OT-Homeowners' Associations

[Tedster]

I don't live in one. And won't. How many of you all do? I think they're just an excuse for a bunch of wannabes to be as nosy and intrusive as possible. I mean, if I spent 200K or more on a house, I sure wouldn't want someone telling me what color I could paint it.

 

So, why do folks subject themselves to this sort of scrutiny?

 

"Mr. Jones, you left your hedgeclippers on the porch last night. 10 demerits and a $25 fine."

 

"Mrs. Smith, you left your garage door open last night. 10 demerits and a $25 fine."

 

"Mr. Tucker, you painted your house with an unapproved color. 50 demerits, a $100 fine, and you'll have to repaint your house within a week".

 

What a bunch of nimrods.

[Steve Force]

Ok, other side of the coin: What if you home was the nicest one in the neighborhood--you took pride in ensuring the lawn was cut and well-trimmed, the house painted reqularly (and professionally), no junky cars in the driveway, etc.

 

Then, someone moves in next to you, proceeds to ignore their yard, starts repairing cars in their driveway (leaving transmission housing along the wall nearest to your house, etc.

 

Would you like it? Probably not. Would you like recourse? Probably.

 

This is the reason for these associations.

 

Not for everybody but for those who do it works well.

 

Although I don't live in such an association-controlled area, our township has very strict rules and enforces them. I like this.

 

If I wanted to live in areas where people worked on their cars, etc (which can be great fun), then I could move to plenty of neighborhoods here in Metro-Detroit which allow this.

[daddyelmis]

I've lived with both, and have seen the pro's and con's of both up close.

 

My observation is that they probably are not necessary 90-95% of time . . . it's that last 5% that creates all the issues (the car lot in the front yard, the 2 full-size RVs on the street, the 15 blue-tick hounds, etc.).

 

I'm an urban dweller and always have been. I respect people's right to do what they want with their property, SUBJECT TO their recognition of where they live and the obvious local standards. Why someone would move into an urban home and try to recreate "country living" (i.e., getting a dozen animals, working on the tractor in the yard, etc.) is a mystery. Same with folks that move into the country and whine about horses on the shoulders of the road or complain that the county should widen the 2 lane roads.

[Roadie]

Originally posted by Tedster:

So, why do folks subject themselves to this sort of scrutiny? What a bunch of nimrods.

Why? Simple. It's the fact that most people are sheep. Many of the folks that live in these types of communities are fleeing/hiding from the problems around them in general society. Homeowner's Association's et. al. Are also a form of classism/elitism. Plus, if they build a community, with all these strict rules, they can easily exclude all the undesireable people they don't want living next to them.

 

You know they can't have the Wal Mart clerk, with her ten year old primer shot, cutlass, who is just scraping by trying to raise kids on her own, or the the auto mechanic who makes extra money by doing repair work on the side, etc. moving in here and driving the property values down.

 

[videoeditor1]

I've rented, lived in a co-op, a townhouse and a house.

 

I believe the question has been answered, and lucky Tedster lives on a 20 acre spread!

 

Generally, the people who are on the boards of homeowners associations don't have problems with them - as they are the ones in control. It is the responsibility of the prospective tenant to make sure they can handle the rules, and how stuff is arbritrated.

 

For the most part, it is the presence of homeowners associations in these developments that make them appealing to the general public.

 

In a lot of instances, it's retirees with too much time on their hands.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by forceman:

Ok, other side of the coin: What if you home was the nicest one in the neighborhood--you took pride in ensuring the lawn was cut and well-trimmed, the house painted reqularly (and professionally), no junky cars in the driveway, etc.

 

Then, someone moves in next to you, proceeds to ignore their yard, starts repairing cars in their driveway (leaving transmission housing along the wall nearest to your house, etc.

 

Would you like it? Probably not.

No, but since when should anyone be allowed to control what someone else does on their own property, just because they don't like it? If it's a health hazard or disturbing the peace, sure. But for a nebulous reason like "I don't like to look at it and it's devaluing my property," give me a break.

 

To be honest, the perfectly trimmed yard causes just as much damage to my property as the guy working on his car. My neighbors keeping their yards perfect involves hours of disturbing my peace with their noisy mowers and leaf blowers, which also smell bad, and dumping toxic chemical fertilizers and pesticides into their yards which smell bad too and leach onto my property and into the creek that runs through my property. Since there is a city ordinance that prohibits polluting the creek, I in fact probably have a legal case against my neighbors' "nice" yards. I also think manicured lawns are ugly and spoil the natural beauty of a place. But I'm not going to try to impose my personal aesthetics on my neighbors by force, and I don't appreciate anyone trying to impose theirs on me.

 

If I wanted to live in areas where people worked on their cars, etc (which can be great fun), then I could move to plenty of neighborhoods here in Metro-Detroit which allow this.

Yeah but it only takes a few busybodies to change that. I've seen it happen a lot - people start buying into a neighborhood because it's cheap (maybe because there are lots of people working on their cars and painting their houses funky colors), then proceed to transform their own properties into picture perfect middle class suburban homes, which to their mind entitles them to force everyone else to do the same. Chances are these people aren't even going to live in the neighborhood long anyway, they're just trying to buy cheap and sell at a big profit. But they sure do manage to drive away the long term residents who made the neighborhood what it was, or force them to change the entire character of the place for short term profit.

[ViLo]

Originally posted by forceman:

Ok, other side of the coin: What if you home was the nicest one in the neighborhood--you took pride in ensuring the lawn was cut and well-trimmed, the house painted reqularly (and professionally), no junky cars in the driveway, etc.

 

Then, someone moves in next to you, proceeds to ignore their yard, starts repairing cars in their driveway (leaving transmission housing along the wall nearest to your house, etc.

 

Would you like it? Probably not. Would you like recourse? Probably.

 

One thing is to keep your house and yard neat and clean and another thing is to have some morons telling you what color to paint your house, how tall your trees need to be etc.. etc..

 

If I pay for my house I do what I want with it!

 

I tihnk city rules and regulations are enough to keep my house neat and clean.

[Abnorm]

A woman here in Dallas/Fort Worth is in a homeowners association, and she's taking them to court because they won't let her fly an American flag.

 

Let's all micromanage each other's lives ... we have nothing better to do.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Abnorm:

Let's all micromanage each other's lives ... we have nothing better to do.

For real.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by zeronyne:

Now, one thing that I think you are implying that I DO agree with is the need for existing codes to be enforced. And of course, it's lower income areas that suffer from lack of code enforcement. I doubt that the Wal Mart employee that's just scraping by (by the way, my neighbor is a Wal Mart employee) is going to want to live next to an ad hoc auto repair service either.

This paragraph pretty much proves the point that homeowners' associations ARE "classist and elitist" for the most part. They usually don't intend to be, it's just that such associations tend to be started by people who aren't lower income and therefore don't have much understanding of what it's like to be poor.

 

The fact is that somebody who works at Wal-Mart is not likely to have very much money so, whether or not they like the way it looks to have an auto repair shop in their yard, they are probably going to have to work on their own car if it breaks down or take it to a neighbor who knows how to fix cars. And they will probably be driving an older car so it will probably need a fair bit of maintenance.

 

There are also a lot of poor neighborhoods where people share housing, rent out rooms etc. to get by, which is often against city codes or homeowners' covenants. But, again, if you don't have much money where are you supposed to live? These codes are often unwittingly making it a crime to be poor. Often when they are enforced it's for the "protection" of people who only intend to be in the neighborhood a short time and wish to increase their property value - NOT the longtime residents who have a continuing need for affordable places to live.

 

I'm certainly not against the existence of homeowners' associations for the purpose of maintaining COMMON property (parks, creeks, etc.), implementing neighborhood watch programs, having block parties etc. But don't tell me what color to paint my own damn house or how my yard should look or who I can live with, thank you.

[ViLo]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

[i'm certainly not against the existence of homeowners' associations for the purpose of maintaining COMMON property (parks, creeks, etc.), implementing neighborhood watch programs, having block parties etc. But don't tell me what color to paint my own damn house or how my yard should look or who I can live with, thank you.

[PBBPaul]

I too, live in a supposedly exclusive community with a homeowners association. I built my house in 1996 and I remember that in 97-98 the HA board started to assume a bunch of power. They wanted to keep an attorney on retainer (at a ridiculous rate) for themselves at our expense just in case they ever got sued. The attorney just happened to be a friend of one of the board members. They wanted to hire a landscaping company to maintain the common areas at our expense. The common area in question is a small patch of grass in front of my house that needs to be mowed in the summer. It takes me about 15 minutes to cut it. The board wanted one of my neighbors to tear down the shed he had built in his back yard because he hadnt asked their permission first. They made another neighbor take down his TV antenna.

 

We, as a group of neighbors finally got so fed up that we called a series of meetings that started with a big O.K. Corral style showdown in the middle of the street. Seriously, it looked like something out of West Side Story with one group of neighbors from each end of the subdivision stalking down in big mobs and meeting in the middle for a rumble. There were many heated arguments that finally resulted in that most elusive of conclusions: common sense. We agreed as a community to take care of common areas by ourselves, no lawyer for the board, no insurance for the board and minimal maintenance fees (I think theyre like $40/year). We also agreed to leave decisions regarding sheds, fences etc. up to any neighbors who can see the proposed structure from their yards. We voted to dissolve the board but the original developers are contractually bound to the city to have a board in place for 20 years. So every year three poor saps get nominated by their neighbors with a sense of humor to be on the HA board.

 

We still have a few snobby neighbors who like the thought of living in an exclusive community but most of us are just fine. Our property values have gone up about 125% since I built and we have a wonderful, peaceful little community. The guy who had to take down his TV antenna quietly gets his revenge by keeping a bunch cheesy pink Flamingo lawn ornaments in his front yard. In plain view of snobs who complained. It cracks me up.

[felix.]

In many cases, the rules that are in place in a community are the reason that the community is attractive to a potential buyer anyway.

 

And anyone buying a home is already agreeing to be subject to the association guidelines. It also seems that it is a way for people with common values (community standards and aesthetics, mostly) to ensure that their community will continue to adhere to those standards. Of course, everyone has the choice whether to buy a home in one of these communities or not.

 

I have owned homes in 4 communities now, and the "strictness" of the rules has varied. I don't think they have been unreasonable. IMO, if everyone was naturally responsible about caring for their property, then fewer associations would be necessary.

 

Also, there seems to be a trend towards private communities being considered private property by cities - for instance, one community I lived in was responsible for paying the street light electric bill and road maintenance - if we had not had an association or dues, there would have been no means to raise this money.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by felix.:

And anyone buying a home is already agreeing to be subject to the association guidelines. It also seems that it is a way for people with common values (community standards and aesthetics, mostly) to ensure that their community will continue to adhere to those standards. Of course, everyone has the choice whether to buy a home in one of these communities or not.

Not if you are a long time resident and the homeowners' association is started or the rules changed by people whose values don't agree with yours. If there is an exemption for people who were already living on their property prior to the existence of the rules, then that's fine. But oftentimes there isn't.

 

IMO, if everyone was naturally responsible about caring for their property, then fewer associations would be necessary.

The problem is that you're making a lot of assumptions about what "caring for their property" means. People have different aesthetics based on personal taste and often on economic circumstances. One of the supposed benefits of private property is that a property owner can tailor their own property to suit their own taste and their own purposes. But if your neighbor can dictate your aesthetics, how is this respectful of private property?

[Dylan]

I dont think Ill ever buy a house that requires a H.A. Yes, it sucks having a neighbor that parks his R.V. on the side of the road, and my neighbor with two roosters that go off every freakin morning at 6 AM really gets on my nerves. I just dont want someone telling me that I cant park my sailboat in my back yard or how I should maintain my lawn. Plus, I dont like the idea of paying a fee on top of my mortgage that I might not benefit from. To each their own.

[blackfish]

$500,000 for a house on one acre? BUMMER.

Tedster (20 acres) sounds like the smart one here. No offense zero9.

[Dak Lander]

Several salient point made here, on both sides.

 

If you don't like associations, don't buy a house that has on mandated.

If you live in a non association area and there's a drive started to begin an association, it would behoove you to commit to the fight to keep the association out. No association can be stared without the majority of folks wanting one, and not a simple majority either.

 

Our association is reasonable, for California, at about $50.00 a month. That includes keeping the common and green areas maintenance up as well as a swimming pool, park and hiking/jogging trail that is for association members and their guests. Yes, we get notices now and again about oil on the driveway & a few other things but overall it's one of the reasons my home is now valued at over $400K, tripled in value in 8 years. We made sure to pay the extra money for the view out our back yard, not looking at a neighbors yard, or some ugly block wall or wooden privacy fence.

 

I don't see cars on blocks, weedy, dusty front yards with fences falling down. I can see that by going down the street a mile or so to my friends neighborhood where there is no association. His house and yard are always kept very nice but the rest of the area looks horrible. You can barely drive down the street for all the vehicles parked helter skelter. Each home must have four or five vehicles, no room in the garage, nor in the driveway. Yeah, that's a great way to live.

[felix.]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Originally posted by felix.:

And anyone buying a home is already agreeing to be subject to the association guidelines. It also seems that it is a way for people with common values (community standards and aesthetics, mostly) to ensure that their community will continue to adhere to those standards. Of course, everyone has the choice whether to buy a home in one of these communities or not.

Not if you are a long time resident and the homeowners' association is started or the rules changed by people whose values don't agree with yours. If there is an exemption for people who were already living on their property prior to the existence of the rules, then that's fine. But oftentimes there isn't.

 

IMO, if everyone was naturally responsible about caring for their property, then fewer associations would be necessary.

The problem is that you're making a lot of assumptions about what "caring for their property" means. People have different aesthetics based on personal taste and often on economic circumstances. One of the supposed benefits of private property is that a property owner can tailor their own property to suit their own taste and their own purposes. But if your neighbor can dictate your aesthetics, how is this respectful of private property?

If I didn't agree with the rules, I wouldn't have bought a house in that community. If I had an RV and needed to park it by my house, have a 50-foot play fort for my kids built in my backyard, paint my house purple with chartreuse trim, keep farm animals, keep a car on blocks in my driveway, park a boat in my backyard, not mow/weed my yard - I'd make sure to buy a house in a community where I could do those things.

 

I agree that it is in some cases unfair to those living in a non HOA community when the community decides to become an HOA community, but as it was already pointed out, this is usually decided democratically.

[Geetar]

I've just discovered that in the condo I've moved into while we build our new house (a one year job, if we're lucky), you can't have a motorcycle (I have an 883- I'm only a 145 lb Limey). It's in the building's Charter or something. I was told- and I quote:

 

"You must move your motorcycle away from here. You must obey the Rules, like everyone else does."

 

I pointed out that other folks probably didn't own Sportsters, so they weren't "following the Rules"- they were being led by the Rules.

 

I suppose 'bikes are too, I dunno, noisy for "decent folks"? It couldn't be that a Harley is actually....evil.......could it? Not fit for polite society? You tell me.

[videoeditor1]

In Westchester County NY, you can't even GET new construction on 1 acre.

 

A townhome/toenhouse (new construction) is about $750K.

 

We are going to have to change how we want to live, or change immigration laws. We can't have it both ways. Easy in-migration, and a bunch of people (me too!) wanting 3000sq ft properties on 1+ acres, plus community pools & tennis courts.

 

I suspect the people that generally bash home associations have never had to repeatedly deal with an unreasonable neighbor, or see an investment of a house go down the drain due to the sorrounding areas.

 

Folks, 99.99% of America is run on money. The remaining fraction is run on the want of money. We all do what we can to retain wealth and accumulate wealth.

 

A home association is no worse than having your money in the bank. You are simply in a place where you put protections in place for your assets.

 

NYC Drew

[Steve Force]

Geetar , get a copy of the rules and read them yourself. Then you have the facts.

[LiveMusic]

Originally posted by PBBPaul:

The guy who had to take down his TV antenna quietly gets his revenge by keeping a bunch cheesy pink Flamingo lawn ornaments in his front yard. In plain view of snobs who complained. It cracks me up.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by daklander:

I don't see cars on blocks, weedy, dusty front yards with fences falling down. I can see that by going down the street a mile or so to my friends neighborhood where there is no association. His house and yard are always kept very nice but the rest of the area looks horrible. You can barely drive down the street for all the vehicles parked helter skelter. Each home must have four or five vehicles, no room in the garage, nor in the driveway. Yeah, that's a great way to live.

Apparently somebody thinks it is - somebody else who's worked their ass off and forked over a large amount of their hard earned cash to buy a home - or they wouldn't do it. If an association were formed in your friend's neighborhood, could the people who live there now afford to keep their fences consistently maintained and take their cars to a pro mechanic? If not, they'd be forced to move. Where would they go, and how is it right to force a property owner out of their neighborhood?

 

The "increasing property value" thing has always struck me as pretty bizarre too. My house is worth twice what it was when I bought it 10 years ago. This is supposed to be a good thing. But in reality what does it mean? If I stay in this house, which I intend to, it means my property taxes keep going up. If I sold the house I could buy... what? If I were looking for a bigger/more expensive house, it would probably another house in a market where values have also increased. So I'd be no better off in terms of how much more house I could buy, than I would have if property values had grown more slowly or remained steady... unless I move to a place where housing values are cheaper, which might mean a place where uhh... people have cars in their yards and stuff. Which I'm not supposed to want. So I move in there anyway and start a homeowners' association forcing poorer people to live like people with money, so I can have "greater property value"? . Uh, OK.

 

As it is, I worry about the increasing property value around here and wonder how much longer the same kinds of folks who lived here when I first moved here - folks I tend to really like - will be able to afford to move here. I wonder how many houses are now being bought up by investors who never intend to live in them. This neighborhood certainly would be a poorer place for it. But it is interesting that my home/neighborhood has doubled its value in 10 years despite the fact that some people paint their houses purple, or have weedy yards, or other supposedly undesirable things. Apparently some people see "live and let live" as a desirable quality in a neighbor.

[felix.]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

As it is, I worry about the increasing property value around here and wonder how much longer the same kinds of folks who lived here when I first moved here - folks I tend to really like - will be able to afford to move here. I wonder how many houses are now being bought up by investors who never intend to live in them. This neighborhood certainly would be a poorer place for it. But it is interesting that my home/neighborhood has doubled its value in 10 years despite the fact that some people paint their houses purple, or have weedy yards, or other supposedly undesirable things. Apparently some people see "live and let live" as a desirable quality in a neighbor.

Lee, following your anti-HOA logic, if an investor wanted to buy a house and not live in it, that would be their right as a property owner, right? And why do you think that new property owners in the area wouldn't be folks you really like - or are you just worried that the folks you really like won't be able to afford to continue living in the community because of rising property values and the taxes that go with them (Property taxes being a separate subject altogether).

 

Interesting points.

[Gator Wing]

Ted,

 

My youngest ex-brother-in-law lives in a neighborhood with a homeowner's association that employs an enforcer/observer. This guy drives around the neighborhood and writes up people for violating the rules. The B-i-L once got written up because one of the house numbers fell off and his wife didn't nail it up right away, she left it for him to fix when he came home. But the enforcer saw it and reported it. They have to power wash their driveway and the sidewalk in front of their house 3 or 4 times a year or they can get written up for a dirty sidewalk.

[Gator Wing]

Many properties have deed restrictions and/or covenants. These are what become legally binding in court, but most people buying property aren't aware of the restriction/covenants because they don't read the deed before purchasing the property.

[Gator Wing]

Originally posted by Geetar:

I've just discovered that in the condo I've moved into while we build our new house (a one year job, if we're lucky), you can't have a motorcycle (I have an 883- I'm only a 145 lb Limey). It's in the building's Charter or something.

That is becoming very common in condo's in Florida and California. Even in states like Arizona and New Mexico.

 

You aren't the first to discover that rule after moving in.

 

I own a Gold Wing that is quieter than most cars, so I'd have a problem with that rule.

[Dak Lander]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Apparently somebody thinks it is - somebody else who's worked their ass off and forked over a large amount of their hard earned cash to buy a home - or they wouldn't do it. If an association were formed in your friend's neighborhood, could the people who live there now afford to keep their fences consistently maintained and take their cars to a pro mechanic? If not, they'd be forced to move. Where would they go, and how is it right to force a property owner out of their neighborhood?

Well, who knows for sure, but presumably yes.

As to the cars on blocks Lee, I'm not talking about a guy doing his brakes in his driveway. I'm talking about cars on blocks in the street for MONTHS on end. It would be possible for those folks to clear out their garages of the fire hazard in them and place the wrecks in there, and all the houses do have garages.

As to fence maintenance. It doesn't take much to pound a few nails in to keep the rails in position and if a verticle post is broken a 4X4 post doesn't cost much either, and a can of paint can be had pretty darned reasonable too, if the fence is painted. It's mostly pure laziness as far as I can see.

The "increasing property value" thing has always struck me as pretty bizarre too. My house is worth twice what it was when I bought it 10 years ago. This is supposed to be a good thing. But in reality what does it mean? If I stay in this house, which I intend to, it means my property taxes keep going up. If I sold the house I could buy... what? If I were looking for a bigger/more expensive house, it would probably another house in a market where values have also increased. So I'd be no better off in terms of how much more house I could buy, than I would have if property values had grown more slowly or remained steady... unless I move to a place where housing values are cheaper, which might mean a place where uhh... people have cars in their yards and stuff. Which I'm not supposed to want. So I move in there anyway and start a homeowners' association forcing poorer people to live like people with money, so I can have "greater property value"? . Uh, OK.

 

As it is, I worry about the increasing property value around here and wonder how much longer the same kinds of folks who lived here when I first moved here - folks I tend to really like - will be able to afford to move here. I wonder how many houses are now being bought up by investors who never intend to live in them. This neighborhood certainly would be a poorer place for it. But it is interesting that my home/neighborhood has doubled its value in 10 years despite the fact that some people paint their houses purple, or have weedy yards, or other supposedly undesirable things. Apparently some people see "live and let live" as a desirable quality in a neighbor.

 

Well, here, the property taxes stay the same unless you sell the house so it's a huge advantage to have the value of the property increase. Even if those taxes weren't based on the purchase price and were tied to the valuation they are a tax deduction so in the overall context of the matter it's not a valid arguement. Also, if you don't want a property to increase in value, why purchase? Just rent or lease.

 

Personally, I don't think you would be too happy if your neighbors derelict of a home, and their refusal to do anything about the hazard or eyesore, dropped YOUR property's value.

 

I'm sure you're aware too that a car on blocks IS a hazard, even if they are real jack stands, they can collapse. That's really safe for the kids that will, undoubtedly play on or around that vehicle.

The oil, grease, coolant and battery acids running down the gutters or seeping into some guys front yard WILL end up in your water table and are worse than the guy tossing fertilizer on his lawn a couple of times a year.

 

Your worry about investors is probably valid. Those properties are rented out and few renters that I've seen have a personal attachement, or real investment into the property so don't really care about it's condition. That is one of the things that lead to the neglect.

From my viewpoint, if there were no rental houses in neighborhoods, only apartment complexes or condos, there would be less of a need for home owners associations. One huge item in the CC&Rs could make the whole association issue moot. That would be the restriction from renting a property in that neighborhood. If you purchase the property you would have to reside in that property. For the most part then, pride of ownership would take care of the rest.

Something else that's interesting, at least here in Temecula, is this; Rent is as costly as purchasing, on a month to month outlay. I couldn't afford to rent the house that I own and make payments on and that's pretty much the way it is here.

What it boils down to are the differences in our diverse locales and the resulting different needs. What may work there will likely not work here and vise versa.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by felix.:

Lee, following your anti-HOA logic, if an investor wanted to buy a house and not live in it, that would be their right as a property owner, right?

Sure, so long as the rules aren't changed to favor THEIR demands at the expense of people who actually live in their houses (driving them out through increased taxes, creating covenants or ordinances they can't afford to follow, etc.)

 

And why do you think that new property owners in the area wouldn't be folks you really like - or are you just worried that the folks you really like won't be able to afford to continue living in the community because of rising property values and the taxes that go with them (Property taxes being a separate subject altogether).

Well, a little of both. I've been on the wrong end of "neighborhood gentrification" more than once, both in L.A. and here in Atlanta, and I'm surprised with this being a musicians' forum that more of you haven't (or maybe we just haven't heard from you in this thread yet... lol). You know... a bunch of broke musicians and artists move into a run-down neighborhood and proceed to make it into an affordable but cool, funky place, full of creative people who might paint their houses wacky colors or have wild gardens or work on their own cars, mixed in with immigrants and other poorer folk who similarly are looking for a place where they're free to live as they wish and be diverse in their ideas of what's aesthetically pleasing. And everybody likes it that way just fine.

 

Then a few "yuppies" move in - people who lower themselves to move into this "quaint" neighborhood because real yuppie houses are too expensive for them - and proceed to turn up their noses at everything the longtime residents find cool. I had a next door neighbor like this for a couple of years, who was just waiting for her property value to increase so they could sell their house and buy something in a cookie cutter neighborhood with strict covenants. Which they eventually did, and which is all fine and good except that the whole time they lived here they kept trying to change everybody else. I tried to be nice and we'd go for walks together with my dog and her baby, and the whole way she'd be checking out people's houses and yards and bitching about the color of this person's trim or the age of that person's car.

 

Like I said... she moved eventually, quite clearly didn't fit in, but if the neighborhood keeps getting more expensive I wonder whether the only people who'll be able to afford to live here will be people like her. I've seen this happen to other neighborhoods already. And if people keep making "property value" their holy grail, where are all the young creative people just starting out going to go? As it is, so called "artist lofts" in some pretty crappy urban neighborhoods are way more expensive than any real artist could afford. Originally they weren't, because they were falling apart and actual artists moved in and took them over. But now that they're subject to the same kinds of codes and covenants as everybody else, the very people who made these neighborhoods what they are can't afford to live there.

 

Poor people need places to live too, and often are perfectly willing to live under conditions someone with more means wouldn't. I understand the need for codes to protect people's safety (including and perhaps especially the poor), but when it becomes a matter of enforcing people's aesthetics in order to drive up property value, that goes way too far. And I don't want my neighborhood to attract the sort of people who would do this. So I'd just as soon property values remained steady, or increased only at the same rate as inflation.

[RDuke]

I live in small development that has an association. The city requires the development to have a retention pond. The retention pond actually serves more than just our development due to the drainage network. The pond must be dredged every ten years to remove accumulated silt. That's expensive and guess who foots the bill? Guess how that money's collected? There are also comman areas that get maintained and lighting and that cost money. So in my situation, it's a matter of economics due to city mandate for new neighborhoods. Other advantages can be local political representation. An HOA has tons more clout than a single citizen at city hall and town councils.

 

But yeah, these things overboard.