Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

thebignewsletter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 321 posts

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#231

Post by kelnos »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #125
mywittyname wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My HOA is worded such that it must exist for at least 30 years and there are no facilities to dissolving it before that time (after that time, a simple majority can vote to dissolve it, so long as the city agrees to incorporate the land and infrastructure). In this case, it's because the HOA is responsible for the loans taken out and long term leases to manage the sub division's infrastructure. And yes, geese love to…

> My HOA is worded such that it must exist for at least 30 years and there are no facilities to dissolving it before that time Technically, there are. Lack of an explicit termination clause doesn't mean an agreement can't be terminated. But the party that would object to that termination is the lender. If you had their sign off, you could dissolve the HOA today.

I was assuming that too. At the very least, the CC&Rs/by-laws could be amended to remove that clause. But, right, presumably the lender is a party to the agreements with enough power to vote down that change.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#232

Post by cvalka »

93po wrote: post #169

what is the societal benefit of allowing land use restrictions when selling land? it seems like all the arguments are "it allows for permanent green spaces or mandatory sidewalks or mandatory affordable housing or mandatory low pollution areas" etc but that all seems like stuff that could just be enforced on a city level with new developments and permits rather than as a contract between two private people. or to put…

I agree. Zoning is superior to deed restrictions.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#233

Post by kelnos »

searealist wrote: post #101
Loughla wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My sister just moved into a place that has an HOA. She's actively trying to get it suspended permanently. They live on a lake that attracts very aggressive Canadian geese. The geese do geese things like eat and poop lots of poop. The HOA fined them before they moved into the house for having goose poop in their back yard. For me, it's hilarious. I take handfuls of corn and stuff to throw around their backyard when I…

I don't want to live in a neighborhood where my neighbor's yards are full of poop. This is true even if the unit is unoccupied.

You're definitely not the kind of neighbor I'd like to have. Animals poop. That's life.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#234

Post by kelnos »

searealist wrote: post #182
AngryData wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a deer walks through your yard and poops in it do you go out there and pick it up? Like these are wild animals, they aren't talking about a someone raising geese or something. Wild animals poop, it will quickly disintegrate into the soil. At worst you might run a lawn mower over it to spread it out better.

Yes. It's your responsibility to maintain your property if you choose to live in an HOA.

The HOAification of America has gone too far. There are some places where it's hard to find a home not subject to a HOA. I don't think "well live somewhere else" is a reasonable answer to that complaint. That's definitely a "I got mine, so eff off" sort of response.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#235

Post by kelnos »

gosub100 wrote: post #106
Loughla wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My sister just moved into a place that has an HOA. She's actively trying to get it suspended permanently. They live on a lake that attracts very aggressive Canadian geese. The geese do geese things like eat and poop lots of poop. The HOA fined them before they moved into the house for having goose poop in their back yard. For me, it's hilarious. I take handfuls of corn and stuff to throw around their backyard when I…

> The HOA fined them before they moved into the house for having goose poop in their back yard. It's not as dramatic as it sounds. the house was owned by _someone_ before they moved in. at _some_ point the guano was left and the HOA found it (whether that alleged violation cited done in a good-faith effort is irrelevant). The HOA applied their process, and at _some point_ ownership changed. Leaving your sister with t…

> Leaving your sister with the bill, which she is probably able to recover from the previous owners.

That depends, really. If the unpaid HOA fine was disclosed during the buying process, and the buyer didn't make it a condition of sale that the seller had to cover it, then the buyer is responsible. If the seller didn't disclose it, then the buyer can of course sue the seller, but depending on the magnitude of the fine, it might be easier and less stressful to just pay it.

> HOA's are agreed to by the owners and they preserve the value of everyone's property and enforce common decency.

In theory, yes. In practice, many HOAs are full of busybodies who enjoy the power trip and love to meddle in how other people live their lives. Even in the absence of that, like any institution, the people who are a part of them and subject to them often disagree on the fine details. For example, I'm not convinced it's fair that an elected board of homeowners gets to decide things like what color the curtains on the inside of your windows facing the street are allowed to be. But many HOAs have restrictions on that. I suspect you might think that such a restriction is fine, but that's exactly the point I'm trying to make: people don't always agree, but everyone ends up being subject to whatever the board/majority decides. I don't think we should allow these mini-governments to be able to enact property restrictions that actual governments wouldn't be allowed to do.

My latest fun letter from our HOA was that the paint on some air vents on our roof had faded and no longer matched the color of the roof, and we'd be fined if I didn't have them repainted. What a huge waste of time and money, both for me and for whatever busybody was paid (yes, paid) to drive around the neighborhood looking for these things.

As an amusing aside: not long ago I read of a case where a homeowner had been parking his boat in his driveway for some very long time (like more than a decade), but suddenly the HOA decided to enforce a provision about that not being allowed. Boats had to be put behind some sort of opaque fence or partition, so they're not visible from the street. So he built the fence, parked his boat behind it, and had an artistic neighbor friend paint a mural... of his boat... on the outside of the fence. Loved that.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#236

Post by Loughla »

kelnos wrote: post #230
Loughla wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My sister just moved into a place that has an HOA. She's actively trying to get it suspended permanently. They live on a lake that attracts very aggressive Canadian geese. The geese do geese things like eat and poop lots of poop. The HOA fined them before they moved into the house for having goose poop in their back yard. For me, it's hilarious. I take handfuls of corn and stuff to throw around their backyard when I…

> I take handfuls of corn and stuff to throw around their backyard when I go visit. Wow, it's a wonder your sister hasn't stopped inviting you over.

I'm very handy, so she has me do things around the house. I don't charge for labor, because she's family and because her hatred for the HOA is only surpassed by her hatred for the geese so it's hilarious.

Also I'm sneaky as all get out. I'm not sure she has figured it out yet.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#237

Post by searealist »

kelnos wrote: post #233
searealist wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to live in a neighborhood where my neighbor's yards are full of poop. This is true even if the unit is unoccupied.

You're definitely not the kind of neighbor I'd like to have. Animals poop. That's life.

Then don't move into an HOA? Some of us have standards: no cars, poop, or weeds on lawns.

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#238

Post by searealist »

kelnos wrote: post #234
searealist wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. It's your responsibility to maintain your property if you choose to live in an HOA.

The HOAification of America has gone too far. There are some places where it's hard to find a home not subject to a HOA. I don't think "well live somewhere else" is a reasonable answer to that complaint. That's definitely a "I got mine, so eff off" sort of response.

Who wants to invest in a neighborhood that can be ruined by a few bad apples not maintaining their properties?

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#239

Post by [deleted] »

deprecative wrote: post #203
drdaeman wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really capitalism, but its late stage cancerous form, where businesses grow too big (too close to monopolies) and go unchecked, so the markets start to fail because the competition is killed. I could be wrong, but I think property use restrictions are actually more of a socialist concept. When done right, they're meant to protect others (aka society, in general - not some businesses that don't like having co…

Noncompetes are capitalistic. Property use restrictions aren't inherently capitalist but how they're used in most cases, particularly within the US, they almost always are. Single family home zoning is the factor in bloated infrastructure and housing prices going up. This protects capital investment of a necessity which ensures exploitation of the working class.

[deleted]

Re: Albertsons kills rural grocers with land use restrictions

#240

Post by fragmede »

deprecative wrote: post #203
drdaeman wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really capitalism, but its late stage cancerous form, where businesses grow too big (too close to monopolies) and go unchecked, so the markets start to fail because the competition is killed. I could be wrong, but I think property use restrictions are actually more of a socialist concept. When done right, they're meant to protect others (aka society, in general - not some businesses that don't like having co…

Noncompetes are capitalistic. Property use restrictions aren't inherently capitalist but how they're used in most cases, particularly within the US, they almost always are. Single family home zoning is the factor in bloated infrastructure and housing prices going up. This protects capital investment of a necessity which ensures exploitation of the working class.

capitalism is about competition and non-competes are literally named a "not gonna compete" agreement.

I don't see how's that capitalism at all. If Coca-cola and Pepsi signed a agreement not to compete that was made public, the FTC would go after them. If Microsoft made secret backroom deals that gave them an unfair advantage, the FTC would and did go after them. If you don't like competition, having the government come in and say you're the only one that can do that just isn't how American is supposed to work.

Non-competes are anti-capitalism and anti-American. That they're used against bartenders and restaurant servers is just gross.

Post reply on HN