Very important detail there, I didn’t even consider that until y’all said it.
I’ve got an idea to fix the bad HOA issues if anyone wants to hear me out. It’s a simple, practical solution.
If an HOA wants to form, it must first get enough residents to hold a fair democratic vote as to whether they should exist at all. The time leading up to the vote would be short, maybe a month, tops. This time would allow the potential HOA to state its case, and what value it intends to provide specifically in writing.
At any point an audit could be called by majority vote, and any HOA lying about the books, or that can’t prove that it specifically is responsible for raising home values, they would be forced to close down.
My understanding is that a lot of HOAs are formed prior to occupation (during the development phase).
This is a deal done between the developer and city to lower costs. Suburbs are expensive per/capita to administer and maintain, so I think the hope is the HOA takes some of those costs.
Regardless, any HOA (to my knowledge?) Must be voted is regularly (in my city condo syndicates need to revote the board every year, I assume the same applies for “flat condos”/HOAs). All financials also need to be public, there’s no room for shinanigans (I’ve been trying to dump my board seat for years, keep getting voted in under protest).
All that to say, HOAs may be a requirement of the local government, but the is nothing stopping the members from voting in a new board and dropping the HOA down to bare legal minimums.
I’m pretty sure a lot of HOAs are formed by property developers before the first house is sold. Not all of them are specifically to increase property values. Condo HOAs are necessary to maintain the common areas. Some HOAs maintain a pool or communal areas. But yeah, I’ll only live in an HOA community if it’s a condo.
Ye, the article says it prevents local govts from enforcing hoa-style laws, but didn’t say anything about hoas themselves.
Idk how those work legally, I luckily don’t have to deal with them.
If the state explicitly protects the right, no authority below the state can prohibit it.
Very important detail there, I didn’t even consider that until y’all said it.
I’ve got an idea to fix the bad HOA issues if anyone wants to hear me out. It’s a simple, practical solution.
If an HOA wants to form, it must first get enough residents to hold a fair democratic vote as to whether they should exist at all. The time leading up to the vote would be short, maybe a month, tops. This time would allow the potential HOA to state its case, and what value it intends to provide specifically in writing.
At any point an audit could be called by majority vote, and any HOA lying about the books, or that can’t prove that it specifically is responsible for raising home values, they would be forced to close down.
My understanding is that a lot of HOAs are formed prior to occupation (during the development phase).
This is a deal done between the developer and city to lower costs. Suburbs are expensive per/capita to administer and maintain, so I think the hope is the HOA takes some of those costs.
Regardless, any HOA (to my knowledge?) Must be voted is regularly (in my city condo syndicates need to revote the board every year, I assume the same applies for “flat condos”/HOAs). All financials also need to be public, there’s no room for shinanigans (I’ve been trying to dump my board seat for years, keep getting voted in under protest).
All that to say, HOAs may be a requirement of the local government, but the is nothing stopping the members from voting in a new board and dropping the HOA down to bare legal minimums.
deleted by creator
I’m pretty sure a lot of HOAs are formed by property developers before the first house is sold. Not all of them are specifically to increase property values. Condo HOAs are necessary to maintain the common areas. Some HOAs maintain a pool or communal areas. But yeah, I’ll only live in an HOA community if it’s a condo.