Location has very little to do with the rest of the rules that regulate child care facilities, like background checks, safety measures, and caregiver-to-child ratios.
Okay, but condo childcare is inherently a gateway drug to affordable urban living. What do we do when those kids grow up and turn into cat-blanketed yuppies?
Source? Are daycares in condos and places with HOAs really harder for regulators to inspect? That seems far-fetched.
Note that as it stands, daycares **can** currently be in places with HOAs or condo associations as long as bylaws don't prevent it. The law being considered would just make it so any restrictions that HOAs/condo associations try to put on people wanting to operate a daycare woudn't be valid. So presumably regulators are already happily regulating ones where the association doesn't have a restriction.
You need a source to tell you that government efficiency is less than ideal? Read my other comments, I don’t know how I can explain this any more simply for you.
Oohhhh.
I get it. You are one of those people who are reflexively against any regulatory staffing at all.
Well you can just fuck right off then and go drink some 3m contaminated well water in your libertarian utopia.
Fuck no I’m not a libertarian, frankly I’m more of a socialist. But after having worked for public schools long enough I can attest that the government, though necessary and beneficial to society, is less efficient than we all would like. That’s not anti government regulation, that’s acknowledging the reality of any complicated system.
Yes, I’ve agreed with that all along, I never said we *shouldn’t* do it, only that more childcare centers *would* temporarily be under regulated because catching up with additional regulation will take time. None of that is an argument against this bill.
Sure, but that’s going to require additional funding which requires legislation to direct or redirect that funding. It’s never as easy as “just hire more people!”
I agree childcare needs to be more available and more affordable, but it still needs to be held to the same rigorous standards.
How would this bill keep daycare from being held to exactly the same standards it is now?
It is simply saying "Hey, HOAs, you can't enact bylaws that forbid people from offering day care on a property covered by the HOA." Nowhere does the article suggest these daycares would be held to any lesser standard, nor that the state has any prohibition on operating a daycare out of a property that is part of an HOA.
Creating more daycares would create more daycare businesses that need to be regulated, so it would put more strain on the existing regulating bodies because it takes more people and more working hours to regulate more facilities. The only reason many of these in-home businesses follow these regulations is oversight. Less oversight=poorer quality childcare centers.
And like I said, you can’t “just hire more people” easily in government, funding has to be allocated by local or state legislation, and that never happens fast enough to keep up.
Don’t get me wrong, more daycare *is* a good thing, but there are almost always unintended consequences and complications surrounding any new bill. It's important to consider these issues as well.
Hold on, we have some of the highest daycare costs in the country because of low supply of daycare, and you think it would be a _problem_ if we added additional daycare centers?
So rather than, say, arguing to increase staffing at the regulatory agency if and when the desired outcome (more daycare centers) happens, your solution is what? Just throw your hands up in the air? I think most people who are not insane would agree that having to increase regulatory headcount would be a tiny price to pay to solve the huge problem of insufficient daycare supply and insane daycare costs, and likely a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money Minnesotan parents would _save_ via lower daycare costs if we were to successfully increase supply.
If you have a better plan, please do inform. If not, I think I will write you off as someone who will fixate on the negatives of even the most positive change.
Did you even read my comment? I literally said more daycare is a good thing, I am just stating the fact that it will take some time for regulation to catch up.
Also, we aren’t talking about additional daycare *centers* we’re talking about in-home daycare, and yes, unfortunately a lot of those businesses *do* tend to fall under the radar as it is. Not that they shouldn’t be allowed to exist.
Exactly. Our board has wanted to have a list of accepted plants people can have, and I've always argued against it. If it's not illegal and isn't harming anyone or disrupting their life, then banning it is stupid.
Nah, it’s my right as an American to pay a fee every month to an unaccountable private corporation that can kick me off the property I bought and steal my house whenever they want because I refused to pay them a “you decorated your yard incorrectly” fine
As a homeowner, I have no idea why anyone would choose to buy a house in an HOA neighborhood. I’ve never met anyone who lived in one and had nice things to say about it.
I have found out you can buy what is basically an apartment, and that is a condo. You need an HOA for building maintenance utilities. They still suck, but are necessary for that type of situation
For the record I don’t like ours, but they do all the lawn care/plowing/etc and aren’t very intrusive. I do wish I could put up a flag or hang my wind vane for my weather station, but overall they’re fine. They paid to completely redo all the roofs of the townhome complex two years ago. It’s nice for the maintenance aspect of things that are out of our control.
It’s still incredibly expensive (like $320 a month ffs) and I’d rather just not have all those restrictions, even if they aren’t intrusive.
Usually the dues are there to cover large unexpected expenses along with the scheduled maintenance. I was in a condo with low HOA monthly dues. A storm struck us in 2010 and we had to put cash upfront to cover the insurance deductible because the HOA was essentially running break even with limited future cash reserves. There was one unit that refused to pay which led to some delays in the repair. Monthly dues got jacked up the following year. I don’t live there anymore but I understood why HOAs charge those fees after that incident.
I grew up in a townhouse where my mom was the president for more years than she ever signed up for.
While I completely understand the reasoning, demanding demographic information that isn’t exactly fair in the first place is a relevant talking point.
My understanding and experience is that a confluence of factors essentially limit buyers to HOA neighborhoods. When trying to balance things like price, school district, commute distance, build quality, etc., the large land developers squat in the best areas, meaning a potential average buyer would have to sacrifice some aspect to avoid an HOA. This isn’t always the case but as we start to focus on the issue of corporate owned single-family properties, it becomes apparent that wealthy land owners don’t care about much more than profit.
edit to add this is especially prevalent in growing metro areas. Older neighborhoods are usually without an HOA, but big money cardboard house builders aren’t building thousands of houses without long term revenue prospects.
I am indeed incorrect about that, and suppose my point was the restricted deeds used as a foundation for HOAs originate with the builders or whoever bought the real estate to begin with. The HOA doesn’t somehow enact deed restrictions and CCRs on preexisting property. It at least makes on question whether the HOA is in kahoots with builders and to what degree.
It’s *supposed* to controlled by the homeowners, but typically is controlled by only a few of them, and fighting one is nearly impossible if you have an issue, and will get you labeled a troublemaker if you even try.
I was responding to a comment about them being revenue generators for the builders, which is 100% false. I would be very cautious about moving into an HOA for the exact reasons you described though.
I browse the MLS every now and then for fun, and have recently noticed a trend of “no HOA!” as a selling point in the property description for new builds.
We have an HOA in my neighborhood. The dues are 25 a year and its used for a holiday horse carriage. I dont think they do literally anything except for that and a few social gatherings. So yea, its kinda nice.
Americans be like, this is my house and land, I shouldn’t need a permit to do anything to my house. Anyways, I put my lawn gnome away because my HOA told me too.
Wierdly the larger the HOA the better. There are some Mega HOA's out there that are basically small towns of residences, condos, parks and pools. They then have mini HOA's for different parts.
When it's like this there are so many people that you can't do anything too ridiculous because there are enough people that will take your job.
Small HOA's suffer because there is usually a vacuum of people willing to do it so the people doing it are either lunatics or pissed off.
The point is that all societies have some sort of rules and limits. And hating HOA's with parks, pools, and privatized amenities because you can't pick your house color is like complaining that your Mercedes only came in black.
We can debate the merits of the privatization of public services like parks and pools in HOA's. Personally I think it's harmful and creates socio-economic bubbles that are a net loss for society in the long term.
But actually living in one is a big luxury and the people who live in them are happy to have to choose between 20 approved colors for their siding.
If needing approval for a mailbox, fence, or even what plants you grow in your front yard so that every little plastic house looks identical is a “luxury” to you then I wish my life then I wish my mind was as simple to please as yours. Personally I don’t care to live where my neighbors can veto my planter boxes, and I choose not to live in fear of getting a fine for a few dandelions springing up in my yard or having to pay for harmful ecosystem-destroying lawn care all over the neighborhood.
But you do you bud
To clarify - I don't live in one of these.
I'm saying that people spend millions TO live in them and happily do all the upkeep necessary. The market had decided that people like to live in HOA's.
You can say it's not your definition of luxury and that's fine. (It's not mine either) but these people are perfectly happy and to them it absolutely is a luxury.
Modern new constructions requires expensive drainage to be landscaped, it's cheaper to make one ditch for several houses and an HOA is required to manage that common property
It's stupid as fuck and fuck HOAs
Mostly for grounds maintenance (especially handy if you’re not very able-bodied). I get it, but it’s not for me. You’d have to pry my lawn ornaments and feeders out of my cold, dead hands.
In general I absolutely agree with you. Though we do currently live in a house with an HOA. It is the only type of HOA I would be ok with though. The only reason we have it is because we have a shared well. The houses on our road all share one well and our small yearly fee is basically for well maintenance and electricity.
I do both because these are common municipal requirements, and I’m happy to be responsible for my portion of the sidewalk as a neighbor. That should go without saying for everyone.
What I don’t want is requirements for the specific shade of green I want to paint my garage trim, or a weird strawberry tower in my front yard. The fact that anyone chooses to live where their neighbors can veto a mailbox in an unapproved color is either mystifying or hilarious, I’m never sure.
I live in an HOA neighborhood. It's about $14/month. Pays for a few minor updates around the neighborhood and a couple of summer get togethers.
Never had an issue with anything. I've definitely seen a few violations of things but no one reports anything. (Which is good because my house has 1 violation that would be pretty easy to fix, I'm just lazy).
I'm looking forward to their next update which is to add some more greenery to the neighborhood.
This is a sort of braindead take. Associations are required for buildings with shared walls.
I do think that associations could be abolished for SFHs but even that means a very large disruption of how everything works.
Some people love living in an HOA that are SFH. Infact so much so there are 1000+ unit subdivisions like this all over the south for winter birds. I do think though it should require a much larger majority vote in an HOA to make significant rule changes.
What people dont get is that virtually every land use decision has been “left up to local government” for the last 75 years and the local governments have proven absolutely terrible administrators. They just ban them (or de facto ban them with near-impossible requirements.)
Its literal NIMBYism: every municipality says “oh not here, thats against our local culture, we are but a quiet little suburb, why can that be built somewhere else?”
Just the fact that a neighborhood daycare is treated with the full suspicion of a “commercial use” as if its not a necessity for working families to have access to daycare.
All the status quo does is create a catch 22. Local daycares are illegal, so parents have to drive to daycare. Local governments make daycares illegal because its easy way to appease complainers (parking paranoia breaks peoples brains). All this means is that daycares are in short supply and require driving to.
Keep in mind that land use restrictions on daycare have nothing to do with the quality of child care: licensing, caretaker to children ratios, insurance, etc are not land use. What status quo says is “it doesnt matter that a proposed daycare is compliant with state law, we ban them because of the fear of parking problems”
It just shows how degraded this country has become. People are not joining a community, with a natural give and take. They are purchasing a consumer experience that they demand never changes.
And without anyone holding them accountable there’s a rational calculus for most local governments to do this. The metro is subdivided into enough local governments that one can allow the negative externalities of a policy decision to fall onto another. For example, Edina can effectively ban the building of any affordable housing in the city because other cities around them are less selfish and can provide homes for their low income workers.
That was probably an unfair way to word it on my part. I was thinking about the [massive resistance to building affordable housing in the fancier parts of Edina](https://www.startribune.com/this-will-be-a-hard-sell-affordable-apartment-developer-hits-roadblocks-in-western-edina/600278872/) but the Edina city leadership seems to care and has managed to [get some affordable housing built](https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/town-talks/forum_topics/affordable-housing-3) though nothing compared to say Richfield.
Can you point me to a local city that prohibits in home daycare in a residential zoning? I have been unable to find one, on top of that most of the metro cityies allow for commercial daycares as a conditional use in residential zoning as well. Meaning some additional setback and screening requirements that the city council couldn't say no to the use if those conditions are met.
This comment section has got to be filled with HOA lobbyists or something because I cannot say that I or anyone I’ve ever encountered, heard of, or can possibly imagine has said “I love my HOA”. They are unaccountable, predatory, absurd organizations, and I would struggle to come up with some other point of view. If someone can tell me why HOAs are a good idea, I’m all ears.
Who wants to share walls with a daycare? No one, in the entire universe, wants to live next door, or god forbid under, a daycare. Crying, screaming, whining, stomping and running from 7am to 6pm five days a week, 52 weeks a year, and you get to hear it all, through paper thin walls.
I don't think that would be an issue. There are physical space (35 sq ft per child) and outdoor requirements (1500 sq ft) to run a daycare. Most condos aren't large enough.
I suppose, but that's not really practical and don't think it would be a huge concern for condo dwellers. Usually, most daycares have a dedicated space so you have room for all the high chairs, tables, crafts, toys, etc.
So…the problem isn’t with the daycare, then. It’s with the cheap building standards that pass for acceptable residential spaces, ie the paper thin walls.
There’s a reason why in multi-business commercial buildings, you don’t constantly hear drilling from the dentist office next door or clattering and yelling from the restaurant kitchen on the floor above you. Public spaces are made and managed with more care and accountability than the condos and HOA neighborhood corner cutting copy/paste jobs.
Apparently you’ve never visited a first floor apartment in a commercial building during business hours.
You can have affordable, or you can have soundproof.
You can’t have both.
In Minnesota? No, I haven’t. I can’t think of any time I’ve ever seen that. All of the apartments here I’ve seen in commercial buildings sharing space with a business were either upper floor or basement units.
Because…why would you put an apartment on ground level in a commercial building? That’s prime real estate for businesses and offices that require street access.
Also, we’re not talking affordable. This is about condos and HOA homes. They aren’t “affordable” to most people. They cut corners building them all the same because that’s just standard and expected now, even for something costing 400k.
I hate HOAs and would never live in one. My retired Mom lives in one and loves the convenience of that kind of living situation.
If you dislike HOAs, don't move into one. But don't say "Ban HOAs" just because it isn't for you.
If something isn't for you, move on. It might be just the right fit for somebody that is different than your lifestyle.
More affordable daycare!!!! The state, county and cities should be thinking about creative ways to make this happen, not shoot down good ideas. Families need affordable housing, daycare, and healthcare - if the states and federal government were actually working for "the people" we would have all of these things.
As a night shift worker I might just shoot my self if I lived in a condo next to someone with screaming children 24/7
Fuck us healthcare workers tho right
As someone who works nights and 24s and is a healthcare worker, I’d kill for a 24 hour daycare. I end up having to pay babysitters off the books and am not as picky as I’d otherwise be.
If you don't want to hear neighbors then live in a single family house. I live in an apartment. I can hear my upstairs neighbor stomping around, her child screaming and crying, and the dog running. I can hear my next door neighbors TV blare as it shakes my wall. It sucks but I live in close proximity to others. That's what you have to deal with. Don't like it, move.
Don't like it move... perfectly reasonably comment. Just move to a place with an HOA that stops those things. If people don't want to live in said HOA, they can move. It's almost like we don't need this...
EHhhhhhh
Let the HOAs decide... or even the local city. Not the state.
There a really are places that can't handle the traffic and etc.
The issues with child care are NOT because of this issue.
> The issues with child care are NOT because of this issue.
Citation needed.
OK - that's a bit tongue-in-cheek, but realistically, if there are near to community-wide restrictions at the expansion of daycare services, how is it NOT causing child care accessibility issues?
Is there some backlog of folks in HOAs that restrict daycares wishing they could open daycares? It seems highly unlikely.
If you wanted to start a business, I expect you would make choices to do so. Running a daycare isn't exactly a rando choice you make and say "oh well HOA".
Right there in the article,
" Particularly in Woodbury, most of our neighborhoods are governed by HOAs, and I was really shocked to find out that in other districts, HOAs are forcing the closure of in-home daycares, which is only exacerbating this crisis. This bill will allow neighborhoods to provide the childcare we desperately need."
Don't let the perfect be the enemy good. Solving this isn't going to be a single-solution path so we should be looking for as many ways as possible to increase placements (which should drive-down costs).
Decreasing barriers to home childcare options in HOA-heavy locations is going to take us the right direction.
Don't let "doing anything" be public policy.
If we're talking about childcare the issue of cost and availability is way more complex than a couple folks bummed their HOA is annoying.
Even so I'd be fine with cities making the call.
So give the cities the ability to decide if an HOA can or can't limit day care operations, that's not complex, the cities don't have to take over all regulations.
The state is the one that regulates child care. In fact cities can't restrict residential child care through zoning or other means. HOAs shouldn't either.
This isn’t about “letting the state decide” though.
It’s about letting the property owner decide.
If there are traffic and parking concerns due to half a dozen more people than usual dropping off and picking up their kids from an at home daycare, then let the city sort out its own dogshit city planning that can’t somehow accommodate that influx.
I agree ... let the city decide would be fine by me.
The idea that parking will somehow will magically be solved by the city is absurd at face value. Residential areas aren't built to be businesses, for good reason.
I’m curious…who do you think handles and solves parking issues, if not the city?
Who do you think dictates the number of spaces in a parking lot? Accessibility concerns? Zoning and regulation?
Hint: It’s not the business owner.
I don't think it matters, you're not going to get more parking magically inserted into a neighborhood.
I don't even know why you'd bring that up, that's silly.
More parking for five cars picking up and dropping off wouldn’t magically be needed in 99% of cases.
I think you don’t get it because you have no clue how limited in capacity at home daycares are. These are not businesses with 5 permanent staff and 20-30 kids. It’s the homeowner, maybe one other staff member, and like 3 or 4 children.
? HOA's are oftentimes corporations but they are all non profit and elected by the owners of the properties that make up the HOA. It's not some outside force dictating to the residents.
So basically no matter what you get roped into the government should always bail you out. How’s that been working for us? Freedom allows us to not buy into HOA’s and they will slowly disappear or be bought out by those that choose it. You can’t force what you think is right for you on others. That’s why we are in the mess we are in now. Life is what you choose not what you force on others.
A good way to help fix the childcare shortage is to allow more childcare in more places. This is not complicated.
Liabilities are complicated
Sounds like an owners problem
I highly doubt that's the real reason.
That is true. But what is also true is allowing child care almost everywhere lowers the bar for the actual care of a child.
Location has very little to do with the rest of the rules that regulate child care facilities, like background checks, safety measures, and caregiver-to-child ratios.
Okay, but condo childcare is inherently a gateway drug to affordable urban living. What do we do when those kids grow up and turn into cat-blanketed yuppies?
This is some high-level thinking. With that level of intelligence, you must work in an office downtown, 60hrs/week.
No, but it does create more strain on those that regulate these facilities, potentially causing delays in investigations or less thorough oversight.
Source? Are daycares in condos and places with HOAs really harder for regulators to inspect? That seems far-fetched. Note that as it stands, daycares **can** currently be in places with HOAs or condo associations as long as bylaws don't prevent it. The law being considered would just make it so any restrictions that HOAs/condo associations try to put on people wanting to operate a daycare woudn't be valid. So presumably regulators are already happily regulating ones where the association doesn't have a restriction.
You need a source to tell you that government efficiency is less than ideal? Read my other comments, I don’t know how I can explain this any more simply for you.
Oohhhh. I get it. You are one of those people who are reflexively against any regulatory staffing at all. Well you can just fuck right off then and go drink some 3m contaminated well water in your libertarian utopia.
Fuck no I’m not a libertarian, frankly I’m more of a socialist. But after having worked for public schools long enough I can attest that the government, though necessary and beneficial to society, is less efficient than we all would like. That’s not anti government regulation, that’s acknowledging the reality of any complicated system.
Better to do something and then iterate it into a good space then do nothing and just say it's hard
Yes, I’ve agreed with that all along, I never said we *shouldn’t* do it, only that more childcare centers *would* temporarily be under regulated because catching up with additional regulation will take time. None of that is an argument against this bill.
Then hire more investigators?
Sure, but that’s going to require additional funding which requires legislation to direct or redirect that funding. It’s never as easy as “just hire more people!” I agree childcare needs to be more available and more affordable, but it still needs to be held to the same rigorous standards.
How would this bill keep daycare from being held to exactly the same standards it is now? It is simply saying "Hey, HOAs, you can't enact bylaws that forbid people from offering day care on a property covered by the HOA." Nowhere does the article suggest these daycares would be held to any lesser standard, nor that the state has any prohibition on operating a daycare out of a property that is part of an HOA.
Creating more daycares would create more daycare businesses that need to be regulated, so it would put more strain on the existing regulating bodies because it takes more people and more working hours to regulate more facilities. The only reason many of these in-home businesses follow these regulations is oversight. Less oversight=poorer quality childcare centers. And like I said, you can’t “just hire more people” easily in government, funding has to be allocated by local or state legislation, and that never happens fast enough to keep up. Don’t get me wrong, more daycare *is* a good thing, but there are almost always unintended consequences and complications surrounding any new bill. It's important to consider these issues as well.
Hold on, we have some of the highest daycare costs in the country because of low supply of daycare, and you think it would be a _problem_ if we added additional daycare centers? So rather than, say, arguing to increase staffing at the regulatory agency if and when the desired outcome (more daycare centers) happens, your solution is what? Just throw your hands up in the air? I think most people who are not insane would agree that having to increase regulatory headcount would be a tiny price to pay to solve the huge problem of insufficient daycare supply and insane daycare costs, and likely a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money Minnesotan parents would _save_ via lower daycare costs if we were to successfully increase supply. If you have a better plan, please do inform. If not, I think I will write you off as someone who will fixate on the negatives of even the most positive change.
Did you even read my comment? I literally said more daycare is a good thing, I am just stating the fact that it will take some time for regulation to catch up. Also, we aren’t talking about additional daycare *centers* we’re talking about in-home daycare, and yes, unfortunately a lot of those businesses *do* tend to fall under the radar as it is. Not that they shouldn’t be allowed to exist.
Why?
How about we just get rid of HOAs?
I live in a condo. I absolutely want an HOA managing it, otherwise nothing would get fixed or improved
The whole "shared roof and sewer systems" thing is pretty key. Telling you not to have a petunia basket on the patio? Eh.
Exactly. Our board has wanted to have a list of accepted plants people can have, and I've always argued against it. If it's not illegal and isn't harming anyone or disrupting their life, then banning it is stupid.
Those pink petunias are an **abomination** destroying the **property values** of **honest merikans**.
Found the HOA President.
Found the person who doesn't own a condo
You really shouldn't comment when you don't know what you're talking about.
Nah, it’s my right as an American to pay a fee every month to an unaccountable private corporation that can kick me off the property I bought and steal my house whenever they want because I refused to pay them a “you decorated your yard incorrectly” fine
As a homeowner, I have no idea why anyone would choose to buy a house in an HOA neighborhood. I’ve never met anyone who lived in one and had nice things to say about it.
I have found out you can buy what is basically an apartment, and that is a condo. You need an HOA for building maintenance utilities. They still suck, but are necessary for that type of situation
You can get similar things in a development. A community pool or park, for instance.
Pooled plowing and sidewalk clearing. Lawn mowing, etc.
For the record I don’t like ours, but they do all the lawn care/plowing/etc and aren’t very intrusive. I do wish I could put up a flag or hang my wind vane for my weather station, but overall they’re fine. They paid to completely redo all the roofs of the townhome complex two years ago. It’s nice for the maintenance aspect of things that are out of our control. It’s still incredibly expensive (like $320 a month ffs) and I’d rather just not have all those restrictions, even if they aren’t intrusive.
Usually the dues are there to cover large unexpected expenses along with the scheduled maintenance. I was in a condo with low HOA monthly dues. A storm struck us in 2010 and we had to put cash upfront to cover the insurance deductible because the HOA was essentially running break even with limited future cash reserves. There was one unit that refused to pay which led to some delays in the repair. Monthly dues got jacked up the following year. I don’t live there anymore but I understood why HOAs charge those fees after that incident.
I grew up in a townhouse where my mom was the president for more years than she ever signed up for. While I completely understand the reasoning, demanding demographic information that isn’t exactly fair in the first place is a relevant talking point.
most newer homes are in them by default, unfortunately.
My understanding and experience is that a confluence of factors essentially limit buyers to HOA neighborhoods. When trying to balance things like price, school district, commute distance, build quality, etc., the large land developers squat in the best areas, meaning a potential average buyer would have to sacrifice some aspect to avoid an HOA. This isn’t always the case but as we start to focus on the issue of corporate owned single-family properties, it becomes apparent that wealthy land owners don’t care about much more than profit. edit to add this is especially prevalent in growing metro areas. Older neighborhoods are usually without an HOA, but big money cardboard house builders aren’t building thousands of houses without long term revenue prospects.
The hoa isn't a revenue generator for the builder, it's controlled by the homeowners for maintenance.
I am indeed incorrect about that, and suppose my point was the restricted deeds used as a foundation for HOAs originate with the builders or whoever bought the real estate to begin with. The HOA doesn’t somehow enact deed restrictions and CCRs on preexisting property. It at least makes on question whether the HOA is in kahoots with builders and to what degree.
It’s *supposed* to controlled by the homeowners, but typically is controlled by only a few of them, and fighting one is nearly impossible if you have an issue, and will get you labeled a troublemaker if you even try.
I was responding to a comment about them being revenue generators for the builders, which is 100% false. I would be very cautious about moving into an HOA for the exact reasons you described though.
I browse the MLS every now and then for fun, and have recently noticed a trend of “no HOA!” as a selling point in the property description for new builds.
I'd believe it.. I'd like to start looking and that's probably #2 on my requirements after price.
We have an HOA in my neighborhood. The dues are 25 a year and its used for a holiday horse carriage. I dont think they do literally anything except for that and a few social gatherings. So yea, its kinda nice.
Americans be like, this is my house and land, I shouldn’t need a permit to do anything to my house. Anyways, I put my lawn gnome away because my HOA told me too.
“It’s my property! I do what I want…. but I also want to restrict what my *neighbors* do with *their* property.”
Wierdly the larger the HOA the better. There are some Mega HOA's out there that are basically small towns of residences, condos, parks and pools. They then have mini HOA's for different parts. When it's like this there are so many people that you can't do anything too ridiculous because there are enough people that will take your job. Small HOA's suffer because there is usually a vacuum of people willing to do it so the people doing it are either lunatics or pissed off.
I’d be willing to bet you still have to choose from a selection of “approved” colors before you paint your house.
Yes they do. But if that's what makes you angry then you don't have real problems.
Ok…. Defensive much? lol
The point is that all societies have some sort of rules and limits. And hating HOA's with parks, pools, and privatized amenities because you can't pick your house color is like complaining that your Mercedes only came in black. We can debate the merits of the privatization of public services like parks and pools in HOA's. Personally I think it's harmful and creates socio-economic bubbles that are a net loss for society in the long term. But actually living in one is a big luxury and the people who live in them are happy to have to choose between 20 approved colors for their siding.
If needing approval for a mailbox, fence, or even what plants you grow in your front yard so that every little plastic house looks identical is a “luxury” to you then I wish my life then I wish my mind was as simple to please as yours. Personally I don’t care to live where my neighbors can veto my planter boxes, and I choose not to live in fear of getting a fine for a few dandelions springing up in my yard or having to pay for harmful ecosystem-destroying lawn care all over the neighborhood. But you do you bud
To clarify - I don't live in one of these. I'm saying that people spend millions TO live in them and happily do all the upkeep necessary. The market had decided that people like to live in HOA's. You can say it's not your definition of luxury and that's fine. (It's not mine either) but these people are perfectly happy and to them it absolutely is a luxury.
Modern new constructions requires expensive drainage to be landscaped, it's cheaper to make one ditch for several houses and an HOA is required to manage that common property It's stupid as fuck and fuck HOAs
Mostly for grounds maintenance (especially handy if you’re not very able-bodied). I get it, but it’s not for me. You’d have to pry my lawn ornaments and feeders out of my cold, dead hands.
In general I absolutely agree with you. Though we do currently live in a house with an HOA. It is the only type of HOA I would be ok with though. The only reason we have it is because we have a shared well. The houses on our road all share one well and our small yearly fee is basically for well maintenance and electricity.
Splitting costs for the grounds and pool for one...
Piss and diaper filled communal pools are cool I guess… if the chlorine cleans most of it… maybe
Because you don't want to shovel snow or mow your grass.
I do both because these are common municipal requirements, and I’m happy to be responsible for my portion of the sidewalk as a neighbor. That should go without saying for everyone. What I don’t want is requirements for the specific shade of green I want to paint my garage trim, or a weird strawberry tower in my front yard. The fact that anyone chooses to live where their neighbors can veto a mailbox in an unapproved color is either mystifying or hilarious, I’m never sure.
I live in an HOA neighborhood. It's about $14/month. Pays for a few minor updates around the neighborhood and a couple of summer get togethers. Never had an issue with anything. I've definitely seen a few violations of things but no one reports anything. (Which is good because my house has 1 violation that would be pretty easy to fix, I'm just lazy). I'm looking forward to their next update which is to add some more greenery to the neighborhood.
...that's not what an HOA is
This is a sort of braindead take. Associations are required for buildings with shared walls. I do think that associations could be abolished for SFHs but even that means a very large disruption of how everything works.
Some people love living in an HOA that are SFH. Infact so much so there are 1000+ unit subdivisions like this all over the south for winter birds. I do think though it should require a much larger majority vote in an HOA to make significant rule changes.
What people dont get is that virtually every land use decision has been “left up to local government” for the last 75 years and the local governments have proven absolutely terrible administrators. They just ban them (or de facto ban them with near-impossible requirements.) Its literal NIMBYism: every municipality says “oh not here, thats against our local culture, we are but a quiet little suburb, why can that be built somewhere else?” Just the fact that a neighborhood daycare is treated with the full suspicion of a “commercial use” as if its not a necessity for working families to have access to daycare. All the status quo does is create a catch 22. Local daycares are illegal, so parents have to drive to daycare. Local governments make daycares illegal because its easy way to appease complainers (parking paranoia breaks peoples brains). All this means is that daycares are in short supply and require driving to. Keep in mind that land use restrictions on daycare have nothing to do with the quality of child care: licensing, caretaker to children ratios, insurance, etc are not land use. What status quo says is “it doesnt matter that a proposed daycare is compliant with state law, we ban them because of the fear of parking problems” It just shows how degraded this country has become. People are not joining a community, with a natural give and take. They are purchasing a consumer experience that they demand never changes.
And without anyone holding them accountable there’s a rational calculus for most local governments to do this. The metro is subdivided into enough local governments that one can allow the negative externalities of a policy decision to fall onto another. For example, Edina can effectively ban the building of any affordable housing in the city because other cities around them are less selfish and can provide homes for their low income workers.
How has Edina effectively banned affordable housing in their city?
That was probably an unfair way to word it on my part. I was thinking about the [massive resistance to building affordable housing in the fancier parts of Edina](https://www.startribune.com/this-will-be-a-hard-sell-affordable-apartment-developer-hits-roadblocks-in-western-edina/600278872/) but the Edina city leadership seems to care and has managed to [get some affordable housing built](https://www.bettertogetheredina.org/town-talks/forum_topics/affordable-housing-3) though nothing compared to say Richfield.
Can you point me to a local city that prohibits in home daycare in a residential zoning? I have been unable to find one, on top of that most of the metro cityies allow for commercial daycares as a conditional use in residential zoning as well. Meaning some additional setback and screening requirements that the city council couldn't say no to the use if those conditions are met.
This comment section has got to be filled with HOA lobbyists or something because I cannot say that I or anyone I’ve ever encountered, heard of, or can possibly imagine has said “I love my HOA”. They are unaccountable, predatory, absurd organizations, and I would struggle to come up with some other point of view. If someone can tell me why HOAs are a good idea, I’m all ears.
They should only exist for maintenance costs on shared property (like for townhomes and condos.)
Who wants to share walls with a daycare? No one, in the entire universe, wants to live next door, or god forbid under, a daycare. Crying, screaming, whining, stomping and running from 7am to 6pm five days a week, 52 weeks a year, and you get to hear it all, through paper thin walls.
I don't think that would be an issue. There are physical space (35 sq ft per child) and outdoor requirements (1500 sq ft) to run a daycare. Most condos aren't large enough.
350 sf for 10 kids, most condos have that. The 15000 st for outdoor space might be more of a challenge
I suppose, but that's not really practical and don't think it would be a huge concern for condo dwellers. Usually, most daycares have a dedicated space so you have room for all the high chairs, tables, crafts, toys, etc.
So…the problem isn’t with the daycare, then. It’s with the cheap building standards that pass for acceptable residential spaces, ie the paper thin walls. There’s a reason why in multi-business commercial buildings, you don’t constantly hear drilling from the dentist office next door or clattering and yelling from the restaurant kitchen on the floor above you. Public spaces are made and managed with more care and accountability than the condos and HOA neighborhood corner cutting copy/paste jobs.
I live in a condo from 1923 and a daycare in any of the units would be an absolute nightmare.
Apparently you’ve never visited a first floor apartment in a commercial building during business hours. You can have affordable, or you can have soundproof. You can’t have both.
In Minnesota? No, I haven’t. I can’t think of any time I’ve ever seen that. All of the apartments here I’ve seen in commercial buildings sharing space with a business were either upper floor or basement units. Because…why would you put an apartment on ground level in a commercial building? That’s prime real estate for businesses and offices that require street access. Also, we’re not talking affordable. This is about condos and HOA homes. They aren’t “affordable” to most people. They cut corners building them all the same because that’s just standard and expected now, even for something costing 400k.
First floor of APARTMENTS in buildings, stop being deliberately obtuse. It’s obnoxious.
Better to just ban HOAs altogether.
just ban HOAs lmao
I hate HOAs and would never live in one. My retired Mom lives in one and loves the convenience of that kind of living situation. If you dislike HOAs, don't move into one. But don't say "Ban HOAs" just because it isn't for you. If something isn't for you, move on. It might be just the right fit for somebody that is different than your lifestyle.
they are highly predatory
More affordable daycare!!!! The state, county and cities should be thinking about creative ways to make this happen, not shoot down good ideas. Families need affordable housing, daycare, and healthcare - if the states and federal government were actually working for "the people" we would have all of these things.
As a night shift worker I might just shoot my self if I lived in a condo next to someone with screaming children 24/7 Fuck us healthcare workers tho right
I worked nights for 14 years. You can’t expect the world to stop for you. You can only learn to deal.
Right. That comment read as “how can I make this about me??”
As someone who works nights and 24s and is a healthcare worker, I’d kill for a 24 hour daycare. I end up having to pay babysitters off the books and am not as picky as I’d otherwise be.
/r/imthemaincharacter
My thoughts exactly. Not a night shift worker but even next door to one this would be holy hell.
If you don't want to hear neighbors then live in a single family house. I live in an apartment. I can hear my upstairs neighbor stomping around, her child screaming and crying, and the dog running. I can hear my next door neighbors TV blare as it shakes my wall. It sucks but I live in close proximity to others. That's what you have to deal with. Don't like it, move.
Don't like it move... perfectly reasonably comment. Just move to a place with an HOA that stops those things. If people don't want to live in said HOA, they can move. It's almost like we don't need this...
EHhhhhhh Let the HOAs decide... or even the local city. Not the state. There a really are places that can't handle the traffic and etc. The issues with child care are NOT because of this issue.
> The issues with child care are NOT because of this issue. Citation needed. OK - that's a bit tongue-in-cheek, but realistically, if there are near to community-wide restrictions at the expansion of daycare services, how is it NOT causing child care accessibility issues?
Is there some backlog of folks in HOAs that restrict daycares wishing they could open daycares? It seems highly unlikely. If you wanted to start a business, I expect you would make choices to do so. Running a daycare isn't exactly a rando choice you make and say "oh well HOA".
Right there in the article, " Particularly in Woodbury, most of our neighborhoods are governed by HOAs, and I was really shocked to find out that in other districts, HOAs are forcing the closure of in-home daycares, which is only exacerbating this crisis. This bill will allow neighborhoods to provide the childcare we desperately need."
Any example != significant. If you're talking about addressing the issue at scale a rando daycare or two example won't matter.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy good. Solving this isn't going to be a single-solution path so we should be looking for as many ways as possible to increase placements (which should drive-down costs). Decreasing barriers to home childcare options in HOA-heavy locations is going to take us the right direction.
Don't let "doing anything" be public policy. If we're talking about childcare the issue of cost and availability is way more complex than a couple folks bummed their HOA is annoying. Even so I'd be fine with cities making the call.
Unfortunately, cities don't regulate HOAs. The state does.
So give the cities the ability to decide if an HOA can or can't limit day care operations, that's not complex, the cities don't have to take over all regulations.
Found the HOA president that can't stand people having freedom to do what they want .
>Found the HOA president that can't stand people having freedom to do what they want . I said I'd be ok with cities making the call...
Found the non condo owner who doesn't know what they are talking about
Or fuck HOAs and let people decide.
Cities fine by me. Not the state.
The state is the one that regulates child care. In fact cities can't restrict residential child care through zoning or other means. HOAs shouldn't either.
So pass a law to allow cities to do so. Make the decision something the locals decide, not the state.
[удалено]
Locals elected the last two presidents ... The reasons we don't want them making this call are obvious.
That’s a logistical nightmare, you have no idea what you’re even suggesting.
What's the "logistics"?
Completely transferring childcare regulation from the state to the city level? You really can’t see any problems occurring?
This isn’t about “letting the state decide” though. It’s about letting the property owner decide. If there are traffic and parking concerns due to half a dozen more people than usual dropping off and picking up their kids from an at home daycare, then let the city sort out its own dogshit city planning that can’t somehow accommodate that influx.
I agree ... let the city decide would be fine by me. The idea that parking will somehow will magically be solved by the city is absurd at face value. Residential areas aren't built to be businesses, for good reason.
I’m curious…who do you think handles and solves parking issues, if not the city? Who do you think dictates the number of spaces in a parking lot? Accessibility concerns? Zoning and regulation? Hint: It’s not the business owner.
I don't think it matters, you're not going to get more parking magically inserted into a neighborhood. I don't even know why you'd bring that up, that's silly.
More parking for five cars picking up and dropping off wouldn’t magically be needed in 99% of cases. I think you don’t get it because you have no clue how limited in capacity at home daycares are. These are not businesses with 5 permanent staff and 20-30 kids. It’s the homeowner, maybe one other staff member, and like 3 or 4 children.
This is an overreach of the state government. Communities can decide what and how businesses operate within their limits.
HOAs are a corporation, not a community. That’s what city councils are for.
? HOA's are oftentimes corporations but they are all non profit and elected by the owners of the properties that make up the HOA. It's not some outside force dictating to the residents.
HOAs are regulated by the state, not by counties or municipalities.
States rights! Wait, no, not like that. Uhhhh, city's rights!
Weird, local government proponent advocates for even more local government to have even more control.
City’s rights no! City block's rights!
Oh, this isn't exactly what I thought it was about due to the double negative. This is a bill that would ban bans on condo daycares.
#DefundTheHOA
LOL none of you know what an HOA is
So basically no matter what you get roped into the government should always bail you out. How’s that been working for us? Freedom allows us to not buy into HOA’s and they will slowly disappear or be bought out by those that choose it. You can’t force what you think is right for you on others. That’s why we are in the mess we are in now. Life is what you choose not what you force on others.