8 ms·

The answer is likely that it makes sense for maintenance purposes, but the legal authority granted to an HOA is overly broad.

by lumost 1mo ago

thedougd 1mo ago
It's certainly overly broad in many circumstances. I've lived in a townhome community with overly aggressive management. However, "There is absolutely no reason why a single family house needs to be in a mandatory HOA" is easy to refute. HOA's provide a way for managing shared infrastructure that would not be feasible for a single home owner. Common examples of basic infrastructure include roads, storm water management, lighting, and even community wells. I would argue that is the primary purpose. Not all neighborhoods are in a municipality either.
- em-bee 1mo ago
  Not all neighborhoods are in a municipality either. why is that? and why is the county or state government not taking over the responsibility then? for example in germany a democratic local government is guaranteed by basic law, so a neighborhood outside of a municipality is practically not possible and considered a violation of basic law.
  - pandaman 1mo ago
    Municipalities in the US are the same type of institution as HOA, self-organized to maintain property. Just like you may not have an HOA you may not have a municipality of any kind. Counties and states are usually not equipped to do maintenance work, same as the federal government. I also don't understand the preference of city government over HOA - it's not like cities don't have codes and you can do whatever you want with your property. It's subdued now but couple years ago we had anti-zoning posts as frequently as we have anti-Flock. Who creates zoning? The city does.
    - em-bee 29d ago
      the difference is that HOAs are private and not state actors, when they really should be. that has some constitutional implications. they are not democratic because usually only property owners are voting members based on the size of the property. in a municipality everyone living there gets one vote. you are right that in practice the difference may not be that noticeable, but i believe that not being state actors is a significant distinction. if it acts like a government, and if it quacks like a government it should be a government and be subject to those same rules. not having a municipality of any kind in my opinion is an oversight of state/federal law. people should have democratic representation whereever they live. HOAs don't provide that.
      - pandaman 29d ago
        What do you mean they are "private"? HOA literally means the association of all home owners, who are members and set, follow, and enforce its bylaws. It's a public institution, same as a municipality. The difference is in how each is established and controlled, but neither is private.
        em-bee 29d ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_association A homeowner association is a private, legally-incorporated organization that governs a housing community, collects dues, and sets rules for its residents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_institution_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_institution_(United_Sta... A public institution is a juristic person in the United States which is backed through public funds and controlled by the state. HOAs are not controlled or funded by the state, no more than Private Businesses are. municipalities are controlled by the state. if municipalities have the same reach into how people manage their homes like HOAs do then the distinction may not matter. it is however a legally significant distinction. one point where the distinction matters is that HOAs can limit your freedom of speech, while municipalities can not. https://www.hopb.co/blog/freedom-in-associations-exercising-free-speech-rights-in-an-hoa https://www.hopb.co/blog/freedom-in-associations-exercising-...

The answer is likely that it makes sense for maintenance purposes, but the legal authority granted to an HOA is overly broad.

by lumost 1mo ago

The answer is likely that it makes sense for maintenance purposes, but the legal authority granted to an HOA is overly broad.

thedougd 1mo ago

It's certainly overly broad in many circumstances. I've lived in a townhome community with overly aggressive management. However, "There is absolutely no reason why a single family house needs to be in a mandatory HOA" is easy to refute. HOA's provide a way for managing shared infrastructure that would not be feasible for a single home owner. Common examples of basic infrastructure include roads, storm water management, lighting, and even community wells. I would argue that is the primary purpose. Not all neighborhoods are in a municipality either.

em-bee 1mo ago
Not all neighborhoods are in a municipality either. why is that? and why is the county or state government not taking over the responsibility then? for example in germany a democratic local government is guaranteed by basic law, so a neighborhood outside of a municipality is practically not possible and considered a violation of basic law.
- pandaman 1mo ago
  Municipalities in the US are the same type of institution as HOA, self-organized to maintain property. Just like you may not have an HOA you may not have a municipality of any kind. Counties and states are usually not equipped to do maintenance work, same as the federal government. I also don't understand the preference of city government over HOA - it's not like cities don't have codes and you can do whatever you want with your property. It's subdued now but couple years ago we had anti-zoning posts as frequently as we have anti-Flock. Who creates zoning? The city does.
  - em-bee 29d ago
    the difference is that HOAs are private and not state actors, when they really should be. that has some constitutional implications. they are not democratic because usually only property owners are voting members based on the size of the property. in a municipality everyone living there gets one vote. you are right that in practice the difference may not be that noticeable, but i believe that not being state actors is a significant distinction. if it acts like a government, and if it quacks like a government it should be a government and be subject to those same rules. not having a municipality of any kind in my opinion is an oversight of state/federal law. people should have democratic representation whereever they live. HOAs don't provide that.
    - pandaman 29d ago
      What do you mean they are "private"? HOA literally means the association of all home owners, who are members and set, follow, and enforce its bylaws. It's a public institution, same as a municipality. The difference is in how each is established and controlled, but neither is private.
      - em-bee 29d ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_association A homeowner association is a private, legally-incorporated organization that governs a housing community, collects dues, and sets rules for its residents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_institution_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_institution_(United_Sta... A public institution is a juristic person in the United States which is backed through public funds and controlled by the state. HOAs are not controlled or funded by the state, no more than Private Businesses are. municipalities are controlled by the state. if municipalities have the same reach into how people manage their homes like HOAs do then the distinction may not matter. it is however a legally significant distinction. one point where the distinction matters is that HOAs can limit your freedom of speech, while municipalities can not. https://www.hopb.co/blog/freedom-in-associations-exercising-free-speech-rights-in-an-hoa https://www.hopb.co/blog/freedom-in-associations-exercising-...