this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2025
331 points (96.1% liked)

AskUSA

515 readers
3 users here now

About

Community for asking and answering any question related to the life, the people or anything related to the USA. Non-US people are welcome to provide their perspective! Please keep in mind:

  1. [email protected] - politics in our daily lives is inescapable, but please post overtly political things there rather than here
  2. [email protected] - similarly things with the goal of overt agitation have their place, which is there rather than here

Rules

  1. Be nice or gtfo
  2. Discussions of overt political or agitation nature belong elsewhere
  3. Follow the rules of discuss.online

Sister communities

  1. [email protected]
  2. [email protected]
  3. [email protected]
  4. [email protected]
  5. [email protected]

Related communities

  1. [email protected]
  2. [email protected]
  3. [email protected]
  4. [email protected]
  5. [email protected]

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
 

Banned is maybe too far, but why should we as a country allow people to have petty power over meaningless things their neighbors do? Could we ban HOAs from being included in house sales, and every time it's sold the new owners have to opt in?

For the most part, I'm wondering about this in the context of single family homes since for homes like condos, you could make the case that HOAs are useful for shared things like roofs and whatnot. Maybe limit mandatory HOA involvement to things like what's truly necessary and shared and not how tall your grass is?

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 days ago

No. Should they be as pervasive as they are with unbounded layers of beurocracy? Also no.

I think people might not understand how many assholes live around you that the HOA keeps in check. I didn't until I joined the board. Sometimes you have to litigate, but sometimes you also just need a dedicated (and elected) group of people to go knock on the door and talk out a problem. It's nicer to have this somewhat regulated (bank accounts, insurance, taxes, and yes even covenants for procedure if they are kept up to date) than to just knock on some doors and wing it.

If your HOA has an old lady measuring your grass and some dude using color swatches to check the paint on your mailbox, move. If your neighborhood has lights, clear sidewalks, fences and landscaping that are cared for, and no dog crap to step in, keep paying into it. They are doing a good job.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

Objectively yes. We don't need an extra government to cover the job of the actual government, especially not ones that are easy for psychopaths to infiltrate. Your park? That's the damn state's responsibility, pay your fair share of taxes instead and let the city handle it. Your home value? Don't treat housing as a damn vehicle for investment. All those nasty poors and minorities? If they bother you find a way to leave earth, permanently.

HOAs are emblematic of everything wrong with America and actively strip away the good parts.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The point of HOAs is protecting/increasing property value. We need property to be cheaper, not more expensive. Higher property values benefit speculation, not ownership. Burn them all.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I don't want to live in a neighborhood where you can leave a car to rot on the front lawn, where you can have cows shitting all over, or you can build a 20 foot tall Jesus statue in your front yard.

If your HOA sucks, then get involved and make it better. Mine is fine.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago

city odanances usually can prevent the first two, however requre elected leaders or direct voting to let it happen reducing the chance that a cowless minority could ban them.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 days ago

Don't ban them, there are some good parts in there

Require yearly elections on who leads

Limit the power they have, especially with giving out citations

Don't allow to outsource the work. You want a HOA, you do the HOA. Those HOA companies are thr worst

[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 days ago (3 children)

I wouldn't ban them, but I would make sure they need continual community buy-in to keep going. Make them automatically sunset if not renewed. Like, every ten years you have to get signatures from 2/3 of the home owners in the HOA in order to renew it. Good HOAs can keep going indefinitely or be reestablished later. Bad ones just disappear when they can't get enough signatures to keep the thing going.

I don't have a problem with people volunteering to bind themselves into a communal covenant. I do have a problem with the long dead hand of developers past binding people into a perpetual obligation. I know it is possible to dissolve HOAs, but it requires getting the vast majority of homeowners to come together to actively choose to revoke it. I would use the opposite system. Every ten years you need a supermajority of homeowners to commit to renewing it.

This is obviously in the context of single family homes. They're unavoidable in condos.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago

My neighborhood's HOA has been pretty chill the few years I've lived here. The fees pay for the pool, landscaping, walking path maintenance, etc. Maybe I'd feel different if one of my neighbors was finding and reporting a bunch of violations, but so far it seems like the HOA has been good for my neighborhood. I'm sure other places get out of hand, but it's not always the nightmare people make it out to be online.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 days ago

I think at least HOA’s should be banned from requiring certain plants in your yard. Namely grass. HOA’s should not be able to prevent people from replacing their lawns with native and edible plants.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 days ago

I think HOAs and Business Improvement districts persist because they fill a need for hyper local government that the existing, formal governments are not fullfilling. HOAs don't need to be banned, they need to be replaced with something else that better fulfills this niche but is more regulated and accountable.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Gonna take a controversial tack here:

No, they shouldn't be banned.

You have a choice to buy into an HOA or not. You can still buy plots of land, and build to suit; you are not obligated or limited solely to houses that already exist in HOAs. Yes, your up-front costs will be higher, because you're going to have to pay for putting in a well, septic system, and possibly running electric to your place, and if you want gas you'll need propane deliveries, versus hooking in to an existing water/sewer/electric/natural gas system. But that's still your choice.

Some people want HOAs because them come with amenities that people wouldn't have otherwise. In my area, there are two very large HOAs that both offer things like full golf courses, and horse stables with miles of trails for riding; the people buying in those HOAs buy into them because of those things; having enough land on your own to keep and ride horses is, well, good luck finding that much land as a single parcel within reasonable driving distance of any city.

Finally, if you buy a home, most of the time you want to know that your home isn't going to plummet in value. You're dropping a LOT of money on one, and hoping that, if you ever need to move, you'll be able to get the money you put in back out again. When you don't live in an HOA, there's always a risk that the things shitty neighbors will do will end up wrecking your property values. E.g., if the person right next to me starts parking dead cars in their driveway, and has yard dogs that are barking at all hours of the night, not many people are going to willingly move in next to them.

Do I LIKE HOAs? Not really. The best HOAs are the ones that have absolutely minimal interference in your daily life. I live in an HOA; they keep the road functional, specify certain aspects of new construction (minimum size--no tiny homes--colors have to be earth-tones, etc.) and... That's about it. Yeah, I'm supposed to get permission before I put in any yard statues more than 6' tall, and I'm not allowed to clear cut the trees on my property (...not that I ever plan to...), I can't put a pistol range in my yard and practice shooting at home, but that's about all. As long as I stay quiet, and mind my own business, the HOA doesn't give a shit. The most high-handed thing they've done in the last decade was amend the by-laws to ban short-term rentals; one shithead was renting out their place as an AirBnB, which led to loud parties on weekends and a lot of extra traffic.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You have a choice to buy into an HOA or not

This is one of those "choices that isn't really a choice." In theory I can live somewhere without an HOA. In theory I can also buy a home that is shaped like a wizard tower. Good luck actually finding one though. In many areas, cities require HOAs for new developments. And even when not, very very few HOAs are formed by people voluntarily coming together and choosing to democratically establish one. They are imposed by the developer. The HOA is laid down before the first house is even sold.

What this means in most American cities is that the HOA-free neighborhoods are in expensive older neighborhoods close to the urban core. The still kindof affordable houses on the urban fringe are all HOA neighborhoods. The wealthy get the choice of living with an HOA or not. Working people either have to live with an HOA or live in an apartment. They don't actually get the choice of an affordable HOA-free neighborhood.

HOAs should be banned for new developments. The only way to establish one should be that home owners in an existing neighborhood voluntarily come together to create one. Democracy in action. And they should require continual community buy in. Let them expire every after ten years unless 2/3 of the home owners sign up to renew them. Do the people in the HOA feel it gives them value? Then they can keep it as long as they want. But it should require continual community buy-in.

I have no problem with people who want to live in an HOA having an HOA. In practice, however, most people in an HOA did not really choose to live in an HOA. They simply wanted to stop renting, and the HOA neighborhood was the only one they could afford.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The city I grew up in (population around 30,000) made HOAs mandatory for any development of 5 or more homes. Why? The city council got fed up mediating disputes between neighbors. People would go and expect the city council to get involved if their neighbors fence was ugly, or the lawn was unkept, or their party was too big. It started happening every meeting so they decided forcing everyone into an HOA would force them to solve it themselves.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

So instead of directing them to civil court (or tell the karens to piss off), they made everyone suffer.... classic government.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago

Everyone? How many people who are not petty assholes have a negative HOA story? A bad HOA is like bad plastic surgery: those are the only ones you notice.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Anyone who's in favor of HOA's should watch Hot Fuzz.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›