7 ms·

I'm a HOA president and while HOAs can be very extreme, the flip side is if homeowners are breaking rules designed to protect property or common areas (pool, la

I'm a HOA president and while HOAs can be very extreme, the flip side is if homeowners are breaking rules designed to protect property or common areas (pool, lawns, playground, etc) a $100 is not enough to stop people. Thankfully our HOA focuses on our common areas and is responsible for all exteriors and lawns (it's all townhomes), so the lines are a bit clearer. We've had all sorts of wild issues such as building scaffolding on top of balconies (not attached), ripping up common area plants, parking issues (we all have garages, street parking is guest only), drying food on the pool deck (really), dumping garbage bags outside in the common area and more. If we can only levy a $100 fine there's little incentive for some people to stop doing things that impact the community. I do cringe when I hear about these crazy HOAs of what are usually a collection of single family homes. I think a better approach would be some kind of limitations of the what HOAs can have rules about vs the penalties. Interiors of homes should be generally off limits (aside from townhomes that are all technically 1 building, so you should not be doing anything structural without approval). For single family homes with private property surrounding them I'd rather there be limits that are purely for safety, legal reasons or impacting common areas.

tdb7893 1y ago
It wouldn't surprise me if it's still a net positive, even with the downsides. Also the article says there are carveouts for health and safety, I wonder if excessive noise at night counts as a health issue (there's more than enough research on how important sleep is where it wouldn't be absurd to have it as part of the health carveout).
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> homeowners are breaking rules designed to protect property or common areas Fines are administrative. If someone is causing property damage, that’s liability—indemnification (where the homeowner pays the HOA’s legal fees) should be sufficient.
- threatofrain 1y ago
  Protect property [value] may have been what they meant. For example, every single home looking like they're from a quaint village.
  - s1artibartfast 1y ago
    No, I think they meant protect property from damage. Lawsuit is a high bar for action. If I go into a private gym and start smashing things, they would want to fine me and kick me out, but it may not be worth several thousand dollars to sue me for the damages.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > If I go into a private gym HOAs have inherent collateral. Indemnification is the answer. If the legal fees wrack up, you take the house. But only through the courts.
wildrice 1y ago
You make some fair points, but it’s also worth some self-reflection as an HOA president to understand why so many people resent these institutions. I’ve given two HOAs an honest try, and both ended up reinforcing the same patterns of pettiness and overreach that give them their reputation. The structure itself seems to attract a small group exerting outsized control over others’ property. Hopefully, over time, communities can move toward simpler, more democratic systems that preserve shared spaces without breeding unnecessary conflict.
themafia 1y ago
> building scaffolding on top of balconies As a permanent structure or for temporary renovations? > ripping up common area plants Just for fun? Were they drunk? Or is the border between the "common area" and "their property" somewhat hazy? Are you not able to simply forward the invoice for repairs to the resident? That's not a fine and doesn't seem like it would be covered? > parking issues (we all have garages, street parking is guest only) This impacts property values? What about tow to impound? > drying food on the pool deck (really) > dumping garbage bags outside in the common area A $100 fine is not adequate for these relatively petty issues? It might just be me. I don't have kids and I don't spend a lot of time around home. I don't understand HOAs at all.
- elaus 1y ago
  Yes, as a non-American, HOAs seem so strange to me. It seems like most of those issues could be resolved by the existing legal system (destroying other people's property, dumping stuff in public areas, etc.) or by the city's regulations and codes.
  - OptionOfT 1y ago
    When you buy a house you know whether there there is an HOA, so there shouldn't be any surprises. HOAs are interesting for cities as they cordon off certain parts for which the city pays no street maintenance, no park maintenance, yet it collects full taxes. For people living in an HOA it can provide amenities like more private parks, pools etc.
  - jerlam 1y ago
    The city doesn't govern what happens in HOA common areas, because the HOA owns that property. Destruction of other people's property - clearly yes, but destruction of the HOA's property is different, because the homeowner is part of the HOA and thus it's their own property (but shared among all the other homeowners). Thus the HOA has to come up with a set of rules to govern its own property from its own homeowners.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
foundry27 1y ago
I get it, really I do. But do the HOAs really need financial enforcement mechanisms intended to seriously harm people, and to punish them as judge, jury and executioner? A HOA’s legal job is to maintain the common-interest property and enforce the CC&Rs. It is not a HOA’s job to extract enormous sums of money out of its members, even annoying ones. The right lever to pull to get some rich person partying at 4am and trashing the place (for example) to stop is for the HOA to file for a court injunction after repeated violations; once a judge orders “no loud music 10 pm - 7 am”, the next 4 am party will become contempt of court, which is a problem for the cops, not the HOA. Hell, 4 a.m. noise is a municipal nuisance and probably a crime; people should be calling the cops every time it happens. Individual members could even sue the owner in small-claims court for private nuisance, where judges can issue even more injunctions or award damages. All this to say, you don’t need to take people’s money to get them to stop doing bad stuff. But you do need to take people’s money to get rich, and to hurt people. This new legislation should be deeply concerning to people interested in the latter, and IMO shouldn’t really be a concern to people interested in the former.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  >But do the HOAs really need financial enforcement mechanisms intended to seriously harm people, and to punish them as judge, jury and executioner? No, they don't. But to be fair, your local enforcement agencies have the same power to unilaterally fine people insane amounts of money. So in a technical sense it makes sense that HOAs would have the same unilateral power to screw people.
  - kstrauser 1y ago
    Yeah, but: 1) Governments are often much easier to sway. You can get a newspaper or TV station involved. You can show up to open meetings. You can campaign against the incumbents. While you can porbably technically do some of that against rogue HOA boards, it's going to be a lot harder. 2) Governments are usually large enough not to make things a personal vendetta. That's clearly not always true; I'm only talking about trends. Meanwhile, the HOA members are your neighbors, by definition. Get on the wrong side of them and they can easily get involved in everything you do.

tdb7893 1y ago

It wouldn't surprise me if it's still a net positive, even with the downsides. Also the article says there are carveouts for health and safety, I wonder if excessive noise at night counts as a health issue (there's more than enough research on how important sleep is where it wouldn't be absurd to have it as part of the health carveout).

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> homeowners are breaking rules designed to protect property or common areas Fines are administrative. If someone is causing property damage, that’s liability—indemnification (where the homeowner pays the HOA’s legal fees) should be sufficient.

threatofrain 1y ago
Protect property [value] may have been what they meant. For example, every single home looking like they're from a quaint village.
- s1artibartfast 1y ago
  No, I think they meant protect property from damage. Lawsuit is a high bar for action. If I go into a private gym and start smashing things, they would want to fine me and kick me out, but it may not be worth several thousand dollars to sue me for the damages.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > If I go into a private gym HOAs have inherent collateral. Indemnification is the answer. If the legal fees wrack up, you take the house. But only through the courts.

wildrice 1y ago

You make some fair points, but it’s also worth some self-reflection as an HOA president to understand why so many people resent these institutions. I’ve given two HOAs an honest try, and both ended up reinforcing the same patterns of pettiness and overreach that give them their reputation. The structure itself seems to attract a small group exerting outsized control over others’ property. Hopefully, over time, communities can move toward simpler, more democratic systems that preserve shared spaces without breeding unnecessary conflict.

themafia 1y ago

> building scaffolding on top of balconies As a permanent structure or for temporary renovations? > ripping up common area plants Just for fun? Were they drunk? Or is the border between the "common area" and "their property" somewhat hazy? Are you not able to simply forward the invoice for repairs to the resident? That's not a fine and doesn't seem like it would be covered? > parking issues (we all have garages, street parking is guest only) This impacts property values? What about tow to impound? > drying food on the pool deck (really) > dumping garbage bags outside in the common area A $100 fine is not adequate for these relatively petty issues? It might just be me. I don't have kids and I don't spend a lot of time around home. I don't understand HOAs at all.

elaus 1y ago
Yes, as a non-American, HOAs seem so strange to me. It seems like most of those issues could be resolved by the existing legal system (destroying other people's property, dumping stuff in public areas, etc.) or by the city's regulations and codes.
- OptionOfT 1y ago
  When you buy a house you know whether there there is an HOA, so there shouldn't be any surprises. HOAs are interesting for cities as they cordon off certain parts for which the city pays no street maintenance, no park maintenance, yet it collects full taxes. For people living in an HOA it can provide amenities like more private parks, pools etc.
- jerlam 1y ago
  The city doesn't govern what happens in HOA common areas, because the HOA owns that property. Destruction of other people's property - clearly yes, but destruction of the HOA's property is different, because the homeowner is part of the HOA and thus it's their own property (but shared among all the other homeowners). Thus the HOA has to come up with a set of rules to govern its own property from its own homeowners.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

foundry27 1y ago

I get it, really I do. But do the HOAs really need financial enforcement mechanisms intended to seriously harm people, and to punish them as judge, jury and executioner? A HOA’s legal job is to maintain the common-interest property and enforce the CC&Rs. It is not a HOA’s job to extract enormous sums of money out of its members, even annoying ones. The right lever to pull to get some rich person partying at 4am and trashing the place (for example) to stop is for the HOA to file for a court injunction after repeated violations; once a judge orders “no loud music 10 pm - 7 am”, the next 4 am party will become contempt of court, which is a problem for the cops, not the HOA. Hell, 4 a.m. noise is a municipal nuisance and probably a crime; people should be calling the cops every time it happens. Individual members could even sue the owner in small-claims court for private nuisance, where judges can issue even more injunctions or award damages. All this to say, you don’t need to take people’s money to get them to stop doing bad stuff. But you do need to take people’s money to get rich, and to hurt people. This new legislation should be deeply concerning to people interested in the latter, and IMO shouldn’t really be a concern to people interested in the former.

potato3732842 1y ago
>But do the HOAs really need financial enforcement mechanisms intended to seriously harm people, and to punish them as judge, jury and executioner? No, they don't. But to be fair, your local enforcement agencies have the same power to unilaterally fine people insane amounts of money. So in a technical sense it makes sense that HOAs would have the same unilateral power to screw people.
- kstrauser 1y ago
  Yeah, but: 1) Governments are often much easier to sway. You can get a newspaper or TV station involved. You can show up to open meetings. You can campaign against the incumbents. While you can porbably technically do some of that against rogue HOA boards, it's going to be a lot harder. 2) Governments are usually large enough not to make things a personal vendetta. That's clearly not always true; I'm only talking about trends. Meanwhile, the HOA members are your neighbors, by definition. Get on the wrong side of them and they can easily get involved in everything you do.