Why Do So Many On INGO Hate HOA's?

[KellyinAvon]

WOW! Just, WOW!! I skipped about 100 posts getting to the end. I'm not sayin y'all are covering a lot of the same ground, but there are foot-deep ruts in this thread.

Out of State plates were mentioned a while back. I guess I'm still used to out of State plates from all those years on Military bases. I look at them and say "dang those plates are ugly!" or "how many plates has that State got??" I also say that about Indiana.

Now if I saw Indiana plates with a county sticker of 13... I'd be concerned.

@Route 45 at least the presumptive HOA President/confirmed Karen from the video didn't shoot into the crowd.

Keep it Classy, Indy

He's a piece of ****. But hey, it's what the people of Indianapolis tolerate so it must be fine. Judges are not elected in Marion County and only face retention on a ballot every 10 years...Once in, it's almost impossible to get kicked out.

www.indianagunowners.com

 

[jkaetz]

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.

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…

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.

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

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

Your way of thinking about this is truly scary. Most land in the US is already owned by someone, your position makes it such that there is no way short of begging existing owners to get a plot of land to live on free of restrictions and you're ok with this.

You truly support the "You'll own nothing and like it." sentiment that corporate America would like to make a reality.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

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

What does nice have to do with covenants? I thought they were to prohibit things like RVs in driveways, boats, polebarns, rentals, home businesses... What are your covenants on Christmas and Halloween decorations? I've got the feeling my neighbors wouldn't be allowed. Let alone the ice skating rink he set up...

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

Honestly not sure they are even allowed, garage sales that is.

 

[jamil]

The important question I want Mike to answer. Even if I were to concede that a person should have the right to impose whatever restrictions on a property he sells, which I'm not conceding, but for the sake of argument. Why should it be in perpetuity? Shouldn't property rights reset once the person who agreed to the terms upon purchasing the land, sells it? Does he not have rights to change the terms for the new owner?

For example. Let's say I buy some land that a farmer used to grow hay, and in the deed, the farmer stipulates that I can't start a pig farm on that land. 10 years later, a guy that wants to start a pig farm offers me 10x what I paid for the land, so I decide to sell it to him. When I sell the land, why should the buyer of that land be held to the same deal that I struck with the farmer?

The answer should be no perpetual contracts. So then, in a neighborhood with an HOA, I should be able to sell the home and not require that the buyer join the HOA. It should be his choice. The buyer should not be held to the same deal I had to make.

The reason the law doesn't see it that way, the pro-HOA people had the upper hand in making the laws. If it were the natural rights way, HOA's would die, because people wouldn't be forced into a Hobson's choice. Deeds would become much simpler. Lawyers would lose out on a source of income. Life would be good.

But no. Mike wants the farmer to say "no pig farms forever." So 1000 years down the road, many generations after the original deal was made, that one piece of land can have no pig farms.

 

[Ingomike]

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.

First upon further review, property ownership is not a natural or god given right, it is a legal right bestowed by the deed recognized by the legal system.


philosophers distinguish two types of rights, natural rights and legal rights.

• Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws, though one can forfeit their enjoyment through one's actions, such as by violating someone else's rights). Natural law is the law of natural rights.
• Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system (they can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws). The concept of positive law is related to the concept of legal 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.

There is no conflict in the law or my opinion until you create one that does not exist by believing that owners of property must be forced to only sell all rights to the property.

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.

I favor a completely free market where sellers can sell as they wish and buyers can buy, if they wish to buy, what a seller is selling. I favor the rights of landowners to sell as they wish and the right of buyers to have an HOA if they want. You are literally taking landowners and buyers that want a HOA rights away, that is not a free market.

It is interesting that you believe that restricting the ways sellers can sell their property and making it so those that want an HOA would lose that right is freedom, but allowing a seller to sell as they wish and creating an HOA some want is not freedom. All because of some individualist bias.

 

[Ingomike]

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.

If so many despise HOA’s why are there so few new neighborhoods that do not have an HOA? That should be an untapped market. I can see the ads now homes for sale, NO HOA, you can build what you like, paint it as you like, park your boats and RV’s in the yard, do car restoration in the drive, not mow grass until the city makes you. Yep a veritable paradise. Why doesn’t it exist?

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?

I would not know why as long as it didn’t conflict with what was already in place.

I can see a hypothetical of parents and adult daughter own property next to each other, the neighborhood HOA has no fence covenants, after the parents no longer need the house it is sold with a fence restriction so the daughter can keep her view of the pond and fountain. So everyone is told of the restriction and buyers that do not want a fence buy it.

Why would you take that freedom?

 

[Ingomike]

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

I have reconsidered and property rights are not natural rights…

 

[Ingomike]

Your way of thinking about this is truly scary. Most land in the US is already owned by someone, your position makes it such that there is no way short of begging existing owners to get a plot of land to live on free of restrictions and you're ok with this.

You truly support the "You'll own nothing and like it." sentiment that corporate America would like to make a reality.

You act like this is something new, it has been this way for centuries in this country. Again:

I favor a completely free market where sellers can sell as they wish and buyers can buy, if they wish to buy, what a seller is selling. I favor the rights of landowners to sell as they wish and the right of buyers to have an HOA if they want. You are literally taking landowners and buyers that want a HOA rights away, that is not a free market.

What is really scary is those wanting to take landowners rights, to sell as they wish, to satisfy their own fears and bias.

 

[Ingomike]

What does nice have to do with covenants? I thought they were to prohibit things like RVs in driveways, boats, polebarns, rentals, home businesses... What are your covenants on Christmas and Halloween decorations? I've got the feeling my neighbors wouldn't be allowed. Let alone the ice skating rink he set up...

Not everyone has the same taste and sensibilities about where they want to live, some are choosier than others. Obviously almost no one posting in this thread has the same value of street scape as I. Yet all while bellowing freedom, they want to take my freedom away to have the neighborhood aesthetic I want through an agreement of the owners usually created by the original landowner. They are reaching for ways to take that freedom.

 

[Ingomike]

The important question I want Mike to answer. Even if I were to concede that a person should have the right to impose whatever restrictions on a property he sells, which I'm not conceding, but for the sake of argument. Why should it be in perpetuity? Shouldn't property rights reset once the person who agreed to the terms upon purchasing the land, sells it? Does he not have rights to change the terms for the new owner?

For example. Let's say I buy some land that a farmer used to grow hay, and in the deed, the farmer stipulates that I can't start a pig farm on that land. 10 years later, a guy that wants to start a pig farm offers me 10x what I paid for the land, so I decide to sell it to him. When I sell the land, why should the buyer of that land be held to the same deal that I struck with the farmer?

I actually explained the basic process of doing just that a few pages ago. That process is unlikely in an HOA that has bylaws that lay out changes to the HOA, one of which is to abandon the HOA making it unenforceable.

The answer should be no perpetual contracts. So then, in a neighborhood with an HOA, I should be able to sell the home and not require that the buyer join the HOA. It should be his choice. The buyer should not be held to the same deal I had to make.

One cannot make a new contract to supersede a contract already in place.

The reason the law doesn't see it that way, the pro-HOA people had the upper hand in making the laws. If it were the natural rights way, HOA's would die, because people wouldn't be forced into a Hobson's choice. Deeds would become much simpler. Lawyers would lose out on a source of income. Life would be good.

Property rights are not natural rights, otherwise we would all own land.

But no. Mike wants the farmer to say "no pig farms forever." So 1000 years down the road, many generations after the original deal was made, that one piece of land can have no pig farms.

Many deed restrictions have been in place for hundreds of years. I believe if the owners of all affected properties agree they can be disposed of at anytime. In the case of the pig farm, they would file in court, notify adjoining properties, place notification ads, and if no one wants to enforce that covenant the court can remove it.

This process proves land ownership is a legal right, not a natural right.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Not everyone has the same taste and sensibilities about where they want to live, some are choosier than others. Obviously almost no one posting in this thread has the same value of street scape as I. Yet all while bellowing freedom, they want to take my freedom away to have the neighborhood aesthetic I want through an agreement of the owners usually created by the original landowner. They are reaching for ways to take that freedom.

Not the question asked. You said not everyone is nice, which is why there are covenants. I asked what does nice have to do with covenants.

 

[Ingomike]

Not the question asked. You said not everyone is nice, which is why there are covenants. I asked what does nice have to do with covenants.

I was implying your neighbors were nice and not all can be nice, being neighborly, keeping a nice place etc. so formal agreements are necessary. Not everyone wants a farm or industrial feel to their neighborhood.

 

[jkaetz]

I favor a completely free market where sellers can sell as they wish and buyers can buy, if they wish to buy, what a seller is selling. I favor the rights of landowners to sell as they wish and the right of buyers to have an HOA if they want. You are literally taking landowners and buyers that want a HOA rights away, that is not a free market.

We don't have a free market. Developers have tilted the scale in their favor.

Find a neighborhood in Marion county where you can buy a plot of land or build a new home without an HOA.

So now you're good with deed restrictions?

The idea of narrowly tailored deed restrictions isn't terrible, the implementation is and has been abused to create developer associations and pretend the homeowners created it.

There should be an amendment that requires a law be stricken for every new law written.

I feel like this would keep our politicians busy enough to stop trying to think of new ways to tell people how to live.

Yep, it is. I just find it hilarious when someone who's spent their life enforcing laws, downplays laws...

We should be applauding this, not ridiculling it. If more LEO did this there would be far less negative sentiment surrounding them.

 

[Ingomike]

We don't have a free market. Developers have tilted the scale in their favor.

How have developers tilted the market?

Find a neighborhood in Marion county where you can buy a plot of land or build a new home without an HOA.

Zillow shows 338 for sale today.

The idea of narrowly tailored deed restrictions isn't terrible, the implementation is and has been abused to create developer associations and pretend the homeowners created it.

No one is pretending anything, no one made a single buyer buy into the neighborhood with an HOA. You are trying to justify having your cake the way you want and eating it too.

 

[firecadet613]

We don't have a free market. Developers have tilted the scale in their favor.

Until folks stop buying and demand something different, this will continue.

Find a neighborhood in Marion county where you can buy a plot of land or build a new home without an HOA.

Get out of Marion County - it's much better in the donut counties (and beyond). Plenty of land there to be developed out there.

I feel like this would keep our politicians busy enough to stop trying to think of new ways to tell people how to live.

Agreed, but you mean their main job isn't trying to get elected again?

We should be applauding this, not ridiculling it. If more LEO did this there would be far less negative sentiment surrounding them.

My original comment was in response to this.

Because the laws allows it is not justification.

Because the law allows can be justification.

Look at Trump (or corporations in general) and their taxes. They are following the law but many say they aren't paying "their fair share" or enough in taxes. The law is their justification (unless you'd freely pay more in taxes). If people don't like the law, get it changed! (See what we did with 2A laws here in Indiana).

I'll say it again, if you can't change the game, figure out how to win within the game.

Here's a great read on that topic...

 

[phylodog]

I have reconsidered and property rights are not natural rights…

I cannot begin to convey the significance of my shock at this revelation.

 

[jkaetz]

How have developers tilted the market?

They have millions of dollars and resources to rapidly purchase lane, donate and lobby to politicians paving the way for things to tilt in their favor. The individual who simply wants to buys a house or plot of land without the nonsense is significantly outmatched.

Zillow shows 338 for sale today.

338 what? Neighborhoods? Homes? Show the search. I'd like to see these mythical new neighborhoods with no HOA.

No one is pretending anything, no one made a single buyer buy into the neighborhood with an HOA. You are trying to justify having your cake the way you want and eating it too.

You say this over and over as if it means something. Yes there are those of us who wish to purchase a piece of land and live on it peacefully without another government entity telling us what we can and can't do with it.

Get out of Marion County - it's much better in the donut counties (and beyond). Plenty of land there to be developed out there.

This is only a temporary solution and not viable for everyone.

Look at Trump (or corporations in general) and their taxes. They are following the law but many say they aren't paying "their fair share" or enough in taxes. The law is their justification (unless you'd freely pay more in taxes). If people don't like the law, get it changed! (See what we did with 2A laws here in Indiana).

Millionaires following the tax law is not what we have a problem with. Yes, getting laws changed is the ultimate solution, I don't think that's being argued. The primary things I see being focused on right now are:

• Is there a realistic choice between HOA or not?
• Should land owners be able to apply restrictions to a piece of real estate forever?

 

[jamil]

If so many despise HOA’s why are there so few new neighborhoods that do not have an HOA?

Because lawyers. Really that's the reason. No one has a choice. It's imposed on them by people more powerful.

That should be an untapped market. I can see the ads now homes for sale, NO HOA, you can build what you like, paint it as you like, park your boats and RV’s in the yard, do car restoration in the drive, not mow grass until the city makes you. Yep a veritable paradise. Why doesn’t it exist?

You're deluded into believing in the invisible hand of the market. It's horse ****. It's a theory that doesn't work in practice. People with power steer the markets to their whim, to a much larger extent than you seem to think. There's no such thing as a free market in the real world.

I would not know why as long as it didn’t conflict with what was already in place.

I can see a hypothetical of parents and adult daughter own property next to each other, the neighborhood HOA has no fence covenants, after the parents no longer need the house it is sold with a fence restriction so the daughter can keep her view of the pond and fountain. So everyone is told of the restriction and buyers that do not want a fence buy it.

Why would you take that freedom?

You keep calling it a freedom while advocating taking other property owners' freedom. This is the conflict that you keep denying. Whose rights prevail? So like I said, you'll just need to harrumph and storm off with fists clinched and be angry at INGO. On a gun board you're going to see proportions of people who think of property rights differently.

 

[Ingomike]

You keep calling it a freedom while advocating taking other property owners' freedom.

How can something be taken that was not sold to the buyer in the first place? Want in one hand and spit in the other and see which one gets full first…

 

[Ingomike]

They have millions of dollars and resources to rapidly purchase lane, donate and lobby to politicians paving the way for things to tilt in their favor. The individual who simply wants to buys a house or plot of land without the nonsense is significantly outmatched.

Usually they are extra lots that were never built on, some the house was lost in a fire, then plots too small for developers to be interested in.

338 what? Neighborhoods? Homes? Show the search. I'd like to see these mythical new neighborhoods with no HOA.

I put in lots and land in Indianapolis and got 338 results. Didn’t see any in HOA’s but I certainly did not look at all of them.

You say this over and over as if it means something. Yes there are those of us who wish to purchase a piece of land and live on it peacefully without another government entity telling us what we can and can't do with it.

They are out there. One thing I suspect you don’t like is folks that want what you say you want, want the economies of scale that the HOA neighborhood offers on your lot. That is not happening. You are not getting the subdivision house on your lot for even close to the subdivision price.

This is only a temporary solution and not viable for everyone.

Major cities are heavily developed and as they grow nearby areas are heavily developed, who would have thought…

Millionaires following the tax law is not what we have a problem with. Yes, getting laws changed is the ultimate solution, I don't think that's being argued. The primary things I see being focused on right now are:

• Is there a realistic choice between HOA or not?
• Should land owners be able to apply restrictions to a piece of real estate forever?

The answers are YES & YES