S.19.4-9: Owners' Association Regulation Act (Debating)

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Owners' Association Regulation Act

Be it enacted by the Southern Chamber of Delegates:

1.) An "owners' association" shall be defined as any private, non-governmental organization operating within a locality, subdivision, or neighborhood that manages homes and lots and regulates the activities of the owners of such lots.

2.) In any newly constructed residential subdivision, no new owners' association may be formed until all lots have been sold. Once all lots are sold, two-thirds of homeowners must vote to form an owners' association.

3.) Owners' associations may not regulate any portion of the property not directly visible from the street, or anything inside the house itself.

4.) Unless approved by the city or county in which it is situated, owners' associations may not fine homeowners any amount exceeding $10 for a single infraction.

5.) Owners' associations may not foreclose on any property for any reason, including unpaid fines or dues.

6.) Owners' associations may not prohibit freedom of speech, assembly, or expression within their jurisdiction.

7.) Homeowners shall reserve the right to opt-out of the owners' association, provided they give the association at least a thirty-days notice prior to withdrawing.

Sponsor: Delegate West_Midlander Author: MB

[fhtagn]

HOAs are terrible and should be banned.

[West_Midlander]

HOAs are terrible and should be banned.

I'd be open to amending this bill to a ban (instead of just further regulation) if there is a sentiment from the other Delegates for a ban.

[fhtagn]

HOAs are terrible and should be banned.

I'd be open to amending this bill to a ban (instead of just further regulation) if there is a sentiment from the other Delegates for a ban.

I'm not sure where the delegates stand on the issue, but no one should tell someone what they can or cannot do with their property. 

[West_Midlander]

Owners' Association RegulationAbolition Act

Be it enacted by the Southern Chamber of Delegates:

1.) An "owners' association" shall be defined as any private, non-governmental organization operating within a locality, subdivision, or neighborhood that manages homes and lots and regulates the activities of the owners of such lots.

2.) In any newly constructed residential subdivision, no new owners' association may be formed until all lots have been sold. Once all lots are sold, two-thirds of homeowners must vote to form an owners' association.

3.) Owners' associations may not regulate any portion of the property not directly visible from the street, or anything inside the house itself.

4.) Unless approved by the city or county in which it is situated, owners' associations may not fine homeowners any amount exceeding $10 for a single infraction.

5.) Owners' associations may not foreclose on any property for any reason, including unpaid fines or dues.

6.) Owners' associations may not prohibit freedom of speech, assembly, or expression within their jurisdiction.

7.) Homeowners shall reserve the right to opt-out of the owners' association, provided they give the association at least a thirty-days notice prior to withdrawing.


1) Henceforth home owner's associations will be prohibited in the Southern region effective immediately.

^ Amendment proposal. I will go ahead with attempting a ban, despite not knowing where my colleagues stand on the issue. However, if the amendment fails, we will still have a chance to pass the original bill.

[lfromnj]

Kinda dumb to completely outlaw forms of private voluntary contracts even if some forms of them aren't voluntary.

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

Owners' Association RegulationAbolition Act

Be it enacted by the Southern Chamber of Delegates:

1.) An "owners' association" shall be defined as any private, non-governmental organization operating within a locality, subdivision, or neighborhood that manages homes and lots and regulates the activities of the owners of such lots.

2.) In any newly constructed residential subdivision, no new owners' association may be formed until all lots have been sold. Once all lots are sold, two-thirds of homeowners must vote to form an owners' association.

3.) Owners' associations may not regulate any portion of the property not directly visible from the street, or anything inside the house itself.

4.) Unless approved by the city or county in which it is situated, owners' associations may not fine homeowners any amount exceeding $10 for a single infraction.

5.) Owners' associations may not foreclose on any property for any reason, including unpaid fines or dues.

6.) Owners' associations may not prohibit freedom of speech, assembly, or expression within their jurisdiction.

7.) Homeowners shall reserve the right to opt-out of the owners' association, provided they give the association at least a thirty-days notice prior to withdrawing.


1) Henceforth home owner's associations will be prohibited in the Southern region effective immediately.

^ Amendment proposal. I will go ahead with attempting a ban, despite not knowing where my colleagues stand on the issue. However, if the amendment fails, we will still have a chance to pass the original bill.

This seems excessive, especially if you aren't allowing for a phase out period. There should be more discussion on this.

Kinda dumb to completely outlaw forms of private voluntary contracts even if some forms of them aren't voluntary.

This is a valid point.

[West_Midlander]

A phasing out period sounds fine. How long do you think would be sufficient?

[lfromnj]

My opinion on HOA's would probably call for a 'reset' for those done under unfair proposals and then ban any HOAs that arise from a majority of houses on a street calling for a HOA but rather requiring UNANIMOUS consent. This way we can't have two wolfs and a sheep debating for dinner.

[West_Midlander]

My opinion on HOA's would probably call for a 'reset' for those done under unfair proposals and then ban any HOAs that arise from a majority of houses on a street calling for a HOA but rather requiring UNANIMOUS consent. This way we can't have two wolfs and a sheep debating for dinner.

This sounds like a good route to take but couldn't a hold-out or two be pressured to join when they don't want to (in order for an association to be formed in the event that the vast majority want one)?

[West_Midlander]

A phasing out period sounds fine. How long do you think would be sufficient?

Since there was no input from delegates on an agreeable length of time for a phasing-out period can we start a vote on the amendment as is?

(If it fails we can probably still pass the original bill).

[Deep Dixieland Senator, Muad'dib (OSR MSR)]

A phasing out period sounds fine. How long do you think would be sufficient?

Maybe 18 months?

[West_Midlander]

A phasing out period sounds fine. How long do you think would be sufficient?

Maybe 18 months?

Sounds good.

[West_Midlander]

New Amendment

Owners' Association RegulationAbolition Act

Be it enacted by the Southern Chamber of Delegates:

1.) An "owners' association" shall be defined as any private, non-governmental organization operating within a locality, subdivision, or neighborhood that manages homes and lots and regulates the activities of the owners of such lots.

2.) In any newly constructed residential subdivision, no new owners' association may be formed until all lots have been sold. Once all lots are sold, two-thirds of homeowners must vote to form an owners' association.

3.) Owners' associations may not regulate any portion of the property not directly visible from the street, or anything inside the house itself.

4.) Unless approved by the city or county in which it is situated, owners' associations may not fine homeowners any amount exceeding $10 for a single infraction.

5.) Owners' associations may not foreclose on any property for any reason, including unpaid fines or dues.

6.) Owners' associations may not prohibit freedom of speech, assembly, or expression within their jurisdiction.

7.) Homeowners shall reserve the right to opt-out of the owners' association, provided they give the association at least a thirty-days notice prior to withdrawing.


1) Henceforth home owner's associations will be prohibited in the Southern region.

2) This bill will take effect 18 months after its passage.

[West_Midlander]

New Amendment

Owners' Association RegulationAbolition Act

Be it enacted by the Southern Chamber of Delegates:

1.) An "owners' association" shall be defined as any private, non-governmental organization operating within a locality, subdivision, or neighborhood that manages homes and lots and regulates the activities of the owners of such lots.

2.) In any newly constructed residential subdivision, no new owners' association may be formed until all lots have been sold. Once all lots are sold, two-thirds of homeowners must vote to form an owners' association.

3.) Owners' associations may not regulate any portion of the property not directly visible from the street, or anything inside the house itself.

4.) Unless approved by the city or county in which it is situated, owners' associations may not fine homeowners any amount exceeding $10 for a single infraction.

5.) Owners' associations may not foreclose on any property for any reason, including unpaid fines or dues.

6.) Owners' associations may not prohibit freedom of speech, assembly, or expression within their jurisdiction.

7.) Homeowners shall reserve the right to opt-out of the owners' association, provided they give the association at least a thirty-days notice prior to withdrawing.


1) Henceforth home owner's associations will be prohibited in the Southern region.

2) This bill will take effect 18 months after its passage.

Since the 24 hours for objections elapsed this morning a vote should be opened shortly (on the amendment).

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I must express my resolute opposition to the idea of banning HOAs and cannot support a ban on them.
I would favor a set of tightening regulations but I also favor their basic existence.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

New Amendment

Owners' Association RegulationAbolition Act

Be it enacted by the Southern Chamber of Delegates:

1.) An "owners' association" shall be defined as any private, non-governmental organization operating within a locality, subdivision, or neighborhood that manages homes and lots and regulates the activities of the owners of such lots.

2.) In any newly constructed residential subdivision, no new owners' association may be formed until all lots have been sold. Once all lots are sold, two-thirds of homeowners must vote to form an owners' association.

3.) Owners' associations may not regulate any portion of the property not directly visible from the street, or anything inside the house itself.

4.) Unless approved by the city or county in which it is situated, owners' associations may not fine homeowners any amount exceeding $10 for a single infraction.

5.) Owners' associations may not foreclose on any property for any reason, including unpaid fines or dues.

6.) Owners' associations may not prohibit freedom of speech, assembly, or expression within their jurisdiction.

7.) Homeowners shall reserve the right to opt-out of the owners' association, provided they give the association at least a thirty-days notice prior to withdrawing.


1) Henceforth home owner's associations will be prohibited in the Southern region.

2) This bill will take effect 18 months after its passage.

A vote has opened.

NAY

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

To give some perspective on this: one of my grandparents' sons has some pretty bad habits and doesn't hang out among the best people. He's messed with said grandparent's finances with his irresponsible spending habits, spent time with prostitutes instead helping said grandparent in their old age, been in the habit of putting up Christmas lights and refuses to take them down, begins fixing cars but doesn't finish the job, has leaved trash in the yard...
It's a mess. Its's an utter mess. If it wasn't for said grandparents' house being under the jurisdiction of a HOA, he'd have no one stopping him from doing it for eternity. Said person should be enjoying a retirement but no, they have to deal with the crazy life of a child of theirs they don't have the heart to evict.
Me voting for this would be akin to telling said grandparent and everyone else who benefit from proper rules and good regulations, "just shut up and accept what these people are doing to mess with your life".
This bill in the proposed amended form will make a mess of our suburban neighborhoods and worsen the lives of many people.

[West_Midlander]

Thank you for opening a vote on this amendment despite your opposition to it, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate your comments on a very real issue related to this amendment. Despite a non-delegate/citizen/Representative (fhtagn)'s advocacy of a stance which seemed to me to be one that should be sought for (at face value): Live and let live especially on one's own property, the situation you explained demonstrates the need for HOAs, despite their overreach in some cases.

As a result, I will vote Nay on my amendment.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Thank you for opening a vote on this amendment despite your opposition to it, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate your comments on a very real issue related to this amendment. Despite a non-delegate/citizen/Representative (fhtagn)'s advocacy of a stance which seemed to me to be one that should be sought for (at face value): Live and let live especially on one's own property, the situation you explained demonstrates the need for HOAs, despite their overreach in some cases.

As a result, I will vote Nay on my amendment.

I thank you for your understanding and also wish to express support for your original version, though I'd have great preference for the 7th article within it to be scrapped or altered due to potential for abuse. I feel that most of the abuses HOAs involve them in currently are properly dealt with already in the other 6. I especially like the ending of the possibility of foreclosing due to fees from the HOA, that is something I think there is really no good argument against.
Were this provision to be scrapped, I'd move from "more good than harm" to "all good".

[fhtagn]

To give some perspective on this: one of my grandparents' sons has some pretty bad habits and doesn't hang out among the best people. He's messed with said grandparent's finances with his irresponsible spending habits, spent time with prostitutes instead helping said grandparent in their old age, been in the habit of putting up Christmas lights and refuses to take them down, begins fixing cars but doesn't finish the job, has leaved trash in the yard...
It's a mess. Its's an utter mess. If it wasn't for said grandparents' house being under the jurisdiction of a HOA, he'd have no one stopping him from doing it for eternity. Said person should be enjoying a retirement but no, they have to deal with the crazy life of a child of theirs they don't have the heart to evict.
Me voting for this would be akin to telling said grandparent and everyone else who benefit from proper rules and good regulations, "just shut up and accept what these people are doing to mess with your life".
This bill in the proposed amended form will make a mess of our suburban neighborhoods and worsen the lives of many people.

Doing the right thing and kicking said grandson out avoids this issue. It has nothing to do with HOAs.

If someone is that set on destroying things, an HOA doesn't stop them from continuing to do it, since it's clear rules don't matter to said person. No one is forcing the grandparents to take the guy in. Some of the points such as messing with personal finances are also irrelevant to the bill itself.

HOAs will not make that guy a better grandson, they just make life harder for the grandparents when they are punished for taking in someone they should have kicked out a long time ago.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

To give some perspective on this: one of my grandparents' sons has some pretty bad habits and doesn't hang out among the best people. He's messed with said grandparent's finances with his irresponsible spending habits, spent time with prostitutes instead helping said grandparent in their old age, been in the habit of putting up Christmas lights and refuses to take them down, begins fixing cars but doesn't finish the job, has leaved trash in the yard...
It's a mess. Its's an utter mess. If it wasn't for said grandparents' house being under the jurisdiction of a HOA, he'd have no one stopping him from doing it for eternity. Said person should be enjoying a retirement but no, they have to deal with the crazy life of a child of theirs they don't have the heart to evict.
Me voting for this would be akin to telling said grandparent and everyone else who benefit from proper rules and good regulations, "just shut up and accept what these people are doing to mess with your life".
This bill in the proposed amended form will make a mess of our suburban neighborhoods and worsen the lives of many people.

Doing the right thing and kicking said grandson out avoids this issue. It has nothing to do with HOAs.

If someone is that set on destroying things, an HOA doesn't stop them from continuing to do it, since it's clear rules don't matter to said person. No one is forcing the grandparents to take the guy in. Some of the points such as messing with personal finances are also irrelevant to the bill itself.

HOAs will not make that guy a better grandson, they just make life harder for the grandparents when they are punished for taking in someone they should have kicked out a long time ago.

The HOA is certainly a deterrent against the outside of their home being completely trashed and neighbors having to deal with an out-of-control grandson who has coerced one of his parents into submission primarily via mental abuse.

[fhtagn]

To give some perspective on this: one of my grandparents' sons has some pretty bad habits and doesn't hang out among the best people. He's messed with said grandparent's finances with his irresponsible spending habits, spent time with prostitutes instead helping said grandparent in their old age, been in the habit of putting up Christmas lights and refuses to take them down, begins fixing cars but doesn't finish the job, has leaved trash in the yard...
It's a mess. Its's an utter mess. If it wasn't for said grandparents' house being under the jurisdiction of a HOA, he'd have no one stopping him from doing it for eternity. Said person should be enjoying a retirement but no, they have to deal with the crazy life of a child of theirs they don't have the heart to evict.
Me voting for this would be akin to telling said grandparent and everyone else who benefit from proper rules and good regulations, "just shut up and accept what these people are doing to mess with your life".
This bill in the proposed amended form will make a mess of our suburban neighborhoods and worsen the lives of many people.

Doing the right thing and kicking said grandson out avoids this issue. It has nothing to do with HOAs.

If someone is that set on destroying things, an HOA doesn't stop them from continuing to do it, since it's clear rules don't matter to said person. No one is forcing the grandparents to take the guy in. Some of the points such as messing with personal finances are also irrelevant to the bill itself.

HOAs will not make that guy a better grandson, they just make life harder for the grandparents when they are punished for taking in someone they should have kicked out a long time ago.

The HOA is certainly a deterrent against the outside of their home being completely trashed and neighbors having to deal with an out-of-control grandson who has coerced one of his parents into submission primarily via mental abuse.

Your post makes pretty clear that the HOA clearly hasn't stopped anything he's done...

If you look at how HOAs actually work, all this does is cause more stress and harm on the grandparents because consequences that are carried out under those rules (set by people who don't even own the property) go after the homeowner, not the grandson.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

To give some perspective on this: one of my grandparents' sons has some pretty bad habits and doesn't hang out among the best people. He's messed with said grandparent's finances with his irresponsible spending habits, spent time with prostitutes instead helping said grandparent in their old age, been in the habit of putting up Christmas lights and refuses to take them down, begins fixing cars but doesn't finish the job, has leaved trash in the yard...
It's a mess. Its's an utter mess. If it wasn't for said grandparents' house being under the jurisdiction of a HOA, he'd have no one stopping him from doing it for eternity. Said person should be enjoying a retirement but no, they have to deal with the crazy life of a child of theirs they don't have the heart to evict.
Me voting for this would be akin to telling said grandparent and everyone else who benefit from proper rules and good regulations, "just shut up and accept what these people are doing to mess with your life".
This bill in the proposed amended form will make a mess of our suburban neighborhoods and worsen the lives of many people.

Doing the right thing and kicking said grandson out avoids this issue. It has nothing to do with HOAs.

If someone is that set on destroying things, an HOA doesn't stop them from continuing to do it, since it's clear rules don't matter to said person. No one is forcing the grandparents to take the guy in. Some of the points such as messing with personal finances are also irrelevant to the bill itself.

HOAs will not make that guy a better grandson, they just make life harder for the grandparents when they are punished for taking in someone they should have kicked out a long time ago.

The HOA is certainly a deterrent against the outside of their home being completely trashed and neighbors having to deal with an out-of-control grandson who has coerced one of his parents into submission primarily via mental abuse.

Your post makes pretty clear that the HOA clearly hasn't stopped anything he's done...

Actually the Christmas lights were in fact removed but not by him but rather by contractors hired by said HOA, which while being just one of the multiple pieces of evidence I have is more than enough to prove this idea wrong.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

If I were a homeowner who was looking to sell and downsize to a smaller residence elsewhere, I'd rather not want Christmas lights ostentatiously lying on my neighbors' house in May without good reason, that's very tacky. That's what would have happened had the HOA not existed.