HOAs. Why do people dislike them? \ stacker news ~Politics_And

pull down to refresh

961 sats \ 23 comments \ @kepford 22h Politics_And_Law

I very rarely meet anyone that likes HOAs (Home Owner Associations).

It should be obvious that they are simply put, private voluntary governance. Typically, one would purchase a property that is under the management of an HOA. Prior to this purchase, a wise person would review the HOA's Constitution and Bylaws and decide if they want to live under the authority of the HOA. The reason HOA's exist is really the same reason that governments of all types exist. People do not want to live in chaos. Most people want order. The conflict comes when you are living under someone else's rules that you do not agree with.

I have found that the problems with HOA's are not that different than the problems in the government of a city or a state. The problem is the incentive structure is very poor. There is little incentive for the governance system to handle problems. The second issue I've seen is the same problem we see in state governments, which is people do not involve themselves or make their voices heard. Sure, when the election comes around, they cast their vote. But do they actually get involved in the way the system works and try to make changes? That said, it would be my guess that a private government would be more responsive than a monopoly state government. But I have not seen this in practice.

Personally, I have no desire to live under the governance of an HOA because I would be under yet another government. It's a very similar reasoning that I have for not living in a city. For me personally, to maximize my freedom and liberty, I want to have as little governance as possible. In most places in the United States, you can avoid city government and private HOA's, but it's very close to impossible to avoid a state and federal government.

What I find most interesting about HOAs is how often those that are dissatisfied with HOA's are perfectly content and satisfied with other forms of government. It is also interesting to me how people who claim to hate state and federal government nonetheless decide they want to add another government the private age away to the mix. Things like this make me wonder how deeply most people actually think about their political views in regards to how they actually affect their lives.

Now, I'm not saying that one is a hypocrite if one chooses to live under an HOA and claims to hate the state. Obviously the incident of structure is different between the state and a private governance system. For one, one can pretty easily sell the property and move out of the jurisdiction of the HOA. One can also choose to have property that is not under the jurisdiction of a private government. But it's interesting for those of us who wish to see the state pass away, to hink about private governance and how those models could work.

What do you think?

If you like HOAs why is that?

If you don't, why is that?

view all related items

370 sats \ 4 replies \ @freetx 20h

Everyone hates HOAs until their neighbor has a trash pile in their backyard and has all the windows busted out.

That is, once it affects their ability to resell their property, they will suddenly find HOA's reasonable.

I have found that the problems with HOA's are not that different than the problems in the government of a city or a state. The problem is the incentive structure is very poor. There is little incentive for the governance system to handle problems.

HOA's is one of the reasons that turned me from being a "ideological anarcho-capitalist" into a "practical small-gov libertarian" what I mean is, you can see in the HOA structure government writ small....politics, busy-bodies, people with too much time on their hands. Simply "not having a state" doesn't solve that if those same people control the private entities that you are subject to - and they will!

I realize now that the ugliness of politics is just the ugliness people. It really doesn't have much to do with the state per se....In an ideal anarcho-capitalist world (run by insurance companies) those same people and companies will just promote their people to be part of every HOA style structure.

28 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford OP 4h

the ugliness of politics is just the ugliness people. It really doesn't have much to do with the state per se....In an ideal anarcho-capitalist world (run by insurance companies) those same people and companies will just promote their people to be part of every HOA style structure.

I agree that the root issue is people. But I disagree that it doesn't have much to do with the state. The state is a monopoly and the stakes are much higher. The reason I'm opposed to the monopoly government is BECAUSE of the flaws of people.

The argument you are making against insurance as an alternative governance model ending up like an HOA I don't get. You can't fire your HOA. You have to move. One of the biggest issues with HOAs is how they are modeled after state governments.

I also think one of the biggest issues with HOAs is education. Because most people have a poor understanding of government and its incentives they don't realize how they work. And therefore don't see how HOAs are flawed. They are in a sense copying a bad design. This is why we can't have a ancap or limited government today. People want the chains. We aren't ready for it. The HOA in my opinion is a great example of people being the problem. But just as slavery was once an accepted evil but no longer is, the monopoly of the state could shift in the modes of the people.

But that's what has to happen. The people have to evolve. Market forces are not in play with the state. They are in some ways in the HOA but there needs to be more innovation.

57 sats \ 1 reply \ @freetx 3h

The argument you are making against insurance as an alternative governance model ending up like an HOA I don't get. You can't fire your HOA. You have to move. One of the biggest issues with HOAs is how they are modeled after state governments.

Lets imagine a world without government. We all live more or less in private territories. Those territories need a way to harmonize rules and procedures. (ie. if you drive your car from Territory A to B, your insurance company wants to make sure things like road conditions and traffic rules are harmonized to an equal standard between territories to provide coverage).

It becomes in every territories best interest to more / less agree with these standards as it makes commerce so much easier (ie. Our territory agrees to "milk pasteurization definition ABC", so a buyer in a foreign territory can be assured that its of sufficient quality, etc).

In order to create these standards bodies, various insurance companies will each vie to get their representatives appointed. Pretty soon, as these things progress, these 'standards bodies' will become the lynchpin where all political infighting happens. It will become the place where backroom deals are done, where corruption happens, etc. In a sense it just becomes the new 'gov' - the deal making clearing-house between territory owners and insurance companies.

Will this be better than what we have now? Perhaps, at least in theory. How much in practice? Unknown....

People want the chains. We aren't ready for it.

That is one view, which I don't fully disagree with, but there is another view: The "Deep Ancap" view, which is: We already live in ancapistan. What you see around you (the state) is itself the product of market forces. The state doesn't exist in spite of free-market forces, but because of it. That is, people and corporations desire to have universal authorities so, market forces put those entities in place.

28 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 2h

Yeah, I see your point. We don't know and I always try to remember this.

82 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 20h

Pretty much my take as well.

162 sats \ 2 replies \ @unboiled 14h

I don't like them, but that has to do with a catastrophic first experience.

The first HOA we were under in Australia had a geriatric, incompetent guy who managed to de facto take control of presidency, treasury, and secretary by himself. He basically managed to get two other geriatrics appointed to be treasury and secretary, but they didn't do anything, just let him do all and only signed off his work.

At least he wasn't doing dodgy things with the funds, but over time it became clear that the common areas weren't maintained. Add in his bullying behavior by waging lawfare (filed about a dozen lawsuits and lost all) against anyone who dared not agree with him, and we knew we had to get him out. We had only moved in after he was "in position" for years, and had the energy to take it on once we realized how bad the situation was.

Once he realized the absentee landlords whose proxy votes he had previously been given had been informed by us about the issues and were starting to withdraw their proxies leaving him with less than his previous absolute majority, he then obstructed any votes that could compromise his position from even being tabled. At one stage, we hadn't had a ownership meetings for 18+ months as he was cancelling those with phony reasons to keep us at arm's length.

Despite having clear, well-documented evidence of his misconduct, it took us 2 1/2 years to get rid of him. We had to take it all the way through complaints at the local body corporate boards, two rounds of arbitration (attempted, he never showed), and finally a court order to put the complex under outside management for a period of time.

67 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 13h

This example shows why good people need to step up and take positions of political power. You might not want it, but if you don't take it someone who does want it will gladly step in, and you don't want that

edit: I'm partly speaking to myself here. I desperately do not want a position of authority within my org, but more and more i am seeing what happens when the reasonable people all opt out of leadership...

59 sats \ 0 replies \ @unboiled 10h

This example shows why good people need to step up and take positions of political power.

I'd settle for having systems to get rid of bad people much faster and easier than it taking years and hundreds of dollars to get an obviously bad apple out of a position of power.

262 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 20h

I think it's like any other form of governance in that it's subject to scope creep and the principal-agent problem. Even Bitcoin has to fight that. That's what sucks, another thing you're constantly having to fight just to maintain.

I'm president of a road association, and not by choice, old timer nominated me and no one else would step up.

Road is an HOA structure, but explicitly limited scope, and still have to deal with folks who want to assume expansion of that scope or nit maintenance projects upwards to socialize the cost of their wants.

What's the alternative? Road either becomes impassable-ish for lack of pooled maintenance funding, spend a small fortune just to move to a noisy public road with higher taxes, or lobby the town/county to assume control which will be even more work and expense.

It's tadeoffs all the way up and down that nobody wants to make. The irony is not lost on me that I'm an ideological AnCap miffed about having to maintain a private road.

41 sats \ 8 replies \ @DarthCoin 9h

Each property owner should be responsible for his property and his own actions. Nobody can force me to have a specific conduct about my own property, as long as I do not do any damage to anybody else.

The common shared infrastructure management (access roads, garbage recollection, guards etc) should be arranged in year rotation by each participant neighbor. Who doesn't want to be the "manager", must pay a quote for not complying his duty.

If a new owner is coming into this "association" it should be provided a contract, stipulating all duties and responsibilities that must be respected and the penalties if don't.

But the most important thing is CONSENT. If there's no consent (contract) in all this HOA thing, is all a bullshit. So yeah, is better to stay away from this kind of thing.

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @itsrealfake 4h

What would you like to see happen if your neighbor is burning tires on his property, but immediately next to a stream that crosses both your properties?

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @DarthCoin 4h

As I said, mutual respect, don't do harm to others. In this particular case what I would consider, because I know it will harm my neighbor:

take the tires to a specialized deposit (and maybe I would get some sats for them)
burn them in an open field far from anybody and not property of somebody else
if I really have to do it on my property, I could ask the neighbor when would be a proper day/time to burn it, without molesting them.

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @itsrealfake 3h

In this particular case what I would consider, because I know it will harm my neighbor

You're speaking to your own behavior here, I think.

if I really have to do it on my property...

I'm curious about proposed solutions if the neighbor is burning the tires on their property, but the fumes or pollutants are impacting the environment on your property (e.g. through the blowing of wind, or the flowing of water)

This question gets at free-rider problem and a conversation about externalities... so pardon if it seems trite, I'm generally interested in Darth's take.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @DarthCoin 3h

if the neighbor is burning the tires and he's in a direct violation of the HOA contract, then he will pay. It's all about the contract and what each agreed prior to the facts.

impacting the environment

And who is this "environment"? Is it a living man? Or an entity ?

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @itsrealfake 41m

And who is this "environment"? Is it a living man? Or an entity ?

For the purpose of my question, its the water and air which transits the boundaries of the land parcels which were defined by the contract of sale for Your Land, or Your Neighbor's Land.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 39m

OK so water and air can sue me or make me pay ?

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @itsrealfake 36m

No, but the air encountering your property is now full of tire smoke

view all 1 replies

68 sats \ 0 replies \ @Signal312 18h

I'm being urged to serve on the HOA board. I've done this before (in a different neighborhood) and it was no fun.

You're right, the incentives are all wrong. How do you improve this?

58 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 18h

You’re correct the incentive structure is the problem. There is no remuneration for being on an HOA board. It is just unpaid work, so only people with too much time on their hands or who like feeling important do it.

49 sats \ 1 reply \ @StillStackinAfterAllTheseYears 22h

I've never had an HOA, but I'd imagine a big factor in people disliking them as opposed to other forms of government is the levels of pettiness and micromanaging. The HOA tells you you can't have green windowshades or have hedges more than four feet tall. The government says they'll tax your income and use it to build roads and schools.

I won't bother pointing out the problems with the government argument (I think literally every member of SN knows them). But bad a case as it is, it still comes across as a better case than the one the HOAs often make.

(In theory, of course, HOAs exist for things like ensuring the community gets trash collection and similar things, but in reality, petty rules seem to abound, and it's those that people complain about.)

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford OP 21h

Yeah, it feels like HOAs attract busy bodies. But the monopoly government covers most basic rules so all that is left is petty stuff.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @janetyellen 18h outlawed

stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.