Why Do So Many On INGO Hate HOA's?

[jamil]

Your position is obscured by your personal bias. There are NO conflicting rights. That is all in your imagination. The seller has the right to sell the rights they wish to as they wish to. The buyer has the right to buy or not buy. The BS trope about being “forced” is just that. It would be fun to see just what deed restrictions are on the land of some of these posters, stuff they may not have even understood were in place when they bought their land. It is not that uncommon to have them.

You gonna buy the EV?

 

[Ingomike]

You know, I believe you.

I'd much rather have the neighbor I have across the street. With his RV parked in the drive, big *** pole barn on one of his 3 lots that he runs his business out of, and a rental on the third lot. And has hired a live band for parties. Who will go out of his way to help someone.

First time I met him was when I was push mowing my yard because my rider broke down. Hot day I in June, next thing I know here he comes on his rider and without saying a word gets to work mowing. After he was done told me if I needed it it was parked in his shed with the key in it, just come get it.

That is nice but unfortunately not all can be nice, creating a need for covenants.

 

[Ingomike]

Well, at least you DO understand the situation. You just admitted that, given the chance, most neighborhoods would not vote to implement an HOA

So, like communism, they are an idea so good it has to be mandatory

My point was everyone would want their own thing, getting agreement is hard.

 

[jamil]

Grass height most of the homes don't have to worry too much, all sand. As for the shutters, it most definitely isn't a cookie cutter vinyl village, and I wouldn't wish that for the house's sake.

But how about this, they have seasonal parking restrictions. Summer time you can't park on your own street side parking spots(on your property, not on street), must be in your driveway. Unless you have a yearly parking sticker. You get one "free" sticker with your dues, and you can purchase one additional for $50. You can get temporary ones for guests, but I think they are limited to something like 4-6 for the year.

Oh that's something that is something they already have. Dues are reasonable though, $125 a yr I think. But then again the town gets property taxes.

Well then please tell me they have to wear maid uniforms for garage sales.

 

[Ingomike]

Is that actually true? Couldn't the farmer who sells the developer the prime property place a deed restriction that HOAs are not allowed?

Of course the farmer could. It might cost him to do so as developers may not pay as much for that land.

After all, that would seem to be some of your kind of freedom. Or maybe the landowner could insist on a certain lot size, or even specify what colors of siding and trim the developer implement restrictions for

After all, the seller of a property can do whatever he wants, yes?

100% YES

 

[Ingomike]

Aren't you telling us that only the seller has full property rights and can restrict the buyer any way he wishes? Seems like the 'full' property rights of the buyer have already been taken away

A buyer can only buy what a seller is selling. The buyer has nothing taken away, they buy what is offered or they do not buy.

 

[jamil]

This is just 180 degrees wrong. The ability if a property owner to sell individual rights while retaining others is a natural right and nit understanding that is the crux of this whole thread.

The ability to sell individual rights to property is freedom.

The option of buying in an HOA is freedom.

The option of not buying in an HOA is freedom.

Being required to sell all rights to sell property is a restriction on freedom.

To do what the **** you want with property you buy is a natural right. Then the lawyers got involved. Now look what you've done. Not buying in an HOA is pretty much impossible if you want a newer home in a neighborhood. You hide behind the copout of take it or leave it as if that's actually a choice. All because you think you've got it right. What you have is merely an opinion, which you mistake as a natural right, and it's obviously not a very popular opinion from the way things look.

 

[jamil]

My point was everyone would want their own thing, getting agreement is hard.

Much better just to force people to do what YOU want instead of giving them a choice and adopting only the consensus restrictions.

 

[Ingomike]

Accuse others of that you do. Classic projection. As you've been doing this entire thread.

Exactlly what freedom am I proposing to take? None? The only ones taking freedom canmot seem to get that requiring a landowner to sell ALL property rights or none is taking freedom from the landowner. No one of forced to buy ANYTHING…

 

[Ingomike]

Can we all agree that no one actually wants to take people's rights away? That it's mostly a disagreement on how to handle conflicting rights?

Or, we could agree that everyone actually wants to take people's rights away. Or we could just not agree on anything because the other side is poopy.

There are NO conflicting rights at all. Can you explain how anyone is literally forced to buy without full rights? There may even be limited options to buy new homes without limitations on the rights but it is silly to say anyone was forced.

 

[Ingomike]

The loan originator doesn't really give a sh*t if you buy a property you want to rent the next day, they just charge more because their risk profile on such a property is different, with a higher probability of default. That's the predominant reason for the rider that you speak of

Investment property mortgages are very different from owner occupied mortgages, with higher down payment requirements and other conditions. After the meltdown of 08 most have clauses that kick in when the fraud is determined and repayment is required.

 

[jamil]

There are NO conflicting rights at all. Can you explain how anyone is literally forced to buy without full rights? There may even be limited options to buy new homes without limitations on the rights but it is silly to say anyone was forced.

I told you. But you have this opinion that you elevate to the status of natural right. So you're like

 

[Ingomike]

To do what the **** you want with property you buy is a natural right.

It is, including the right to limit uses of future owners.

Then the lawyers got involved. Now look what you've done.

Have to have a lawyer to create deeds counties will accept.

Not buying in an HOA is pretty much impossible if you want a newer home in a neighborhood.

And why would that be? Wouldn’t developers/builders want to keep their options open to sell to anyone! Why would they restrict themselves that way!

You hide behind the copout of take it or leave it as if that's actually a choice. All because you think you've got it right. What you have is merely an opinion, which you mistake as a natural right, and it's obviously not a very popular opinion from the way things look.

It is real freedom to sell property the way one wants, demanding that all property rights be sold is taking freedom away…

 

[Ingomike]

I told you. But you have this opinion that you elevate to the status of natural right. So you're like

It is not an opinion, it is fact and proven law. The opinion is that all rights must be transferred at sale…

 

[jamil]

It is not an opinion, it is fact and proven law. The opinion is that all rights must be transferred at sale…

It's law. That doesn't make it a natural right.

 

[Ingomike]

It's law. That doesn't make it a natural right.

It is also fact. With your conflicting point rights would you agree that making sellers sell all rights to property is taking their rights?

 

[jamil]

It is also fact.

It's a fact that it's the law. It's your opinion that it's a natural right. I mean we can get into the discussion of the basis of natural rights, and what makes it "natural" if you want.

With your conflicting point rights would you agree that making sellers sell all rights to property is taking their rights?

The conflict is whether a property owner should have the right to impose a restriction on future rights of the next owner of that property. In my opinion, they should not. In your opinion, they should. But the biggest difference between our opinions is that you believe yours is not an opinion. I'm not talking about what the law is, I'm talking about what it should be.

Again, like with other things you've expressed as absolute truth, your opinion seems to stray towards the collective over the individual. Favoring HOA's over the rights of individuals is more collectivist than individualist. And you use this idea that not allowing developers to impose a restriction of property rights perpetually is somehow taking their rights away. You're literally advocating for the "right" to restrict rights.

 

[jamil]

Mike, I think you're just gonna have to do a final harrumph, throw your hands up in disgust, and deal with it. People don't like HOA's and they don't like the idea of restricting the rights of future property owners.

BTW. If I'm a home owner in an HOA, do I have the right to attach whatever restrictions I want to my deed like the developer did? Or does that "natural right" only extend to elites?

 

[Creedmoor]

What is the relevance of this post to this thread? NONE!

 

[phylodog]

This is just 180 degrees wrong. The ability if a property owner to sell individual rights while retaining others is a natural right and nit understanding that is the crux of this whole thread.

The ability to sell individual rights to property is freedom.

The option of buying in an HOA is freedom.

The option of not buying in an HOA is freedom.

Being required to sell all rights to sell property is a restriction on freedom.

You have no natural rights to something you don't own.