Our front lawn is most clover, we never replenished the cheap lawn the builder seeded and the weeds won. We just keep it mowed and no one cares.
Our backyard is hippie paradise. Prayer flags, spirit poles and homemade rock and junk sculptures abound.
No one has ever called us on it and I haven’t checked the covenants, but in practice, as long as your front yard maintains it curb appeal, the backyard is yours. It’s not visible from the street at all. I think maybe 4 other homes have a view of our backyard from their 2nd story windows.
Big nope from me. I don’t need an organization that I can’t threaten to leave without selling my house issuing me fines and micromanaging what I can do with what’s supposed to be my own property. I also don’t really like the ultra-uniform neigborhoods with near-duplicate houses painted neutral colors and few trees in the small, uniform yards that are typical of newer HOA neighborhoods. I’ll endure the ‘horror’ of neighbors who’s front yard is a garden (I actually like it even though most HOAs would break out the fine gun), or people who have an old car parked on the street in front of their house to avoid having to spend my time fighting against people who enjoy being petty tyrants. If people are losing sleep because I’ll often leave my trash cans out for a few days instead of immediately bringing them back in, well they can live in an HOA and I can have sensible neighbors.
The only people who seem to like HOAs are people who put a ‘second job’ level of effort into keeping the one they have to live with in line or people who put way more effort into worrying about neighbor’s yards than I would dream of. For me, they provide no real benefit, an often extreme monetary cost (5-30% of mortgage), and risk forcing me to spend a lot of time and energy fighting people who love to spend their free time playing petty tyrant.
HELL no!
We built a house 3 years ago on what they call an “Association Maintained Homesite”. Pretty much the same as an HOA as far as I can tell but they really don’t have any strict rules. Just a bunch of homeowners who collectively decided to pay an outside property management company to take care of our lawns, landscaping, and snow removal. And they also maintain the lawns/landscaping of the common areas. Lots of empty nesters who just got tired of handling these chores themselves. Probably about a hundred homes in our group and everyone seems to be happy with the service.
So… why’d you kill it? Sounds low maintainence.
Yeah, my rule is that only want plants that I can mow and walk on in my bare feet. And I prefer perennials so I don’t get too much mud in the spring. And I prefer stuff that looks “green” from a distance. So I have grass, clover, some low viney thing in places, a dense thing that has pretty purple blossoms in the spring in places, and last I looked, the garden thyme had invaded the lawn, too. Those are all welcome.
The mint is less welcome, although I love the way it smells when I mow it. I do pull up the crab grass, which leaves ugly muddy patches in the spring.
I appreciate everyone’s responses and there are some very good anti-HOA points being made. Let me share my experience with my HOA, which is far from being a horror story.
We bought our house 25 years ago. It was a new development and we bought our house before it had been framed. The house across the street was still a vacant lot. There are 56 houses in the community.
Our HOA fees are about $640 per year. This covers landscaping care of common areas, trash and recycling pickup, our management company, and auditor. We have no pool, clubhouse, etc.
Homes are nice but not grand or ostentatious. No McMansions here. This is not a gated community. Prices are high compared to the rest of the country because of the property values in this area, but you might not guess it just from walking down the street. My house is obscured by trees but below is the house across the street that is similar (mine has brick instead of siding in the front).
There are two sets of rules. One set is built into the bylaws. These are boilerplate rules that basically say you have to cut your grass and maintain things neatly. The builder put those into place. The roads are state roads so the rules can’t say what vehicles can be parked on the street. The other set are the architectural standards. If you want a permanent structural change you have to submit a request. I have not heard of a request being rejected. You are not supposed to change colors when you paint (I know most of you are not going to like that but nobody here has complained). The houses were originally built with cedar shakes and the board changed the rules to allow replacement with a couple of options of synthetics that are cheaper to install and maintain and have a longer life than shakes. The houses were all planted with red maples out front but nothing prevents you from replacing them or just removing them. No approval is required for landscaping.
The only controversial rule that I can remember was that no basketball hoops were allowed in front of the house. After some debate the rule was modified.
I don’t have a problem with the rules per se but I am personally on the liberal side about interpreting the rules. I have called people on it when they try to enforce a rule that doesn’t actually exist. I am currently the president but I don’t have any real authority other than the power of persuasion. The president is largely a figurehead position who chairs meeting and signs contracts, but does not have approval authority for anything. But I find that when I’m holding the rules in front of me in black and white the arguments kind of evaporate. I advocated for allowing people to do whatever they want in their back yard, putting covers on their cars, and vent a portable A/C out a front window.
So it filters out the “wrong” kind of people.
Do you even hear yourself? You may think it’s benign because you’re talking about things like manicured lawns and house colors. But how is it different from saying that “I want to live in a neighborhood where everybody speaks English? Or one where everybody is Christian?”
It’s discrimination at it’s most basic level and should not be tolerated.
Sorry, to single you out, filmore, I just chose your post to respond to.
I don’t understand how mowing your lawn and fixing stuff when it breaks means you have to speak English and be Christian. I live in a diverse county and our neighborhood reflects that including people of color, people whose first language is not English, and LGBTQ folks. People here seem to not even think about those things. It’s just not an issue.
I’m not saying wanting a manicured lawn is the same as wanting an all English speaking neighborhood. I’m saying segregation is segregation whether you’re advocating for something “benign” or something “malignant”. The thought process is the same. And the result is the same. A neighborhood full of us and none of them.
That is a manson compared to my shoebox in the middle of the road. Elitist HOA officer! 
I’m not really following the logic. I see it more as filtering based on preferences. Anyone can live in the neighborhood as long as they follow the covenants. I’m not sure there’s an us versus them. It has nothing to do with the person’s character, religion, or anything like that. The covenants are to maintain a consistent look and ensure proper maintenance is done. Saying that only English-speakers are allowed would be trying to control the types of people allowed into the neighborhood, which doesn’t have anything to do with lawn care and home maintenance.
I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what you said.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear.
They’re not the same thing. They’re the same type of thing. They’re both discriminating against potential neighbors using a criterion.
OK. I don’t invite people to my house who kick my dog because that’s their idea of fun. Am I discriminating using a criterion?
It’s not your neighborhood.
I think it would be nice if HOAs did this, but they probably don’t filter very well, and that’s part of the reason there’s such conflict.
In a hypothetical situation where a neighborhood got together and voluntarily came up with such an agreement, it would likely suit the desires of the inhabitants well. But that’s not really why HOAs exist (mostly).
Because of the way land use has been restricted and houses have been built, the majority of houses are now built in combined neighborhoods by a single builder, who establishes the HOA before anyone moves in.
When we bought our house, we picked a city we wanted, we looked for neighborhoods near amenities we liked in a good school district, and in a price range we could afford, etc. We didn’t want an HOA, but we ended up accepting one because it wasn’t a big enough downside compared to what we actually did want.
Wow, I’m anti HOA but this is straight crazy. Picking the people who you want to be around is a key part of life. That should include who you want to live around.
There’s a world of difference in chosing where you want to live and dictating where someone else can live.
Don’t get mad, call code enforcement. No your neighbors do not have ‘rights’ to be pigs. There’s these things called city codes for home maintenance, fire code, plumbing and zoning. And trust me city code enforcement has scary power.
I’ve called code enforcement due to a neighbors front yard covered in trash, violated health code attracting rats; and another neighbor having a hazard tree.
On the other hand when I lived in an HOA, the secretary to the association embezzled $30,000. Personally, I’d rather call code enforcement than deal with a poorly managed HOA.
I don’t think it’s horrible to want to live in a neighborhood where your neighbors speak English. Nor to prefer that many of your neighbors are Christian. I, personally, enjoyed living in a diverse neighborhood, (and I’m not Christian) but I don’t think those are horrible preferences.
I would have a problem with a neighborhood covenant that only allowed English speakers or Christians to buy homes.
I guess that’s the difference.