Why Do So Many On INGO Hate HOA's?

[Ingomike]

Sounds like an option to me...

More wanting the cake and eating it too.

 

[phylodog]

You are welcome to your opinion of covenants and HOA’s but so am I. We have over 350 posts many making incorrect statements and others just irrational about an HOA and covenants. You can make any choice you want but don’t take my choice either. It is also a freedom to want an agreement on land use when one sells property.

You are correct on all counts except for your use of the word irrational. A strong dislike for what HOAs typically become in reality is 100% rational. Most people don't want or need one, then you have those on the ends of the spectrum. I'm all about those end spectrum types engaging in whatever legal contracts they wish, people sign away their rights all the time. Screaming their praises to most is akin to pissin down our backs and telling us its raining.

 

[Piezak]

Mike, you always gloss over the fact that no one ever voted an HOA into existence. They are established by the developer at the time construction commences on the development, allotment, neighborhood etc and presented as a fait accompli to buyers

What would be the chances of a resolution to dissolve the HOA being accepted? Would it have to be agreed upon by the BoD in order to be even brought to a vote? How likely is it that the HOA would allow a vote that might end its existence? Do HOAs have the equivalent of a voter referendum? If not, why not?

We bought our home about a decade ago. The Covenenants were minimilistic and from a few small infractions which I saw, were not enforced. However, all of the neighbors have maintained their properties in relatively stellar apearance.
There was a concern lately and I texted a person whom I knew had served on the board. Found out that the board had voted the HOA out of commision; dissolved as you put it. I did not know that had even happened.
So, a side question, without an HOA, does that mean that the covenants, however minimilistic, still live on?

 

[KellyinAvon]

We bought our home about a decade ago. The Covenenants were minimilistic and from a few small infractions which I saw, were not enforced. However, all of the neighbors have maintained their properties in relatively stellar apearance.
There was a concern lately and I texted a person whom I knew had served on the board. Found out that the board had voted the HOA out of commision; dissolved as you put it. I did not know that had even happened.
So, a side question, without an HOA, does that mean that the covenants, however minimilistic, still live on?

The board voted it dissolved? Seems strange, a 66-75% vote of the members would be logical.

No HOA = no members = no enforcement of anything.

 

[jkaetz]

No they did not vote it in, they could if they are the property owner. The owner that sold the property to them did choose or vote, as you say, and they did sign an agreement to abide by the covenants when they bought, it was a choice.

I have said many times that there is a procedure for changing or abolishing the covenants and the HOA, it simply requires a number of members of the HOA to agree, and I doubt that enough feel the way many on INGO do to make the change in most neighborhoods. Wouldn’t that imply that majorities are reasonably satisfied with their HOA?

You had a choice that certainly was take it or leave it. The owner, of the property, either of their own volition or at the developers request, chose to put the covenants in place. That is exactly what I said. Is it not the right of the property owner to put covenants in place?

You have just proven my point. The actual homeowners have little say in the covenants, the developer has all the power to "vote" the covenants into place making it a single entity deciding how the future homeowners will be restricted. You would have us believe that the entire process is quite democratic and thus good for and agreed upon by everyone.

Sounds like an option to me...

This isn't a discussion about having options, it's a discussion about why people don't like them with a few who are trying to convince us of how wonderful they are and that everyone loves them.

 

[Ingomike]

You have just proven my point. The actual homeowners have little say in the covenants, the developer has all the power to "vote" the covenants into place making it a single entity deciding how the future homeowners will be restricted. You would have us believe that the entire process is quite democratic and thus good for and agreed upon by everyone.

This isn't a discussion about having options, it's a discussion about why people don't like them with a few who are trying to convince us of how wonderful they are and that everyone loves them.

You are proving my point.

It is not democratic in set up, the property owner has the right to put covenants in place that are binding on future owners, that is their freedom to do so. Should they not have this freedom?

If people didn’t like them as you say it would harm the property owners ability to sell their property and or reduce the price received for their property when it is sold, but alas, that is not true. The people are speaking with their money that they like an HOA.

If people didn’t like them as you say there would be more than just a few sensational news stories, reddit threads b******g, and complaints on INGO, the people would do something about them, like abolish them. The people are speaking by continuing the HOA.

Then the idea that people don’t want them completely ignores the popularity of shared amenities in communities such as pools, tennis courts, and green spaces that the people seek out to buy and live in.

Neighborhoods today are completely sculpted for water runoff control and drainage, this would include retention ponds, they can be maintained or neglected, that is why open space and ponds are generally maintained by the HOA. Neighborhoods found they couldn’t depend on homeowners to maintain the ponds. Some people see the benefits of this while others are pragmatic that this must be maintained.

I have no doubt you are sincere in your disdain for HOA’s but believe you are in a significant minority because there is no evidence that majorities despise the HOA. If people really despised their HOA they would reject buying in neighborhoods that have them or begin movements to abolish them.

What evidence do you have that indicates people hate them and would do away with them? And like a lot of things people love to complain and commiserate but they rarely rise to action on this because they just are not bothered that much and like many of the benefits.

 

[Creedmoor]

Neighborhoods today are completely sculpted for water runoff control and drainage, this would include retention ponds, they can be maintained or neglected, that is why open space and ponds are generally maintained by the HOA. Neighborhoods found they couldn’t depend on homeowners to maintain the ponds. Some people see the benefits of this while others are pragmatic that this must be maintained.

I'm guessing you've never actually driven around this country with your eyes open.

 

[dieselrealtor]

We bought our home about a decade ago. The Covenenants were minimilistic and from a few small infractions which I saw, were not enforced. However, all of the neighbors have maintained their properties in relatively stellar apearance.
There was a concern lately and I texted a person whom I knew had served on the board. Found out that the board had voted the HOA out of commision; dissolved as you put it. I did not know that had even happened.
So, a side question, without an HOA, does that mean that the covenants, however minimilistic, still live on?

IANAL, it is my understanding that if an HOA is dissolved so are the covenants and restrictions.
UNLESS, they are deed restrictions. Then (in most cases) they live on until the end of time or removed in court.

 

[Ingomike]

I'm guessing you've never actually driven around this country with your eyes open.

Have you ever watched a modern neighborhood (since the 90’s) be built? They sure as hell don’t plop houses down on the topography of whatever was there like they used to. The earth moves work for weeks to sculpt the neighborhood to precise plans.

I have seen all the houses that were plopped down in a farm field that flood from a rain…

 

[jkaetz]

You are proving my point.

It is not democratic in set up, the property owner has the right to put covenants in place that are binding on future owners, that is their freedom to do so. Should they not have this freedom?

No, the rules put in place and agreed upon by one land owner as you put it should not be automatically binding on future owners. It should be a negotiation between the new owner and existing members. At that point you can at least make your argument that the new owner is "agreeing" to the terms.

If people didn’t like them as you say it would harm the property owners ability to sell their property and or reduce the price received for their property when it is sold, but alas, that is not true. The people are speaking with their money that they like an HOA.

If people didn’t like them as you say there would be more than just a few sensational news stories, reddit threads b******g, and complaints on INGO, the people would do something about them, like abolish them. The people are speaking by continuing the HOA.

You really must have a skewed vision of HOAs. They are nearly universally disliked. While a majority might tolerate them, they are tolerated like any government entity and I rarely meet people who like or desire government.

Then the idea that people don’t want them completely ignores the popularity of shared amenities in communities such as pools, tennis courts, and green spaces that the people seek out to buy and live in.

Neighborhoods today are completely sculpted for water runoff control and drainage, this would include retention ponds, they can be maintained or neglected, that is why open space and ponds are generally maintained by the HOA. Neighborhoods found they couldn’t depend on homeowners to maintain the ponds. Some people see the benefits of this while others are pragmatic that this must be maintained.

It's one thing to take in funds and oversee the maintenance of common spaces and roads. I don't see anyone arguing about that. It's everything beyond that.

I have no doubt you are sincere in your disdain for HOA’s but believe you are in a significant minority because there is no evidence that majorities despise the HOA. If people really despised their HOA they would reject buying in neighborhoods that have them or begin movements to abolish them.

What evidence do you have that indicates people hate them and would do away with them? And like a lot of things people love to complain and commiserate but they rarely rise to action on this because they just are not bothered that much and like many of the benefits.

You're reading the evidence but you're also dismissing it because it doesn't fit your perspective. No where are there discussions about how great an HOA is.

 

[Johnk]

We live in a neighborhood with an HOA and while I don't care for paying for someone else to monitor me, isn't that what we do every second of every day with Google, Apple, cell phones, computers, the government, etc?
What I do like about an HOA is that all the houses are well maintained, the grass is mowed, the snow gets plowed, bushes trimmed, mulch beds mulched, and mostly the rules are enforced. OK, so there are the odd exceptions like the lady who still thinks she lives in a trailer because her porch and front yard are festooned with so much tacky bric-a-brac and a TV on her front porch where she sits in the evening watching.
Just saying it's a like/dislike relationship. Symbiotic if you will. But the good things are better.

 

[Ingomike]

No, the rules put in place and agreed upon by one land owner as you put it should not be automatically binding on future owners. It should be a negotiation between the new owner and existing members. At that point you can at least make your argument that the new owner is "agreeing" to the terms.


You really must have a skewed vision of HOAs. They are nearly universally disliked. While a majority might tolerate them, they are tolerated like any government entity and I rarely meet people who like or desire government.


It's one thing to take in funds and oversee the maintenance of common spaces and roads. I don't see anyone arguing about that. It's everything beyond that.


You're reading the evidence but you're also dismissing it because it doesn't fit your perspective. No where are there discussions about how great an HOA is.

This is the old lead a horse to water but cannot make them drink. I present facts but you cannot accept them at face value because of the bias bubble you live in. I fully get why you don’t like them, you cannot fathom why some do like them and that if they were gone many would want them put back because at the end of the day the HOA and associated covenants are there for the people that ruin everything.

The sad fact is that as society gets more crowded and lives in dense proximity, the more rules there must be, especially as shared values decline.

 

[Ingomike]

No, the rules put in place and agreed upon by one land owner as you put it should not be automatically binding on future owners. It should be a negotiation between the new owner and existing members. At that point you can at least make your argument that the new owner is "agreeing" to the terms.

So a family selling grandpa’s farm cannot create a covenant attached to the deed that keeps the forest grandpa planted and is buried in a forest?

Every buyer in a subdivision would negotiate their covenants? How would that work? The new owner agrees to the terms of the covenants by accepting the deed to which they are attached and in the case of a mortgage they also sign they will abide by the covenants as a term of the loan. The negotiations are do you want the property as it is with covenants or not, that is the choice…

 

[actaeon277]

and a TV on her front porch where she sits in the evening watching.

What's wrong with that?

 

[jkaetz]

This is the old lead a horse to water but cannot make them drink. I present facts but you cannot accept them at face value because of the bias bubble you live in. I fully get why you don’t like them, you cannot fathom why some do like them and that if they were gone many would want them put back because at the end of the day the HOA and associated covenants are there for the people that ruin everything.

The sad fact is that as society gets more crowded and lives in dense proximity, the more rules there must be, especially as shared values decline.

I've never said I don't understand why some would like them nor am I disputing your facts, I'm disputing your theory.

Fact: There are a lot of HOAs
Your Theory: The majority like them. They make property values higher/keep neighbors happy are easy to change.
My Counter: The majority don't like them, but tolerate them. They are restrictive, difficult to alter/dissolve, intrusive.

The reality is probably somewhere in-between. Further and more to your thread starting question, most of us on INGO value freedom and actually talking to your neighbor about annoyances rather than phoning a 3rd party authority to force them into something.


For giggles I tried to get an unbiased answer from Gemini on what people think of HOAs :

what do people think of homeowner's associations.​

Opinions about homeowner's associations (HOAs) are quite diverse, ranging from enthusiastic support to strong disapproval.
Positive Perspectives:

• Maintaining Property Values: Many people appreciate how HOAs enforce rules regarding property upkeep, which can help preserve the neighborhood's aesthetic appeal and potentially increase property values.
• Amenities: HOAs often provide amenities like pools, fitness centers, playgrounds, and clubhouses, which can be a significant attraction for residents.
• Maintenance: Many residents value the convenience of having the HOA handle maintenance of shared spaces, such as landscaping, snow removal, and exterior repairs.
• Community Rules: Some people appreciate the sense of order and predictability that HOA rules can provide, ensuring a certain level of consistency within the community.

Negative Perspectives:

• High Fees: HOA fees can be substantial, adding to the overall cost of homeownership and potentially straining budgets.
• Restrictions: HOA rules can be perceived as overly restrictive, limiting homeowners' ability to personalize their properties or make desired modifications.
• Enforcement: Some HOAs are known for being strict in enforcing rules, which can lead to conflicts and resentment among residents.
• Governance: Issues related to transparency, communication, and decision-making within the HOA board can also lead to dissatisfaction among homeowners.

Additional Considerations:

• Research is Key: If you're considering buying a home within an HOA, it's crucial to thoroughly research the specific HOA's rules, fees, and reputation to ensure it aligns with your preferences and lifestyle.
• Individual Experiences Vary: Whether someone has a positive or negative view of HOAs often depends on their individual experiences, priorities, and the specific HOA they're dealing with.

Overall, opinions on HOAs are subjective and multifaceted. Some people find them to be a valuable asset, while others consider them a burden.
Do you have any specific questions about HOAs or want me to explore any of these aspects in more detail?

 

[firecadet613]

I've never said I don't understand why some would like them nor am I disputing your facts, I'm disputing your theory.

Fact: There are a lot of HOAs
Your Theory: The majority like them. They make property values higher/keep neighbors happy are easy to change.
My Counter: The majority don't like them, but tolerate them. They are restrictive, difficult to alter/dissolve, intrusive.

The reality is probably somewhere in-between. Further and more to your thread starting question, most of us on INGO value freedom and actually talking to your neighbor about annoyances rather than phoning a 3rd party authority to force them into something.


For giggles I tried to get an unbiased answer from Gemini on what people think of HOAs :

Leave it to AI to wrap it up on a nice, little package...

 

[Ingomike]

I've never said I don't understand why some would like them nor am I disputing your facts, I'm disputing your theory.

Fact: There are a lot of HOAs
Your Theory: The majority like them. They make property values higher/keep neighbors happy are easy to change.

I have never known of any serious effort to abolish an HOA that to me would be an indication that lack of effort is not indicative the people don’t like them.

“Even Science Says So If you are still on the fence about buying a home within an HOA, let science make your decision for you. According to a study conducted at George Mason University, an HOA can increase property values. In fact, the study found that, on average, a house within an HOA community sells for about 5% to 6% higher than a house that does not belong to one.”​

“Homes in communities with HOAs tend to be worth 5% to 6% more than similar homes without an HOA, according to data from the Cato Institute, a public policy research think tank.”

Study: Homeowners Associations Are Booming

The number of HOAs is expected to grow by 3,000 in 2024 alone, according to new data, which will add to homeownership costs for residents.

www.nar.realtor

How Does An HOA Increase Property Values? | Cedar Management

Buying a home is one of the biggest decisions in your life, so choose one situated in an HOA. But, how does an HOA increase property values? Find out here!

www.cedarmanagementgroup.com

My Counter: The majority don't like them, but tolerate them. They are restrictive, difficult to alter/dissolve, intrusive.

Why do you believe they are so difficult to alter/dissolve? The only difficulty is getting the required number of members to agree to alter/dissolve them that I see. Last time I was involved in that process we had our attorney write up what we wanted, presented it to the members, they all signed off on it and it was amended and recorded. The entire process was a couple of months. BTW, it was making rental properties not allowed, with a hardship provision that could be applied for by longer term owners.

If the majority don’t like them, why do those neighborhoods sell for higher prices for similar homes?

The reality is probably somewhere in-between. Further and more to your thread starting question, most of us on INGO value freedom and actually talking to your neighbor about annoyances rather than phoning a 3rd party authority to force them into something.

Most people today want intermediaries. I value the protection of the covenants more than the limitations they put on me in typical suburban neighborhoods because I have seen what people will do without covenants. With home prices averaging $400,000 the risk of them hurting my value is greater than the limitations.

For giggles I tried to get an unbiased answer from Gemini on what people think of HOAs :

Seems a fair assessment of the situation. It is a trade off between knowing the limitations placed on all members and living with those limitations yourself.

 

[Shadow01]

And there is the crux of the matter at hand. People here seem to have a fear of HOA’s because they want their own freedom, even if there is risk, while wanting to deny others the freedom to have the protection of covenants against unruly neighbors. Both exist, choosing one or the other will always limit choices. It is irrational to hate one or the other, they are choices…

Why should you be allowed to deny your neighbor’s freedom?

 

[Ingomike]

Why should you be allowed to deny your neighbor’s freedom?

This is worded wrong, no one is denying anyone anything. I do not feel anyone is denying me anything in my neighborhood. I traded my right to have an RV in the drive so my street has a clean open feel to it instead of a big box of RV on most drives.

It is an agreement between neighbors. That agreement is in place in most modern subdivisions by the owner’s previous agreement. If you buy that property you are also agreeing to that agreement as it is attached to the property deed.

It is all voluntary and if one doesn’t want that restriction of freedom they have the freedom to buy a home that does not have covenants.

 

[Shadow01]

This is worded wrong, no one is denying anyone anything.

It is an agreement between neighbors. That agreement is in place in most modern subdivisions by the owner’s previous agreement. If you buy that property you are also agreeing to that agreement as it is attached to the property deed.

It is all voluntary and if one doesn’t want that restriction of freedom they have the freedom to buy a home that does not have covenants.

So when covenants are added or changed by less than a 100% agreement of homeowners, those that voted no do not have the new covenants enforced upon them? Changes made after I buy and do not agree with, when enforced infringe on my freedom.