I think that's his point as this article reads like that exact prompt. Pure LLM garbage.

And this is of the typical quality of what you’d get.

80% incoherent narration of random numbers, all down to the 1’s place so it looks super duper precise and impressive if you squint and don’t think too hard, like the “author” seems to have done.

You can accomplish this without an HOA, also. That’s just a non-profit. The idea that deed restrictions and dues are tied together is a serious overstep, in my opinion.

Yes. I lived in an HOA neighborhood in Texas that was fine. Dues were $25/month, and from that we got a nice community pool, and a legitimately nice Christmas party: they’d rent food trucks that were pre-paid, put up a Santa village, bring in VR rides, etc. All paid for from dues. They also really did not bother you if you were making an attempt at keeping your place looking decent.

Then I moved to one in North Carolina that was god-awful. Dues started at $65/month and went up every year. They’d send out neighborhood reminders that a pressure-washing service would be in the neighborhood next week if anyone wanted to hire them; anyone who didn’t got notices a few weeks later that they needed to pressure-wash their driveway and/or house. I also had to buy a specific brand and sheen of paint to repaint my mailbox; of course, the lettering was only available from a single supplier.

I now live on an acre lot that sits between two neighborhoods. I have no HOA, and it is glorious.

>To an extent they might make sense where there are shared facilities that need to be funded, like a swimming pool or something. Most of what they seem to do is just bullshit though.

You can say the exact same about the government. To be clear, are you in favor of more liberty for homeowners, or are you in favor of the government stepping in to regulate HOAs?

The purpose of the system is what it does - providing retirees with even faker jobs than they gave up to go on vacation paid by the fools that still work.

What points? Does the article make any points? I couldn't find any. For instance, point 1 ends with

"A foreclosure suit is not a lost home — most end when the owner, or the owner's lender, pays — but the pressure is the point."

Which makes no sense whatsoever. I thought they were making a housing crisis worse by forcing foreclosures, but now apparently "the pressure is the point." The point of what, exactly?

> houses patchily painted lavender

What's wrong with lavender? Why does everything have to be a boring tan or grey? You sound like the exact reason I would never buy a house with an HOA.

You care about unmowed frontyards? No wonder your country is going to shit if this is what you’re worried about.

How does this add to the conversation?

The constant history lesson of what something was 80-90 years ago but they aren’t that way anymore but they were doesn’t advance the conversation especially when it has no impact on the actual topic.

Even if I accepted the premise that racial segregation was the sole reason for their creation, if that's no longer their purpose, why does it matter?

> HOAs exist as a way to enforce racial segregation

How do HOAs enforce racial segregation in monoethnic countries?

"HOAs are most frequently found in the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia, and the Philippines, and to some extent in other countries, such as New Zealand, Israel, Mauritius, South Africa, most of the countries of the European Union, such as Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Ireland, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Greece, Sweden, Belgium, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Estonia, Slovakia and Slovenia, and some of the Latin American countries, such as Chile, Argentina, Brazil and Mexico."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_association

No. The Democratic Party exists as a way to enforce racial segregation.

Thats no longer the reason they still persist. But their creation was nothing but.