“It’s not that bad” doesn’t ring as a sufficient standard for supporting legally / contractually enshrined powers over the aesthetic of a neighbor’s house. Humans have only a limited amount of time, energy and patience for civic engagement, and having to put this energy into fending off neighbors who are more obsessive than they are about their neighbors’ behavior seems like a waste and an annoyance. What benefit do people derive from these HOAs, generally? Only invasive rule-making to protect their right to speculate on the value of their homes based on their controlling their neighbor’s behavior? Why should a person who derives more value from growing vegetables in their own lawns have to fight for that right, even for an hour a month, if that’s what the commitment truly is? I’m no libertarian by any stretch, but giving fine-grained power to people over their neighbors seems like a power that exists without justification, and I think the existence of any position of power should be justified.
4 Likes
