Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

See over here, we regard sovereign property rights as generally outweighing considerations as to the value of the neighbours property six doors down. What colour I paint my door is my affair. What length I choose to have my grass at, and what plants I choose to grow in my garden are my affair. If I decide that I want a wildlife and hedgehog friendly garden, and cultivate a lot of fairly ugly shrubs with that in mind, that's my right as the occupier/owner of the property. The land valuation six doors down has nothing to do with me, and I'd find restrictions on my freedom to do my gardening with that in mind intolerable.

Generally it's the same in the US, however the appearance of neighboring properties affects the overall value, at least from a marketing stand point (I mean really, if we wanted to ACTUALLY value a house's real value, you'd take the cost of materials and add in the cost of labor, and finally add in the cost of inspections... but that's not entirely how it works)

Again, using the "meth lab neighbor" from my previous example... If you were in the market for a house, would you buy one that was situated next to what appears to seriously be a drug den? If your answer is yes, then I would have some serious questions for you As it is, I personally feel that, when someone buys a house in the States with a pre-existing HOA, they go into it with the mindset of "the neighbors have the same values in the upkeep of their properties as I do" I mean, yeah, a man's house is his castle... but I think I'd rather face the French army in my castle if it's well maintained

If it truly was a drug den, then that is a crime and you call the police on them. If its just a neighbor with a poorly maintained property, as long as that property isn't causing any safety risks to the surrounding houses, then it is within his right as the owner of the house to keep it anyway that he likes, and we tend to value individual rights a bit more higher than "property values".

If you've lost a few dollars when you wen't to sell your house because of that? Well, tough cookies, better luck next time.

Frankly I find the whole concept baffling, especially when we are talking about a country that seemingly prides itself about the freedom of its citizens, but it really brings into context for me the thread that was started a few months ago about people living in the city, people living in the country and people living in the suburbs and how the majority seemed to consider living in the suburbs to be some kind of hell... If these HOA's are more common in suburban communities, then that pretty much explains those opinions and I would agree with them entirely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

Which would make more sense and I don't think it would be uncommon for a city to have an ordinance against an outdoor kitchen, a jungle gym, a pool, etc in the front yard.

Why? What possible harm could any of those structures cause that it would require a city ordnance, of all things, to outlaw them? (Genuinely curious here, since having any of those things in the front yard is pretty common over here)

 LuciusAR wrote:
Being A British Homeowner I keep seeing references to these HOA's in american popular culture and I find them to be both fascinating and kind of creepy.

We've got nothing like these in the UK and I can't imagine anything like them ever taking off. We tend to subscribe to the idea that 'an Englishman's home is his castle' and if any group wanted to try and enforce petty rules about the length of our grass or what colour walls could be painted and tried to make us pay for this privilege they would be be politely but firmly told to clear off.

Just to make it clear if you move to an area with a HOA is is compulsory to join it? What if you refuse to abide by it's rules, are they somehow legally enforceable?

In the UK we have listed buildings and conservation areas with a similar effect. If you lived in a leasehold property there will certainly be conditions in the lease similar to an HOA. For example it is common in blocks of flats to not be allowed to keep a pet.

Although I do agree that HOA's are a stupid concept, I also agree with the sentiment "if you don't like it, buy a house somewhere else" - which I did.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

See over here, we regard sovereign property rights as generally outweighing considerations as to the value of the neighbours property six doors down. What colour I paint my door is my affair. What length I choose to have my grass at, and what plants I choose to grow in my garden are my affair. If I decide that I want a wildlife and hedgehog friendly garden, and cultivate a lot of fairly ugly shrubs with that in mind, that's my right as the occupier/owner of the property. The land valuation six doors down has nothing to do with me, and I'd find restrictions on my freedom to do my gardening with that in mind intolerable.

Generally it's the same in the US, however the appearance of neighboring properties affects the overall value, at least from a marketing stand point (I mean really, if we wanted to ACTUALLY value a house's real value, you'd take the cost of materials and add in the cost of labor, and finally add in the cost of inspections... but that's not entirely how it works)

Again, using the "meth lab neighbor" from my previous example... If you were in the market for a house, would you buy one that was situated next to what appears to seriously be a drug den? If your answer is yes, then I would have some serious questions for you As it is, I personally feel that, when someone buys a house in the States with a pre-existing HOA, they go into it with the mindset of "the neighbors have the same values in the upkeep of their properties as I do" I mean, yeah, a man's house is his castle... but I think I'd rather face the French army in my castle if it's well maintained

If it truly was a drug den, then that is a crime and you call the police on them. If its just a neighbor with a poorly maintained property, as long as that property isn't causing any safety risks to the surrounding houses, then it is within his right as the owner of the house to keep it anyway that he likes, and we tend to value individual rights a bit more higher than "property values".

Yeah...there's not much the police are going to do unless you have some kind of proof, in most cases. Meanwhile, they're still lowering your property values, bringing criminals into your neighborhood, and possibly poisoning your family with by-products of their drug manufacturing.

We also value individual rights over property values...that's why the default legal assumption is that you CAN do whatever you like on your property unless there's a specific law forbidding it.

A Homeowners Association isn't a squad of jack-booted thugs, roving through the neighborhood in packs, crushing lawn gnomes with sledgehammers and tearing down treehouses. It's a collection of responsible, mature property owners who are interested in forming a community of responsible, mature adults. I've never heard of a HOA that didn't allow avenues for both A) changes to the rules or B) exemptions on a case-by-case basis. (Usually requiring the approval of a board, the immediate neighbors, or a simple majority.)

I've also never heard anyone but angsty teenagers refer to living in the suburbs as 'hellish.' I think a far worse nightmare would be to invest in a property, to put a significant amount of effort (and a significant period of your life) into it, only to have it turn into a squalor-ridden slum around your ears. If entering into a voluntary agreement with my neighbors that we will establish a communal set of rules that everyone will abide by to protect ALL our investments can stave that off, then that seems like a wonderful thing.

 Jimsolo wrote:


Yeah...there's not much the police are going to do unless you have some kind of proof, in most cases. Meanwhile, they're still lowering your property values, bringing criminals into your neighborhood, and possibly poisoning your family with by-products of their drug manufacturing.

So let me get this straight. The police can't sort out the crack dens, but these HOA associations can? All those hardened criminals will repent upon receiving their letter informing them of their contractual violations, and put all that money made selling drugs into paying their fines?

One is inclined to think that if there's a crack den in a house, the people inside will just ignore the letter until they get dragged to court, and then either not bother showing up, or pay the fine (since it'll be chump change compared to the money you make selling crack), and keep on doing it anyway. Making the HOA rules somewhat meaningless except to grab money off people who didn't trim their lawn this summer.

 Ketara wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:


Yeah...there's not much the police are going to do unless you have some kind of proof, in most cases. Meanwhile, they're still lowering your property values, bringing criminals into your neighborhood, and possibly poisoning your family with by-products of their drug manufacturing.

So let me get this straight. The police can't sort out the crack dens, but these HOA associations can? All those hardened criminals will repent upon receiving their letter informing them of their contractual violations, and put all that money made selling drugs into paying their fines?

One is inclined to think that if there's a crack den in a house, the people inside will just ignore the letter until they get dragged to court, and then either not bother showing up, or pay the fine (since it'll be chump change compared to the money you make selling crack), and keep on doing it anyway. Making the HOA rules somewhat meaningless except to grab money off people who didn't trim their lawn this summer.

Sums up my thoughts pretty well. The more I hear about these things, the happier I am that I live in England. I really can't see what they do that isn't already covered by local council laws, the police, or an informal agreement between homeowners in a particular area.

 d-usa wrote:


According to those articles the lending library still violates city ordinances. But it doesn't violate them for being a "The city prohibits people from having structures on their property that are detached from the physical house". According to them it's a bit more specific and violates an ordinance against having structures in the front yard.

If that's the case I can sympathize a bit more with the city and the whole "if we make an exemption here then we are going to open a can of worms" argument.

This is still a bit "odd" to me, as I would have assumed more that they would be in violation of performing a municipal function, ie, a library.

I am going to remember this thread next time I get that guff about how exceptionally precious freedom and individuality is to americans this thread is great!

Someone did have to be a right spanker to report the kid for his library though- I bet the parents had annoyed someone in the past and they took their chance to get one back on them.

 Ketara wrote:
Putting it in a British frame, these HOA's seem to be some form of local council law that only apply to specific houses/zones/areas, with an appropriate level of additional 'council tax' to support the local services. So I can understand people saying, if you don't want to follow those local laws/rules, you shouldn't move there to begin with'.

At the same time though, these HOA's seem to prescribe invasive restrictions and behaviour far in excess of what any local council here in Britain would ever consider doing, hence the amazement. Council law applies throughout the borough, not just to certain zones/properties within it, and any council that started trying to say that specific houses should have specific colour doors would be ignored in short order, I would think. Likewise, insisting that all home renovations/alterations went through a council approved list of contractors would be seen as infringing extremely heavily on the freedom of the market, and the individuals freedom of choice.

I am amazed that such autocratic institutions exist in America, quite frankly.

Not necessarily Ketara. The part of Edinburgh I live in has several small areas and even specific buildings which are "listed", ie they have certain architecturally noteworthy or historically significant aspects or exist in an area with either of those features, and there are substantial restrictions on what people can do over and above ordinary planning regulation. My building isn't even listed itself, but because it's in an area with a lot of listed structures, we still cannot for eg have anything except white wooden sash&case windows with the proper number and size of panes in them(so no cheaper PVC framed and double/triple-glazed windows despite them being more energy efficient, even if they look exactly the same as painted wooden ones from the street), and any repair work to the exterior of the structure must be done with mason-dressed sandstone(rather than the much cheaper and visually indistinguishable method of carving away damaged/eroded portions of existing blocks and repairing them with a kind of ground-sandstone putty). The council can even mandate that repairs take place using their own approved contractors via a Statutory Notice, although that might be coming to an end after the scheme was exposed as massively, terminally corrupt.

 Yodhrin wrote:


Not necessarily Ketara. The part of Edinburgh I live in has several small areas and even specific buildings which are "listed", ie they have certain architecturally noteworthy or historically significant aspects or exist in an area with either of those features, and there are substantial restrictions on what people can do over and above ordinary planning regulation. My building isn't even listed itself, but because it's in an area with a lot of listed structures, we still cannot for eg have anything except white wooden sash&case windows with the proper number and size of panes in them(so no cheaper PVC framed and double/triple-glazed windows despite them being more energy efficient, even if they look exactly the same as painted wooden ones from the street), and any repair work to the exterior of the structure must be done with mason-dressed sandstone(rather than the much cheaper and visually indistinguishable method of carving away damaged/eroded portions of existing blocks and repairing them with a kind of ground-sandstone putty). The council can even mandate that repairs take place using their own approved contractors via a Statutory Notice, although that might be coming to an end after the scheme was exposed as massively, terminally corrupt.

I'm aware of the restrictions listed buildings have, but I'm not entirely sure that making sure that historically significant architecture is restored in a way that doesn't ruin it is quite comparable to insisting that you cut your grass every year and have a green door (or get fined). The former is in place for reasons of preservation and historical necessity, the latter because apparently you might affect the house prices of someone six doors down. With regards to insisting that buildings in historically significant areas match the area aesthetically, it's a bit closer in form to the US model, but I would posit that the intent is different.

I've lived in Canterbury and London, two reasonably historically significant places, and you tend to only get restrictions of that type on say, a building that was up against the city wall and surrounded by listed buildings, or buildings of a type whereby the sudden plonking a large block of modern glass flats would completely ruin the aesthetic appeal for tourism and historical purposes. I can't speak for Edinburgh of course, it may be that the council there was overzealous due to backscratching, but I don't believe that it's a standard form across the UK.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
THAT is, in essence, what an HOA is for here in the US... Because, let's face it, there are some people who view their owning a home as something about as throw-away as a car, and so they don't take proper care of the building where they live.

Yep, as much as people like to say its their house and they can do what they want with it, the reality is that we buy the street we live on as much as the house. People don't just pay for land and the house, they pay to have the kinds of neighbours that make for a pleasant street to live on.

So HOA and other kinds of restrictions aren't just to protect your property value, but also your standard of living. Now, there's no argument that plenty of HOA go too far, have more restrictions than are sensible and are far too rigorously enforced, but as a general concept they make a lot of sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
I think the proof in the pudding as to the HOA's necessity quite frankly, is that we here in the UK manage to get along just fine without any such thing, and yet our house prices tend to go up rather than down.

That's not really proof of anything. Housing will grow in value as long as you have an expanding population and no new city centres springing up out of nowhere. As long as that is the case then across the whole land closer to city centres will be traded at an increasing premium compared to increasingly distant new suburbs in outlying areas.

The point of the HOA is to reduce one specific risk that threatens individual property values while not impacting property values overall - the risk of a bad neighbour.

I don't personally see the attraction in uniformity to begin with. Houses and people aren't toy soldiers. Variation in vegetation, wildlife, and architecture is far more interesting and pleasing to the eye. And quite frankly, with the hodgepodge of houses in our country dating back anywhere from ten to three hundred years, any attempts to enforce uniformity would be doomed before it even began.

Sure, I agree that the kinds of estates where every house is identical are pretty damn weird, but they're not the dominant kind of HOA. Most just given some design requirements and enforce maintenance standards, and really represent not much more than a heightened level of town planning laws.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:
I'm aware of the restrictions listed buildings have, but I'm not entirely sure that making sure that historically significant architecture is restored in a way that doesn't ruin it is quite comparable to insisting that you cut your grass every year...

Once a year? Forget the HOA, if some neighbour of mine only cut their grass once a year I'd have them reported for being a fire hazard. You got any idea how fast grass grows in a year?

 sebster wrote:

Once a year? Forget the HOA, if some neighbour of mine only cut their grass once a year I'd have them reported for being a fire hazard. You got any idea how fast grass grows in a year?

Yes, but you do live over in Terra incognito. The rest of us don't worry so much about firestorms from the heavens.

 Ketara wrote:
Yes, but you do live over in Terra incognito. The rest of us don't worry so much about firestorms from the heavens.

Very true

 Ketara wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Once a year? Forget the HOA, if some neighbour of mine only cut their grass once a year I'd have them reported for being a fire hazard. You got any idea how fast grass grows in a year?

Yes, but you do live over in Terra incognito. The rest of us don't worry so much about firestorms from the heavens.

Forget a fire hazard, if you let grass grow too long in that part of the world, you create the perfect ambush point for the drop bears... and I'd rather not be ambushed by pissed off Koalas

Did they arrest the criminal? did they tazer him? did they shot him? "Sir! for the last time! put the book down!"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 sebster wrote:

Once a year? Forget the HOA, if some neighbour of mine only cut their grass once a year I'd have them reported for being a fire hazard. You got any idea how fast grass grows in a year?

Yes, but you do live over in Terra incognito. The rest of us don't worry so much about firestorms from the heavens.

Forget a fire hazard, if you let grass grow too long in that part of the world, you create the perfect ambush point for the drop bears... and I'd rather not be ambushed by pissed off Koalas

You need to maintain firelanes to kill whatever animal is trying to come to the house any given hour.

 d-usa wrote:

You need to maintain firelanes to kill whatever animal is trying to come to the house any given hour.

Damn.... Thanks for reminding me to update my range cards (DA Form 5517-R) for my house