Florida lawmaker floats ban on HOAs amid growing backlash • Hacker News Board

Re: Florida lawmaker floats ban on HOAs amid growing backlash

#181

Post by jjav » Sun, Aug 24, 2025, 8:30 AM UTC

bearjaws wrote: post #6

There will need to be some sort of carve out for towers, condos, townhomes etc. I cannot imagine running a building without an HOA, or some form of it. Who pays for the external repairs? Who pays for shared staff? AC units for a highrise are $2-5M, who is saving for that? This is just typical lawmaker BS, "oh I am going to do away with it", no real plan. If anything just remove the HOA bylaws that are clearly violati…

Sure, but this can be very simple.

Allow HOAs, with a strictly specific purpose of budgeting for common area expenses. Whether it is for structure maintenance (in apartment buildings and townhouses with shared structural elements) or common sports areas, elevators, pools, etc. A HOA can be allowed to collect reasonable costs to fund those projected maintenance expenses. That makes sense.

Then, outlaw everything else. A HOA must not be able to have any say in anything that is not a common area maintenance cost.

This would be very easy to codify into law and solves all the problems with HOAs.

Re: Florida lawmaker floats ban on HOAs amid growing backlash

#182

Post by firesteelrain » Sun, Aug 24, 2025, 9:22 AM UTC

jjav wrote: post #180

firesteelrain wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What property owners is my point? Many are long gone and the (now) $175 a quarter we charge goes towards the common amenities. What would happen is we would have to surrender those funds to the State. So this would lead to a huge windfall for the State. States have rules for what happens when a HOA dissolves. That means the money goes right to the State including the sale of the common property.

> What property owners is my point? Many are long gone This statement makes no sense. The property owners are the ones who own the properties, today. It is very clear cut who they are, it's even public record.

It does make sense.

I am saying that past property owners contributed money and expected the HOA to exist virtually forever. New / current expected the same.

Re: Florida lawmaker floats ban on HOAs amid growing backlash

#183

Post by firesteelrain » Sun, Aug 24, 2025, 9:23 AM UTC

gwbas1c wrote: post #177

firesteelrain wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need a majority of the members to want to do it. All have to respond to the ballot. Past experience is that the members generally don’t vote even at the annual meeting.

That's because are so mind-numbingly dumb that no one is going to show up for an annual meeting unless there's actually something important to vote on. Saying, "hey, show up and vote and you might actually get some money from it," will make people show up.

Again, they won’t get money if the HOA is terminated or dissolved. Governing docs say it goes to the State. It is very common.

Re: Florida lawmaker floats ban on HOAs amid growing backlash

#184

Post by firesteelrain » Sun, Aug 24, 2025, 9:25 AM UTC

wat10000 wrote: post #151

dgrin91 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think what GP is saying is that if I was a homeowner for 30 years, paid HOA fees all those years, then last year sold to someone else, who gets the HOA reimbursement then? I paid thousands over years and would presumably get nothing, while some other guy who just moved in all of a sudden gets a big check? That seems unfair.

Imagine you dissolve a company that has a lot of money in the bank. What do you do with that money? Distributing it to the shareholders seems like the right way to dispose of it. What if somebody sold all their shares a day before? Well, they get nothing, that's how it works. The company's money should be accounted for in the share price, so it all works out, there's nothing unfair. An HOA is no different. All the ow…

Except the HOA governing docs say the money goes to the State and it’s expected that the State provides the same amenities and services that the HOA was providing.

If State doesn’t then a non profit corporation is formed that does

Re: Florida lawmaker floats ban on HOAs amid growing backlash

#185

Post by jjav » Thu, Aug 28, 2025, 7:57 PM UTC

firesteelrain wrote: post #182

jjav wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What property owners is my point? Many are long gone This statement makes no sense. The property owners are the ones who own the properties, today. It is very clear cut who they are, it's even public record.

It does make sense. I am saying that past property owners contributed money and expected the HOA to exist virtually forever. New / current expected the same.

Past owners are completely irrelevant, they have no claim or say in the property.

Re: Florida lawmaker floats ban on HOAs amid growing backlash

#186

Post by DougN7 » Sun, Aug 31, 2025, 2:18 AM UTC

propter_hoc wrote: post #124

firesteelrain wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a reserve study completed by a professional company that requires us to hold this much. For example, we are replacing two AC units for $50k total. Pool needs to be resurfaced for $100k. We have roof repairs that will need to be done eventually, gym equipment replacements, various beautification repairs, weir repair ($250k), fish guards/blockers, pond maintenance etc

Sure - I understand these roofing, HVAC and landscaping expenses are associated to the common amenities? So if you spin out the clubhouse into a country club that members can opt to join, you can allocate the clubhouse an appropriate amount of cash. When you negotiate with the county to take over management of the grounds including the pond, you can negotiate to give them some of the reserve money for the future pond…

Doesn’t that mean the budget at the county level will have to increase to cover all the new maintenance, and thus taxes raised? I’d rather have some say in what my money goes towards in the HOA than have taxes raised to maintain neighborhoods all over that I never visit. We end up paying either way.