Thanks. I assume that means pretty much what was mentioned above - the idea that a given house is or can be made part of a HOA is spelled out in the purchase agreement/deed.
I’ve never been part of an HOA. I have enough trouble with my neighbor complaining if I put the trash cans out before 7:00pm on Sunday.
Regards,
Shodan
You probably should have actually read the Homeowner’s Agreement and the covenants, both of which are provided to you by law prior to purchase. They list all of the requirements for exterior changes to the property, required upkeep, etc. You’re not signing away any “rights” (I really hate it when people use that word incorrectly); you’re agreeing to the bylaws that have been established and voted on by a majority of the homeowner membership, and which are clearly a condition of ownership in that development. You are free to live elsewhere, where those conditions don’t exist.
Maybe in your state, but there are certainly some where the HOA agreement is not required to be provided to the buyer.
It’s possible that there are some jurisdictions where HOAs can just randomly add houses; I know Texas for one affords HOAs a lot of power. I’ve never heard of a law authorizing that particular sort of action though.
This and all the subsequent posts about more regulation vs less regulation, all seem to miss the point. Actually, the arguments about excessive regulation have more to do with locality of regulation – conservatives, in particular, seem to scream for smaller government, but they also tend to be more “law and order and conformity” than liberals. What they really want is less centralized government and more local government. Thus, all the anti-Washington and pro-“states right” talk.
Local government is seen as being “closer to the people” and more responsive to the local will. City and county governments are even more local, and groups like HOA’s are even more local still.
But those rules can be changed, dues can be increased etc, and you’re stuck with them.
I see your point about it being non government, local regulation. But I still find it odd that on one hand government regulation even of issues like protecting the environment is too much to bear, yet at the same time people willingly move into places where the colour of your house and length of the grass is regulated. Still seems a little incongruous to me.
The homeowners can elect a new board and reverse them.
Key values:
Shared costs of the pool, landscaping, and other amenities. Makes for a nice neighborhood.
Keeps the 5% of the population the don’t seem to be able to get along, from trashing the place.
You only need to have lived once in home with a crap neighbor to want an HOA. It could be the pets, the smell, the old Dodge Dart rusting in the front yard, the garish color (or lack thereof), etc. before you decide it is worth it to buy a home with an HOA so that there is some control.
They can go too far. I have dealt with the paint issues (yes, it was approved and signed off by my neighbors, so go away).
For me - it is a net gain - and I knew exactly what I was getting into when I bought.
Here is a link that explains it.
from the website: bolding for emphasis
So they can make you put it in the back yard. That is allowed. They can’t forbid you from having one, but they can make you hide it.
Must be nice to live in a place where no one worries about how tall the grass is, whether there’s a junked car parked on the property et cetera. 
Er, um…as I previously mentioned, these things are governed by municipal bilaws where I live, ergo no need for HOA’s to garner neighbour compliance.
Do try to keep up!
Sure you are. if you own a home in fee simple, you can paint it all the colours of the rainbow if you want. But if you sign a contract with an HOA, you’re giving up that right which is normally an aspect of your property rights, and you can’t get it back unilaterally.
You’ll have to provide an example, rather than speculation for that. It’s a contractual agreement, and I can’t believe any court would enforce it against you if you were never provided a copy.
A right stated where in the Constitution, exactly? It’s not a ‘right’; it’s just permissible for you to do so as the property owner.
They have to provide you with a copy if you ask for it. But it won’t be part of the closing documentation except the portion of the deed that notes that the lot is subject to the bylaws of XYZ HOA. You are correct that a court won’t enforce a contractual provision you don’t have notice of against you, but that doesn’t mean you can deliberately avoid knowledge of contractual provisions so you don’t have to comply with them.
Rights do not come solely from the Constitution. Real property rights largely derive from the common law. At common law, you could do whatever the fuck you wanted with your real property.
When I bought my current house, I was not only provided a copy of the rules, but our lender made me sign a document saying that I’d abide by the covenants of my HOA. I guess it’s because this HOA actually has the power to foreclose on a house that doesn’t pay its HOA dues.
Most HOA’s don’t have the power to foreclose, they have the power to put liens on your property for failure to pay dues, and if the HOA has to pay out of their pocket for changes to your property to bring it within covenant…(ie repaint your house if it is the wrong color, repair a broken down fence, yard maintenance you neglect, etc.) Your house cannot be sold to someone else until the lien is settled.
That’s why many people like living in HOA neighborhoods, so their neighbor doesn’t paint their house like a rainbow. It’s hard to sell a house that’s next door to a rainbow house.
Well, in California, HOAs must now allow artificial turf due to the drought.
AB 349 Signed into law – Associations May NOT PROHIBIT Artificial Turf
Is the Phelps clan selling their compound?