Because that is what you read about. The normal ones do not make the news. You know two whole people with an HOA problem…out of many millions in an HOA. And you are drawing broad conclusions from that.
The media does this with lots of things such as crime.
You have 370,000+ HOAs. If a great many are bad I suspect we’d see legislation to fix them (not least because many in government probably live in an HOA). Certainly it would be more obvious.
That makes sense. They’re essentially quasi-governmental agencies. The fact that they’re largely unregulated is curious.
Also, the vast majority of citizens will never kill someone, commit a major theft, etc. We still codify related restrictions. Set the guardrails. They can customize as appropriate so long as they stay inside of them.
Is it?
It is literally a contract. It is regulated by contract law. Same as all contracts.
I’m sure it’s more than a dozen - but there are also different sorts of problems. If your friend isn’t allowed to have a fence that the rules permit, that’s one thing. The people I know with problems aren’t complaining about that sort of thing. They are complaining about the rules themselves , for example that overnight parking on the street isn’t allowed or that Christmas decorations must be taken down by a certain date in January. And even if there is legislation to fix the problems, my friends’ “problems” aren’t going to be fixed. Because they aren’t objectively problems - people can legitimately be on both sides.
Yes, see the sentence just before the one quoted. They’re a quasi-governmental body with the power to sanction, fine, tow cars, change the terms set at the time the sale takes place, etc. Buyers do not have the option of renegotiating, as they typically would in other transactions. And as a result, instances like the OP occur.
It’s a unique relationship, and this is not like other contracts.
You have the wrong denominator here. The denominator isn’t every one of the millions of people in an HOA, it’s the people I know who are in an HOA.
This is why my proposed solution is to ensure that someone can’t manipulate the bylaws to stay in power. I want people to be able to agree to whatever crackpot neighborhood rules they want (absent things like racist covenants, natch); but I want to make sure that people can’t use secrecy or shenanigans to maintain rules that aren’t popular.
See contracts of adhesion (aka shrink wrap agreements). That long list of conditions you agree to when you unwrap your new iPhone. You cannot negotiate those terms but courts have regularly upheld them in most cases.
Nothing new there.
At least when you buy a home you are given the HOA rules and you are given a paper to sign that you got them, read them, and understand them. If you sign it you agree to it. You can say no way and walk away. If you sign it you agreed to it. Good luck getting a judge to let you off because you tell them you could not negotiate a new set of HOA rules just for you.
You seem to be hanging your hat on a trivially true detail while missing the major point. Downloading Angry Birds is not the same thing as purchasing a place of residence and being subject to unregulated oversight for a decade or two.
Actually, those sorts of contracts are very new. There’s a great Planet Money episode about the evolution of contract law, which went from laws that were very skeptical of the contract-writer, to laws that give almost all the power to the writer. That’s a good analogy, although not necessarily in the way you intended.
Here’s that episode. It’s 23 minutes long, but it’s pretty engaging.
And you seem to be missing the major point that when you buy a house in an HOA you sign a piece of paper that explicitly says you know you are in an HOA and agree to those rules.
Nope, not missing that at all. Rather, I’m pointing out the inadequacies of that model.
Looks like it. The browser I use on the laptop I was using is configured to display sites like that as text-only. I didn’t see that the vid was included in that article.
In other news, greater than 99.99% of Americans were not victims of shootings today.
I know from first-hand experience that the ones “that make the news” are the dramatic exception, and not even among the most egregious examples.
It’s the tip of the iceberg. That’s part of the problem. Regional outlets usually won’t bother, and local outlets tend to be virtual arms of Chambers of Commerce. I also heard from no end of outlets – local, regional, and national – that HOA horror stories are “dog bites man --” so utterly commonplace as to not be news.
Also, I referenced “low probability, high consequence.” We go to no end of efforts to minimize things like plane crashes and auto fatalities. Low probability, high consequence merits attention.
ETA: also, HOA-homeowners don’t have a lobbying/trade association that is well-heeled and actively creates and proliferates biased studies and pursues favorable legislation.
But the HOA industry does:
Also, @Whack-a-Mole … I should extend my sincere thanks for so ably representing the “so sue them” or “so move” position, and – in doing so – proving my point.
Well played.
ETA: It’s also worth reminding ourselves that this is what the patriarchal culture used to tell women who were being sexually harassed/abused (at work or in a marriage): so quit/leave him.
Siding with the powerful and against the powerless is so 1953.
The SDMB has schooled me long ago that if you sign a contract you are beholden to that contract.
Why do you and others here think you should not be beholden to the agreement that you signed?
Anyone moving into a home covered by an HOA is very well informed of it. You agree to it or you walk away. It’s your choice. Why do you get to complain later?
On what planet do you go before a judge in the US and tell them you don’t like the terms of the contract you signed and expect the judge to alter those terms? (Answer…none will…not a one unless those terms violate contract law.)
And, if the HOA is violating its rules you take them to court. Costs you money? Sure…but that is the same remedy for a contract violation in the whole US for any contract. Has been forever. There is nothing new about it. If you want to solve that you need to re-write contract law. Good luck.
I feel like there are just a couple of people on this thread who haven’t listened to, and thought about, a single valid argument that’s been presented … that doesn’t happen to support their closely-held beliefs.
Which – entre nous – has a certain unmistakable tediousness to it.
That’s a dodge.
If you sign a contract do you think you are beholden to the terms of that contract?
If later you decide you do not like those terms what happens?
Tedious in the same way saying water is wet more than once when others are pretending it ain’t so.
Did you read and/or watch the link in the OP? If so, do you think your solution(s) would be of help to him?
That’s my experience too. 6 units were condos with a shared roof, landscaping, plowing. The one I’m thinking of is more like a shared driveway then a road. It was it’s own HOA because it was it’s own standalone development.
The development next door was several years older. It has 20 or so units with shared roads and their own HOA.
Agreed, there are a ton of developments along 59 and more west and south into Will and Kendall. I remember driving to Fox Valley as a kid and it was nothing but cornfields. I really don’t know which of them have an HOA that plows instead of the village. I assume they all do their own landscaping, but that’s not new – my subdivision does that and it’s 40 years old.