Why Do So Many On INGO Hate HOA's?

[Ingomike]

It was voluntary for me, until I got fired for not taking it. Lost a once in a lifetime job and got looked at like some sort of failure.

You seem to be living a very blessed life my friend.

There are costs for living the life each individual wants. Sorry for the cost you paid. The founders paid a heavy price for their convictions, many others have as well. I salute you for your conviction and have empathy for the price you paid. I have a feeling there will be even more of a price we all will have to pay…

 

[Shadow01]

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

I prefer a 3 to 1 ratio.

 

[phylodog]

You want to take landowners freedom for your own selfish reasons.

I've changed my position. You are correct, an owner should be able to put whatever limitations or restrictions on property they are selling that they wish. Others are free to buy it or not buy it. I 100% agree with you on that. As a property owner, you should be allowed to sell your property how you wish to sell it. It is your property to do with as you wish. You win.

At that point the property is sold, has a different owner and the previous owner no longer has any say so in or control over the property whatsoever. At the point the new owner can wipe their ass with the previous owner's wishes and do what they wish because that is the entire ****ing point of ownership.

There, now we both get to be right.

 

[jkaetz]

My HOA neighborhood was surrounded by non HOA neighborhoods (older and existing)

You can just stop there. Older and existing is not an apples/apples comparison. Mike has pointed out one instance where this was a thing because the developer made a mistake. There may very well be other examples too, but it is certainly not a readily available option.

If you want to buy you must agree to the seller’s conditions. Why are there few non-HOA neighborhoods? There are ALWAYS other options. I read in INGO there was no difference in HOA and non-HOA neighborhoods, so what is the issue? Production neighborhoods are economies of scale that you get on their terms. If their terms are not acceptable you do not get to enjoy their economies of scale. There are lots you can build on in every area.

Same old argument.

And you have failed to post anything but your feelings. Nothing real to refute my facts that you want to take property owners freedom so you can have what you want.

Find me a post where I talk about feelings. I have opined on various aspects but I never use feeling as a basis for a debate. Many of us have agreed with your facts, refuted them, and pointed out a different perspective on the others. You however simply continue to parrot back the same things as if saying them over and over somehow makes them more impactful.

I very specifically laid out what and why I would make a change. Yes it is a restriction on how the land owner may sell the land. I've not even argued with you that it isn't. You're even free to agree or disagree or even discuss why you think things are good as they are or how the proposed changes would impact other things. Instead you repeatedly return to "it's the law", "that's the way it is/it's always been that way", "you're taking away their rights", and let's not forget "if you don't like it change it".

 

[firecadet613]

My point was exactly the same. You just didn't like it.

No, my point was fact. No one is forced to live in a HOA neighborhood and aside from maybe a Del Boca Vista type town, no where has 100% HOA neighborhoods

It wasn't voluntary for so many, especially anyone working in the military or government. So, it's OK that the military can be experimental tested? None of that seems right. Nor losing a government job because of something that definitely wasn't agreed on in a employment contract. So, because it didn't effect your screw those others?

I never said that. I said it was not 100% forced, as it wasn't. My step brother opted to leave the military vs take the shot. It wasn't required by my employer but we were prepared for my wife to quit vs take the jab. It would have hurt financially for a bit, but look at all the issues and deaths is caused now.

Everyone has their own comfort level. I'm OK with HOAs but not the jab, and it's cool you're not OK with HOAs but bend to taking the jab.

There have been quite a few lawsuits regarding the jab and the military, if that happened to you, sue the F'ers and get made whole.

Wait, isn't this the "Why Do So Many On INGO Hate HOA's?" thread??

It was voluntary for me, until I got fired for not taking it. Lost a once in a lifetime job and got looked at like some sort of failure.

SUE them!

You seem to be living a very blessed life my friend.

Yes and no. Very blessed for sure, but not without loss, disappointments, and setbacks. I learned long ago that EVERY day is a gift and Illegitimi non carborundum - Don't let the bastards grind you down.

Learn when to yes, when to say no, and learn from others mistakes.

Off topic, but this guy has a wealth of info on the jab and covid...he is the MOST PUBLISHED cardiologist, so I'll take his word over the MSM and those trying to bribe folks to get jabbed!

x.com

twitter.com

 

[firecadet613]

You can just stop there. Older and existing is not an apples/apples comparison. Mike has pointed out one instance where this was a thing because the developer made a mistake. There may very well be other examples too, but it is certainly not a readily available option.

Buy a lot and have TK Construction build you a home. Lots available in every town. But if you want the builder grade home price and everything that goes with it - HOA it is. Why can't the builder dictate their terms?

Again, everyone that I know who's built in the new HOA subdivision recently, wants the HOA...

 

[Ingomike]

I've changed my position. You are correct, an owner should be able to put whatever limitations or restrictions on property they are selling that they wish. Others are free to buy it or not buy it. I 100% agree with you on that. As a property owner, you should be allowed to sell your property how you wish to sell it. It is your property to do with as you wish. You win.

At that point the property is sold, has a different owner and the previous owner no longer has any say so in or control over the property whatsoever. At the point the new owner can wipe their ass with the previous owner's wishes and do what they wish because that is the entire ****ing point of ownership.

There, now we both get to be right.

Nice attempt at humor. So contracts mean nothing to you? You are free to want it any way you can imagine but I live in the real world. Maybe a landowner sells grandpa‘s 100 acre woods and puts in a deed restriction that it cannot be developed into an HOA subdivision. They should be allowed to do that. It can be used for reasons you likely support.

 

[Ingomike]

You can just stop there. Older and existing is not an apples/apples comparison. Mike has pointed out one instance where this was a thing because the developer made a mistake. There may very well be other examples too, but it is certainly not a readily available option.

Same old argument.

That is because my points are true and unassailable concerning the laws and how they work.

Find me a post where I talk about feelings. I have opined on various aspects but I never use feeling as a basis for a debate. Many of us have agreed with your facts, refuted them, and pointed out a different perspective on the others. You however simply continue to parrot back the same things as if saying them over and over somehow makes them more impactful.

I very specifically laid out what and why I would make a change. Yes it is a restriction on how the land owner may sell the land. I've not even argued with you that it isn't. You're even free to agree or disagree or even discuss why you think things are good as they are or how the proposed changes would impact other things. Instead you repeatedly return to "it's the law", "that's the way it is/it's always been that way", "you're taking away their rights", and let's not forget "if you don't like it change it".

Your expression of what you want is feelings of how you think things should be.

 

[Ingomike]

SUE them!

100%! People are winning in court and I suspect millions more are setting quietly lest the dam break…

 

[Ingomike]

Buy a lot and have TK Construction build you a home. Lots available in every town. But if you want the builder grade home price and everything that goes with it - HOA it is. Why can't the builder dictate their terms?

Again, everyone that I know who's built in the new HOA subdivision recently, wants the HOA...

I bet most of their kids will buy in an HOA in a heartbeat.

 

[firecadet613]

100%! People are winning in court and I suspect millions more are setting quietly lest the dam break…

And it's not being reported on the MSM, that's for sure!

 

[xwing]

I can't believe this thread is still going. HOAs are evil in that you never really "own" your own property or have your own choices with it. You are forced to follow insane rules and never have any actual freedom if you buy into an HOA. (Kinda like how you never actually "own" your own property since you have to pay property taxes each year, but even worse.)

 

[Ingomike]

I can't believe this thread is still going. HOAs are evil in that you never really "own" your own property or have your own choices with it.

This perfectly encapsulates why the thread continues. You own your property, to say otherwise is an outright fabrication. Is every contract evil?

You are forced to follow insane rules and never have any actual freedom if you buy into an HOA.

So you read a few outlier news articles or maybe they are just not the right fit for you, many do like them for their own reasons and it is ridiculous to suggest they should not have that freedom.

(Kinda like how you never actually "own" your own property since you have to pay property taxes each year, but even worse.)

Not really even similar.

 

[phylodog]

Nice attempt at humor. So contracts mean nothing to you? You are free to want it any way you can imagine but I live in the real world. Maybe a landowner sells grandpa‘s 100 acre woods and puts in a deed restriction that it cannot be developed into an HOA subdivision. They should be allowed to do that. It can be used for reasons you likely support.

Contracts mean as much to me as ownership means to you.

 

[Ingomike]

Contracts mean as much to me as ownership means to you.

Ownership of land is sacred to me. That is why I am so against your proposal that all land sales include only the complete bundle of rights, it strips landowners of freedom so you get the appearance of freedom you imagine but once you own the land the freedom to sell as you want is gone.

@jamil imagined a conflict of freedom, that is a figment of his imagination, buyers of property have no rights to more than the seller wants to sell.

The reality is your point, while coming from a admirable sprit of freedom, actually takes freedom from landowners…

 

[phylodog]

Ownership of land is sacred to me. That is why I am so against your proposal that all land sales include only the complete bundle of rights, it strips landowners of freedom so you get the appearance of freedom you imagine but once you own the land the freedom to sell as you want is gone.

@jamil imagined a conflict of freedom, that is a figment of his imagination, buyers of property have no rights to more than the seller wants to sell.

The reality is your point, while coming from a admirable sprit of freedom, actually takes freedom from landowners…

How so? I said sell it however you want, put all the restrictions on the sale you want to, I have no issue with that. You are correct, as the seller you have all rights to sell the property however you want.

Then, as soon as you aren’t the owner, all rights of ownership go to the new owner who should have every right to do what they want with it at that point. All rights go to the current owner. Then the new owner can do it all over again, like you want to with all of the restrictions they can imagine.

Seems perfectly fair to me. Unless, wait…surely you aren’t suggesting that I can sell something to someone but still maintain the right to tell them what they can do with it.

How can I own something if I need permission from the previous owner to use it?

 

[Ingomike]

Unless, wait…surely you aren’t suggesting that I can sell something to someone but still maintain the right to tell them what they can do with it.

How can I own something if I need permission from the previous owner to use it?

Is that not a freedom landowners enjoy? The right to sell the rights they wish to sell and retain the rights they want. Would you rather lose your farm or be able to sell certain rights to it, which at that point you no longer own the complete rights but still have your farm? Do I no longer own my house because I agreed not to park an RV in the drive?

 

[phylodog]

Is that not a freedom landowners enjoy? The right to sell the rights they wish to sell and retain the rights they want. Would you rather lose your farm or be able to sell certain rights to it, which at that point you no longer own the complete rights but still have your farm? Do I no longer own my house because I agreed not to park an RV in the drive?

I don't see the issue. I said owners (actual, true, legitimate ownership) of property have the right do what they want with it. If they want to sell an acre of land and demand that whomever buys it doesn't ride a moped on it until 2050. I agree with you, they should have every right to sell that acre with that restriction on it, it's theirs and they can do what they want.

Let's say you buy it from me, agreeing to that restriction. Now you, in my personal belief have every right to open up a moped dealership on that acre of land. It' yours, you bought it and are now the legitimate and legal owner of that property. I believe as the owner you should be able to do what you want with it. I don't believe that someone who owned it previously should be granted any authority over it whatsoever. That is the very definition of owner's rights.

You are advocating for previous owner's rights which I find utterly ridiculous.

 

[jamil]

The facts are the facts. What am I wrong on if you believe I am wrong and why? What you want is not a fact.

We’ve told you the whole thread. Acting like no ine has told you is retarded. What wouldn’t be retarded is acknowledging, by simply saying, “I disagree because in my opinion….” Instead you call everyone ignorant. Do you understand now?

 

[Ingomike]

I don't believe that someone who owned it previously should be granted any authority over it whatsoever. That is the very definition of owner's rights.

That definition is too narrow. The complete bundle of rights includes many property rights. They can be sold individually and if one thinks the sellers should not be able to do this, they are taking the sellers freedom.

You are advocating for previous owner's rights which I find utterly ridiculous.

I am advocating for the ability to sell any individual property rights or the complete bundle. The buyer gets what the buyer buys.