I came in here gung ho to defend HOA’s because I’ve seen neighborhoods without them and they’re never really stunning. That being said the ability or the power to foreclose on your home because of that should not be allowed.
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?