Banned is maybe too far, but why should we as a country allow people to have petty power over meaningless things their neighbors do? Could we ban HOAs from being included in house sales, and every time it’s sold the new owners have to opt in?

For the most part, I’m wondering about this in the context of single family homes since for homes like condos, you could make the case that HOAs are useful for shared things like roofs and whatnot. Maybe limit mandatory HOA involvement to things like what’s truly necessary and shared and not how tall your grass is?

  • Destide@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Never understood how they gained traction in the US you pride yourselves on freedom and land protection but then allow some curtain twitcher to dictate how you use the land you paid for.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      HOAs were created to keep the blacks people who couldn’t meet the community standards out.

    • booly@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      Never understood how they gained traction in the US

      They gained traction specifically in 3 types of places:

      1. Condo buildings with shared common elements where everyone in the building should share the financial burden of maintaining the roof, elevators, common areas.
      2. Planned communities where farmland or other underdeveloped land was converted into a lot of houses, in a city or state unwilling to build or maintain the roads, power lines, sewers, and other infrastructure that makes it livable.
      3. Communities with exclusive amenities, like private beach/lake access, private parks/playgrounds, golf courses, gate guards who keep out the uninvited non-residents, etc. There’s a strain of historical practice here of basically keeping our non-white people from gated communities.

      None of these 3 types of places need an HOA to accomplish this.

      For that condo category, New York pioneered the use of co-ops that effectively accomplish the same thing. It’s just that the co-op legal structure is a little bit more unwieldy and inefficient than a modern condominium owners association.

      For the “the city won’t pay for our infrastructure” category, it is always possible to persuade the city to actually take over those responsibilities, but it would probably slow down development, and put too much in favor of the incumbent residents over potential future residents. NIMBYism is bad enough, we don’t need to take away a legal tool for overcoming it.

      For the “let’s keep out the poors” type of community, those are exactly the types of communities that actually love their HOAs. The HOAs are, in a sense, harmful to the people not within the community but upheld by the people who are in that community. Abolishing that is probably fine, although it would do nothing about the types of complaints that most people have about their HOAs.

    • I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      City governments love HOAs, because they can push the responsibility for utilities and public services onto the hoa. The city supplies water to the hoa with a single bill, the hoa bills the residents. Privatized trash and recycling pickup. Maybe even an electrical substation. Hoa builds and maintains the roads and parks.

      The city gets the benefits of property tax payments without the costs of infrastructure.

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 days ago

      pretty sure HOAs exist everywhere, you kinda need an entity to coordinate local amenities like water pipes and roads. The problem in the US is just that HOAs can make up any arbitrary requirements they want and no one seems to give a shit.

      in sane countries HOA-equivalents have pretty strict limits on what they can and cannot do, generally their ability to outright ban things is limited to extreme cases like someone painting their house magenta and lime stripes or having 8 cows in their backyard.

      • Treczoks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 days ago

        Here, this is 100% the councils job. There are no HOAs here with curtain twitchers that tell you that you have to keep your grass this green.