A federal opt out would be a huge intrusion into contract law, IMHO.
It's pretty easy to avoid HOAs, they have to be disclosed. It may be hard to buy where you want to buy and avoid HOAs though. But my parents' house doesn't have an HOA (but does have pretty picky city code enforcement), and the two houses I've owned didn't either; although the first did have a dry covenant that everyone I talked to said is unenforcable and I found amusing. Tends to mean older lots or more rural, because new developments like to setup HOAs, presumably because the buyers of new homes don't reject them.
Some sort of association is also more or less required if there's any form of shared responsibility, like in a condo.
This is why I always cringe when my neighbors on social media bitch about HOA. It just floors me that there are people who simply do not read HOA covenants before they buy their homes.
> It may be hard to buy where you want to buy and avoid HOAs though.
Gotta fully accept the tradeoffs you make.
I swore I’d never buy in an HOA community angain after that, but around me, non-HOA communities are crap. I want to maximize value and opportunity to resell so, HOA it is.
If you know the tree is going to immediately start dying, you're just going to find the cheapest, least healthy sapling at the nursery. Had they let you wait until the tree is more likely to survive, there's a better chance you'd be willing to spend a bit more to buy an older/larger sapling that'll look better and provide more shade from the start. Plus, the temporary tree slowly dying would probably be less visually appealing than an empty spot for a few months.
There are reasons why we plant street trees: improved aesthetics, increased home value, shade along the street and sidewalks, traffic calming effects, etc. By ignoring the reason behind them and just focusing on checking the box, your HOA was just begging for some malicious compliance that undermined the benefits of the replacement tree.
Land is a limited resource. We are not making any more of it. Sometimes just looking farther away is an option but often times it isn't.
HOA's being required on certain properties is bonkers to me. It feels like extortion. Either agree to these onerous terms or get nothing.
It's 100% true that you can avoid HOAs by simply not buying into one. No need for bureaucrats in DC to parachute in to run everyone lives for them. If you want to "opt-out" you can easily do so by not buying in an HOA. That's what the majority of people do. Having the government mandate the ability to opt-out is simply another way of denying others the ability to freely come together and decide rules for themselves instead of having people in DC decide for everyone.
It's entirely possible for someone to buy a property which is subject to an HOA, a well run respectful one. Then over time as "leaders" change, the HOA could become a poorly run one.
Particularly it looks like if you want a new home, it is harder to avoid a HOA
I have also heard of badly run and even fraudulent HOAs, that take money and then don’t use it for the good of the homeowners. But I doubt this is the norm.
Suburban HOAs essentially function only to browbeat everyone into maintaining their property according to arbitrary standards. While usually well intentioned, initially, because these standards are arbitrary, they often result in abuses of power.
In either situation, condo or suburban, the politics of an HOA often result in the HOA becoming dominated by bad actors, increasing the propensity for abuse.
Solution - Refuse to purchase property subject to an HOA. I realize this might not be a tenable solution for some people, and I find that to be a very unfortunate situation. We should really educate our friends, kids, neighbors on the perils of these often-broad and legally binding agreements that seem to be sneaking into real-estate contracts/deeds at an alarming rate nationally. If you aren't comfortable with each and every provision being enforced upon you, don't purchase!
Regarding the grass lawn situation, there are alternatives like mixing in clover varieties which actually fix nitrogen (e.g. improve soil health) while requiring considerably less water than most lawn grass to survive. Here in urban Denver my wife and I have opted for a 100% "mini clover" lawn in both the front and back yards. It's already green and growing while neighboring yards are still dead winter brown grass. It also stays nice and green well into the late fall after most grass is dormant/dead.
I realize this doesn't do a lot to address the biodiversity angle the article took on, but it's a potential alternative for those seeking options. If you allow it to grow a bit you'll get flowers that are helpful for pollinators in addition to the healthier soil. I can attest that after you give the clover seed 6 weeks or so to set roots and sprout (no walking on, keep it moist) it will serve you for years. We're on year 4 at our house. No regrets.