Why Do So Many On INGO Hate HOA's?

[jkaetz]

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?

No one has said it's illegal. And yes, what John Deere does with their tractors is similar to the HOA problem. They're telling you what you can and can't do with a thing you've purchased after their ownership has ended. They're simply enforcing this with software rather than violation letters. As pointed out, it is still a Hobson's choice.

Choice A: You don't buy the equipment you need to farm your land (Because Deere is not the only one doing this).
Choice B: You purchase a piece of equipment with some dubious yet legal clauses.

Choice A leaves you unable to farm your land, provide a valuable resource for yourself and others.
Choice B Means you can at least be productive but now makes you dependent on and potentially held hostage by the former owner of a piece of equipment.

There are plenty of things that were at one point in history legal and common practice but later outlawed. Legality is not justification.

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?

You need to add some qualifications to make this a valid comparison. Think all new gun manufacturers making their own slightly different bore size, patenting/trademarking this size, being the sole producer of ammo in said size, aggressively litigating against entities who dare to try and copy said size, all while telling you that this is good for you the consumer because you will be safe and secure knowing that the ammo we sell you will never blow up in your face.

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…

I will certainly make an allowance for a developer who purchases a large plot of land and designs the subdivision with a caveat. The restrictions/requirements placed on purchasers of the individual homes are timebound and automatically dissolve after the developer has covered their costs and made some percentage of profit on their investment. The only thing remaining for the HOA should be maintenance of common areas and any rules that the actual homeowners agree upon by an 80% vote.

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?

I will answer, I'm pretty sure I've answered before. Because they no longer own/have interest in the property. If someone is selling a thing, they are giving up their rights to the thing.

 

[phylodog]

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

I'm not wanting to restrict the rights of property owners. I just happen to believe that once someone buys something, they own it.

Why do you believe that once you own something you should get to control it in perpetuity regardless of how many times it gets sold to other people?

 

[phylodog]

those on INGO do not seem to have the temperament to participate in them…

Temperament. Hmm, does that mean someone willing to sell to trade their liberty off for convenience and money? Or maybe someone who prefers who have others make all of their decisions for them because they can't handle the pressure or have pathetic taste? Maybe it means someone who gets off on controlling others but doesn't have the balls to jump alone and instead needs to form a pack of the tattle tale types from kindergarten to get their flexing in.

 

[jamil]

No one has said it's illegal. And yes, what John Deere does with their tractors is similar to the HOA problem. They're telling you what you can and can't do with a thing you've purchased after their ownership has ended. They're simply enforcing this with software rather than violation letters. As pointed out, it is still a Hobson's choice.

Choice A: You don't buy the equipment you need to farm your land (Because Deere is not the only one doing this).
Choice B: You purchase a piece of equipment with some dubious yet legal clauses.

Choice A leaves you unable to farm your land, provide a valuable resource for yourself and others.
Choice B Means you can at least be productive but now makes you dependent on and potentially held hostage by the former owner of a piece of equipment.

There are plenty of things that were at one point in history legal and common practice but later outlawed. Legality is not justification.

This brilliantly describes the problem and why it's a copout to say, well, you agreed to it.

It's the case that contracts exist and are legal. As I said, I'm making a ought argument and not an is argument. I think what can be contractually agreed upon should be limited in cases where there's only the appearance of choice to enter the contract or not. And the idea that if you entered the contract you deserved the ****ing you got, when the choice is limited to this evil thing or that evil thing, yeah, that's a copout all day long.

The purpose of government is to protect rights. Not limit them. Does a developer have the right to **** you when you don't have much choice. Does a farm equipment manufacturer have the right to **** you because he has you over a barrel? Not a moral right. So we should take away the legal right of the side who exploits such contracts, to protect the individual right.

 

[phylodog]

The purpose of government is to protect rights. Not limit them. Does a developer have the right to **** you when you don't have much choice. Does a farm equipment manufacturer have the right to **** you because he has you over a barrel? Not a moral right. So we should take away the legal right of the side who exploits such contracts, to protect the individual right.

What about a person's right to not be offended, not have to look at a mailbox they don't like or *GASP* not have to hear an air compressor?!?!?! Don't people have the right to control everything around them at all times to protect themselves against hurty things?

This country has cranked out some seriously twisted up human beings. Placing a higher value on conformity than freedom boggles my mind.

 

[firecadet613]

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.

No cop out here, if I had a bad experience I'd likely think differently.

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.

It may, as I didn't go digging for biased news articles, I spoke of my personal experience. The HOA management company sent someone out monthly to look for violations, board members did not do this.

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.

Ha. No, I'm good with letting people make decisions on their own and learning from them...

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

A lot of back and forth last night, I was discussing private HOA pools while someone was discussing city pools - not the same thing.

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.

Same here. I can't see or hear my neighbors. There are plenty of older subdivisions in the Indy burbs folks can move to, if they don't want an HOA (and typically they'd get a bit more land for the same money, just an older home).

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.

Agreed, two DIFFERENT things. I'll take the HOA pool that is reserved for residents use vs a city/public pool every day. But that's why I own my own stocked lake vs go to the local pay lake to fish...

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.

Folks have concerns, as I said above, in large part because they made a deal and opted to not keep a deal. HOA covenants aren't easily changed.

 

[firecadet613]

What about a person's right to not be offended, not have to look at a mailbox they don't like or *GASP* not have to hear an air compressor?!?!?! Don't people have the right to control everything around them at all times to protect themselves against hurty things?

This country has cranked out some seriously twisted up human beings. Placing a higher value on conformity than freedom boggles my mind.

Why would you not allow someone the freedom to make their own choice and join a HOA? Granted, I didn't go searching for news articles, but I have my doubts someone was forced to join a HOA under duress...

 

[jamil]

No cop out here, if I had a bad experience I'd likely think differently.


It may, as I didn't go digging for biased news articles, I spoke of my personal experience. The HOA management company sent someone out monthly to look for violations, board members did not do this.

Ha. No, I'm good with letting people make decisions on their own and learning from them...

A lot of back and forth last night, I was discussing private HOA pools while someone was discussing city pools - not the same thing.

Same here. I can't see or hear my neighbors. There are plenty of older subdivisions in the Indy burbs folks can move to, if they don't want an HOA (and typically they'd get a bit more land for the same money, just an older home).

Agreed, two DIFFERENT things. I'll take the HOA pool that is reserved for residents use vs a city/public pool every day. But that's why I own my own stocked lake vs go to the local pay lake to fish...

Folks have concerns, as I said above, in large part because they made a deal and opted to not keep a deal. HOA covenants aren't easily changed.

See the posts that describes why it's a copout.

 

[jamil]

Why would you not allow someone the freedom to make their own choice and join a HOA? Granted, I didn't go searching for news articles, but I have my doubts someone was forced to join a HOA under duress...

If all new subdivisions had a fair mix of HOA and not HOA you'd have a point. It wouldn't be a hobson's choice. Almost all developers require HOAs. And it's not because people want them so much. The people who do, according to the article I posted, make up only 14% of home buyers. 61% don't want them.

If it's a fair trade-off, no problem. When it's a take it or leave it when leaving it is undesirable too, then there is effectively no choice. We're not talking about being forced by gunpoint. We're talking about being forced by circumstances.

Just like the John Deere analogy.

10 years ago I think I'd have agreed with you. I was a pure market capitalist. I'm a capitalist. But markets have their flaws. It's reasonable to mitigate them through policy to prevent people from being ****ed in a no win situation.

 

[firecadet613]

If all new subdivisions had a fair mix of HOA and not HOA you'd have a point. It wouldn't be a hobson's choice. Almost all developers require HOAs. And it's not because people want them so much. The people who do, according to the article I posted, make up only 14% of home buyers. 61% don't want them.

If you're a developer, why wouldn't you want a HOA? Keep things looking nice as you build out the subdivision and a pool, walking trail, tennis courts will help you sell your development quicker.

If enough folks voted with their wallets and stopped buying in HOA developments, they'd quickly disappear. But people don't, so here we are.

If it's a fair trade-off, no problem. When it's a take it or leave it when leaving it is undesirable too, then there is effectively no choice. We're not talking about being forced by gunpoint. We're talking about being forced by circumstances.

There are PLENTY of non HOA properties for sale, all around. However, many people are drawn to the newer homes and the neighborhoods that have amenities.

I've yet to see a town with only HOA properties for sale. Granted, I may have missed it as here recently we've been looking at just more rural properties.

Just like the John Deere analogy.

10 years ago I think I'd have agreed with you. I was a pure market capitalist. I'm a capitalist. But markets have their flaws. It's reasonable to mitigate them through policy to prevent people from being ****ed in a no win situation.

When enough people are pissed off about it and demand change, change will happen. We're no where close to that yet...

See the posts that describes why it's a copout.

We'll agree to disagree. I prefer first hand experience vs random online articles, which you know are never biased...

 

[jamil]

Temperament. Hmm, does that mean someone willing to sell to trade their liberty off for convenience and money? Or maybe someone who prefers who have others make all of their decisions for them because they can't handle the pressure or have pathetic taste? Maybe it means someone who gets off on controlling others but doesn't have the balls to jump alone and instead needs to form a pack of the tattle tale types from kindergarten to get their flexing in.

If it's everyone else that has the temperament problem...

 

[phylodog]

Has anyone ever bought a home and participation in the HOA was voluntary? I guess taxes are voluntary as well, I mean, no one is putting a gun to my head and making me write the check, am I right? Choices are great.

 

[phylodog]

John Deere loses battle in “Right to Repair” war - Hagerty Media

John Deere signed a memorandum allowing farmers access to its proprietary software, which they need to diagnose broken-down tractors.

www.hagerty.com

Every once in a while the end user/consumer actually gets some help instead of being **** on from every direction constantly.

 

[firecadet613]

Has anyone ever bought a home and participation in the HOA was voluntary? I guess taxes are voluntary as well, I mean, no one is putting a gun to my head and making me write the check, am I right? Choices are great.

Choices are great.

My previous neighborhood that had a HOA has plenty of non HOA neighborhoods around it. Larger lots even, with mature trees. Homes not that much older, in the non HOA neighborhoods.

Yet, guess which homes sold faster?

Maybe it's the private pool vs using the town pool (which doesn't exist) doing it. Maybe the people buying aren't educated enough to know that "HOAs are bad, m'kay, HOAs are bad"...

 

[jkaetz]

Choices are great.

My previous neighborhood that had a HOA has plenty of non HOA neighborhoods around it. Larger lots even, with mature trees. Homes not that much older, in the non HOA neighborhoods.

Yet, guess which homes sold faster?

Maybe it's the private pool vs using the town pool (which doesn't exist) doing it. Maybe the people buying aren't educated enough to know that "HOAs are bad, m'kay, HOAs are bad"...

Show your work. How did you distill the variables down to determine that the HOA was the key factor? Without this you're still looking at a correlation/causation problem.

 

[phylodog]

Anyone ever heard of an established neighborhood coming together to form an HOA? Surely if they're so necessary and wonderful no one would want to live without one.

Yet, guess which homes sold faster?

Did they? You were so particularly interested in the viability of your HOA that you maintained statistics of home sales in your area to compare. That's amazing, you're truly committed to your cause, I'll give you that.

Sold my last house on the first day to the first people to walk in the door. Why? Not because of the HOA, not because it was a particularly nice house but because there was extremely limited supply and excess demand. That's why my house sold and the people that bought it didn't have a choice about the HOA.

The house I live in now also sold on the first day to the first people to walk in the door. Amazingly there was no HOA around to boost the values or speed up the sale.

I bought one of those little deer whistles that attach to the front of my truck when I bought it. I mean, I'm not taking a risk of hitting a deer in my $70k pickup. I can't hear them but I'm 100% convinced they're working because I've never hit a deer in my truck. Anyone who doesn't buy one of these silent whistles that work incredibly well must be insane.

 

[firecadet613]

Show your work. How did you distill the variables down to determine that the HOA was the key factor? Without this you're still looking at a correlation/causation problem.

What work? I watched realtor.com before we listed our house and after it was pending. Didn't take notes. Don't believe me, no skin off my back.

If you bought or sold a house without looking at the market, you could have likely done better...

Ask a realtor the "hot" neighborhoods in the Indy burbs. My money is on, they all have HOAs...

Anyone ever heard of an established neighborhood coming together to form an HOA? Surely if they're so necessary and wonderful no one would want to live without one.

Why the hell would they? Did they add a neighborhood pool and/or tennis courts and need some way to manage them?

Did they? You were so particularly interested in the viability of your HOA that you maintained statistics of home sales in your area to compare. That's amazing, you're truly committed to your cause, I'll give you that.

Sold my last house on the first day to the first people to walk in the door. Why? Not because of the HOA, not because it was a particularly nice house but because there was extremely limited supply and excess demand. That's why my house sold and the people that bought it didn't have a choice about the HOA.

Oh, they had a choice but as shown above, most folks don't care and sign almost anything without reading it...

If you're house sold THAT fast, your realtor likely priced it wrong. My house went "live" on a Thursday and we said no showings until the following day. We had 9 scheduled showings and 3 offers before 5pm. My realtor was able to get one offer to come up 5k (so 10k over asking) with no contingencies.

The house I live in now also sold on the first day to the first people to walk in the door. Amazingly there was no HOA around to boost the values or speed up the sale.

Absolutely amazing! Hard to imagine some people look for homes with or without a HOA...

I bought one of those little deer whistles that attach to the front of my truck when I bought it. I mean, I'm not taking a risk of hitting a deer in my $70k pickup. I can't hear them but I'm 100% convinced they're working because I've never hit a deer in my truck. Anyone who doesn't buy one of these silent whistles that work incredibly well must be insane.

See my above response. I guess I'm living on the edge, I didn't put that BS on my $80k pickup and haven't hit a deer.

I feel sorry for folks who have such angst against HOAs, especially if they live in one, or even better, if they don't, they are just triggered by the fact that they exist.

Life's too damn short not to be happy...

 

[jkaetz]

What work? I watched realtor.com before we listed our house and after it was pending. Didn't take notes. Don't believe me, no skin off my back.

If you bought or sold a house without looking at the market, you could have likely done better...

Ask a realtor the "hot" neighborhoods in the Indy burbs. My money is on, they all have HOAs...

It matters because your claim is that the neighborhoods are popular because they have an HOA. It is entirely possible that they are popular for other reasons and simply HAVE and HOA.

 

[KLB]

Has anyone ever bought a home and participation in the HOA was voluntary? I guess taxes are voluntary as well, I mean, no one is putting a gun to my head and making me write the check, am I right? Choices are great.

I actually did in San Antonio. I lived on a small rectangle of streets that were in the middle of a huge HOA, but not part of it officially. We could opt in, but I think it really only included the use of their pool basically. I never did.

 

[phylodog]

What work? I watched realtor.com before we listed our house and after it was pending. Didn't take notes. Don't believe me, no skin off my back.

And that's enough for you to be comfortable making the declaration that homes in HOA neighborhoods sold faster. Got it.

If you bought or sold a house without looking at the market, you could have likely done better...

Ahh, we're back to you're smarter and could have done a better job.

Ask a realtor the "hot" neighborhoods in the Indy burbs. My money is on, they all have HOAs...

Why the hell would they? Did they add a neighborhood pool and/or tennis courts and need some way to manage them?

Again, not all neighborhoods have those amenities.

Oh, they had a choice but as shown above, most folks don't care and sign almost anything without reading it...

I suppose you peruse through the entire U.S. tax code every year and anyone who doesn't is a fool?

If you're house sold THAT fast, your realtor likely priced it wrong. My house went "live" on a Thursday and we said no showings until the following day. We had 9 scheduled showings and 3 offers before 5pm. My realtor was able to get one offer to come up 5k (so 10k over asking) with no contingencies.

Ahh, yes...your realtor was clearly better than mine.

I guess I'm living on the edge, I didn't put that BS on my $80k pickup and haven't hit a deer.

Lol, guess that one went way over your head.

I feel sorry for folks who have such angst against HOAs, especially if they live in one, or even better, if they don't, they are just triggered by the fact that they exist.

A thread was created so some super smart guys could educate the rest of us dumb dumbs on the benefits of HOAs. When that fails and all of the dumb dumbs refuse to agree with you they're now "triggered". You play word games better than most liberals.

I feel sorry for folks so unable to think for themselves or resolves issues without a babysitter that they welcome any opportunity to allow someone else to take charge so they don't have to. It's a big scary world out there, I get it. Best to have all of the safety and protection one can possibly muster.