system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: HOAs should not have legal power to enforce rules

I should start by explaining I don't have a problem with the concept of HOAs. They are totally valid and if you find yourself living in one, it would be wise to abide by their rules for the sake of your own financial investment in your home/property.

The benefits of living in an HOA will be enough for most to follow their rules, however HOAs should accept that there will be a few "bad apples" in the mix who they ultimately can't control. Just like any membership-based service, the HOA should be free to remove access to benefits (where possible) if a member refuses to comply. But in my opinion, legal action (i.e. violation fines, lien/foreclosure, etc.) is a step too far.

Here is my reasoning:

If you buy a house, you are buying the inside AND outside of that house. If you own *all* of a thing, then a 3rd party does not own *any part* of said thing.  In what other scenarios can you own something but have limited autonomy as to what you're able to do with it? Of course I am referring only to *visuals/aesthetics* and not actions that could risk the health/safety of others, or noise, light, and odor emissions, etc.

For example: The difference between 4 and 6 inches of grass does not affect my neighbors in any meaningful capacity. Nor does hanging a basketball hoop on my garage or having a few mismatched shingles on my roof. On the other hand, loud noises outside of a certain time frame, tobacco/bonfire smoke drifting into nearby houses, strobe lights on the exterior of the house, etc. can be *objectively disruptive*, so those types of things are not included my in my view.

And as an extension to my argument about what can be considered objectively disruptive, I don't believe the value of your home being affected by others in the community falls into that category. You chose to live in that community just as the person you believe is bringing down the value of your home chose to live in that community. You are free to move somewhere else you feel will be a better investment. If you can't move somewhere else, you will have to accept that human behavior sometimes negatively affects financial investments. Are you legally entitled to a stable stock portfolio or crypto investments? Do you think you should be? How is it any different to claim you should be able to restrict the rights of others to protect the value of your home?

Exceptions to my view:

1. The HOA owns the property and rents it out to you
2. The HOA owns the property and sells it to you on the condition that you sign their CC&Rs

Both of these exceptions involve the HOA owning the property, therefore justifying the use of a legally binding contract. But how exactly would an HOA literally "own" a property? A group of people coming together to establish rules for their community (whether mutually beneficial or not) does not equate to ownership of said community.

Arguments that will not change my view:

1. You signed a legally binding contract-- that's why HOAs have legal power.

*Right, I get that. By extension, my view is that HOAs should not have the power to require signature of contract in order to purchase a property they do not own.*

2) Variations of: No one is forcing you live where there's an HOA; if you don't like it, don't live there.

*This is not a valid argument. Not everyone can control their housing options. You can't speak on behalf of others' financial situations, work locations, etc.*

**Edit 1: Countless people making the above 2 arguments. Not spending my time responding to these just because you didn't take the time to read everything I said.** 

In order to change my view, someone will need to demonstrate how you can *ethically* make the leap from a community agreeing to a set rules to that community being able to enforce those rules by law. I am genuinely open to having my view changed on this-- I might be missing some information that explains the logic behind HOAs having legal power. And if there are any flaws in my logic, please point it out.
gpt
So, all HOAs own part of the property you’re buying. They all fit into your second exception. 

In property law, it’s easiest to think of property rights as a bundle of sticks. As the owner of the property you can sell all the sticks, one stick or only some of the sticks. This is what the developers do, they sell you some of the sticks but keep certain property rights to the land. Those residual rights are than transferred to the HOA and the developer moves onto their next project. Therefore, the HOAs do have legal rights over your property, even though you “bought it.” You were never buying free and clear land. 

This can be accomplished with individual contracts (because that’s how it used to be done up until around the 70s or 80s) but it’s performative and doesn’t really change the legal effect. 

I think many people don’t have a good understanding of what they are buying, exactly. Just because you’re buying the house doesn’t mean you’re buying the whole thing. It’s more like you’re buying 97%, and the HOA gets the remaining 3%.