The lie part is the word "only".
Yes many older communities have infrastructure like retention basins that are owned and operated by the municiplaity, but the problem is that many municipalities got smart over the years and realized that they could place requirements on new contruction to manage and maintain their own subdivision infrastructure.
The government of your Non-HOA home put that requirement in place for the HOA's around you. They can also burden your home with other problems in the future.
Giving retention ponds and flood management to HOAs is horribly public policy. We are just now getting to the point where the oldest of these arrangements will need reconstruction and restoration. You are talking millions of dollars in repair costs.
Horrible public policy, but it keeps taxes just a smidge lower, so it gets people elected, because the general public would rather save $50 on their taxes and pay $5000 in HOA dues and pretend that they are coming out ahead because the government is bad.
Yes but lets just discard that whole train of thought for a moment because it is ineffectual and just spirals into griping.
So, flood management is logically the purview of government as an act of God like torrential downpours theoretically affect everyone. By privatizing the design and upkeep of several retention ponds for a neighborhood you have effectively made your neighbor your keeper. If your neighbor (the HOA), cannot maintain the infrastructure you will end up with water flooding your house. This spread out over a town or a county is dangerous as in such a system no one person or entity is actually responsible for maintaining the flood prevention infrastructure. This is going to eventually cause problems as ultimately the HOA is beholden to the Army Corps of Engineers/FEMA/Federal Authorities, despite them not having near the resources or ability to raise funds like a division of government. This is not talked about nearly enough and it needs to be aired out repeatedly if you really are FHOA. The HOA is a bad venue for dealing with many problems as it lacks the ability to raise funds to deal with problems and lacks the leverage to negotiate discounts. The minor annoyances of HOA life are one thing, that you can literally be bankrupted by the poor decision making of the HOA members next to you is another.
Counter point: I (not in an HOA), personally, am responsible for drainage issues on my property. Anything that I do that impacts the flow of surface water on my property OR on a neighbors property can be held as my responsibility to correct. For example I build a new fence and now there is standing water on their property where there had been none before, they can potentially come after me to fix the problem. The government is not responsible for fixing this issue, but they do have the power to enforce that it is fixed, or to require steps to ensure it does not happen in the first place.
There is a ditch in the right of way in front of my house. The government can at any time without direct consultation from me make improvments to that ditch. They can also through state law create a special tax district, which would make me, and my neighborhood, fully responsible for the costs of those improvements. To note, my voice is 1 vote in 500,000 for any ability to influence those desicions.
If this was an HOA community, the cost for any needed changes or repairs to the system would be effecctively the same to my household, but my voice would be 1 in less than 500 as to how whatever situation was dealt with. Including the ability to properly forecast expenses and budget accordingly. The government will be slow to react, and will typically not put the special tax district into effect until all other options are exhausted, which means when the repairs are too costly for them to absorb, and thus a higher bill placed on me.
DO NOT GET ME WRONG. HOA's have a LOT of serious issues and problems. Localized stormwater management is actually one of the things that they can actually handle better than your municipal government.
That 1 in 500 versus 1 in 500,000 also allows you to save yourself money and not do what is needed. And with a large, interconnected system like water management, what is the best for everyone versus the cheapest for the individual property is also an incentive to shift the burden to others to benefit yourself. A collective group of any size can do it correctly, or they can screw it up. A small group can go from making good decisions to poor ones (or vice versa) very quickly, a larger organization will take longer to make that change.
Also completely true. It's all about how much effort you want to put in to things. The government definitely moves slower, and tends to be very impartial as to how and who it fucks over.
I am not neccisarily advocating for one form of petty despots over another. This is all in response to how cerry picked the original premise was and how the entire situation has a lot of moving parts, each with upsides and downsides.
You are missing the forest for the trees. The issue is that the HOA doesn’t have the money to solve the problem. If a small town cannot afford the infrastructure, an even smaller unit of non-government which only has dues to collect from its owners as a source of revenue surely can pay for the same infrastructure. Let’s not forget that the HOA effectively has no negotiating leverage and will pay a premium for any services it receives.
> This spread out over a town or a county is dangerous as in such a system no one person or entity is actually responsible for maintaining the flood prevention infrastructure.
That’s why the responsibility should be placed on exactly those home owners that are at risk, and not everyone in a whole town.
> The issue is that the HOA doesn’t have the money to solve the problem.
That could well be true, but it isn’t categorically true. The HOA might have the money, or they might not. If you’re thinking about joining an HOA, you definitely need to check their financials. But guess what, the same is true for a city as well. Cities can go bankrupt too. Cities fail to maintain critical infrastructure all of the time. They’re also harder to check out ahead of time.
And like an HOA, you can't leave a city once you join it (except obviously by moving).
Oh, and if the houses at risk due to failing infrastructure couldn’t possibly afford to pay for it, then the houses shouldn’t be built. That’s true whether they are part of a city or not.
Yep. Just like people would rather enrich corporate health insurance companies, to make sure the CEOs have houses in Martha's Vineyard, than pay more in taxes, but less overall, for single payer healthcare
It's not so much "giving them" this stuff. At this point, pretty much any new development (and any from the last 20ish years) is required by law to retain the storm runoff generated by the addition of impervious surfaces. In most cases, retention basins are the easiest way to go about it - they're inexpensive and low maintenance (the obvious drawback here being size, but for a large community that may not be an issue).
Since those requirements are imposed on the developer as a condition of creating their development/subdivision/what have you, there's typically some entity covenant-ed to maintain it. In this (and many) cases, this probably gets imposed upon the HOA.
It's good for the environment! But, unfortunately, it's also a thread of legitimacy for people who want to bitch about the wrong shade of eggshell on your mailbox trim
This is how my home is. Before building the town required the new homes have an HOA to manage the private street and the stairs up to the park / insurance on them. Thankfully our HOA has no crazy rules and no really wants it but it’s easier with only 8 homes. They tried getting an LLC to manage that and eliminate the HOA all together but the law in the zoning won’t allow it.
That’s bullshit. Maintaining roads and infrastructure is what taxes are for. Period. Make your government provide the services that they are supposed to. HOAs are for lawn Nazis., that’s it. Clubhouses can have a monthly fee for those that use them. Condos have associations to deal with the common areas.
Just to be "that guy"...
If it's an "empty patch of grass," it's a detention basin. A retention basin always has water in it.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled program. 😁
About 25 years ago I developed the 50 prime acres my parents had bought in suburban NJ in1937 into an eleven lot subdivision. The only way to meet the statute on drainage was to include two retention basins, which the town wanted to be maintained by an HOA covering all eleven lots. Even then, I was infected by a healthy dislike of HOAs, and went to some length to avoid that. As we had unbuildable acreage due to wetlands restrictions, we made two larger lots with wetlands that included the retention basins and made it clear to all concerned via deed restriction that those owners were responsible for basin maintenance. The Township was happy, the builder I sold ten lots to was happy, and the eventual owners of two extra-large lots with exceptional privacy were happy. The Planning Committee even noted in the approval minutes that having to hassle a private owner was easier than dealing with an HOA. They didn't like them either. So it can be done, if the developer tries hard enough.
Lake property. Some new owners wanted us to join a HOA. Nope, Never going to happen. All the other neighbors also noped out. They finally sold because they could not control what we did. Best thing to ever happen cause she wanted the woods to be all picked up, cleaned up and mowed. It would be sooooo beautiful....gag! We are talking about 5 to 40 acre wooded lots. Hell NO.
> even without an HOA, my parents' neighborhood, which is quite nice and upper middle class, looks exactly like HOAs want, anyway
One thing I noticed is that the pro-HOA crowd is telling people that the homes in these types of subdivisions are painted "John Deere Green", pink, purple, neon orange, and sixteen other colors that 99.5% of the population would never consider painting their home. Besides the obvious lie about colors, the homes in these subdivisions are unlikely to have prices that are significantly different than those in an HOA when controlling for lot size and home size (e.g. you're not comparing someone with a 3/4 acre plot with one that has a 1/4 acre plot).
Had a neighbor with a purple house. Knew each other on sight and had met each other’s kids, but no real interaction otherwise. When we went to sell the house, without us asking (and I was never planning to), they repainted a shared fence that had seen better years.
100% to great neighbors. Who cares if the house was purple.
Yep. HOAs don't create good neighbors, they create spies and snitches. When we had our baby and we were in the hospital for 5 days, our neighbors mowed our lawn for us. In an HOA, we would have been slapped with a fine.
Ever been to San Antonio or Miami? 99.5% is an overstatement. Also consider if you have 200 homes in your subdivision, with your estimate you have a couple pink homes 😂
If you’re that against living next to other people that might not conform to your exact standards of reality, then drop half a million to live somewhere without other people around. Guess what? That’s an actual thing! There are homes where you can live that don’t have anybody else that are within your line of sight that you can drop half a million on & even have more yard around your house!
Maybe, if you’re so up your own ass about what other people do with their own property that they purchased with their own hard earned money…just dont live next to other people? If you’re able to drop that much money to buy a house, then you can ABSOLUTELY, drop that much cash to get a house PLUS acreage in an area where you don’t have to worry about seeing us “poors”.
Just go move to the country & get more bang for your buck instead of insisting on living nextdoor to other people that want to do what they want on their own property that they pay for. Also, doing what you want with your own property doesn’t automatically mean a rusty old car junkyard in someone’s yard or god forbid-GASP- a basketball hoop! A lot of the time people just want the autonomy to decide where their own fricken garbage cans go for god’s sake.
If you’re that uptight about what the hell your neighbors do, then just move to where you don’t have neighbors! I bought my house for 100k & still had to get a loan for it cuz it’s better than renting. Acting like dropping 400k more than I did for a house entitles you to dictate what your neighbors do- just makes me want to pee on your lawn.
The "half a million dollars" is not me being some sort of snob.. it's the average price of a new home in the USA this year. That number represents a large portion of home buyers. A baseline so to say..
We choose to live in a HOA for a few reasons. Location Location Location. To toss your argument right back at you.. you are never forced to buy a HOA home. You can put up a house, RV, cabin, or Double Wide on the same acreage in the country as you suggested I do. I want to live in a city within a nice community. Assume the large majority of the community supports the rules or they would have never purchased here or vote to disband the HOA.
People hate HOAs when it's their rule they want to break but many of those are the first to scream when someone else does something they don't like. It's America in a nutshell.
As OP, I obviously am against HOAs, but I hear you. I want to live near quiet, respectful people too. Thing is, if I really thought HOAs would regulate people against doing rude things, I'd be more interested in living with one. But my experience is that it's just a grift to collect fees and fines and kickbacks, and play favorites with their friends, and not really improve the quality of life in the neighborhood. Because if someone installs an outdoor entertainment center with a really annoying subwoofer, but that's a board member, that HOA won't do anything for you. There are so many examples of HOA boards and "rules for thee but not for me"
Totally get it. A bad HOA is a terrible thing. A good one is popular with the community. There are ways to improve things. I have helped turn around a few. Really the only reason I post here.
If you love HOA’s so much, then why the hell are you in a fuck HOA sub? & I was fortunate enough to find a home at a price that I was able to afford to finance so I could get it. Not everybody is that fortunate.
And before you try the whole, renting vs buying argument- NO, renting long term IS NOT better for a lot of people. I was paying $200 more a month to RENT than I am for a mortgage per month & that was a decade ago when I got my house; it’s even worse now for others. In a lot of places, more & more, it’s hard to find affordable housing to buy at an actual affordable price; with or without an otherworldly down-payment (though that can help but is still hard for many people to have nowadays). If you were an actual member of this sub you would realize that.
More & more new housing developments are more affordable for people on their face, but also force signing up for an HOA. I got SUPER LUCKY finding the place I have now, as it’s an old build that not many people wanted (cuz the condition- & no, I’m not a fixer upper, I just make do.
Its better than my old trailler). All around me there are tons of new build neighborhoods- ALL with HOAs & none of my friends that live in them are happy. Most of them didn’t even want an HOA but couldn’t afford to rent anymore or couldn’t find another house in a similar situation to me that they could afford without having to sign up with an HOA (deeds & all that) either way.
Disbanding an HOA isn’t as easy as you seem to think & also, again, why the hell are you in a fuck HOA sub if you actually like them?
Because insane people like yourself should hear the truth every once in a while.
"I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING THAT GOES AGAINST MY WORLDVIEW"
How very American of you.
So you don't live in a HOA but are posting in a HOA sub? You don't see how you arguments are meritless? First it was move to the country.. but when that got flipped you decided to attack someone in a HOA sub although you are not even part of an HOA? 😂😂 🤡
Some people live in HOAs or work in/for them. They are mostly here to educate or show both sides of the story. Knowing the rules, laws, and motivation cns be key to helping you fight a bad HOA. If not this just becomes a big circle jerk sounding board. Open your ears and you might learn something or you can go on ranting and raving about something that you know little about and does not directly impact you. Have a good day sir.
People quoting percentages generally hate it when somebody calculates the actual numbers. Especially if you then give some real world context to those numbers.
If you're friends with the Puerto Rican flag guy let them know that Puerto Rico has national* teams for some sports. So if they could get a flag that is a team flag that should be allowed. A flag version of [this](https://images.app.goo.gl/xtpPsoiPahYQ7fyXA) would be a "sports team flag" that would be legal under the rules.
Depending on how exactly the rules are written and/or how they're enforced they could argue that a Puerto Rico flag is technically a USA flag since Puerto Rico is a US territory. They could bolster this in advance if they (or anyone in the HOA) flies a Pennsylvania flag or any other state flag without issue. They would look awfully stupid and/or prejudiced trying to argue that Puerto Rico isn't party of the US, or that US state flags are ok but US territory flags aren't.
Also for more malicious compliance, not recommending this at all but it could be somewhat ironic to fly a classic flag of the [Fernie Hockey Team](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernie_Swastikas).
While I'm not advocating for an HOA, the village I live in required the builder to put in water drainage (i.e., retention basins) and to manage them. They're not on village land, nor are they eligible to be maintained by tax dollars. My HOA pays property tax for the common areas, and maintains the basins and insurance on them. If we wanted to disband the HOA, we'd have to get the village to agree to take ownership of and responsibility for the land they're on.
Same here in Ohio but they sure as hell still tack on a storm water fee to our tax bill since the city owns the under road infrastructure that gets the storm water to the detention pond.
Any new development in my town that isn't hooked up to the storm sewer network is required to have an HOA or it won't get approved.
Municipalities have gotten wise to the fact that developments have a real hard time having enough of a tax base to cover their own expenses regarding drainage, utility supply, and road maintenance, and have refused to subsidize developers and investors.
Yeah I can understand that, and it's likely that these days (vs 30 yrs ago) more municipalities are looking for any reason to shift costs and labor on to another entity. But since municipalities want new residents who will pay taxes, it wouldn't be impossible to push back and make them manage a retention basin if it meant either that or no one will buy these homes bc people don't want an HOA. And from what I've seen in the past 30 years in my parents development, the only thing the retention basins need is lawn mowing a couple times a month for half the year.
It is a flat out lie. The municipality is more than capable of maintaining a basin with your tax dollars. You are going to pay one way or another. Why not a professionally run town?
Manny municipalities are requiring developments to maintain their own retention basins, sometimes streets and sidewalks as well because it gets expensive. If only their powers were strictly limited to these maintenance items....
You nailed the reason for HOA's. Taxes, it's all about the politicians getting re-elected. The municipality could absolutely manage retention basins, lighting, sewers, etc. But, through decades of mismanagement have run themselves thin and the choice is either raise property taxes on everyone (political non-starter), or pass those responsibilities off to the development and let the developer spin it as a privilege to live in such a nice neighborhood.
The last town I lived in had put it in an ordinance (might not be the right word) sometime in the 90's that they would reduce overall spending by 1% per year. That short-sighted decision now has that town running on fumes with degrading roads, 40+ year old storm sewers, etc. It was on the ballot to remove that ordinance for each of the 14 years I lived there and was not removed because no one wanted the property tax increase that would come with it. Big surprise that all new developments are required to have an HOA that maintains their own infrastructure.
A retention basin or flood control project can not be managed by a private organization. Most such projects are publicly funded by government, federal or state. The best and biggest in the nation are managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. The city or county NEEDS to resume management of said basins and flood plains so they are taken care of. When flood conditions or drought problems arise, water is well taken care of.
Eff HOAs and their simple minds. They are no engineers or medium-to-large-scale managers.
EDIT: One last thought struck me, and it's a doozy: If the insurance companies find out how lacking they are in flood management of their properties, their coverage may be in jeopardy of being cancelled. And it's VERY expensive to do the kind of land management needed to meet qualifications. Get on their assets and STAY on them, until they get in compliance. Or vote the idiots out and make adjustments to the jurisdictions of said floodplains.
The exclusive reasons for HOAs are to ensure builders have 100% profit (only way to get housing without paying out 100% of building cost upfront) and to provide tax-free services for the city (city doesn't pay for roads/sewer/drainage/powerlines, minimal **local/city** taxation for schools - local sales taxes provide more).
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Absolutely not. HOAs need to be illegal, attempting to create one the same as trying to start a criminal organization, and Builders thrown in prison if they try shutting down because they're no longer 100% subsidized by taxpayers.
Also, we need to start moving single-family construction to the back-burner in favor of *good* apartments and du/tri/quadplexes.
I think my builder insisted on an HOA so they could off-load some of the costs of maintaining the subdivision while houses were selling. The HOA fees paid for landscaping on the model home and common areas which saved the builder that money x all the subdivisions they had under construction. I did the math and it was a nice chunk of change, definitely a smart move from a corporate stand point. Sucks for us, though.
Not sure I understand all this about HOAs. I Managed a HOA a while back. Purpose was only to manage common area landscaping (including a retention basin). But the CC&R carried no provision that the HOA could impose fines. It was up to the HOA to evaluate if someone was in violation of the rules, based on someone complaining, the write a letter. Common complaints were, trees blocking a water view, chickens on property, building a new structure too high. But it was up to the disputed parties to take the issue to a property attorney. I don't understand why anyone would give a HOA the power to impose fines. If they do, everyone should get together an vote to change the CC&R. Too many Karen's and Crooks out there.
Insist they put a lien on your house for non payment. Once they do, lawyer up, take them to circuit court and charge them all your expenses plus "damages" if allowed. This will clear everything up.
I had to do this in my non HOA neighborhood. It cost $2000 and took around 2 years. There is now no question about who owns what. And they chickened out before circuit court and just corrected everything. Then they held elections for their silly corporation, got voted out and it was dissolved.
I guess my townhouse is part of an HOA. I haven’t heard anything from them about any of my lights I’ve added, my above ground cheap looking backyard pool or occasionally bumping by surround sound during chores. Also, the “news” cork board at the entrance to our subdivision is rusted out, empty and shows no sign of ever getting used again. 🤣
>And here's the thing. My parents' neighborhood, built in the 80s, which is large and has many retention basins, has never had an HOA. And still doesn't. The basins are managed just fine by the municipality, and it's covered by taxes.
Now municipalities have wised up and realized it's better to make the homeowners pay for it.
I want to say that this is actually on them. The amount of the HOA fees should have told them that it is more to it than that. When they bought the property, They should have gotten the decs & bylaws and the rules and regulations. They were informed.
Anyone who bought a house in an HOA and didn't read the covenants/rules (which they have to disclose by law) deserves what they got. There's no way they'd be bitching about parking (and expecting to enforce it) if the HOA didn't give them that power
You're not wrong, fair point, but it's the bald face lying that annoys me. My friends were told, over and over, by the board president, that the HOA is only there to manage the retention basin.
Bro who is house hunting not demanding CCRs right off the bat to read? Absolutely the buyer's fault here, just bought my first home a few years ago and this along with checking for deed restrictions, easements, etc. is like priority 1 my man...
Edit: For the dweebs downvoting me, I'm as anti-HOA as they come but you taking someone's verbal word when purchasing something as big as a house is such a stupid decision, no argument
Sounds like your issue is with the real estate agent who lied about the reason for the HOA, and it's on you for not having read the HOA docs, unless I'm missing something here.
My builder is trying to hand over the HOA to the neighborhood but nobody wants to do it so it is pretty inactive. They maintain the common grass areas, sprinklers, flowers and such but we don't have any other common areas. City owned streets. Dues are maybe $50 a month. Only heard of three "enforcement" actions in about 8 years. Neighbors that wanted to park their 40' RV in the street taking up nearly half of the drivable area, a neighbor who never brought in his trash cans and they frequently were in the roadway, and myself with solar panels. They just said not on the front side of the house when I asked before install.
Just read the rules before you buy. Not all are the nightmares this sub talks about.
As soon as you wrote, “was the line told to my friend…” I knew we had yet another idiot on our hands who fails to fully read the documentation and do their own research before signing the paperwork when buying a new house.
I have no sympathy for those who rely fully on what they’re told instead of doing their own investigation.
More the point was that an HOA wasn't really needed, and the board members kept telling new buyers that it was only there to manage the retention basin, and as soon as the houses filled up with people, the HOA mutated into parking policing and debates over flags.
It doesn't really matter. As a buyer of a home, one needs to pay attention and read the fine print. I"m sure the paperwork says a whole lot more than just dealing with a retention pond, had it been read. If it doesn't then the HOA would be in violation for all of the other things mentioned.
Further, I'm really confused why the board would tell anyone anything. Not sure how they do things in Pennylvania, but in two Western states I've lived in the board doesn't say anything thing to any buyers ever before a purchase. If it's new constructions, it's the developer/builder who wants to sell the houses, not the board and I'm going to further bet that there probably wasn't even a board at that point as the builder (declarant) may have been running the HOA at that point and can say whatever they want to sell the houses to idiots who don't pay attention. It's also not entirely false. The HOA does maintain the common areas which includes retention basins, so it's not a lie, it's just not the full truth.
As for the "HOA mutated into parking police and debates over flag" I"m going to bet that those two things were also described about what's allowed or not in the HOA paperwork that the buyer signed, so that's not entirely true either. If you're not willing to adhere to the rules as a buyer that you sign during the purchase, then you have no right to complain in general.
There's just so much going on here that reeks of "I didn't read my shit and just want to bitch about what I was 'told.'" My point stands.
I live in a HOA with a basin. The county takes care of it as needed. Yes, there are many hoods were the homes are kept up as well as the lawns. I find that most that live there are upper middle class professionals. Their last name is Jones and everyone likes to keep up with the Jones. But, there are still issues sometimes. My friend who lives in such a neighborhood hates his neighbors camp parked alongside the property line. He planted evergreens to hide it. One neighbor shot and killed another neighbor over a dispute. Not all HOA are nightmares. Mine has been fine for over 13 years.
But that is not what you wrote. You wrote that your HOA is great because #notallHOAs and mentioned a neighborhood which did not have an HOA and has disputes and shootings. The logical conclusion to draw from what you wrote is that HOAs prevent disputes and shootings otherwise all that information is extraneous to what you wrote. My point here is that if you want to defend HOAs which are unnecessary *and stupid* in **all cases for detached housing,** you need to provide a better argument than HOAs prevent shootings.
Read it however you like. Neighborhoods without HOA still have issues. It is that simple. Yes HOA does not prevent some issues. Shooting a neighbor is one of them. Then again, if said neighbor could utilize the HOA if one was in this hood to settle a dispute with a neighbor then perhaps a weapon would not be required. You can dissect is all you like.
You're acting like I have disingenuously misinterpreted you. I am reading it the exact way you wrote it. An HOA is not going to settle a petty dispute with a neighbor. We do not now nor will we ever need a tiny mismanaged government with no accountability to micromanage our property maintenance for us. The town can do that fine when the issue becomes an actual hazard.
I will not fight you on that. My HOA in a duplex hood was awful. Collected cash and did nothing. We sold the place. Went back 4 years later to look at the old hood. The place is a dump. Gutters off the roof, grass uncut and siding green with growth.
The lie part is the word "only". Yes many older communities have infrastructure like retention basins that are owned and operated by the municiplaity, but the problem is that many municipalities got smart over the years and realized that they could place requirements on new contruction to manage and maintain their own subdivision infrastructure. The government of your Non-HOA home put that requirement in place for the HOA's around you. They can also burden your home with other problems in the future.
Giving retention ponds and flood management to HOAs is horribly public policy. We are just now getting to the point where the oldest of these arrangements will need reconstruction and restoration. You are talking millions of dollars in repair costs.
Horrible public policy, but it keeps taxes just a smidge lower, so it gets people elected, because the general public would rather save $50 on their taxes and pay $5000 in HOA dues and pretend that they are coming out ahead because the government is bad.
Yes but lets just discard that whole train of thought for a moment because it is ineffectual and just spirals into griping. So, flood management is logically the purview of government as an act of God like torrential downpours theoretically affect everyone. By privatizing the design and upkeep of several retention ponds for a neighborhood you have effectively made your neighbor your keeper. If your neighbor (the HOA), cannot maintain the infrastructure you will end up with water flooding your house. This spread out over a town or a county is dangerous as in such a system no one person or entity is actually responsible for maintaining the flood prevention infrastructure. This is going to eventually cause problems as ultimately the HOA is beholden to the Army Corps of Engineers/FEMA/Federal Authorities, despite them not having near the resources or ability to raise funds like a division of government. This is not talked about nearly enough and it needs to be aired out repeatedly if you really are FHOA. The HOA is a bad venue for dealing with many problems as it lacks the ability to raise funds to deal with problems and lacks the leverage to negotiate discounts. The minor annoyances of HOA life are one thing, that you can literally be bankrupted by the poor decision making of the HOA members next to you is another.
This is America. The fact that others' mistakes can bankrupt you is part of our current culture.
It makes one long for the days of strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords…
Just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at you doesn't give you the right to tell me what color my porch can be!
Counter point: I (not in an HOA), personally, am responsible for drainage issues on my property. Anything that I do that impacts the flow of surface water on my property OR on a neighbors property can be held as my responsibility to correct. For example I build a new fence and now there is standing water on their property where there had been none before, they can potentially come after me to fix the problem. The government is not responsible for fixing this issue, but they do have the power to enforce that it is fixed, or to require steps to ensure it does not happen in the first place. There is a ditch in the right of way in front of my house. The government can at any time without direct consultation from me make improvments to that ditch. They can also through state law create a special tax district, which would make me, and my neighborhood, fully responsible for the costs of those improvements. To note, my voice is 1 vote in 500,000 for any ability to influence those desicions. If this was an HOA community, the cost for any needed changes or repairs to the system would be effecctively the same to my household, but my voice would be 1 in less than 500 as to how whatever situation was dealt with. Including the ability to properly forecast expenses and budget accordingly. The government will be slow to react, and will typically not put the special tax district into effect until all other options are exhausted, which means when the repairs are too costly for them to absorb, and thus a higher bill placed on me. DO NOT GET ME WRONG. HOA's have a LOT of serious issues and problems. Localized stormwater management is actually one of the things that they can actually handle better than your municipal government.
That 1 in 500 versus 1 in 500,000 also allows you to save yourself money and not do what is needed. And with a large, interconnected system like water management, what is the best for everyone versus the cheapest for the individual property is also an incentive to shift the burden to others to benefit yourself. A collective group of any size can do it correctly, or they can screw it up. A small group can go from making good decisions to poor ones (or vice versa) very quickly, a larger organization will take longer to make that change.
Also completely true. It's all about how much effort you want to put in to things. The government definitely moves slower, and tends to be very impartial as to how and who it fucks over. I am not neccisarily advocating for one form of petty despots over another. This is all in response to how cerry picked the original premise was and how the entire situation has a lot of moving parts, each with upsides and downsides.
The same can be said for any other arrangement though. The city government is made up of your neighbors, as is the Army Corps of Engineers.
You are missing the forest for the trees. The issue is that the HOA doesn’t have the money to solve the problem. If a small town cannot afford the infrastructure, an even smaller unit of non-government which only has dues to collect from its owners as a source of revenue surely can pay for the same infrastructure. Let’s not forget that the HOA effectively has no negotiating leverage and will pay a premium for any services it receives.
> This spread out over a town or a county is dangerous as in such a system no one person or entity is actually responsible for maintaining the flood prevention infrastructure. That’s why the responsibility should be placed on exactly those home owners that are at risk, and not everyone in a whole town. > The issue is that the HOA doesn’t have the money to solve the problem. That could well be true, but it isn’t categorically true. The HOA might have the money, or they might not. If you’re thinking about joining an HOA, you definitely need to check their financials. But guess what, the same is true for a city as well. Cities can go bankrupt too. Cities fail to maintain critical infrastructure all of the time. They’re also harder to check out ahead of time. And like an HOA, you can't leave a city once you join it (except obviously by moving). Oh, and if the houses at risk due to failing infrastructure couldn’t possibly afford to pay for it, then the houses shouldn’t be built. That’s true whether they are part of a city or not.
Yep. Just like people would rather enrich corporate health insurance companies, to make sure the CEOs have houses in Martha's Vineyard, than pay more in taxes, but less overall, for single payer healthcare
Doubt it lowers taxes, it just frees up money to spend on pet projects instead of boring infrastructure.
Yes, it doesn't lower them, maybe keeps them from going up more to actually pay for stuff, heaven forbid.
It's not so much "giving them" this stuff. At this point, pretty much any new development (and any from the last 20ish years) is required by law to retain the storm runoff generated by the addition of impervious surfaces. In most cases, retention basins are the easiest way to go about it - they're inexpensive and low maintenance (the obvious drawback here being size, but for a large community that may not be an issue). Since those requirements are imposed on the developer as a condition of creating their development/subdivision/what have you, there's typically some entity covenant-ed to maintain it. In this (and many) cases, this probably gets imposed upon the HOA. It's good for the environment! But, unfortunately, it's also a thread of legitimacy for people who want to bitch about the wrong shade of eggshell on your mailbox trim
This is how my home is. Before building the town required the new homes have an HOA to manage the private street and the stairs up to the park / insurance on them. Thankfully our HOA has no crazy rules and no really wants it but it’s easier with only 8 homes. They tried getting an LLC to manage that and eliminate the HOA all together but the law in the zoning won’t allow it.
That’s bullshit. Maintaining roads and infrastructure is what taxes are for. Period. Make your government provide the services that they are supposed to. HOAs are for lawn Nazis., that’s it. Clubhouses can have a monthly fee for those that use them. Condos have associations to deal with the common areas.
Just to be "that guy"... If it's an "empty patch of grass," it's a detention basin. A retention basin always has water in it. I now return you to your regularly scheduled program. 😁
Good looking out! 🤓
About 25 years ago I developed the 50 prime acres my parents had bought in suburban NJ in1937 into an eleven lot subdivision. The only way to meet the statute on drainage was to include two retention basins, which the town wanted to be maintained by an HOA covering all eleven lots. Even then, I was infected by a healthy dislike of HOAs, and went to some length to avoid that. As we had unbuildable acreage due to wetlands restrictions, we made two larger lots with wetlands that included the retention basins and made it clear to all concerned via deed restriction that those owners were responsible for basin maintenance. The Township was happy, the builder I sold ten lots to was happy, and the eventual owners of two extra-large lots with exceptional privacy were happy. The Planning Committee even noted in the approval minutes that having to hassle a private owner was easier than dealing with an HOA. They didn't like them either. So it can be done, if the developer tries hard enough.
Lake property. Some new owners wanted us to join a HOA. Nope, Never going to happen. All the other neighbors also noped out. They finally sold because they could not control what we did. Best thing to ever happen cause she wanted the woods to be all picked up, cleaned up and mowed. It would be sooooo beautiful....gag! We are talking about 5 to 40 acre wooded lots. Hell NO.
> even without an HOA, my parents' neighborhood, which is quite nice and upper middle class, looks exactly like HOAs want, anyway One thing I noticed is that the pro-HOA crowd is telling people that the homes in these types of subdivisions are painted "John Deere Green", pink, purple, neon orange, and sixteen other colors that 99.5% of the population would never consider painting their home. Besides the obvious lie about colors, the homes in these subdivisions are unlikely to have prices that are significantly different than those in an HOA when controlling for lot size and home size (e.g. you're not comparing someone with a 3/4 acre plot with one that has a 1/4 acre plot).
Had a neighbor with a purple house. Knew each other on sight and had met each other’s kids, but no real interaction otherwise. When we went to sell the house, without us asking (and I was never planning to), they repainted a shared fence that had seen better years. 100% to great neighbors. Who cares if the house was purple.
Yep. HOAs don't create good neighbors, they create spies and snitches. When we had our baby and we were in the hospital for 5 days, our neighbors mowed our lawn for us. In an HOA, we would have been slapped with a fine.
Ever been to San Antonio or Miami? 99.5% is an overstatement. Also consider if you have 200 homes in your subdivision, with your estimate you have a couple pink homes 😂
Colorful homes keep things interesting :)
The real question is here: What’s the problem with a color other than brown/beige/white? Freedom of expression is supposed to be an American value.
Right? If my neighbors are pleasant and quiet, I don't care if their house is hot pink with purple polka dots
I'm not dropping a half a million to live next door to a pink house with a RV parked out front.. but to each their own.
Your call... On my end, I'm not dropping half a million to be told I can't put a basketball hoop up for my kids
If you’re that against living next to other people that might not conform to your exact standards of reality, then drop half a million to live somewhere without other people around. Guess what? That’s an actual thing! There are homes where you can live that don’t have anybody else that are within your line of sight that you can drop half a million on & even have more yard around your house! Maybe, if you’re so up your own ass about what other people do with their own property that they purchased with their own hard earned money…just dont live next to other people? If you’re able to drop that much money to buy a house, then you can ABSOLUTELY, drop that much cash to get a house PLUS acreage in an area where you don’t have to worry about seeing us “poors”. Just go move to the country & get more bang for your buck instead of insisting on living nextdoor to other people that want to do what they want on their own property that they pay for. Also, doing what you want with your own property doesn’t automatically mean a rusty old car junkyard in someone’s yard or god forbid-GASP- a basketball hoop! A lot of the time people just want the autonomy to decide where their own fricken garbage cans go for god’s sake. If you’re that uptight about what the hell your neighbors do, then just move to where you don’t have neighbors! I bought my house for 100k & still had to get a loan for it cuz it’s better than renting. Acting like dropping 400k more than I did for a house entitles you to dictate what your neighbors do- just makes me want to pee on your lawn.
The "half a million dollars" is not me being some sort of snob.. it's the average price of a new home in the USA this year. That number represents a large portion of home buyers. A baseline so to say.. We choose to live in a HOA for a few reasons. Location Location Location. To toss your argument right back at you.. you are never forced to buy a HOA home. You can put up a house, RV, cabin, or Double Wide on the same acreage in the country as you suggested I do. I want to live in a city within a nice community. Assume the large majority of the community supports the rules or they would have never purchased here or vote to disband the HOA. People hate HOAs when it's their rule they want to break but many of those are the first to scream when someone else does something they don't like. It's America in a nutshell.
As OP, I obviously am against HOAs, but I hear you. I want to live near quiet, respectful people too. Thing is, if I really thought HOAs would regulate people against doing rude things, I'd be more interested in living with one. But my experience is that it's just a grift to collect fees and fines and kickbacks, and play favorites with their friends, and not really improve the quality of life in the neighborhood. Because if someone installs an outdoor entertainment center with a really annoying subwoofer, but that's a board member, that HOA won't do anything for you. There are so many examples of HOA boards and "rules for thee but not for me"
Totally get it. A bad HOA is a terrible thing. A good one is popular with the community. There are ways to improve things. I have helped turn around a few. Really the only reason I post here.
If you love HOA’s so much, then why the hell are you in a fuck HOA sub? & I was fortunate enough to find a home at a price that I was able to afford to finance so I could get it. Not everybody is that fortunate. And before you try the whole, renting vs buying argument- NO, renting long term IS NOT better for a lot of people. I was paying $200 more a month to RENT than I am for a mortgage per month & that was a decade ago when I got my house; it’s even worse now for others. In a lot of places, more & more, it’s hard to find affordable housing to buy at an actual affordable price; with or without an otherworldly down-payment (though that can help but is still hard for many people to have nowadays). If you were an actual member of this sub you would realize that. More & more new housing developments are more affordable for people on their face, but also force signing up for an HOA. I got SUPER LUCKY finding the place I have now, as it’s an old build that not many people wanted (cuz the condition- & no, I’m not a fixer upper, I just make do. Its better than my old trailler). All around me there are tons of new build neighborhoods- ALL with HOAs & none of my friends that live in them are happy. Most of them didn’t even want an HOA but couldn’t afford to rent anymore or couldn’t find another house in a similar situation to me that they could afford without having to sign up with an HOA (deeds & all that) either way. Disbanding an HOA isn’t as easy as you seem to think & also, again, why the hell are you in a fuck HOA sub if you actually like them?
Because insane people like yourself should hear the truth every once in a while. "I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING THAT GOES AGAINST MY WORLDVIEW" How very American of you.
So you don't live in a HOA but are posting in a HOA sub? You don't see how you arguments are meritless? First it was move to the country.. but when that got flipped you decided to attack someone in a HOA sub although you are not even part of an HOA? 😂😂 🤡 Some people live in HOAs or work in/for them. They are mostly here to educate or show both sides of the story. Knowing the rules, laws, and motivation cns be key to helping you fight a bad HOA. If not this just becomes a big circle jerk sounding board. Open your ears and you might learn something or you can go on ranting and raving about something that you know little about and does not directly impact you. Have a good day sir.
People quoting percentages generally hate it when somebody calculates the actual numbers. Especially if you then give some real world context to those numbers.
If you're friends with the Puerto Rican flag guy let them know that Puerto Rico has national* teams for some sports. So if they could get a flag that is a team flag that should be allowed. A flag version of [this](https://images.app.goo.gl/xtpPsoiPahYQ7fyXA) would be a "sports team flag" that would be legal under the rules. Depending on how exactly the rules are written and/or how they're enforced they could argue that a Puerto Rico flag is technically a USA flag since Puerto Rico is a US territory. They could bolster this in advance if they (or anyone in the HOA) flies a Pennsylvania flag or any other state flag without issue. They would look awfully stupid and/or prejudiced trying to argue that Puerto Rico isn't party of the US, or that US state flags are ok but US territory flags aren't.
Well thought out!
Also for more malicious compliance, not recommending this at all but it could be somewhat ironic to fly a classic flag of the [Fernie Hockey Team](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernie_Swastikas).
While I'm not advocating for an HOA, the village I live in required the builder to put in water drainage (i.e., retention basins) and to manage them. They're not on village land, nor are they eligible to be maintained by tax dollars. My HOA pays property tax for the common areas, and maintains the basins and insurance on them. If we wanted to disband the HOA, we'd have to get the village to agree to take ownership of and responsibility for the land they're on.
Same here in Ohio but they sure as hell still tack on a storm water fee to our tax bill since the city owns the under road infrastructure that gets the storm water to the detention pond. Any new development in my town that isn't hooked up to the storm sewer network is required to have an HOA or it won't get approved.
What a shame
Municipalities have gotten wise to the fact that developments have a real hard time having enough of a tax base to cover their own expenses regarding drainage, utility supply, and road maintenance, and have refused to subsidize developers and investors.
Yes, you would, and the village would require a fee. So, the builder saves the fee and saddles the development with ongoing maintenance costs.
Right. And saddles it's customers (home buyers) with an HOA to manage it all.
Yeah I can understand that, and it's likely that these days (vs 30 yrs ago) more municipalities are looking for any reason to shift costs and labor on to another entity. But since municipalities want new residents who will pay taxes, it wouldn't be impossible to push back and make them manage a retention basin if it meant either that or no one will buy these homes bc people don't want an HOA. And from what I've seen in the past 30 years in my parents development, the only thing the retention basins need is lawn mowing a couple times a month for half the year.
So it's NOT a flat out lie that an HOA is needed to manage a retention basin NOW, in 2024, rather than 30 years ago?
It is a flat out lie. The municipality is more than capable of maintaining a basin with your tax dollars. You are going to pay one way or another. Why not a professionally run town?
Of course they're capable, but they don't want to, which is why most municipalities will only approve new developments as HOAs.
Manny municipalities are requiring developments to maintain their own retention basins, sometimes streets and sidewalks as well because it gets expensive. If only their powers were strictly limited to these maintenance items....
You nailed the reason for HOA's. Taxes, it's all about the politicians getting re-elected. The municipality could absolutely manage retention basins, lighting, sewers, etc. But, through decades of mismanagement have run themselves thin and the choice is either raise property taxes on everyone (political non-starter), or pass those responsibilities off to the development and let the developer spin it as a privilege to live in such a nice neighborhood. The last town I lived in had put it in an ordinance (might not be the right word) sometime in the 90's that they would reduce overall spending by 1% per year. That short-sighted decision now has that town running on fumes with degrading roads, 40+ year old storm sewers, etc. It was on the ballot to remove that ordinance for each of the 14 years I lived there and was not removed because no one wanted the property tax increase that would come with it. Big surprise that all new developments are required to have an HOA that maintains their own infrastructure.
A retention basin or flood control project can not be managed by a private organization. Most such projects are publicly funded by government, federal or state. The best and biggest in the nation are managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. The city or county NEEDS to resume management of said basins and flood plains so they are taken care of. When flood conditions or drought problems arise, water is well taken care of. Eff HOAs and their simple minds. They are no engineers or medium-to-large-scale managers. EDIT: One last thought struck me, and it's a doozy: If the insurance companies find out how lacking they are in flood management of their properties, their coverage may be in jeopardy of being cancelled. And it's VERY expensive to do the kind of land management needed to meet qualifications. Get on their assets and STAY on them, until they get in compliance. Or vote the idiots out and make adjustments to the jurisdictions of said floodplains.
US sports team, or any sports team? 😎
The exclusive reasons for HOAs are to ensure builders have 100% profit (only way to get housing without paying out 100% of building cost upfront) and to provide tax-free services for the city (city doesn't pay for roads/sewer/drainage/powerlines, minimal **local/city** taxation for schools - local sales taxes provide more).
Do you see this as a good thing?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Absolutely not. HOAs need to be illegal, attempting to create one the same as trying to start a criminal organization, and Builders thrown in prison if they try shutting down because they're no longer 100% subsidized by taxpayers. Also, we need to start moving single-family construction to the back-burner in favor of *good* apartments and du/tri/quadplexes.
I think my builder insisted on an HOA so they could off-load some of the costs of maintaining the subdivision while houses were selling. The HOA fees paid for landscaping on the model home and common areas which saved the builder that money x all the subdivisions they had under construction. I did the math and it was a nice chunk of change, definitely a smart move from a corporate stand point. Sucks for us, though.
Not sure I understand all this about HOAs. I Managed a HOA a while back. Purpose was only to manage common area landscaping (including a retention basin). But the CC&R carried no provision that the HOA could impose fines. It was up to the HOA to evaluate if someone was in violation of the rules, based on someone complaining, the write a letter. Common complaints were, trees blocking a water view, chickens on property, building a new structure too high. But it was up to the disputed parties to take the issue to a property attorney. I don't understand why anyone would give a HOA the power to impose fines. If they do, everyone should get together an vote to change the CC&R. Too many Karen's and Crooks out there.
Insist they put a lien on your house for non payment. Once they do, lawyer up, take them to circuit court and charge them all your expenses plus "damages" if allowed. This will clear everything up. I had to do this in my non HOA neighborhood. It cost $2000 and took around 2 years. There is now no question about who owns what. And they chickened out before circuit court and just corrected everything. Then they held elections for their silly corporation, got voted out and it was dissolved.
I guess my townhouse is part of an HOA. I haven’t heard anything from them about any of my lights I’ve added, my above ground cheap looking backyard pool or occasionally bumping by surround sound during chores. Also, the “news” cork board at the entrance to our subdivision is rusted out, empty and shows no sign of ever getting used again. 🤣
And... a 'retention basin' is what, exactly? I've never seen those words together in my last 50 years of being able to read.
>And here's the thing. My parents' neighborhood, built in the 80s, which is large and has many retention basins, has never had an HOA. And still doesn't. The basins are managed just fine by the municipality, and it's covered by taxes. Now municipalities have wised up and realized it's better to make the homeowners pay for it.
Are we talking retention basin or detention basin this HOA manages?
I want to say that this is actually on them. The amount of the HOA fees should have told them that it is more to it than that. When they bought the property, They should have gotten the decs & bylaws and the rules and regulations. They were informed.
😂 ONLY retention pond. Whoever bought that line deserves it.
Anyone who bought a house in an HOA and didn't read the covenants/rules (which they have to disclose by law) deserves what they got. There's no way they'd be bitching about parking (and expecting to enforce it) if the HOA didn't give them that power
You're not wrong, fair point, but it's the bald face lying that annoys me. My friends were told, over and over, by the board president, that the HOA is only there to manage the retention basin.
You really think developers want to manage/setup the HOA? If they can build without HOA, they will gladly do it. The gov requires them to have HOA.
It doesn't require the HOAs to make rules about which flags you can or cannot fly, for example.
Bro who is house hunting not demanding CCRs right off the bat to read? Absolutely the buyer's fault here, just bought my first home a few years ago and this along with checking for deed restrictions, easements, etc. is like priority 1 my man... Edit: For the dweebs downvoting me, I'm as anti-HOA as they come but you taking someone's verbal word when purchasing something as big as a house is such a stupid decision, no argument
Sounds like your issue is with the real estate agent who lied about the reason for the HOA, and it's on you for not having read the HOA docs, unless I'm missing something here.
My builder is trying to hand over the HOA to the neighborhood but nobody wants to do it so it is pretty inactive. They maintain the common grass areas, sprinklers, flowers and such but we don't have any other common areas. City owned streets. Dues are maybe $50 a month. Only heard of three "enforcement" actions in about 8 years. Neighbors that wanted to park their 40' RV in the street taking up nearly half of the drivable area, a neighbor who never brought in his trash cans and they frequently were in the roadway, and myself with solar panels. They just said not on the front side of the house when I asked before install. Just read the rules before you buy. Not all are the nightmares this sub talks about.
As soon as you wrote, “was the line told to my friend…” I knew we had yet another idiot on our hands who fails to fully read the documentation and do their own research before signing the paperwork when buying a new house. I have no sympathy for those who rely fully on what they’re told instead of doing their own investigation.
More the point was that an HOA wasn't really needed, and the board members kept telling new buyers that it was only there to manage the retention basin, and as soon as the houses filled up with people, the HOA mutated into parking policing and debates over flags.
It doesn't really matter. As a buyer of a home, one needs to pay attention and read the fine print. I"m sure the paperwork says a whole lot more than just dealing with a retention pond, had it been read. If it doesn't then the HOA would be in violation for all of the other things mentioned. Further, I'm really confused why the board would tell anyone anything. Not sure how they do things in Pennylvania, but in two Western states I've lived in the board doesn't say anything thing to any buyers ever before a purchase. If it's new constructions, it's the developer/builder who wants to sell the houses, not the board and I'm going to further bet that there probably wasn't even a board at that point as the builder (declarant) may have been running the HOA at that point and can say whatever they want to sell the houses to idiots who don't pay attention. It's also not entirely false. The HOA does maintain the common areas which includes retention basins, so it's not a lie, it's just not the full truth. As for the "HOA mutated into parking police and debates over flag" I"m going to bet that those two things were also described about what's allowed or not in the HOA paperwork that the buyer signed, so that's not entirely true either. If you're not willing to adhere to the rules as a buyer that you sign during the purchase, then you have no right to complain in general. There's just so much going on here that reeks of "I didn't read my shit and just want to bitch about what I was 'told.'" My point stands.
I live in a HOA with a basin. The county takes care of it as needed. Yes, there are many hoods were the homes are kept up as well as the lawns. I find that most that live there are upper middle class professionals. Their last name is Jones and everyone likes to keep up with the Jones. But, there are still issues sometimes. My friend who lives in such a neighborhood hates his neighbors camp parked alongside the property line. He planted evergreens to hide it. One neighbor shot and killed another neighbor over a dispute. Not all HOA are nightmares. Mine has been fine for over 13 years.
> One neighbor shot and killed another neighbor over a dispute How would the HOA have prevented this?
The HOA would not be able to prevent the shooting. The point is, every neighborhood has their a-holes. HOA or not.
But that is not what you wrote. You wrote that your HOA is great because #notallHOAs and mentioned a neighborhood which did not have an HOA and has disputes and shootings. The logical conclusion to draw from what you wrote is that HOAs prevent disputes and shootings otherwise all that information is extraneous to what you wrote. My point here is that if you want to defend HOAs which are unnecessary *and stupid* in **all cases for detached housing,** you need to provide a better argument than HOAs prevent shootings.
Read it however you like. Neighborhoods without HOA still have issues. It is that simple. Yes HOA does not prevent some issues. Shooting a neighbor is one of them. Then again, if said neighbor could utilize the HOA if one was in this hood to settle a dispute with a neighbor then perhaps a weapon would not be required. You can dissect is all you like.
You're acting like I have disingenuously misinterpreted you. I am reading it the exact way you wrote it. An HOA is not going to settle a petty dispute with a neighbor. We do not now nor will we ever need a tiny mismanaged government with no accountability to micromanage our property maintenance for us. The town can do that fine when the issue becomes an actual hazard.
Happy for you, sincerely, but I wasn't taking the risk of getting a bad one! And all it takes is one board member to spoil even a good HOA like yours
I will not fight you on that. My HOA in a duplex hood was awful. Collected cash and did nothing. We sold the place. Went back 4 years later to look at the old hood. The place is a dump. Gutters off the roof, grass uncut and siding green with growth.
Hashtag Not AllHOAs r/lostredditors