Why Do So Many On INGO Hate HOA's?

[Creedmoor]

I'm shocked Mike hasn't posted his golf handicap.

 

[Dean C.]

Damn, didn't you build that house?!

In before the haters say you should just deal with having that as a neighbor, HOAs are bad, mmmkay. HOAs are bad...

Glad it sounds like it's working out in your favor and hope the new neighbors are better...

Yep every house in my neighborhood is less than a year old , this guy has had his property listed as an air bnb since he closed in October 2023.

My new golden retriever puppy is ******** in this guys yard until his house is sold by the HOA. I have gone full scorched earth at this point. He has a Colorado, California and Michigan license plates cars in his driveway currently.



All this guy had to do was be nice and not park in front of my driveway. The amusing thing is that he has a 3 car garage and if he let the “tenets” use it instead of keeping it empty no one would have probably figured it out.

 

[jkaetz]

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.

And that couldn't possibly be because nearly all new homes/neighborhoods have an HOA and there is no option to buy a new home without nor is there an option to purchase a slightly older home and opt out of the existing HOA thus making HOAs a de facto standard rather than something everyone "wants".

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 if I understand your position correctly, you support restrictions that are effectively permanent, don't apply to you, that you don't want, only in "small" subdivisions, because the law allows it, and people purchase them all despite a three year old thread with over 1000 posts telling you why people don't like them.




As the above are really rhetorical questions I will pose a new question to you:
You've read the complaints about HOAs. You support them, others don't. How do those two groups meet in the middle? What improves the HOA sentiment?

 

[rhamersley]

 

[Ingomike]

And that couldn't possibly be because nearly all new homes/neighborhoods have an HOA and there is no option to buy a new home without nor is there an option to purchase a slightly older home and opt out of the existing HOA thus making HOAs a de facto standard rather than something everyone "wants".

I am simply looking at markets, part hates HOA’s, part loves HOA’s, while the majority are in the ambivalent middle, want it when they need it, complain about it when they don’t. Believing in market forces as I do I believe if there was serious momentum to not have an HOA, we would see it.

As I have said before it is simple and easy to change or even abolish an HOA, buy few ever try because the votes are not there. Do you really think if developers could sell their lots or homes for more money without an HOA they wouldn’t? That is the market at work.

So if I understand your position correctly, you support restrictions that are effectively permanent, don't apply to you, that you don't want, only in "small" subdivisions, because the law allows it, and people purchase them all despite a three year old thread with over 1000 posts telling you why people don't like them.

Not sure the point of that. I want an HOA in small lot communities. They are far from permanent if you have the votes. Sellers have the right under law to sell as they wish and that right is supreme to the wants of buyers.

As the above are really rhetorical questions I will pose a new question to you:
You've read the complaints about HOAs. You support them, others don't. How do those two groups meet in the middle? What improves the HOA sentiment?

There is no middle to discussions with someone who is an absolutist that sellers should be required to sell all the rights to land. The middle is where we are legally, owners can sell as they wish and buyers are free buy or not buy.

I suspicion that the “force” felt to buy in HOA neighborhoods is from the wife that “forces” the guy that hates an HOA to buy there anyway.

 

[jamil]

Do you even read before you post?

Of course. If you get to represent the issue your way, I get to represent it mine.

Who is taking ANYTHING. Nobody! The landowner has the right to sell whatever rights they wish to sell and no one has the right to tell them what they have to sell. No one is forcing anyone to buy anything either, it is fully the buyers choice what to buy.

It is a lie to say anyone is forced to buy anything.

It is a lie to say you have to live near someone who annoys you.

It is a lie to say a landowner is in any way doing anything “take the rights away from other land owners”.

Why are you pushing lies?

Why are you pushing lies? Hmmm?

 

[jamil]

The top post is not disagreement, it is a personal attack but I’m not the type to report others that lack the skills to navigate a forum, but I will call them out as to what they are.

Well, there's probably a less direct way of advocating for karma. I think maybe both of you might be a little to invested in this discussion.

I'm not usually a proponent of pharma, but...

 

[Ingomike]

Yep every house in my neighborhood is less than a year old , this guy has had his property listed as an air bnb since he closed in October 2023.

My new golden retriever puppy is ******** in this guys yard until his house is sold by the HOA. I have gone full scorched earth at this point. He has a Colorado, California and Michigan license plates cars in his driveway currently.



All this guy had to do was be nice and not park in front of my driveway. The amusing thing is that he has a 3 car garage and if he let the “tenets” use it instead of keeping it empty no one would have probably figured it out.

Many existing neighborhoods are updating their covenants on what renting can be done just for this reason. Based on your location Grand Park is the draw. Also may be able to report him to the city if they have hotel type taxes on this type of activity and he is not paying.

 

[jamil]

I am simply looking at markets, part hates HOA’s, part loves HOA’s, while the majority are in the ambivalent middle, want it when they need it, complain about it when they don’t. Believing in market forces as I do I believe if there was serious momentum to not have an HOA, we would see it.

Not true. Most people say they don't want to live in an HOA. I posted that evidence several pages back. The invisible hand theory is bull **** BTW. Because there is a such concept as Hobson's Choice that is very real. It *** ****s the market.

As I have said before it is simple and easy to change or even abolish an HOA, buy few ever try because the votes are not there. Do you really think if developers could sell their lots or homes for more money without an HOA they wouldn’t? That is the market at work.

No there's not a simple way to abolish an HOA. It's not as simple as the market preferring something else. You know what a Hobson's choice is, right? Said another way, it's essentially take it or leave it.

Not sure the point of that. I want an HOA in small lot communities. They are far from permanent if you have the votes. Sellers have the right under law to sell as they wish and that right is supreme to the wants of buyers.

Why not let small lot communities decide if they want an HOA? If the Deeds require an HOA, I'm not sure how a neighborhood could vote to abolish it.

I think the problem with your statement is that you want an HOA in small lot communities even though you don't live in them, and then claim sellers have a right to (which presumes they also have the right not to) require an HOA. But you want them to require it.

There is no middle to discussions with someone who is an absolutist that sellers should be required to sell all the rights to land. The middle is where we are legally, owners can sell as they wish and buyers are free buy or not buy.

It's not like you're in the middle. The same could be said of your position. But you really didn't answer the question. You just called everyone who doesn't like HOA's absolutists. The question is, how can HOA's improve their earned reputation? People hate them for a reason, and it's not even close in terms of pro/con sentiment. The con-HOA sentiment far outnumbers the pro.

So what do you propose can be done to give HOA's a better rap?

I suspicion that the “force” felt to buy in HOA neighborhoods is from the wife that “forces” the guy that hates an HOA to buy there anyway.

Well, I suspicion that too. At least in terms of women having a more favorable opinion of HOA's than men. My wife doesn't like the neighbors barn. I'm a little jealous of it. I would not want an HOA telling him that he can't have his barn.

 

[Ingomike]

Not true. Most people say they don't want to live in an HOA. I posted that evidence several pages back. The invisible hand theory is bull **** BTW. Because there is a such concept as Hobson's Choice that is very real. It *** ****s the market.

Polls are evidence? Actions are evidence. I see no widespread actions to change HOA’s and covenants to reduce or abolish HOA’s. Do you? Please post reports of neighborhoods doing such.

No there's not a simple way to abolish an HOA. It's not as simple as the market preferring something else. You know what a Hobson's choice is, right? Said another way, it's essentially take it or leave it.

It is a take it or leave it until enough people will not buy and sellers must change to sell. Until such time the market is at least accepting of HOA’s.

Why not let small lot communities decide if they want an HOA? If the Deeds require an HOA, I'm not sure how a neighborhood could vote to abolish it.

They have that choice every day. The bylaws stipulate exactly the procedure to neuter or abolish the HOA. You were on a board, did you read the bylaws? What was the procedure for your neighborhood? Mine is pretty easy and the owners came together to not allow rentals of any kind.

I think the problem with your statement is that you want an HOA in small lot communities even though you don't live in them, and then claim sellers have a right to (which presumes they also have the right not to) require an HOA. But you want them to require it.

Not sure where this comes from. I have an HOA in my neighborhood of small lots. I want that HOA and would not vote to abolish it. Sellers have an unimpeded right to put any restrictions on property they wish as long as it is legal.

It's not like you're in the middle. The same could be said of your position. But you really didn't answer the question. You just called everyone who doesn't like HOA's absolutists.

If one states that sellers of land should not be allowed to sell their property with covenants and HOA they are absolutist.

The question is, how can HOA's improve their earned reputation? People hate them for a reason, and it's not even close in terms of pro/con sentiment. The con-HOA sentiment far outnumbers the pro.

Have good people get involved in their neighborhood and stop leaving the work to the few that crave authority would be a good start. This is basically the same as posters complaining about who is on the general election ballot but they did nothing before to get the type of candidates they wanted.

So what do you propose can be done to give HOA's a better rap?

See above.

Well, I suspicion that too. At least in terms of women having a more favorable opinion of HOA's than men. My wife doesn't like the neighbors barn. I'm a little jealous of it. I would not want an HOA telling him that he can't have his barn.

We have already established you do not live on a .17 lot and the issues that cause need for an HOA diminish as lot size increases…

 

[jkaetz]

As I have said before it is simple and easy to change or even abolish an HOA, buy few ever try because the votes are not there.

This is like saying it's simple and easy to get rid of the NFA.

There is no middle to discussions with someone who is an absolutist that sellers should be required to sell all the rights to land. The middle is where we are legally, owners can sell as they wish and buyers are free buy or not buy.

You're arguing the wrong point. Yes, HOA is legal, no one has said it isn't. Yes you can buy or not and this has been discussed as well. I'll even give you that the theory of an HOA is sound. So how do we implement them such that they draw less criticism?

We have already established you do not live on a .17 lot and the issues that cause need for an HOA diminish as lot size increases…

So define the size cutoff where an HOA is no longer "needed".

 

[Ingomike]

This is like saying it's simple and easy to get rid of the NFA.

Getting a certain percentage of property owners to agree to a change of their covenants is far different from changing a law written years ago. If you can get 100% it is easy as can be, it is getting consensus that the changes will be better than the current rules that is difficult so the current must not be bad enough that the people want to change it.

You're arguing the wrong point. Yes, HOA is legal, no one has said it isn't. Yes you can buy or not and this has been discussed as well. I'll even give you that the theory of an HOA is sound. So how do we implement them such that they draw less criticism?

Have good people get involved in their neighborhood and stop leaving the work to the few that crave authority would be a good start. How the HOA is perceived is generally a reflection of who the neighborhood votes in. Vote in the wrong people or worse just let those authoritarian volunteers get in and there will be a mess.

Vote in folks that will follow the covenants and do not make up what is not in the covenants. Then if there are covenants the majority do not like change them.

So define the size cutoff where an HOA is no longer "needed".

This will be a personal number for each individual, there is no right or wrong. My opinion is between 3-5 acres and I likely have no desire for an HOA but that will depend on the land and housing proximity. Under that I most likely want at least some covenants. There is never going to be a neighborhood of 300 three acre lots.

I could see buying five or ten acres from a farmer and asking for a covenant for both of us that we will not raise pigs at all or within a set distance of the property line.

 

[repeter1977]

HOA’s can certainly exceed the covenants they are created by because some people are bad. But HOA’s cannot take rights away without exceeding the covenants they are created by legally. No one is forced to join an HOA, they do it voluntarily.

It was already pointed out the article headline and story are refuted by the attorneys quoted in the latter paragraphs. This is using anti-gunner tactics of trying to paint the broad group that operates efficiently for what the bad apples do.

Can you find a story about a rogue HOA in Indiana?

Love how you keep moving goal posts. Here you go, stories of Indiana HOAs

13 Investigates: Homeowners Associations

Why are some HOA neighborhoods literally crumbling? 13 Investigates shows you what happened, and what steps you can take to prevent a HOA nightmare.

www.wthr.com

HOA legal abuse runs amuck in Indiana

Independent American Communities Consumer Education for Homebuyers, Home, and Property Owners | Exposing Condo & HOA Dysfunction, Corruption, & Abuse | homeowners association, condominium, cooperative housing, affordable housing, housing consumer protection, news, HOA legislation, HOA case law...

independentamericancommunities.com

Again, we can keep doing this all day, or realize that there are actually bad HOAs even in Indiana. It's OK to admit that HOAs aren't perfect.

 

[jkaetz]

Getting a certain percentage of property owners to agree to a change of their covenants is far different from changing a law written years ago.

This is disingenuous. Getting a group of people to agree on anything is difficult.

Have good people get involved in their neighborhood and stop leaving the work to the few that crave authority would be a good start. How the HOA is perceived is generally a reflection of who the neighborhood votes in. Vote in the wrong people or worse just let those authoritarian volunteers get in and there will be a mess.

Vote in folks that will follow the covenants and do not make up what is not in the covenants. Then if there are covenants the majority do not like change them.

This isn't a change in implementation that will improve the perception/functionality of an HOA, this is expounding more on an already discussed topic with questionable efficacy.

 

[foszoe]

HOAs remind me of SaaS Terms and Conditions.

You want the convenience of our app? Click this box.

 

[indyblue]

You want the convenience of our app? Click this box.

HOA’s are alot like EULA’s. They’re in the way of you getting your work done until you break down and agree.

Study: Homeowners Say HOAs Aren’t Worth the Stress

To find out what homeowners really think about HOAs, we surveyed 1,000 of them about the pros and cons—and most said they’d rather not be members.

www.homeadvisor.com

Key Findings​

• Of homeowners surveyed, 1 in 3 say an HOA has caused them regular stress.
• A majority of homeowners (4 in 5) would rather live in a neighborhood without an HOA.
• The HOA restrictions homeowners hate the most? Lawn decor rules.
• Homeowners’ chief complaint about HOAs is the invasive behavior of HOA board members and neighbors.

The Pitfalls of HOA Membership​

Most homeowners (80%) would rather live in a neighborhood without an HOA. In fact, HOAs can be a major headache: One in three homeowners say their HOA causes them regular stress.

So, what’s so bad about HOAs? Homeowners put restrictive policies and rules at the top of their list—84% say these policies are a downside of HOA membership. Just after restrictive rules, homeowners have issues with costs and monitoring. About eight in 10 (83%) homeowners agree that they pay too much for dues and fines for infractions. Just under three in four (73%) think invasive monitoring (like coming by to check on backyard compliance) is a strike against HOAs, too.

 

[Creedmoor]

This is like saying it's simple and easy to get rid of the NFA.

You're arguing the wrong point. Yes, HOA is legal, no one has said it isn't. Yes you can buy or not and this has been discussed as well. I'll even give you that the theory of an HOA is sound. So how do we implement them such that they draw less criticism?

So define the size cutoff where an HOA is no longer "needed".

I'm curious to see that answer myself.

 

[Ingomike]

This is disingenuous. Getting a group of people to agree on anything is difficult.

The fact is they ALL agreed to buy in with the HOA in place, did they not?

This isn't a change in implementation that will improve the perception/functionality of an HOA, this is expounding more on an already discussed topic with questionable efficacy.

If by implementation you mean their creation, there is only one way they are created, the owner or owners create them. Please do not underestimate how having the wrong people on the board can lead an HOA down the wrong path, making everyone miserable.

 

[Ingomike]

HOA’s are alot like EULA’s. They’re in the way of you getting your work done until you break down and agree.

• A majority of homeowners (4 in 5) would rather live in a neighborhood without an HOA.

Study: Homeowners Say HOAs Aren’t Worth the Stress

To find out what homeowners really think about HOAs, we surveyed 1,000 of them about the pros and cons—and most said they’d rather not be members.

www.homeadvisor.com

If this were true in real life that 80% would be enough owners to sign change the covenants or possibly abolish the HOA. But in real life that just doesn’t happen often…

 

[JCSR]