144
submitted 11 months ago by Confidant6198@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

Let’s say that you buy a home in cash and have 100% paid off. Could you still lose it somehow?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TenderfootGungi@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

HOA’s should not have rules or enforcement power inside city limits. They are duplicating the role of the city. That is different than community maintenance off of public right of way.

[-] Sunforged@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago

I live in a townhouse that is one of 30 on our lot. All of the houses are a part of a land trust program that owners have to qualify in order to buy, a minimum income set to ensure applicants can pay a mortgage and a maximum set by the average income of the city. The houses are sold at cost and buyers agree to sell at that cost, plus a small percentage of equity gain per year lived in the house. Property taxes are fixed to this valuation agreement so nobody in the program is forced out of their home from real estate bubbles.

The HOA is responsible for repaying our shared driveway, external window cleaning, gutter cleaning, ect. On three storied townhouses some of those tasks would be difficult for neighbors to manage themselves and kinda ridiculous for each individual to take care of, when pooling resources is a simpler solution.

Your view of HOAs is entirely skewed by suburbia, which is terrible community planning from the onset.

[-] voracitude@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Yeah, HOAs for residential neighbourhoods of houses with each house on its own land are bullshit, no question. Those are the ones that don't actually do anything, though (as far as I can tell anyway).

My HOA does have some petty rules, like specifying the backing colour of drapes or the shape of our windows, doors, etc. Some make a lot of sense, like "your balcony cannot be covered in dog shit" (which I'm paraphrasing but it's a recent addition spurred by at least one person leaving their balcony covered in it for weeks at a time), or "Damage to communal property by contractors or guests will be paid for by the homeowner contracting the workers/hosting the guests".

I think part of the problem is that under US law there are few restrictions on contracts that adults enter of their own free will. This approach kind of assumes equal power on both sides which obviously isn't the case here, or even most of the time.

The other issue of course is that greater regulation requires greater operating cost most of the time (if for no other reason than extra compliance burden), and ends up further raising the bar for citizens to band together and build communal utilities it other improvements that would be too great for a single person to bear.

It's a tough problem, and curtailing freedoms generally isn't a winning solution in the US, but it sure does need a solution. We all have enough to deal with; middle managers measuring your grass for a taste of authority aren't helping anyone.

this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
144 points (97.4% liked)

Asklemmy

43728 readers
1792 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS