Replies

You don't HAVE to submit yourself to a weekly buffalo-raping by the Home Owner Nazis. You can either move or not move there in the first place.

But my overarching point is the fact that you can do it in the first place. When a free American buys a piece of property, private property rights should be the ultimate and final authority, as long as nobody else's rights are infringed upon. Forgive me for sounding Libertarian, but where am I wrong? The HOA seems to be the one in violation of the Constitution. They don't own the property.

What "should" be and what "is" are two very different things.

When a property has a Covenant on it, you have two choices: sign, or don't buy. . .

You need a lesson in real estate law. When this land in this subdivision was divided into plots BY ITS OWNER, a deed restriction was also placed on all of the land by ITS OWNER. The land was then sold to others SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTION, with each purchaser saying in writing that he or she read all the rules in the deed restriction and wholeheartedly agrees to them. The restrictions protect the property owners from one another doing anything against the deed restriction -- like building a rendering plant, or playing their new Bose stereo in the back yard at top volume at 2 AM, or erecting a 500 foot satellite dish.

Associations are legally required to enforce the rules. Associations also often keep the streets cleared of snow, maintain the community swimming pool and tennis courts, and provide other valuable services. These services cost money, and $120 a year is pretty cheap.

Bottom line: these homeowners agreed to lose their home if they did not pay their dues. They have nothing to b*tch about.

But my overarching point is the fact that you can do it in the first place. When a free American buys a piece of property, private property rights should be the ultimate and final authority, as long as nobody else's rights are infringed upon. Forgive me for sounding Libertarian, but where am I wrong? The HOA seems to be the one in violation of the Constitution. They don't own the property.>>

Well, it is all tied into how we transfer seisin, or ownership rights over real property, from Person 1 to Person 2, using the system of land laws in place since the time of Henry VIII.

I'm going to oversimplify horribly (my Property Law professor would puke if she read this) but I'll try to explain.

When I sell land to you, I can sell the land in fee simple, giving you all rights, and retaining none. I could, in the alternative, sell you land with a "right of reversion" (I can specify that the land I sell or give you MUST be used for building a church, or you must keep it alcohol-free, or whatever; if you use the land for a purpose other than that I specify when I sell it to you, I can then retake possession of the land and eject you, even though you bought the land from me. Covenants, which are used to form HOAs, are related to this "right of reversion".

Homeowner Nazi Gauleiters derive their power from this kind of land sale. I am the Evil Developer. I buy a farm for a song at an estate sale for pennies on the dollar. Bwhahahaha. I then divide the land up into individual lots and sell them piecemeal after building homes on the lot. But the deed I sell specifies that you MUST buy the land on the condition that you MUST participate in the Homeowner Nazi Buffalo Rape Ceremony every year by throwing money at them. You are also prohibited from doing anything that the Homeowner Nazis prohibit as offensive, like painting your front door bright fuscia, or putting up a treehouse in your back yard, or having a statute of the Virgin in the garden. If you fail to throw the requisite money or otherwise submit to their dictatorial rule, the aforementioned Nazis can, and do, have the right to sue you for the money or seize (a word etymologically related to "seisin") your home and sell it out from under you. As happened here.

Once this condition is put into the deed it is almost impossible to get rid of as you have to get EVERYONE living in the subidivision to agree to get rid of it. ONE holdout can veto.

The First Amendment remember relates only to goverment action by the federal government, states, or agencies of the states (such as state owned universities). But HOAs are NOT "governmental" in nature.

This is also why for many years "no-Jews" or "no-blacks" covenants could not be overridden, and these days even if those covenants cannot be enforced they are still almost impossible to get rid of. Which means any Repubican considering running for office had better check the deed of his home proir to buying because any no-Jews covenants will be used against him by the Press (even though they're not his fault and impossible to get rid of). (Democrats of course need fear nothing of the sort.)

There is a certain beauty and elegance to English land ownership law, which still is operative in the United States. But the downside is that the Nazis and their buffaloes roam in subdivisions and you'd better be prepared to submit to them if they have the authority.

When a free American buys a piece of property, private property rights should be the ultimate and final authority, as long as nobody else's rights are infringed upon. Forgive me for sounding Libertarian, but where am I wrong?

They agreed to the HOA when they bought the property. They voluntarily surrendered some of their property rights. Then, they didn't keep their part of the bargain.

I can't believe this situation couldn't have been averted before it came to this, but to say the HOA is some sort of communist infringement of the Constitution is just simple ignorance. It is a voluntary contract between private property owners.

This is a result perfectly in tune with libertarian principles.