Why Do So Many On INGO Hate HOA's?

[phylodog]

There is no justification necessary, they own the land and can do with it what they want. Can we agree on that?

Sure. Right up to the point they no longer own it. Then the person who does own it gets all of those rights to it (that's king of the point of owning something). Can we agree on that?

 

[Ingomike]

Sure. Right up to the point they no longer own it. Then the person who does own it gets all of those rights to it (that's king of the point of owning something). Can we agree on that?

So you are advocating taking the right away from landowners to sell as they want by forcing them to satisfy your own desire to have complete control of land? Isn’t that taking the rights of an owner to sell and a buyer to buy as they wish and agree.

 

[phylodog]

So you are advocating taking the right away from landowners to sell as they want by forcing them to satisfy your own desire to have complete control of land? Isn’t that taking the rights of an owner to sell and a buyer to buy as they wish and agree.

What is the point of "ownership"? I'm advocating that selling something means it's no longer yours to control.

There is no ethical justification for wanting to impose your will onto someone else for selfish reasons and that is 100% the purpose of an HOA. I cannot help you to understand that, it is as basic as it gets. You have talked for two weeks about this now and failed to raise any validity to your position.

Do HOAs provide benefits? Yes. Is the juice worth the squeeze? Not by a long shot.

 

[repeter1977]

What is the point of "ownership"?

You can't own anything, like an HOA. Everything belongs to everyone. Just like the communist paradise he keeps projecting on others.

 

[phylodog]

You can't own anything, like an HOA. Everything belongs to everyone. Just like the communist paradise he keeps projecting on others.

In reality our property tax system is set up to prevent anyone from actually owning any real property but that's a different 12,000 comment thread where someone attempts to justify that as ethical as well.

 

[Ingomike]

Sure. Right up to the point they no longer own it. Then the person who does own it gets all of those rights to it (that's king of the point of owning something). Can we agree on that?

What is the point of "ownership"?

A guy in the country has twenty acres he wants to sell and move to Florida. He has been friends with his neighbors for forty years and doesn’t want to leave them with a bad neighbor so he puts deed restrictions on the property. Maybe is is no hogs, no junkyard, no commercial business, whatever his concerns are he can create a covenant and deed restriction.

I want to buy twenty acres, I’m not raising hogs, starting a junkyard or a commercial business, those covenants do not bother me in the least, so I agree with him and buy with his deed restrictions and covenants. I may even get a better price because some may not like those restrictions.

What you propose would take the sellers and buyers rights away to sell and buy as they wish…

 

[Ingomike]

You can't own anything, like an HOA. Everything belongs to everyone. Just like the communist paradise he keeps projecting on others.

You are the one proposing taking freedom away…

 

[Route 45]

You can't own anything, like an HOA. Everything belongs to everyone. Just like the communist paradise he keeps projecting on others.

You're being lectured by this guy. I don't know how the constant cognitive dissonance doesn't give him a rash.

He keeps using the word "own." I do not think it means what he thinks it means.

 

[firecadet613]

Have you ever met or talked with police officers in real life, or are you just laughing at what you've made up in your mind?

.

Yes, I've spoken with many police officers (have family that are, my wedding photographer was, etc). Turned down a job offer as well...

The alternative being that if politicians put it on paper it's automatically justified, ethical and not to be criticized?

Many people may not realize that cops have a lot of discretion when it comes to enforcing the law. A lot. I easily pulled 500+ cars over for every 1 ticket that I wrote. If it were even remotely possible to wade through every law that is currently on the books in this country, I'd venture to guess I could find necessity in about 40% of them.

Our society is so far removed from reality that people can not even fathom not having someone ruling over their every move. I'm not advocating for anarchy (before the hyperbole experts slobber all over my post) but to equate law with what is fundamentally right is putting way, way, way, way, way, way, way too much faith in mankind.

If this is how we are to believe, I guess anything I do which isn't specifically prohibited by law must be acceptable. That'd be a very dangerous world to live in for many.

I'm just pulling your chain bud...

Many unjust and unethical laws out there...

But when a cop downplays the law, I'll bite...

 

[phylodog]

A guy in the country has twenty acres he wants to sell and move to Florida. He has been friends with his neighbors for forty years and doesn’t want to leave them with a bad neighbor so he puts deed restrictions on the property. Maybe is is no hogs, no junkyard, no commercial business, whatever his concerns are he can create a covenant and deed restriction.

I want to buy twenty acres, I’m not raising hogs, starting a junkyard or a commercial business, those covenants do not bother me in the least, so I agree with him and buy with his deed restrictions and covenants. I may even get a better price because some may not like those restrictions.

What you propose would take the sellers and buyers rights away to sell and buy as they wish…

I'm done with your constant running around.

Can you justify your desire to impose your will onto your neighbors or not? I can throw up endless scenarios of how HOAs **** people out of doing things they want to do so the tit for tat is useless.

 

[firecadet613]

Do HOAs provide benefits? Yes. Is the juice worth the squeeze? Not by a long shot.

Let's ask Dean in a few months, I'm sure his opinion is different...

 

[phylodog]

Let's ask Dean in a few months, I'm sure his opinion is different...

What about the rights of the owner of the problem house? Why can't he/she invest spend a couple hundred thousand dollars on a a nice, new investment property to rent out? Wouldn't a brand new house in a brand new subdivision be one of the most appealing rental properties to own? What about that guy's rights? Why is it ok to take away his income and saddle him with a business expense he has no means of paying now?

For the record, I'm on Dean's side and I hope he wins but in reality I don't have a dog in that fight. I'd not own a rental property if someone gave it to me nor would I buy homes in nice, new neighborhoods to rent out if I did.

I'm bringing up the point that no matter what, someone should have control over a piece of property and at the end of the day, I believe that control should belong to the person that owns it. Does that come with plenty of pains in the ass? Yep, sure does but I'll side with what I believe is right over what I believe is safe, convenient or financially beneficial every time. By definition that makes me a conservative, maybe libertarian and the opposite, well, liberal.

 

[firecadet613]

What about the rights of the owner of the problem house? Why can't he/she invest spend a couple hundred thousand dollars on a a nice, new investment property to rent out? Wouldn't a brand new house in a brand new subdivision be one of the most appealing rental properties to own? What about that guy's rights? Why is it ok to take away his income and saddle him with a business expense he has no means of paying now?

Did the owner of that rental house sign an agreement stating he would not rent it out? Most likely, yes.

And I'd wager to bet he has a primary residence mortgage on it, which means the mortgagee needs to live there as their primary residence for at least the first year (most mortgages)...

For the record, I'm on Dean's side and I hope he wins but in reality I don't have a dog in that fight. I'd not own a rental property if someone gave it to me nor would I buy homes in nice, new neighborhoods to rent out if I did.

We're in agreement there.

I'm bringing up the point that no matter what, someone should have control over a piece of property and at the end of the day, I believe that control should belong to the person that owns it. Does that come with plenty of pains in the ass? Yep, sure does but I'll side with what I believe is right over what I believe is safe, convenient or financially beneficial every time. By definition that makes me a conservative, maybe libertarian and the opposite, well, liberal.

If they decide to join a HOA or sign an agreement, that's their right and ability to do so.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Playing word play you can tell me I’m wrong. To me a judge dismissing a case pre trial is not accepting it but you define for you.

It would have to be accepted before it can be dismissed... And I'm pretty sure there is usually at least one hearing prior to that.

Words have meaning.

He listed the various states the cars parked near, I just picked one. So there.

He listed 3 different state plates that were parked in the driveway next door, the car pictured is not in a driveway.

 

[phylodog]

Did the owner of that rental house sign an agreement stating he would not rent it out? Most likely, yes.

And I'd wager to bet he has a primary residence mortgage on it, which means the mortgagee needs to live there as their primary residence for at least the first year (most mortgages)...

We're in agreement there.

If they decide to join a HOA or sign an agreement, that's their right and ability to do so.

If it were a yes or no option I would be fine with it but it isn't. Take it or leave it isn't a choice when there is no necessity and neighborhoods exist just fine without them.

Hell, put a five or ten year automatic expiration on them and I'll not say another word. After that they begin causing too many issues for too many people who cannot afford to move out to a different home with more space.

 

[jamil]

Say this... Because the laws allows it is not justification.

That's not what you said.

If we're going to say F this one law because it isn't ethical, why stop at that one? F this one to and this other one while we're at it!

That's the point I was getting at, that I've never heard a cop say...

I think it's called nullification.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Glad you are OK with it, once again I bought in a neighborhood explicitly banning rentals for the most part. I don’t like rentals at all and want nothing to do with them.


This thread is also a great example of how black and white morality is freaking stupid.

So you can vet your other neighbors guests? How about near adult children? Contractors? Nothing has materially changed.

And some of the people probably bought into the neighborhood because it explicitly bans letting your dog crap in other people's yards. That one I could get behind.

 

[jamil]

If it were a yes or no option I would be fine with it but it isn't. Take it or leave it isn't a choice when there is no necessity and neighborhoods exist just fine without them.

Hell, put a five or ten year automatic expiration on them and I'll not say another word. After that they begin causing too many issues for too many people who cannot afford to move out to a different home with more space.

I'd say if HOA's have any value at all, it's in maintaining common areas and paying neighborhood bills. But a problem with that is when there's a lot of common stuff. Some neighborhoods have common septic. Why, I'm not sure, because someone always ends up living next to the shitter. And it stinks. Neighborhoods often have playgrounds, or park areas, trails, swimming pool, etcetera.

So, upkeep on that stuff has to be paid for by someone. And if you're going to require dues, there needs to be some way to enforce them. So then you start taking about having to have a an attorney to handle legal issues and whatnot. And next thing you know, it becomes complicated enough that it's functioning essentially like a parallel private government. At that point you might as well turn it over to local government and just pay for all that through taxes.

Property taxes.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I know of no home subdivision that has any control of inside the home. Do you? If one person buys three lots they have three votes. Vetting the neighbors becomes federal civil rights violations quickly.

I've been thinking, doesn't your HOA have control over what happens inside the home?

It prohibits rentals, therefore it controls who you may have in your house.

It prohibits home based businesses that require a license. Which controls what you may do inside your house.

I hope you don't really like having guns in your home. But honestly I wouldn't want that to happen to you. Now if they passed a restriction on ICE vehicles and only electric, straight electric none of those hybrids, well...

 

[Timjoebillybob]

There is absolutely no process for vetting tenants in place, it could be the local pedophile hotel for all we know currently. Also this thing called property value, a big part of the reason we spent the extra cash to build in a nice neighborhood in a nice area and whatnot

I have a serious question for you. Is the real problem that he rents it? Or that he had the temerity to park slightly in front of your driveway? You did post this after all before you started in on vetting tenants or property values.

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.

I'm guessing it's the second.