on the south side who saw that land as part of their control. (British unilaterally declaring new colony boundaries without local input, etc)
-
Please, both of you tell us more about this different perspective.
Warning -- OT foam continues below -- bypass at will!
Well, for Canada, the teaching of the American Revolutions starts with the British defeating the French in what was "lower canada" in 1760, (allowing for soldiers to honorably return to their home countries) then issuing a proclamation in 1763 declaring the colony boundaries of Quebec (and Florida and grenada), giving Governor powers, identifying land territories set aside for the "Indians without harrassment or intrusion", etc. This document is important as it outlines some of the early terms with the native populations, that were continuously eroded upon in future years (an important theme in Canadian social studies throughout school years)
Of course, the Quebec colony boundaries completely encompassed the St. Lawrence seaway on BOTH north and south sides (through Lake Champlain), and was likely a trigger issue for the 13 colonies on the south side who saw that land as part of their control. (British unilaterally declaring new colony boundaries without local input, etc)
I'm curious if we could get some native people from Alberta or BC to weigh in on British protection of indigenous rights in the west. Or maybe some Maoris for those who want to keep it Kiwi? :)
-
I appreciated that the letter-recipient posted the letter and asked for clarification. In addition, he was not afraid to identify his own "shitty" cars so everyone knew who the recipient was. This is a great tactic in shutting down bullies and stops new ones from joining in because they know the target won't be shamed into modifying behavior. Good job to the letter recipient.
But if he is parking his car in the wrong direction as accused in the article, he needs a letter for that because there are covenants against that. Those of us with mild OCD would have an issue. ;)
Parking the wrong direction wouldn't require a letter - just a call to the council to send out a parking warden.
who will issue a fine. Parking the wrong way is against the law. But as long as the car is legally parked and road legal (registered and certified safe to drive) the neighbours can't do anything.
It's unlikely that there would be any covenants that would apply. Usually in NZ they cover house colour, house size etc when building, but wouldn't cover cars or parking, and it would be very difficult to enforce that kind of thing here.
-
What on earth is wrong with parking in the wrong direction? The vehicle is stationary!
-
Poor street lighting means that you rely on reflection (from the red reflectors only located on the rear of the car) to see what's parked on the side of the road. Parking the wrong way means reflectors don't work, because they're facing the wrong direction. So you're relying on people driving in unlit or poorly lit streets to use their common sense to tell whether there's a large immovable object parked on the side of the road that may cause damage to their own car should they run into it.
At least that's my understanding. Personally I've always managed to avoid said large immovable objects, but apparently some non-attentive drivers have a problem with them.
-
What on earth is wrong with parking in the wrong direction? The vehicle is stationary!
We have lots of parking laws. Some make more sense than others
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/roadcode/about-driving/where-not-to-park/
That being said, where I live (about 30mins from the subject of the OP) we have some pretty thin windy roads, so people tend to park on just one side to avoid blocking the road, and sometimes there isn't enough space to turn around to get in the right direction. Most of the time people let that slide.
But that won't be the issue in Whitby.
-
What on earth is wrong with parking in the wrong direction? The vehicle is stationary!
To park with driver's wheels to curb means the car is driven on the wrong side of the road before and after parking.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
-
To park with driver's wheels to curb means the car is driven on the wrong side of the road before and after parking.
Sure, but who cares? You have to cross traffic to turn left or pull a u-turn, nothing wrong with crossing traffic (when safe) to park. IMO.
-
....YUP. I discovered this after I bought a house - a few months went by and I got a letter from the city complaining that a dead tree in my yard (50ft from the street) was a "blight" and I had to remove it within 10 days or pay a fine. ....
I had a tree that was encroaching on power lines. The city(utility ) came and chopped the offending part off, leaving a tree that DW made me get trimmed to match and clear of the house.
No charge from the city, since it was their problem.
-
To park with driver's wheels to curb means the car is driven on the wrong side of the road before and after parking.
Sure, but who cares? You have to cross traffic to turn left or pull a u-turn, nothing wrong with crossing traffic (when safe) to park. IMO.
Parallel parking on the wrong side of the road requires you to drive the wrong way, not just cross traffic. In some areas u-turns are illegal too.
-
We're probably imagining two different things. On a quiet residential street, it doesn't matter if you're on the wrong side of the road for a little while.
-
If you are parallel parked on the wrong side of the road you have to pull out into traffic with no ability to see the oncoming cars since you are on the far side of your car.
-
If you turn left on a tightly packed street, you can't see shit either. And yet it's rarely an issue. Go slow, look through windshields, listen, poke your nose out so you're visible, and go when it seems clear.
-
We're probably imagining two different things. On a quiet residential street, it doesn't matter if you're on the wrong side of the road for a little while.
But the RULEZ!
Must. Follow. Rulez.
-
If you turn left on a tightly packed street, you can't see shit either. And yet it's rarely an issue. Go slow, look through windshields, listen, poke your nose out so you're visible, and go when it seems clear.
Even on a tight street you have a side view mirror which you can use to see what's coming behind you and if it's clear you can pull out without someone hitting you head on. If you're on the wrong side of the road you'll be pulling out blind potentially into oncoming traffic.
-
Not quite same deal but....Many years ago I was in Bermuda and I understood that the gendarmes there could give you a ticket/fine for a visible rust spot or body damage- due to the fact that it is totally a tourist destination and they are very concerned about appearances(and it is beautiful there).
-
If you turn left on a tightly packed street, you can't see shit either. And yet it's rarely an issue. Go slow, look through windshields, listen, poke your nose out so you're visible, and go when it seems clear.
Even on a tight street you have a side view mirror which you can use to see what's coming behind you and if it's clear you can pull out without someone hitting you head on. If you're on the wrong side of the road you'll be pulling out blind potentially into oncoming traffic.
Do you not have a side mirror on the passenger side of your car?
-
If you turn left on a tightly packed street, you can't see shit either. And yet it's rarely an issue. Go slow, look through windshields, listen, poke your nose out so you're visible, and go when it seems clear.
Even on a tight street you have a side view mirror which you can use to see what's coming behind you and if it's clear you can pull out without someone hitting you head on. If you're on the wrong side of the road you'll be pulling out blind potentially into oncoming traffic.
Do you not have a side mirror on the passenger side of your car?
I do. But it doesn't face forwards. You'd be pulling into ONCOMING traffic.
-
Oh yeah, whoops! #spacialawarenessdeficit
I was thinking about parking on the wrong side of a one way street. Changes things up when the cars are coming from the opposite direction doesn't it?
-
I like shared resources in an HOA, like a community swimming pool, club room, and maintained open spaces. Not a fan of restrictions
But on the other hand I think people should be good neighbors. That means maintaining your property. Yes you have a right to keep a run down rv/boat/beater that never moves in your driveway but it's the real estate equivalent of going out in public after not showering for weeks. Rude
-
But on the other hand I think people should be good neighbors. That means maintaining your property. Yes you have a right to keep a run down rv/boat/beater that never moves in your driveway but it's the real estate equivalent of going out in public after not showering for weeks. Rude
That seems like a good way to put it.
-
But on the other hand I think people should be good neighbors. That means maintaining your property. Yes you have a right to keep a run down rv/boat/beater that never moves in your driveway but it's the real estate equivalent of going out in public after not showering for weeks. Rude
That seems like a good way to put it.
I think that's a great way to put it. Or, in other words: not generally keeping your property in a presentable state is like going shopping in old sweatshirts and PJ pants and flip-flops. Not really the Socially Done Thing, and likely to get some side-eye. But on the other hand, sometimes Life Happens (and then the grass doesn't get mowed AND you find yourself at the grocery store in PJs because your family is sick, life happened, and there are Other Priorities(tm)). The advantage of having reasonable neighbors and no HOA is that if you're at the state where that's what's happening, you're more likely to get offers of shopping help, mowing help, and casserole dinners than a fine for an un-mowed lawn.
In other words, I love my neighbors and my community. ;)
-
But on the other hand I think people should be good neighbors. That means maintaining your property. Yes you have a right to keep a run down rv/boat/beater that never moves in your driveway but it's the real estate equivalent of going out in public after not showering for weeks. Rude
That seems like a good way to put it.
. The advantage of having reasonable neighbors and no HOA is that if you're at the state where that's what's happening, you're more likely to get offers of shopping help, mowing help, and casserole dinners than a fine for an un-mowed lawn.
In other words, I love my neighbors and my community. ;)
These things are not mutually exclusive. I have wonderful neighbors and have had food, shopping, and shoveling done for me when I was injured. I also happen to live in an HOA community. Soemtimes I think people believe that if you move into an HOA, you must become an asshole.
The key as you said, was to have reasonable neighbor's. Period.
-
I have been on both sides of the HOA/non-HOA situation.
I lived in Reston, VA., strict HOA. White basketball backboard over your garage door, attached to the house? Not acceptable, sent notice it must be painted the same dark brown as your house. Nothing done in a month, the HOA sent a handyman out to do it and billed the homeowner.
The other side of the coin (no HOA), up the street from a different house, we had someone we called Mr. Gravel. Extended family (maybe more than one family?), had 5-6 cars. One day a dump truck of bluestone gravel gets dumped on the front lawn and spread out, viola, instant parking for everyone.
jfolsen
-
I have been on both sides of the HOA/non-HOA situation.
I lived in Reston, VA., strict HOA. White basketball backboard over your garage door, attached to the house? Not acceptable, sent notice it must be painted the same dark brown as your house. Nothing done in a month, the HOA sent a handyman out to do it and billed the homeowner.
The other side of the coin (no HOA), up the street from a different house, we had someone we called Mr. Gravel. Extended family (maybe more than one family?), had 5-6 cars. One day a dump truck of bluestone gravel gets dumped on the front lawn and spread out, viola, instant parking for everyone.
jfolsen
I have a condo in Reston, but it's in the urban core, so not covered by the Reston Association. But I am familiar with some of the RA CC&Rs. Very restrictive, but for a town in Northern Virginia, it's a pretty crunchy place. I think I would prefer a place that just does what it wants you to do and then bills you -- at least that way, there's no neighbor drama. (well, I'm sure there is, but hopefully there is less).
For fun, I like to compare Reston with Sterling. They are about 6 miles apart geographically, but worlds apart philosophically. Those two areas are like night and day. Sterling has the older homes, and a ton of new McMansions. It's clearly built as a suburb for people commuting to DC or at least to Tysons. Great big Costco, Lowe's, Home Depot, etc. Reston has mostly older ('60s +) homes, and the dream of working, living, and playing in the same town. Walk/Bike paths everywhere and those are the first things that get plowed! I used to belong to both Freecycle groups and found that I could get anything I would ever want or need on the Sterling/Cascades Freecycle, but I couldn't get rid of anything. I could get rid of anything on the Reston Freecycle, but the only thing you could GET were things like a 1/2 box of Kaashi or 3/4 bottle of Suave shampoo.
-
But on the other hand I think people should be good neighbors. That means maintaining your property. Yes you have a right to keep a run down rv/boat/beater that never moves in your driveway but it's the real estate equivalent of going out in public after not showering for weeks. Rude
That seems like a good way to put it.
. The advantage of having reasonable neighbors and no HOA is that if you're at the state where that's what's happening, you're more likely to get offers of shopping help, mowing help, and casserole dinners than a fine for an un-mowed lawn.
In other words, I love my neighbors and my community. ;)
These things are not mutually exclusive. I have wonderful neighbors and have had food, shopping, and shoveling done for me when I was injured. I also happen to live in an HOA community. Soemtimes I think people believe that if you move into an HOA, you must become an asshole.
The key as you said, was to have reasonable neighbor's. Period.
I live in a HOA and absolutely love my fellow members. Of course it helps that it's a tiny association (6 units) so this helps eliminate free-rider problems as all need to be involved and it's obvious when someone isn't doing their part. I'm inexperienced at handyman jobs, but I've been so lucky that one of the guys is very handy and patient, so he's saved my bacon numerous times in fixing up things around my house.
Last week I was running late for work and my garage wasn't closing properly. So I just locked my door and left and when I came back he had come by to take a look at it and told me how to fix it. I've never had such a courteous neighbor.
-
OT, but my son is learning about the American Revolution now (grade 9). Seeing it taught from a non-USA perspective is quite different than when my daughter studied it when we lived in California...
Minor quibble, but most historians refer to it as the American War for Independence. There really wasn't much revolutionary about it. If someone is referring to it as a revolution then most likely you getting either an intentionally or unintentionally biased viewpoint.
Goldielocks is in BC (i.e. Canada). From our viewpoint it was the American Revolution. A lot of Canadian settlement during and after the Revolution (i.e. fought by those not faithful to their oaths) was Loyalist (i.e. political refugees, faithful to their oath of allegiance). It has always amazed me that the American Government of 1812 thought Canadians would like the idea of being annexed (ended up being part of the War of 1812-14) when the areas they invaded had been mostly settled by Loyalists.
I got to watch the British 19th Light Dragoons and Glengarry Light Infantry Fencibles defeat the Americans this past Sunday. (http://glengarrypioneermuseum.ca/home/events/1812-re-enactment/88-war-of-1812-re-enactment (http://glengarrypioneermuseum.ca/home/events/1812-re-enactment/88-war-of-1812-re-enactment))
-
It has always amazed me that the American Government of 1812 thought Canadians would like the idea of being annexed (ended up being part of the War of 1812-14) when the areas they invaded had been mostly settled by Loyalists.
Well it was less than a decade before the US just declared that Central, South, and North America were US zones and that Europeans better just stay away. Oddly, it seems to have largely worked even though France, England, and Holland, and Spain were way more powerful than the Americans at the time.
-
It has always amazed me that the American Government of 1812 thought Canadians would like the idea of being annexed (ended up being part of the War of 1812-14) when the areas they invaded had been mostly settled by Loyalists.
Well it was less than a decade before the US just declared that Central, South, and North America were US zones and that Europeans better just stay away. Oddly, it seems to have largely worked even though France, England, and Holland, and Spain were way more powerful than the Americans at the time.
I vaguely remember Britain had a rough economy after the war, they had put so much effort into defeating Napoleon (which was why they were impressing American sailors in the first place, which helped start the War of 1812-14). France the same from the other side. Holland as well, I would suppose. But Spain and Portugal? Maybe the Indies looked like a better return?
We've come a long way from shabby cars. ;-)
-
OT, but my son is learning about the American Revolution now (grade 9). Seeing it taught from a non-USA perspective is quite different than when my daughter studied it when we lived in California...
Minor quibble, but most historians refer to it as the American War for Independence. There really wasn't much revolutionary about it. If someone is referring to it as a revolution then most likely you getting either an intentionally or unintentionally biased viewpoint.
Both viewpoints are biased and it depends a lot on how the historian's group experienced the war. As a group they're not objective creatures although it's fun when they try to be.
People demanding and fighting for their independence generally view what they're doing as a "war for independence". If they win, that's what they get to call it, at least amongst themselves. The losing side (as in, people who are losing control over their colony) will be more likely to call it a "revolution". So will people who live nearby. In the 1776 incident, the people fighting for their independence were relatively successful at it.
Which side wins is also relevant.
-
People demanding and fighting for their independence generally view what they're doing as a "war for independence". If they win, that's what they get to call it, at least amongst themselves. The losing side (as in, people who are losing control over their colony) will be more likely to call it a "revolution". So will people who live nearby. In the 1776 incident, the people fighting for their independence were relatively successful at it.
Which side wins is also relevant.
I could be wrong, but I think you have this backwards. We in the US call it the "American Revolution," while it is the British who more commonly call it the "American War for Independence." See here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War#cite_note-21) at footnote 21. I think we all agree that the US won that war, right?
-
People demanding and fighting for their independence generally view what they're doing as a "war for independence". If they win, that's what they get to call it, at least amongst themselves. The losing side (as in, people who are losing control over their colony) will be more likely to call it a "revolution". So will people who live nearby. In the 1776 incident, the people fighting for their independence were relatively successful at it.
Which side wins is also relevant.
I could be wrong, but I think you have this backwards. We in the US call it the "American Revolution," while it is the British who more commonly call it the "American War for Independence." See here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War#cite_note-21) at footnote 21. I think we all agree that the US won that war, right?
Some of it. They got a fair bit of the territory they wanted, but nowhere near all they were going for.
Growing up in Alberta, I remember reading about the "American Revolutionary War".
-
People demanding and fighting for their independence generally view what they're doing as a "war for independence". If they win, that's what they get to call it, at least amongst themselves. The losing side (as in, people who are losing control over their colony) will be more likely to call it a "revolution". So will people who live nearby. In the 1776 incident, the people fighting for their independence were relatively successful at it.
Which side wins is also relevant.
I could be wrong, but I think you have this backwards. We in the US call it the "American Revolution," while it is the British who more commonly call it the "American War for Independence." See here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War#cite_note-21) at footnote 21. I think we all agree that the US won that war, right?
Some of it. They got a fair bit of the territory they wanted, but nowhere near all they were going for.
Growing up in Alberta, I remember reading about the "American Revolutionary War".
Interesting. I grew up in Massachusetts, close to Boston, so I went to many Revolution-related historical sites on school field trips and with my family. All the talk was of the "American Revolution" and the "Revolutionary War." Yes, we "declared independence" from Great Britain on July 4, 1776, and the end result of the war was that we "won our independence," but the war was the "Revolution."
-
OT, but my son is learning about the American Revolution now (grade 9). Seeing it taught from a non-USA perspective is quite different than when my daughter studied it when we lived in California...
Minor quibble, but most historians refer to it as the American War for Independence. There really wasn't much revolutionary about it. If someone is referring to it as a revolution then most likely you getting either an intentionally or unintentionally biased viewpoint.
Nothing so sinister. His second chapter was the "French revolution", so I think that the text author and perhaps teacher just liked the word pattern consistency of it..
:-)