Why Do So Many On INGO Hate HOA's?

[foszoe]

I guess we are going for 102?

 

[repeter1977]

I guess we are going for 102?

Just made it. Congratulations

 

[foszoe]

Woohoo!!!!

I put these accomplishments on my resume, y'know

 

[repeter1977]

Woohoo!!!!

I put these accomplishments on my resume, y'know

As you should.

 

[phylodog]

I do not like that because buyers would have to buy property not knowing what the final covenants, restrictions, and HOA form would be.

Like the people who bought properties in your neighborhood to rent as a source of income? Oh no, that's different. They bought a house in a neighborhood with an HOA that didn't prohibit that, then some people came along and changed that stealing their right to use their lawfully purchased property in a lawful manner as intended. Much better system for sure.

Lemme guess

 

[Ingomike]

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

There is no law that creates the bundle of rights a property owner has, it is a natural right to be able to sell the property rights an owner wishes to sell. Any changes take rights from the owner.

Yer taking away property owner's rights!!

And we get to the crux, a landowner exercising their rights is defined as “taking“. LOL

Pretty obvious who's screaming.

Be specific on exactly what is screaming.

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.

I can live with it because I am for complete freedom, not some created definition of freedom.

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.

I fully appreciate that others have different values. But the taking of landowners freedom is not an opinion it is fact. You have acknowledged that. What people don’t like is having facts that upset their personal biases.

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

Absolutely nothing, they have that decision before they buy and agree to be a part of an HOA.

 

[Ingomike]

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.

I believe they have the right to live as they agreed to live when they signed on the line. I live by the word I give and my personal opinions do not override my agreements.

 

[firecadet613]

But you moved out of an HOA.

I rest my case.

So have most in this thread - or they've never even lived in one. @repeter1977 I think that's you? You've just heard bad stories but never lived in one?

Anyways @foszoe it's a hypothetical. And I'll laugh my butt off if it happens!

 

[firecadet613]

I guess we are going for 102?

At this rate, 110 by Friday.

 

[Ingomike]

Like the people who bought properties in your neighborhood to rent as a source of income? Oh no, that's different. They bought a house in a neighborhood with an HOA that didn't prohibit that, then some people came along and changed that stealing their right to use their lawfully purchased property in a lawful manner as intended. Much better system for sure.

Lemme guess

Well there were no owners that were doing that or it may not have passed, we had 100% agreement. We also put in a hardship clause that owners could petition for an exemption if they had a genuine hardship that they needed to rent long term for a period. Should that not be allowed?

 

[jamil]

Joe owns land has unbridled freedom.

Oh. So he doesn't have to pay property tax? Cool. I'm listening.

Joe uses his freedom to put covenants/restrictions and HOA on the land he owns and has unbridled freedom over.

Oh, now hold on there Hoss. There you go again using freedom to describe imposing restrictions on a piece of land in perpetuity. I suspect you don't know what "freedom" means.

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.

Well, now see that's where your train runs off the rails.

Let me tell you a story.

Lamont, a developer, bought a large tract of land that had belonged to a farmer who left the land to his grown spoiled rotton, narcisistic grandkids. Lamont offered them millions of dollars for the land. They didn't give a flying **** what Lamont wanted to do with the land. He could build a pig farm on it for all they cared. They just wanted to live large.

Lamont was planning to develop the land as a new subdivision. It was his first. He believed that he needed to require an HOA in his new neighborhood because that's what all the cool kids do. So he went to a high priced law firm, which told him, oh yes. You really need to require an HOA because we make a **** ton of money off that ****--I mean, because it protects your investment.

So Lamont payed the law firm a **** ton of money to draw up all the necessary legal bull **** and file it. After most of the development finished, people started buying lots and building homes. Most of them were too young and stupid to know HOA's suck. They'll grow up and learn though. But not before some pollsters asked 14% of them if they like HOA's. They said, I guess?

So now along comes Bill, a trans male. "He" and "his" husband Biff, are looking for a home in a new neighborhood. Bill is pregnant, and they want to buy a home in a neighborhood in this school district, because this school grooms kids and teaches them to be trans. But Bill and Biff have had an awful time finding a place without an HOA. Biff has a big ass Ford Truck that won't fit in a standard garage. Lamont's neighborhood was the last neighborhood. All the rest requires HOA's. Because they're ghey. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Biff was angry. How will we find a home in this rainbow school district, when all the neighborhoods won't let me park my truck? HOA's are ghey for **** sake! Why won't they let me park my ghey truck in my driveway? I mean it's the gheyest truck on the market! WTF is wrong with them? It's like they're trying to restrict muh freedom. We're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't. Bill replied, you'll just have to sell your ghey Ford truck. We have to have this neighborhood for our ungendered spirit child.

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

You guys are Bill…

Rainbow Joe, also known as Lamont they ghey developer, has no freedom to tell Biff that he can't park his ghey Ford truck in his own driveway! If you don't want a ghey truck parked in that driveway, don't sell the rainbow land.

 

[jamil]

Joe wants government to infringe further Bill's rights by restricting who he can sell his land to.

You are Joe.

I mean. I don't think he's actually Joe (AKA Lamont) .

 

[phylodog]

Well there were no owners that were doing that or it may not have passed, we had 100% agreement. We also put in a hardship clause that owners could petition for an exemption if they had a genuine hardship that they needed to rent long term for a period. Should that not be allowed?

Still taking rights away which were sold with the property initially, no?

 

[Ingomike]

Oh. So he doesn't have to pay property tax? Cool. I'm listening.

Oh, now hold on there Hoss. There you go again using freedom to describe imposing restrictions on a piece of land in perpetuity. I suspect you don't know what "freedom" means.


Well, now see that's where your train runs off the rails.

Let me tell you a story.

Lamont, a developer, bought a large tract of land that had belonged to a farmer who left the land to his grown spoiled rotton, narcisistic grandkids. Lamont offered them millions of dollars for the land. They didn't give a flying **** what Lamont wanted to do with the land. He could build a pig farm on it for all they cared. They just wanted to live large.

Lamont was planning to develop the land as a new subdivision. It was his first. He believed that he needed to require an HOA in his new neighborhood because that's what all the cool kids do. So he went to a high priced law firm, which told him, oh yes. You really need to require an HOA because we make a **** ton of money off that ****--I mean, because it protects your investment.

So Lamont payed the law firm a **** ton of money to draw up all the necessary legal bull **** and file it. After most of the development finished, people started buying lots and building homes. Most of them were too young and stupid to know HOA's suck. They'll grow up and learn though. But not before some pollsters asked 14% of them if they like HOA's. They said, I guess?

So now along comes Bill, a trans male. "He" and "his" husband Biff, are looking for a home in a new neighborhood. Bill is pregnant, and they want to buy a home in a neighborhood in this school district, because this school grooms kids and teaches them to be trans. But Bill and Biff have had an awful time finding a place without an HOA. Biff has a big ass Ford Truck that won't fit in a standard garage. Lamont's neighborhood was the last neighborhood. All the rest requires HOA's. Because they're ghey. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Biff was angry. How will we find a home in this rainbow school district, when all the neighborhoods won't let me park my truck? HOA's are ghey for **** sake! Why won't they let me park my ghey truck in my driveway? I mean it's the gheyest truck on the market! WTF is wrong with them? It's like they're trying to restrict muh freedom. We're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't. Bill replied, you'll just have to sell your ghey Ford truck. We have to have this neighborhood for our ungendered spirit child.


Rainbow Joe, also known as Lamont they ghey developer, has no freedom to tell Biff that he can't park his ghey Ford truck in his own driveway! If you don't want a ghey truck parked in that driveway, don't sell the rainbow land.

Keep dreaming your pipe dream.

 

[jamil]

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...

I mean, Lamont has his rainbow neighborhood. Why did he refuse to allow ghey trucks (also known as Ford) to be parked in their own driveyways? Does the homeowner own the driveway or does the HOA?

 

[jamil]

Keep dreaming your pipe dream.

It's your dream Joe.

 

[Ingomike]

Still taking rights away which were sold with the property initially, no?

No. Because the buyer agreed to the supermajority of the members changing those rights. Do not agree to that which you cannot abide by is the lesson here.

 

[Ingomike]

I mean, Lamont has his rainbow neighborhood. Why did he refuse to allow ghey trucks (also known as Ford) to be parked in their own driveyways? Does the homeowner own the driveway or does the HOA?

It was done because it was the landowners right to do so, again, do not agree to that which you cannot abide by is the lesson here.

 

[jamil]

There is no law that creates the bundle of rights a property owner has, it is a natural right to be able to sell the property rights an owner wishes to sell. Any changes take rights from the owner.

Ought / Is. Learn the difference and perhaps fewer conversations will go so contentiously.

And we get to the crux, a landowner exercising their rights is defined as “taking“. LOL

Be specific on exactly what is screaming.

I mean, it's an internet forum. So it would be metaphorically "screaming". It's more like screeching tho.

I can live with it because I am for complete freedom, not some created definition of freedom.

No. You're for partial freedom. You like a piece of land to have restrictions on it forever just because one owner in a long line of owners decided to have them. Which is retarded.

I fully appreciate that others have different values. But the taking of landowners freedom is not an opinion it is fact. You have acknowledged that. What people don’t like is having facts that upset their personal biases.

It's your opinion that it should be this way. It is my opinion that it should not. Again, please learn the difference between ought and is. It could save you from a hernia some day.

Absolutely nothing, they have that decision before they buy and agree to be a part of an HOA.

That's exactly what Lamont said.

 

[Ingomike]

Ought / Is. Learn the difference and perhaps fewer conversations will go so contentiously.

Yep, it currently the right of the landowner. If it was not the courts would rule it is not.

I mean, it's an internet forum. So it would be metaphorically "screaming". It's more like screeching tho.

It is probably grating to hear the truth from someone who thinks this is fun.

No. You're for partial freedom. You like a piece of land to have restrictions on it forever just because one owner in a long line of owners decided to have them. Which is retarded.

I am for complete freedom. I am not the one proposing to make something currently common illegal for landowners.

It's your opinion that it should be this way. It is my opinion that it should not. Again, please learn the difference between ought and is. It could save you from a hernia some day.

You are free to have any opinion you wish. But it is not opinion that what you want takes rights away from landowners.