I came in here gung ho to defend HOA’s because I’ve seen neighborhoods without them and they’re never really stunning. That being said the ability or the power to foreclose on your home because of that should not be allowed.

> because I’ve seen neighborhoods without them and they’re never really stunning.

Most neighborhoods I’ve lived in have not had an HOA. They’ve ranged from okay to great.

I can think of a few neighbor situations where an HOA with teeth would have been welcome. The most specific involved someone getting a big angry dog breed, neglecting it, and then leaving their gate unlocked so it got out. That one was eventually dealt with by the city, though.

Meanwhile the one HOA I lived under was pretty boring and friendly. Didn’t really bother anyone but maintained a nice common area. HOA board members were friendly and reasonable, but then again so were all the neighbors so there wasn’t much to deal with.

I think the nightmare situation is a busybody HOA that starts going after things that don’t matter, which would be hell.

HOA’s kill any character an area has. The fees more than offset the economic benefits of joining one. The damming economics largely comes down to local governments skipping road maintenance without giving you a discount on your taxes.

Net effect you lose money living in a worse location.

I live in a neighborhood without an HOA, and any time someone comes over for the first time they all make comments about how nice the neighborhood is. Acceptance of an HOA is the pinnacle of Stockholm syndrome.

You have to pay for the community utilities, door people, elevators, exterior maintenance/repair, roof repair, and snow maintenance that people won't pay for as a group when given a chance. It's really the only lever that guarantees compliance the least amount of drama. The alternative is that you have to file civil suit to settle obligations. (You share a roof with your neighbors.. they refuse to pay for it because the roof isn't explicitly over them, they refuse to shovel and everyone gets fined.. etc)

I dunno, I live in a neighborhood in LA without an HOA and it's great. Housing values have skyrocketed in the decade I've been here. There are a sprinkling of places that don't take great care of their yards: the bane of every Karen-filled HOA. This has done absolutely nothing to harm property values.

I would wager that the money residents might have paid for HOA fees have largely gone into their own home/yard improvements, and it shows. Adding an HOA in this place, and I think most places, would be a burden rather than a benefit.

> never really stunning.

This is relative. You might not think native flowers and plants are stunning, and that a manicured lawn is, but I do! And lawn rules might prevent me from obtaining my version of “stunning”. This is something…you want to defend? A lack of freedom to do what one wants with something they own?

This has to do more with price of house, not HOAs. In Florida for example, some(maybe most?) counties require all new developments to maintain their own roads, which requires something akin to a CDD/HOA. Newer houses typically cost more and bring in people with money, not someone who inherited the house or has been living there for generations.

I could show you HOA neighborhoods that look like a warzone, and beautiful nonHOA areas of million dollar houses.

is stunning even real though? who wants a picture when you can be alive. hoas tend to be more about the veneer than the spirit of their existence. the intent is nice but humans gonna power trip if they seek those positions of authority

Eh, I live in Berkeley, a lot of the neighborhoods here are amazing, and there are almost no HOAs (besides the kind that keep condo buildings running). It's nicer than the bast majority of American suburbs I've seen. If anything, the amazing yards and cozy houses are only viable because there is no HOA pushing down arbitrary top-down rules on aesthetics. Forcing people to have traditional lawns would have totally killed the place.

You have a very narrow experience of the world, then. The most bland, ugly, tasteless neighborhoods I’ve seen are all in HOAs. The most beautiful are all without HOAs.

But that’s all beside the point, because this article is about how HOAs are bad for people who need somewhere to live, not about what offends your (unusual) taste.

have you ever like, gone to San Francisco?

> I’ve seen neighborhoods without them and they’re never really stunning

I don't give a shit about a "stunning" neighborhood. If I own property nobody else should have a say about its appearance.

The only exception I'd defend is a historic neighborhood where the goal is specifically to upkeep a historically accurate appearance of centuries ago.

But no, I will NEVER support an HOA anywhere else. These consortiums of Karens that patrol modern housing communities can go to hell.

I will plant the flowers I want, have the Halloween decorations I want, and do whatever woodworking I want in my front yard. What's the point of ownership if I can't own it?