Why Do So Many On INGO Hate HOA's?

[jamil]

A "troll" on an internet forum is someone who posts contrary things just to stir the pot and instigate a fight, or pile-on, or whatever. Posting hyperbole in itself is not trolling. Arguing points you don't like is not trolling. Name-calling, while not conducive to polite discourse, by itself, is not trolling.

 

[Route 45]

Or proving you don’t really understand the issue. But you are in good company here on INGO…

 

[jamil]

I can sell as I wish. Now whatcha got? That wasn't really the point though. You've repeatedly said that people that are against HOAs are wanting to take away the freedom of someone selling their property how they wish. Yet you are asserting that the HOA can take away the freedom of how someone sells their property. You don't see the contradiction?

That's just an artifact of justifying the HOA. It's an angle. And couching it in pro-freedom language, as if we're taking away his freedom to take away other people's freedom is an odd argument to make.

 

[actaeon277]

Well, I guess that's one way to halt a thread.
Throw around names and insults, and then the mods lock it down.

Great idea.

 

[Ingomike]

He said "should". So obviously not making an is statement. So you've been trying to argue that rights do extend after someone sells their land, and that it should. But you really haven't made the case for why, nor have you admitted that there should be practical limits to that.

You might argue, what about the guy who puts up a big chunk of land for sale, but doesn't want a pig farm there because he would have to live near it. Well, why can't I say, he shouldn't have sold it if he doesn't want a pig farm there. You want to use the hobson's choice to justify your HOA. Well, it goes both ways.

Landowners have every right to sell the land rights they want to sell. Should they not? If you say they should only be allowed to sell the land with all rights then you are taking away the freedom of the landowner to sell as they want to.

Land owners can sell property while retaining certain rights. They may be air rights, mineral rights, the right to raise hogs or other livestock. They can restrict what can be built or uses of the property they have sold. That is the law, it is in my opinion the correct law because the land owner has the final authority over the property and can sell what rights to that property they wish and retain the rights they do not wish to sell.

Anyone that says this is wrong is taking away the freedom of the landowner.

 

[Ingomike]

I can sell as I wish. Now whatcha got? That wasn't really the point though. You've repeatedly said that people that are against HOAs are wanting to take away the freedom of someone selling their property how they wish. Yet you are asserting that the HOA can take away the freedom of how someone sells their property. You don't see the contradiction?

No contradiction at all, the landowner sold the land subject to the covenants they created and the new owner agreed, by buying the land subject to those covenants to follow them. The landowner is not selling ALL rights to the property and the buyer is not buying ALL rights to the property, the buyer is buying subject to the covenants they agreed to when they bought.

 

[Ingomike]

Well, I guess that's one way to halt a thread.
Throw around names and insults, and then the mods lock it down.

Great idea.

Are these legal concepts really that hard to understand? If a rancher wanted a nearby ranch for his cattle that the owner was willing to sell but hoped there was oil and wanted to keep the oil rights so he proposed a great price for the land but kept the oil rights. Is that wrong? The same principles apply to a seller that wants to create covenants that create an HOA before they sell.

The landowners rights are supreme to the BS that a landowner must sell all rights when they sell because some on INGO think it unfair…

 

[actaeon277]

Are these legal concepts really that hard to understand? If a rancher wanted a nearby ranch for his cattle that the owner was willing to sell but hoped there was oil and wanted to keep the oil rights so he proposed a great price for the land but kept the oil rights. Is that wrong? The same principles apply to a seller that wants to create covenants that create an HOA before they sell.

The landowners rights are supreme to the BS that a landowner must sell all rights when they sell because some on INGO think it unfair…

Where did I make a comment about "legal concept" or "hard to understand".
My comment was to try to keep the insults down.

Also.
I did not quote you, or direct it to you.
It is a general statement.

To EVERYONE throwing around "troll".

 

[red_zr24x4]

Landowners have every right to sell the land rights they want to sell. Should they not? If you say they should only be allowed to sell the land with all rights then you are taking away the freedom of the landowner to sell as they want to.

Land owners can sell property while retaining certain rights. They may be air rights, mineral rights, the right to raise hogs or other livestock. They can restrict what can be built or uses of the property they have sold. That is the law, it is in my opinion the correct law because the land owner has the final authority over the property and can sell what rights to that property they wish and retain the rights they do not wish to sell.

Anyone that says this is wrong is taking away the freedom of the landowner.

No contradiction at all, the landowner sold the land subject to the covenants they created and the new owner agreed, by buying the land subject to those covenants to follow them. The landowner is not selling ALL rights to the property and the buyer is not

Are these legal concepts really that hard to understand? If a rancher wanted a nearby ranch for his cattle that the owner was willing to sell but hoped there was oil and wanted to keep the oil rights so he proposed a great price for the land but kept the oil rights. Is that wrong? The same principles apply to a seller that wants to create covenants that create an HOA before they sell.

The landowners rights are supreme to the BS that a landowner must sell all rights when they sell because some on INGO think it unfair…

buying ALL rights to the property, the buyer is buying subject to the covenants they agreed to when they bought.

What your not grasping Mike, is that *most* people don't want to live in a HOA because of this ^ . No one said it's illegal, *most * people don't like it so that why *most* people don't want to live in a HOA.
Your free to put any restrictions on property you sell, but we're free to not buy it because of them.

 

[phylodog]

What your not grasping Mike, is that *most* people don't want to live in a HOA because of this ^ . No one said it's illegal, *most * people don't like it so that why *most* people don't want to live in a HOA.
Your free to put any restrictions on property you sell, but we're free to not buy it because of them.

He isn't going to get it.

In his mind, if politicians put it on paper then the ethics have been settled and the debate is over. If it is legal, it is proper and anyone unable to agree is simply not intelligent enough to participate in the conversation.

 

[Ingomike]

What you’re not grasping Mike, is that *most* people don't want to live in a HOA because of this ^ . No one said it's illegal, *most * people don't like it so that why *most* people don't want to live in a HOA.

And yet they voluntarily do by the masses. If they would not buy homes with an HOA, developers would be forced to eliminate them, but they don’t. There does not seem to be a significant enough number of home buyers that object to HOA’s to even slow their use.

Your free to put any restrictions on property you sell, but we're free to not buy it because of them.

Exactly correct, have I not made it clear that I personally do not want covenants and deed restrictions on land I buy? I only want it in small lot subdivisions. So you agree that what several have proposed, that land must be sold with all rights, is taking freedom away from the landowner to sell as they wish?

 

[Ingomike]

Where did I make a comment about "legal concept" or "hard to understand".
My comment was to try to keep the insults down.

Also.
I did not quote you, or direct it to you.
It is a general statement.

To EVERYONE throwing around "troll".

The trolling is asking a trick question like “have you stopped beating your wife”, demanding an answer in multiple posts, ignoring an answer, and more posts demanding an answer.

I further made a general statement in a reply to you about how many do not recognize that requiring a landowner to only sell with full land rights in in itself a restriction of land owner rights.

 

[jkaetz]

I am not the one that does not understand the differing perspective, it is you that cannot look beyond his own bias and desires to see what others may want. Then you rail about taking the freedoms of others.

I understand individualism, the desire to have full control of one’s own land. It actually is my natural inclination. I want that when I get five acres or more . Can you understand why I want to trade some freedoms in neighborhoods with close proximity?

I can understand, but it makes no more sense to me than those who want to give up guns to "be safe".

I do not want to live in a tight neighborhood where many of the houses have RV’s and boats in the drive and yard. I don’t want to live on a small neighborhood lot where people restore cars in the driveway. I don’t want to live in a neighborhood where the actions of others can decrease my property value or my peaceful enjoyment of my property. Can you understand that without name calling and saying I’m taking someone’s freedom?

You continue to harp on this but there are plenty of pre-HOA era neighborhoods tightly packed with none of these issues just as there are plenty of HOA neighborhoods without major issues. Problem is there is rarely a choice of HOA or non-HOA neighborhood when purchasing new.

I will stick with my belief that the purchase price of the homes has far more impact on what people will do with it and how they will take care of it than an HOA.

 

[red_zr24x4]

And yet they voluntarily do by the masses. If they would not buy homes with an HOA, developers would be forced to eliminate them, but they don’t. There does not seem to be a significant enough number of home buyers that object to HOA’s to even slow their use.



Exactly correct, have I not made it clear that I personally do not want covenants and deed restrictions on land I buy? I only want it in small lot subdivisions. So you agree that what several have proposed, that land must be sold with all rights, is taking freedom away from the landowner to sell as they wish?

1) Again *most*, not ALL
2) IF I'm buying a house NOT in a HOA subdivision and the owner wanted to put restrictions on what I could do he can keep it just like the hoa
Edit to add I don't think it's right

 

[Ingomike]

I can understand, but it makes no more sense to me than those who want to give up guns to "be safe".

I can see a distinct difference between the two, but that difference is negated if the HOA is defined as taking away rights. We the people trade rights for safety or organization in all kinds of ways. As a free individual you have every right not to have to stop at stop signs and lights but you freely trade that right for organization and safety. Never have I heard anyone say that regulations laying out stopping were oppressive, but this is INGO.

A landowner has every right to put restrictions on land they sell. If they put an HOA restriction on it it is binding upon future owners. That is their right.

Buyers buy with the restrictions BUT usually have ways in the bylaws to change or abolish the HOA. Few ever do.

You continue to harp on this but there are plenty of pre-HOA era neighborhoods tightly packed with none of these issues just as there are plenty of HOA neighborhoods without major issues. Problem is there is rarely a choice of HOA or non-HOA neighborhood when purchasing new.

I suspect you believe in markets as I do. If the general public despised HOA’s as much as is expressed by many here wouldn’t someone in the market respond with that option? Or, maybe the risk of activities that many find negative to the peace and visual tranquility of the neighborhood leading to reduced market values is so real no developer can or will develop a neighborhood without them.

I will stick with my belief that the purchase price of the homes has far more impact on what people will do with it and how they will take care of it than an HOA.

To me the proof in the pudding really shows when the neighborhoods are 30-40 years old. I know of a particular area in where the developer/builder was in a neighborhood with minimal covenants and no HOA, they then built a new neighborhood on an adjacent plot with typical modern covenants and HOA. They then missed a deadline to add to the second neighborhood and had to plot a third neighborhood with the same covenants and HOA.

The first has homes clearly in need of repair one can see from the street, cars that don’t run in the drives and RV’s on about a quarter of the homes. The second all but abandoned their HOA and their common areas show neglect and some of the homes are not as well maintained. The third has an active HOA, the common areas are maintained the homes are better kept. You can clearly see the difference in the three neighborhoods. You can also see the difference in selling prices of the three neighborhoods. With the third getting more than the other two without an active HOA.

I am certain there may be other examples but these are so similar they are a very interesting example.

 

[Ingomike]

Edit to add I don't think it's right

What is not right about it? What would be done to stop it from being done?

 

[repeter1977]

Apparently some do not buy homes with covenants they can live with, I did. As I said before, and this post proves it you are a troll.

You are the one that started a thread with a question you don't want the answer to. That makes you the troll.
And I wanted all your wishes to come true, that makes me a troll? Pretty sure that makes me a good person. Sorry if wanting your wishes coming true is somehow bad.

 

[Ingomike]

Don't want people restoring cars, hope you enjoy cutting the grass by hand because lawnmowers are too loud for your neighbors. Hope you get fined and a house lien too because the finest for everything are turned against you. I hope every HOA nightmare story posted on here happens to you and when you cry, everyone on the planet reminds you that you voted for it. I hope your HOA goes anti gun and the police seize your property because you wanted your HOA.

You are the one that started a thread with a question you don't want the answer to. That makes you the troll.
And I wanted all your wishes to come true, that makes me a troll? Pretty sure that makes me a good person. Sorry if wanting your wishes coming true is somehow bad.

The top post is trolling behavior in my opinion. Because I don’t want certain activities in my neighborhood and want to live with others that have the same values a pox on my house. Got it

 

[jamil]

Landowners have every right to sell the land rights they want to sell. Should they not? If you say they should only be allowed to sell the land with all rights then you are taking away the freedom of the landowner to sell as they want to.

Land owners can sell property while retaining certain rights. They may be air rights, mineral rights, the right to raise hogs or other livestock. They can restrict what can be built or uses of the property they have sold. That is the law, it is in my opinion the correct law because the land owner has the final authority over the property and can sell what rights to that property they wish and retain the rights they do not wish to sell.

Anyone that says this is wrong is taking away the freedom of the landowner.

First you say it's your opinion, then you declare everyone is wrong for having a different opinion. I think you need to take some time to decide what you're saying and get back to us.

 

[jamil]

Are these legal concepts really that hard to understand? If a rancher wanted a nearby ranch for his cattle that the owner was willing to sell but hoped there was oil and wanted to keep the oil rights so he proposed a great price for the land but kept the oil rights. Is that wrong? The same principles apply to a seller that wants to create covenants that create an HOA before they sell.

The landowners rights are supreme to the BS that a landowner must sell all rights when they sell because some on INGO think it unfair…

People disagree with your opinion. That doesn't make them stupid. Do you understand that?