Why Do So Many On INGO Hate HOA's?

[Ingomike]

HOAs remind me of SaaS Terms and Conditions.

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

There certainly are similarities. The owner of a software product and the owner of land certainly have every right to sell what they own as they wish. Do they not? Do you support laws that would limit how owners can sell their land or products?

 

[Ingomike]

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.

I do not see that these articles bolster your argument against HOS’s. An HOA is only as good as its members make it, the owners and members of the HOA in Jennings county obviously failed as did the HOA itself. Self maintenance takes work, they did’t work at it and it died a painful death.

Lets look at your poster child argument.

One report highlights Jenn Kampmeier. She made the mistake of parking her work vehicle — a wine and beer van for her mobile event catering business — in her home’s driveway on a few occasions.

But Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) at Lakes at Hayden Run prohibit parking commercial vehicles in the community.

So Kampmeier got a violation letter, informing her she needed to remove the van from her property, and cease doing business out of her home. The homeowner says that she promptly removed the van, and that she has never conducted business at her home.

Even after she complied with the rules, she say her HOA sued anyway. And then the HOA won in court. Now Kampmeier is on the hook for $45,000, the amount of her fine, plus attorney fees — the HOA’s as well as her own.


It was not a mistake, she signed agreeing to covenants, and failed to follow them a court agreed and it cost her. And courts do not take cases until they reach critical mass and a one or two time violation is not going to court.

Terry McMillen, who lives in North Harbour of Noblesville, Is on the verge of losing his home to HOA foreclosure over a single missed assessment payment of $150.

That $150 payment, with interest, late fees, and HOA attorney fees, grew to at least $700. McMillen tells RTV-6 that, when he found out about the $700 lien this February, he paid his HOA.

He hopes that will take care of the lien and stop the Association from moving ahead with a foreclosure.

Again, an HOA cannot foreclose on a single missed payment, there are rules of legal notices that must be completed before any legal action can take place, there is likely far more to the story. The source is an organization dedicated to being anti-HOA so there is that.

We sure can do this all day, there are likely hundreds of clickbait articles…

 

[jamil]

Polls are evidence? Actions are evidence.

Yes. Polls reflect the general opinions of people. They're not always accurate. But when they're this lopsided I think the accuracy of the sentiment of most people is not in favor of HOA's. But keep in mind. That's everyone. Not just the people who live in HOA's.

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.

This is just such a bad argument, I feel like you're just making stuff up at this point.

To change HOA's covenants takes usually a very large vote. In the HOA I was in it took 80% agreement to change the covenants. I think the poll I posted was something close to 60% against HOA's. 14% for. And the rest didn't really give a ****. So you won't see the majority of people's will being exercised in changing covenants. So it's a bad argument to use that to try to claim a majority of people aren't against HOA's otherwise we'd see them changed, or abolished.

And about the abolished argument, they can't. Because the deeds require an association. The association could just sort of disband and not be active. But the covenants initially created at the time the plats are created. The covenants exist before the first lot is sold. The developer usually controls that until a certain percentage of lots are conveyed. And then the association is formed, often by the initial board being chosen by the developer.

So, how could your proposed way of determining the popularity of HOA's even work? The rational is absurd on its face.

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.

The market has no choice really. Neighborhoods are popular for several reasons that have nothing to do with whether there is an HOA or not. So if you want to be in a neighborhood, for any of those reasons, it becomes a hobson's choice. There's no "until enough people will..." anything. Hobson *** ****ed their choice.

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.

Yeah I read the bylaws. That was like early 90's. But I don't recall ever seeing anything that abolishes the HOA. But, altering the bylaws required something like 75% or 80% of the homes voting to change it. So < 75% or whatever, and the bylaws can't change. That's why your rationale is ridiculous.

I have heard of developers abandoning the bylaws though. The neighborhood goes on. Without the developer. Without an HOA.

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.

I got it from your own words.

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

That wasn't the question. There are absolutists for, and absolutists against.
I've expressed hyperbolic rhetoric because you take things so seriously, and to make points about that. My non-hyperbolic viewpoint is I would like to see people have more freedom to either live in a neighborhood with an HOA if they want it. And not live in a neighborhood without one if they don't want it. But that means restricting something you don't want restricted.

If people could get what they want, only ~14% + however many of the don't-give-a-**** people pick the HOA. But if you want to live in a newer neighborhood, they don't come in that color.

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.


See above.

People aren't all wired the same. I think the "I don't want to get involved with political ****" group has a high overlap with the "**** HOA's" group.

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…

The paragraph you quoted was in aggrement about your suspicion that it's wives who might tend to favor HOA's.

 

[jamil]

I do not see that these articles bolster your argument against HOS’s. An HOA is only as good as its members make it

HOA's are made up of people.
People suck.
Therefore HOA's suck.

Q.E.D.

 

[jamil]

There certainly are similarities. The owner of a software product and the owner of land certainly have every right to sell what they own as they wish. Do they not? Do you support laws that would limit how owners can sell their land or products?

Well, they don't. there are already some restrictions on contracts. You act like anything someone could dream of to put into a contract is legally binding just because the other person signed it.

 

[KellyinAvon]

This thread never ends…

 

[rhamersley]

This thread never ends…

 

[indyblue]

 

[firecadet613]

Show me on this doll, where did the HOA hurt you?

 

[jkaetz]

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

You're conflating agreement with the HOA and bylaws with acceptance. People accept all sorts of things they don't agree with.

If by implementation you mean their creation, there is only one way they are created, the owner or owners create them.

I'm saying you started a thread with the premise of not understanding because you like the idea of an HOA. You've got three years and > 1000 posts telling you why others don't like them. I challenge you to propose something that gets the things you want and the things others want.

 

[JCSR]

This thread never ends…

 

[KellyinAvon]

View attachment 363210

 

[repeter1977]

I do not see that these articles bolster your argument against HOS’s. An HOA is only as good as its members make it, the owners and members of the HOA in Jennings county obviously failed as did the HOA itself. Self maintenance takes work, they did’t work at it and it died a painful death.

Lets look at your poster child argument.

One report highlights Jenn Kampmeier. She made the mistake of parking her work vehicle — a wine and beer van for her mobile event catering business — in her home’s driveway on a few occasions.

But Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) at Lakes at Hayden Run prohibit parking commercial vehicles in the community.

So Kampmeier got a violation letter, informing her she needed to remove the van from her property, and cease doing business out of her home. The homeowner says that she promptly removed the van, and that she has never conducted business at her home.

Even after she complied with the rules, she say her HOA sued anyway. And then the HOA won in court. Now Kampmeier is on the hook for $45,000, the amount of her fine, plus attorney fees — the HOA’s as well as her own.


It was not a mistake, she signed agreeing to covenants, and failed to follow them a court agreed and it cost her. And courts do not take cases until they reach critical mass and a one or two time violation is not going to court.

Terry McMillen, who lives in North Harbour of Noblesville, Is on the verge of losing his home to HOA foreclosure over a single missed assessment payment of $150.

That $150 payment, with interest, late fees, and HOA attorney fees, grew to at least $700. McMillen tells RTV-6 that, when he found out about the $700 lien this February, he paid his HOA.

He hopes that will take care of the lien and stop the Association from moving ahead with a foreclosure.

Again, an HOA cannot foreclose on a single missed payment, there are rules of legal notices that must be completed before any legal action can take place, there is likely far more to the story. The source is an organization dedicated to being anti-HOA so there is that.

We sure can do this all day, there are likely hundreds of clickbait articles…

Moving goal posts again. Just say you are mad I keep proving you wrong, you know what you think is trolling. You are mad the article proves you wrong on the missed payment. So, with that, I'm hoping karma for you. I hope I read another post on here where 80% of the HOA votes against you personally and well, you voted for it.

 

[gpasp101]

A friend recently pointed out 9 out of 10 HOA board members are cyclists

 

[phylodog]

I hope this thread goes on long enough so I can read about how wonderful the proposed 15 minute cities are. I'm looking forward to hearing all about how trading away your right to travel to have everything you could ever possibly need all within 15 minutes really makes sense if you just think about it.

 

[phylodog]

I find the "people do it by choice" argument similar to that of someone looking to buy a Jeep. You can buy an actual Jeep, with several thousand dollars in "optional" emissions equipment or you can buy a Mahindra Roxor. You can't drive the Roxor on the road or obtain a license plate for it but that doesn't mean that spending thousands on all that emissions equipment is being forced on anyone.

 

[Creedmoor]

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

I'm curious to see that answer myself.

Bueller...... BUELLER...... BUELLER

 

[Ingomike]

Yes. Polls reflect the general opinions of people. They're not always accurate. But when they're this lopsided I think the accuracy of the sentiment of most people is not in favor of HOA's. But keep in mind. That's everyone. Not just the people who live in HOA's.

Just like polls of how many guns people have I question the accuracy of polls on this as well.

This is just such a bad argument, I feel like you're just making stuff up at this point.

To change HOA's covenants takes usually a very large vote. In the HOA I was in it took 80% agreement to change the covenants. I think the poll I posted was something close to 60% against HOA's. 14% for. And the rest didn't really give a ****. So you won't see the majority of people's will being exercised in changing covenants. So it's a bad argument to use that to try to claim a majority of people aren't against HOA's otherwise we'd see them changed, or abolished.

So you are claiming that people don’t want HOA’s but they are being subjugated by 14%?

And about the abolished argument, they can't. Because the deeds require an association. The association could just sort of disband and not be active. But the covenants initially created at the time the plats are created. The covenants exist before the first lot is sold. The developer usually controls that until a certain percentage of lots are conveyed. And then the association is formed, often by the initial board being chosen by the developer.

The deeds can be changed if the owners want to do so.

So, how could your proposed way of determining the popularity of HOA's even work? The rational is absurd on its face.

I believe in markets and there doesn't seem to be any market forces putting any pressure on developers to not create an HOA.

The market has no choice really. Neighborhoods are popular for several reasons that have nothing to do with whether there is an HOA or not. So if you want to be in a neighborhood, for any of those reasons, it becomes a hobson's choice. There's no "until enough people will..." anything. Hobson *** ****ed their choice.

So the people do not want an HOA but buy anyway? So if a developer built a neighborhood without the people would flock to that development? LOL

Yeah I read the bylaws. That was like early 90's. But I don't recall ever seeing anything that abolishes the HOA. But, altering the bylaws required something like 75% or 80% of the homes voting to change it. So < 75% or whatever, and the bylaws can't change. That's why your rationale is ridiculous.

The owners can do anything they as a group can agree on. That enough would not agree doesn’t negate the fact they can.

I have heard of developers abandoning the bylaws though. The neighborhood goes on. Without the developer. Without an HOA.

I have too.

That wasn't the question. There are absolutists for, and absolutists against.
I've expressed hyperbolic rhetoric because you take things so seriously, and to make points about that. My non-hyperbolic viewpoint is I would like to see people have more freedom to either live in a neighborhood with an HOA if they want it. And not live in a neighborhood without one if they don't want it. But that means restricting something you don't want restricted.

I did not start a joke thread.

If people could get what they want, only ~14% + however many of the don't-give-a-**** people pick the HOA. But if you want to live in a newer neighborhood, they don't come in that color.

Why wouldn’t the market offer that option if the people really wanted it?

People aren't all wired the same. I think the "I don't want to get involved with political ****" group has a high overlap with the "**** HOA's" group.

Yep, too self involved to do anything political or HOA.

The paragraph you quoted was in aggrement about your suspicion that it's wives who might tend to favor HOA's.

We agree on something…

 

[Ingomike]

Well, they don't. there are already some restrictions on contracts. You act like anything someone could dream of to put into a contract is legally binding just because the other person signed it.

It would be if it is legal to do.

 

[Ingomike]

You're conflating agreement with the HOA and bylaws with acceptance. People accept all sorts of things they don't agree with.

The vast majority of home buyers sign documents saying they agree to follow covenants and HOA. Maybe you call that acceptance but I call it agreement. Either way the gave their word in writing they would follow the covenants and the HOA. When I bought I took that literally as it is.

I'm saying you started a thread with the premise of not understanding because you like the idea of an HOA. You've got three years and > 1000 posts telling you why others don't like them. I challenge you to propose something that gets the things you want and the things others want.

That is exactly what an HOA can do, I wanted no rentals like Dean is dealing with and the HOA came together and made it happen. Indyblue and I are never going to be on the same page, he wants to work on cars in his drive, and there are neighborhoods that allow that and I will never live in them. We both get a choice and have options.