Why Do So Many On INGO Hate HOA's?

[Ingomike]

How many posts until we have to start a new thread?

3299 now…

 

[BigRed]

#1700, HOA's should go away!

How many posts until we have to start a new thread?

A new "hot chicks fishing" thread?

 

[1nderbeard]

My first question is usually what do the actual deed restrictions, covenants, and bylaw's say. Typically one is right and the other wrong. What you described is not uncommon, the first generation in a neighborhood built the neighborhood up and created a camaraderie and culture. Many of them lived by a code beyond the written documentation. The new folks bought in when the neighborhood was more mature and often have a different mindset.


Sadly, It can be ugly if they cannot figure out how to get along.

The covenants are part of the problem. They are at best ambiguous in parts. Namely, the part about fences (which sparked the lawsuit).
Just this week someone got a nasty anonymous (signed - hoa) note for parking on the street. The problem is the covenants just say don't part on the street beyond a "reasonable time as determined by the committee." What's the committee and what's a reasonable amount of time? There is no local ordinance on street parking, and the car is only on the street during the day most of the time.

Which goes back to the enforcement issue. The house belonging to the car is one the HOA board has deemed bad, as is the guy who is being sued for his fence. All the selective enforcement is going to get the HOA terminated.

 

[1nderbeard]

Thats what law suits are for. document, document, document, document and then file suit.

The issue is by the bylaws and construction procedures, the guy is right. The board didn't tell him not to build his fence until a few months after it was done. Per the bylaws if they don't respond in two weeks or before the project is done, it stays. So now they're suing him to take it down. They're doing it because he ran afoul of the president.
It's all selective enforcement/harassment.

 

[jkaetz]

3299 now…

Serious question Mike, so we've established that developers are likely going to purchase up all the remaining land around major cities making it practically impossible to live without an HOA in the future. I know you're pro seller "rights" and it is allowed under the law but knowing the end point do you still think the developers should do this?

 

[Creedmoor]

The issue is by the bylaws and construction procedures, the guy is right. The board didn't tell him not to build his fence until a few months after it was done. Per the bylaws if they don't respond in two weeks or before the project is done, it stays. So now they're suing him to take it down. They're doing it because he ran afoul of the president.
It's all selective enforcement/harassment.

Thats why I posted to document the boards selective enforcement and then sue them.

 

[Ingomike]

The covenants are part of the problem. They are at best ambiguous in parts. Namely, the part about fences (which sparked the lawsuit).
Just this week someone got a nasty anonymous (signed - hoa) note for parking on the street. The problem is the covenants just say don't part on the street beyond a "reasonable time as determined by the committee." What's the committee and what's a reasonable amount of time? There is no local ordinance on street parking, and the car is only on the street during the day most of the time.

Which goes back to the enforcement issue. The house belonging to the car is one the HOA board has deemed bad, as is the guy who is being sued for his fence. All the selective enforcement is going to get the HOA terminated.

My next question is; when is the election and how many seats are there and how many open seats?

Reasonable would typically be what the board decides and if challenged what the judge decides.

 

[Creedmoor]

Serious question Mike, so we've established that developers are likely going to purchase up all the remaining land around major cities making it practically impossible to live without an HOA in the future. I know you're pro seller "rights" and it is allowed under the law but knowing the end point do you still think the developers should do this?

I'm not pro or against where anyone chooses to live, I lived in a great HOA for 10 years, two of my parents lived in a great HOA for better than 30 years, one of my sisters lives in the same HOA.

I'm from Maryland, very few communities built in the last 50+ years don't have HOA's all the way around the DC Beltway in an easy 50 mile radius.
You know what you don't hear about? Problem HOA's
Problem HOA's tend not to stay HOA's over the long haul, they self destruct.
People hear on occasion about one or three bad HOA's, and nothing with the 370 million homeowner associations

There are over 370,000 homeowner associations in the United States. Collectively, this represents over 40 million households (over 53% of the owner occupied households in America). It also represents millions of volunteers that serve on homeowner association boards and committees.
If they really were a problem, it would be on the evening news a few times each week.

 

[1nderbeard]

My next question is; when is the election and how many seats are there and how many open seats?

Reasonable would typically be what the board decides and if challenged what the judge decides.

yeah that's another rub. They have quarterly meetings. When the selective enforcement stuff first came out in the open, a normal guy wanted to change the stuff and run for an open officer position. So the current board members made up a rule that prevented him from running and filled the position in the meeting. Real shady stuff. These officers just make up stuff as they go.

 

[1nderbeard]

Thats why I posted to document the boards selective enforcement and then sue them.

The current defendant of their lawsuit is planning on doing that. Trial is set for September I think.

 

[Ingomike]

Serious question Mike, so we've established that developers are likely going to purchase up all the remaining land around major cities making it practically impossible to live without an HOA in the future. I know you're pro seller "rights" and it is allowed under the law but knowing the end point do you still think the developers should do this?

My knowledge says this is the way it will go, developers will get most LARGE parcels of land, as you have noted they have capital. They cannot implement their economies of scale as well on smaller parcels of land. The place for non HOA home building will be those smaller parcels. A further problem is that few mega corp builders build on your lot and it is unlikely any of them will build without an HOA. So few builders will have any type of economies of scale offered in HOA neighborhoods.

The consumer is always 5-10 years behind the mega building corporations. The consumer drives a little ways out of “boomville” to where they see open farm land, woods, creeks, and says I should try to by some land out here. What they have no idea about is most of that land was put under options contracts or even bought outright 5-10 rears ago. The “next ring” is twenty miles beyond “boomville” not 5 miles.

To answer your question directly, and assuming you meant, developers should BE ALLOWED do this, yes, I do think they should be allowed. About the only restrictions on selling property I agree with is limited foreign ownership, corporate or individual.

 

[Ingomike]

yeah that's another rub. They have quarterly meetings. When the selective enforcement stuff first came out in the open, a normal guy wanted to change the stuff and run for an open officer position. So the current board members made up a rule that prevented him from running and filled the position in the meeting. Real shady stuff. These officers just make up stuff as they go.

Then court to neuter them is the only answer. Sad. I hope we don’t see more of that in our area. That crap hurts values too.

 

[firecadet613]

My knowledge says this is the way it will go, developers will get most LARGE parcels of land, as you have noted they have capital. They cannot implement their economies of scale as well on smaller parcels of land. The place for non HOA home building will be those smaller parcels. A further problem is that few mega corp builders build on your lot and it is unlikely any of them will build without an HOA. So few builders will have any type of economies of scale offered in HOA neighborhoods.

The consumer is always 5-10 years behind the mega building corporations. The consumer drives a little ways out of “boomville” to where they see open farm land, woods, creeks, and says I should try to by some land out here. What they have no idea about is most of that land was put under options contracts or even bought outright 5-10 rears ago. The “next ring” is twenty miles beyond “boomville” not 5 miles.

To answer your question directly, and assuming you meant, developers should BE ALLOWED do this, yes, I do think they should be allowed. About the only restrictions on selling property I agree with is limited foreign ownership, corporate or individual.

And then before you know it, your so far out from the main city you were trying to get away from, your running up against another city...

 

[Ingomike]

And then before you know it, your so far out from the main city you were trying to get away from, your running up against another city...

Someone posted that Indiana had lost 330,000 acres to development. The towns that once circled Indy are now cities in their own right with many hosting corporate headquarters and they have more people going there to work than those leaving to work elsewhere.

As I have looked to get out of the city myself, the running into the next city is real.

 

[Ingomike]

So a savvy farmer sold his farm to mega developer corp in about 2006, several were trying to buy the land. The farmer got his money, at the time he bought 2000 acres with the money from the 150 acres, and he retained a contractual covenant/restriction, (because a contractual deal might fall if the developer sold the land) that the farmer could farm the land as he had for decades, at nominal price, until permits for development were in place.

He still is farming that land and has crops on it today. This is the 24th season of farming the land he once owned.

Any requirements that sellers sell only the complete bundle would take this right away.

 

[phylodog]

Any requirements that sellers sell only the complete bundle would take this right away.

Sounds like a legitimate use for the laws allowing for control over property you don't own. Good for the farmer.

 

[jkaetz]

My knowledge says this is the way it will go, developers will get most LARGE parcels of land, as you have noted they have capital. They cannot implement their economies of scale as well on smaller parcels of land. The place for non HOA home building will be those smaller parcels. A further problem is that few mega corp builders build on your lot and it is unlikely any of them will build without an HOA. So few builders will have any type of economies of scale offered in HOA neighborhoods.

The consumer is always 5-10 years behind the mega building corporations. The consumer drives a little ways out of “boomville” to where they see open farm land, woods, creeks, and says I should try to by some land out here. What they have no idea about is most of that land was put under options contracts or even bought outright 5-10 rears ago. The “next ring” is twenty miles beyond “boomville” not 5 miles.

To answer your question directly, and assuming you meant, developers should BE ALLOWED do this, yes, I do think they should be allowed. About the only restrictions on selling property I agree with is limited foreign ownership, corporate or individual.

So then freedom for us peons is already dead. What I'm seeing is that in the future we are all going to end up under a hyper local government with a set of rules that were created by a developer's lawyer. Carving out a space of land to be yours free of restrictions will require you to be a multi-millionaire or happen to know someone. That's a sad state of affairs and a long way away from the "American Dream" of owning a home.

So a savvy farmer sold his farm to mega developer corp in about 2006, several were trying to buy the land. The farmer got his money, at the time he bought 2000 acres with the money from the 150 acres, and he retained a contractual covenant/restriction, (because a contractual deal might fall if the developer sold the land) that the farmer could farm the land as he had for decades, at nominal price, until permits for development were in place.

He still is farming that land and has crops on it today. This is the 24th season of farming the land he once owned.

Any requirements that sellers sell only the complete bundle would take this right away.

We already discussed this. This is the only instance where deed restrictions make sense. The farmer still has an interest in the property. However after the developer starts building his interest is over and the restriction dissolves. This should also happen after the developer's interest in the neighborhood ends. If the homeowners want to create their own association and covenants then so be it. The only thing the homeowners should inherit are the community maintenance things. Everything else should be created and adopted by the homeowners. Yes I know it's not perfect and you can come up with scenarios where this is problematic but IMO it at least gives the individual homeowners a chance. As it is how we live in our homes will eventually be dictated by all the different rules that developers put in place and then handed over.

Further down our dystopian future the central government is tired of individual HOAs all having different rules and spending time litigating them all separately they take over all HOAs and make the rules the same. Then we're all ****ed. I'm still shocked to find people in support of more government.

 

[Ingomike]

So then freedom for us peons is already dead. What I'm seeing is that in the future we are all going to end up under a hyper local government with a set of rules that were created by a developer's lawyer. Carving out a space of land to be yours free of restrictions will require you to be a multi-millionaire or happen to know someone. That's a sad state of affairs and a long way away from the "American Dream" of owning a home.

In the post covid fleeing of cities it is getting more expensive to get out of the city by the day.

We already discussed this. This is the only instance where deed restrictions make sense. The farmer still has an interest in the property. However after the developer starts building his interest is over and the restriction dissolves. This should also happen after the developer's interest in the neighborhood ends. If the homeowners want to create their own association and covenants then so be it. The only thing the homeowners should inherit are the community maintenance things. Everything else should be created and adopted by the homeowners. Yes I know it's not perfect and you can come up with scenarios where this is problematic but IMO it at least gives the individual homeowners a chance. As it is how we live in our homes will eventually be dictated by all the different rules that developers put in place and then handed over.

Why allow anyone to have an HOA at all if it just goes away after the developers are done? If I cannot have reasonable assurances of the covenants I agreed to when I bought what value are they after the developers are done?

Further down our dystopian future the central government is tired of individual HOAs all having different rules and spending time litigating them all separately they take over all HOAs and make the rules the same. Then we're all ****ed. I'm still shocked to find people in support of more government.

I am very anti much of what government has become but am not anti government. Some of the most revered people on INGO are the founders and their constitution. The constitution is a layout for government. They further expected states to have government that they left things not explicitly in the constitution, for the feds, to states to have jurisdiction over. Who knows what a ever crowded society might try.

I have long thought that in the name of the environment they will make new septic system permits very difficult to obtain further restricting movement to more rural areas.

 

[jkaetz]

Why allow anyone to have an HOA at all if it just goes away after the developers are done? If I cannot have reasonable assurances of the covenants I agreed to when I bought what value are they after the developers are done?

I guess they'll have to go back to the old days of actually talking to their neighbor and making an agreement to not be a nincompoop instead of crying to mom & dad developer to try and legislate behavior.

 

[Ingomike]

I guess they'll have to go back to the old days of actually talking to their neighbor and making an agreement to not be a nincompoop instead of crying to mom & dad developer to try and legislate behavior.

Wouldn’t it be better if people just had an agreement in place as what the rule are for ho they will live when they bought?