Split: HOAs, Laws and Contracts

[euphemia]

Addressing the actual issues of this thread, I think someone needs to sue a HOA on constitutional grounds. People should be able to do what they want with their own property as long as it doesn't pose a danger to others living nearby. Eyesores are in the eyes of the beholders, and I can't see that a pumpkin patch would be any kind of problem. It's not enough to say people know the rules before they move in. There should be no rules.

[specsaregood]

Addressing the actual issues of this thread, I think someone needs to sue a HOA on constitutional grounds. People should be able to do what they want with their own property as long as it doesn't pose a danger to others living nearby. Eyesores are in the eyes of the beholders, and I can't see that a pumpkin patch would be any kind of problem. It's not enough to say people know the rules before they move in. There should be no rules.

So void private contracts to prop up private property rules?

[euphemia]

So void private contracts to prop up private property rules?

,

Who makes the rules? Homeowner associations are just ridiculous. There should be no rules governing private property beyond the safety of people living nearby. People should be able to have whater kind of house they want, any kind of fence they want, and any kind of landscaping they want.

This is why we have stayed in our unrestricted neighborhood. We don't believe a homehowner association should tell us what to do. Private property ownership is fundamental to liberty.

[euphemia]

It's kind of like the personal searches at airports. It's not enough to say I know the rules. The Constitution plainly says the government may not ask to search me without probable cause and a warrant. It's a fundamental right.

[specsaregood]

,

Who makes the rules? Homeowner associations are just ridiculous. There should be no rules governing private property beyond the safety of people living nearby. People should be able to have whater kind of house they want, any kind of fence they want, and any kind of landscaping they want.

This is why we have stayed in our unrestricted neighborhood. We don't believe a homehowner association should tell us what to do. Private property ownership is fundamental to liberty.

But people agree to abide by the HOA rules when they buy or join a HOA. Some people want to live in a HOA and want it restricted as to all those things you listed. They shouldn't have the right to live in such a group?

[euphemia]

No. There is no right to tell other people what they may do with their own property. Parents should be able to build playhouses and playsets. They should be able to have a flagpole. It's their property.

[specsaregood]

No. There is no right to tell other people what they may do with their own property. Parents should be able to build playhouses and playsets. They should be able to have a flagpole. It's their property.

But evidently some people want to live in a community where other people can tell them what they can do with their own property, and you don't think they should have the freedom to live in such. It's not for me, but I think they should have that right.

[kahless]

No. There is no right to tell other people what they may do with their own property. Parents should be able to build playhouses and playsets. They should be able to have a flagpole. It's their property.

I agree but then I would not buy property tied to an HOA and sign the restricted use contract. If I did I would expect to honor the contract I signed.

[euphemia]

Homeowner associations are usually found in wealthy neighborhoods. Rich people are no better than poor people. I live in a poor neighborhood, and I have never had a neighbor assault me on my property.

Rand's neighbor is a man of low character, I don't care how much money he has. He is a jerk and a criminal.

[euphemia]

I agree but then I would not buy property tied to an HOA and sign the restricted use contract. If I did I would expect to honor the contract I signed.

The contract itself is unconstitutional. Private property ownership is not subject to the whim of my neighbors.

[Anti Federalist]

Wow. "Property rights" that don't actually exist. It's hard for me to imagine the person, even a die-hard progressive, who can read that without a WTF.

They are right.

We don't truly own a damn thing in AmeriKa.

We are just serfs and squatters, hopping and tripping about purely at our master's pleasure, paying rents to the nobles, the liege-lords and bankers.

[Anti Federalist]

The contract itself is unconstitutional. Private property ownership is not subject to the whim of my neighbors.

Of course it is.

Need proof?

Watch your property taxes skyrocket when your neighbors vote a new 50 million dollar school into the local budget.

[Anti Federalist]

It's kind of like the personal searches at airports. It's not enough to say I know the rules. The Constitution plainly says the government may not ask to search me without probable cause and a warrant. It's a fundamental right.

Racist, misogynistic claptrap, cooked up by dead, white, cisgender rapists and oppressors, to perpetuate the patriarchy.

Pipe down with that racist talk.

[undergroundrr]

Of course it is.

Need proof?

Watch your property taxes skyrocket when your neighbors vote a new 50 million dollar school into the local budget.

Where's that He's Right You Know meme? I had it here somewhere.

[kahless]

Of course it is.

Need proof?

Watch your property taxes skyrocket when your neighbors vote a new 50 million dollar school into the local budget.

Property taxes should not exist in a free society. Not a fan of HOA's but if people willingly enter into contracts with one another, such as HOA's, I do not see how that is unconstitutional. They sign knowing that they do not really own the property.

[euphemia]

That’s kind of how city planning is going these days. New construction is expensive, high rise condos with amenities to attract wealthy liberals. That’s what’s happening here.

Displacing the poor and taking them away from cities where jobs and public transport are.

[nobody's_hero]

The contract itself is unconstitutional. Private property ownership is not subject to the whim of my neighbors.

Well, really the constitution only applies between people and the government, not people and other people (perhaps with a few exceptions such as slavery, you might run into problems if you tried to enslave your neighbor, lol). It's why a restaurant can tell you not to bring guns inside, and all you can really do in retaliation is stop doing business with them or abide by their rules.

I had a good friend though, who lived in one of those cookie-cutter stick-built subdivisions where the houses are exactly alike and built so close together you can barely fit a fence between the lots. Some crazy bitch living down the street was trying to rally the neighborhood into forming an HOA and he was strongly opposed to it. I'd be curious to know what your rights are in that situation, if you were there long before the covenant came into play. Eventually he got tired of fighting it, said the lady was relentless (didn't like kids apparently, if you wanted a tree house you should go to the park or something). He moved out.

[Swordsmyth]

Well, really the constitution only applies between people and the government, not people and other people (perhaps with a few exceptions such as slavery, you might run into problems if you tried to enslave your neighbor, lol). It's why a restaurant can tell you not to bring guns inside, and all you can really do in retaliation is stop doing business with them or abide by their rules.

I had a good friend though, who lived in one of those cookie-cutter stick-built subdivisions where the houses are exactly alike and built so close together you can barely fit a fence between the lots. Some crazy bitch living down the street was trying to rally the neighborhood into forming an HOA and he was strongly opposed to it. I'd be curious to know what your rights are in that situation, if you were there long before the covenant came into play. Eventually he got tired of fighting it, said the lady was relentless (didn't like kids apparently, if you wanted a tree house you should go to the park or something). He moved out.

That is the biggest problem with HOAs, they are NOT voluntary contracts, they are some kind of weird quasi-government entity that can be forced on you.

[euphemia]

That is the biggest problem with HOAs, they are NOT voluntary contracts, they are some kind of weird quasi-government entity that can be forced on you.

And that's really the truth. We live in a low income, unrestricted neighborhood. The people across the street have their vegetable garden in their front yard. Their house faces south. That's where the sun is. Nobody complains. I'm glad they have fresh veggies for the pregnant wife and two growing boys. That's how a liberty neighborhood should be. Fix your house how you like it, define your property any way you want and wave to the neighbors.

[dannno]

That is the biggest problem with HOAs, they are NOT voluntary contracts, they are some kind of weird quasi-government entity that can be forced on you.

And that's really the truth. We live in a low income, unrestricted neighborhood. The people across the street have their vegetable garden in their front yard. Their house faces south. That's where the sun is. Nobody complains. I'm glad they have fresh veggies for the pregnant wife and two growing boys. That's how a liberty neighborhood should be. Fix your house how you like it, define your property any way you want and wave to the neighbors.

It is voluntary to move there, and some people want to live in neighborhoods with rules. I don't like it anymore than you, but they should have the freedom to do so, HOAs are much better than zoning which is anti-property rights.

Rand Paul doesn't seem to have any complaints lodged against him by the HOA, according to others who are on the board. The only guy who is saying Rand had broken HOA rules is a Rhino who has attacked him politically in the past.

This is looking more and more like a political attack every day, as most of us expected it was from the beginning.

[Swordsmyth]

It is voluntary to move there, and some people want to live in neighborhoods with rules. I don't like it anymore than you, but they should have the freedom to do so, HOAs are much better than zoning which is anti-property rights.

Rand Paul doesn't seem to have any complaints lodged against him by the HOA, according to others who are on the board. The only guy who is saying Rand had broken HOA rules is a Rhino who has attacked him politically in the past.

This is looking more and more like a political attack every day, as most of us expected it was from the beginning.

HOAs couldn't exist in their present form if the government didn't allow them to force themselves on the minority that didn't sign up willingly, if they couldn't force the unwilling to be subjugated then even fewer would sign on and they would basically not exist.

It is like unionizing a workplace in a non-right to work state, either the government needs to stop giving the unions unnatural power or it needs to make them let you opt out.

[euphemia]

It is voluntary to move there, and some people want to live in neighborhoods with rules. I don't like it anymore than you, but they should have the freedom to do so, HOAs are much better than zoning which is anti-property rights.

Some people just want a house for their family near good schools.

[dannno]

HOAs couldn't exist in their present form if the government didn't allow them to force themselves on the minority that didn't sign up willingly, if they couldn't force the unwilling to be subjugated then even fewer would sign on and they would basically not exist.

It is like unionizing a workplace in a non-right to work state, either the government needs to stop giving the unions unnatural power or it needs to make them let you opt out.

HOAs have nothing to do with the government, they are private contracts.

Let's say you had two separate large plots of land that you wanted to sub-divide.

One of them you subdivide and sell off. The other you subdivide, then when you sell the property you have the buyer sign a contract that says they are going to be giving up a portion of their property rights to live under HOA rules.

Some people are going to prefer to live with full property rights and they will pay for the property the value which they attribute that to.

Others may prefer to live under HOA rules so they can restrict their neighbor's property rights, under private contract.

So depending on the type of personalities in the community, it may be that the subdivided lots on the HOA property go for more money, or the lots on the 'free' property may go for more money.. and depending on the outcome of that experiment would tell you what the free market wants, and that is what you would actually want to do if you had property.

It is sad, I think, that there are so many HOAs... but what is even more sad is that it would be impossible to convince a lot of people that we need to give up zoning laws if HOAs don't exist.. whereas you sometimes CAN convince people to nix zoning laws which are far more oppresive in favor of HOAs..

[angelatc]

That is the biggest problem with HOAs, they are NOT voluntary contracts, they are some kind of weird quasi-government entity that can be forced on you.

Not when you buy a house in a neighborhood with a HOA like Rand did. You pretty much agree to be subjected to their rules when you purchase the home.

[nikcers]

Not when you buy a house in a neighborhood with a HOA like Rand did. You pretty much agree to be subjected to their rules when you purchase the home.

FTFY

You buy a house in a neighborhood with an HOA and someone is free to build one next to yours and attack you violently.

“In fact, the Pauls’ lot looks almost exactly the same today as it did 17 years ago when Dr. Boucher and his ex-wife chose their lot and built their house next door.”

[devil21]

Not when you buy a house in a neighborhood with a HOA like Rand did. You pretty much agree to be subjected to their rules when you purchase the home.

And there lies the rub. By what operation does purchasing a house convey control over that house to a commercial entity called an "HOA". Why can't someone simply strike any language from the deed of trust and other purchase documents agreeing to abide by an HOA? Then file official notice to the HOA of denial of agreement to covenants. The reason people get locked up with HOAs is because they sign the contracts pledging to agree to them, never realizing they can legally deny them. Does anybody really think the bank will cease the mortgage process or the seller will kill the sale just because the buyer tells the HOA to stick it?

[angelatc]

And there lies the rub. By what operation does purchasing a house convey control over that house to a commercial entity called an "HOA".

It's in the deed.

[dannno]

It's in the deed.

I call them dirty deeds.

[Swordsmyth]

I call them dirty deeds.

What kind of nonsense is it to allow a former owner to taint a deed for all time without any way to remove the vile submission anyway?
I say it is fraud to claim that "ownership" is being transferred in these transactions.

[angelatc]

What kind of nonsense is it to allow a former owner to taint a deed for all time without any way to remove the vile submission anyway?
I say it is fraud to claim that "ownership" is being transferred in these transactions.

You can claim that Mars is aiming Death Rays at you but it doesn't make it true.