this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2023
355 points (99.7% liked)
Solarpunk
5463 readers
31 users here now
The space to discuss Solarpunk itself and Solarpunk related stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.
Join our chat: Movim or XMPP client.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Does this override all HOA rules?
Yup, HOA ordinances can't override Municipal or State law. This bill specifically prohibits municipalities from prohibits gardening, so it will also prohibit HOA restrictions as well. Unfortunately, I can see HOAs starting up lawsuits over that
ugh i want to start a veggie garden on my parents property just to piss off their neighbors.
So far, all the sites I've found are talking about city ordinances against gardening, not HOA bylaws.
However, an HOA cannot legally enforce a rule that contradicts a state law. The worst HOAs will still try to enforce illegal rules. Which means you have to sue the HOA.
Ye, the article says it prevents local govts from enforcing hoa-style laws, but didn’t say anything about hoas themselves.
Idk how those work legally, I luckily don’t have to deal with them.
If the state explicitly protects the right, no authority below the state can prohibit it.
Very important detail there, I didn't even consider that until y'all said it.
I've got an idea to fix the bad HOA issues if anyone wants to hear me out. It's a simple, practical solution.
If an HOA wants to form, it must first get enough residents to hold a fair democratic vote as to whether they should exist at all. The time leading up to the vote would be short, maybe a month, tops. This time would allow the potential HOA to state its case, and what value it intends to provide specifically in writing.
At any point an audit could be called by majority vote, and any HOA lying about the books, or that can't prove that it specifically is responsible for raising home values, they would be forced to close down.
My understanding is that a lot of HOAs are formed prior to occupation (during the development phase).
This is a deal done between the developer and city to lower costs. Suburbs are expensive per/capita to administer and maintain, so I think the hope is the HOA takes some of those costs.
Regardless, any HOA (to my knowledge?) Must be voted is regularly (in my city condo syndicates need to revote the board every year, I assume the same applies for "flat condos"/HOAs). All financials also need to be public, there's no room for shinanigans (I've been trying to dump my board seat for years, keep getting voted in under protest).
All that to say, HOAs may be a requirement of the local government, but the is nothing stopping the members from voting in a new board and dropping the HOA down to bare legal minimums.
HOA's are entirely shenaningans
HOA's cannot enforce anything that is contradictory to state law. They are a private entity, not a government requirement. They don't lower costs, they are a cancer.
I'm pretty sure a lot of HOAs are formed by property developers before the first house is sold. Not all of them are specifically to increase property values. Condo HOAs are necessary to maintain the common areas. Some HOAs maintain a pool or communal areas. But yeah, I'll only live in an HOA community if it's a condo.
Genuinely curious, as in my country HOAs are a bit less powerful, but: wouldn't it be the other way around? If the HOA fines you for things that are legal within state law, and you refuse to pay, don't they need to sue you to get you to pay(or to try to get your home, which I heard is sometimes an option)? Or do you really need to sue them?
Okay, how it works is the HOA issues a bogus fine. Then they do that a few more times with late fees and nonpayment fees and whatever else they tack on. Then they launch a lawsuit or put a lien on your house (basically they can repossess your house from under you, even if the HOA never held the title before).
Depending on the judge the HOA gets, they might be able to pull it off without you knowing about it until the trial date. It's not going to be a jury trial, it will just be a judge hearing evidence and making a ruling. The HOA agreement that you (or the previous homeowner) signed is the number one piece of evidence. The number of fines and non-payment of them is all the judge often sees.
Do note that this process is most often used against people of darker skin tone who live in whiter HOAs.
So yeah, if an HOA starts issuing fines that are illegal, it's often best to sue them first. That way, the judge hears your evidence first.
The goal should always be to disolve the HOA, because they are often created to keep out darker skinned or poorer homeowners. And they're a way for little yard nazis to grasp at power.
HOA aren't governmental organizations, they are contractual organizations which makes it more complicated than something like a municipal government. They are private entities more akin to a nonprofit corporations than a government. It will really depend on the language of the law. If it actually guarantees the right to grow a garden then it should override HOA rules, if it just restricts lower levels of government from banning gardens then it is unlikely to affect HOA rules.
It seems to be the former - guaranteeing the right to grow a garden:
source
I found the exact act. It's pretty short. If I'm reading it right, it specifically says an HOA can't limit this right. That is, if I'm understanding "home rule" right.
Edit: I think "home rule" is legalese for local governments. Looks like HOAs probably can still limit this right.
It probably depends on the specifics of the HOA. The article says the bill protects the right to garden on one's own property. Technically, my condo's porch belongs to the HOA and is reserved for my private use. So, I don't think this bill would override my condo's rule forbidding vegetable gardening on the porch.
(Note: I do not live in Illinois anyway. And the reasoning for the rule is "we don't want bears raiding porch gardens")