Re:The world is socialist
by staccatomeasure on Sunday August 04, 2013 @02:20PM
(#6156509)
What happens when that HOA needs to make a new rule? From what you described it sounds like any person on the losing end of an argument is being violated, and an HOA that has to deal with anything but some basic set of agreed upon rules will not satisfy the non-violation requirements.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The world is socialist
by thelastuser on Sunday August 04, 2013 @02:30PM
(#6156551)
I cannot speak for the parent, but disagreements can be resolved by independent, third-party arbitration (which may have also been agreed upon by the HOA). This is not to be confused with a territorial monopoly on final arbitration, viz. a government court.
Re:The world is socialist
by staccatomeasure on Sunday August 04, 2013 @02:38PM
(#6156589)
HOA's can be formed based on a premise that democratic procedures govern the creation/modification of new rules.
Re:The world is socialist
by staccatomeasure on Sunday August 04, 2013 @02:52PM
(#6156636)
Wasn't your original idea something that democratic procedures violate people? Is difference that in an HOA you agree to the procedures, instead of being born into them?
This is actually a very deep question.
To oversimplify, yes, the difference is that you've consented to the rules. Imagine you and your friends decide to order a pizza and agree to vote on the toppings. That's fine. But it's not fine for a friend to force you to pay for the pizza when you didn't agree to do so.
Is it OK for you, a neighbor, and your friend to agree on the toppings of the pizza and then for your neighbor and yourself to "vote in" different toppings for every succeeding pizza?
Your friend consented to the first pizza, but he didn't consent to any pizza after, except insofar as you can say that his remaining a member of the pizza-owners' association represents actual consent.