Replies

Sorry, you have diversity standards and HOA’s confused. HOA’s don’t say anything about communities having the same fundamental values. HOA’s speak specifically to what you can do with your property, and as such is an infringement on your freedom to own property - which was an absolute novelty in governance introduced by the founders.

Gone forever are the days where you would apply for membership to a church, which used to be the center of a community. That is over.

Forced diversity is now a legal minimum. Like minded people are no longer allowed to live together in quiet enjoyment of their shared values. Boy Scouts took MAJOR hits for not allowing gays as leaders on one hand, and then suffered legal liabilties for gay leaders molesting a boy in the 70’s or 80’s on the other.

Dude, you CAN’T win that fight any more. Your freedom of assembly is permanently abridged. That’s not ever coming back. All I’m talking about is the ability to build a deck without getting a sign off from both neighbors, and having the design approved by three unqualified do-gooders AND THEN going and paying the city for a permit.

I’m trenching into one of the last available fallback perimeters at this point. Nobody is safe from predator legal action at this point. Even Al Gore felt the flames a bit in Oregon recently, but his case got kicked by the DA.

All I want is the ability to not have to get somebody’s approval to improve my asset, to which I have clear title (which I don’t, since the HOA has the exclusive ability to put a lien on it if the note is paid off).

You have Constitutions and Covenants very mixed up. Also, keep in mind that actual OWNERSHIP is the issue here. OWNERSHIP and CITIZENSHIP are very different things. The idea of ‘fundamental rights’ being very different.

The very first ownership associations were SLAVE OWNER ASSOCIATIONS, and there was no concept of fundamental rights involved with economic assets like slaves.

The Civil War was, in a small part, a revolt against the idea of ownership trumping fundamental human rights. Ownership took a second place to fundamental rights, but it remained superior to the idea of the rights of the collective.

HOA’s seek to form a collective ownership out of a community of individual owners, and ask you to CEDE your INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO OWN PROPERTY to the collective’s right to control it for the putative purpose of better preserving the average market price of houses in the neighborhood.

Preserving the value of your own property has sufficient benefits and penalties. If that isn’t sufficient, I’ll start a petition and go to court with it. Better that than ask somebody to give up their abilty to own their own home.

HOA’s don’t say anything about communities having the same fundamental values. HOA’s speak specifically to what you can do with your property

And as such, they are addressing only a fraction of the broad spectrum of "community standards". This ought to encourage us - in spite of their all-too-frequent failings - in that it's a step in the right direction of self-government. We ought to be doing more to associate ourselves with good, responsible, upright folks, forming our own communities and HOAs, and learning from and avoiding the mistakes with which we're all so familiar.

Forced diversity is now a legal minimum. Like minded people are no longer allowed to live together in quiet enjoyment of their shared values.

The same could've been said, at one time, about preserving neighborhood aesthetics and property values. Then someone invented the HOA to address this one aspect of community life. Surely we can do better...Right?

Surely we can do something besides put bars on the windows and security alarms in every corner, build our homes out of soundproof materials and keep our children indoors 24x7...Right?

Petty tyrants will always bring their petty tyranny with them. Whether the American colonies, or the local Rotary Club, or the HOA, it's inescapable and has to be addressed. But surely we're capable of self-government...Right?