Why Do So Many On INGO Hate HOA's?

[Ingomike]

The reason there is hate for HOA's is because so many people have bad experiences with them. If they didn't, HOA's wouldn't have earned so much hate. Of course Mike and others seem to think the hate isn't earned. And that HOA's should be able to do anything as long as it's in a contract. If the results are that the HOA goes way beyond the reasonable, it's a nuisance.

A few, typically the INGO type, seem to have problems beyond the masses…

 

[Ingomike]

While multi billion dollar companies and others are trying to make this the norm, that doesn't make it right. You don't get to sell a thing (car, phone, land, home, appliance) and then tell someone what they can do with it.

Can you show me where this would be illegal? John Deere sells a tractor and now tells farmers how they can service it. If you and I as consenting adults agree in a contract that you will only fire certain ammo in a gun I sell you how is that illegal?

 

[Ingomike]

Being legal doesn't make something right. No one has argued that an HOA or its covenants are illegal. Also adds to the disdain when someone can see through the BS and gets responses like this.

I believe that eventually all new remotely urban homes will be in an HOA. Why do I say this? Because the individual home buyer can't compete with multi million dollar corporations purchasing 100's of acres of farm land, subdividing it, creating an HOA that benefits them, building homes on it, and saddling the homeowners with the covenants. The only way to build new outside an HOA will be to live in "the middle of nowhere". This also poses a problem though as "the middle of nowhere" is going to shrink as well due to the forementioned corporations purchasing the farm land. Those who currently live in the middle of no where may find themselves surrounded.

Most of the open land around Indy already has an options contract on it by a major developer. I suppose INGO thinks the owner should not be allowed to do that either…

 

[Ingomike]

Again, plenty of new neighborhoods being built without any HOA and still getting that taken care of. So, I'd go with that.

Where? Not in the suburbs of Indy that I know of…

 

[Ingomike]

What else can I control in perpetuity after I have sold it?

Anything that is not illegal. Can you show me a law that says it is not legal? I doubt it. To answer your question directory, anything software ran, including cars, trucks, Heaney equipment, and farm equipment. This is the subject of many lawsuits right now.

 

[Ingomike]

Imagine thinking that only certain people should have access to public property.
Checking access cards, I remember all the racism in the news when HOAs were caught doing that to only certain people. Was way more than one caught too. It's where Karen came from lol.

You think your neighborhood pool is public? A pool owned by the owners of a neighborhood?

 

[Ingomike]

Yes we are. You want the neighborhood to be HOA and I pointed out new neighborhoods have the same things and aren't HOA. You asked how and I pointed out all the new neighborhoods doing maintenance without HOAs just fine. Now you are saying about HOAs being able to to which I'm going to point out again, maintenance is still done just fine outside of HOAs and has been before they existed and still continues to this day. So, HOAs aren't apparently as necessary as you pretend.
Are you really taking the side of the racist HOAs from a few years ago? Because that's literally what happened and you are trying to defend them? Wow. That's seriously bold, I'll give you that.

BS! Where?

 

[Ingomike]

So do HOAs. Their existence does not justify their existence. Bad law is bad law, bad policy is bad policy and bad people are bad people.

Why do you want to restrict the rights of property owners?

 

[Ingomike]

See, not only not reading articles posted but now not even reading the comment you are replying to.
Already answered, taxpayers. Yes it's public property. Yes maintenance gets done like before HOAs even existed. Almost as if HOA making their own is completely silly, although a great way to keep certain people out.

Family can pursue discrimination lawsuit against HOA - The Indiana Lawyer

An African American family who claims to have been subjected to race-based harassment, taunts and threats from a neighbor in their Indianapolis subdivision can move forward with their lawsuit after a federal judge denied the homeowners association’s request to toss the case.

www.theindianalawyer.com

Posting another article about a racist Indiana HOA, let's see if this one gets read.

Not seeing where the HOA was at fault for the actions of individual members acting on their own. The individuals are at fault.

You sure are spending a lot of time to rail against HOA’s. Must be be really butthurt…

 

[jamil]

You're discussing city parks, which are far from what I've been discussing... not hard to understand a planned subdivision with amenities, etc, yet here we are... I guess you've never lived in a nice new subdivision with basketball courts, tennis courts, a pool, etc, for residents only?

Who said I sided with racists? Why are you against private property owners having rights?

Speaking of ducking and weaving...

You either understand what a deed restriction is or you don't, didn't say you had to agree with it...

I mean, c'mon. He has a point. The title of the thread is literally asking the question, why do people hate HOA's. But instead of that, you and Mike seem to be putting yourselves in position of arbiters of invalidation of people's gripes. You guys did the same **** in the property tax thread.

Why not just admit the ****** parts of HOA's? It's not like HOA's are all peaches and cream. HOA's are hated more than they're loved. They got that way somehow. It's not all that the haters are just stupid. There's good and bad to everything. HOA's earned the hate they get, at least a little.

There are some aspects of HOA's that serve a purpose. I'm not denying that. My main beef with them is that it is essentially setting up a private government, which I think is a bad idea. I think there is a lot more abuse of power on HOA boards than you guys care to admit.

 

[Ingomike]

You clearly didn't read, go back and read. I asked and clarified several times, but YOU sided with racists.

Family can pursue discrimination lawsuit against HOA - The Indiana Lawyer

An African American family who claims to have been subjected to race-based harassment, taunts and threats from a neighbor in their Indianapolis subdivision can move forward with their lawsuit after a federal judge denied the homeowners association’s request to toss the case.

www.theindianalawyer.com

Posted again so you can find it but know you won't read it while siding with racists again.

I'm not losing, you are the one not reading actual posts let alone the links that would help you understand points people are making. If YOU can't figure that out, it's a YOU problem.

This isn't a Republican vs Democrat issue, this is HOA vs freedom and sorry you can't understand that either.
I'm done with this "discussion" because it's not a discussion, it's you not listening then getting mad for getting called out on it.
I hope you have a wonderful life and change your ways.

So why do you want to take freedom away from property owners that want to sell with restrictions they desire?

 

[Ingomike]

I mean, c'mon. He has a point. The title of the thread is literally asking the question, why do people hate HOA's. But instead of that, you and Mike seem to be putting yourselves in position of arbiters of invalidation of people's gripes. You guys did the same **** in the property tax thread.

Why not just admit the ****** parts of HOA's? It's not like HOA's are all peaches and cream. HOA's are hated more than they're loved. They got that way somehow. It's not all that the haters are just stupid. There's good and bad to everything. HOA's earned the hate they get, at least a little.

There are some aspects of HOA's that serve a purpose. I'm not denying that. My main beef with them is that it is essentially setting up a private government, which I think is a bad idea. I think there is a lot more abuse of power on HOA boards than you guys care to admit.

I can see the “private government” part, BUT, they are agreed upon by all parties so thus contractual. And I dispute the point they are more hated than loved because there just is no evidence to back that up other than those on INGO do not seem to have the temperament to participate in them…

 

[jamil]

A few, typically the INGO type, seem to have problems beyond the masses…

I don't think that's all that true. Of course you'll hear it a lot on INGO, because INGO is probably more individualist-minded than collectivist-minded.

If you hear the term, "we are all in this together" and you generally agree with it. You'll probably be less likely to acknowledge overreaches of HOA's.

You started this thread and asked the question, and then you don't like the answers. Don't be surprised that people push back.

 

[jamil]

So why do you want to take freedom away from property owners that want to sell with restrictions they desire?

Get off of that nonsense. Usually the way it works, people sell some land. Maybe they give a **** about it. Maybe they're still going to live on a part they don't sell. Or maybe they died and their kids are selling it of, so they don't give a flying **** what happens to it.

It's the developers who buy it that typically impose the HOA. Because they think it protects their investment. It does to an extent. Not not all roses for homeowners. Again, I don't think establishing a private government is the best solution. There's less accountability.

 

[jamil]

I can see the “private government” part, BUT, they are agreed upon by all parties so thus contractual.

I don't give a **** if it's contractual. You sound like you're proposing that a hobson's choice is any choice at all. I'm making a ought argument, not an is argument. I'm saying HOA's shouldn't be a thing.

And I dispute the point they are more hated than loved because there just is no evidence to back that up other than those on INGO do not seem to have the temperament to participate in them…

Fine.
61% say **** HOA's. Happy?

Oh. And you're not in large company. Only 14% are HOA orgasmic.

Residential rules: How Americans view HOAs and their influence | YouGov

Despite the public's qualms regarding HOAs, one in five Americans currently live in an HOA-governed community, and one in three have lived in one at some point.

today.yougov.com

 

[Ingomike]

I don't think that's all that true. Of course you'll hear it a lot on INGO, because INGO is probably more individualist-minded than collectivist-minded.

If you hear the term, "we are all in this together" and you generally agree with it. You'll probably be less likely to acknowledge overreaches of HOA's.

"we are all in this together". Who said that other than you?

You started this thread and asked the question, and then you don't like the answers. Don't be surprised that people push back.

The answers are just ridiculous. If folks cannot understand the difference between voluntary and forced, they are beyond discussing?

Is anyone forcing someone to join an HOA? No!

Not a single poster has asked the question of why they object to deed restrictions but believe owners should be restricted in the way they sell property?

 

[red_zr24x4]

Why do you want to restrict the rights of property owners?

Ok last post from me (hopefully)
You asked why people hate HOA's and you just answered it.
I bought a house, why do you want to restrict my rights as a property owner?
I get it, it's a choice. You can agree or move on to another property.
But that's not what you asked.

 

[firecadet613]

I mean, c'mon. He has a point. The title of the thread is literally asking the question, why do people hate HOA's. But instead of that, you and Mike seem to be putting yourselves in position of arbiters of invalidation of people's gripes. You guys did the same **** in the property tax thread.

Why not just admit the ****** parts of HOA's? It's not like HOA's are all peaches and cream. HOA's are hated more than they're loved. They got that way somehow. It's not all that the haters are just stupid. There's good and bad to everything. HOA's earned the hate they get, at least a little.

There are some aspects of HOA's that serve a purpose. I'm not denying that. My main beef with them is that it is essentially setting up a private government, which I think is a bad idea. I think there is a lot more abuse of power on HOA boards than you guys care to admit.

People can find good and bad with anything. I don't sign contracts I don't agree with and do my research before plunking down large chunks of cash. A lot of folks (gen pop, not just ingo) will sign contracts without reading them, then get butt hurt when they don't agree with the terms. That's on the individual and their personal responsibility, IMO.

Many folks have issues with HOAs, no lie there. Sometimes it's the HOA, I'm sure sometimes it is the resident. I had no issues in my time being part of one, some other folks here expressed the same sentiment. Didn't witness any abuse or foul play. And yes, even though I was pissed about getting a letter for temporarily parking a boat in my driveway, I was breaking the rules.

Bottom line is, they are legal and you have the freedom to join them or not. Sounds like many here want to restrict that freedom and take HOAs away.

Personally, not sure I'd join a HOA without the amenities I spoke of above, but a nice neighborhood with those things - hell yes. Who knew that made someone racist because the pool paid for and maintained by HOA members was reserved for HOA members and NOT the general public to use...

Ok last post from me (hopefully)
You asked why people hate HOA's and you just answered it.
I bought a house, why do you want to restrict my rights as a property owner?
I get it, it's a choice. You can agree or move on to another property.
But that's not what you asked.

No one agreed to continue to restrict the property but you, when you signed the agreement. If a developer can't sell lots at a new subdivision and everyone says it's due to the HOA covenants, guess what will go away...

I'm just not sure how they'll pay for the pool or other private amenities without the HOA though.

Last statement - I have two easements on my current 15ac property. I could have walked away or signed them (which I did). I did PLENTY of research into them during my due diligence period, as my offer to purchase allowed me the ability to do so.

If people sign contracts without understanding them, that's on them. There are plenty of experts available to assist them in their understanding.

 

[jamil]

"we are all in this together". Who said that other than you?

It's a sentiment. No one has to say it. You've indirectly expressed the sentiment in this and other threads.

The answers are just ridiculous. If folks cannot understand the difference between voluntary and forced, they are beyond discussing?

A hobson's choice isn't a choice. If you cannot understand that it's not as simple as you try to make it, isn't that beyond discussing?

Is anyone forcing someone to join an HOA? No!

That's a superficial argument. You've defined extremes to make it an overly simplistic binary.

Not a single poster has asked the question of why they object to deed restrictions but believe owners should be restricted in the way they sell property?

That's irrelevant to the question of why people hate HOA's. If you sign up for something thinking it'll be fine, but then it turns out not so fine, is it inconsistent to not like what you signed?

Again. Why do more people not like HOA's than like them? Do they just not have a reason? Or did you arbitrarily invalidated all the reasons so that you can be right? It's like with the bicycle thread, and the property tax thread. you think you're right, so you don't listen to why people hate that stuff. You just invalidate it out of hand.

People hate cyclists for a reason. And maybe they take their hatred of the behavior they see too far and apply it too broadly. But you just dismiss it out of hand.

People hate property taxes for a reason. Maybe they don't understand all the details. But they notice that they're getting ****ed, and that it's an unfair tax. But you dismiss their struggles out of hand, and one proponent blamed the poor for their problems because they're not rich.

People hate HOA's for a reason. Maybe they don't understand all the reasons for the existance of HOA's, but you dismiss the reasons they hate them out of hand.

You have no solutions for legitimate complaints about all these topics. But you like the things you like. So you assume everyone else must not like these things because they're stupid. Start listening. Maybe you could actually help people with your vast understanding of these overbearing systems.

 

[jamil]

People can find good and bad with anything. I don't sign contracts I don't agree with and do my research before plunking down large chunks of cash. A lot of folks (gen pop, not just ingo) will sign contracts without reading them, then get butt hurt when they don't agree with the terms. That's on the individual and their personal responsibility, IMO.

That's a copout. People tend to have faith that people are on the up and up. My solution is not to give power to people who are effectively unaccountable.

Many folks have issues with HOAs, no lie there. Sometimes it's the HOA, I'm sure sometimes it is the resident.

Agreed. A good HOA does no harm. if the only duties were to collect dues to pay for neighborhood upkeep and they didn't have the authority to harrass people fewer people would hate them. It's not the case that a majority of people would rather not live in HOA's for no good reason. It isn't because they just don't understand. Some cyclists earned universal hate. Some property tax policies earned universal hate. Some HOA's earned universal hate.

I had no issues in my time being part of one, some other folks here expressed the same sentiment. Didn't witness any abuse or foul play. And yes, even though I was pissed about getting a letter for temporarily parking a boat in my driveway, I was breaking the rules.

I witnessed an overzealous president who manipulated most of the board to go along with her. It's why I joined the board. I think it happens more than you care to admit.

Bottom line is, they are legal and you have the freedom to join them or not. Sounds like many here want to restrict that freedom and take HOAs away.

That's a copout as much as it is when Mike says it. I don't want to restrict freedom. It's ironic that you phrase limiting power of governing bodies as restriction of freedom. You would make a good democrat apologist.

Personally, not sure I'd join a HOA without the amenities I spoke of above, but a nice neighborhood with those things - hell yes. Who knew that made someone racist because the pool paid for and maintained by HOA members was reserved for HOA members and NOT the general public to use...

I don't think anyone here is arguing that. Maybe I missed it.

No one agreed to continue to restrict the property but you, when you signed the agreement. If a developer can't sell lots at a new subdivision and everyone says it's due to the HOA covenants, guess what will go away...

Continuing the copout apparently.

Out here where I am, people chose to be out here because there was no HOA. They could build their pole barns and sit around their fire pit without Karens harassing them. But in the suburbs, it's a hobson's choice because most subdivisions have HOA's required by the developer.

I'm just not sure how they'll pay for the pool or other private amenities without the HOA though.

There are public pools. If you want the community to own the pool you'll buy the home. And hope like hell there are no karens on the board.

Last statement - I have two easements on my current 15ac property. I could have walked away or signed them (which I did). I did PLENTY of research into them during my due diligence period, as my offer to purchase allowed me the ability to do so.

If people sign contracts without understanding them, that's on them. There are plenty of experts available to assist them in their understanding.

While true, it's part of the same copout. It's just a facile tool to invalidate people's concerns without having to acknowledge that they are concerns.