Are there any good reasons *not* to ban billboards?

[Flint1979]

I hate the one's that say CALL SAM on them. I was sitting in line at the Costco in Madison Heights which is right next to I-75 so of course there is a CALL SAM sign right next to there.

[SEWIGuy]

I don't think that the typical "if you don't vote, you don't have any say to complain" is really a valid defense of HOAs run amok. That makes sense for federal and state officeholders, and even larger municipalities, because one can stay reasonably informed by consuming media coverage that summarizes the goings-on at those levels of government.  By buying into an HOA, you are adding yet another layer of politics where one has to understand the stakeholders, the candidates, their position on various issues that may be important to the voter, and having to do all of that without the benefit of media to provide at least a starting point to becoming an informed voter. The only real way to become informed is to attend meetings in person, which may be impossible in practice if they take place at a time when one has other commitments such as work, children's extracurriculars, etc. Even that may not be enough to get the full story if the HOA board has a habit of making decisions in back-channel meetings and the public meeting is merely a pro-forma rubber stamp; in such a case one basically has to befriend the members of the board to get the scoop on what's really going on. Getting involved in all of that is an undue burden that I personally would want to avoid, and I actually like politics.

Also, I think nobody has really addressed J.N. Winkler's point upthread that it is difficult to buy housing built after a certain date (and thus built to certain modern design standards which may be desirable) without being subject to HOA jurisdiction. This seems much like the arguments software companies use to defend abhorrent EULAs ("if you don't like that we harvest all of your data and sell it to anyone who enters our line of sight, just don't use our software–ask no questions about why a keyboard driver is collecting personal information to begin with"). It seems wrong to me that in some cities it may be impossible to buy housing that meets certain buyer requirements, such as compliance with modern energy efficiency standards, without also buying into an HOA as part of the deal.

Personally, I'd rather the entire concept of the HOA be abolished, and those functions that are actually necessary be taken on by organs of the actual municipal government, which are subject to somewhat greater scrutiny and are required to comply with things like open-records laws.

"I don't like something therefore it should be abolished."  🙄🙄🙄

Most HOAs are pretty benign organizations. Should they be regulated in a way to make sure they don't overreach? Sure. Outright abolished? Nope.

Again you have a choice whether or not to live in one.

[webny99]

HOAs are also necessary if you live in a condo or townhome where you're sharing a building/lawn/driveway/whatever with someone else.

Why?

One reason is that you need someone to be responsible for repairs, maintenance, etc.

[SEWIGuy]

HOAs are also necessary if you live in a condo or townhome where you're sharing a building/lawn/driveway/whatever with someone else.

Why?

One reason is that you need someone to be responsible for repairs, maintenance, etc.

And maintenance of the common grounds. That was the main purpose of the only HOA I have been a part of, and it was fine. That's why abolishing them makes little sense.

[jeffandnicole]

HOAs are also necessary if you live in a condo or townhome where you're sharing a building/lawn/driveway/whatever with someone else.

Why?

One reason is that you need someone to be responsible for repairs, maintenance, etc.

True with a Condo. Not as necessary with a townhouse. After all, our cities are filled with rowhomes that don't require any sort of HOA. People just maintain their little lot of land.

[kernals12]

In the subdivision I grew up in, there was an HOA rule that you couldn't build a pool in your backyard (except for people on one particular street) because it was feared that it would weaken support for the community rec center.

[NWI_Irish96]

HOAs are also necessary if you live in a condo or townhome where you're sharing a building/lawn/driveway/whatever with someone else.

Why?

One reason is that you need someone to be responsible for repairs, maintenance, etc.

Yes, but often HOAs exercise power well beyond that, and it's not always clear from reading the HOA regulations before you buy, unless you happen to be an attorney.

My parents live in a townhome governed by an HOA, but it's authority is very narrow. It's essentially limited to collecting dues to maintain the common areas, and a few restrictions on modifying the exterior of units. It also requires a unanimous vote to extend the scope of the authority of the HOA, so as to prevent the kind of nightmares that we all hear about.

My first and only experience with an HOA was very different. It was in a large subdivision that hadn't been 100% sold/built yet. The HOA agreement stipulated that the developer would control the HOA until the lots were 80% sold. When we bought ours they were only 5 lots away. The (for profit) company that the developer had hired to manage the HOA convinced them (probably through kickbacks) to change the agreement to keep control until 6 months after the lots were 100% sold.

The HOA was based 200 miles away, and they added the cost of sending someone to hunt for fines into the fines they levied. Trash day was Wednesday, and if your trash cans were put out before Tuesday and/or brought back in after Thursday, that was a fine. They tried to say that political signs were not allowed and would be fined, but I sent them a letter noting that Indiana law bans HOAs from prohibiting political signs around election time. They called me asking for the specific section number in Indiana code. I told them I wasn't going to do their lawyer's work for them, but if they wanted to they could try me and find out later.

Needless to say, I've not lived anywhere governed by an HOA since.

[ethanhopkin14]

I don't think that the typical "if you don't vote, you don't have any say to complain" is really a valid defense of HOAs run amok. That makes sense for federal and state officeholders, and even larger municipalities, because one can stay reasonably informed by consuming media coverage that summarizes the goings-on at those levels of government.  By buying into an HOA, you are adding yet another layer of politics where one has to understand the stakeholders, the candidates, their position on various issues that may be important to the voter, and having to do all of that without the benefit of media to provide at least a starting point to becoming an informed voter. The only real way to become informed is to attend meetings in person, which may be impossible in practice if they take place at a time when one has other commitments such as work, children's extracurriculars, etc. Even that may not be enough to get the full story if the HOA board has a habit of making decisions in back-channel meetings and the public meeting is merely a pro-forma rubber stamp; in such a case one basically has to befriend the members of the board to get the scoop on what's really going on. Getting involved in all of that is an undue burden that I personally would want to avoid, and I actually like politics.

Also, I think nobody has really addressed J.N. Winkler's point upthread that it is difficult to buy housing built after a certain date (and thus built to certain modern design standards which may be desirable) without being subject to HOA jurisdiction. This seems much like the arguments software companies use to defend abhorrent EULAs ("if you don't like that we harvest all of your data and sell it to anyone who enters our line of sight, just don't use our software—ask no questions about why a keyboard driver is collecting personal information to begin with"). It seems wrong to me that in some cities it may be impossible to buy housing that meets certain buyer requirements, such as compliance with modern energy efficiency standards, without also buying into an HOA as part of the deal.

Personally, I'd rather the entire concept of the HOA be abolished, and those functions that are actually necessary be taken on by organs of the actual municipal government, which are subject to somewhat greater scrutiny and are required to comply with things like open-records laws.

“I don’t like something therefore it should be abolished.”

Most HOAs are pretty benign organizations. Should they be regulated in a way to make sure they don’t overreach? Sure. Outright abolished? Nope.

Again you have a choice whether or not to live in one.

Not necessarily.  Maybe you want to live in this one house with a voluntary HOA but you can't afford that one so you have to live in the cheaper house with the strict HOA.

I loving the banter.  I don't hate my HOA because I don't understand it or I have friends that hate it so I hate it just because.  I hate it because:

We have a very nice yard, but the HOA will drive by once or twice a week looking for things to report.  I have received letters for:

                   Having our trashcans visible from the front of the house. (this was three years after we moved in and had been in the same place that whole
                    time).  We were so upset with it we canceled our trash service.

                    Not pruning the dormant lantana at the beginning of spring when you are supposed to not prune them because they feed off the dead stalks. 
                    The whole flower bed was dormant at the time because, literally, it was like March 24th.  Again this was 4 years after we bought the house
                    and had done the same thing after every winter

                    Having mowing clippings in the road..  Not like piles or anything, no, just like a few clippings that got away.

                    Having our grass too tall weeks after the famous Snowmageden that hit Texas and I was doing everything I could to not do anything to the
                    lawn because I feared all our grass and plants (and trees) would never come back.

None of these notices resulted in fines, but all were justified reasons why things were like they were, and they were extremely temporary.  Yet it didn't stop them from being super nosey.  This is exacerbated by the fact they are finger wagging us about our yard while the common areas we pay for are filled with weeds and look like a front yard of a house someone died in.  It doesn't help our neighbor that is a hateful woman was on the board and her sole job was to walk around taking pictures of houses that were in violation while she runs a business out of her house with clients coming and going through the day that is explicitly written in our CCRs that you cannot do that. 

We have to have a 3' wrought iron fence around our house.  Not 4' and not 5'.  3'.  It has to be 3' and my dog can jump it, so we had to run an electric wire across the top to keep him from jumping it because lord knows we can't have a higher fence.  We can't have a fixed basketball hoop.  We can't have a car parked on either side of our house (driveway or in the garage is all we can do).  We can't paint our house any other color besides the other colors of the houses in the neighborhood (so it has to blend in).  We can't have decorations out for a holiday past 2 weeks of that holiday.  We can't change our landscaping without it being approved by the HOA.  We can't add on the the house.  We can't build a pool.  We can't have anything in the sidewalk, no matter how trivial it may be.  We can't work on our cars in our own damn driveway!  We can't have a little shed to put tools in because of the wrought iron fence law it can be seen from the road (I know, what a sin!).

I know most of these rules are written for 2 reasons.  To stop people from turning their house/lawn into a mechanic's shop or completely trash out the joint and to have a built in reason to harass someone they don't like, because they can't harass them because they don't like them, but they can harass them because they broke one of these stupid rules.  It reminds me of the 10 year rule a some RV parks.  They say you can't have an RV over 10 years old to stay at their park.  Ours is over 10 years old and is in great shape, and I know that's not what they are trying to keep away.  They aren't trying to keep out the family with a 2012 RV that's in great shape and the family is quiet and keeps to themselves; they are trying to keep out that guy that gets noisy and everyone complains about, but isn't really doing anything enough to get kicked out, but hey, his RV is over 10 years old, so we get to get rid of you for another reason. 

[Scott5114]

Also, I think nobody has really addressed J.N. Winkler's point upthread that it is difficult to buy housing built after a certain date (and thus built to certain modern design standards which may be desirable) without being subject to HOA jurisdiction. This seems much like the arguments software companies use to defend abhorrent EULAs ("if you don't like that we harvest all of your data and sell it to anyone who enters our line of sight, just don't use our software–ask no questions about why a keyboard driver is collecting personal information to begin with"). It seems wrong to me that in some cities it may be impossible to buy housing that meets certain buyer requirements, such as compliance with modern energy efficiency standards, without also buying into an HOA as part of the deal.

Personally, I'd rather the entire concept of the HOA be abolished, and those functions that are actually necessary be taken on by organs of the actual municipal government, which are subject to somewhat greater scrutiny and are required to comply with things like open-records laws.

Again you have a choice whether or not to live in one.

I think nobody has really addressed J.N. Winkler's point upthread that it is difficult to buy housing built after a certain date (and thus built to certain modern design standards which may be desirable) without being subject to HOA jurisdiction. This seems much like the arguments software companies use to defend abhorrent EULAs ("if you don't like that we harvest all of your data and sell it to anyone who enters our line of sight, just don't use our software–ask no questions about why a keyboard driver is collecting personal information to begin with"). It seems wrong to me that in some cities it may be impossible to buy housing that meets certain buyer requirements, such as compliance with modern energy efficiency standards, without also buying into an HOA as part of the deal.

[thenetwork]

In my neck of the woods, we have 3 types of subdivisions intertwined with each other.  There are some neighborhoods that fall under and HOA jurisdiction.  We also have neighborhoods that are entirely within the "official" city limits.  Finally, we also have neighborhoods that are technically under county ordinances only, and have not been annexed by the city.

Pretty much if you live within the county jurisdiction and not part of an HOA or covenant community, there is little to no action that anyone can take on the appearance of your house and property.  If you live within the city limits, there are more ordinances that can be enforced on the appearance of your house and grounds (weeds, trash, etc.)

You can drive down many streets outside of the original square mile of the town and see how it's a checkerboard of city and county subdivisions built next to each other (county streets have green street blades, city streets use blue).  And you can definitely tell the difference between city & county or HOA/non-HOA neighborhoods by the appearance of their properties.

I live in an unincorporated subdivision in the county.  Fortunately, we are a small 3-street subdivision where people take good care of their properties.  One block over in the next subdivision, you have well-manicured grounds next to unwatered, trash ridden front yards with 1 or 2 cars on blocks and houses that haven't been painted in over 40 years.  Yet we are surrounded by annexed city boundaries.

[Urban Prairie Schooner]

Billboards provide useful and needed information to the traveling public.

Welcome to my world.

[Urban Prairie Schooner]

Going back to a sentence in a previous post... are any of these law firm billboard people female?

I've seen many billboards with at least one female lawyer. A few with most or all of the lawyers female, including at least one featuring attractive female lawyers for a firm specializing in defending male clients in divorce cases. (Yeah, as if any of those clients have any chance at all for getting anything more than legal services from those women.)

Around here the attractive females on billboards are usually advertising aesthetic services (i.e. cosmetic surgery).