boobsrgood:
But I've heard the horror stories. A punk kid inherits daddy's money, buys a brand new McMansion, and within a year the craphole has broken windows, puke running down the sides, a Confedrate flag out front, missing roof tiles and a few totalled cars on the lawn.

And soon enough, he will leave and someone else who is proud of what they own will have it looking better than it did before.

This process produces what I call a neighborhood evolution that I don't think you would find present in an HOA neighborhood.

boobsrgood:
But screw all those people that can't sell their house now, right? Yeah, screw them for banding together and trying to solve their huge idiot-shaped financial nightmare. Fascists.

HOA's were invented to solve the problem of not being able to sell homes in a tight market? Huh?

SchlingFo: Yes, they do. And, if by some chance they don't, a quick email to your council member will get them out there quick, fast, and in a damn hurry.

So, just so I have this straight, you're perfectly content with the government enforcing these rules, and charging the tax dollars to the entire municipality.... but you're NOT ok with people taking care of it themselves?

One way it is sometimes possible to get away from limitiations of "special assesments", is to not call it a "special assessment, but a "supplemental budget", or just put it in the regular budget. Granted, I did this for a $30,000 condo roofing project, not an
$8+ million dollar extravaganza.

You only need an assesment if you want to borrow the money. They participate in a tax-free revenue bond pledging future collections (the assesment). $30k is way to small.

One of my neighbors is my hero. He has reminded everybody in our neighborhood that we live in the desert (just outside L.A., wow, I thought all these palm trees grew naturally) by having dirt, chaparral, and cacti instead of a fake green lawn. The other neighbors hate it. I love it. No HOA, thank god.

Bleh - Here Goes - Collection of stuff from an earlier thread:

Ok, why HOAs are exist: The Yellowbeard Perspective.

(Those of you in the biz, please feel free to comment/correct.)

Background:
So, I work as a land planner for a planning and engineering firm that I am part owner of. We specialize in something called "New Urbanism" or "TND" (that's short for "Traditional Neighborhood Design"). My company works for developers, typically, though we also do work for small municipalities who want to update their zoning code (which is like a larger, official version of HOA rules, in a way).

Typically, municipal development regulations would not allow me to plan the types of communities I want to plan, that the developers I work for want to build (even though most planners you talk to today would agree that the type of design we do is what's best, and most municipalities will change their code over the next few decades to allow it). The only way for me to be allowed to build them, usually at this time, is to do something called a Planned Unit Development or a Planned Zoning District. These are just special parts of code in many municipalities which allow developers and land planners to create, basically, their own zoning laws - something that is not normally allowed by city regulations.

Reasons for HOAS
Generally the developments I work on are in the 10,20,30 acre and up range. The process is typically that a developer buys, or contracts so that he has the first option to buy, one large or several contiguous pieces of property. The developer then comes to me and says that he has a vision for the property. He wants to re-zone the whole thing, build a bunch of infrastructure on it, break it up into lots, and then sell those lots, either with or without houses on them. Most often, he is not going to build the houses himself, and this is what most people don't understand about development.

This means that the developer needs several million dollars to do a job. Our fees alone are going to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and he has to have me re-zone the property and design the project before dirt is ever turned. He needs several million for the land, and he needs several million to do the infrastructure. This is another thing that most people don't understand (including, sadly, many city planners and aldermen I have seen): Municipalities rarely actually pay to have roads built and infrastructure put in. It is up to the developer to pay for that, and then he gives that infrastructure to the municipality.

So, the developer needs something on the order of 20-30 million to do a 20-30 acre project where I live. This changes by orders of magnitude, both up and down, depending upon where he is in the country (how much land prices are, etc.)

Almost no developer has this kind of cash laying around, and even if he did, he would want to make sure to make money on his investment. This is, after all, about making money, primarily, though some developers, particularly the ones I work with, at least claim that they are also interested in leaving a legacy - building a neighborhood that people will like (it is handy if people like your neighborhood when it comes to sales, also).

Since he probably doesn't have this kind of cash laying around, he has to take a bank loan and get investors, meaning that he has to sell the project to someone before he can ever get it off the ground at all. All of these people - the bank, the investors, the developer - want to make money. Them making money depends entirely on the selling of lots only after tens of millions of dollars have been invested.

You should see where I am going, by now.

Remember when I said that the developer does not build the houses, typically? This is because actually building the houses would entail another order of magnitude more money invested, and the developer is already probably strapped in order to get this deal going in the first place. What most people don't realize is that HOAs are put in place initially almost as much to control builders as they are to control future residents. Of course, they also control what lot buyers can build, so that the character of the neighborhood that the developer, the investors, and the bank think will sell is maintained. The initial buyers are also buying in under this assumption.

HOAs also provide financial support for things that a municipality likely will not maintain, such as pools, community centers, and other amenities that are set up to make the neighborhood sell lots.

So the basic answer is, as I said, money. The reason HOAs are popular is because they do more to ensure what type of project is going to be built in the end, and developers, investors, and banks are typically more comfortable putting money into things that they think have less variables.

Does that make sense?

Oh, the end-using people who by lots are also typically more comfortable buying into an HOA (at least, the ones whose money developers are after). A lot of times lots are "pre-sold" before the development even gets approved.

These people are getting ready to pay a hundred thousand dollars for a lot, then face the prospect of paying several hundred thousand more to build a house on it. Like everyone else, they want to make sure that their investment is protected, and that they end up living in the type of neighborhood they thought they would end up living in.

So the real, simple answer without explanation is: Market Forces.

Also, I sort of reversed things above: HOAs are really miniature, typically more restrictive versions of a municipality's zoning code. I reversed it because of the order in which I was speaking of things. The thing is: if you live in a municipality, you probably already live in what amounts to an HOA. It's called the Unified Code of Development for your municipality, and it basically governs what can and can't be built, where when and how, within the city.

And the really sad part is: The UDC you live under is probably really bad and needs to be updated. So, very very sadly, it is possible (though probably unlikely) that HOA regulations might actually be better than what your city might have instead.

It may sound like I am defending HOAs, above. I am not (though I guess I have to admit that I see no reason they should be allowed to exist). Personally, I probably would not like to live in one. However, they are probably a somewhat necessary evil in modern development, and they are better or worse depending upon the developer and the people involved in them.

boobsrgood:
Market has nothing to do with the sale of a home.

Oh my.

HAha..

I refused to purchase a home that was ruled by an HOA, as _I_ am the master of my home.. not some facist nosey ninnys.

There is _ONE_ person on my street that lets their grass grow long.. city code enforcement was notified, they were fined by the CITY, and they have cut their grass since.

Having an HOA is a terrible idea.

Daniels: So, just so I have this straight, you're perfectly content with the government enforcing these rules, and charging the tax dollars to the entire municipality.... but you're NOT ok with people taking care of it themselves?

I see no point in putting into place and paying for an additional layer of government (the HOA) that performs the exact same function as the next higher layer of government.

It's just another layer of bureaucracy. The localities will always have ordinances and inspectors to enforce said ordinances. Why pay for it twice?

SpeedRacerX:

I spent over $1M and my HOA is critical to ensure the rest of the neighborhood is built in a similar (but wide) price range and in a way that doesn't decimate the value of my home. e.g. You can't just buy one of these wooded lots and park a double-wide on it.

It has come in handy quite a few times during the development of this young neighborhood and people like me won't risk that kind of dough without one.

And as the saying goes, if you don't like it, build elsewhere since this HOA was founded by the owners of the entire development for the very purpose mentioned above.

Most HOA-haters don't have investment-level properties.

Dude, I hate to have to tell you this, but your "investment-level property" is built with shoddier construction then my cheap-ass apartment.

You'll be replacing roofs, siding, doors, drywall, and tearing out your kitchen while I just deal with grabbing a new set of roach baits from the Fiesta-mart every three months.

But hey, a big house does assist in picking up women of the "banned-from-SWA" variety. I gotta acknowledge that.

SchlingFo: Daniels: So, just so I have this straight, you're perfectly content with the government enforcing these rules, and charging the tax dollars to the entire municipality.... but you're NOT ok with people taking care of it themselves?

I see no point in putting into place and paying for an additional layer of government (the HOA) that performs the exact same function as the next higher layer of government.

It's just another layer of bureaucracy. The localities will always have ordinances and inspectors to enforce said ordinances. Why pay for it twice?

I would argue that it is a slightly different function than the layer above.

Just out of curiosity: Do you advocate getting rid of all governmental authority other than the Feds, then? ;)

U.S. Americans: SpeedRacerX:

I spent over $1M and my HOA is critical to ensure the rest of the neighborhood is built in a similar (but wide) price range and in a way that doesn't decimate the value of my home. e.g. You can't just buy one of these wooded lots and park a double-wide on it.

It has come in handy quite a few times during the development of this young neighborhood and people like me won't risk that kind of dough without one.

And as the saying goes, if you don't like it, build elsewhere since this HOA was founded by the owners of the entire development for the very purpose mentioned above.

Most HOA-haters don't have investment-level properties.

Dude, I hate to have to tell you this, but your "investment-level property" is built with shoddier construction then my cheap-ass apartment.

You'll be replacing roofs, siding, doors, drywall, and tearing out your kitchen while I just deal with grabbing a new set of roach baits from the Fiesta-mart every three months.

But hey, a big house does assist in picking up women of the "banned-from-SWA" variety. I gotta acknowledge that.

Now this is a really dangerous comment. The truth is that you have absolutely no idea what kind of craftsmanship and materials went into this guy's home.

I won't buy into a HOA

Heck, I won't even buy property within the incorporated limits of a city, town, or village.

Give me unincorporated lands any day.
Preferably land measured in acres that don't begin with a decimal point.

Ya, I'm a big fan of less governance

My yard is clean and my house well maintained. Why? Because its embarrassing to live in a slummy looking house.

There is no way to really quantify this but my experience says that City's are MUCH more lenient when it comes to code enforcement. Their goal always seems to be compliance and compliance alone will usually let you out of a lot of the fines.

Now CDD/HOA's are a different story. They are protecting a bond rating. They don't want hurt the bond rating with poor administration so they go by the book with blinding adherance.

Here's a little trick I advise people. Put appeal of the HOA Board decisions past the local government (usually State Admin. Ct.) that way connected locals can't influence the appeals and it makes it much more expensive for homeowners to appeal. AND the Admin ct's know way more about this than a local government and won't let appearances get in the way of proper rulings.

SchlingFo: I see no point in putting into place and paying for an additional layer of government (the HOA) that performs the exact same function as the next higher layer of government.

Because most people, myself included, have neither the time or desire to fight with their neighbors. So they pay someone to do it for them. I don't want to spend the five or six hours per day that I'm not working chasing after my neighbors to adhere to city ordinances.

This works for me, it doesn't work for you. There is a simple way to never have a homeowner's association mess with you: don't move into a neighborhood with one. It's no different than the idiots who move next to the airport and later complain that the planes are loud.

I would never, ever, move into an area with an HOA. An HOA is just a bunch of nosey, bossy and power hungry people with too much time on their hands.

One poster from the NorthEast hit it on the head

I live in the same area. The only time you see HOA's is with a condo or a senior development. There are a TON of neighborhoods where entry price is the 1MM+ range. NONE of these have gone to pot since I lived here (all my life).

In fact HOA's are a negative selling point here. They don't protect the value of you home any more than my deglo garden gnome harms yours.

There are no reason for them whatsoever.

SurfaceTension: Yellowbeard: Now this is a really dangerous comment. The truth is that you have absolutely no idea what kind of craftsmanship and materials went into this guy's home.

This is true. Hey what do you think of Mike Holmes's shows?

Afraid I am not familiar. Googled it, but it doesn't ring any bells....

?

threetoehoek: Do you like cleaning your pool or paying for it to be cleaned?

I pay, and it's a small price for not having to share the pool with a bunch of kids with diarhea.

Did you like buying all that expensive workout equipment?

Sure, and it's nice not having to use a bunch of germ-laden, sweat-soaked equipment that's never cleaned and usually busy.

Do you like living in Cali and never knowing what season it is and will you like it when it falls in to the pacific?

Every day is a day at the beach. If I need snow, I can jet over to Utah or Colorado.


I like living by the mountains and having the experience of ALL 4 SEASONS. I like the fact that your aren't my neighbor and I like my little cracker box house. How bout this .. you stay in Cali and I'll stay here .. deal??

I also have homes in Hawaii and Mexico, but you have a deal :)

Hey what do you think of Mike Holmes's shows?

I've only seen John Holmes' work. Almost all screwing. Some hammering. I only watched for a few minutes.

boobsrgood: MadAsshatter
Most Farkers...
Live with their parents
Are in college
Rent

And they just keep proving it!

andrew131....So, you're saying a government or institution should place limits on a market

It's a coat of paint, junior, not a war.

Enomai...What difference does it make to you whether they paint their house or not? It has nothing to do with the value of your home despite public perception.

Public perception IS a home's value. Fail.

Ummon...Most of the people I have met in HOA's have neither

Home Owner's Association

narphlan
Suck it up, Nancy. Its his property. Your property ends at the property line.

Finally! Jethro! Thanks for showing up! Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the reason for the HOA to exist at all. A guy with no respect for his neighbors, his neighborhood, or anyone besides himself. Turn around, Festus, let 'em all see that big red ass.

Dude, that's not how it works. I have seen at a minimum 800 appraisals. Appraisals are Federally regulated and on a standard form. They include the subject and 3 comparable sales within the last 12 mos. A double wide on the next block cannot be compared to a detached Single Family Residence. Even with an Act of Immobilization that only converts the house to "manufactured" status. You get a positive adjustment if your property is in superior condition to appropriate "comp". If someone else buys a house and immediately farks up the appearance of it, you benefit through adjustments. The price they purchased the house for is unchanged and publicly recorded. If they fark up the house 13 mos after they buy it, it's not a comparable sale for the appraisal. This is why the Harvard study of home appreciations is absolutley correct. Active HOA areas appreciate at about 3.8% slower a rate than without the HOA. You fail.

Ummon: There are no reason for them whatsoever.

Actually, there is. Yellowbeard's speech-post completely described (in a well written way) the reason my neighborhood has a HOA.

Good or bad (good right now), that is the reason it has one. I do worry about a day when it does something I don't agree with but I will never forget it was part of the package I signed up for and all the good it has done so far.

Yellowbeard.

Maybe. He said it was a "young development," which I took to mean new construction. All new residential construction, with the exception of a few custom-built jobs, is crap.

My place, on the other hand, is so old that the walls are lath and plaster. You don't FARK with lath and plaster.

This Holmes thing (Holmes on Homes?) looks very interesting, and no doubt I will watch it now, if I can find it.

One day I hope to do some contracting myself. Always looking for more education.

For those of you who are keeping count:

Yes, I want to go to Law School, and plan to do so.
I am currently in Planning and Engineering.
I want to be a contractor at some point.
Already been a carpenter.
I also design furniture.
I also design/build toy castle (hopefully going to market with it soon).
I am also starting an apple orchard.

/Can't figure out if I want to grow up - much less what I might want to do if I ever do so...

"young development," which I took to mean new construction.

That means kids will heat the pool for you. And color it.

danlpoon: Hey what do you think of Mike Holmes's shows?

I've only seen John Holmes' work. Almost all screwing. Some hammering. I only watched for a few minutes.

Now that was genuinely funny.

From a from the point of the developer and bank sure it make sense. From "preserving" your property values its a total scam. Again, in the NE a HOA is a NEGATIVE selling point. No one wants them in single family homes. They are tolerated in condo's and co-ops because they have to have them.

Other then that they serve no purpose for the homeowner



SpeedRacerX: Ummon: There are no reason for them whatsoever.

Actually, there is. Yellowbeard's speech-post completely described (in a well written way) the reason my neighborhood has a HOA.

Good or bad (good right now), that is the reason it has one. I do worry about a day when it does something I don't agree with but I will never forget it was part of the package I signed up for and all the good it has done so far.

U.S. Americans: Yellowbeard.

Maybe. He said it was a "young development," which I took to mean new construction. All new residential construction, with the exception of a few custom-built jobs, is crap.

My place, on the other hand, is so old that the walls are lath and plaster. You don't FARK with lath and plaster.

Look, I have roofed houses and been a finish carpenter and been a construction manager, and I won't disagree that there is a lot of crap out there - especially in the last decade during the building boom, when there were a hell of a lot of contractors and subs in the game that just shouldn't have been, but the market was such that they could be. That is getting ready to change.

I have seen (very) bad work in the most expensive areas in which I live, some of which are very expensive, indeed, as I live just about 25 minutes from Wal-Mart's world headquarters, and there is one hell of a lot of money floating around.

However, there is no way to know, for certain, how well any particular home was put together without watching it be built or personally inspecting it later.

Also, while I like lathe and plaster just fine, give me a home with insulation any day. ;)

I'll come clean, guys: I'm homeless. I sleep wherever I end up at night. I don't have a job, and I donate plasma to get money for my Hamm's. That said, if an HOA were to come up to me and offer to give me a home gratis, I would spit in their faces and rip their balls/chesticles off. I can't stand having the unclean masses decide for me.

Daniels: Because most people, myself included, have neither the time or desire to fight with their neighbors. So they pay someone to do it for them. I don't want to spend the five or six hours per day that I'm not working chasing after my neighbors to adhere to city ordinances.

Hyperbole FTW!!

I grew up in a non-HOA neighborhood. Nobody spent 5 or 6 hours a day chasing after their neighbors.

I've rented in a non-HOA neighborhood. Only had one issue with a guy that had a compost pile in his backyard that attracted rats. One five minute call to the county, and they came out, inspected, cited him and charged him for the cost of the cleanup/exterminators.

Ummon: Other then that they serve no purpose for the homeowner

Actually, there is. We have many acres of common area which need to be kept up and enhanced. We are also zoned farm-residential and have to plow ourselves.

Most importantly, the neighborhood is only about 75% finished so the need to control builders to stay within the theme, size/price range and landscaping requirements are all still very much there.

Everyone is free to not build here but the growth has been quite brisk.

Yellowbeard:

However, there is no way to know, for certain, how well any particular home was put together without watching it be built or personally inspecting it later.

I won't argue this point, but for the purposes of debates on the internets I'm going to go with civil rules ("preponderance of the evidence") and pronounce SpeedRacerX's house to be shoddy construction.

I'm also biased... here in Texas, complaints with some builders got so bad that they lobbied to create an entirely new level of government bureacracy ("Residential Construction Board" oslt) which arbitrates for claims. Stripmall foundation cracks? You sue. McMansion foundation cracks? You go to the board and plead.

/commercial is your better bet
//stops renting apartment, moves into stripmall bay
///dry cleaners employees don't complain about noisy sex

Yellowbeard: I would argue that it is a slightly different function than the layer above.

Different enough to warrant giving an additional layer of bureaucracy control and a couple of hundred bucks a month? Not in most cases.

Just out of curiosity: Do you advocate getting rid of all governmental authority other than the Feds, then? ;)

Actually, I'd argue that the states should have most of the responsibility, with the Feds being there only for true interstate concerns and military. There's a lot of redundancy, and the lower levels are generally more in tune to the needs of the populace.

And, if local government didn't exist or was extremely limited in scope, a HOA would be a good thing to have. But, like the Feds, the local governments aren't going away or decreasing in scope any time soon.

SchlingFo: Actually, I'd argue that the states should have most of the responsibility, with the Feds being there only for true interstate concerns and military. There's a lot of redundancy, and the lower levels are generally more in tune to the needs of the populace.

And, if local government didn't exist or was extremely limited in scope, a HOA would be a good thing to have. But, like the Feds, the local governments aren't going away or decreasing in scope any time soon.

I would like a copy of your newsletter as it is relevant to my interests.

Yellowbeard:U.S. Americans: You'll be replacing roofs, siding, doors, drywall, and tearing out your kitchen while I just deal with grabbing a new set of roach baits from the Fiesta-mart every three months.

Now this is a really dangerous comment. The truth is that you have absolutely no idea what kind of craftsmanship and materials went into this guy's home.

Maybe, but odds are he's probably correct. McMansion development does tend to equal shiatty construction. As you said, they're out to make money.

/will never buy a house that isn't at least 30 years old

scorreia
Oh my.

Market has nothing to do with the sale of a home.

You seem to need it repeated. People don't buy a market. They buy a house, and that includes the neigborhood it's in, and the neighbors you can see.

And soon enough, he will leave

What? You just make crap up and that makes it true? He doesn't leave, he's the reason for the damn HOA, and like all cancers he is permanent. Soon enough for who? You who are not his neighbor? How convenient.

Enomai

People do not buy your appraisal, they buy a home. Security, privacy, and comfort are what they purchase, not a piece of paper.

An unruly neighbor ruins the sellability of all neighbor's houses. Just ask any real estate agent. Go ahead, ask one. A house that scares people is the death of all the neigbors' property values.

and yes, HOA's were created because of these people.

The proper way to handle this situation is to add an extra $3 a month to everyone's HOA fees when you build the original rec center. Invest that money at 6% and 40 years later when you want to rebuild the Rec Center you will have almost 8.5 million dollars already.

Enomai: I would like a copy of your newsletter as it is relevant to my interests.

I'll sell you one, so long as you agree to only read it in the bathroom, highlight it only with an orange highliter, and have your children return it to me after your death.

SchlingFo: I've rented in a non-HOA neighborhood. Only had one issue with a guy that had a compost pile in his backyard that attracted rats. One five minute call to the county, and they came out, inspected, cited him and charged him for the cost of the cleanup/exterminators.

You're right. Your anecdotal experience is much more legitimate than my hyperbole.

Here's mine: I live in a very small city in New York State. There are two townhouse complexes in the city. They are separated by less than a quarter mile. The one without an association looks like a shiathole, has overgrown lawns, peeling paint, gross colors, fenced-yards with fences of all different types, some lawns are in good shape, and cars parked wherever there is space. It has a tennis court that has holes in it, a playground with broken equipment, and decks off the back of the homes with broken latticework. It has homes for sale at $35k.

The one with an association (mine) has numbered parking spots, uniform colors, repaired fences, maintained green spaces, is well-lit, and supplies the units with garbage cans. It has homes for sale at $110k.

So, yeah, sorry... it works for me. It doesn't work for everyone. I don't believe in in HOAs that monitor every change in your house, but I think they're necessary and good for townhouse complexes because of the number of people sharing both houses and property.

ok, so they provide services that you would normally pay for though the local government. How does that protect your home values?

If you had bought a home outside of your HOA does the town plow the roads?

SpeedRacerX: Ummon: Other then that they serve no purpose for the homeowner

Actually, there is. We have many acres of common area which need to be kept up and enhanced. We are also zoned farm-residential and have to plow ourselves.

Most importantly, the neighborhood is only about 75% finished so the need to control builders to stay within the theme, size/price range and landscaping requirements are all still very much there.

Everyone is free to not build here but the growth has been quite brisk.

SchlingFo: Yellowbeard: I would argue that it is a slightly different function than the layer above.

Different enough to warrant giving an additional layer of bureaucracy control and a couple of hundred bucks a month? Not in most cases.

Just out of curiosity: Do you advocate getting rid of all governmental authority other than the Feds, then? ;)

Actually, I'd argue that the states should have most of the responsibility, with the Feds being there only for true interstate concerns and military. There's a lot of redundancy, and the lower levels are generally more in tune to the needs of the populace.

And, if local government didn't exist or was extremely limited in scope, a HOA would be a good thing to have. But, like the Feds, the local governments aren't going away or decreasing in scope any time soon.

I was joking. Somehow I figured that this was the kind of thing you would believe.

Do you truly believe in states rights or do you think that the Feds should define marriage, make laws against drug use, etc.? (Actually, sorry, that question seems like the fallacy of the complex question, but I am going to leave it in.)

/Not judging, just was guessing.

Yellowbeard: Do you truly believe in states rights or do you think that the Feds should define marriage, make laws against drug use, etc.?

Unless you want to get married while hopping back and forth across the California/Nevada border, or you want to ship your weed from Virginia to Texas, nope :)

You need HOA's in Condo/Townhouses/Co-op they couldn't exist without them so I don't think that was the argument.

This is just the difference between a crappy HOA and good one. Which is really Dependant on which idiot gets elected onto the board

Daniels: SchlingFo: I've rented in a non-HOA neighborhood. Only had one issue with a guy that had a compost pile in his backyard that attracted rats. One five minute call to the county, and they came out, inspected, cited him and charged him for the cost of the cleanup/exterminators.

You're right. Your anecdotal experience is much more legitimate than my hyperbole.

Here's mine: I live in a very small city in New York State. There are two townhouse complexes in the city. They are separated by less than a quarter mile. The one without an association looks like a shiathole, has overgrown lawns, peeling paint, gross colors, fenced-yards with fences of all different types, some lawns are in good shape, and cars parked wherever there is space. It has a tennis court that has holes in it, a playground with broken equipment, and decks off the back of the homes with broken latticework. It has homes for sale at $35k.

The one with an association (mine) has numbered parking spots, uniform colors, repaired fences, maintained green spaces, is well-lit, and supplies the units with garbage cans. It has homes for sale at $110k.

So, yeah, sorry... it works for me. It doesn't work for everyone. I don't believe in in HOAs that monitor every change in your house, but I think they're necessary and good for townhouse complexes because of the number of people sharing both houses and property.

Daniels: You're right. Your anecdotal experience is much more legitimate than my hyperbole.

Sorry, dude, but saying that all your free time would be committed to "chasing after neighbors" is complete hyperbole.

The truth is that most neighborhoods, historically, do just fine without HOAs.

Yellowbeard:It may sound like I am defending HOAs, above. I am not (though I guess I have to admit that I see no reason they should be allowed to exist). Personally, I probably would not like to live in one. However, they are probably a somewhat necessary evil in modern development, and they are better or worse depending upon the developer and the people involved in them.

Seems to me they should have a sort of statute of limitations on them, forcing them to dissolve once the area has been developed to a certain point or after X number of years, whichever comes first. I understand the need to make the development become what the initial investors envisioned, but that should be the extent of their rights and once that is initially achieved I think it's wrong that people should have to answer to some ridiculous private government. Let the residents define the neighborhood within the common laws of the municipality, not some bullshiat contract written by a stiff in a cubicle.

True, people could just choose not to live there if they don't like it, but as HOA's become more common that becomes less realistic.

/the center in this particular article is a clearly an exploitative money grab, and is an example of why these HOAs have to be reeled in at least a bit

SchlingFo: Yellowbeard: Do you truly believe in states rights or do you think that the Feds should define marriage, make laws against drug use, etc.?

Unless you want to get married while hopping back and forth across the California/Nevada border, or you want to ship your weed from Virginia to Texas, nope :)

Excellent response.

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Yellowbeard:It may sound like I am defending HOAs, above. I am not (though I guess I have to admit that I see no reason they should be allowed to exist). Personally, I probably would not like to live in one. However, they are probably a somewhat necessary evil in modern development, and they are better or worse depending upon the developer and the people involved in them.

Seems to me they should have a sort of statute of limitations on them, forcing them to dissolve once the area has been developed to a certain point or after X number of years, whichever comes first. I understand the need to make the development become what the initial investors envisioned, but that should be the extent of their rights and once that is initially achieved I think it's wrong that people should have to answer to some ridiculous private government. Let the residents define the neighborhood within the common laws of the municipality, not some bullshiat contract written by a stiff in a cubicle.

True, people could just choose not to live there if they don't like it, but as HOA's become more common that becomes less realistic.

/the center in this particular article is a clearly an exploitative money grab, and is an example of why these HOAs have to be reeled in at least a bit

Hey! I have my own office - not a cubicle!

;)

SchlingFo: The truth is that most neighborhoods, historically, do just fine without HOAs.

I never said they didn't. All I've ever said is I don't understand why people who aren't in them care about them so much.

Here's what happens: someone gets their panties in a bunch because they agreed to join an association, finds out they can't do something, whines about it and everyone yells about property rights. Meanwhile, Kelo vs New London happens and it's forgotten in days.

Kelo vs. New London terrifies me far, far more than some jackhole who can't read an HOA's bylaws before buying a house. One affects me, one doesn't.

Ummon: How does that protect your home values?

If you aren't smart enough to understand how well-maintained, functional and beautiful common-areas impact home values then I do not have the skills to help you.

As to your plowing question, if I had lived inside the city limits the local income taxes would have been much higher than my HOA dues. But that was not a factor in my decision.

I'm just pointing out that our 40 house neighborhood is more efficient with our dollars for services and maintenance then the larger, nearby city (none of which impacts our use of the Township's fire, emergency or law enforcement services).

That is not evidence Speedracer that is your opinion. The fact remains that HOA's in the Northeast are rare. Why? Because your property values do just fine without them. They are NOT NEEDED.

In your particular case there is some inherent value to them because of the town you live in and the services they offer. which is fine. However I would not trade my property rights to get my road plowed.

In the NE, the ONLY thing that effects property values are the quality schools which is a function of the school taxes. Where my parents live their neighbor could use the front lawn as an outhouse keep cars on blocks and never mow his lawn. My parents can and will STILL sell their home for about market value (which is in the high 600k for a 1800 sq foot home).

You don't really have to worry about that since the town has ordinances against all of that and is strictly enforced WITHOUT the intrusive nature of the HOA.

SpeedRacerX: Ummon: How does that protect your home values?

If you aren't smart enough to understand how well-maintained, functional and beautiful common-areas impact home values then I do not have the skills to help you.