HOA vs Ducebag?  Decisions Decisions

".....and bankrupt the HOA."

Best four words in the article.

Flint Ironstag: BSABSVR: Mock26: To the couple who put up the sign that was four inches too tall: You agreed to abide by the rules of the HOA when you bought the place. If you do not like them then or think that they are stupid or anything like that, you have two options: 1) Move. 2) Seek to get the rules changed. If you are unwilling to do either of those options then grow the fark up and obey the damn rules you said you would obey.

To be fair, they did come up with technically valid signs.  But the fact that they pulled a dickish stunt and that the HOA is clearly full of crazy people was a recipe for derpsaster.

If the HOA can be petty about a temporary sign 4 inches too big then the owners can be petty about following the rules and making their sign technically legal. Rules are rules. They modified their sign to make it conform. The HOA decided to take it further.

And that's why technically correct is not always the best kind of correct.  Yes the couple in TFA followed the rules.  No the HOA should not have retaliated.  However when you have an HOA that is so clearly domineering as this one,  you end up with, well....this situation.  It only took them years of their life, the enmity of their neighbors and thousands of dollars to get vindicated.  Hooray.

BSABSVR: Mock26: To the couple who put up the sign that was four inches too tall: You agreed to abide by the rules of the HOA when you bought the place. If you do not like them then or think that they are stupid or anything like that, you have two options: 1) Move. 2) Seek to get the rules changed. If you are unwilling to do either of those options then grow the fark up and obey the damn rules you said you would obey.

To be fair, they did come up with technically valid signs.  But the fact that they pulled a dickish stunt and that the HOA is clearly full of crazy people was a recipe for derpsaster.

Yep, and in another post right after the one you quoted I said that everything after the sign cutting was childish.

jayphat: All I ever hear is people biatching about how they are "underwater" on their mortgage. Don't worry about it. Unless you plan on selling sometime soon.

Not always.  In some states, properties dropped over 50% in value.  It those situations, it might be better to do a short sale and purchase properties at a much lower price rather than continue to pay high levels of interest.

Both sides are idiots for crippling their neighborhood.  Now everybody in the neighborhood gets to pay for a handful of homeowners with more ego than brains.

PacManDreaming: As a former Vice President and President of an HOA, let me say that a lot of problems come from the HOA management company that pushes for fines and other crap so they can rake in more money. Fortunately, the people I served on the board with were just normal people who had no desire to lord over their domain. The management company, on the other hand, can kiss my ass. I am so glad to be living in a neighborhood without an HOA, now. I will never willingly live under an HOA again.

Yeah, I noticed that the HOA management companies always seem to be a subsidiary / legacy holdover / spin-off from whatever general contractor or developer built the development and (oftentimes) went bankrupt shortly after completion (but the principals always start up a new development business under a new name and in a new state shortly thereafter).

This is an excellent business plan.  It's a way of building and ensuring a recognizable "brand" for the developer's future projects; no better way to move a development project forward than showing off pristine flower beds, "high property values", and "ideal communities", etc. to prospective buyers, investors, and zoning boards.  It's also a way to keep the otherwise worthless children of the developer employed and buying cocaine.  Not to mention that the management company is captive income to float a construction based business during winters and slow times and keep your best foremen busy and paid during layoffs as opposed to moving on to other employers.

Once they get their teeth sunk into the HOA board, these property management companies are set forever.  At first, before enough units are sold to force elections, they pretty much run things uncontested.  They'll hand pick some community members to act as board members in the interim.  When elections are finally held, they are so integral to the operation of the property that no one in their right mind would change management companies (if they legally can at all).  They do this by making timid board members fearful of all the responsibilities and hard work of doing the job right by handling everything for them.  The board members learn to depend on the management company's lawyers, accountants, office help, handymen and their list of outrageously priced electricians, plumbers, landscapers, and tradesmen who "know the buildings/ homes better than anyone else" (because they are almost always the people who work/worked for the developer).  They nip any pretense of looking for alternative service providers by making it seem impossible.  Then they stoke the ego-maniacal members with quiet kickbacks and positive reinforcement in their insane crusades.

Seriously, it's quite the racket running a property management company.

HOA hate...

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: machodonkeywrestler: Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: namatad: To protect their property values? How's that working out for you?

in Fairfax County, VA?  Stunningly well.  Property values there barely took a hit in 2008-9, and they're up since then.  That county (and the other ones surrounding DC) never really felt the recession that much, b/c of countercyclical government spending.

Which has Zero to do with the HOA.

Look, you're not going to get me to argue that HOA's are the reason NOVA is doing well.  People have jobs here.  That's the main reason.  But when deciding where to live, neighborhoods that have cars on cinder blocks, refrigerators in the front yard, and people raising chickens out front are not going to be places that I'd choose to buy.  Reasonable restrictions, ie, a restrictive covenant, prevent stuff like that from happening and thus help property values.

An HOA that bankrupts itself in enforcing a rule that outlaws signs that are 4 inches too wide... that's not doing much in terms of making me want to buy there.  If I read that in the paper as I house-hunted, I'd probably skip that neighborhood as well.  It's a balance thing, and properly understood and enforced I think they actually can enhance property values.

Not trying to argue with you for no reason, but that is exactly what was implied by your post.