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

[Kobie]

I hate HOA's I will never move or build a home in a neighborhood with one and if there is one I will run for office just to keep the
level of stupidity under control.

I think it that it is dumb that 4 people can tell the other 100 living there or whatever what to do with their property without so much
as paying a dime for anything that they do.

you want to tell me what to do with my properly then you pay my mortgage and my property taxes then you can have a say in it.
yep that HOA is made up of morons.
most of them are.

boarded by petty individuals that have no real power in their life and think they can bully other people around.
they already lost on appeal and now they just double down on the stupidity.

Could not agree more.

 

[sangha]

Stop using ad hominem to deflect from my sound, valid argument.

there's no ad hom. I did not try to refute your argument based on the fact that you said it.

I refuted your argument by pointing out that even you admit it is a lie.

If i'm logically wrong, go ahead and explain how.

OK. You said you can't buy a non-HOA house in your city, and then admitted that you can.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Why do you so adamantly defend the right to socially engineer entire neighborhoods?

How can you sincerely call yourself a libertarian ?

This is the most bizarre claptrap you're spouting, really. It's not "social engineering" to simply permit private contracts to exist unimpeded by government regulation.

You are the authoritarian who is arguing for social engineering, and you can't even admit it.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Stop using ad hominem to deflect from my sound, valid argument. If i'm logically wrong, go ahead and explain how.

You lied and got caught. He proved it logically, by a sound argument that was supported by the evidence of your own quotes.

Incidentally, it is redundant to say "sound, valid argument" since all sound arguments are valid.

 

[Lord of Planar]

A point to consider.

Supply and demand.

There appears to be plenty of people willing to buy into HOA controlled community. Those wishing to buy, make sure you understand the rules. Any you don't like, simply tell the seller "sorry, unless these rules are changes, I won't pay a dime." and list which rules you don't like. If sellers get frustrated having a hard time selling, they may appeal the rules, and ask for a vote to change them.

However...

As long as these places sell... There is no valid concern in my book, except those of you complaining think your own principles should outweigh the principles of the community. Seems rather arrogant to me.

 

[Hard Truth]

Sounds like bias on your part here. What's wrong if a group of people wish to maintain a certain culture around them?

They have the right to make these demands as long as only private property is involved. I think it is silly, nosy, a symptom of insecurity and bigoted. The lack of variety and excessive conformity is harmful to young people. (and probably the adult's mental health also).

If all the housing developments of a certain type in a geographic region all have highly restrictive covenants with similar demands it makes it hard for a buyer to avoid them. If that situation is sufficiently extreme I would be likely to support legislation to limit the power of HOAs and/or the scope of the required agreements.

There are many legal limits on the scope of many types of voluntary agreements, legal limits can be required with HOA agreements also, especially when they infringe on basic civil rights.

 

[Hard Truth]

... It's not "social engineering" to simply permit private contracts to exist unimpeded by government regulation....

The problem I have with most libertarians is that they pretend as if governments are the only entities able to restrict our freedom. In many cases government serves to protect us from private sector restriction of freedom, abolition of slavery is one example.

 

[Guy Incognito]

The problem I have with most libertarians is that they pretend as if governments are the only entities able to restrict our freedom. In many cases government serves to protect us from private sector restriction of freedom, abolition of slavery is one example.

The problem I have with ignorant people who spout off about libertarianism without understanding it, is that libertarians oppose involuntary restrictions on freedom, but they don't have a problem with people voluntarily restricting their freedom on their own.

 

[Guy Incognito]

The lack of variety and excessive conformity is harmful to young people. (and probably the adult's mental health also).

That's utter bull****. I know at least two scientific studies that show middle class communities (which most HOA communities are) are actually beneficial to the mental health of young people.

Oh wait, you posted those studies, which shoot your own imbecilic argument in the foot.

 

[Guy Incognito]

A point to consider.

Supply and demand.

There appears to be plenty of people willing to buy into HOA controlled community. Those wishing to buy, make sure you understand the rules. Any you don't like, simply tell the seller "sorry, unless these rules are changes, I won't pay a dime." and list which rules you don't like. If sellers get frustrated having a hard time selling, they may appeal the rules, and ask for a vote to change them.

However...

As long as these places sell... There is no valid concern in my book, except those of you complaining think your own principles should outweigh the principles of the community. Seems rather arrogant to me.

It is extremely arrogant, like all authoritarianism.

 

[Absentglare]

You lied and got caught. He proved it logically, by a sound argument that was supported by the evidence of your own quotes.

Incidentally, it is redundant to say "sound, valid argument" since all sound arguments are valid.

No, it isn't. I'm not surprised that you're oblivious to the distinction.

A sound argument has premises that are true.

A valid argument is an argument whose conclusion is validated by the premises.

 

[Guy Incognito]

No, it isn't. I'm not surprised that you're oblivious to the distinction.

Doubling down on your mistake, eh? A poor decision.

But you are way too boring for me to want to educate you. Suffice to say, you are wrong, and obviously you haven't got a very good understanding of formal logic.

A sound argument is always valid. Feel free to educate yourself or not, at your discretion.

 

[Lord of Planar]

They have the right to make these demands as long as only private property is involved. I think it is silly, nosy, a symptom of insecurity and bigoted. The lack of variety and excessive conformity is harmful to young people. (and probably the adult's mental health also).

If all the housing developments of a certain type in a geographic region all have highly restrictive covenants with similar demands it makes it hard for a buyer to avoid them. If that situation is sufficiently extreme I would be likely to support legislation to limit the power of HOAs and/or the scope of the required agreements.

There are many legal limits on the scope of many types of voluntary agreements, legal limits can be required with HOA agreements also, especially when they infringe on basic civil rights.

And the ones that infringe on civil rights have been struck down.

Again, as long as there is a demand for such places from willing buyers, all I see is senseless whining. When enough people say I'm not buying, then the demand for such properties will diminish, and so will the property values. At such a point, the voters in the HOA communities would very likely change the rules, or abolish the HOA's. Since this isn't happening... Seems the HOA's are wanted.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The problem I have with most libertarians is that they pretend as if governments are the only entities able to restrict our freedom. In many cases government serves to protect us from private sector restriction of freedom, abolition of slavery is one example.

Evidence please.

 

[roguenuke]

And the ones that infringe on civil rights have been struck down.

Again, as long as there is a demand for such places from willing buyers, all I see is senseless whining. When enough people say I'm not buying, then the demand for such properties will diminish, and so will the property values. At such a point, the voters in the HOA communities would very likely change the rules, or abolish the HOA's. Since this isn't happening... Seems the HOA's are wanted.

This isn't real life. Here in the real world, we don't always get the ideal house to buy. We get what we can get that works for our needs to the best we can. Like I said, my husband and I are looking to buy a house, and 80% of the ones that we like, in our price range, require an HOA be signed. That leaves one house in our area (where my husband just got a very good new job) that would fit all our needs and doesn't have an HOA, yet there are some other problems with it. The best one for our needs and higher priorities, has an HOA. Most people don't really want an HOA, they simply don't have enough of a choice in real life.

And that is the problem with libertarianism, it assumes that ideals are what happen in real life. Assumes that just because in theory those that don't want to do something simply wouldn't do it is a great concept, that is simply not how real life works.

 

[Lord of Planar]

This isn't real life. Here in the real world, we don't always get the ideal house to buy. We get what we can get that works for our needs to the best we can. Like I said, my husband and I are looking to buy a house, and 80% of the ones that we like, in our price range, require an HOA be signed. That leaves one house in our area (where my husband just got a very good new job) that would fit all our needs and doesn't have an HOA, yet there are some other problems with it. The best one for our needs and higher priorities, has an HOA. Most people don't really want an HOA, they simply don't have enough of a choice in real life.

And that is the problem with libertarianism, it assumes that ideals are what happen in real life. Assumes that just because in theory those that don't want to do something simply wouldn't do it is a great concept, that is simply not how real life works.

It has problems...

Would you agree that maybe, the ones that fall under the HOA are required to be maintained better, making the real value better?

 

[Hard Truth]

That's utter bull****. I know at least two scientific studies that show middle class communities (which most HOA communities are) are actually beneficial to the mental health of young people.

Oh wait, you posted those studies, which shoot your own imbecilic argument in the foot.

Links?

 

[Hard Truth]

Evidence please.

You only have to read a few posts on this forum from libertarians to see examples. One almost never hears a libertarian take issue with private sector abuses. The response is nearly always "get another job," "move somewhere else" or "shop somewhere else." As if those are always viable option for everyone in the real world. Libertarians care more about principles than people.

 

[Hard Truth]

The problem I have with ignorant people who spout off about libertarianism without understanding it, is that libertarians oppose involuntary restrictions on freedom, but they don't have a problem with people voluntarily restricting their freedom on their own.

Choices are not voluntary when the options are limited, all the choices undesirable and getting what you really want requires significant sacrifices or are excessively impractical.

Example:
The only grocery store refuses to serve blacks.
The Libertarian solution: Blacks should drive to another town or move, if they can't afford to move and it takes two hours to drive to the next town we don't care, it's their own fault if they are not wealthy enough to move.

 

[Hard Truth]

That's utter bull****. I know at least two scientific studies that show middle class communities (which most HOA communities are) are actually beneficial to the mental health of young people.

Oh wait, you posted those studies, which shoot your own imbecilic argument in the foot.

The study I linked indicated that affluent neighborhoods are linked to more mental health issues than middle class neighborhoods. There is a lot of variation, but it is often the most affluent developments that are most homogeneous.

I never claimed that homogeneous neighborhoods are bad for everyone. Based on the experiences of myself and many others I know, they are bad for many creative and intelligent people. My city is full of refugees from the suburbs.

 

[Hard Truth]

And the ones that infringe on civil rights have been struck down....

Yes, thanks to brave individuals and civil rights advocates. No thanks to Libertarians, many of whom oppose civil rights laws.

 

[sangha]

No, it isn't. I'm not surprised that you're oblivious to the distinction.

A sound argument has premises that are true.

A valid argument is an argument whose conclusion is validated by the premises.

And the premise of your argument (that you can't find a non-HOA house to buy in your city) is NOT true

 

[Absentglare]

And the premise of your argument (that you can't find a non-HOA house to buy in your city) is NOT true

I can't buy this house without also, separately, signing up to have my life controlled by my neighbors.

My premise is that my liberty to buy a specific house, and the sellers liberty to sell me that house, is infringed.

The fact that you can't understand that isn't my problem.

If, de facto, 99% of houses in 99% of cities in 99% of counties of all 50 states require HOAs, at what point is it infringement? At the first damn house.

 

[Absentglare]

Doubling down on your mistake, eh? A poor decision.

But you are way too boring for me to want to educate you. Suffice to say, you are wrong, and obviously you haven't got a very good understanding of formal logic.

A sound argument is always valid. Feel free to educate yourself or not, at your discretion.

Keep deflecting once i've devastated your nonsense libertarian socialist position.

You are arguing that a sound argument is the exact same thing as a valid argument.

That is as logically wrong as all of your other nonsense about libertarians being all-for socialism.

So i'm not surprised that you would seek to abandon the now-thoroughly-submerged ship.

 

[sangha]

I can't buy this house without also, separately, signing up to have my life controlled by my neighbors.

And I can't buy a Rolls Royce

My premise is that my liberty to buy a specific house, and the sellers liberty to sell me that house, is infringed.

Your premise is wrong. You are free to buy the house, and the owner is free to sell it

The fact that you can't understand that isn't my problem.

I understand your premise and I understand that it's wrong.

If, de facto, 99% of houses in 99% of cities in 99% of counties of all 50 states require HOAs

That is "de fiction", not "de facto"