Why Do So Many On INGO Hate HOA's?

[jamil]

I want to live in a neighborhood with others that want to live the way I do. Control only comes into play when people lie and sign documents that they will live in accordance to the covenants and HOA then fail to live up to their word.

Well, you can’t. Tough ****. Some people bought in your neighborhood who don’t like some of the rules, but because there wasn’t anything else available for their specific needs, they moved in your neighborhood anyway. And when karen came around to nit-pick, they said, **** you karen.

Sometimes karen is the windshield. Sometimes karen is the bug. But I usually root for karen to be the bug and get splatted by reality.

 

[jamil]

Well your post is certainly retarded…

Nuh uh. Yers is.

 

[ditcherman]

Definitely did not read the whole thread but I'm sure this still applies.

 

[jamil]

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…

This post is not retarded.

 

[Ingomike]

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?

You disagree with the law, you support changing the law in a way that takes landowner rights way, while pretending it is creating freedom.

 

[phylodog]

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.


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

Nah, that definition isn't too narrow. That is the definition of ownership. What you are advocating for is limited ownership which may be fine for some things, not for a person's primary residence and especially not for silly ******** that prevents people from utilizing their residence as a normal, free American citizen should be able to.

This isn't about mineral rights or air rights. This is about twisting the concept of property rights for petty nonsense to force everyone to conform to some specific set of behaviors. It's ridiculous and the fact that the law allows it does not make it any less gross. The law also allows corporations like John Deere to fire hundreds or thousands of Americans and move those jobs out of the country without consequence so you'll have to forgive me if I don't look to the law for guidance on what is right or wrong.

Laws are written by politicians, most politicians are lawyers and most lawyers are, well I won't paint with a broad brush here but let's just say their reputation isn't that of selfless service and virtue. Particularly the ones running for office.

 

[firecadet613]

Well, you can’t. Tough ****. Some people bought in your neighborhood who don’t like some of the rules, but because there wasn’t anything else available for their specific needs, they moved in your neighborhood anyway. And when karen came around to nit-pick, they said, **** you karen.

LOL from the sounds of it, he lives in place like that, so your statement is false.

Don't sign on the dotted line if you don't agree, don't take out the mortgage for that place, etc, unless you're willing to face the consequences if you break the rules and get caught.

Sometimes karen is the windshield. Sometimes karen is the bug. But I usually root for karen to be the bug and get splatted by reality.

F those "bug karens". I just bought two bat boxes to increase the bats around here to eat them.

Nah, that definition isn't too narrow. That is the definition of ownership. What you are advocating for is limited ownership which may be fine for some things, not for a person's primary residence and especially not for silly ******** that prevents people from utilizing their residence as a normal, free American citizen should be able to.

I'll agree, but normal residence to me is not running a air bnb or mechanics shop out of it (your own regular vehicle maintenance not included).

This isn't about mineral rights or air rights. This is about twisting the concept of property rights for petty nonsense to force everyone to conform to some specific set of behaviors. It's ridiculous and the fact that the law allows it does not make it any less gross. The law also allows corporations like John Deere to fire hundreds or thousands of Americans and move those jobs out of the country without consequence so you'll have to forgive me if I don't look to the law for guidance on what is right or wrong.

We agree on this, hell often times they are incentivized to do this!

Laws are written by politicians, most politicians are lawyers and most lawyers are, well I won't paint with a broad brush here but let's just say their reputation isn't that of selfless service and virtue. Particularly the ones running for office.

Slimy bastards, all of them!

 

[Ingomike]

Nah, that definition isn't too narrow. That is the definition of the complete bundle of ownership rights.

FIFY.

There are many ownership rights including the one you declined to sell me, the gold rights.

 

[Ingomike]

This isn't about mineral rights or air rights. This is about twisting the concept of property rights for petty nonsense to force everyone to conform to some specific set of behaviors. It's ridiculous and the fact that the law allows it does not make it any less gross. The law also allows corporations like John Deere to fire hundreds or thousands of Americans and move those jobs out of the country without consequence so you'll have to forgive me if I don't look to the law for guidance on what is right or wrong.

Laws are written by politicians, most politicians are lawyers and most lawyers are, well I won't paint with a broad brush here but let's just say their reputation isn't that of selfless service and virtue. Particularly the ones running for office.

You are no different than the politicians, you criticize, that made the laws that made it much better for JD to offshore jobs, you want to take the landowners rights by creating law that only allows landowners to sell the full bundle of rights…

 

[phylodog]

You are no different than the politicians, you criticize, that made the laws that made it much better for JD to offshore jobs, you want to take the landowners rights by creating law that only allows landowners to sell the full bundle of rights…

I'm all about landowner rights. Tose belonging to the person who actually owns it, not the people before them. It's really not that difficult to understand. You don't have rights to things you don't own.

 

[phylodog]

FIFY.

There are many ownership rights including the one you declined to sell me, the gold rights.

Ahh, well which rights specifically are included? Which aren't? Do ownership rights only exist as specifically written out on paper? Do I have the right to fart on my own property? I mean, I don't specifically remember reading anything that said I couldn't but there isn't anything that specifically said I could either? Where is the list? Or is that merely subjective and dependent upon the whims of those like yourself who deem themselves qualified to decide for everyone?

What about the right to access the internet on my property? Do I need permission? Should I require that be specifically spelled in in the closing documents if I buy another home? What about the right to mow my lawn with an internal combustion engine? I mean, I guess the exhaust will eventually end up in someone else's airspace and they do make noise so should I make sure that right is specifically listed next time so someone doesn't come along in a few years and inform me that even though I "own" it, I don't?

Ownership is a word with meaning. The meaning isn't subjective. Much like property taxes, HOAs are a barrier which prevents ownership of real property. Justify it all you want, those are the facts.

 

[Ingomike]

I'm all about landowner rights. Tose belonging to the person who actually owns it, not the people before them. It's really not that difficult to understand.

Apparently it is, you can want to change it because you don’t think it fair the way it is, but what you said can be true or it may not be true.

You don't have rights to things you don't own.

Under current law one can indeed have rights to things (property) they do not own, and that is nothing new. You may not like it but it is indeed true.

 

[foszoe]

Do HOAs ban political signs for candidates?

 

[Ingomike]

Ahh, well which rights specifically are included? Which aren't? Do ownership rights only exist as specifically written out on paper? Do I have the right to fart on my own property? I mean, I don't specifically remember reading anything that said I couldn't but there isn't anything that specifically said I could either? Where is the list? Or is that merely subjective and dependent upon the whims of those like yourself who deem themselves qualified to decide for everyone?

What about the right to access the internet on my property? Do I need permission? Should I require that be specifically spelled in in the closing documents if I buy another home? What about the right to mow my lawn with an internal combustion engine? I mean, I guess the exhaust will eventually end up in someone else's airspace and they do make noise so should I make sure that right is specifically listed next time so someone doesn't come along in a few years and inform me that even though I "own" it, I don't?

Ownership is a word with meaning. The meaning isn't subjective. Much like property taxes, HOAs are a barrier which prevents ownership of real property. Justify it all you want, those are the facts.

Did you verify exactly what rights you got when you bought your land? Were there any covenants or deed restrictions?

 

[phylodog]

Do HOAs ban political signs for candidates?

Yes

 

[phylodog]

Apparently it is, you can want to change it because you don’t think it fair the way it is, but what you said can be true or it may not be true.


Under current law one can indeed have rights to things (property) they do not own, and that is nothing new. You may not like it but it is indeed true.

And we're back to hiding behind the law for justification. I'm getting ****ing dizzy.

 

[Ingomike]

Do HOAs ban political signs for candidates?

I believe politicians and courts superseded that particular issue with laws. However most other signs, including for sale can be prohibited. One neighborhood has a covenant that the for sale signs must be of a specific design and size.

 

[Ingomike]

And we're back to hiding behind the law for justification. I'm getting ****ing dizzy.

I’m not hiding anything. You were not stating your opinion, you literally said:

“I'm all about landowner rights. Tose belonging to the person who actually owns it, not the people before them. It's really not that difficult to understand.”

You can want that but that is not how it is in the real world.

 

[jkaetz]

Do HOAs ban political signs for candidates?

Somewhere I thought that was struck down on 1st amendment grounds. That's not to say they won't try.

And we're back to hiding behind the law for justification. I'm getting ****ing dizzy.

Yes it always circles back to one of a few justifications. He sees nothing wrong. It's hard to comprehend how "freedom" in his mind is lettings someone else have input on the property you "own".

 

[phylodog]

You can want that but that is not how it is in the real world.

Which is why I don't like HOAs.

The end.

(maybe?)