In the abstract, sure.
But my property values are more important than your personal freedom.
That’s the essence of this kind of control: I have rights and you don’t.
I can’t believe people post over and over and over without taking the the time to comprehend that their question has been exhaustively answered. An entity is sometimes needed to collect and spend funding on group expenses. That’s all they are for all but a tiny fraction of HOAs. Almost all of the more restrictive ones were freely agreed upon by the owners who like things a certain way. There’s nothing evil or illegal about a simple contract that doesn’t affect most homes anyway. I can’t simplify it any more. You must understand that different people like different things.
I wouldn’t live in an HOA regulated place but many people prefer it. They made a choice. For the rare exception like the OP, lawyers need to get involved unfortunately. For the rest it’s not a big deal
The irony that you are explaining this to someone who is anti-HOA…
The last time i was in an online discussion about the evils of bad HOA’s, it turned out that a lot of people didn’t really have a choice. There are apparently large swaths of the country where most of the housing stock is linked to an HOA. So if you have other requirements (care about the school district, care about your commute, and especially if you prefer newer construction) there really isn’t anything in the market without an HOA.
I would never want to live in a neighborhood of single family houses with the sort of HOA that makes rules* - as far as I can tell, the rule-making ones where I live provide few or no services. A co-op or condo ( even if the units look like single family houses) however, must have some sort of association.
Although I don’t want to live in one, HOAs actually do sometimes serve a purpose. I live in a city and the various zoning, building and sanitation codes would be enough for me if they were enforced more strictly because while I don’t care if a neighbor paints their house like the Partridge family bus , I do care about them having two feet of trash covering the front yard for months before the city finally steps in. (both true examples)
But as far as the horror story HOAs - someone elected those people to the board and someone is letting them stay , intentionally or not. If you can’t get more than 50% of the 33 owners to sign a petition to call a meeting, what are the chances you will get 50% of them to vote to oust the president ? And if you can’t get 90% to the meeting so that there is a quorum maybe 90% of the neighbors don’t really object to what’s happening. Some of this just goes along with living in an HOA - if you want to be able to keep your neighbors from being able to paint their house purple, you might just have to accept them preventing you from working on your car in a place that is visible from the street or letting Grandma move in.
You might not be able to avoid an HOA - but there’s really no way for you to get what you want as far as rules if most of the neighbors disagree with you.
* There’s another type in my area that might be called the “Neighborhood Homeowners Association” but it also might be called a Residents Association, Property Owners Association etc . They don’t make rules, they organize meetings with government agencies and street fairs and that sort of thing and have minimal dues ( like $40/yr)
I think this is something many of the never HOAers don’t understand. The choices are not “house with crazy restrictive HOA” or “house full of freedom.” The choices are “house with HOA that seems fine” or “no house.”
People pick “house with HOA that seems fine,” and then later there are problems. This can be “seemed fine, but was shit;” “was fine, but went to shit;” or “is fine, but I want to do shit they don’t allow.”
There’s a problem with that argument, too. From the article:
The U.S. Census Bureau reports that 84% of new, single-family homes sold in 2022 belonged to HOAs.
We also constantly hear that “they knew the rules when they bought that house,” but as this story shows us … those rules can change in the veritable middle of the night.
As I’ve mentioned a time or four on the Dope, I’m terminally ill, in no small part because of a horrid group of people empowered by being the Board of Directors of a horrid HOA.
I lost … everything.
No matter how legitimate your complaint, it often becomes Lord of the Flies when you voice it, and the tribalism can have devastating – sometimes fatal – results.
And you stand alone, as David (!), while the HOA is Goliath, funded by the HOA’s Officers and Directors insurance that will endlessly finance more legal firepower than most individuals can afford.
Redacted
What’s really swell is when “problems” arise from enactment of new rules you have no control over.
It’s getting a bit grandiose when applied to things like atypical house color or the right to have a yard sale, but ol’ Ben Franklin’s famous quote comes to mind.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”.
I think it’s more accurate to say ‘maybe 10% of the neighbors don’t object.’
In this particular case 90% is much too high. You need 30 of 33 residences to show up. To keep the position the HOA president and 2 like-minded neighbors can just skip the meeting.
Even without those shenanigans, finding a time that works for 30 people is nearly impossible. People are sick, on vacation, traveling for work. It’s not realistic. Now that everyone an adult, it’s hard for my family to find a date to celebrate a birthday. It’s why Save the Dates for big events are sent a year in advance.
Finally it’s not unlikely that there are several residences that are unaffected by the HOA rules, don’t care, and won’t come.
OP how can you know for sure? You can’t know something else was could have been happening. Did you talk to The President yourself? They didn’t admit anything if you did I’m sure.
By the way … a very helpful resource run by a great lady – one who covered my HOA horror story at some length:
Another hopefully helpful post (of mine):
Beware the Business Judgment Rule (it exists in OR, too).
I didn’t use the best wording for that - what I mean is if you can’t get 90% to the meeting you don’t really know how many are in which group. Maybe 90% like the current board and what they are doing. Maybe only 15% do. Maybe 60% do. Maybe 60% just don’t care and wouldn’t show up even if a quorum required 50%. There’s really no way to know - and that means that even if there was a more realistic number for what constituted a quorum , the president/board might not be ousted.
The thing with these articles is that they present the board a certain way , as being wrong when they cited the tenant for running a woodworking business out of the garage and for having a rule that required that the garage must be able to fit two cars. Maybe they were wrong - or maybe 23 of the 33 homeowners believe that the woodworking in the garage was a business and are in favor of a rule requiring that two cars fit in a garage. Maybe 30 of them agree with the board and some just agreed to “sign” ( it’s not clear how/if it was actually signed) the request for a meeting because they were uncomfortable saying “no” . The article talks about fines for using the house as a multi-family residence because parent(s) live there but doesn’t give details - is the parent occupying a bedroom just as an 8 year old might or have there been renovations to provide privacy or even an accessory apartment? Can’t tell from the article. I don’t claim to know which it is - but it could be less that the board is occupied by tyrants imposing their own will and more that some people disagree with their neighbors about what the rules should be.
I don’t live in an HOA controlled neighborhood and probably wouldn’t choose to, up until we possibly decide to move to some kind of retirement/assisted living community. But I’m not reflexively anti-HOA…
The friends I have that live in HOA-governed communities have never talked about any of the horror stories. Maybe a minor gripe about the cost of maintaining the pool or questions about my the siding on the clubhouse went bad so soon. But none of these tyrant stories which get attention because they’re fun to pearl-clutch over.
They feel like they get value out of their fees, and are glad that their investment is protected, which leads me to…
It’s easy to talk about personal rights right up to the spot where the value of the single largest component of your net worth is negatively affected, especially here where a house is where many people’s hope for the financial ability to retire comfortably is positioned.
Case in point: I have one of those neighbors down the street. Nice people, but the place unquestionably looks like a total dump. Junk cars in the yard, a dumpster has been parked in the driveway for years, garbage blowing around from perpetually over-full cans left on the sidewalk.
Not a major issue for me as I live far enough down the street as to be insulated a bit from this. But the poor bastard across the street is trying to sell his house as he’s hit financial difficulties and badly needs out from under the mortgage, hopefully with a little cash on the side. His listing agent told us the dump house is a real issue, in that they’ve had people come to the open house, look at the house across the street and leave without even coming inside for the tour.
If I had to deal with that even once, I’d probably become a pro-HOA person
Some types of communities legitimately require an HOA. You need one for condos and townhomes, as there are significant common elements that need to be jointly maintained. Some single family communities also require them, for example, senior living communities and some high end residential communities, gated communities with substantial amenities like restaurants and golf courses and boat docks.
But the proliferation of HOA’s in middle class single family home communities is another manifestation of late stage capitalism, springing from pro-business small government privatization-friendly governmental initiatives and policies.
I live in a middle-class HOA community. At first glance, one would probably agree that my community needs an HOA, because we have significant common elements. We have a pool and a clubhouse. We have a substantial amount of common infrastructure, a storm drain system that feeds into retention ponds, which are surrounded by parkland. These are expensive to maintain. There are also sidewalks and benches and some undevelopable land that’s deeded to the HOA, and is their responsibility to maintain.
But these are all things that in an older non-HOA community that would be the responsibility of the city. I pay taxes to cover these things. So why are my neighbors and I footing the bill?
Because, when the developer built the neighborhood they struck a deal with the city. They got tax breaks and other business incentives in exchange for putting an HOA covenant on the new properties. So the developer got a lot of freebies that increased their profits and the city got some new housing for their growing population without having to absorb the cost of maintaining the neighborhood.
The homeowners get double-taxed and are forced to deal with an extra layer of government. So, in prime late stage capitalism style, the profits are privatized while the costs are socialized. And although these HOA’s make my city government a bit smaller, ordinary citizens now have to deal with what is essentially a private government - which is frequently both oppressive and poorly run.
But at least we get a pool and clubhouse, right? Some people, myself included, really like these amenities but other people are paying for them whether or not they use them. But if you look at the neighborhood I grew up in, and other middle-class non-HOA communities in my city, most of them have neighborhood pools which homeowners can join by paying a seasonal fee, and for people who only want to use the pool occasionally, there are plenty of city-owned options.
So non-HOA communities have the same recreational options as my HOA community, although the city receives a benefit again, because my neighbors and I aren’t crowding up the city-owned recreational facilities.
TL/dr HOA’s suck because of late stage capitalism, but at least I have the use of pool that my neighbors pay for and never use. YAY America!
ETA- some of you seem to be under the impression that a homeowner has to proactively agree to be in an HOA.
That’s not how it works, most HOA covenants are attached to the property deed, and if you own the property you are bound by them. You don’t have to proactively agree or sign a contract to agree to abide by the laws of your state and country, you are bound by them simply by living there. It’s like that.
Or not follow the rules. Or not have rules. There is an HOA by Drake, where I was looking for property, that says that they usually use Robert’s Rules but ultimately they can just make up rules as they go along. I noped out of that cluster.
Green Valley Ranch HOA has been issuing fines then using those to foreclose on the owners.
The big house he purchased in 2013 represented a new era for him, but a conflict over an old Volkswagen is threatening his stability. In February, Gilkey’s Home Owners Association, the Green Valley Ranch Master HOA, served him a court summons that alleged he broke neighborhood covenants by parking the yellow VW Bug on a concrete pad next to his garage. In a worst-case scenario, the HOA could foreclose on his home and eliminate every cent of equity he’s invested into it.
And no Beck, it is not optional
The formation of HOAs in Colorado is subject to the guidelines established by CCIOA. For an HOA to be legally recognized, it must be properly constituted with a declaration that is filed with the county clerk and recorder where the property is located. The declaration outlines key elements such as the powers of the association, property rights, and responsibilities of the members. Colorado law mandates that anyone purchasing property within an HOA automatically becomes a member of that association. This membership entails adherence to the association’s declarations, bylaws, and rules, which govern the community.
At least here, for the house and condo I bought, the HOA rules must be accepted at closing. As you say, there isn’t an option to decline, because the rules are attached to the property, but the buyer acknowledges they are aware of them, and accept them.
If you are not informed of the HOA rules at closing you might have a cause of action against the seller, title company, etc., but you are still covered by the rules.
My house is technically covered by an HOA, but I cannot find the copy of the rules I once saw, so maybe I imagined it? If I remember correctly, it was a copy of a mimeographed single page listing the rules about the materials and size of the house to be built on the property. Absolutely nothing applicable to buying a used house. It showed the board as elected in 1970.
I’ll be the one to mention John Oliver’s breakdown on the problems with HOAs.
So many details into what is wrong.
But even he points some are fine and some are providing services that are needed. But he more strongly points out all the ways HOAs are messed up.
Biggest issues, fairly unregulated but have the power to fine you out of your home.
Yes, the rules should be well defined, and limited to purpose and goals of the community. The HOA at my condo is like that. It was poorly run for decades, and whether they followed the rules was another thing, but the actual rules all seem reasonable. Once the HOA hired an outside management company, things got much better.
The exception are the rules for quorum. It requires something like 80% of owners to show up in person, or designate another owner as their proxy. Due to this requirement, there has not been a legitimately elected board in something like 40 years. Basically the HOA goes through all of the motions of elections and governance, and ignores the fact that by the HOA rules none of this is official.
What would be the other option, to not have anyone in charge of maintaining the buildings and property?
A few years ago an attempt was made to revise the rules to be inline with the state recommendations for quorums and such, but that vote failed—because it couldn’t get a quorum.
And that HOA was bad in a different direction. They let people slide on paying their dues for years, with no consequences. That meant everyone else had to cover their costs. Once a management company took over, they worked to at least get those people to start paying again, and to hopefully cover some of the back dues.
Why is that not covered by city law? Why do you need an HOA for that?
I once got a ticket because we had a one-car-width driveway in Long Beach, Calif with no street parking most of the time so one of us would pull up in the driveway and the other park on the lawn. I got a ticket for that because the law in LBC doesn’t allow a car, working or not, to be parked on a lawn.