Why Do So Many On INGO Hate HOA's?

[jamil]

OK, I'll correct my statement. Prior to 2015 - have we ever seen a market this hot?

What does that have to do with a discussion about HOA's?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

What? You smokin' something?

 

[Ingomike]

Because it doesn't make sense Mike. When you sell something, you no longer have authority over it, that's part of selling it. If I sell a vehicle I don't control what the next owner does with it, nobody would do that because it doesn't make sense (I'm not talking about collector cars).

There are literally hundreds of ways it makes sense. I have given several hypothetical stories that make sense.

Can there be instances where there is something about a piece of property which needs to be protected? Absolutely, I have zero problems with putting land in to protection against development. There is nothing that greed won't eagerly destroy and there are situations where the law should step in where needed and provide that protection (parks/wilderness areas as an example).

So why can’t the family sell grandpa’s woods to a neighbor with the covenant/deed restriction that it must be kept a woods with no homes on it? If the neighbor agrees who is harmed? There likely were builders that would have paid more so they could build a big home on it after cutting down a bunch of trees so the family took less to sell it to a neighbor who agreed to preserve it. Who was harmed in this? Why should this be illegal?

 

[firecadet613]

What does that have to do with a discussion about HOA's?

See below.

What if 20 acre lots were the smallest available and the only thing within your budget other than pissing your money away on rent for the next two decades? Still just a choice not to buy, right? No harm in 90% of the 20 acre lots being locked down with HOAs in that situation, there's still a ton of choice left in that 10%. Throw in a hot seller's market, stupid low interest rates and 20 acre lots selling for 20% over asking sight unseen within hours of listing and the "choice" stops feeling quite so much like a choice.

 

[Fletch]

There are literally hundreds of ways it makes sense. I have given several hypothetical stories that make sense.


So why can’t the family sell grandpa’s woods to a neighbor with the covenant/deed restriction that it must be kept a woods with no homes on it? If the neighbor agrees who is harmed? There likely were builders that would have paid more so they could build a big home on it after cutting down a bunch of trees so the family took less to sell it to a neighbor who agreed to preserve it. Who was harmed in this? Why should this be illegal?

I'm not here to argue, really. I'd just say that the people who could be harmed are future generations, many transactions removed from this, who may have legitimate reasons to desire another use of the land. To lock it down in perpetuity seems wrong. I may want to preserve things for my family when I die, but if my family doesn't want them, not sure what say I should have in it.

 

[phylodog]

There are literally hundreds of ways it makes sense. I have given several hypothetical stories that make sense.


So why can’t the family sell grandpa’s woods to a neighbor with the covenant/deed restriction that it must be kept a woods with no homes on it? If the neighbor agrees who is harmed? There likely were builders that would have paid more so they could build a big home on it after cutting down a bunch of trees so the family took less to sell it to a neighbor who agreed to preserve it. Who was harmed in this? Why should this be illegal?

Because I don't believe anyone has a right to lock down property after they no longer own it and especially after they're dead. Not for things like HOAs covenants. If a family doesn't want homes built on land I believe there are legal means of protecting it via nature preserve or certified forrest programs, etc..

 

[jkaetz]

I don’t like it but I can choose not to buy it. Same with land, l doubt I would buy 20 acres without the complete bundle of rights, but it still is the landowners right to sell it that way.

This is shortsighted. Sticking with, "I'll just buy something else" is to watch as the "You will own nothing and like it" crowd slowly cuts off all your alternatives.

 

[jamil]

Because I don't believe anyone has a right to lock down property after they no longer own it and especially after they're dead. Not for things like HOAs covenants. If a family doesn't want homes built on land I believe there are legal means of protecting it via nature preserve or certified forrest programs, etc..

You'll need to specify whether you're saying that it's not legal today, or that you're saying in principle, no one has the right. Or Mike will freak out again. He keeps claiming people don't know what the law is today.

 

[Ingomike]

What if 20 acre lots were the smallest available and the only thing within your budget other than pissing your money away on rent for the next two decades? Still just a choice not to buy, right? No harm in 90% of the 20 acre lots being locked down with HOAs in that situation, there's still a ton of choice left in that 10%. Throw in a hot seller's market, stupid low interest rates and 20 acre lots selling for 20% over asking sight unseen within hours of listing and the "choice" stops feeling quite so much like a choice.

The operative word is “feeling”. That seems to be a big driver on this topic. Maybe the reason the farmer is selling the 20 acres at the lowest price is because he put restrictions on it…

 

[firecadet613]

The operative word is “feeling”. That seems to be a big driver on this topic. Maybe the reason the farmer is selling the 20 acres at the lowest price is because he put restrictions on it…

And why this thread is still ongoing.

We have current law and then

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Thread title: "Why Do So Many On INGO Hate HOA's?"
Asked and answered. /THREAD

This reminds me of the newbie INGO member that comes in asking for opinions about the new gun he just bought, and when he doesn't like the opinions, he gets belligerent about defending it.

 

[foszoe]

I can't believe Mike and FC are of the opinion that if it's the law, its the way it should be.

 

[Ingomike]

I'm not here to argue, really. I'd just say that the people who could be harmed are future generations, many transactions removed from this, who may have legitimate reasons to desire another use of the land. To lock it down in perpetuity seems wrong. I may want to preserve things for my family when I die, but if my family doesn't want them, not sure what say I should have in it.

From what I understand from RE attorneys it would come down to who has standing in court to sue to enforce the covenant or object to its removal. As long as the original declarant is around they could and possibly other adjoining properties. After that it gets harder for anyone, like heirs, to enforce. So there are ways out over time.

I belIeve that a landowner can and should be able to sell their land rights as they see fit. Air rights, mineral rights, timber rights, etc. I believe the landowner has the right to create covenants, restrictions, and HOA’s that run with the land. If an owner is not allowed to do any one of these things their landowner rights have been taken that they legally do currently.

The disagreement is that creating covenants, restrictions, and HOA’s “takes” rights from future owners. I submit that future owners have no rights currently and only ever possess the rights they got when they purchased so nothing is taken that subsequent owners ever had to begin with.

If you think we are arguing I suppose kind of, but both sides believe they are defending freedom which is a big deal with most INGO members. @phylodog has liked literally hundreds of my posts in the political section as I have his, he is a good man, wish I could say that about @jamil , just kidding. Lot of good folks here just sparing for fun.

 

[phylodog]

And why this thread is still ongoing.

We have current law and then

Often times, when attempting to explain something that someone may be having a difficulty understanding, it can be beneficial to utilize a scenario in an attempt to allow someone to see something from a different perspective.

My scenario was using the 20 acre example provided and applying similar variables to the typical suburban housing market to demonstrate that the "choice" being so often touted really isn't so much of one. My apologies you weren't able to put that together without further explanation but kudos on your attempt at invalidating my point. (you can't see but I'm golf clapping)

 

[Ingomike]

This is shortsighted. Sticking with, "I'll just buy something else" is to watch as the "You will own nothing and like it" crowd slowly cuts off all your alternatives.

What can I do but not buy one that will change anything?

 

[jamil]

I can't believe Mike and FC are of the opinion that if it's the law, its the way it should be.

Because if it’s the way they want it, the law is great. If not, they would complain.

 

[firecadet613]

I can't believe Mike and FC are of the opinion that if it's the law, its the way it should be.

When did I say that? I just said that it's the current law. Like it or hate it, that's the current law. Don't like it, petition your rep and testify at the statehouse in support of the bill when it comes up for committee. I have...pretty easy to do.

So...if you hate HOAs...don't buy in a neighborhood with an HOA.

There that was easy...

Often times, when attempting to explain something that someone may be having a difficulty understanding, it can be beneficial to utilize a scenario in an attempt to allow someone to see something from a different perspective.

My scenario was using the 20 acre example provided and applying similar variables to the typical suburban housing market to demonstrate that the "choice" being so often touted really isn't so much of one. My apologies you weren't able to put that together without further explanation but kudos on your attempt at invalidating my point. (you can't see but I'm golf clapping)

Oh no, I get it. And you don't seem to get that there are still options for homes without an HOA. Maybe not as many as most are being built within HOAs, but we've hashed that out.

The younger generation WANTS a HOA, like Mike pointed out previously, INGO isn't a great cross sample of the general population...INGO tends to skew much older from my experience. I'd place a good bet many INGO members have kids who live in suburbia and are just fine living in a HOA...

Because if it’s the way they want it, the law is great. If not, they would complain.

Or you find out how to thrive in the current environment.

In my humble estimation, homes in nice HOA neighborhoods will continue to be desirable to the younger generation.

 

[firecadet613]

The disagreement is that creating covenants, restrictions, and HOA’s “takes” rights from future owners. I submit that future owners have no rights currently and only ever possess the rights they got when they purchased so nothing is taken that subsequent owners ever had to begin with.

Bingo. How do people have a right to complain about something they didn't have in the first place?

 

[foszoe]

Bingo. How do people have a right to complain about something they didn't have in the first place?

OMG! Now it's about standing!

 

[firecadet613]

OMG! Now it's about standing!

It's not standing. If someone doesn't own something or purchase something how are they missing out???

Don't like it, don't buy it. Don't like it, renegotiate, get it how you want it and buy it...