You might want to read up on him a bit, I think you'd agree with a lot of what he did FOR and TO our country - his philosophy, his tactics. I think he's just as much a Founder as the originals.
If you don't like the HOA for the community, buy elsewhere. Be informed. Stop asking for the government to impede these. Some communities set up their own HOA's. Unless you can craft one that completely keeps the free will of the people and communities intact, the idea of more regulation.
Oh, you mean the man. I assumed you meant the corporation.You might want to read up on him a bit, I think you'd agree with a lot of what he did FOR and TO our country - his philosophy, his tactics. I think he's just as much a Founder as the originals.
I know little about him. Not enough to make a sound decision to that question.
If you want to buy a new house in a community basically anywhere in the metro areas of the United States, you basically have no choice but to join and pay dues to an HOA as part of deed restriction.
If you buy the house outright with your own money, but fail to pay the several hundred bucks of HOA dues, that HOA can come in and auction off your house right from under your nose.
It's why I am calling for HOA reform. Unfortunately for those of us who hate it, it's people like Senator John J Carona, owner of the largest HOA company in the country, that keep allowing these auctions happening to people like senior citizens and even military personnel.
Get informed, dumb .
WC, a question. Say, theoretically, every major city has large portions of the city locked up by HOAs. Would you say it's better to carve up those HOAs to enable greater liberty for people to settle where they wish, or should the will of the people to craft HOAs have precedence, forcing those who wish to live without HOAs into less desirable areas until the free market self-corrects?
It's too with two o's. It's always important to use proper grammar and spelling when condescending. Makes it more effective.
You should read the cons ution sometime.
I'm not saying unethical things happen, but as long as there is a market for that supply of housing, it will remain. People are willing to live under those rules and expect their neighbors to keep certain community standard. You can find places without restriction. Buy your own land and have a contractor build you a house if you must.
Back to something I already stated. If you can come up with a law or regulation that protects the consumer as you like, without impeding the freedom of association of others, then I'm game. However, if you just carelessly want the government to protect you from your own stupidity, then just do it without curtailing other people's freedoms. Else... you are not a man with an American heart.
I'm not saying HOA's are a good thing. You miss my point. I'm saying they are legal, and the demand for living in such communities keep them going. If major portions survive the free market, them a major number of people must be willing to live under such governance.
Seriously now. How much should the states curtail our freedom of association? If you don't like it, don't buy in. When enough people refuse to buy such properties, the rules will crumble or change.
So, option 2 under my hypothetical. That's cool, was just wondering.
Would there ever be a limit you could see where you might change your mind? Say, for instance, if 100% of a city was locked up by HOAs, and the closest non-HOA area was 20 miles outside the city. Should said person just have to buy on the outskirts and hope that enough people change their mind about HOAs?
(Also, are these HOAs supported by legislation? In other words, how easy is it to dismantle an HOA?)
Actually, he seems to be ok with government intervention when it comes to establishing laws that protect HOA. He simply is not in favor of establishing laws that protect the people. HOA can create stupid laws and regulations that strip away the HO rights and the government supports that and WC is cool with this. However, if the government tries to protect people, this is when the government steps out of line. See HOA are smart and we the People are stupid.
Just because something is "legal" doesn't mean it deserves or should be defended. Slavery and voting restrictions on Americans were "legal," and I'm not sure the demand ever sank lower than it would take for demand to live in cities (in which most communities have HOAs you can't escape, especially for first-time homeowners) to fall enough to change HOA laws.
I definitely like the troll job on this topic tho, it's driving home the point that if people don't like HOA, they need to mobolize and do something about it. I know you wouldn't agree that there's ever a reason why HOAs deserve to take a person's house. Oh, and "association fees," neighbors can take care of neighbors without paying some big wigs to send out letters to remind everyone to mow their lawns.
done.
buy my own land? I don't want to have to move past city limits to the county.I'm not saying unethical things happen, but as long as there is a market for that supply of housing, it will remain. People are willing to live under those rules and expect their neighbors to keep certain community standard. You can find places without restriction. Buy your own land and have a contractor build you a house if you must.
get informed about housing communities in metro areas.
just curious, what's your cons utional opinion of the Civil Rights Act of 64?Back to something I already stated. If you can come up with a law or regulation that protects the consumer as you like, without impeding the freedom of association of others, then I'm game. However, if you just carelessly want the government to protect you from your own stupidity, then just do it without curtailing other people's freedoms. Else... you are not a man with an American heart.
"a man with an American heart."
what a phrase maker!
WTF is an "American heart". Is that different from a human heart?
they can auction your fully paid-off house just because you didn't join the association? Seems pretty unconscionable to me. I'd be shocked if that actually stood up in court. If it does, then it's the govt.'s fault for enforcing it. Offering protections from crap like this is what the govt. should actually be good for.
Careful...
Your stupidity is showing!
True.
Did you miss the part where I said I'm OK with regulations and laws on this topic as long as it doesn't infringe of free association?
Well if that doesn't solidify your point I don't know what will.
Nope, I got that...but it's not exactly free association when you have to pay dues, is it?
@ B_D: I'm pretty sure "American heart" was a sarcastic remark. Most of us have high school educations and can discern historical myths from how it more or less actually happened.
Uh oh...
Ooops.
--- deleted ---
Moved to the correct thread.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 07-26-2010 at 01:05 PM.
not quite.
If you buy a home in any newly built subdivision, you are forced by contract to join the HOA and pay annual dues.
If your house is paid off and you fail to pay your dues, then the HOA can come in and auction off your house.
The reason they don't try to auction it off if it's not paid off is because 'big bank' tells the smaller HOA there is no freakin way they are going to sell the house.
I mean the cons utional meaning of having the right to freely associating with other, in a group.
Consider this. If you wish to have legislation, a simple one that enforces what good HOA's have:
1) Do not allow locked items in the CC&Rs that cannot be changed.
2) Every owner gets a vote. Votes are for who operates, fees, duties, etc, including if a majority wishes to dissolve the HOA, it happens.
Did you sign the contract or not?
No one is compelled to buy a home that is part of a unreasonable H.O.A.
That's the free association to which I would refer you.
So you agree that the way the Cons ution is used to take away people's homes is a bad thing. The Cons ion can be interpreted in ways that have a negative effect on people, and just because something is "legal" doesn't mean we should support it. We, you and I, can say "Let's get the laws changed" but we also have to be realistic and recognize that certain politicians have their hand in the cookie jar and would fight against change using their knowledge of the systems they helped create.
We could brainstorm a just and fair law that stops HOAs from getting out of hand while offering the option to "freely associate" if it's really that important, but "we the people" is a myth unless we dump all the assholes in office - they're pretty powerful and good liars so that's a chore in itself.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
