Question for debate: Should homeowners' associations be abolished? I think they should. I believe that a person's home is his/her castle and nobody else has any right to tell him/her what to do with it.

I personally dislike homeowner's associations. Recently, there was a long fight over a flagpole here in Virginia - The homeowner cowed to the association because, while he might have gone to jail over it on a normal occasion to protest the decision, he didn't want to jeapardize an adoption he and his wife were in the process of. This made a lot of news in Richmond - especially after the battle drug out past 9-11. While everyone else in the area was fighting over flags at Walmart, this one homeowner's association was preapared to send a man to jail for flying his flag - a flag that was allowed by the original association agreement he signed when buying the house. He managed to keep it flying until fall 2003, when he had exhausted all other options.

Here is a nightmare association that took decades to try to defeat. Just do an internet search on homeowner's association fights and there are thousands of hits. My parents bought a house in a subdivision without such an association, then two years later, the developer wanted to form one... there was quite a battle, and in the end, my parents were one of many who refused to sign the papers. But, because enough people had signed the covenent, when someone decided they didn't like my dad's boat parked on the side of the house (which was also invisible from the street because of trees) my parents were told they had 30 days to move the boat or they could be fined, sent to jail or lose their house! My parents of course fought it, but in the end lost (time and money not being on our side) so we had to sell the boat since we couldn't afford the fees to dock it in a marina (it was just a tiny bass boat).

My mom's best friend from childhood was born with many physical disabilities and often was unable to walk and in the end required a wheelchair. She lived with her parents for many years, and they eventually decided to move. The new home they bought was perfect - large hallways and bathrooms for a wheelchair, all one floor, nice big lawn to garden in... But when they went to build a ramp into the house, the homeowner's association was up in arms - of course there was nothing in the original agreement against wheelchair ramps - but they claimed it was an eyesore. It actually was very inconspicious and they even offered to plant strategic bushes that would hide the ramp. Of course, little people with a little bit of power will become dictators - so this family went through three years of litigation against the association. Sadly, in the end, it did not matter because before the case was finished in the courts, my mother's friend died. Without any need for a wheelchair accessible home, her parents moved to another community. A homeowner's association should be the people organizing food during a time like that - not making things more difficult. I've heard other horror stories from some of my patients - while the patient is in the hospital and the bills pile up, the family is unable to keep the house as beautiful as the nosy neighbors want - so the family suddenly not only faces a sick loved one, but the possibility of losing their house!

So, yes, I want homeowner's associations to be abolished. Especially since there is no real protection against them. I might move to a place that right now does not have one - and I may never sign any agreement to abide by their rules - and yet one day I can face their wrath the same as someone who signed up to join them. The only real purpose of any sort of association like this should be the maintenance of any shared property - like a community swimming pool, or golf course, etc - but that should be where their authority ends... it should never extend to my front yard.

I live in Houston, Tx, there is no zoning. If you don't want to live in a neighborhood with mobile homes, trucks on blocks, pink and green houses your only choice is to buy into an area where a HOA exists. HOA's are definitely a plus, if you wish to maintain, or increase, your home's value. It is preferable to zoning, because you can choose areas where HOA's don't exist. Usually not an area your typical suburbanite would prefer to live.

Astounding! I actually agree with Hugo, rebelkate, and FlutePlayer on the pros and cons on HOA's! Like many regulations and traditions in today's society, they can be blessings or curses. And of course, there are always the little twirps, who probably have never accomplished much in their ever so small world, who manage to get elected President of their neighborhood HOA for the simple reason nobody wants the headaches and work that come with the title. Thus, why we hear and read about a mixed bag of the good, bad, and the ugly.

Should homeowners' associations be abolished?

No because as Hugo said, the original intent for HOA's was to, within reason, protect residents against someone or something decreasing the property/residential value. Then over a period of years, these little twirps I was talking about manage to run things...into the ground...until we are left with an abundance of the bad and ugly stories about HOA's.

Just be careful of what you wish for...you just may get more than you signed up for with your neighborhood Home Owners' Association.

No.

You are made aware of the existence of homeowners associations when are considering a house. You get a copy of the bylaws upon request and your realtor and lawyer can tell you how much power this organization will have over your life. If you still choose to buy that home and then have problems with the homeowners association then you have no one to blame but yourself.

Now, if you own a home and the area around your home develops and people that have moved in near you seek to create a homeowners association I think that you should NOT be legally obligated to join that association or adhere to it's bylaws because you were there first.

I personally hate the concept of a bunch of keep up with the Jones types having ANY authority over my life. Because of this I choose to live in an older neighborhood that does not have a homeowners association.

My dream is to one day build a custom home for my family. When we can do this I will buy the land and build on it where there is no homeowners association.

My problem with the complaints about homeowners associates is that in most instances, people knew the association was there, and either choose to accept the power that association would have over them because "it's such a perfect house" or they didn't bother to research the bylaws or the legal power the homeowners association would have over them. It is simply a personal responsiblity issue.

A similar situation has been happening for years in my home town back in New Jersey. There a Naval Ammo Base had been in existence since before the Korean war. New folks move in all the time. The law in New Jersey says that all things, like a military base, HAVE TO be disclosed to the seller in writing for the sales contract to be valid. Even with the base there many people choose to move to the area.

Then those same people soon after moving in join a group in the area that protests the base and regularly demands that elected officials close it because an Ammo Depot, so close to a residential area is dangerous. They didn't have a problem with this when they were informed of it and choose to buy the house anyway. But suddenly, regardless of the fact that no accidents involving stored fuel or Ammo have happened on that base since the Korean War era, people decide the base must go.

Homeowners associations have a place in this world. A lot of people are comforted by the fact that all the houses will be kept a certain way and none of the neighbors can do anything "unsightly". The concept sickens me, I prefer my freedom and I prefer variety in life, my neighborhood and my neighbors, but I don't see any reason to Ban homeowners associations.

HOAs have a place- and it is under the concept of capitalism and freedom of associations that makes them work- you provide a service someone wants when you develope the property- such as a gated community or all houses colored blue- and those poeple buy the property with the understanding that all the houses will be blue or what have you. And this is disclosed.

If you don't like HOA- don't buy a home in an area with covenents!

I'm going to have to say no although I am not personally a fan.

My parent's neighborhood has no such thing...no rules regarding what kind of fences you can have or having to get permission before cutting off a tree limb...etc. On most occasions this lack of hassle can be seen as a good thing. Except, there was a man in the neighborhood who proceeded to use his house as a trash receptical. By this I mean he literally treated his house (and for that matter a car he kept parked outside) like a landfill. There were maggots, trash piled to the ceiling all over the place etc. The neighbors couldn't sell their house because of the stench. That's right the stench. You could smell the place from anywhere in his court and a radius around that also. The news did a clip on it even. (I looked in the gazette archives but couldn't find it and I can't remember the man's name). In any case apparently he was living in an appartment elsewhere. The health department stepped in or tried to but there wasn't much that they could do. In the end they could only order him to clean out his car by a given time. Somehow I wonder if there was a minimally powerful homeowners association in effect if this sort of thing would have happened. I wish I could remember the details more clearly (this happened 6 or 7 years ago)

I am not sure why more could not be done in this case.

In my town of Overland, MO. we had a house similar to this on my block. The father was never home, Mom had run off long ago and the kids were like animals in the way the lived and treated the house.

When the exterior of the house started to become a problem neighbors tried talking to the owner. Nothing happened. When a window on the second floor was broken and stayed broken for months, the neighbors tried talking to the owner and nothing happened. After a year or so with no action by the owner the neighbors began to call the public works department for codes violations.

The house was cited several times. When the problems were not corrected the owner was fined. When the fines were not paid the town put a lean on the property.

After a year of violations, fines, court appearances and the continued deterioration of the outside of the house the city did an inspection of the inside. When they discovered the inside was far worse then the outside (almost all drywall walls were destroyed, several plumbing leaks, 2 foot of stagnant water in the basement, unrepaired broken windows in the middle of winter, several severeroof leaks, filth everywhere, etc), the town codemned the house and ordered it vacated.

After another year of additional fines, court dates, etc the house was taken by the town.

After a year or so window to allow the owner to make restitution and repairs to be able to regain the house the city sold the house. The two gentlemen that bought it, fixed it up completely over the next year and sold it for twice what their cost of purchase and rehab was.

Overall it took 5 years to completely resolve. However, I don't know if I would want problems like this resolved any faster. The owner was given every opportunity and then some to resolve the problems and keep his house. I don't think 5 years is an unreasonably long time when you consider someone had to have their house taken from them.

I am also not so sure that an HOA would have been able to do the same in less time.

I think HOAs should be abolished.
What a person does with their own property, assuming it violates no laws, should be nobody else's business. If you don't want your neighbor to build something on their property, the neighborly thing to do would be to discuss it with them.

The goal of HOAs (homogenization of neighborhoods) seems patently offensive to me, but if that is a goal you wish to achieve it would be better to actually talk to your neighbors rather than set up a beaurocracy that will invariably fall into the hands of a petty little tyrant.

It seems to me that the majority of Americans want this type of tyranny. Why not let them have it. Those of us that prefer freedom can choose to live in places without them.

However, I do think the law needs to address the issues of people that live in an area before a HOA is formed and give them the right to choose not to participate if neighbors decide to organize one.

I agree with the statement about most Americans wanting tyranny through HOAs. I don't understand the willingness to be controlled by that. But it seems like the majority of the public is blindly willing to be controlled.

Brings the point up about what was to be the true purpose of our government. To protect EACH individual against other citizens and/or entities abusing their rights. Not to get as huge and intrusive as it has come to be.

And when did we get to the point of letting the value of our homes control our lives making homeowners abuse the rights of other homeowners who want to live as they please?

HOAs, mortgage companies & insurance companies have too much power over how we conduct our lives. It all comes down to the almighty $. Greed!

How many dollars we have greatly effects the way we are able to live our lives. I just sold a rental property that had apprecciated 40% in value since the day I purchased it in 1998. Because of that I am taking a mini-vacation from going out and making more dollars. The HOA existed at the time of development. No one ever bought a home without having the HOA documents available to peruse. HOA's are an association, freedom of association is an important right. I have lived in neighborhoods with, and without, HOA's. I prefer one's with HOA's.

Now, I would oppose HOA's, or government rezoning, that does not grandfather those who do not wish to abide by their rules. At this point they are enforcing an association and depriving freedom.

Government should be weighted heavily toward the local level. This gives you an option to vote with your feet if an oppressive majority takes power. HOA's are definitely local level.

Without mortgage companies- almost no one would own a home- in Russia, you have to pay cash for a new house or flat- and you know how hard it must be to save 20 or 30 times your yearly salary? LOL

Same here- how would anyone on a 40 thou a year salary be able to afford a 150 thou house without mortgage companies? And how would they be able to protect thier investment without insurance companies? And, if you really want to get ahead in life, selling your house after both appreciation and positive equity- home values become extremely important. This is the reason for the creation of HOAs and covenents- groups of poeple getting together to protect thier investments and future!

I am going to be able to retire forever by the age of 50 just by selling my properties- and some of them are protected by covenents, if not HOAs.

Anyone who wishes is free to choose a HOA-free area (or they should be). No 'greed' getting in the way of their lifestyle decisions. Anyone else who wishes is free to choose the HOA area. I'm curious why a person would object to that choice.

When I was in Highschool, one neighbor had a feud with another neighbor. He placed a (vulgar) mannequin in the yard, on top of a toilet, with a giant sign 'Prunes are good for the body!'. Needless to say, this drastically interfered with the ability of others to sell their property in that area. It was HOA free, of course...and those neighbors kept their mannequin up for many years.

I must be greedy because I want my children to go to a good school and live in a nice area of town, with a HOA. Send YOUR kids to the other area...it is, after all, a free country. Allow me to exercise my freedom of association.

Unless you've lived by a bad/tacky neighbor, you haven't seen it all. I lived by a guy who started about ten different projects on his house. That also didn't include the two cars he was working on, or the pool he was about to install. He also breeds bulldogs and evades the city ordinance on them by hiding them in a garage. The yard is covered with wood, nails, shingles, stripped wooden siding, tires, rims, engine parts of every description, as well as ladders all over the place. If you buy a house, you owe it to your neighbor to at least keep a decent standard. I don't mind a boat or RV in the driveway or that kind of thing, but that is nothing compared to what i lived around for awhile. Fortunately for me, we were just renting at the time and could leave. If we were in the middle of buying our home, I would've killed the guy myself.

I'm not a fan of HOA, but they exist for reasons. People like stability, and many seek to provide a rather uniform look to the neighborhood. My parents live in a subdivision of patiohomes that have a HOA. It's not so bad, until the people in charge of the HOA started jumping my parents' case about painting the house grey. Needless to say, someone on the other street painted their house some gaud awful yellow color that screams, "Disco is stayin' alive" yet they want to bust my parents' chops for painting a neutral grey. As stated above by Grendel72, they seem to fall in the hands of a "petty little tyrant" and my parents' is some old woman who refuses to die.

I would say that if you want to live in a cookie-cutter neighborhood, then go ahead and have your HOA and be done with it. My real suggestion would be to do like the neighborhood I live in right now which has just been built, and that is to know your neighbors and get on good terms with them. If you are neighborly (holy cow, is that possible to do anymore?) then people are less likely to do something crazy.

I myself would just prefer to build a house on about 10 to 20 acres and not have to be bothered with the likes of some annoying old prune. But we have the freedom of choice and can do whatever we like.

Yes, I see a reason for HOA's, but they should be limited in what they can do by law.

Forcing a boat off the property even when it is hidden? That is going a littel too far.
Any other things that need to be limited by law???

I personally am having issues with my community. We live in a pretty new Manufactured home community, where homes have to have block skirting, and can't be older than 1999 and have to be double wides. I LOVE that I think its great so we dont get the nasty looking (as some call them) TRAILERS.
We have a homeowners association which isnt much at all. $60 a year is all. All they really ask is keeping weeds controlled, no junk yards like: rusted old beat up cars, toilets as planter HAHA, NO MORE THAT 1 family living in a home.

I myself like the idea, I feel without an association the community will go to poop and there will start to be theft, vandolism and alot of trouble. We live out in farm land, so its really quite nice.
Some are trying to abolish the association, I signed a contract because of the folowing reasons:
1. I didnt want to live near trailer trash
2. I didnt want to live near a bunch of pigs, horses etc. (limited to 2 which isnt bad)
3. living in a manufactured home already decreases pretty quickly and the association will help the value.

So anyways, we have an association meeting in a week and wondering if anyone has anything to help me add to the meeting to try to change these peoples minds about trying to abolish it.

Well- I am in the process of buying another large apartment building- and setting up a COA (complex/developers association) to help us maintain the nieghborhood and not have it become a "lower 48" gang and drug infested nieghborhood.

Well, you folks against HOAs would absolutely despise us- we have a ton of rules. Collectively, it will save us millions in insurance alone- and in doing so, keep rents more competitive. Insurance compaines like developers that have self imposed regulations on the nieghborhood. Will increase my bottom line by about 10% and allow many of us to over rents that average around 10% less than going rate.

Artemise will recognize the nieghborhoods - Muldoon and mountain view- and will tell you- that whenever developement owners don't enforce thier own regulations- it becomes total trash.

HOAs are doing the same thing on a smaller scale.

Property values are directly effected by the conditions of the neighborhood and surrounding area. If people are free to trash up their area, that will cause your property value to deteriorate. Likewise, crime tends to infiltrate the low-property-value areas, and the schools are also adversely effected. These are all very compelling reasons to move into an area with a HOA, particularly if you have children, as opposed to a less 'cookie-cutter' neighborhood where your only influence is to try to convince your neighbors to keep their homes nice. Long ago, those neighbors remained for years or generations, and it was possible to have a consistent and close relationship today they move to often to do so, in most cases.

My answer would be yes, for the following reasons.

This, to me, is the crux of the problem with HOAs-petty little tyrants who get it into their collective heads that they have POWER and aren’t afraid to use it.

Not always. My HOA horror story isn’t nearly as awful as the ones RebelKate related, but it took a toll on my life. My first home purchase in 1983 was a 4-year old townhouse in a small (24 unit) complex. I was naïve, and should have done the research, but I didn’t have a clue and it would have been nice if the realtor could have provided me with a clue. What I didn’t know was the HOA was poorly managed and had been operating way into the red for some time. Dues went up steadily year after year as more and more homeowners foreclosed, didn’t pay their dues, etc., until it was $250/mo.

Cut to 11 years later, 1/7/94 - I get laid off from my job, and 10 days later the Northridge earthquake strikes. My unit was the most severely damaged, the quake insurance policy with the $1000 deductible I’d paid for 11 years expired 12:01am 1/16/94 (because I couldn’t pay the bill), I didn’t qualify for a FEMA loan (unemployed) and the HOA tacked on a special assessment for quake damage. To make a long story a bit shorter, I struggled to keep my house, but between mortgage and a nearly $400/mo HOA bill, it was not a realistic goal. I filed for bankruptcy and lost my home. The HOA took me to court and won a judgment against me for the past due dues, including the earthquake assessment. We’re talking about $1000 or so at that time. My ability to pay was compromised by a series of low-paying jobs and what amounts to a “nervous breakdown”. Eventually, a friend at the complex told me they had written me off. I thought that was the end of it, but nooooo! A month ago, in March, I received a notice from the local Sheriff’s department that my checking account was being attached for the judgment the HOA had gotten against me 10 years ago! Of course, with interest, now I owed nearly twice as much. I paid the rat bahstids off, but they made my life hell for many years.

If people want to live in bland, cookie-cutter neighborhoods where someone is always looking over their shoulders, then that should be their choice. Unfortunately, many of the new developments being built don’t give you that choice. It’s getting harder and harder to find a home without an HOA.

Eyesores and those few crazy people seem to be what everyone worries about, but I believe they are a minority. I live in an older suburban neighborhood (homes range from 50-80 years old), and with very few exceptions, it is very well kept. The worst offence I can think of is a shaggy lawn or two…and the trend toward house colors along the lines of what you find in a dirty diaper.

Wasn’t there an X-files episode about the homeowner association from hell (almost literally)?

Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. --Joseph Heller

Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. --Friedrich Nietzsche

There's a whiff of the lynch mob or the lemming migration about any overlarge concentration of like-thinking individuals, no matter how virtuous their cause. --P. J. O'Rourke

I believe you have touched on something good here. I believe in the libertarian notion of free-agency in this case. People go through different stages of their lives, and HOAs are very helpful for when you get to a certain point in your life. When you are raising kids and are making mortgage payments until your death, you don't want a porno shop or drunken college kids as your neighbors. Likewise, younger "on the go" people would probably not be a good fit for HOAs by any means. I completely sympathize with those who were stable couples, ready to settle down, but who had to brawl with the HOA over the height and color of the picket fence. At the same time, can't the rules and that kind of stuff be changed through internal meetings and the like? Don't know that much about these associations, but I would imgaine that they are malleable to some extent.

I'm in agreement that the homeowners association should not be able to tell you what you can and cant do with your home, but if they have adequate evidence that you are idsturbing others in your neighboorhood you should at least adhere to their wishes and not do wha tis considered a nuisance. you have to remember your not the only one who lives there.

Are Homeowners' Associations local government entities? In Australia, local government handles regulatory issues raised by construction, fencing, trees, gardens and so on.

I think that HOA can and do serve a good purpose, just not for me.

I don't have any horror stories like some here. I lived in a townhouse with a HOA and it was just a pain to have to request to do something with my own home. The board members were friends and neighbors. I never had a problem with the board, though one of my neighbors did, they always okayed my requests. It is just the thought that I had to request something that bothers me. Sold the townhouse after 5 years for a 60% profit. So it helped there as well.

They are fine for some, but not for me. Guess I am too independent mined for that sort of control over my home.

I would be curious to know as to whether or not the rest of you believe that HOAs are a good way to avoid conflicts. Let me explain-three years ago, I lived in an apartment complex that had ten apartments. On each side of the apartments were three parking spaces with numbers painted on them. The rest of the tenants had to park on the street. The tenant that lived across from us and myself got into a huge nonsensical fight over who had the right to park in a certain spot. My argument?-I can read the number "6" painted on the space. Their argument?-first come, first serve. It started out gently at first. Letters asking me to please stop. I ignored them. Then it got worse-we were parking each other in, parking too close so that the driver could not enter their vehicle. This went on for over a year and a half(what can I say, passive-aggressiveness is my forte ) It got to the point where I would leave my car parked in that spot and let it sit for six months and walk everywhere(even in the rain and snow) rather than move my car and risk losing the spot.

The point? With clearly defined(yet perhaps overly so) rules as to what a person can and cannot do-wouldn't such a provision ensure that petty fights and disagreements wouldn't arise in the first place?

HOAs are private entities (made up of the actual homeowners who live in the group of homes in question) which derive their powers from the covenants and restrictions emplaced within the individual deeds to the properties. In effect, they are a form of "private government" at a very local level, which create their own "laws" in a majority-rules fashion.


I'm kind of on the fence about this one. As much as there is potential to avoid conflicts, it seems HOAs also often create conflicts, and as previously discussed in this thread, are somewhat more susceptible to abuse by individuals and groups whose interests are biased in trying to solve problems and reach equitable outcomes.

Earlier this year, I was talking with someone who lived in a very small group of homes (14 to be exact) that formed a HOA two years previously in connection with the terms in the covenants and restrictions of their deeds in the subdivision. Apparently, one of the neighbors who lived in the subdivision had irked his neighbors by initially refusing to join the HOA at its inception and had caused the organization to incur extra expenses in hourly legal fees (paid to the HOAs lawyer) in his attempts to fight being included in the group (of course, he failed, and his residence is part of the subdivision and included within the HOA). Frusterated by the event, he refused to attend any of the HOA meetings.

Not long after, the rest of the neighbors got a small measure of revenge over the legal fees. It seems they decided to pass some rules and restrictions designed in part to aggravate the lone neighbor that resisted the formation of the HOA, in order to exercise their new powers and deal out some payback. All of this was done unofficially, by one of the neighbors building a behind-the-scenes consensus until most of the neighbors agreed to publicly vote-in the new restrictions at the next HOA meeting. What I found interesting was that in getting some of the neighbors to go along with it, pacts and deals were formed out of purely self-interest. For example, one neighbor wanted to be able to water his lawn as much as he wanted during the summer months. So he agreed to go along with the plan and vote "yes" to the new restrictions if it was unofficially agreed that the group would not vote to restrict water usage in the future. Other neighbors made similar deals.

Overall, the whole incident is essentially just a single anecdotal story that does not prove that HOAs are a bad idea; only that the homeowners involved can often be biased and very self-interested in the conflicts that might arise. If I did buy a piece of residential property with a HOA, I think I would make a point of at least attending most of the homeowners meetings, in order to try and ensure that I wasn't going to be broadsided by a sub-group of homeowners with their own agenda.

In so far as Nebraska29's point that clearly defined rules might help avoid petty fights and disagreements, I would certainly agree that it helps if things are well established and the rules tell people where they stand.

In the particular example of the apartment building with the limited number of park spaces, a HOA probably wouldn't exist, but I would recommend (if anyone finds themselves in a similiar situation) contacting the landlord or the apartment complex manager, and asking them to resolve the situation.

One of my pet peeves(homeowners associations) I think they should have to be reviewed by State Agencies who would have the last word before anyone could make a life altering decision on someone and his property. It's difficult to find areas where I am that aren't controlled by HOA's. They help keep neighborhoods attractive but don't allow for individuality and are usually run by arbitrary people who have a need to control your every breath. One neighborhood I recently moved from had people going around with clipboards everyday with checklists of violations . People started to not be neighborly because they didn't trust anybody to not turn them in for violations. I was fortunate to find an old neighborhood ,friendly and a live and let live attitude prevails.

I know homeowner's associations are a pain in the butt, but I don't like the idea of banning everything. The right to freedom of association is as important as individual association. That's why I stick up for the boy scouts.

This is a really interesting topic. It seems to me, after reading all of your opinions that in many cases the cure is worse than the disease

My sister is an assistant manager for a large company that manages most of the HOA's in Naples FL. (and they are very many), She constantly spins hysterical stories about the retired "pack" of women that get up at 5am just so they can sneak around the neighborhood and put tickets on people's cars who failed to put their car in the garage the night before Then, when my brother-in-law's father wanted to come and visit them, they had to find a place for him to park his pick-up truck because the HOA did not allow any pick-up/work trucks to remain on the premises after 7pm. I could go on but I think you all have the idea.

The problem with HOA's is that they are not what they appear. They are drawn up, usually, before anyone moves in, so they aren't by the people, for the people. They are corporate legal pieces of paper. They are beginning to be 'standardized' and that means less choice, not more. In many areas you have to choose to live in an HOA or live in an older neighborhood that may be run-down. So, the major problem with HOA's is that they are money making organizations, managed off-site in many cases, and act as mini-states with enforcement falling to a few people with nothing better to do than check whether or not you have your pooper-scooper with you when you take your dog for a walk.


I think that anyone who is about to purchase a home in an HOA should be able to see the complaint list for the past year. It should not name any names, but it should describe the things that people complained about, and how often resident #1 filed a complaint about resident #5. This would give you an idea about what you were getting into! If #1 filed 18 complaints in 2 months about doggy mess, against 4 other people...well...that would tell you the level of hassle you were going to encounter. On the positive side, if only 2 complaints had been filed in the past year about major issues like peeling paint, then you would know everyone basically gets along.

There is also the question of wording and enforcability. If the HOA states their rules in an affirmative way like "we respect the rights of the individual, but ask that you park your car in the garage", rather than "all cars must be parked in the garage", this would go a long way towards forming better bonds.

The enforcement should not be absolute. If a person is not in compliance then that person should get a letter from the HOA, or asked at a meeting, to remedy the problem. Person to person contact should be encouraged rather than having a small group of tyrants "tattling" to the HOA manager anonymously! Most people will comply, if they can do so. If they can't for some reason then they should settle it at the HOA meeting. No one should be able to force compliance. The only thing that an HOA should be able to enforce is an appearance by the member who is not in compliance at a meeting of the HOA. The appearance "order" should be subject to a 2/3 vote, that way people won't be dragged to an HOA meeting for a minor infraction.

If a person is having difficulties financially or for health reasons than it should be written into the covenant that their neighbors will do everything they can to assist the person. This makes it clear from the beginning that it is your responsibility to help those in need in your neighborhood. If this were the case, and members came to the HOA and said, "my mother is sick and needs a wheelchair ramp", AND the initial covenant that all members signed instructed them that this was a neighborhood where neighbors are expected to help one another, I think this would never become a problem.

When the HOA is not a for profit, management company project, but a true covenant formed by the neighbors with the intent of BEING A GOOD NEIGHBORHOOD, AND ACTING LIKE A GOOD NEIGHBOR! then they are wonderful things for all community members. When they are legal documents, formed off site and make people subject to all sorts of fines and limitations, then they are resented and make everyone distrustful and irritated with their neighbors.

So the answer is HOA's formed by the management company, in a standard "one size fits all" way should be abolished. HOA's developed by the people of a community, with one, and only one, true enforceable clause "the appearance" clause, those should stay. It will not solve all problems, but it will solve most with minimal intrusion.

Heart,
I loved your story about the pack of little old ladies running around looking for parking violations.

If there were more people like you on HOA boards, there would be no reason to dislike the darned things. Kudos for an eloquent, well thought out post. The idea of being able to see past complaints is so simple, and yet so logical. Has anyone tried to do this? I'd be curious to see what the reaction was.

Daffygrl: your gonna make me blush Thank you, that was nice. To my knowledge no one checks out their HOA "blotter"...I should have asked my sister, but they would probably hide behind the privacy thing, because it would make some neighborhoods less attractive and their job is to make sure that doesn't happen, even if this information is the start of an informed choice.


I just talked to my sister in Naples today. I asked her about the presidents of the HOA and she said it is indeed a thankless job. However, she did bring up a very, very good point. She said that the members of the communities often sit on two or three different boards for various companies. They often hold offices in the Chamber of Commerce and similar organizations. Yet, they can't be bothered to show up for their HOA meeting or run for any office at the HOA.

I guess the reason they do the one thing, but not the other, is because one has prestige and possible career opportunities, whereas the HOA president is not important. I think there is a good moral to this story. It has to do with what we value. The person who is out advancing his interests and forming bonds with other members of note in the city, is often not interested in seeing to his own house...his own neighborhood. Shouldn't we value the person who puts up with the headaches and thankless job of being president of his HOA as much, or more, than the person who hobnobs with the top brass? It may not be a great resume item, but it does indicate a certain set of values that start with home and work outward, rather than the other way around, and for me that is admirable.

I have read the majority of comments on the subject.

As an American and Veteran I believe there must be restraints on HOA's and anyone who would try to take our freedoms from us. If I wanted to live in a life controlled country I would have moved to a foreign land.

The so-called HOA officials who have never had a position of authority really doesn't know the first thing about authority. The wide majority of these people are similar to politicians, "power hungry".

I believe that we all need a guideline to follow in life, but for the guy next door to tell me what I can and can not do on my property is out of line. We didn't pay over 1/4 millon dollars for our home to trash it, just like the people next door. We worked hard all our lives to buy a home like this. If you or anyone else thinks they are going to tell me what to do on my land, your wrong. Just like all of YOU, we pay the mortgage, taxes and upkeep. You mind your business and we shall mind ours. When YOU start paying my mortgage and taxes you can tell me.

HOA's can be controlled, it just takes money and court time.

Yes, HOA's do have there place in life, China, Israel, Russia and a host of other foreign counrties that control the lives of their citizens. If you haven't been there and seen how those people live your wouldn't understand.

Do YOU really want that kind of life?

This is the "United States of America", enjoy the freedoms we have.

"God Bless America"