Why Do So Many On INGO Hate HOA's?

[firecadet613]

So you can't have your cake and eat it to...

How did the non HOA options go away? Did someone buy all those existing neighborhoods and add a HOA or redevelop them? It seems there's a LOT of newer homes in the marketplace, which naturally have HOAs. The older, non HOA neighborhoods are still there.

Unless your talking the older downtown areas of these small suburban towns, then yes, postage stamp sized lots are a HOA thing. I grew up on an acre in a suburb (house built in '63) and most of my friends weren't in a HOA neighborhood either and were on half an acre, in a slightly newer home (mid 80's).

Postage stamp lot in my mind is a quarter of an acre, give or take.

I'll add to this, there is a finite amount of land. They aren't making any more!

The market today is different than 20, 10, or even 5 years ago... it should be no surprise some options are disappearing, regardless of price.

It took us a few years of looking at bare land (and homes with land), to find what we were looking for. You'd better believe we jumped on it when we found the one that checked all our boxes...

 

[jkaetz]

So you can't have your cake and eat it to...

Still not sure what this is suppose to mean. It would seem to indicate that people want two incompatible things. What are the two incompatible things?

How did the non HOA options go away? Did someone buy all those existing neighborhoods and add a HOA or redevelop them? It seems there's a LOT of newer homes in the marketplace, which naturally have HOAs. The older, non HOA neighborhoods are still there.

Postage stamp lot in my mind is a quarter of an acre, give or take.

Non-HOA neighborhoods went away when developers figured out they could make the rules and then sell them to consumers. You continue to insist on comparing older homes to new homes as if they are a like for like comparison. In my mind they are not. Secondarily since the vast majority of new homes are being built with an HOA it will become increasingly difficult to find "older" homes without an HOA.

 

[Ingomike]

I'll remain with my stance that if you want to live in a remotely suburban area with new construction or even a newish neighborhood you have little choice but to accept an HOA for better or worse.

At least you have a choice. I get it, the covenants have grown over the years to be more detailed. Why? Because of what people do. Look at the typical home mortgage, used to be folks signed a note and a mortgage and a few other docs, now the stack is two inches high. Why? Because of what people do that causes loss to the mortgagor.

Talk about taking rights away, mortgages spell out many things one is agreeing to not do. It is not your right to tear down the house even though you own it, and of course you cannot store certain waste on the property. You cannot tell the government to FO and not pay taxes, you do not have the right not to have insurance.

If you want the most freedom on land you own, one must pay cash for a property platted before easements were a thing, in a county without zoning and drainage plans, without a mortgage, so paying cash, and you still have property taxes.

But the HOA layer is a bridge too far.

 

[Ingomike]

Still not sure what this is suppose to mean. It would seem to indicate that people want two incompatible things. What are the two incompatible things?

Your complaints all center on the fact that new construction homes and neighborhoods, built with an economy of scale that reduces costs have an HOA. And that few similar situations are available without HOA’s.

You want all the benefits of the HOA neighborhoods homes at the same cost without an HOA. I submit they are not compatible.

 

[firecadet613]

Still not sure what this is suppose to mean. It would seem to indicate that people want two incompatible things. What are the two incompatible things?

You want a new home with no HOA. As I've said, you can't have both. It's not an option in the market today.

Non-HOA neighborhoods went away when developers figured out they could make the rules and then sell them to consumers. You continue to insist on comparing older homes to new homes as if they are a like for like comparison. In my mind they are not. Secondarily since the vast majority of new homes are being built with an HOA it will become increasingly difficult to find "older" homes without an HOA.

That's correct, there is no comparison to home built in the 60s, 70s, or 80s to a home built in the last 20 years. To my knowledge, those weren't built by developers. That was before my time, but just looking at the houses, they aren't very similar.

The neighborhoods aren't even similar, imo, and the younger generation tends to want the newer HOA neighborhoods.

 

[jkaetz]

At least you have a choice. I get it, the covenants have grown over the years to be more detailed. Why? Because of what people do. Look at the typical home mortgage, used to be folks signed a note and a mortgage and a few other docs, now the stack is two inches high. Why? Because of what people do that causes loss to the mortgagor.

Talk about taking rights away, mortgages spell out many things one is agreeing to not do. It is not your right to tear down the house even though you own it, and of course you cannot store certain waste on the property. You cannot tell the government to FO and not pay taxes, you do not have the right not to have insurance.

If you want the most freedom on land you own, one must pay cash for a property platted before easements were a thing, in a county without zoning and drainage plans, without a mortgage, so paying cash, and you still have property taxes.

But the HOA layer is a bridge too far.

The difference is in the value add. A mortgage is directly valuable to the consumer. An HOA claims to add value, but it's not easily measured as direct comparisons are exceedingly rare. I'm sure the pro folks perceive a high value from the HOA where as the anti folks don't perceive much value at all.

Your complaints all center on the fact that new construction homes and neighborhoods, built with an economy of scale that reduces costs have an HOA. And that few similar situations are available without HOA’s.

You want all the benefits of the HOA neighborhoods homes at the same cost without an HOA. I submit they are not compatible.

I see. This assumes that the HOA is the key component that allows developers to build neighborhoods and that I want the cheap (subjectively) houses that come with that.

First, IMO, the key component that allows a developer to build neighborhoods is the capital they have to throw at it. The economies of scale exist either way as they're planning to build a lot of houses and as such the material costs go down.

Second, the #1 consideration when buying a home is typically location followed by its size. To say that we have a choice by going somewhere else is to say that we cannot live in the location we want. Developers use their capital to purchase the desirable land before individuals even get the chance to. For example in our zip code there are a grand total of 9 plots of land available for sale without HOA according to realtor. 3 are large >10 acre plots pending for developers. 1 has an HOA even though it's been returned in the search, leaving 5 legitimate options. So I'll say again, location + desire for modern/new construction = minimal choice outside accepting an HOA. If the desire to live where one wants and have a new/modern home without adding more government overhead is unreasonable than I suppose I'm unreasonable.

You want a new home with no HOA. As I've said, you can't have both. It's not an option in the market today.

Fantastic, we agree! But you make it sound like an unreasonable ask to have both. Why is it so unreasonable? It's certainly unobtainable unless you have a few million to drop on a plot of land before the developers.

 

[jamil]

You have not proven a single fact from my fact post not to be a fact. Winning!

No. Yer losing. What is not a fact is that no one should have the right to restrict future propery owners in perpetuity. Your lie is in conflating ought and is. I keep warning you that you’re doing it and you keep doing it.

It’s like you’re trying to swat at an imaginary enemy. No is arguing that HOA’s aren't legal or don’t exist. Or that people can’t put restrictions on deeds legally now. But you keep attacking people as if anyone is saying that. Everyone who disagrees with HOA’s is making an ought argument not an is.

Why don’t you attack the real foe instead of an imaginary one where you can pretend you won.

Oh. And there is another lie that you insist is fact, and that’s is that not allowing you to restrict other people’s rights is violating your rights. You must have dug that one deep from where the fudge is packed much harder.

 

[firecadet613]

Fantastic, we agree! But you make it sound like an unreasonable ask to have both. Why is it so unreasonable? It's certainly unobtainable unless you have a few million to drop on a plot of land before the developers.

Ask those selling the plots of land.

My guess is the developers will buy a large number of acres at a higher price per acre than the little guy who just wants a few acres.

I can't blame the sellers. Why not just do one deal for a higher per acre price (that's less likely to fall through), vs a lot of smaller deals.

All the undeveloped land in Marion and the donut counties will be spoken for soon. That's why we moved further out. Why move to a smaller town, only for it to grow and fill in within a few years?

 

[Ingomike]

The difference is in the value add. A mortgage is directly valuable to the consumer. An HOA claims to add value, but it's not easily measured as direct comparisons are exceedingly rare. I'm sure the pro folks perceive a high value from the HOA where as the anti folks don't perceive much value at all.

Agreed.

I see. This assumes that the HOA is the key component that allows developers to build neighborhoods and that I want the cheap (subjectively) houses that come with that.

I did not assume that, in fact, I worded it so that I hoped assumption was not part of it. I just noted that: “homes and neighborhoods, built with an economy of scale that reduces costs have an HOA” and that: “few similar situations are available without HOA’s”.

First, IMO, the key component that allows a developer to build neighborhoods is the capital they have to throw at it. The economies of scale exist either way as they're planning to build a lot of houses and as such the material costs go down.

I can agree with the capital point, that is what put most small builders out of business. When I reference economies of scale I am thinking digging for basements or foundations. The excavator comes in and does twenty lots before they pack up and go in many affordable neighborhoods. Same with home sewer lines and other lot infrastructure.

Now let’s do a TK house on your lot, all of those are one lot jobs and load back up, it costs a lot more than moving from lot to lot over several weeks with the next contractor moving in as soon as they move on.

We have already established that developers do not seem to want to build neighborhoods without an HOA. I am still puzzled as to what they get from it if my suggestions are not correct? Most of the builders I know of focus group the heck out of their target market on everything involved. I have a hard time believing that if significant numbers of their target market objected to an HOA they all would just ignore that.

Second, the #1 consideration when buying a home is typically location followed by its size. To say that we have a choice by going somewhere else is to say that we cannot live in the location we want. Developers use their capital to purchase the desirable land before individuals even get the chance to. For example in our zip code there are a grand total of 9 plots of land available for sale without HOA according to realtor. 3 are large >10 acre plots pending for developers. 1 has an HOA even though it's been returned in the search, leaving 5 legitimate options. So I'll say again, location + desire for modern/new construction = minimal choice outside accepting an HOA. If the desire to live where one wants and have a new/modern home without adding more government overhead is unreasonable than I suppose I'm unreasonable.

Many know how you feel, they just want a house out in the country on an acre and even if they find one government will not let them build on just an acre. Then, if the property has been split before many counties will not allow another split, they require a mini-plat which is a small subdivision.

And now, because of federal mandates they likely will be building fewer simple subdivisions of just similar homes and folks will have two and maybe three HOA’s because there will be a retail section, an apartment section, then various homes sections all in the neighborhood. There will be the Main HOA that is responsible for the entrances and perimeter, the second HOA would be the section of the whole you live in, and a possible third is the amenities HOA, or possibly a grounds maintenance HOA.

The days of developers just plopping down homes in a field are gone.

Fantastic, we agree! But you make it sound like an unreasonable ask to have both. Why is it so unreasonable? It's certainly unobtainable unless you have a few million to drop on a plot of land before the developers.

If you think it bad now just wait a few years, it will be impossible…

 

[firecadet613]

Now let’s do a TK house on your lot, all of those are one lot jobs and load back up, it costs a lot more than moving from lot to lot over several weeks with the next contractor moving in as soon as they move on.

Isn't that the truth. The few times I need to get someone out with heavy equipment, I'm pretty much paying them for the trip out here and NOT the job itself...

Many know how you feel, they just want a house out in the country on an acre and even if they find one government will not let them build on just an acre. Then, if the property has been split before many counties will not allow another split, they require a mini-plat which is a small subdivision.

The good old multi use development, it seems to be the rage across the midwest.

If you think it bad now just wait a few years, it will be impossible…

So glad I was able to find and purchase our long term / retirement place early. Now if only Florida real estate would crash so we could pickup a winter place down there, similar to Bobzilla.

 

[Ingomike]

The good old multi use development, it seems to be the rage across the midwest.

A lot of people are unaware that this was pushed down the throats of communities by the obummer administration. They were told to approve high density housing in the burbs or HUD would sue them. No one fought back they just acquiesced to a real dictator.

 

[Ingomike]

Ask those selling the plots of land.

My guess is the developers will buy a large number of acres at a higher price per acre than the little guy who just wants a few acres.

I can't blame the sellers. Why not just do one deal for a higher per acre price (that's less likely to fall through), vs a lot of smaller deals.

All the undeveloped land in Marion and the donut counties will be spoken for soon. That's why we moved further out. Why move to a smaller town, only for it to grow and fill in within a few years?

Many counties will not even allow a landowner to sell multi plots.

 

[Ingomike]

No. Yer losing.

I have lost nothing.

What is not a fact is that no one should have the right to restrict future propery owners in perpetuity. Your lie is in conflating ought and is.

It is not a fact that owners have the right to restrict future property owners in perpetuity. They can only put restrictions on when they own the property, before the buyer buys subject to those restrictions. In other words, the buyer is in agreement to buy with those restrictions.

It’s like you’re trying to swat at an imaginary enemy. No is arguing that HOA’s aren't legal or don’t exist. Or that people can’t put restrictions on deeds legally now. But you keep attacking people as if anyone is saying that. Everyone who disagrees with HOA’s is making an ought argument not an is.

People keep using words like “forced” and will not acknowledge that requiring the seller to sell the complete bundle is taking the rights a seller currently has.

Why don’t you attack the real foe instead of an imaginary one where you can pretend you won.

I am certain you are a real foe.

Oh. And there is another lie that you insist is fact, and that’s is that not allowing you to restrict other people’s rights is violating your rights. You must have dug that one deep from where the fudge is packed much harder.

Again, you will not acknowledge that requiring the seller to sell the complete bundle is taking the rights a seller currently has.

 

[jamil]

At least you have a choice. I get it, the covenants have grown over the years to be more detailed. Why? Because of what people do. Look at the typical home mortgage, used to be folks signed a note and a mortgage and a few other docs, now the stack is two inches high. Why? Because of what people do that causes loss to the mortgagor.

Because of what people do? Mow your lawn. Keep up the appearance of your house and yard. Don't be an objective nuisance. Keep the place in good repair. If we have to have HOA's, there's not much more required than that. You don't need to make your relatives sign in with the HOA when they visit at Thanksgiving or Christmas. It's none of the neighborhood's ****ing business.

Talk about taking rights away, mortgages spell out many things one is agreeing to not do. It is not your right to tear down the house even though you own it, and of course you cannot store certain waste on the property. You cannot tell the government to FO and not pay taxes, you do not have the right not to have insurance.

A mortgage isn't the same thing at all. You put your house up as collateral. You have a lien on your house. You owe the bank for your home. They understandably want you to insure the home you put up as collateral. After you pay it off and there is no lien holder, you can tell the insurer to **** off. But, then it's your risk.

And we've already discussed property taxes. It's theft.

If you want the most freedom on land you own, one must pay cash for a property platted before easements were a thing, in a county without zoning and drainage plans, without a mortgage, so paying cash, and you still have property taxes.

But the HOA layer is a bridge too far.

Sure it is. The only reason for HOA's is lawyers. The reason for property tax is that's just the way local governments get paid. Not ideal. It's what it is.

The reason for restrictions imposed by your lender is, you couldn't pay cash, so you hocked the house you purchased. I mean. You could blow the ****er up. But then you better be able to **** gold. You still owe the money.

But. Pay it off. Burn the ****er down if you want. Tannerite that **********er. Then next year your property taxes will be much lower. As long as it's not against another law.

 

[jamil]

I have lost nothing.

That's like just your opinion man.

It is not a fact that owners have the right to restrict future property owners in perpetuity. They can only put restrictions on when they own the property, before the buyer buys subject to those restrictions. In other words, the buyer is in agreement to buy with those restrictions.

They have the ability to restrict future property owners in that they set up a "take it or leave it" proposition. My position is that this should not be the case.

People keep using words like “forced” and will not acknowledge that requiring the seller to sell the complete bundle is taking the rights a seller currently has.

It's not. There should be no such law.

I am certain you are a real foe.



Again, you will not acknowledge that requiring the seller to sell the complete bundle is taking the rights a seller currently has.

It's not taking rights away. It's making the law better by not allowing people to perpetually restrict what people can do with their own property.

 

[patience0830]

This is just an outright lie. What a joke! “Theft at the point of a gun”. No one is forced to do anything, EVER. You write this as if someone made another pay or do something. How about INGO be consistent, if a guy says he will meet you Tuesday noon to buy what you sell in the classies and he no-shows INGO cuts him to shreds, but the guy that agrees, IN WRITING, to covenants and deed restrictions and does not follow them is a hero. Hypocrites!

Try not paying your taxes and see if the gubmint doesn't eventually take you to jail at gun point if you resist. People are forced to do crap all the time. "Get the jab or you'll have to work elsewhere" . "Pay your taxes or go to jail". "Mow your lawn and paint that fence a different color or we'll fine you until you're forced to move." You're full of crap.

 

[Ingomike]

That's like just your opinion man.

I see this when I read that. The lawyer from Idiocracy…

They have the ability to restrict future property owners in that they set up a "take it or leave it" proposition. My position is that this should not be the case.

Take it or leave it is a choice.

It's not. There should be no such law.

If a seller has the right to sell any rights in the bundle separately now and after you get your way he could not he clearly lost rights.

It's not taking rights away. It's making the law better by not allowing people to perpetually restrict what people can do with their own property.

If a buyer and a seller have the right to agree on the terms of sale today and after you get your way they cannot you clearly took their rights for your own selfish reasons…

 

[Ingomike]

Try not paying your taxes and see if the gubmint doesn't eventually take you to jail at gun point if you resist. People are forced to do crap all the time. "Get the jab or you'll have to work elsewhere" . "Pay your taxes or go to jail". "Mow your lawn and paint that fence a different color or we'll fine you until you're forced to move." You're full of crap.

Not sure what paying taxes has to do with an HOA or mowing, or painting a fence. Ease up on drinking so early…

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I see this when I read that. The lawyer from Idocracy…

Wrong movie...

 

[Ingomike]

Wrong movie...

I asked google for pics of idiocracy movie lawyer and that was the best one. Dang google.