Hacker News Reader

Comment by the_mitsuhiko | Hacker News Reader

> Several countries require AC installation to be approved by the equivalent of a homeowners association or impose noise ordinances that increase compliance costs and paperwork.

This is not unique to ACs. Anything on the outside of a building requires your co-owners to agree.

View on HN

That's where the image of AC in general matters. It needs to be seen as a life saving tech just like heating, not a luxury item for rich people.

If it was just a matter of red tape it would be fine, but in France people would fight you on AC because it's ugly/noisy/warms up the street.

So you can get it rejected by people who live in a flat where heat is not as much of a problem as your (ground floor vs higher floor, window orientation) or by landlords who don't even live in the building.

Not in the land of the free, Great Britain. You can put anything on your house, even a 25ft fibreglass shark diving into your loft.

Wait, is there a story behind—oh, here it is:

https://www.headingtonshark.com/Home/About ("Hello. I'm Magnus Hanson-Heine, the home-owner of the Headington Shark House. The Shark House, formally titled Untitled 1986, consists of a 25ft-long fibreglass and steel shark crashing through the roof of an otherwise ordinary house on a quiet residential street in suburban Oxford...")

There are noise conditions and a few scenarios that will need planning permission (facing a public highway is one) but generally pretty liberal.

The shark scenario is more interesting, and was I'd say was largely allowed to stay because it was an art installation. They couldn't have built an extension of the same proportions without planning permission.

> co-owners

HOAs don't make neighbors co-owners of your own property, do they?

Anyway HOA is something that shouldn't even exist. Or at least not with power to prevent people from having air conditioning in their home.

Other countries outside of the US have different rules regarding multi-logement buildings and how they are organized

Not everything is a HOA

Multi-logement buildings are not really the issue here. In the US (and outside, but less commonly, but e.g. France has them in the Alps, for the same reason) there are communities with only freestanding houses that privately own the infrastructure serving a number of houses, if I may be blunt: to make things cheaper for local councils and get housing approved, everything from roads to sewer lines.

They force homeowners to decide together (and pay for) everything from road maintenance to what noise levels are allowed.

Another issue they cause is that, of course, the homeowners living there do not just use HOAs to override the wishes of individuals, but also feel disinclined to let the local authorities ... and the locals ... operate as normal there, given that they pay for everything, sometimes literally including the roads in the area around them. These communities may have banks, parks, even beaches, and there are conflicts about who gets to go there, given the local homeowners pay for maintenance. For example, given they clean up left-behind garbage, do people from the nearby town get to play there ... and leave behind more garbage?

The root of the problem is that more housing is no longer a net positive for many communities in a great many places. The increase in taxation income does not justify the extra infrastructure in many places. This means local authorities refuse building projects unless they pay for their own infrastructure. Hence, HOAs are being forced to take over the functions that public authorities used to have ... because local authorities are forcing the responsibilities that local authorities used to have on them. Of course, then the public nature of public space goes into question.

> The root of the problem is that more housing is no longer a net positive for many communities in a great many places. The increase in taxation income does not justify the extra infrastructure in many places. This means local authorities refuse building projects unless they pay for their own infrastructure.

So a municipality can just refuse to build infrastructure?

That's just the "fuck you, got mine" mentality that permeates the living experience of US citizens. That's how they got their healthcare system as well.

> So a municipality can just refuse to build infrastructure?

Technically they're refusing to let people build unless they pay for (and arrange for) infrastructure. They will certainly claim that this is in fact building infrastructure.

> That's just the "fuck you, got mine" mentality ...

Of the entire world, yes. Absolutely.

HOAs are companies, with the owners as shareholders, who own the shared infrastructure of the owners. Things like hallways, maybe elevators, gardens, this can even include the roads in a community.

The point of HOAs is to force homeowners to CO-decide (in houses: to make things cheaper for local councils) on what happens to the shared infrastructure. What and how to spend of maintenance and what to change.

> HOAs don't make neighbors co-owners of your own property, do they?

Home-owner associations in Europe are frequently set up for apartment buildings, in which case, yes, the roof, foundation, hallways, stairwells, main piping, electricity, etc are all legally co-owned. Primary purpose of HOAs is to save for & plan long-term maintenance on the entire building.

HOAs for neighbourhoods, or blocks with single-family homes or terraced houses are pretty rare in Europe.

What will hit you before that here in Switzerland is the local authorities which have in front of their eyes a certain plan for your building, and anything not on the plan (in this case the AC unit) will need a permit. It's not an easy task, I would say impossible actually, to get such a permit, unless you find a way to redesign the whole facade in a acceptable way (units poking out doesn't count as acceptable).

Of course. But isn't this debate more about the case where you are the only owner?

Don't get me started on how it works in my country.

People who don't have a balcony are screwed and are entirely dependent on homeowners association which arbitrarily can agree or not, or they can stay indecisive about it and not let you do anything.

Well, if you have a balcony? you just put it there and make the necessary holes for it, problem solved.

The effect is exactly the same - you just have AC installed. In one case you have to go through totally unnecessary hoops, and in other case, you just do whatever you want.

What's even the point of it?

It is not entirely that simple. Condensate water is potential problem if wrongly discharged. But adding sufficient drainage is not that expensive per balcony basis. So it is something that should be fixed.

Condensate is discharged from the inside unit, it should never make it to the balcony.

In a typical mini-split, the water flows to the outside unit and exits the system there, so you either have a pump or a sufficiently sloped pipe from the inside unit to the outside unit.

edit: I guess you could route the drain pipe anywhere if you wanted, so I retract my previous statement.

Where do you think it is getting discharged?

Into drains in the parking garage in the case of my building. Though thinking more about it now, it's totally reasonable that other buildings might find it easiest to drain to the outside unit.

You can have drain pipes installed, but you can also just collect the water in a bucket and empty it periodically. That requires no extra investment of money, just a tiny bit of your willpower and manpower, depending on the size of the bucket.

There are also systems that spray the water back at the AC unit to cool it down, this is supposed to both improve efficiency and evaporate the water so you don't have to deal with it. I am sure those have some downsides, too.

Both are options. Still both also carry risks or don't solve entire issue. With buckets you don't want to them overflow on floors for example.

And with spraying it on ac you want complete evaporation or you are back to same problem.

As said it is not too hard problem but still something that most likely requires consideration.

I am all for solving these problems and making sure they don't cause problems for others. My problem is with the ability for arbitrary people to say "no" to your case, without even considering the options or facts.

Sure thing, you could go to court if they have any problem, but who is going to fight for AC worth $500 for a few years just to get it installed?

If you're worried about that amount of water, what do you do when it rains?

Some idiot figuring out that nice hole in cladding is right place to direct it... Or people under balconies when it is not raining not wanting to have water drop on them... In many cases balconies have less than ideal designs.

Exactly. While I personaly don't have a problem with AC condensate dripping down on the street, I can see how some people might not be used to that.

Best would probably be to use the existing rainwater pipes that lead down to the sewers - all building have those. But good luck getting that past your HOA-equivalent, as that will most probably involve some modifications to the building and we can't have that, no!

Most balconies are already going to have drainage for rain water so solving the drainage problem requires a <$1 piece of plastic tube.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com