they are doing it to exclude those that don't fit into their style of life. it's discrimination, plain and simple.
to compare with europe: as far as i know germany or austria don't have the equivalent of a HOA, but what is allowed and what isn't is defined by local law. the closest example i could find are rules a landlord is allowed to impose on their tenants. for example, if i rent a house with garden, then the landlord can demand that i take care of the garden, but they can not specify how often i am supposed to mow the lawn or how high i let it grow.
if not even a landlord can make such rules for their own property, then a HOA would have even less chance to make such rules for homeowners.
that said, local laws can be quite far reaching, especially when it comes to aspects that affect the character of a neighborhood which includes rules on the outside design of the house and the front yard. not something i am happy about myself. beyond that these rules are mostly about things directly affect and cause problems for the neighbors. otherwise a homeowner has the right to do whatever they want on their property.
as for the freedom to choose an HOA. no such freedom exists. because my choice of where i live is not defined by the HOA but by other considerations like location and cost and most importantly, availability. the argument that i could have moved somewhere else if i didn't like this HOA is not really reasonable given the housing shortage in most places.
the right to live somewhere trumps the freedom of association
> they are doing it to exclude those that don't fit into their style of life. it's discrimination, plain and simple.
Freedom of association is the freedom to associate with whoever you choose and not to associate with anybody you choose not to. You can’t have feeedom of association without the freedom to discriminate against people you don’t want to associate with.
> the argument that i could have moved somewhere else if i didn't like this HOA is not really reasonable given the housing shortage in most places.
Less than a third of US households are a part of HOAs, with most of them being apartments (where that type of regulation is typical almost everywhere in the world). Your argument that HOAs are monopolising housing supply doesn’t stand up to the facts.
> You can’t have feeedom of association without the freedom to discriminate against people you don’t want to associate with.
So I should be free to leave an HOA? No wait, I can't without selling my house as well. Restricting the right to free association as a condition for purchasing housing seems onerous.
Don't be ridiculous. Every metropolitan area has some homes for sale which aren't part of an HOA. If you don't like the price or location or school district or something then that's your problem, not an issue with the concept of HOAs.
In buildings with differently owned apartments it's required but in theory (and in some places in practice) you could also setup multiple buildings on a common plot of land with one.
In the United States it would be discrimination if, for example, the rules were selectively enforced against people of a certain protected class such as race or religion.
HOA control is simply a covenant written into the deed of certain properties by the original developer that is then inherited in perpetuity by future deed holders.
The deeds of all properties on certain blocks in my neighborhood have a similar covenant saying that your building must be set back 14 feet from the curb in order to create a luxury boulevard-width sidewalk.
A homeowner can’t sell me the right to build up to the curb or the right to ignore the HOA because they can’t sell a right they never owned in the first place.
> In the United States it would be discrimination if, for example, the rules were selectively enforced against people of a certain protected class such as race or religion.
To modernize an old sawhorse, those don't-lie-down-here spikes on flat surfaces make it impossible for millionaires and the homeless alike to sleep in many places. That's not so much of a problem for the millionaires.
it is also discrimination if a rule applies to everyone, but only a certain group is actually affected by the rule. for example forbidding to build a ramp would be discriminating against wheelchair users, whereas others don't even need a ramp.
to compare with europe: as far as i know germany or austria don't have the equivalent of a HOA, but what is allowed and what isn't is defined by local law. the closest example i could find are rules a landlord is allowed to impose on their tenants. for example, if i rent a house with garden, then the landlord can demand that i take care of the garden, but they can not specify how often i am supposed to mow the lawn or how high i let it grow.
if not even a landlord can make such rules for their own property, then a HOA would have even less chance to make such rules for homeowners.
that said, local laws can be quite far reaching, especially when it comes to aspects that affect the character of a neighborhood which includes rules on the outside design of the house and the front yard. not something i am happy about myself. beyond that these rules are mostly about things directly affect and cause problems for the neighbors. otherwise a homeowner has the right to do whatever they want on their property.
as for the freedom to choose an HOA. no such freedom exists. because my choice of where i live is not defined by the HOA but by other considerations like location and cost and most importantly, availability. the argument that i could have moved somewhere else if i didn't like this HOA is not really reasonable given the housing shortage in most places.
the right to live somewhere trumps the freedom of association