The Future of HOA's and Condos in the Community

I wonder if the regular posters on this site would respond with about 300 words.

What do you all see in the future? Certainly the dyanamics of HOA's and Condo's is growing and will have dramatic effect on communities. Right now it is, to me, a mish mash of who governs who, and fast changing. It seemed to work when there was just small numbers of people under this confusion of different states' control. Now the lines between states is blurring where it is almost, if not totally, impossible to get an answer about certain rights we are supposed to have. Just way too complicated and all you can pay for in some cases is a legal opinion because the Laws are so antiquated.

The real change in cities and counties and states caused by increasing numbers of absentee owners is dangerous. It puts the HOA's in a vulnerable position because their is no representation in local and state offices. Here we have, and it is getting worse rapidly, a situation where thousands of people that are not residents are influencing the governance of residents, if fact controlling them. Something really needs to be done to motivate our state and local elected officials.

I don't know if they don't believe times are changing or if the don't care.
I am sure there are other evils to these rapid changes.

Dane, It is my understanding that the standards set forth by the Court of Appeals when this case was remanded to the trial court for reconsideration involved being a private organization not a government body. Therefore, there was no right of free speech since the association is not subject to constitutional limitations.

IMO this may or may not have far reaching consequences depending on the final results.

HOA's were original developed as "Sales tools" for the developer/builders. It was a way to entice people into the community by convincing people that they would have "control" of their properties. If you have a HOA, your neighborhood wouldn't look like a "trailor park". Having rules and providing uniformity would guarantee property values to stay high and increase over time. Who can argue with that logic? How great is the idea that you can purchase a property in a neighborhood and have a say on how the neighborhood operates and enforce clean-up and uniformity? Let's not forget how you can pay a little amount of money a month to enjoy certain amenities such as a pool, clubhouse, or lawncare. It's cheaper to pay in a group than as an individual to have use of these amenities.

The reality of a HOA is quite different. Once you get in, you realize just how much "corporate" and "governmental" a HOA is. You have to deal with "Owner Apathy". Because of "owner apathy" you get a small group of people who's not so "apathetic" and start controlling things. Now your dealing with a bunch of volunteer neighbors with no business or law experience making decisions on your behalf on the property you live in. No one really has a grasp on what is going on and chaos sets in. There's no more builder/developer to run to by the time all of this hits.

Do I think HOA's have a future? I do. You spoon feed enough people a line of bull such as a "utopia" society, your going to get more HOA's by developers trying to make the quick buck and get out.

Boy, did I just say all of that? A person who dedicated years running a HOA????!!! I sure did. Just because I ran and was involved in a HOA, I wasn't blind to the pitfalls of them. However, would I live in another HOA? Yes. Even though the system isn't perfect, I didn't have to mow my yard, had pool access, and it was MUCH cheaper than living out of one. A HOA isn't a bad thing overall, it's just the way you choose to live in one that makes the difference. I chose being active and involved. What's your choice?

AbigailC: You may want to use this website to search for 'pool'. You will find many recent postings with various problems/solutions.

From 1970-1990 condominiums and homeowner associations grew at a moderate pace, except in certain areas, Florida in particular. As a result, people still had a wide choice of housing which included residences without restrictions, and yet, a large number of people chose to move into community associations. This showed, and even though it sometimes get lost in the rhetoric, still shows, that there is a market for units in community associations. Believe it or not, there are people who are attracted to this lifestyle, although they rarely show up on this board---why--they're not particularly unhappy with their association.

In the late 1980's and early '90's, a revolt against local property taxes began in many states, and many local governments found their revenue actually decreasing, or at best, not increasing enough to keep up with costs. Homeowner and condo associations gave them one way of dealing with this. More density produced more income and fewer services reduced the cost per unit. This allowed them to operate without laying people off or trying to raise taxes. As a result, just about all new developments had an association attached and so, people who wanted new housing found their choices diminishing. Some adapted to association living, some didn't. It is with this group that you began to hear the "rights" argument.

The "rights" argument is interesting. The first group to bring it up basically said that individuals can't "sign away" their constitutional rights. Well, yes they can, just ask anyone who has ever enlisted in the military. The NJ Twin Rivers case said, in effect, that your rights can be restricted if the restrictions are "reasonable". Specifically, requiring signs to be in windows rather than lawns was not unreasonable, so your free speech or expression was not shut off, just directed in a way you might not particulary agree with. And therein lies 99% of the problems, where to draw the constantly moving line.

What's going to happen in the future???

As long as local voters turn down property tax increases, community associations are going to be the only housing that will be built. And there will always be people who want to live in a community association. They're not going away.

The people who want major changes in the laws govrning community associations aren't going to get them if they impact the 3 most powerful lobbying groups at the state level, and although these groups keep pointing at CAI as the "enemy", in fact, no legislation gets through that the builders, mortgage bankers, and bar association have a problem with. So legislation will continue to be piecemeal "fixes" which will often do as much harm as good. However, the next version of the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act (UCIOA) will probably make it through many legislatures relatively intact because the "big 3" will support it. This will become the most common legislation dealing with community associations for that main reason (better study up on it).

Associations will continue to make the news, although associatons themselves won't be the problem. It will be as it has always been, the elected boards or the individual owners who are the problems. The association is just an entity that be used for good or bad depending on how the people who live in it decide to use it. That always seems to get lost in the newscasts, but if you look at the posts here, they are almost always about the people, not the institution.

More states will probably create some sort of "ombudsman" office to help owners who have problems with their boards. But this is probably how that will go: Legislature creates office of ombudsman, funded by registation fees on all community association lots, homes and units. Plugs along for a couple of years. State finds itself short of money, reduces or eliminates staff of ombudsman, transfers registration money to general fund. Start all over.

A few random thoughts

Joe