If everyone refused to buy with a HOA, then they would vanish in new builds, and could even be uniformly voted to disband in old builds.
But apparently some like HOAs (don't ask me why).
Sometimes I even break the rules and put my garbage bins out too early and leave them out too late and I’ve never heard a word about it.
There was even a foreclosed house in the neighborhood that was increasingly unmaintained, and the HOA hounded the bank and got them to take better care of the property until it was finally sold.
Overall, our HOA is a net positive.
I also was part of an HOA for 4-unit condo building I lived in previously. It was perfectly fine and its purpose and necessity was very apparent.
I’m sure there are nightmare HOAs out there, just like there are nightmare neighbors in places with no HOA.
We are witnessing this right now, having not moved from our townhome. First decade was great, everyone follow the rules, HOA cared about the look of our properties and kept everyone in check. Then HOA stopped sending letters about the dirty facades. Then the neighbors one by one all decided its okay to leave their garbage cans out even though the bylaws specifically forbid this. Then they cut back on services they offer (illegal parking is only enforced during HOA business hours, no more landscape maintenance), they stopped enforcement (neighbor has 4 pets, facades haven't been cleaned in 5-6 years, trash and toys are being left in the shared driveway). The final slap in the face, we got an email last month saying they are raising the HOA fee by 25%.
Unlike socialism, I can politic my way into the board and demand change. Which looks like something I'm going to have to do to get back the HOA (and property) that I loved
> Unlike socialism, I can politic my way into the board and demand change.
That sounds like the definition of socialism. What do you mean?
They might hire out property management duties to an outside firm
I have no idea what an HOA has to do at all with socialism, apart from the fact both involve groups of people.
Aside from that, an HOA functions as well as it is run. It sounds like the folks running yours aren't all the invested in it or don't have the same priorities as you. The solution is, as you stated, being the one to try and make the change by joining the HOA leadership.
In my case, I don't have that issue, and the HOA is a few years past 30 running now. I suppose I'm lucky that there's enough homeowners in the neighborhood who are both will and able to run things to an acceptable standard.
This is because small local governments are often too cash poor to foot the additional road maintenance, utilities, etc so they want to offload the cost to the developers/ the developers customers.
I don’t understand how this could be true.
I’m in Auckland, New Zealand and don’t have a housing association.
I pay about US$1500 per year in property tax. It covers rubbish collection, library access, street cleaning, park maintenance, subsidised public transport (which is an abysmal service) etc.
https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/property-rates-valuation...
The size of the house isn’t as important as the value. If you’re laying $14k/year in property taxes, your house is likely appraised for $1-1.5M.
Nationally speaking, Decatur has pretty low property taxes. Especially since you’re probably a short distance from the Brick Store Pub.
The HOA does have significant common areas including a pool and park that has been there since the beginning. It also has hilly open spaces that require annual weed and brush clearing for fire breaks. These areas also have landslide potential with drainage and retaining wall engineering issues, which adds to both contractor costs and also increases insurance premiums for the HOA.
My parents bought their house new for under $45k in 1975 and are currently assessed at under $170k based on the Prop 13 logic. It's hard to say what the market value is since recently sold homes in the area have had significant remodeling compared to my parents' time-capsule, but I imagine they could get nearly $1M. They probably represent the lower limit of assessments in their neighborhood. Most neighboring houses have been resold and reset to market rates at least once in the past 50 years, or at least done some major renovations which also partially increase the assessment for tax purposes.
There are people who own condos in my region who pay $900/month in HOA fees on top of $900/month in property taxes.
As you say, that’s a massive difference.
And if it’s getting tricky, you can usually find a politician who is sympathetic and will bend the rules for you.
Thiel managed 12 days here before citizenship came though, but if you aren’t as rich as him I’m sure we could come to an arrangement.
If working here, you’ll be alarmed by the low wages, high housing costs (for low quality housing) and high cost of living. However bad you think it is, it’s worse.
But other stuff is great!
The typical argument on this site here is: Europe doesn't have a thriving tech center because of high taxes. The HOAs and stuff like that is a consequence of the different tax burden. So I guess your total taxability is lower than ours shrug
If your neighborhood hires landscapers, or has a pool, or you share literally any part of the building structure, then an HOA comes into play. Often new developments have private roads that need maintenance, snow clearing, etc.
When I bought my first house, I was adamant that I didn’t want an HOA. Over the next ten years the neighborhood went to crap. I ended up living next to neighbors who didn’t maintain their yards, parked junker cars on their lawn and let their houses go to trash.
When I moved, I specifically wanted an HOA. After five years, I still love my HOA. Mostly for two reasons. First, other neighbors here generally have the same mind set and care about their most expensive possession. Second when someone starts letting things slide the HOA slaps ‘‘em on the wrist.
I live in north Seattle area where non-HOA homes are priced higher than HOA homes. The area has a couple of older somewhat rundown houses and no one cares. Prices are still at least $100k higher than the new builds with HOAs on the next block. So there goes the old excuse for maintaining home value.
I want to live in a neighborhood with others who feel the same way.
To your second point, yes, not all HOAs are great. If you frequent fark.com, you'll find multiple threads per month about some terrible thing an HOA is doing. But, that's why you do your due diligence when selecting an HOA. You carefully read the CC&Rs before signing on the house, you talk to others in the neighborhood before moving in. Much like selecting an insurance plan. For example, my HOA is setup so that leadership fully rotates every 3 years, with the rotations staggered. Worst case we get bad leadership for 1 year. Though, so far, in the in the 15 years the HOA has existed, they've done nothing but enforce rules everyone has agreed to. (Well that, and they killed off a bunch of common-area grass by hiring the cheapest lawn care they could find. )
> they've done nothing but enforce rules everyone has agreed to
But that's not really true is it? Most people buying a house in America do not have access to HOA by-laws until after signing. It's increasingly hard to even find homes that don't belong to a HOA unless you have the financial means to buy wherever you like. Plus, HOAs aren't opt-in/out either.
It doesn't matter if a majority of you decide on rules, unless the same majority is willing to fork out money to pay my mortgage+taxes, Idgaf what you have to say.
> I want to live in a neighborhood with others who feel the same way.
If you really believe this, you can go ahead and disband the HOA. You don't need to enforce with a stick if this is really the case.
This is not true
But you generally have to ask for them when you make the offer, or the law doesn’t protect you.
Redfin, Zillow disclose HOA fees. Nothing prevents the buyer or their agent from requesting docs or calling the HOA directly
But the main thing, is that you have to ask for the docs at the very start, or those laws don’t really protect you.
I know John Oliver mentioned in his HOA segment that this is sometimes the case, but it's definitely not "most" locations and I actually don't know where it is true (wish he had clarified).
It's definitely not true in Massachusetts, New Hampshire or California because I'm familiar with the real estate laws of those states.
It all comes down to luck of the draw.
Someone who wants a place quieter than the noise level the city enforces can find a development with an HOA that sets a lower level. Someone who is particularly sensitive to smoke can find a development that bans outdoor fires on more days than the city does.
As long as an HOA is only limiting things that actually affect other people and maintaining common property, and it is legally structured in a way that prevents scope creep (or ensures that existing owners are grandfathered if new restrictions are imposed), I don't see anything inherently wrong with having an HOA.
But they also aren’t allowed to monitor grass height and whatnot.
But that’s the big thing with all construction. It’s super, super regulated. It’s probably the most heavily regulated thing there is… what gets built is the small subset of things that can both work financially and get approved. If you got on the right merry go round early enough, it’s great. It’s probably the biggest thing creating inequality.
The irony is that long term, many HOAs hurt property values. But supposedly they exist to enhance property values.
https://equitablegrowth.org/land-rather-than-capital-the-lon...
You can kind of see a similar shift today in how teens/young adults are losing interest in driving — something their great-grandparents would have thought crazy. “But a car is what makes you free!”
The reason many see these as unstable today is because of the default-ness of single family housing as the default goal. Similarly how driving a car was the default goal for 16 year olds for several generations.
It’s hard to imagine not wanting to purchase a home because we’ve been sold it as the smart and obvious thing to do for quite awhile now.
I've seen rents go up with inflation where inflation grows at 25% yoy, and I've seen people kicked out of an apartment 3 months after moving in because the owner found a buyer with a good deal.
But I agree with you, single family housing is the goal for some cultures and generations, and it was carefully crafted by governmental policy, propaganda, marketing and third party interests. We are now seeing the consequences of such.
Yet, not all people have that goal, but a lot are content to just owning a place to live even with relatives, a community or others.
I feel it's hard to not wanting to own something if it grants more rights and protections against injustices. In the countries I've lived, having a property deed of any sorts with your name on it makes your life so much better and stress free.
A lot of this comes down to what an individual values and my argument is that what individuals value when it comes to housing will change drastically over the coming 50 or so years.
I read an article recently (can't find it immediately) proposing a social housing mechanism where you pay into it via rent and gain equity not in the specific housing unit itself, but rather in the social housing program as a whole. Kind of like a REIT, only at a certain point you get an entitlement to a housing unit and no longer have to pay rent, as if you'd paid off a mortgage.
Here in most of Europe its luxury with 2 faces - it costs significantly more of your money, time and energy to own it. Is it worth spending the little free time you have in your life with just plain stupid property maintenance? For me its a skill I happily delegate to (much) less earning fellows, and I spend that time with family, doing sports and adventures or just relaxing.
Ie in Switzerland, due to way property taxes are setup, its very ineffective to fully own your house. To inherit is sort of curse or at least a burden, you usually immediately have to sell. Nobody apart from few whiny expacts complaints about it, people have actual lives to take care of and focus on much more important matters.
Rates in European countries [1].
Rates in the US [2].
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/246355/home-ownership-ra...
From my perspective as a mid-30s millennial, much of what's fueling desire to own a home right now is the ability to turn housing costs into a semi-fixed and mostly predictable expense, even if mortgages aren't all that much cheaper than renting in the short term. That assurance is worth quite a lot.
As a homeowner, this is not an advantage of owning a home. Houses are huge money sinks. The cost of rent is MUCH more predictable.
Even when a big unexpected house expense inevitably happens I will have had the benefit of having been able to invest the cash that would've otherwise have been spent in the meantime somewhere where it's making some interest instead of going into the black hole of rent with no returns at all.
I went one year where I spent at least $16,000 on repairs.
But that's the point - having $16,000 in repairs unexpectedly is the opposite of "semi-fixed and mostly predictable."
In the 10 years I rented I always rented from small landlords. I had three apartments during that 10 years. Because of that I've never had my rent increase without moving.
As far as black holes go - I spend more than $600/month in just property taxes and insurance. Add to that $360/month currently in interest.
1. Overestimating the predictability of the costs of owning a home. As a renter, I know exactly what I will pay for the next year. A homeowner doesn’t have that same knowledge.
2. Comparing rent to mortgage for equivalent properties. Yes, renting the same property will generally compare unfavorably to purchasing it. But compare a 2-bedroom apartment to a 4-bedroom home and the apartment becomes much more competitive financially. However then it comes down to personal preference for the place you want to live, not a rational cost analysis.
3. Underestimating the stress of owning a home and overestimating the stress of renting - but this is also mostly a personal and perspective thing.
Having previously been renting in the SF Bay Area, ownership worked out much better in my case. With the rate that rent had been increasing there it'd take several bad unexpected house repairs each year to equal the increases.
Factoring in planned improvements might make money spent over time more of a wash, but the big difference there is that I can save and plan for improvements… point in case I have planned major bathroom renovations that I've been sticking money into a high yield savings account for. If push comes to shove, don't actually need to do the renovations though, and that money can go towards other more important things helping mitigate or prevent financial disaster. On most peoples' salaries that's difficult to do when renting unless you're renting something so small that it's difficult to use as anything but a place to sleep.
This is kind of getting at my point and prediction. Cars were once seen as Freedom Machines that people were dying to operate when they turned 16.
I believe in future generations will see housing as more than a place to sleep but won’t continue to drool over a 3 or 4 bedroom single family home. People are having fewer kids and the climate is going to make maintaining a yard a bigger hassle and cost in many areas.
I do own an individual house in Tokyo and don't have, need or want a car, so it is definitely possible when the society wants it and politics allows it.
We need to decentralize.
There's also many things that don't work out economically for towns below a certain size. This is why little towns of 1k-10k tend to have only megacorp chain shops and restaurants — despite the cost of operations being so much cheaper than they are in more urban areas, things like little family owned bakeries, delis, etc are mostly found in cities in the US.
The latter of those paragraphs could perhaps be changed, but it'd take an earth-shattering level of infrastructural redevelopment that I don't see happening any time soon.
Hard disagree here. Decentralization might reduce housing costs, but makes many other things more expensive. More roads to pave and maintain. Higher delivery costs. More time in the car to get to work, shopping, entertainment.
What we need is more/smarter infill development. And the elimination of R1 zoning (single-family only). Let the market decide what housing density should exist on a given block (within reason).
I think when people talk about decentralization they usually mean people moving from the big cities to existing less big cities. Those less big cities are usually built on the road and/or rail networks that are used to supply the big cities.
Decentralizing to such exiting smaller cities wouldn't necessarily be costly, especially if not done too fast.
Our cities are built unlike any other city in the world. We live in vast swaths of suburban sprawl that is so decentralized you get cities like LA where it takes over an hour to get anywhere within the city.
The problem is opposite. We aren't dense enough. No plot of land should be single family.
Sb-9 and adus are designed to help relieve this problem, but ultimately residential areas should all be apartment units 10 stories high when there's a population mismatch with housing and people. Singapore, Shenzhen, Tokyo, Shanghai and any other city evolves their urban infrastructure with a change in population. The western US chooses not to do shit.
LA traffic is way way better than Beijing traffic. They aren't even comparable, really.
Having lived in LA before (Westwood actually), I know that is false. While Shanghai is pretty dense, Beijing is much less so, although the notion of a city in China includes rural areas as well. Both are denser than LA, but I’m not sure Americans are ready to live in 30 story concrete boxes.
Yes, China has lots of people, but the infrastructure to support their density still isn’t that great. It has improved, driving still sucks but subway is a real option now vs in 2007.
If you lived in westwood that means you likely went to UCLA and the neighborhood there is uniquely apartments because its for students. The majority of LA with the exception of downtown and westwood is majority suburban sprawl with apartments sprinkled in little pockets everywhere.
Most of california is like this because it developed after car culture. If you go to the east coast which began developing before the automobile you will see that the cities their are much more dense and much better suited for public transportation.
We looked at lots of places around LA before renting in Westwood, lots of apartments. The apartment came with a parking spot, we owned a car.
Now, ya, there were lots of SFHs, just that not everyone or even nearly everyone was living in an SFH.
Not "everyone" lives in a parcel of suburban land. Of course not, home ownership even in suburbia (LA or not) is not affordable by everyone. So LA like every other suburbia out there in existence has many pockets of areas zoned as multi family apartments.
When I say "everyone" I mean the general way of life for someone who's not transient/starting out and living in popular areas. Obviously there aren't suburbs with zero apartments. LA is still overall suburban cul de sacs. You stay there long enough you will be able to afford a home, just not in Westwood.
Westwood is one of the most expensive areas in LA. There are plenty of areas that are cheaper and much much more affordable. You likely only looked for things west of UCLA due to proximity to your job or desirability of the neighborhoods. That area is extremely expensive and just a small (although popular) part of LA. Go south and go east (skipping past Beverley hills) and you'll see places where things get cheaper and youll get a better view a larger section of LA.
I come from a large area east of DT LA which encompasses even larger swaths of suburban sfh that rivals the size of the neighborhoods close to the coast. Starting out people live in apartments. Over time they graduate into buying a sfh and paying a mortgage. Owning and living in a sfh is the typical life path of someone living in LA or suburbia.
China has a huge population. So it's more reasonable for them to emit more gas given population size.
If we want to be pedantic, the tiny middle eastern oil rich cities are the biggest emitters per capita but their impact is small given the small population. Australia also beats the US but they are also much smaller then the US.
In terms of any reasonable impact measurement the world stands to gain the most if the US cuts down usage. Hence why I chose the US as the number one emitter. We stand to benefit if China cuts down too but they are at roughly half our emissions per capita meaning such cuts will be viciously closer to the bone if you know what I mean.
I understand the spiritual idea of trying to measure per capita, but I think for something as severe as climate change, the only relevant metric is the absolute one.
Following your line of logic, Antarctica emits the least greenhouse gases of any country or continent. Per Capita doesn't matter so whatever Antarctica does, they're doing it right.. nothing to do with the fact that the country is practically empty.
It's not spiritual at all. The realistic measure is per Capita. If you aren't measuring it this way... and I say this to be factual and with no intention to offend .. but if a person isn't measuring it this way when they have awareness of the per Capita factor then that person is concretely (not spiritually) stupid.
You are not definitely not stupid. For something as severe as climate change the per Capita measurement matters absolutely.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/04/21/ge...
So i think the trendline in terms of homeownership rates seems to be gently decreasing for all age groups, but there's a big spike during the 2 housing bubbles we've seen when rates were at historic lows.