That objective appears exactly nowhere on my list of motivations for contributing to this thread.
But as we’ve seen, in horrorshow HOAs the Board and President will do everything including blatant violation of their rules to stay in power. And I’ll repeat again, the state allows these HOAs but provides no oversight to ensure they do things according to the rules or fix things when they don’t.
Issues arise when the majority like the power hungry nit picker and a small few are unfairly persecuted. On the other had sometimes the majority like the reasonable HOA president who keep the one or two disgusting assholes from ruining the neighborhood.
It is a contract which can be enforced by courts like any other contract.
“Can be” has never been a synonym for “is”.
I agree that’s possible.
But the city can’t or won’t go door to door talking nasty about Homeowner ?? because they are a gay couple or have 3 noisy kids, to get their way at board meetings. Enabling them to find persnickety problems with Homeowner?? to fine them.
It’s small minded and can turn ugly on a dime, if the HOA board gets a power head.
Live where you want. Personally it won’t be me.
-
Most people do not know the rules. And that includes Presidents. So most people do not know when they are being treated unfairly and when rules are being violated. And they especially do not know how to protect their rights.
Take this example and answer without looking at your Robert’s Rules Newly Revised 12th edition
HOA member makes a motion to hold the election for HOA President as elections have not been held in violation of the bylaws. Another member immediately yells out, “Second!”
President rules the motion out of order
President declares the meeting is adjourned
President and the rest of the board including the vice-president and secretary walk out.
What should the HOA member making the motion do? -
Members decides to take the HOA to court based on refusing to hold a transparent election.
How much would it cost them?
What can the judge force the HOA to do? Can they require them to hold a transparent election for President?
How long would it take to work it’s way through the Court? Meanwhile the tyranny continues.
And I’ve heard in many cases that the HOA leadership charge the HOA itself for the defense.
IMHO, a lot of problems could be head off if state laws allowing HOAs would require them to hire (paid out of HOA funds) a parliamentarian either from NAP or AIP. Furthermore a quick way to report and correct the worst violations of the rules and bylaws. Like in the case in the thread, members could report the changing of the rules at the last second and with a copy of the rules in hand say, “Nope, they did not pass GO and the rules did not change.”
Oh but Saint Cad, that makes more work for the municipality. Two things, if the municipality give a group that much authority over their peers, they owe those peers some oversight and if the problem is truly only a few bad apples then it shouldn’t be that much work at all. Plus if they implement my required parliamentarian idea, they would do all of the work for the municipality and the city would only have to double-check their work.
We can find examples of a municipality behaving very badly too and trampling the rights of the people who live there and suing them might even be more difficult.
In the end the courts are the answer. Yeah it costs money but that is and always has been the answer with disagreements like these. Your other options are to move or live with it.
And if you do not understand the HOA rules that is also a good thing to hire an attorney for and have them explain it to you.
American Farmland Trust did a batch of studies a while back showing that residential uses generally require more services from the municipality than the municipality gets in taxes from them. (Commercial uses and agricultural uses were both the other way around.) I don’t know whether anybody’s redone those studies recently.
Sometimes, as @Dinsdale just said, this is because additional residents may require a new sewer and/or water district or a major upgrade of existing ones, additional room in one or more schools, additional fire and ambulance equipment and personnel, additional police and equipment.
And some of the issue is also this:
Even without an HOA, this can be a major issue. People used to living in areas with public water, public sewer, public trash pickup, libraries open all day most days of the week, roads cleared to a certain standard with a certain speed, sidewalks cleared for them and for that matter sidewalks built in the first place, et very cetera, often move to places without one or more of those things and promptly start demanding them. Will the previous residents also benefit from those services if the new ones get their way? Probably. Did the previous residents want, feel like they needed, or feel like they could afford those services? Very often not.
If it’s written badly, there may be nothing there to enforce that will help matters.
One major difference, the voters have ultimate oversight of the elected officials. It would be extremely difficult for a mayor or board to declare themselves as elected for life. Add to this that many states have recall procedures handled by impartial third parties. Not like HOA boards that count the ballots behind closed doors themselves and declare themselves the winner.
I would argue that – in addition to the inherent vagaries of litigation:
-
There may be mandatory alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the CC&Rs. I would argue that these ADRs are generally philosophically predisposed to split the baby. If your neighbor keeps parking in your driveway, it should not be about “How about if Bob parks in your driveway just on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Saturdays?” IMHO, it should be about “Bob? Don’t do that.”
-
HOA Boards carry Directors and Officers Insurance. This will cover their legal defense. Because of this – as is fairly common in much of the law – the money is in the defense. And the money is effectively endless (see: Donald Trump), and all your neighbors (and you) are paying for it through premiums and increases to those premiums. Right or wrong, there’s a tendency to ostracize and demonize the resident who turns on the tribe.
-
The Business Judgment Rule is facially benign. In practice, however, it assumes the HOA is in the right and creates a very high bar to overcome as a homeowner-plaintiff.
As I referenced upthread, “move” or “sue” are horrible options. I would like to see some of that double-taxation money used to create a true neutral third party who can help ensure appropriate behavior in these situations.
The playing field is all but level.
Barking your way up the organizational chart when pleading ones case to the government often costs nothing, and often features numerous levels of appeal.
Those things – if they’re even available to your average homeowner – can be financially devastating in litigation with an HOA.
And I do point back to the OP. If you didn’t read the article, it’s quick and worth it. These homeowners appear to have gotten screwed by the Board.
When you’re in a growth area with significant equity in your home, that’s one thing. You can take your profits and GTFO.
But what if the market is soft and you’re significantly upside down. In another world, you’d wait it out or simply not sell.
But if life is intolerable, we’re back to “sue” or “move.”
We can do better than that.
For those interested in the story from the OP, here’s the TV version – first app. nine minutes of this video:
I wonder if a fix for HOAs would look something like this:
- Elections for all HOA voting members must be held on a regular schedule (e.g., once every three years).
- All HOA members must be notified by certified mail of upcoming elections at least ninety days in advance.
- All HOA members must be notified of their right to run for elected positions at the time of the election notification.
- Any HOA member who runs for elected position must have exactly the same access to HOA member information (addresses, emails, etc.) as any other member who is running for election.
- All HOA elections must be conducted by certified mail or other secure means.
I don’t know that these are exactly the right ideas, but the general gist is that the elections should be transparently, fair, and widely known. Petty tyrants often maintain their power by making it difficult to unseat them. The government should set rules in place to make such difficulties difficult.
I think there’s a relatively widespread sentiment that a toxic feedback mechanism exists:
- Decent people try to steer as clear as humanly possible of their HOAs (being actively governed by them, or governing as one of them), and
- Those who seek to govern in HOAs are quite often the very last people you’d want to have governing
There can be a measure of pathocracy at play here.
I once dreamed that there should be a draft within HOAs – that owners had to do a term on the Board on a rotating basis.
I doubt it’s practicable, but it would get us beyond the self-selection issue that doesn’t seem to be in any way rare.
Also to add: there are numerous inherent perverse incentives in HOAs, once you get the property managers and the HOA attorneys involved. Most of us just want a nice place to live. Peace and harmony aren’t generally as profitable as levying fines, collecting them, and – worst case scenarios – taking the house.
Any idea how many investors chomp at the bit to get their hands on a house in this kind of situation – particularly in ‘hot’ housing markets with limited inventory?
Perverse incentive.
I suspect the trouble is the same one we have in municipal elections: most people can’t be bothered to engage with the process. No amount of transparency is going to motivate people to engage (though I would say that obfuscation drives disengagement, so maybe to a degree).
The problem is that HOAs are basically a level of government masquerading as a private club. If the civil authorities recognized that and incorporated the HOAs, at least that would bake in an appeals process.
Right now, the appeal is court, which does not operate on a timescale conducive to justice.
Alternatively, we could fund the court system adequately so that there would not be a constant years-long backlog, but people don’t seem to want that.
Is that the same video I linked to in the OP.
There are 370,000+ HOAs in the US.
I think we are worrying about the bare handful that make the news.
Some few run amok. By far, most are just fine.
Do you make law based on the dozen that have gone bad out of 370,000? Or those problems better settled in court?
That’s nice, but I don’t think the dude in the OP would be helped by the knowledge that other HOAs elsewhere are doing fine and dandy.
What is the best way to solve one dude’s problem?
Court or new laws passed in 50 states?
The idea that it’s “a dozen” is absurd. I know of two people who have an HOA, and both of them have had experiences with martinets. One of them was dealing with someone who was trying to take over the road resurfacing duties so he could do it himself and make a profit by doing it way more than needed. The other was unable to put a fence in their yard for their new puppy, even though the fence matched the fences in several other yards, because they’d pissed off the HOA heads.
My impression is that it’s a significant number of HOAs with issues. And passing laws to rein them in, or at least to regularize them, seems perfectly reasonable to me.