Yes, counties can pass laws and put you in jail for breaking those laws.
As Iâve already noted, whether they do or donât is ultimately irrelevant to the question here, given that they wouldnât cease to be governments if they lacked the power to pass criminal statutes, but your naked assertion is really no answer to the question.
Will you at least admit that counties can pass laws and arrest people for breaking those laws? If we canât get that far, thereâs not a chance we can have a productive conversation.
The catchphrase âFollow The Moneyâ would seem to be appropriate hereâŚ
Government - Funded by taxpayer money.
HOA - Funded by voluntarily paid membership fees.
Ones a contract you can choose whether to enter into or not, the other you can go to jail if you choose to not.
Will I at least admit that counties can always (in all 50 states) pass criminal statutes, something that Iâm not aware of any evidence for and that you havenât provided any evidence for and that would be irrelevant even if it were true, because even you havenât asserted that county governments would cease to be governments if they lacked the power to pass criminal statutes?
HOA fees are no more voluntary than property taxes. So long as you own a property in the jurisdiction of the state/county/city/HOA, those fees/taxes arenât voluntary. And who goes to jail for failing to pay property taxes? Doesnât the government just put a lien on your property and then eventually auction your property off? And canât HOAâs do the same? In any case, HOAâs have the power to force people to pay those fees.
And as for the âchoose whether to enter into or not,â you can choose whether to enter into an HOA, just like you can choose whether to buy a house in a city, but once someone has bought property in an HOA or a city, that person (and his heirs and their heirs, etc.) are forced to pay taxes/fees.
2 Likes
Probably better do another check.
In 2016, the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that sharing online passwords is a crime prosecutable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Nobody has been prosecuted yet⌠so you are still somewhat safe.
However Netflix etc does now know who shares passwords or uses it in another household⌠and you will be charged around $3/month for this.
Its to their benefit financially that you do so⌠less benefit for prosecuting you.
But then I can personally do the same⌠If I loan you money and you fail to pay it back, if you break the terms and conditions in the contract I write up (and you sign). Does that make me âa governmentâ?
Not that I donât see your analogy⌠HOAs are âlikeâ governments, on a smaller scale⌠Federal â State â County â City governments⌠Then thereâs a âsubdivisionâ which requires being a member of and paying an HOA (and maintaining your fence/flowers how they specify). So certainly âsimilarâ but⌠Can an âHOAâ annex some other subdivision and force all residents of to join?
I was house hunting in 2012/2013 and if I had found one which was otherwise perfect, but required ceding any control to an HOA, Iâd have probably passed⌠Similar as far as government, if Iâd have found one across the state line where there is a state income tax and personal property taxes, Iâd have probably passed.
Did I ever say they couldnât counter sue and win? Of course they can. The reason is because the courts have affirmed them as proxy governmental agencies with all the right implied therein. But that doesnât mean the individual shouldnât try if they feel strongly about a rule (law) they disagree with. People sometimes evolve spiritually, emotionally, intellectually. Are you saying that a person should be forever bound to the feelings and logical understanding about their role and obligations in the world that they had 5 years ago, 50? In my opinion people are entitled to evolve and make different choices for themselves as they go through life. If that means challenging what you now see as an unreasonable stipulation of a government or proxy governmental agency (HOA), then you should have that right.
By the way, comparing an HOA to a car lease is logically incorrect on so many levels I wonât bore you with a long explanation. Just know they are legally dissimilar. An HOA, on the other hand, is nearly indistinguishable from a civic government in respect to the power it has over the rights of the individual.
1 Like
Those are completely different. The reasons are manifold and have to do with complex intricacies of contract law. I wonât bore you with a long explanation. If you are interested there are ample sources online for your inquiry. Just know that the role of an HOA has been affirmed by the courts to be a proxy of government. Challenging an HOA is very much akin to challenging a civic government. This is just fundamental.
3 Likes
Well Iâm not a DA, but I am an attorney, and I think an HOA would be âquasi-governmentalâ and has essentially the same governmental authority as an incorporated town too small to have its own police force. Notice how towns also use that term âincorporatedâ? Because townships are also essentially just corporations. Buying a home within town limits is the same as buying a home with an HOA attached. The town charter is just a contract you accept when you enter the town limits!
But even taking your âitâs just a contractâ viewpoint, I think more people should challenge the authority of powerful entities that force you to accept take-it-or-leave-it contract terms, especially when those contracts limit your rights with respect to fundamental things like what you can do to your home (HOA), what food you can grow (seed saving from GMO crops), whether you can collect your own rain water (many areas forbid this). Many people are too willing to accept the loss of fundamental liberties just because they âagreed to it.â
8 Likes
I would agree HOAs are definitely government-esque. I myself live in a small incorporated town (population 300) which lacks the funds or the demand for a police force, though our city has employed a town marshal in the past. The city reserves the monopoly on violence which I would argue is one of the hallmarks of being an actual government and not a quasi government. Our city has laws and can enforce those laws with a police force should it choose to. HOAs canât choose to. HOAs without a doubt serve many of the most basic functions of a government, namely to provide common infrastructure. Thatâs why theyâre so popular (and getting more popular every year). They canât, however, directly enforce contracts. For that, they just go to an actual court of an actual government.
I donât enjoy being on the side to defend an HOA (as Iâve stated already, I detest them and would never join one), but your argument about violation of rights is a matter of perspective. If I own land, and I have the right to do fundamental things with my land, should that not include the right to sell that land? If I have the right to sell that land, do I also have the right to draft a contract governing the sale of that land? If I do, donât I have the right to place terms and conditions on that contract, be it a retention of mineral rights, first right of refusal, or stipulations regarding the use of the land? Denying me the right to sell my own property with terms agreed to by the buyer itâs just as much a violation of my rights.
Many HOA boards get populated with the worst kind of human: the kind that wants authority. Thatâs a tragedy, and I genuinely love seeing those types of folks get their comeuppance (right or wrong).
My in-laws live in an HOA and have mentioned in the past willing us their house. My wife and I are fully in agreement that weâd never live there because they wonât allow chickens or cows. It would be a pretty crappy thing to do for us to move into that house, knowing the roles, knowing the neighbors live there specifically because of those rules, and then sue because my ârights are violatedâ by not allowing chickens or cows. The neighbors would be stuck living next to a farm when they paid a premium to not have to.
1 Like
A lot of people donât realize what theyâre getting into. The realtor just wanted the sale, and just said, you need to make sure your house looks nice. Then I found out how much people can disagree over what looks nice.
John S
PDX OR
1 Like
Legally, sure. I disagree with the morality of that legal framework, and think we should do what we can to undermine it. I donât think there should be a fundamental right to control a piece of property in perpetuity as a condition of selling it, but I think there should be a fundamental right to do what you want with your own home, as long as you arenât harming anyone with those activities. And âhaving to see something you think is uglyâ isnât a real harm.
I think itâs interesting how most attorneys I know think that our legal and political systems are unjust and need to be fundamentally changed to focus on protecting peopleâs basic rights (and rights different from the ones currently recognized), while most non-lawyers I know seem to have a lot more faith and trust in those systems.
4 Likes
Thank you
The question at hand is not the morality but the legality.
I donât know the same people you know, but the lawyers and non lawyers alike I know have very little faith in any of our institutions, but the little faith they have tends to be proportional to their proximity. I have more faith in my city government than my country than my state than my federal. The federal government is the most powerful organization in the history of planet earth. Certainly more powerful and more likely to violate the rights of individuals.
Regardless, this probably says more about our acquaintances than it does our institutions.
No? The question is whether people should try to undermine their HOAâs authority, not whether the HOA is legal. I think people should try to destroy all HOAs, should work to undermine any contract terms imposed on them as a condition of purchasing anything. Not because those are illegal, because they should be illegal.
I mean this whole thread is literally about someone who changed the law because that was the only way to defeat their HOA. More people should act in defiance of the law in order to push for changes to the law.
7 Likes
There are a few side conversations going on. The one I joined is whether an HOA is technically a government or not. My contention is that itâs not. Others contend that it is.
On the morality question, Iâm generally a questioner of authority, but I donât view all authority to be equal. I have a choice you buy into an HOA. I donât have a choice to submit to government, only which government I submit to (even that has practical limits).
Iâm sure if pressed there are authorities youâd be less inclined to undermine.
1 Like
I was explaining why I use microclover instead of a more blossomy but taller clover, which is better for bees. I donât want my kid getting stung when he runs barefoot, which is often. So you donât actually need grass, if you still want a lush lawn.
Microclover is still good for the soil and ecosystem, but not the bees. The rest of my yard is as bee friendly as I can manage though.
I havenât had any luck with getting creeping thyme to live in my yard. Grass and clover both gallop over it and strangle it.
1 Like
Some people love HOAs. Iâm very much not one of them, very very very much soâŚ
But my (wonderful) in-laws are. Mostly, theyâre wanted to have nice landscaping, without being able to manage the yard work themselves any more. They appreciate all the communal spaces that are shared. It works for them too because they adore rules and the uniformity of having things be âjust soâ and predictable, and having spaces look nice (no eyesores), in a traditional way. Theyâre retired and got on the HOA Board, and it really works for them.
Iâd gnaw off my arm in that environment, and all of the green manicured grass hurts my heart (though itâs very nice for kids to run on), so I didnât buy there. But HOAs arenât all evil.
4 Likes