this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2025
334 points (96.1% liked)

AskUSA

516 readers
3 users here now

About

Community for asking and answering any question related to the life, the people or anything related to the USA. Non-US people are welcome to provide their perspective! Please keep in mind:

  1. !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world - politics in our daily lives is inescapable, but please post overtly political things there rather than here
  2. !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com - similarly things with the goal of overt agitation have their place, which is there rather than here

Rules

  1. Be nice or gtfo
  2. Discussions of overt political or agitation nature belong elsewhere
  3. Follow the rules of discuss.online

Sister communities

  1. !askuk@feddit.uk
  2. !casualuk@feddit.uk
  3. !casualconversation@lemm.ee
  4. !yurop@lemm.ee
  5. !esp@lemm.ee

Related communities

  1. !asklemmy@lemmy.world
  2. !asklemmy@sh.itjust.works
  3. !nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
  4. !showerthoughts@lemmy.world
  5. !usa@ponder.cat

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
 

Banned is maybe too far, but why should we as a country allow people to have petty power over meaningless things their neighbors do? Could we ban HOAs from being included in house sales, and every time it's sold the new owners have to opt in?

For the most part, I'm wondering about this in the context of single family homes since for homes like condos, you could make the case that HOAs are useful for shared things like roofs and whatnot. Maybe limit mandatory HOA involvement to things like what's truly necessary and shared and not how tall your grass is?

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] rei@piefed.social 9 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

I think they have the potential to be good if they were way more democratic, but they're never run that way.

When I lived in a townhouse that was part of an HOA that had some nice things going for it. There were a couple tennis courts, a swimming pool, a communal garden, a club house thing you can pay to use, they regularly mowed the front yards and trimmed the front hedges and they would periodically repaint the fronts of the houses. However, while I was living there, the head of the HOA was a douche that kept misusing funds.

The house my sister lives in has an HOA that does literally nothing except bitch residents to upkeep their lawn.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] doingthestuff@lemy.lol 8 points 5 days ago

I think we should just aggressively limit their authority. Essentially saying you can't make a contract that exceeds our defined limits. If you do, the entire contract is void, not just the parts that cross the line. Let's put them on eggshells so they don't lose what little authority we allow them to have. I live in a suburb with no HOA. Really missing city community though.

[–] shani66@ani.social 4 points 5 days ago

Objectively yes. We don't need an extra government to cover the job of the actual government, especially not ones that are easy for psychopaths to infiltrate. Your park? That's the damn state's responsibility, pay your fair share of taxes instead and let the city handle it. Your home value? Don't treat housing as a damn vehicle for investment. All those nasty poors and minorities? If they bother you find a way to leave earth, permanently.

HOAs are emblematic of everything wrong with America and actively strip away the good parts.

[–] Glitch@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 5 days ago

A thousand times YES

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 7 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I think I can offer some perspective as someone who works in the real estate industry and is on an HOA BOD.

Of the hundreds of clients I've worked with, only 1 ever wanted an HOA, because he didn't have one and it was awful. We're talking fences laid on the ground, grass several feet high, vehicles parked all over the front lawn, the entire yard front and back being used as a landfill, you name it.

HOAs are essentially the smallest form of government. The HOA carries the force of law. This also tends to attract the worst people for the job. Think about it; who's going to take time out of their day to volunteer on behalf of the community? People who want power over others.

People are petty as fuck. One person receives one citation and they become salty and begin seeking out and reporting every single violation they can find, which just makes it awful to live in.

Could we ban HOAs from being included in house sales, and every time it's sold the new owners have to opt in?

That would completely invalidate the purpose of the HOA.

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (18 children)

It's like "right to work" legislation that destroyed unions, but used to destroy HOAs. "Right to home" legislation.

Why should the fact some people a long time ago have away their power to a dubious political entity, permanently destroy the right to make your own house into a home. There has to be a way for people in a neighborhood to phase out of an HOA and a "Right to home" legislation could do it easily. If the HOA really is adding value to the neighborhood then they would easily be able to entice new homeowners to sign up!

"Right to work" legislation exists in other countries with strong unions.

For example, in Germany you cannot be compelled to join or to leave a union which makes "right to work" the default nationwide. Forcing people to join unions they do not want to be part of violates their freedom of contract. For similar reasons, employers cannot ban employees from talking about their wage, from having relationships or demand they sign "non-compete agreements" . The freedom of contract is constitutionally protected and cannot be waived just like that, even if all parties were to agree.

Yet unions are significantly stronger here than in the US.

load more comments (17 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Yes

You can have community orgs that don't make you pay fees as a condition of owning your home.

[–] moakley@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The HOA hate is completely overblown online. It's practically clickbait at this point. Just a framework for petty neighbour stories to entertain reddit teenagers with no real world experience.

I fell for it at first, and when my wife and I started looking for houses, I specified no HOAs. We saw a couple of houses that didn't have HOAs, and then I realized that while I personally would prefer not to be in an HOA, I really, really want my neighbors to be in one.

So we got a house with an HOA. It was a gated community of small houses in a bad neighborhood. The HOA handled trash pickup, maintenance of common areas, what little landscaping we had, and a couple other things that we wouldn't want to deal with on our own. Sometimes they'd hire a security guard to deter package theft. They charged a little more than I'd like to pay, but overall it was a positive experience. They sent us a letter once saying we had to replace our door. We didn't. Nothing ever came of it. And to be fair, they were right; that door is in terrible shape.

Now I live in a different neighborhood with a different HOA. Sometimes they send us an annoying letter saying I can't leave my trash cans out. It's a minor inconvenience. Overall another positive experience.

The vast majority of HOAs are fine. You don't hear about those because that's not entertaining. It's silly to think that the stories about petty old busybodies would be the norm.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DharkStare@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago

HOAs can be really good things but have all the same problems as regular democracies, mainly voter apathy. If the members of the HOA don't keep informed about the issues in the neighborhood, don't attend meetings, and don't vote, then you very quickly end up with a few assholes gaining power and doing whatever they want.

Most of the suggestions I see in the comments would also render HOAs powerless and essentially pointless.

[–] RebekahWSD@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

A lot of things an hoa covers is already covered by the township here so I'm unsure why you'd join one. But they're also not as common here because of that. I know some neighbors tried ages ago and something like 80 percent told those prone to screw off.

[–] lemming741@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

My experience- the difference is enforcement. In the US anyway, the town isn't going to tow cars parked illegally in the neighborhood or cite someone for their junked up yard.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] emberinmoss@beehaw.org 6 points 5 days ago

Yes, definitely. They’re just bullies trying to rebrand themselves.

[–] Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 5 days ago

I like my HOA, but I live in a condo building. We all pitch in to keep the roof repaired and the common areas cleaned, and the few rules just make life tolerable in such a confined space (quiet hours, for example). I can't imagine what good an HOA does for single-family homes.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 4 days ago

No. Some people like them. If you like being in an hoa, you should be allowed to move into and have one.

I hate them, and would never live in one, but if some people want everything around them to look about the same and be some generic "pretty" and not have full control over your own property, you do you.

[–] ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 5 days ago

Should HOAs be banned?

That's an easy one:

YES!!!

[–] FenderStratocaster@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I don't want to live in a neighborhood where you can leave a car to rot on the front lawn, where you can have cows shitting all over, or you can build a 20 foot tall Jesus statue in your front yard.

If your HOA sucks, then get involved and make it better. Mine is fine.

city odanances usually can prevent the first two, however requre elected leaders or direct voting to let it happen reducing the chance that a cowless minority could ban them.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›