Why Do So Many On INGO Hate HOA's?

[Ingomike]

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


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".

Can you explain how anyone has anything they had taken?

 

[Ingomike]

Which is why I don't like HOAs.

The end.

(maybe?)

I am glad no one is forced in any way to buy in an HOA and you have that freedom.

 

[red_zr24x4]

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…

So, the new owner isn't free to sell as he sees fit? with all the rights to the land?
I get the contract thing, but that should end when the new owner wants to sell. you sell me land with the stipulation I don't turn it into a hog farm, I agree and buy. 20 yrs later I'm ready to sell, I should now be able to have no stipulations or add my own. The original contract was between you and I, If I sell it to jamil, the rights should be between him and I

 

[Ingomike]

FACT: Landowners have the right to sell any rights they own, individually or as a complete bundle.

FACT: No one has EVER FORCED a buyer to buy land without all rights, but they may choose to do so.

FACT: Many buyers do want an HOA and any laws requiring sunsetting of HOA’s and a revote takes rights away from them.

FACT: Any laws that force landowners to only be able to sell the complete bundle take landowners rights.

FACT: In all these posts the ONLY ones at risk of having rights taken are landowners by those that demand they sell the complete bundle of rights or buyers that want an HOA.

FACT: Demanding developers not create HOA’s is taking their land owner rights.

FACT: Just because developers operating on thin margins to build the most house for the money for homebuyers through economies of scale and they create an HOA’s to protect their investment, likely from many of you in this thread, no one is forced to buy in an HOA. EVER! You may not like your other options but there are options.

FACT: INGO is not the public at large and in no way represents the beliefs of the public.

This belief that sellers must sell the complete bundle of rights is ridiculous and ignores the history of the transfer of rights of property that goes back to the beginning of this country.

Not one attempt to refute the facts presented here.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

So, the new owner isn't free to sell as he sees fit? with all the rights to the land?
I get the contract thing, but that should end when the new owner wants to sell. you sell me land with the stipulation I don't turn it into a hog farm, I agree and buy. 20 yrs later I'm ready to sell, I should now be able to have no stipulations or add my own. The original contract was between you and I, If I sell it to jamil, the rights should be between him and I

@Ingomike how do you square red's question with this (your own post)?

FACT: Any laws that force landowners to only be able to sell the complete bundle take landowners rights.

Pretty sure that you're wanting to force someone like red to sell the "complete bundle" (with restrictions placed on him by the previous owner).

 

[Ingomike]

So, the new owner isn't free to sell as he sees fit? with all the rights to the land?

The new owner can sell exactly how they see fit exactly what rights they bought from the previous owner. Example, party A buys twenty acres from a farmer near the farmers home. The farmer put in a deed restriction that no hogs can be raised on the property, he promised his wife and kids they would never have to smell hog s**t again at the homestead.

Party A can sell the property or just ten acres to party B but the hogs deed restriction goes along with the deed. Party A can also add their own deed restriction that the property cannot be used any other provision as long as it does not conflict with the original deed restriction.

I get the contract thing, but that should end when the new owner wants to sell. you sell me land with the stipulation I don't turn it into a hog farm, I agree and buy. 20 yrs later I'm ready to sell, I should now be able to have no stipulations or add my own. The original contract was between you and I, If I sell it to jamil, the rights should be between him and I

It is not a separate contract, it is recorded with the deed at the county and runs with the land. A friend actually ran into the hogs example in northern Indiana. I have outlined how they can be removed, but none of the neighbors can object or the judge will not allow removal.

 

[Ingomike]

@Ingomike how do you square red's question with this (your own post)?

FACT: Any laws that force landowners to only be able to sell the complete bundle take landowners rights.

Pretty sure that you're wanting to force someone like red to sell the "complete bundle" (with restrictions placed on him by the previous owner).

See my reply to red. A seller can only sell what they bought and own, nothing more.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

See my reply to red. A seller can only sell what they bought and own, nothing more.

Yes, I've seen you make that argument before, but that is still forcing the seller to sell "the complete bundle". If it were not, then he would be free to remove all stipulations from that bundle.

 

[Ingomike]

Yes, I've seen you make that argument before, but that is still forcing the seller to sell "the complete bundle". If it were not, then he would be free to remove all stipulations from that bundle.

The seller of land can own less than the full bundle and either sell what they own completely or even sell less as long as it doesn’t conflict with the what the seller did not get with in the first place.

I gave an example to the question of can someone in an HOA sell with deed restrictions and I believe yes is the answer. Two family members living next door and one sells, even though the neighborhood allows fences, they make a deed restriction that does not allow fences on the lot they are selling because it would block the view of the pond. Could totally see that happen in real world.

Also, the air rights the Indy airport has they are a part of the deed that the seller cannot sell air rights because they do not own them and never will until the airport is gone and they could go to court to try to get them back. But since the airport owns them I would bet they sell them unless the law they got them by says differently.

Does that answer your question?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

The seller of land can own less than the full bundle and either sell what they own completely or even sell less as long as it doesn’t conflict with the what the seller did not get with in the first place.

I gave an example to the question of can someone in an HOA sell with deed restrictions and I believe yes is the answer. Two family members living next door and one sells, even though the neighborhood allows fences, they make a deed restriction that does not allow fences on the lot they are selling because it would block the view of the pond. Could totally see that happen in real world.

Does that answer your question?

No. That's the exact opposite of my question. The "complete bundle" in red's example included restrictions. You are saying he can be forced to sell the "complete bundle" (with the restrictions). That takes away his freedom (per your own words). You're saying the seller can only add additional restrictions. Not the same thing at all.

 

[Ingomike]

I agree and buy. 20 yrs later I'm ready to sell, I should now be able to have no stipulations or add my own.

No. That's the exact opposite of my question. The "complete bundle" in red's example included restrictions. You are saying he can be forced to sell the "complete bundle" (with the restrictions). That takes away his freedom (per your own words). You're saying the seller can only add additional restrictions. Not the same thing at all.

He can add his own as long as they do not conflict with and previous restrictions or sell exactly what he bought, nothing more than he bought. The deed restrictions are part of the deed and run with it sometimes hundreds of years. They never go away unless court action removes them.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

He can add his own as long as they do not conflict with and previous restrictions or sell exactly what he bought, nothing more than he bought. The deed restrictions are part of the deed and run with it sometimes hundreds of years. They never go away unless court action removes them.

Again, he's not selling "more than he bought". He's removing things that he bought. Another contradiction. Another taking away of freedom from the seller, because he's being forced to "sell the complete bundle" (your own words).

 

[firecadet613]

Again, he's not adding "more than he bought". He's removing things that he bought. Another contradiction. Another taking away of freedom from the seller, because he's being forced to "sell the complete bundle" (your own words).

He didn't buy what the deed restricted so how could he sell it?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

He didn't buy what the deed restricted so how could he sell it?

What? He absolutely did. He bought the deed with the restrictions (part of the "complete bundle"). He now wants to sell it without them. Per Mike, he can't be forced to sell the "complete bundle", but clearly he can be forced to sell the "complete bundle".

 

[Ingomike]

Again, he's not adding "more than he bought". He's removing things that he bought. Another contradiction.

Really? Let’s parse the sentence since you seem to want to play games.

“He can add his own as long as they do not conflict with and previous restrictions or sell exactly what he bought, nothing more than he bought.”

He can add his own. The topic is restrictions. as long as they do not conflict with and previous restrictions or sell. The entirety of what he bought. exactly what he bought, nothing more than he bought.

Another taking away of freedom from the seller, because he's being forced to "sell the complete bundle" (your own words).

There is no contradiction in my posts. No current law I know requires anyone to “sell the complete bundle” though INGO seems to love it.

 

[Ingomike]

What? He absolutely did. He bought the deed with the restrictions (part of the "complete bundle"). He now wants to sell it without them. Per Mike, he can't be forced to sell the "complete bundle", but clearly he can be forced to sell the "complete bundle".

What the heck are you going on about? A seller never has to sell the complete bundle and I even gave a hypothetical where a seller did not own the complete bundle and restricted it further by not selling all the rights they did have.

 

[Ingomike]

He bought the deed with the restrictions (part of the "complete bundle").

A deed with restrictions is not the complete bundle…

 

[DoggyDaddy]

There is no contradiction in my posts. No current law I know requires anyone to “sell the complete bundle” though INGO seems to love it.

You yourself say he has to sell with all restrictions in place. The restrictions are part of "the complete bundle". Therefore he is compelled to sell "the complete bundle."

 

[DoggyDaddy]

A deed with restrictions is not the complete bundle…

Cool. So he can remove the restrictions. We're in agreement.

 

[jamil]

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

Well that’s the retarded way of wording it.