I certainly like it.
On a side note, perhaps its the sort of people I am meeting lately, but whenever the subject of HOA’s comes up there is a near universal expression of revulsion. I am hopeful that the time has come for these quasi-governmental groups to go the way of the dinosaurs.
That will never happen. The reason is that for the majority of owners, they are perfectly happy to surrender some of their freedom to gain the advantages of common ownership.
While I would never want to live without the degree of freedom I have with my own property, the fact is that condominium ownership provides a better lifestyle than living in a rented apartment. At least that is the opinion of a great number of people.
I own a condominium unit which is a rental. The renters have no right whatever to paint it in any way that does not satisfy me, the owner.
Similarly, although I own the inside of the unit, the outside is owned jointly by all the condominium unit owners in the development. I have no right whatever to paint the outside of my unit, which is jointly owned, in any way that does not satisfy the association, the owner.
If the gentleman in the article has the authority, under the condominium agreement, to paint the outside of his home in any way he wishes, then I am happy for him. If so, then the bylaws, which evidently prohibited him from flying a flag, must certainly be flawed if they permitted him to turn his entire home into a flag.
Capitalism requires the existence of voluntary financial associations to marry capital with productive ideas. Without the ability of individuals to voluntarily cede some of their rights contractually, we will have sacrificed the very foundation of our economy.
They are somewhat like a government, since they are run by elected officials picked by the homeowners.
Nobody likes HOAs, but then again, nobody likes police officers when they get ticketed for running a stop sign or speeding.
People tend not to like authority. I’m noticing a disturbing trend, even among conservatives, to rebel against lawful order. Laws by their nature restrict liberty, because you cannot have unrestricted liberty in a nation greater than a single person.
I don’t see how else you would handle common property ownership without some sort of association agreement. And frankly, most people are so individualistic that they feel compelled to require their own choice of colors for their house (most people never change the color of their house).
When people complain about development destroying their “views”, I tell them tough — if you care about what you see out of your back yard, buy all the property you can see, and keep it undeveloped.
Well, in one sense that is what an HOA is — a person who buys a bunch of property because they like what they see, and then when they offer parts of the property for others, they sell with a stipulation that the look and feel of the property can only be changed in specific ways, with a board to govern those changes and settle disputes.
It seems different because, after years and years, you don’t know the person who started the association, and the houses have passed down from person to person — but the principle is the same, as everybody who buys a house on the property knows the restrictions that they agree to when making the purchase.