Why Do So Many On INGO Hate HOA's?

[foszoe]

Obviously there are some rich idiots out there but not many.

Why do you continually assault me.....or is it insult me?

 

[Shadow01]

Is it any wonder why they'd want to live in a HOA??

You're proving my point as that's the demographic wanting the HOA neighborhood, so thank you!

Dumb as many of them may be, they're smart enough to be able to afford a million dollar house...

But need someone to make decisions for them because they are incapable.

 

[indyblue]

View attachment 368303

That’s an imposter, it’s turkey bacon.

 

[jamil]

A landowner SHOULD be able to sell the property rights they want as they want? YES or No?

Much better argumentation other than you didn’t make any logical points as to why that should be the case. But just getting you to argue consistently (is vs ought) is a major win.

So, I’ll say in like kind, I disagree. I don’t think property rights should be thought of as components separable from the current owner. Once the land is sold, the new owner should hold all rights to it.

 

[jamil]

Who's circumstances require a nearly new home? Most neighborhoods with HOAs are surrounded by neighborhoods without them (or cornfields).

If you require a nearly new home, it's bend to the HOA or build on your land (I've discussed life is about choices and compromise).

Except that's not me. I changed my oil, winterized my boat, kept my house maintained, got approval for the fence and flag pole.

Sounds like you just picked a sh%%%= HOA to live in...

The only letters I got were from when the management company had someone drive through (and they obviously weren't a boater)...

When I was on the board, we usually were able to talk the Karen president down from the ledge. Not sure what happened after that. She hated people with fences. I looked at street view of the old neighborhood. It's a ******** now. They still have an HOA though.

 

[jamil]

Is it any wonder why they'd want to live in a HOA??

They're stupid so it's no wonder they want to live in an HOA?

Okay. I'll just give you that point.

 

[jamil]

But need someone to make decisions for them because they are incapable.

Usually long term success correlates well with intelligence. So Elon Musk definitely follows that pattern, for example.

I think as we get to the deeper part of the bell curve, things even out more. You can certainly find plenty of idiots with money. Inheritance. Lottery. Luck. Or just look how many THOT's you hear about making 7 figures on only fans. Dumb as rocks, but foolish simps pay them money to show off their ****ies or whatever.

 

[firecadet613]

But need someone to make decisions for them because they are incapable.

Or they're to busy making the $$$ and want to come home to a nice home / neighborhood...

They're stupid so it's no wonder they want to live in an HOA?

Okay. I'll just give you that point.

Who said they were stupid?

 

[jamil]

Or they're to busy making the $$$ and want to come home to a nice home / neighborhood...

Who said they were stupid?

Well that seemed to be the context of the the post you replied to.

 

[Ingomike]

Much better argumentation other than you didn’t make any logical points as to why that should be the case. But just getting you to argue consistently (is vs ought) is a major win.

So, I’ll say in like kind, I disagree. I don’t think property rights should be thought of as components separable from the current owner. Once the land is sold, the new owner should hold all rights to it.

The logical point is that landowners can and do have legitimate reasons to sell off part of the bundle of rights. A rancher can sell the oil or mineral rights and still own the land and continue his ranching operations. The airport can buy air rights and shut up complaining neighbors without having to buy all the houses and force folks to move.

In the case of a developer/Landowner they initiate the HOA, mostly to protect themselves from the stupid people can do, so for the first buyer in the neighborhood the HOA agreement is with the developer. The second buyer has agreements with the developer and the first buyer because both have an interest. The last buyer has an agreement with all the previous buyers as every owner has an interest.

If this was put up for a 50-50 vote those that want the HOA protection would risk losing the very thing they actually purchased. There are procedures put in place and the maximum percentages are mandated by law so the I believe, at 75% or less, they are fair.

What you propose would take all those rights away, and for what in exchange for them losing their rights?

 

[jamil]

The logical point is that landowners can and do have legitimate reasons to sell off part of the bundle of rights. A rancher can sell the oil or mineral rights and still own the land and continue his ranching operations. The airport can buy air rights and shut up complaining neighbors without having to buy all the houses and force folks to move.

In the case of a developer/Landowner they initiate the HOA, mostly to protect themselves from the stupid people can do, so for the first buyer in the neighborhood the HOA agreement is with the developer. The second buyer has agreements with the developer and the first buyer because both have an interest. The last buyer has an agreement with all the previous buyers as every owner has an interest.

If this was put up for a 50-50 vote those that want the HOA protection would risk losing the very thing they actually purchased. There are procedures put in place and the maximum percentages are mandated by law so the I believe, at 75% or less, they are fair.

What you propose would take all those rights away, and for what in exchange for them losing their rights?

I don’t see it as taking away rights. I see it as removing a legal structure that should never have been there in the first place.

 

[Ingomike]

I don’t see it as taking away rights. I see it as removing a legal structure that should never have been there in the first place.

How can you say this? It is illogical. Not seeing it as taking rights away is not an option in the real world. If land owners can no longer do tomorrow what they can do today something indeed was taken away no matter if you think they should never have had that ability.

 

[jkaetz]

The logical point is that landowners can and do have legitimate reasons to sell off part of the bundle of rights. A rancher can sell the oil or mineral rights and still own the land and continue his ranching operations. The airport can buy air rights and shut up complaining neighbors without having to buy all the houses and force folks to move.

In the case of a developer/Landowner they initiate the HOA, mostly to protect themselves from the stupid people can do, so for the first buyer in the neighborhood the HOA agreement is with the developer. The second buyer has agreements with the developer and the first buyer because both have an interest. The last buyer has an agreement with all the previous buyers as every owner has an interest.

If this was put up for a 50-50 vote those that want the HOA protection would risk losing the very thing they actually purchased. There are procedures put in place and the maximum percentages are mandated by law so the I believe, at 75% or less, they are fair.

What you propose would take all those rights away, and for what in exchange for them losing their rights?

Yes, there are a limited set of potential uses for deed restrictions. Creating an HOA isn't one of them. Homeowners who want to create an association should be free to do so, but they shouldn't get to have the developer put it together for them. An HOA shouldn't be a selling point of a neighborhood. It shouldn't even be called an HOA if the developer created it. It should be called a set of developer rules that must be abided by until the developer's interest is over. Calling it an HOA is a perversion of the term as the homeowners didn't have a hand in creating it, only clicking an "Accept" button but buy the home. Yes, they agreed to it, Yes they could have gone somewhere else but that's not our discussion at the moment.

 

[smokingman]

The entire state of Indiana collected 3.15 billion in residential property taxes.
HOA's that make up less than 18% of all the states residential properties took in 1.8 billion in additional taxes(they call fees) off of those a part of them.
2023 figures.

 

[firecadet613]

Yes, there are a limited set of potential uses for deed restrictions. Creating an HOA isn't one of them. Homeowners who want to create an association should be free to do so, but they shouldn't get to have the developer put it together for them. An HOA shouldn't be a selling point of a neighborhood. It shouldn't even be called an HOA if the developer created it. It should be called a set of developer rules that must be abided by until the developer's interest is over. Calling it an HOA is a perversion of the term as the homeowners didn't have a hand in creating it, only clicking an "Accept" button but buy the home. Yes, they agreed to it, Yes they could have gone somewhere else but that's not our discussion at the moment.

Who would agree to that? No RVs in your driveway that can't fit two full size pickups end to end until the last lot is sold? Then all bets are off? What a selling point!

 

[foszoe]

Who would agree to that? No RVs in your driveway that can't fit two full size pickups end to end until the last lot is sold? Then all bets are off? What a selling point!

I would! Seems fair!

 

[jamil]

How can you say this? It is illogical.

No. It’s ridiculous to say that not seeing it your way is illogical. I know sometimes we can be really wrapped up in our own beliefs that your way feels logical and everyone else's isn't.

Not seeing it as taking rights away is not an option in the real world. If land owners can no longer do tomorrow what they can do today something indeed was taken away no matter if you think they should never have had that ability.

I don't see it as a right to split apart rights that attach to property. It's just a feature of law that this is allowed. I'm not denying that if we do things my way, an ability is taken away from property owners to split rights out separately to remove them from the physical property. I'm saying it's not taking away a right, because I don't think it was ever a right to do that in the first place.

How about I turn it around? If land owners can now do whatever they want with their property as long as they own it; lease air space, lease mineral rights, change their oil in their drive way. Then something was given to them them that they didn't have before. Does that mean no HOA? Well if current owners want one, then why not? When they remove their consent to be governed by an HOA, then no HOA.

 

[firecadet613]

I would! Seems fair!

So.... make it happen! Develop some land and see if it takes off, you could be rich!

 

[Ingomike]

Yes, there are a limited set of potential uses for deed restrictions. Creating an HOA isn't one of them. Homeowners who want to create an association should be free to do so, but they shouldn't get to have the developer put it together for them. An HOA shouldn't be a selling point of a neighborhood. It shouldn't even be called an HOA if the developer created it. It should be called a set of developer rules that must be abided by until the developer's interest is over. Calling it an HOA is a perversion of the term as the homeowners didn't have a hand in creating it, only clicking an "Accept" button but buy the home. Yes, they agreed to it, Yes they could have gone somewhere else but that's not our discussion at the moment.

A neighborhood HOA only works if 100% are in the agreement. When the HOA is put in place everyone has ample notice to decide if the covenants are right for them. After everyone moves in is not the time to make decisions like this. Those covenants need to be fully vetted by all parties before purchasing and everyone understands what is expected of them.

 

[firecadet613]

@DoggyDaddy keep it in this thread. It seems you love HOAs so much you want to spread the love to other threads!

I'm curious, how many in this thread had HOAs get after them for...

• Lawn the wrong height?
• Wrong garage door / door / shutter color?
• Wrong mailbox?
• Too many vehicles?
• Storing a boat or RV?
• Changing their own vehicles oil?
• Parking a pickup truck?
• Had a gun held to their head forcing them to sign the covenants?

When I bought (and sold) the older, existing HOA free neighborhoods cost less, so in essence, I could have saved money not buying in a HOA (not to mention the dues saved).

And lastly, how many still reside in a HOA vs used to vs never did...