Why Do So Many On INGO Hate HOA's?

[Creedmoor]

Glad you are free to have that opinion.


Why don’t you “otherwise mind your own ****ing business” and allow others the same freedoms you have if they don’t want to see a pickup truck? Why shouldn’t they have that freedom? I don’t personally care if there are pickup trucks, I have had many trucks, but I would never take that freedom from those that do not want to see them to have a neighborhood that does not allow them.

Why do you always stoop to this?

 

[phylodog]

Why don’t you “otherwise mind your own ****ing business” and allow others the same freedoms you have if they don’t want to see a pickup truck? Why shouldn’t they have that freedom? I don’t personally care if there are pickup trucks, I have had many trucks, but I would never take that freedom from those that do not want to see them to have a neighborhood that does not allow them.

My apologies, I spent 26 years working under oaths to protect freedom and calling ******** when I see it was part of that, tough habit to break. Property rights are a pretty significant part of the freedom this country is supposed to provide and the definition of ownership is not subjective. You're more than willing to force others to your will and I have an issue with that. I'm glad we live in a free country as well, I just find it unfortunate that we've allowed lawyers and politicians to trample on some of the most basic principles of freedom.

Basically, you're fine with ******** so long as it benefits you. We agree prohibiting people from parking a pickup at their residence is ********. The only reason we are discussing it is due to the existence of HOAs. You ain't gonna grow apples from a turd tree, no matter how hard you work to prune it and make it look nice.

 

[Ingomike]

My apologies, I spent 26 years working under oaths to protect freedom and calling ******** when I see it was part of that, tough habit to break. Property rights are a pretty significant part of the freedom this country is supposed to provide and the definition of ownership is not subjective. You're more than willing to force others to your will and I have an issue with that. I'm glad we live in a free country as well, I just find it unfortunate that we've allowed lawyers and politicians to trample on some of the most basic principles of freedom.

Basically, you're fine with ******** so long as it benefits you.

Could you show me when in the history “of the freedom this country is supposed to provide” that it happened to allow the “lawyers and politicians to trample on some of the most basic principles of freedom” the rights of landowners? Just when and what laws were passed to allow the set up of covenant/restrictions and an HOA?

Shortcut, there are not any. It is a freedom the landowner has, and that freedom exists because it is a basic principle of freedom of land ownership that an owner can do anything they want. Well, not really, they actually have laws limiting landowners in Indiana that specify the maximum percentage of members to change the covenants at 75%.

Basically, you're fine with ******** so long as it benefits you.

 

[foszoe]

How does Bill have ANY RIGHTS over Joe’s land? He doesn't. The government is not involved in the decision making. Everything in my example is true freedom. The only way Bill gets what you want him to get is by government oppression.


You, wanting to take Joe’s freedom over his land is the infringement…

Because Bill owns land next to some sprawling gov't base and Joe doesn't want Bill to have the unbridled freedom to sell on his own terms.

You are Joe.

 

[repeter1977]

Joe owns land has unbridled freedom.
Joe uses his freedom to put covenants/restrictions and HOA on the land he owns and has unbridled freedom over.
Joe puts land up for sale with covenants/restrictions and HOA.
Bill sees Joes land for sale.
Bill is informed by Joe of the covenants/restrictions and HOA.
Bill has unbridled freedom to buy Joe‘s land with covenants/restrictions and HOA.
Bill has unbridled freedom to NOT buy Joe’s land with covenants/restrictions and HOA.

Bill has no freedom to tell Joe how to sell his land.

You guys are Bill…

Your points once again have nothing to do with my post. I'd say I'm surprised but honestly after this many posts on here, it's standard for you. Spout whatever talking point you think is close enough and hope your spew of bs is close enough. Once again, no. Not even close to anything I commented about. This is why everyone has given up trying to discuss anything with you, because of your diarrhea of bs that has nothing to do with my point or theirs. Try doing better but honestly, your arguments have pushed me further into the never HOA camp, so thank you.

 

[phylodog]

Could you show me when in the history “of the freedom this country is supposed to provide” that it happened to allow the “lawyers and politicians to trample on some of the most basic principles of freedom” the rights of landowners? Just when and what laws were passed to allow the set up of covenant/restrictions and an HOA?

Shortcut, there are not any. It is a freedom the landowner has, and that freedom exists because it is a basic principle of freedom of land ownership that an owner can do anything they want. Well, not really, they actually have laws limiting landowners in Indiana that specify the maximum percentage of members to change the covenants at 75%.

Basically, you're fine with ******** so long as it benefits you.

I apologize you struggle to understand such a basic concept. Ownership means the person who possesses it, controls it. Anything else is not ownership. It isn't complicated, I don't know how much more simply I can state it for you.

 

[d.kaufman]

I apologize you struggle to understand such a basic concept. Ownership means the person who possesses it, controls it. Anything else is not ownership. It isn't complicated, I don't know how much more simply I can state it for you.

Some people just like to be controlled

 

[phylodog]

Some people just like to be controlled

Some like to control others.

 

[actaeon277]

I personally like to do the cha-cha

 

[phylodog]

I personally like to do the cha-cha

 

[Ingomike]

I apologize you struggle to understand such a basic concept. Ownership means the person who possesses it, controls it. Anything else is not ownership. It isn't complicated, I don't know how much more simply I can state it for you.

So this filibuster means you know that you cannot find when those “lawyers and politicians” began to “trample on some of the most basic principles of freedom” because landowners have always had that right, a right you wish to strip landowners of.

You can only own what a seller is willing to sell you.

You have all rights to what you own.

There are many property rights, if you want them all, buy them all.

There are often some rights government has taken and you cannot even buy them.

You don’t get to define what ownership is for others.

 

[phylodog]

You can only own what a seller is willing to sell you.

You can control what you own, if you want to maintain control then maintain ownership.

You have all rights to what you own.

See? We agree.

There are many property rights, if you want them all, buy them all.

Is opting out of the Karen's choice of garage door color or approved vehicle manufacturer an option at purchase?

There are often some rights government has taken and you cannot even buy them.

Yeah, we all know you're a fan of both government and property taxes.

You don’t get to define what ownership is for others.

I'm not defining it. Ownership has been defined for millennia, it's all of the modern day "smart" people who believe they've improved it.

 

[Ingomike]

Some people just like to be controlled

Why can’t like minded people agree on how they want to live? I get it, the landowner/developer puts the covenants in place but I truly cannot imagine who among my neighbors would be ok with a neighbor that was restoring an old wreck car, even a cool car from back in the day, on the drive with compressors, impacts, air chisels, etc. running in the evening. There are many places one can live and do that, why shouldn’t those folks be allowed to have a neighborhood they like?

Sometimes I think INGO forgets that we members here are the anomaly not the norm in the world, particularly in threads like this. I get it that we all are freedom and independent minded but others have freedom to live as they wish also...

 

[firecadet613]

OK, INGO. I was mowing the lawn (in my bee suit) and came up with this...riddle me this...

The haters got their way - HOAs are gone!

Now these damn RVers have RVs in their driveway, blocking my view of the sunset. Glad I golf with three of the five town council members (none of which own a RV). At the next town council meeting, I'll push to ban parking of RVs on lots under an acre, not only is it an eyesore - it's a danger. A small child could dart out from behind it and get hit by a car as they run into the road (will someone please think of the children)!

At the next town council meeting - it passes! No more eyesores are allowed on any lot less than an acre in the town limits. Hooray!

Now all residents on lots under an acre - even those who previously lived without a HOA, are subject to this new rule. Sure glad HOAs are gone...

You can control what you own, if you want to maintain control then maintain ownership.

Legally, this isn't the case. Not saying it's morally or ethically correct, but currently it is NOT the case in the US of A.

Is opting out of the Karen's choice of garage door color or approved vehicle manufacturer an option at purchase?

Did Karen sign that she'd abide by the HOA covenants?

Yeah, we all know you're a fan of both government and property taxes.

I'm sure as hell not, but I understand WHY they exist and what I can do to reduce my tax liability.

I'm not defining it. Ownership has been defined for millennia, it's all of the modern day "smart" people who believe they've improved it.

Welcome to 2024. We're ruled by politicians and lawyers; it's going to get worse, before it gets better.

 

[Ingomike]

You can control what you own, if you want to maintain control then maintain ownership.

You are defining ownership too narrowly. There are many forms of ownership

Is opting out of the Karen's choice of garage door color or approved vehicle manufacturer an option at purchase?

Of course, just don’t buy property where there is an HOA with your freedom. If enough others do the same it can change the market.

Yeah, we all know you're a fan of both government and property taxes.

This is what make discussion difficult, that I understand the history and the need for common participation in the protection of land does not make me a fan of government and property taxes in general. Maybe you would prefer the enforcement of a local landowners association for things government does today that benefit your property.

I'm not defining it. Ownership has been defined for millennia, it's all of the modern day "smart" people who believe they've improved it.

You indeed are defining it narrowly. The opinion that one must sell the entire bundle of rights to property is no different that telling an owner of forty acres he cannot sell ten acres, he must sell all forty. If you believe it different how is it different?

 

[jamil]

Many of the posts don’t seem to understand the law when they use dictate, take, and forced to characterize the lack of a law restricting sellers maximum freedom to sell as they wish and some here still will not acknowledge that is taking seller rights.

Well, they do understand it. The law as it is creates a situation where developers buy up land to develop, and then impose HOA's on people who buy there. I think someone posted that ~80% of new homes in subdivisions have HOA restrictions. That leaves little choice for people who want to live in a neighborhood, or who can't afford to buy land and build. Our first home was in a neighborhood for that very reason.

The reason your "it's taking seller rights " shtick isn't persuasive, is that we don't see it as something that should be a right.

Since property ownership is legal, requiring a deed that meets legal standards to be recorded with the county they are already involved and that deed would be worthless if one didn’t have the existence of the force of government to even claim ownership rights.

Very interesting that you've figured out now that the force of government is necessary in these sorts of matters. Just a page or two earlier you were insisting that HOA's don't depend on government to enforce their rules. Have you figured out where to file a lien yet?

Your tin foil hat is getting tight. Obviously landowners need lawyers to draw up the legal documents but just what collusion do they have together against a free market? If they are they should be sued for antitrust.

Wait a minute. Kraken pushing Mike is telling me something about tin foil.

I have laid out the three separate markets that exist and all of them have the power to affect the overall market. If you guys cannot at least acknowledge the crazy that people can do that could damage a developer and neighbors is off the chart you can never understand why others want them. And as the crazy gets worse the covenants have had to become more detailed to combat that crazy. Markets work and no one is manipulating them, they are reacting to crazy.

When all the developers put HOA riders on the deeds they sell, it makes it impossible for all those who want to live HOA free to find new homes in neighborhoods. So, they have to decide what they're willing to give up, because they're likely not going to find a newer neighborhood that does not have an HOA.

Here is the actual quote. There is so much ambiguity to it the answer is meaningless.

“Most Americans — 61% — say they would prefer to live in a neighborhood without an HOA; 14% would prefer to live with one, and 24% have no preference or aren't sure.”

I think you're confused on the meaning of ambiguity. Here. Let me help.

It is actually funny that they didn’t get 100% on that question. That is like asking; “would you prefer not to gain weight?“

The exact same people answered several questions that give different insights. The people that live in HOA’s, those that you want to take their right to buy in an HOA have different views than those like you that hate an HOA.

Now let's nip this in the bud right now. You keep saying I want to take away peoples right to buy in an HOA. First, they have no such "right" per se. Second. If a neighborhood wants an HOA, let them vote it in. but you don't want that because you know that no one would vote it in. Because most people don't like HOA's. It has to be forced on people through the Deed.

“More Americans believe HOAs have a very or somewhat negative effect on the communities they govern (45%) than a very or somewhat positive effect (21%); 21% say the effect is neutral. People who live in HOA-governed communities have a more optimistic outlook: 47% say HOAs' effect is positive, 27% say it is negative, and 21% say it is neutral.”

Of those who live in an HOA majorities like or even love an HOA.

LOL. And then they say they don't want to live in one.

While many people living in HOA neighborhoods say they would prefer not to, more strongly or somewhat approve (58%) than disapprove (32%) of how the HOA in their neighborhood is governed. And more say they love or like living in a neighborhood with an HOA (54%) than say they hate or dislike it (34%).

And who keeps bringing up that HOA’s are best suited for homes that are close together?

Well, you said you'd stretch that out to 5 acre lots.

“Americans who live in HOA-governed neighborhoods are more likely than those who don't to say houses in their neighborhood are built close together (74% vs. 54%).”

I have repeatedly said I am glad we all have options but many here, including you, want to take those options away. I’m glad you will never be able to do that as evidenced by the stats in the poll you linked

I want people to be free to exercise all the rights attached to property ownership rather than have their property divested of some rights, given to others in perpetuity. I don't care that you don't like that. Claiming that it's taking away rights to not allow developers to take away future property owner's rights through deed restrictions is not compelling, except to people who might like to live in communes.

Someone suggested that developer's can have property management rights over a neighborhood until some high percentage of lots are conveyed, and then the neighborhood would vote on whether to have an association, and would vote on each of its rules if they voted to have the association. You didn't like that because then the developer couldn't impose an HOA in perpetuity. And probably because you know that most people will say **** the HOA.

 

[jamil]

Just can’t state the truth

I think you just want to hear your opinion coming out of the HOA-critics' mouth. Prolly not gonna happen.

and the hyperbole is over the top. Who is “screaming”.

Yer taking away property owner's rights!!

Pretty obvious who's screaming.

If you don’t like it say you don’t like it.

Dude, we've all said it. You just don't like that people don't agree with you. I think you're just gonna have to find a way to live with that. You asked why the hate for HOA's. People spoke their peace. You couldn't let it just be that.

Stating it in overwrought terms like dictate, take, and forced are just not true and devalue your opinion.

I dunno. I don't think the low-value opinion is phylodog's.

I get what you want and I want that for some property I would buy but not all. Can you not understand that some folks have different values than you and are just as entitled to what they want as you are but what you propose would take that right away from both buyers that want an HOA and sellers that want an HOA…

Can you not understand the same? That other people have different values? This has been a discussion about opinions, which yours is too. But you keep acting like it's not. You like HOA's and communes. I don't. Apparently phylodog doens't. Apparently many people giving their opinions in this thread don't. Even some of the people who don't have a problem with HOA's seem not to care much for the way you conduct yourself in this thread.

What's wrong with letting people decide whether they want their neighborhood to have an HOA.

 

[foszoe]

OK, INGO. I was mowing the lawn (in my bee suit) and came up with this...riddle me this...

The haters got their way - HOAs are gone!

Now these damn RVers have RVs in their driveway, blocking my view of the sunset. Glad I golf with three of the five town council members (none of which own a RV). At the next town council meeting, I'll push to ban parking of RVs on lots under an acre, not only is it an eyesore - it's a danger. A small child could dart out from behind it and get hit by a car as they run into the road (will someone please think of the children)!

At the next town council meeting - it passes! No more eyesores are allowed on any lot less than an acre in the town limits. Hooray!

Now all residents on lots under an acre - even those who previously lived without a HOA, are subject to this new rule. Sure glad HOAs are gone...


Legally, this isn't the case. Not saying it's morally or ethically correct, but currently it is NOT the case in the US of A.

Did Karen sign that she'd abide by the HOA covenants?

I'm sure as hell not, but I understand WHY they exist and what I can do to reduce my tax liability.

Welcome to 2024. We're ruled by politicians and lawyers; it's going to get worse, before it gets better.

But you moved out of an HOA.

I rest my case.

 

[jamil]

Glad you are free to have that opinion.


Why don’t you “otherwise mind your own ****ing business” and allow others the same freedoms you have if they don’t want to see a pickup truck? Why shouldn’t they have that freedom? I don’t personally care if there are pickup trucks, I have had many trucks, but I would never take that freedom from those that do not want to see them to have a neighborhood that does not allow them.

Lol. You have that "right to put restrictions on property forever" so tightly wrapped in the nether places that I don't think it's possible for it ever to be unraveled.

I'll just say it. You don't have a right not to see something that's not on your property. If you didn't want to see the pickup truck in the neighbor's driveway, you should have bought his home so you wouldn't have to see it.

I mean. I kinda think you just hate people. You make it sound like the very act of having to see people do anything on their own property is like anathema.

 

[Ingomike]

Well, they do understand it. The law as it is creates a situation where developers buy up land to develop, and then impose HOA's on people who buy there. I think someone posted that ~80% of new homes in subdivisions have HOA restrictions. That leaves little choice for people who want to live in a neighborhood, or who can't afford to buy land and build. Our first home was in a neighborhood for that very reason.

I want to buy a Silverado with most of the bells and whistles, leather seats, etc. but alas, GM will not build it without it connecting to the internet and telling everything I do to GM who in turn sell that data. I don’t like it, but they cannot force me to buy it. “That leaves little choice for people who” don’t want their truck telling on them but I am not forced to buy, or have my rights taken.

The reason your "it's taking seller rights " shtick isn't persuasive, is that we don't see it as something that should be a right.

Whether you see it or not, it is a sellers right and always has been. You can not like it, but it is.

Very interesting that you've figured out now that the force of government is necessary in these sorts of matters. Just a page or two earlier you were insisting that HOA's don't depend on government to enforce their rules. Have you figured out where to file a lien yet?

More obfuscation. Government is not involved in the creation of HOA’s. They even have laws limiting things about them.

Wait a minute. Kraken pushing Mike is telling me something about tin foil.

You guys are over the top on something not controversial to most folks.

When all the developers put HOA riders on the deeds they sell, it makes it impossible for all those who want to live HOA free to find new homes in neighborhoods. So, they have to decide what they're willing to give up, because they're likely not going to find a newer neighborhood that does not have an HOA.

If there were enough of those that believe like you why wouldn’t someone offer that? Please answer without resorting to conspiracy. What would the business reasons be?

I think you're confused on the meaning of ambiguity. Here. Let me help.

What people “prefer” is a utopia. The question is worded to get the response they received.

Now let's nip this in the bud right now. You keep saying I want to take away peoples right to buy in an HOA. First, they have no such "right" per se.
Second. If a neighborhood wants an HOA, let them vote it in. but you don't want that because you know that no one would vote it in. Because most people don't like HOA's. It has to be forced on people through the Deed.

So you now don’t believe folks have the right to assemble together and agree how they will live and codify that in their deeds. So after folks bought their property you are proposing that they vote and impose that vote on all owners in the neighborhood? Even those that don’t want it. Wow! Just wow!

Folks should know what the covenants, restrictions, and HOA are BEFORE they sign, not after.

LOL. And then they say they don't want to live in one.

It was your poll.

Well, you said you'd stretch that out to 5 acre lots.

Depending on circumstances.

I want people to be free to exercise all the rights attached to property ownership rather than have their property divested of some rights, given to others in perpetuity. I don't care that you don't like that. Claiming that it's taking away rights to not allow developers to take away future property owner's rights through deed restrictions is not compelling, except to people who might like to live in communes.

The only way to achieve this is to take the rights currently held by landowners away. Though you don’t respect those rights the landowners do have them and they are real or there would be no discussion of them.

Someone suggested that developer's can have property management rights over a neighborhood until some high percentage of lots are conveyed, and then the neighborhood would vote on whether to have an association, and would vote on each of its rules if they voted to have the association. You didn't like that because then the developer couldn't impose an HOA in perpetuity. And probably because you know that most people will say **** the HOA.

I do not like that because buyers would have to buy property not knowing what the final covenants, restrictions, and HOA form would be. Are you telling me you would buy a half million dollar home, close on it, and then live with the rules a majority put in place? Talk about Russian roulette! You could get rules that outside you must abide by sharia law…