What consequences are sane for a member who does not pay dues, water bills, etc., for a prolonged period? Turning off the water is illegal here. Liens get ignored. My HOA will avoid foreclosure for years, and has only resorted to it twice in twenty years, but it's the ultimate recourse. Should the other members just suck it up forever?
None. No HOA should have any power over a private home owned by an individual.
Not sure how water bill is relevant, that is paid to the water agency. They'll shut off water if not paid for some months.
What does this have to do with a HOA being allowed to demand color of windowshades or what kind of flowers someone likes to plant in their yard?
The fact that some HOAs are meddlesome neighbor havens doesn’t mean all of them are. (Though I agree with others here that the roles herein described belong to a municipality.)
... there should be one, wtf is wrong with your country? Why are you replacing towns with HOAs?
Our property taxes are so low they have made previously suburban grown men shed tears of joy.
So instead you put this burden on the people living there, who presumably are already paying some form of taxes?
What's the point of all this? Give up ownership of your own house and frontyard, so you can pay dues, to get access to services that would be free with a real municipality?
> would be free with a real municipality
You can’t possibly be serious with this.
Until the house is sold or refinanced. Yes, the HOA has to wait, but can eventually get its money with interest.
An HOA isn't just about neighborhoods of freestanding houses, it's also about multi unit buildings.
Nor do real estate listings [2].
And indeed, the grandparent post talks about missed water bills and other bills that fall on the collective rather than fines about incorrect colors or trash cans being left out.
So while legally there are differences between the two, the term "hoa" is almost always used as a blanket term to cover both. As they were in this article and nearly all of the discussion in this thread.
1 ... the laws that followed it require older condominium buildings to pass a milestone structural inspection (section 553.899, Florida Statutes) and to fund structural reserves on the strength of a structural integrity reserve study (section 718.112(2)(g), ...
The cost is visible in the dues. Redfin reported in August 2024 that median monthly HOA fees in the three months to July 2024, against a year earlier, rose...
2. None of the listings here distinguish between hoa dues and condo association dues. https://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/273801_rid/ Nor do several other cities that I tried.
For example, they’ve fought for the right to have a “right to work”, so that closed shops can’t be a thing — you cannot compel inclusion in a bargaining unit by nature of employment.
Yet restrictive deed covenants where you are compelled by the state to join a private association are fine.
The arguments for or against them are similar if you dig into them.
HOA should be allowed to kick out member. And people should be allowed to not be members of HOA.
Even if it’s a very low maintenance and amenity HOA on public roads, how do you resolve the fact that all the fees and costs have accumulated if the home were to be sold, you essentially end up at a similar end point where the home is sold. Usually these are also not individual circumstances, i.e., a person who has ignored all kind of warnings and letters and board meetings over usually years, also has many other issues going on and often they’re just letting the home go anyways and e.g., are just living there for “free” for about 1-3 years of HOA/bank legal proceedings.
Very easy answer: they don't get access to the pool, river docks, common lakes (per peer thread) that the HOA maintains.
They of course must maintain full control and ownership of their private home.
If you answer that there is nothing they would lose access to (no pool, no rivers, no lakes) then that is a very strong answer stating the HOA has no right to exist.
There is no need for "HOA owned and maintained street". You do not need HOA to maintain streets.
You might in the event the streets aren't publicly maintained.
But that use case is in the extreme minority (rural development) compared to the common HOA usage (dense large suburban developments).
Just like labor unions (ie. "right to work" states), right?
Also I'm a firm believer that if you're at a union shop and decide not to be part of the union you shouldn't be able to use their pay scales and should have to negotiate everything for yourself. The same with HOA's, I guess. If they do something for the community, like the pool the other poster talked about, then you shouldn't have access. Easy.
They shouldn't be able to take your house for any reason.
At least in theory? Neighborhood "character" (and by proxy "land value").
But also I'm biased.
HOAs don't add value. All they are is an opportunity to power trip for those who have the most free time on their hands.
I'm sure the people who support right to work laws would also claim labor unions "don't add value". On the flip side I doubt HOA supporters think they "don't add value".
given that an HOA is completely unnecessary... yes. you should suck it up forever. if you want to be part of an HOA and pay dues into it, good for you, go ahead.
if somebody else doesn't want to be part of your little club, why should you get to take their house away for that?
Typically the HOA's I've seen manage community resources. Where I used to live that meant the neighborhood parks, green spaces, 3 docks in the river, a pool, and a few lakes. No value seems a bit hyperbolic.
most HOAs manage a tiny amount of communal green space that should have been turned over to become city property, but was held back as HOA property to give the HOA a reason to exist.
I think we have the wrong units of measure for government size. I live in a county where the lines made sense 200 years ago: Everybody in the county can ride their hose to the courthouse, file whatever they need and be home in time for super. These days everyone drives and can be there in half an hour or less. Instead what I care about is the metro area. I want a unit that ensures my transit system is a coherent whole, the water supply is cheaper to consolidate to one large entity vs many small ones.
There is one suburb near me where some people would have to drive 25 minutes to get to the city library - most of that is uncongested highway. I really need a smaller unit to own and run a library so kids are always in bike distance. That city does a good job of scattered small parks but there is one complex with large fields for softball - if you don't live close maybe you shouldn't pay for something you don't use. I want parks owned by a smaller area government that can bring my neighborhood something they don't have. - HOAs often serve that. They just have a poor legal structure.
If you own part of a shared walls building then a corporation is required to manage that. You have to pay your share of the share costs. However the corporation should be limited in what else it can do, but it must exist.
You are just making this up at this point. Why do you think the city would accept property that they would have to legally maintain and be responsible for, when it is generally isolated and (largely) accessible to only a specific neighborhood?
Mostly I don't understand why an individual neighborhood would need it's own out of band election process (that typically allows people to gain tremendous power and authority without anyone voting for them), and representatives completely decoupled from the state or government but often times acting in parallel.
Come on, at least try. HOAs (typically, your word) have elections. Someone doesn't just walk in and declare themselves the association president.
Typically elections would take place during the annual meeting. Usually there is such low community engagement that there is no home owner quorum under the Covenants Conditions & Restrictions. Depending on the CC&Rs a property management or build rep will appoint the open board seats, or for example in the case of my HOA they will go by default to whomever is attending the meeting and wants the spot, assuming the current board doesn't object to that person.
For my association the board has basically been self appointing each other and their spouses for the last 15+ years. The current president has managed to obtain several proxy votes of rental property owners and the current board members use these to overrule any objections to them reseating themselves. They also squash any attempts to force a community wide vote, because again lack of quorum. Basically impossible to get enough people to actually attend the meeting to get the current board replaced, especially when they've gone all digital and tend to cancel/reschedule the meetings last minute and then provide very little notice of the new time.
If they are using "proxy votes", then there is in fact a vote. If your objection is that they ran unopposed because no one else bothered to give a damn, then... you should try giving a damn. Apparently you can be the person able to "gain tremendous power and authority" just by showing up, and then you can do something about it.
Not OP, but that is exactly what happened in my neighborhood. It has parks and trails and several sports courts, two playgrounds, dog parks. It was all turned over to the city to be public land to avoid having a HOA.
> generally isolated and (largely) accessible to only a specific neighborhood?
No. It's just land around the neighborhood, easily accessible to anyone in town (or nearby towns).
You can put in a special district, that's an HOA under a different name, with even more government powers and bureaucracy costs. For example, you vote on stuff via the general election, they can seize your home for unpaid property taxes, they can impose zoning laws, and in some places they can impose criminal ordinances (dog pooping in the park).
Mine should. That's literally the city's job.
There are unincorporated areas of the USA if you don't want a city government and want to do it all yourself.
It’s really not hard to find, though last time I bought was a decade ago and prices have increased, the HoA status (a lack of an HoA) has not changed.
I also explicitly refused to even consider an HoA neighborhood. Lol, fuck all that.
The typical HOA (and by typical I mean asymptotically close to 100% of them) do not maintain 3 docks in a river and a few lakes!
If a neighborhood has those kinds of resources, some kind of HOA fee seems reasonable, agreed.
Even in such a neighborhood, the HOA should be limited by law to managing those common area rivers and lakes, not allowed to have any opinion about what flowers someone plants in their yard or what color windoshades they install.
The typical HOA does not have rivers nor lakes. They only have bitter dictator-wannabe board members who look for ridiculous "violations" like your grass is 3/4" tall when their rulebook says 1/2" tall, so they can send eviction notices to flex their power.
If my neighbor decides to start blasting music at 3am for some reason, I don't have to suck it up for the next decade, I can just get the HOA to deal with it. Very peaceful.
If there is blasting music at 3am the police in my area would deal with that and every city I have lived in deals with those type of nuance issues quickly.
HOAs are not common where I live and they just sound like people privatizing what your local government should be doing.
Yes, that is what they are. It's easier to agree to a covenant to follow some rules and do things than it is to change laws and then get them enforced. You can't think of one thing you wish would be enforced that isn't a law? "I wish my neighbor didn't paint his house an ugly hot pink and park a rusted tractor on the lawn." Well with a hoa you can all agree to not do that.
American cities are largely failed states where police would not respond to anything short of murder, so yeah be grateful for your place of living
Also since my city is a democracy with vibrant civic engagement, if I thought a law needed changing I am pretty sure it would be fully debated and considered. What I have heard from friends who have lived in HOAs would suggest that I could not be confident the HOA board would give a crap.
And yet, people still live there. Sounds like a reasonable work-around.
This is true sometimes, but if you are upset at a specific HOA, look at your docs to see what it actually manages. HOAs exist to pay for community obligated costs; sometimes that is a pool, sometimes it's "water and gas bills", and sometimes it's an entire golf course.
Further, if you're talking about a condo building (which, yes, is technically a COA, but the two get combined all the time), it is literally paying for your roof and elevators to work.
Buying into a "little club" and agreeing to pay your share of expenses only works when everyone participates. If not, your neighbors are just paying upkeep on your property; why should they have to do that?
Neighbors in a HOA are very clearly never paying upkeep of your property, that's is nonsense.
A condo association is a whole different ballgame, since there is legitimate shared structural walls, roofs, elevators, etc. But single family home HOAs, there is nothing the HOA does to maintain individual homes.
Such arrangements used to be common, but they have become increasingly rare in the past few centuries. Many were explicitly abolished by law when free markets started getting popular. Often for antitrust reasons, or because people thought it would not be in the public interest to have certain types of contracts the previous owner made also bind the new owner.
I can think of a few similar arrangements in Finland. For example, membership in student unions at research universities is still mandatory, as is membership in reindeer husbandry associations. Those entities perform government functions, and the actual government has chosen not to assume the responsibility for one reason or another. As a consequence, the entities and their officials are subject to the same regulations as the government when wielding powers used to justify mandatory membership.
Condos are another story. If the entire complex is a single property for legal or practical purposes, it makes sense to have a single entity in charge of it.
> they should lose access to the pool, not their house.
To enforce this you have to be able to gate, secure, and prevent them and their guests from using this. That costs a lot more money just to ensure they pay in. The HOA is the least worse option to "consent" and ensure that they do. Taking away the house is a much later step after a letter, 2nd and 3rd warnings, fines, ignored fines+interest, and a lein is ignored.
Since presumably you're also preventing people from outside the neighborhood from using it, then it is beyond trivial to prevent the non-paying neighbor as well, using the same gate key mechanism.
Because they signed the paperwork saying they wanted to be part of the little club and gave that little club the power to take away their house.
Then "people want a house without dealing with strata" gets misinterpreted as "people want big houses on big lots". Not necessarily true, just that the premium for the BHoBL is the necessary price of not giving busybody neighbours power over your home.
Also, once in a decade is not a rare occurrence for events of this significance. Once in 20 years is OK, once is 50 is rare, but once in a decade is not.
I mean, the idea is nice, but it involves humans.
The HOA hired a law firm, forced a foreclosure, held a foreclosure auction where the HOA itself bought her house for THREE DOLLARS, and continued to charge her HOA dues (even though the HOA owned the home now) before evicting her later.
The HOA then sold the home to an employee involved in the foreclosure, whose partner was on the HOA board that had voted to foreclose, and voted to accept the three dollar ($3.24, to be precise) bid, though they hid this behind an LLC that didn't actually exist when they did it. The employee then reactivated her real estate license and sold the home to another family several months later.
There are fewer greater lunacies than HOAs, and the type of people drawn to run them.
And when I say they sold it to an employee involved after buying it themselves at auction for that $3.24, they sold it to the employee for one dollar. So this woman was out hundreds of thousands of dollars of equity because a self-dealing HOA and its law firm (tied by marriage to one of the HOA board) voted to foreclose on her home and accept a purchase price that couldn't buy you a drink at Starbucks.
I can't imagine that a good judge would accept that settlement to scam someone out of a house far below value and leave them with the debt.
Most neighborhoods I’ve lived in have not had an HOA. They’ve ranged from okay to great.
I can think of a few neighbor situations where an HOA with teeth would have been welcome. The most specific involved someone getting a big angry dog breed, neglecting it, and then leaving their gate unlocked so it got out. That one was eventually dealt with by the city, though.
Meanwhile the one HOA I lived under was pretty boring and friendly. Didn’t really bother anyone but maintained a nice common area. HOA board members were friendly and reasonable, but then again so were all the neighbors so there wasn’t much to deal with.
I think the nightmare situation is a busybody HOA that starts going after things that don’t matter, which would be hell.
Wow, no. That should only be dealt with by the city. I cannot imagine the types of misuse and abuse that would come from the self-centered, small-minded petty tyrants that want to be on a HOA board deciding what breeds of dog they'd like in their community. It'd be a bunch of "toy" dogs that frankly I find far more obnoxious than larger breeds with incessant yapping. I don't get to make the decision that that's a problem, because it's a preference/annoyance, not a problem. But you can guarantee that that's the kind of thing that happens.
> I think the nightmare situation is a busybody HOA that starts going after things that don’t matter, which would be hell.
I think many HOAs are exactly that, because often the kind of person drawn to being on a HOA board is exactly that. Just like they're often the kind of person to post on Nextdoor, "Hey, there are a bunch of black teenagers I've not seen before walking down the street."
Net effect you lose money living in a worse location.
Also, we have no HOA, so there are no ridiculous restrictions, which means the neighborhood has character. Every house is painted in unique colorful styles, instead of endless shades of dull beige. Every house has unique vegetation choices based on owner preferences so it is fun to walk around and sightsee. We have no HOA, so there are zero restrictions on decorations, so we are the Halloween capital of the county (coming up in a few weeks!)
It's a vibrant unique neighborhood full of facilities and character, precisely because there is no HOA to destroy it.
A similar neighborhood across town (we're a small town so across town is just a mile away) has a HOA, every house is a dull shade of beige and they have very harsh rules, like HOAs of course do, on decorations, so Halloween and Christmas are DOA over there.
Unfortunately there are nowhere near enough choices for people who want a bit more joy out of their neighborhood than that.
In this context, do you still believe that dealing with this fine should involve the work, effort, resources, legal fees, court time, delays in court availability because healthy 40 year old Jim bob was late for work and couldn't shovel their portion of the sidewalk the last 10 times? Or that the Gen Z, not my problem because I don't think it's a problem.
But that’s all beside the point, because this article is about how HOAs are bad for people who need somewhere to live, not about what offends your (unusual) taste.
Give me a neighborhood with freedom where every house is different, every yard is different. That's a community.
This is relative. You might not think native flowers and plants are stunning, and that a manicured lawn is, but I do! And lawn rules might prevent me from obtaining my version of “stunning”. This is something…you want to defend? A lack of freedom to do what one wants with something they own?
Narrow bounds would be one thing! The issue with this point is that you may unable to purchase a house _without_ an HOA:
* https://mediaroom.realtor.com/2026-01-27-Nearly-44-of-U-S-Ho...
* https://www.nahb.org/blog/2025/12/community-builds-are-on-th...
So it's not really about having a choice, it's about lack of one.
I would wager that the money residents might have paid for HOA fees have largely gone into their own home/yard improvements, and it shows. Adding an HOA in this place, and I think most places, would be a burden rather than a benefit.
There's probably a security aspect too with regular private security patrols in HOA areas that do enough to shoo away encampments from setting up. You don't have to look to hard to find encampments off vine north of melrose but you aren't going to find anything like that south of melrose in hancock park, thanks to the spend on private security, given it's the same LAPD in either case.
I could show you HOA neighborhoods that look like a warzone, and beautiful nonHOA areas of million dollar houses.
However if you are concerned the place to start is high level. HOAs are subservient to other governments who can (and should) place laws about what they can do.
I don't give a shit about a "stunning" neighborhood. If I own property nobody else should have a say about its appearance.
The only exception I'd defend is a historic neighborhood where the goal is specifically to upkeep a historically accurate appearance of centuries ago.
But no, I will NEVER support an HOA anywhere else. These consortiums of Karens that patrol modern housing communities can go to hell.
I will plant the flowers I want, have the Halloween decorations I want, and do whatever woodworking I want in my front yard. What's the point of ownership if I can't own it?