Earlier you mentioned, “But prior to that breach the owners claim to the title is the superior claim.”
By “superior claim,” this presupposes there is another claim on the property already in existence, other than mortgager, prior to the breach. I assume this is the bank. Perhaps you can clarify?
Yes, Feudalism was based on contracts. In the Feudal societies, the Lord would make a contract with a Vassal, in which he granted some of his property (a “Fief”) to the Vassal and agreed to protect the Vassal. The Vassal agreed to obey his Lord and to serve in his Lord’s protection force.
And if this potential vassal refused to “sign” a contract pledging loyalty… He better be strong enough to defend himself. And what about the serfs enslaved to the land. No feudalism is not relevant here.
However, a Home Owners Association is clearly different. A Home Owners Association is a State that tells people what they can or cannot do on their own property (it is basically a “private” zoning board).
They are different. The restrictions place on home owners by HOAs are done so voluntarily by both sides through explicit contracts. A state unilaterally dictates what you can and cannot do.
when you are defending the right of people to voluntarily grant to other people the right to restrict their use of their own property?
Thats just it. It is not some arbitrary third party dictating the terms. It is the owner of the property dictating the terms. He is the one requireing you to sign the contract with the third party. You as the new owner of the property explicitly signed a contract agreeing to do certain things as a condition of the purchase. (signing the contract with the HOA). The HOA cannot require that you contract with them. They can only require that the owner sell teh property to someone willing to contract with them.
Some people may like covenants, but other people just tolerate them because they like other things about a property. A true free market in land and housing development would increase choice and reduce the number of people who accept covenants for the sake of convenience. Of course the converse may also be true.
Also if we are using the homestead principal, you would only enter into such an agreement for a developed property. Undeveloped land will not have had labor mixed with it to establish ownership. Which begs the question of how much labor is required to claim a piece of land. Since a community would want to claim as much land as possible to spread their covenant as widely as possible, they would want to claim the surrounding land with as little cost as possible.
Earlier you mentioned, “But prior to that breach the owners claim to the title is the superior claim.”
By “superior claim,” this presupposes there is another claim on the property already in existence, other than mortgager, prior to the breach. I assume this is the bank. Perhaps you can clarify?
Maybe I should not have tried to use your terminology of superior claims and such. I tried to clariy in the last post. Only on claim is legitimate on any one time. Prior to the breach of contract the property owner claim to the land is legitimate. After the breach the owners claim is no longer legitimate and the bank now has a legitimate claim, which it did not before.
Maybe that is better terminology. I am really not trying to get caught up in semantics here.
Also if we are using the homestead principal, you would only enter into such an agreement for a developed property. Undeveloped land will not have had labor mixed with it to establish ownership. Which begs the question of how much labor is required to claim a piece of land. Since a community would want to claim as much land as possible to spread their covenant as widely as possible, they would want to claim the surrounding land with as little cost as possible.
This is a different issue. In my discussions I am assuming that all owners of the property have legitimate claim to it. And that all land is already claimed. Given these parameters the covenant could not expand without the owners of the surrounding property explicitly contracting with the HOA.
Will those parameters be met outside of an urban environment?
The market for land will align people of similar means into similar areas where they will build similar houses. It is a natural process. If people can’t afford to pay high prices for land in nice areas, they will pay less in a fair area, or they will homestead whatever is left (marginal land). Free riders will also degrade the utility of a covenant and may be difficult to combat if nearby land is not owned inside the HOA.
There may be some utility in covenants. I just think any utility will be marginal compared to what the larger market delivers.
Restrictive covenants, usually taking the form of a Home Owners Association, are an extension of government. The HOA is incorporated and registered with the State or Local government, depending on where you live.
HOAs are most typically created by real estate developers in order to provide liability protection and gain a selling point because most folks either really don’t understand what an HOA is or believe it’s a good thing since it keeps your neighbors in line. Most HOA covenants have language that prevents the buyer of the homes within a community from suing the developer for such basic things as negligence in construction and resolution of defects. The government allows the arrangement because it helps to increase the tax base - not to mention things like political contributions and kick-backs.
The aftermath of this arrangement is a quasi-government with authoritarian powers which supercede any other level of government (Federal, State, County, City, etc.). HOAs are mini-tyrannies where just a few people can literally ruin the lives of the entire community. In addition, there is no real recourse to address grievances for the member. They are permitted to trespass, seize your property, place liens upon your house, modify your property, destroy your property, and on top of that they get to charge you for the expense of doing it.
Now a lot of HOA board members and officiers either don’t realize the almost absolute power they have or are too scrupulous to cross that line. It only takes a few, and sometimes just one depending on the HOA structure, to really make a mess of things. I’m sure Hitler would envy this arrangement if he were alive today. But that’s exactly what you get, little HOA Hitler’s running around dictating away. It’s not just about lawn care and trash cans. Some people are using their power in HOAs to harass people they just don’t like to the point of driving them from the community, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. I’ve even heard of cases where HOAs have placed fees and penalties on residents they knew couldn’t afford them, some to the point where they had them thrown in jail (via the courts). The HOA takes you to court, by terms of the HOA covenant you get to pay all of the court costs. The more you fight the HOA, the deeper the hole is that you’re digging for yourself.
Oh, and homes within the HOA may be sold without stipulation that an HOA even exists on the sale contract. I’ve seen a ton of people run into that problem. Some would probably have never bought the home had they known what the situation was.
HOA is most definitely BUYER BEWARE.
BTW, in a lot of states anyone can place a lien on your home without any evidence of debt or wrong doing on your part. Some states require the lien be renewed over a period of time - just need to complete the paper work (possibly even do it online). You won’t necessarily be notified that a lien has even been place on your home. The situation can easily arise where 10 to 20 years down the road you go to sell your house only to find out that some contractor you may or may not have done business with in the past has placed a lien on your home for services you may or may not remember and no longer have the documentation to prove you paid for it. It’s probably prudent to occassionally check with the local authorities to ensure there aren’t any liens in place. You may not really have any recourse, but you can at least retain the documentation necessary to protect yourself down the road.
So, if by no more government you also include all laws, regulations and shady deals made by government throughout its existence, then I don’t really think people will be willing to grant an organization that much power once they realized what it was. Without the safety net of government to wipe their bottoms and kiss their boo-boos, most would adhere to the principle of buyer beware and avoid restrictive covenants like the plague. This kind of falls into that category of discussion: if there was no government, would people try to form a government?
HOAs are most typically created by real estate developers in order to provide liability protection and gain a selling point because most folks either really don’t understand what an HOA is or believe it’s a good thing since it keeps your neighbors in line.
HOA is most definitely BUYER BEWARE.
Here are some key points. The real estate developer owns the land. You buy the land of your own free will. A condition of the purchase is that you join the HOA. By doing so you contractually bind your self to a certain set of rules with your home potentially as the collateral, in the event you breach your contract.
Most definitely buyer beware because of everything else in your post.
But they are not little states because your decision to buy in a community with an HOA and contract with the HOA, with your home as collateral, is entirely voluntary. And the authority of the HOA is entirely derived from explicit contracts, not force as with the state.
“Oh, and homes within the HOA may be sold without stipulation that an HOA even exists on the sale contract. I’ve seen a ton of people run into that problem. Some would probably have never bought the home had they known what the situation was.”
Actually, pretending to sell a house with all user rights included, while they are in fact rather limited, seems like a pretty clear instance of fraud.