Homeowners Associations - the new fascism?

[Valjean]

Not nearly as pretty as nearby Ellicott City.

Interesting. I lived there, too. Used to work in the Bar/restaurant down by the railroad overpass -- the fern bar, not the bloody bucket.
Nice town, but you don't want to be there during heavy rains.

It was rather bland...but I liked the bike paths.
But after I left, I heard that it fell into decline.

I lived on Goodbody Ct, near that pond.
I think that area was called "The Birches" because of the dying birches at the entry.
(Birches don't like that southerly climate.)

Bland? You didn't hang out with the right crowd.
I remember the police once telling us to "just keep your clothes on" when they caught a bunch of us skinny-dipping in 'that pond' (Wilde Lake).

 

[Sanzbir]

Not all HOA's are voluntary--- if you purchase property within their sometimes draconian (Orwellian?) scope?

Usually agreeing to join is a condition of purchase, from what I understand.

You "agree" to abide by their dictatorial behaviors.

Different from any other voluntary association, though??

Personally, I think they are all bordering on unconstitutional, as the homeowners frequently have no Due Process, nor a right to privacy, etc. You cannot sign away your constitutionally guaranteed rights, at least you are not supposed to be able to.

Errr, that's not strictly true.

For example if you sign a NDA, you can't use "free speech" as an excuse to speak outside the terms of that NDA.

And you can't bring a gun to a privately owned "gun free" zone even with your second amendment because part of the conditions of that zone permitting entry is you agreeing to suspend your rights to arm yourself while within them.

Also if you sign a contract to rent space to the US military you can't invoke the third to bar their entry.

Basically yes, you can come to a voluntary agreement to suspend, to my knowledge, a good portion of your rights. Which makes sense, because if their your rights you should be able to do with them as you wish, even if that is giving them away for whatever reason.

I have a low opinion of these, as they are typically run by self-entitled busybodies who love poking their unwanted noses into everyone else's business. Typically so that no one looks too closely at theirs.

Yeah, that's bureaucracy for ya.

 

[Stevicus]

HOAs, like condo associations, are joined voluntarily. And their existence
is all about property rights. But when you join one, you knowingly agree to
limit some of your rights.
Alas, people too often don't perform their due diligence to discover what
they're becoming part of. Some of them are horrible. I should know....I've
managed properties subject to their rules, whims & fancies. And I once
lived in a planned community (Columbia MD). That was a valued learning
experience...never again.

Yeah, I see what you're saying, but even from the point of view of the association, you'd think they'd want to avoid the bad publicity and the high legal fees (the article mentioned a case costing one association $45,000) over something so petty and ridiculous.

It just seems like a bad way to run a business, and it certainly can't do the other homeowners much good either. If a bad HOA makes a given property unattractive to buyers, wouldn't that negatively affect the property values in the neighborhood? Isn't that what HOAs were designed to protect?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, I see what you're saying, but even from the point of view of the association, you'd think they'd want to avoid the bad publicity and the high legal fees (the article mentioned a case costing one association $45,000) over something so petty and ridiculous.

I know guys who run a management company which manages only condo associations.
They (as do I) know that some are wonderful, but others have a board composed of
busy bodies & power hungry nincompoops. They have an ***hole surcharge in their
fee for such difficult clients. I took the coward's way out....managing only a single
easy association. And I celebrated when they decided to self-manage.
So when one buys a condo, one darn well better check out what the rules are, &
what the co-owners are like. If one doesn't, one has only oneself to blame.

It just seems like a bad way to run a business, and it certainly can't do the other homeowners much good either. If a bad HOA makes a given property unattractive to buyers, wouldn't that negatively affect the property values in the neighborhood? Isn't that what HOAs were designed to protect?

Idiots don't recognize their doing idiotic things.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't see how they're much different than the preposterous ToS that comes attached to pretty much any electronic device or software. We need to insist we keep our rights, not handing them over with such eagerness.

You cannot sign away your constitutionally guaranteed rights, at least you are not supposed to be able to.

Ever ship Fed Ex or UPS?

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't see how they're much different than the preposterous ToS that comes attached to pretty much any electronic device or software. We need to insist we keep our rights, not handing them over with such eagerness.

Ever ship Fed Ex or UPS?

If you don't like your software, you can cheaply & easily ditch it & buy a replacement.
But real estate.....it reminds me of an old joke.

Which of the following doesn't belong?
- AIDS
- Gonorrhea
- A condominium in Flint MI

Spoiler: The answer

Gonorrhea

Why?
It's curable.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you don't like your software, you can cheaply & easily ditch it & buy a replacement.

With electronics and software, unless you go to another country where such one-sided agreements are banned, it's exceedingly difficult to find alternatives.

 

[Revoltingest]

With electronics and software, unless you go to another country where such one-sided agreements are banned, it's exceedingly difficult to find alternatives.

Do what I do....
Buy ancient portable unsupported software whose installation
needs only copying a few files (once it's configured that way).

 

[Draka]

I have never dealt with or personally known of any particular place with a HOA. I don't even know if there are any at all in my town. There might be in some of the more well-to-do areas but I really don't know. The whole idea seems strange to me. Especially when the city already has certain regulations in place as to property. Grass/weed height, parking on grass, overgrowth of trees into sidewalks/alleys/lines, and so on. That's basic stuff. But to tell someone what freakin decorations they can have in their yard or what flag they can fly or what color they can paint their house? That sounds just absurd to me.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do what I do....
Buy ancient portable unsupported software whose installation
needs only copying a few files (once it's configured that way).

That's pretty much how we get HOA that tell people how they can decorate their yard - by doing something other than addressing and fixing the real problem.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's pretty much how we get HOA that tell people how they can decorate their yard - by doing something other than addressing and fixing the real problem.

I don't think power mad busy bodies are capable of
eschewing obsessing over insignificant problems.
It's truly amazing how vicious & wasteful they can be.
When that one condo association tried to evict my
tenant, their management company resigned.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Aye, people should be more careful about purchases.
Real estate can bite one in the arsch.....as it's done to me many times.

Government has the ultimate lein on all real estate.
We only own it at their pleasure.

Agreed. Land ownership is the one area where I totally agree with Libertarians... *sigh*

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Usually agreeing to join is a condition of purchase, from what I understand.



Different from any other voluntary association, though??



Errr, that's not strictly true.

For example if you sign a NDA, you can't use "free speech" as an excuse to speak outside the terms of that NDA.

And you can't bring a gun to a privately owned "gun free" zone even with your second amendment because part of the conditions of that zone permitting entry is you agreeing to suspend your rights to arm yourself while within them.

Also if you sign a contract to rent space to the US military you can't invoke the third to bar their entry.

Basically yes, you can come to a voluntary agreement to suspend, to my knowledge, a good portion of your rights. Which makes sense, because if their your rights you should be able to do with them as you wish, even if that is giving them away for whatever reason.



Yeah, that's bureaucracy for ya.

I expect that signing away your rights ONLY continues to stand, because nobody challenges the essential unconstitutionality of it.

That IS how our silly laws work: Look at the constant attempts to usurp the right to vote, by the GOP state governments. They pass a law abridging rights, get sued, have to remove said law, then they do it all over again.

Or the constant attempt by Evangelicals to put the 10 commandments (which they don't actually follow themselves) into government properties... they get sued, they have to remove it.

It's a shame that laws and actions are not vetted for Constitutionality FIRST...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I don't see how they're much different than the preposterous ToS that comes attached to pretty much any electronic device or software. We need to insist we keep our rights, not handing them over with such eagerness.

Ever ship Fed Ex or UPS?

The only way to keep our rights, is to continue to insist on them.

Rights get usurped all the time by unconstitutional laws--but unless these are challenged?

The rights remain curtailed.

Look at the basic liberty of Marriage Equality: A strict interpretation of Marriage did not specify gender. But same sex couple's right were usurped by unconstitutional laws anyway.

They had to fight to get the rights they actually had all along.