HOA threatens 'jail time' for family over color of backyard play set

[Hard Truth]

Not with much choice though lately.

We are looking at houses in our area to buy. 4 of the 5 we are interested require us to join the HOA in order to purchase the house. That is the part that is wrong. You can't opt out of joining when you buy a house, yet 80% or more of the available houses in many suburban areas require it.

That's terrible. There is a reason why teen mass killers are nearly always from the suburbs. The lack of stimulation and conformity drives some intelligent and/or creative young people insane.

 

[Absentglare]

While the history of maintaining segregation is surely negative, i do not mean to hold that against modern HOAs.

My main contention is that they often control what individuals do with property that they legally own. Maintenance of the neighborhood value should be conducted through the HOA's maintenance of shared space. If they consider front yards part of this shared space, then, fine, that's not the homeowners land but that also means the HOA shouldn't force the homeowner to pay for HOA maintenance terms out of the homeowners own pocket.

 

[Guy Incognito]

It is not "voluntary" when it is a requirement to join in order to purchase the property.

That's absurd. Nobody is forcing you to buy the property. If you don't like the terms, don't buy the property.

Yes, it is voluntary. You are wrong.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I have actually looked around the internet looking for a libertarian that would sign the contract and I couldn't find one. As it turns out they like to own their property. Go figure. :lol:

Funny, because it's already been pointed out that Murray Rothbard is supportive of these arrangements, so you must not have looked very hard.

Of course, one place you shouldn't look for a libertarian is the mirror, because you will absolutely not see one there.

 

[Guy Incognito]

You're like an ankle biter. just keep nipping away in meaningless ways.

2.6 Marketplace Freedom

Libertarians support free markets. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of entities based on voluntary association. We oppose all forms of government subsidies and bailouts to business, labor, or any other special interest. Government should not compete with private enterprise.

​

Platform | Libertarian Party

Great point, this is a plank of the platform of the Libertarian Party.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I understand your position. It does make a compelling case, but i ultimately disagree.

My whole argument is that this is not truly voluntary. I can't buy this house without being forced to sign my rights away to an HOA. You cannot own land without signing your allegiance to a dynamic socialist republic. That's not personal liberty.

You can say "well just buy another house," but i'll have to move to another city, or another county, or another state, or another country. At what point does it become an imposition on liberty? At the first damn step.

You're not asking for liberty, you're asking for a handout. You're asking to the government to forcibly prevent people for creating voluntary contractual relationships in order to preserve options you feel you are entitled to. That's the definition of socialism.

 

[roguenuke]

That's absurd. Nobody is forcing you to buy the property. If you don't like the terms, don't buy the property.

Yes, it is voluntary. You are wrong.

As I said, when the options are so small, it comes to a point where it simply is unfair to those looking to purchase a home when there are less than 20% of available properties in your area where buying the home doesn't require you to sign onto to a restrictive set of rules for your private property.

 

[Guy Incognito]

As I said, when the options are so small, it comes to a point where it simply is unfair to those looking to purchase a home when there are less than 20% of available properties in your area where buying the home doesn't require you to sign onto to a restrictive set of rules for your private property.

No, that's ad hoc nonsense. The fact is that is not coercive. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy into an HOA community.

 

[Guy Incognito]

That's terrible. There is a reason why teen mass killers are nearly always from the suburbs. The lack of stimulation and conformity drives some intelligent and/or creative young people insane.

WTF are you talking about? This thread does not need any more nonsensical drivel like this. You don't have any evidence to back up such a ludicrous statement.

 

[radcen]

Not with much choice though lately.

We are looking at houses in our area to buy. 4 of the 5 we are interested require us to join the HOA in order to purchase the house. That is the part that is wrong. You can't opt out of joining when you buy a house, yet 80% or more of the available houses in many suburban areas require it.

Caine said he once lived in an area of North Carolina where it was almost impossible to find a house without an HOA, and I have a friend who lives in Houston who says the same thing, so I guess some areas are becoming more and more like that. Personally, I find that to be sad, but then it's probably good that I am fine not having the latest and greatest house.

 

[Henrin]

Funny, because it's already been pointed out that Murray Rothbard is supportive of these arrangements, so you must not have looked very hard.

Of course, one place you shouldn't look for a libertarian is the mirror, because you will absolutely not see one there.

Did he say he would personally sign the contract?

 

[roguenuke]

No, that's ad hoc nonsense. The fact is that is not coercive. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy into an HOA community.

It is coercive. Someone doesn't have to be holding you at lethal force for it to be coercive.

 

[sangha]

I understand your position. It does make a compelling case, but i ultimately disagree.

My whole argument is that this is not truly voluntary. I can't buy this house without being forced to sign my rights away to an HOA. You cannot own land without signing your allegiance to a dynamic socialist republic. That's not personal liberty.

You can say "well just buy another house," but i'll have to move to another city, or another county, or another state, or another country. At what point does it become an imposition on liberty? At the first damn step.

There is no city, county or state where you can not find a non-HOA home

 

[Guy Incognito]

It is coercive. Someone doesn't have to be holding you at lethal force for it to be coercive.

You're right. Coercion can be circumstantial, like when an innocent child is born into poverty.

But it is certainly not "coercive" merely because you don't have the unfettered ability to buy any individual parcel of land your wee little heart desires without any restrictions.

The seller has the right to contract.

 

[Hard Truth]

WTF are you talking about? This thread does not need any more nonsensical drivel like this. You don't have any evidence to back up such a ludicrous statement.

"...In the last 15 years or so, academics have spent an increasing amount of time studying the affluent and what can ail them, and there is an emerging consensus that their children often have higher rates of depression and anxiety and elevated levels of substance abuse and certain delinquent behaviors....it was also possible that there was something about the affluent communities themselves that was contributing to the troubles seen in many children who lived there. In 2012, Terese J. Lund and Eric Dearing published a study that suggested that the environment mattered an awful lot too. What they found was that middle-class children who lived in middle-class neighborhoods had less depression and anxiety and fewer incidences of delinquency than middle-class children who lived in more affluent neighborhoods. The surroundings seemed to matter..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/business/growing-up-on-easy-street-has-its-own-dangers.html?_r=0

"Community studies indicating that affluence has social-emotional consequences for youth have conflated family and neighborhood wealth. We examined adolescent boys' delinquency and adolescent girls' anxiety-depression as a function of family, neighborhood, and cumulative affluence in a sample that is primarily of European–American descent, but geographically and economically diverse (N = 1,364). Boys in affluent neighborhoods reported higher levels of delinquency and girls in affluent neighborhoods reported higher levels of anxiety-depression compared with youth in middle-class neighborhoods. Neither family affluence nor cumulative affluence, however, placed boys or girls at risk in these domains. Indeed, boys' delinquency and girls' anxiety-depression levels were lowest for those in affluent families living in middle-class neighborhoods."
Is Growing Up Affluent Risky for Adolescents or Is the Problem Growing Up in an Affluent Neighborhood? - Lund - 2012 - Journal of Research on Adolescence - Wiley Online Library

 

[Absentglare]

You're not asking for liberty, you're asking for a handout. You're asking to the government to forcibly prevent people for creating voluntary contractual relationships in order to preserve options you feel you are entitled to. That's the definition of socialism.

No, it's not- socialism is social ownership of the means of production. Socialism is not public protection from plainly exploitative contracts like usury.

 

[Guy Incognito]

No, it's not- socialism is social ownership of the means of production. Socialism is not public protection from plainly exploitative contracts like usury.

Only a socialist wants to outlaw voluntary contractual arrangements because they deem this "exploitative." This is disgusting, big-brother kind of thinking.

Why do you hate freedom?

 

[Guy Incognito]

"...In the last 15 years or so, academics have spent an increasing amount of time studying the affluent and what can ail them, and there is an emerging consensus that their children often have higher rates of depression and anxiety and elevated levels of substance abuse and certain delinquent behaviors....it was also possible that there was something about the affluent communities themselves that was contributing to the troubles seen in many children who lived there. In 2012, Terese J. Lund and Eric Dearing published a study that suggested that the environment mattered an awful lot too. What they found was that middle-class children who lived in middle-class neighborhoods had less depression and anxiety and fewer incidences of delinquency than middle-class children who lived in more affluent neighborhoods. The surroundings seemed to matter..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/business/growing-up-on-easy-street-has-its-own-dangers.html?_r=0

"Community studies indicating that affluence has social-emotional consequences for youth have conflated family and neighborhood wealth. We examined adolescent boys' delinquency and adolescent girls' anxiety-depression as a function of family, neighborhood, and cumulative affluence in a sample that is primarily of European–American descent, but geographically and economically diverse (N = 1,364). Boys in affluent neighborhoods reported higher levels of delinquency and girls in affluent neighborhoods reported higher levels of anxiety-depression compared with youth in middle-class neighborhoods. Neither family affluence nor cumulative affluence, however, placed boys or girls at risk in these domains. Indeed, boys' delinquency and girls' anxiety-depression levels were lowest for those in affluent families living in middle-class neighborhoods."
Is Growing Up Affluent Risky for Adolescents or Is the Problem Growing Up in an Affluent Neighborhood? - Lund - 2012 - Journal of Research on Adolescence - Wiley Online Library

These studies say the opposite of what you claim:lol:

 

[roguenuke]

You're right. Coercion can be circumstantial, like when an innocent child is born into poverty.

But it is certainly not "coercive" merely because you don't have the unfettered ability to buy any individual parcel of land your wee little heart desires without any restrictions.

The seller has the right to contract.

The seller doesn't even get that right though. Once in an HOA, the HOA goes with the property, despite the wishes of the seller or buyer.

 

[Guy Incognito]

The seller doesn't even get that right though. Once in an HOA, the HOA goes with the property, despite the wishes of the seller or buyer.

That's because seller is bound by the contract they made with the HOA, which was voluntary. What's so hard to understand about this? It's all voluntary!

 

[roguenuke]

That's because seller is bound by the contract they made with the HOA, which was voluntary. What's so hard to understand about this? It's all voluntary!

That's not really voluntary. It is very little different than jobs that require a person to join the union to hold the job.

 

[Guy Incognito]

That's not really voluntary. It is very little different than jobs that require a person to join the union to hold the job.

No, because those arrangements are backed by government coercion that requires the employer to permit the workers to unionize. So that analogy fails completely.

 

[roguenuke]

No, because those arrangements are backed by government coercion that requires the employer to permit the workers to unionize. So that analogy fails completely.

What? Government is made up of the people. HOAs are no different than mandatory union membership to get a job. It is people trying to force others to sign a contract that requires their admission into a "club" that claims to be there to protect rights, in order to sign a separate contract (to buy a house or for a job).

The HOA is just a smaller form of government, essentially, but it is one that simply isn't held to the same standards, rules, as our other governmental entities.

 

[Absentglare]

Only a socialist wants to outlaw voluntary contractual arrangements because they deem this "exploitative." This is disgusting, big-brother kind of thinking.

Why do you hate freedom?

That's because seller is bound by the contract they made with the HOA, which was voluntary. What's so hard to understand about this? It's all voluntary!

I don't know what you're not understanding.

I can't buy this house and not join an HOA. I can't find another house in this city that doesn't force you to sign an HOA. Now county, state, country, planet- at what point does it become involuntary ? Do you understand this argument, because you conveniently ignored it to spin your wheels here ?

 

[Guy Incognito]

I don't know what you're not understanding.

I can't buy this house and not join an HOA. I can't find another house in this city that doesn't force you to sign an HOA. Now county, state, country, planet- at what point does it become involuntary ? Do you understand this argument, because you conveniently ignored it to spin your wheels here ?

At no point does it become "involuntary," because it is voluntary.