The problem of getting a bunch of unrelated homeowners to agree on rules they’ll all abide by
You may not buy it, but it’s economically true.
No it’s not
I did not say or infer that. But my opinion is that HOA neighborhoods may stagnate in value because a lot of people are wary of them. Like I said, I would never live in one unless maybe if I were retired and had given up on making decisions or just wanted to interfere with other peoples lives as a hobby.
No, he said “Market value of your house. To some people that alone is worth having an HOA, it’s asserting some level of control that the homes in your neighborhood will not go down significantly.”. If there are two identical neighborhoods, one with an HOA and one without, there’s a stronger possibility that the HOA neighborhood will not have as drastic downswings in the market as the non-HOA neighborhood. Which is likely correct.
No
It’s
Not
It does not surprise me that an organization dedicated to opposing HOAs could find a study that casts them in a negative light. They did not provide the actual study, say where it was published, or whether it was peer reviewed. The author’s credentials are in epidemiology.
You may be shocked to hear there are studies that don’t agree with that one.
I will, once again, reiterate that I loathe HOAs.
That’s an interesting study. It looked at a small, nonrandom sample which is unlikely to be representative of the nation at large (3 counties 900 home sales during 1 year). It is interesting and warrants further study. What it does not warrant is the kind of derisive statement you (and the author of the article you read) are making.
They can both be right because they are studying different things. mikecurtis’ study shows that you should expect the same APR, the same growth in value regardless of whether you buy into an HOA or non-HOA property. This makes some sense, even if HOAs boost home value, because you have to buy in at the inflated rate, the higher sale price when you get out doesn’t get you a higher rate of return.
In fact, I would expect non-HOAs to drive higher average rate of return because of the higher inherent risk of that investment, HOAs are intended to be calming devices, reducing volatility.
Definitely not for me. Fine for those who want them – as long as there’s other housing available in the area that doesn’t have HOA restrictions. People should be able to actually choose whether to live in an HOA or not, and if HOA’s take up too much of a general area, then they can’t do so.
And so does the desire for variety. Both impulses are an essential part of human nature; which is stronger in a specific human varies.
I would rather live next to a neon green house with a dead lawn than in a neighborhood where everything is made to look the same by fiat.
Issues of genuinely unsanitary conditions and/or of abuse of dogs etc. are reasonably under the purview of the municipality, because someone is actually being endangered.
Fix the roof or get it fixed so the house doesn’t fall in, sure. Mow the lawn twice a week? Maybe they’re fixing the roof, instead.
And, at risk of hijacking this into a lawn rant: Encouraging, let alone requiring, that everyone’s yards consist mostly or entirely of closely mowed single species lawns is contributing to ecological disaster. There are such things as noxious weeds – and there are also such things as native plants in bloom feeding birds; and kitchen gardens feeding humans (and other species, if done right).
And some people like the way an unpainted weathered garden shed looks, while others don’t. One of them is not essentially better than the other. If you want to live in a community where everybody has to have fresh paint, and there are plenty of other places for people to live, then go ahead. But claiming that one of these things is essentially better than the other is a problem.
When someone says that hoa’s stabilize property value, the inference is that communities without hoa’s will have and unstable market value, which is clearly not true. The fact that hoa’s have a stabilizing influence should not be a selling point, because it’s not a necessary condition. You can achieve the same effect without the draconian rules.
And let’s face it. While the sample of people who could be arsed to respond to a message board query in the first 5 hours it’s up is admittedly not definitive, the masses have spoken “nay”!
Yeah, that’s how it works.
Actually that is one thing that I find boring about my neighborhood. Even though the builder had a “monotony code” that prevented the same model and the same color schemes from being built right next to each other, the whole look and feel is still so uniform that it lacks a certain amount of character. OTOH some people believe that is exactly what gives a community character, is the consistency.
Obviously people have the choice in theory.
If an area has a lot of HOA’s, however, they may not have the choice in practice; because in order to live where they can, say, get to work without an unreasonable amount of trouble, and to find a house in the size and price range that they need, they may have trouble finding a place that’s not in an HOA.
I don’t know how common this problem is. I have seen an occasional grumble about it.
Like I said, I mow our lawn once every two weeks. I’m not insisting on some high level of perfection.[quote=“thorny_locust, post:70, topic:919440”]
And, at risk of hijacking this into a lawn rant: Encouraging, let alone requiring, that everyone’s yards consist mostly or entirely of closely mowed single species lawns is contributing to ecological disaster. There are such things as noxious weeds – and there are also such things as native plants in bloom feeding birds; and kitchen gardens feeding humans (and other species, if done right).
[/quote]
you’re right. That’s why I mentioned desert friendly lawns. Your lawn can be gravel and rocks in patterns for all I care, as long as it doesn’t have a rusty pile of appliances in the corner.
There is weathered and there is falling apart.
What if it attracts rats and brings disease into the home?
That would be bad
But you can’t just say ‘some minimum level’, the minimum level has to be defined. And, who is going to define it? The HOA board, which means, I have to cut my lawn or maintain my house to some standard that the HOA decides on.
No, it’s that part of my taxes go towards enforcing a minimum standard set by the city. Why should I pay an additional fee so that a few of my neighbors can enforcing their own standards, which almost by definition, have to be more than some minimum level.
Of course, since it’s voluntary, and I’d never even consider buying a single family house (as opposed to buying a condo) that has one, it’s not a big concern of mine. Clearly, other people seem to like living within them. I just can’t see any good reason for it.
The way I see it, if you’re that concerned about these types of things, consider living in a neighborhood with like minded people.
That’s not a fair argument. There’s a difference between buying a house next to a farm and having your neighbor buy a cow long after you’ve moved in.
If you have trash piling up or your grass is over grown, the city will take care of that. You don’t need to create an HOA for that.
Again, if all you want is to make sure the grass isn’t over grown and trash isn’t piling up, is there a reason you don’t use the resources you’re already paying for, namely, the city?
Why give anyone in your neighborhood the power to levy fines for things the city already can, and will, take care of?
I would love to be able to rely on my city for this sort of thing, but around here that’s just not the case. There may be ordinances like these but they are not enforced.
Very strong NO here…even if they start out as well-meaning organizations, they seem to attract the sort of people who are intent on turning the neighborhood into either a party hotspot or bland uniform sameness. I’m all for maintaining one’s property, but there’s nothing gained by hounding someone because there’s a little patch on the shady side of their home that needs to be pressure-washed (we’re talking so tiny that you have to pull your car over and focus in order to see it).
In my current HOA’s defense, they have relaxed the original bylaws regarding lawns…you’re not required to water anymore beyond whatever is needed after the initial planting, and no particular type of grass is required, so builders and/or homeowners select based on either how they want the yard to look in the summer, or how it should look the rest of the year. Keep the lawn trimmed (once per week is fine) and the mulch beds tidy, and there won’t be any problems.
Interestingly, any bylaws regarding building plans were thrown out the window when the two original developers pulled out of the neighborhood. There was much screaming when the first single-story house was built (on a corner, no less!). My house was constructed during the first phase of building; the floor plan was only used two or three more times for some reason, possibly due to the lack of a master bedroom on the first floor.
The town has fairly relaxed guidelines about property maintenance: no overgrown lots (although they give you plenty of warning - think months - before taking any action); cutting trees is fine as long as you’re not in the historic district, and your actions won’t affect utilities; and get a permit before doing any modifications, even building a tiny deck in your backyard (duh). Garbage collection is specialized enough that you pretty much put it at the curb on the appointed day (or after calling a certain number) and it will be collected. This also applies to roadkill.