Neighborhood associations

 What is a libertarian's point of view on "neighborhood associations"?

I consider myself a libertarian. A few weeks ago, I received a call from my landlord stating I needed to keep my trash can in my garage. Apparently the neighborhood association called and complained. Upset that I have to keep the trash in my garage versus in front of the garage where it had been for weeks, I decided to comply (after all, my lease was up and I was going to move anyways). Two weeks after the call I receive a letter. $100 fine for keeping the trash can outside and visible.
I kept the trashcan in front of the garage for a reason; I didn't want it to stink up the garage.

Now I live in my own place and can pretty much do what I want.

Just yesterday I had a discussion with one of my friends about neighborhood associations and he stated that they are important as they keep everybody's property value up.  While this might be indeed the case, they also limit property owners in what they can do on their property. If I own a piece of property and pay taxes on it, I should be entitled to keep the trashcan wherever I want. I should be able to do with my land whatever I want. If I feel like growing orange grass, I should be allowed to do so.
His response was that if I did that, my neighbor's property value would go down and I would interfere with his ability to enjoy his property.

The main question I would have to ask, is are these quasi-governmental entities or are they the result of contractual limitations on property you purchased? Homeowner's associations and other outcomes achieved by restrictive covenants can legitimately (from a libertarian POV) restrict what you may do with a piece of property given that the terms of its acquisition were conditional on abiding by certain rules, or at any rate, do not include full ownership over the property in question. Restrictive covenants have both their ups (e.g. keeping criminals off the property) and their downs. Now, if you haven't entered into such a covenant, there is no right to restrict your use of your property, unless it harms others (e.g. above-normal levels of pollution.) Hope this helps.

I agree with Inquisitor. Deed restrictions are a perfectly legitimate form of contract and you do agree to them when you buy the property.

Some of these homeowners associations are little bananna republics though. Here in Texas the government gives them an illegitimate edge by allowing them to pass on their legal fees to the homeowner. Automatically allowing legal fees creates a class of lawyers who do nothing but look for petty thing to sue over on behalf of homeowners associations.

DBratton:

Some of these homeowners associations are little bananna republics though. Here in Texas the government gives them an illegitimate edge by allowing them to pass on their legal fees to the homeowner. Automatically allowing legal fees creates a class of lawyers who do nothing but look for petty thing to sue over on behalf of homeowners associations.

 This happened in Texas. At the time I was only renting. I would not purchase any property in a neighborhood with a homeowner's association.

katja328:

I would not purchase any property in a neighborhood with a homeowner's association.

Oh don't say that. Most of the unrestricted communities look like slums. It's virtually impossible to buy a house anywhere you'd want to live that doesn't have deed restrictions. And in any case we all put up with them. If they didn't provide some real benefits they wouldn't exist.

Almost nobody these days actually owns their own property. Texas is the only state where your allowed to own property in allodial title and I'd assume it's probably not even very common down there. Any kind of state enforced property tax, building code, zoning law, or neighborhood covenant is a form of tyranny. Curtailing and eventually taking away a mans right to own property is something right out of the Communist Manifesto. If you want to let your grass grow, park old junk cars in your yard, and erect a 20 foot tall neon pink statue of a penis in your back yard it's your property and your right to do so. Nobody unless you've signed some kind of voluntary agreement should be allowed to use force to get you to change something they don't approve of on your plot of land. If their property values happen to go down just because their trying to sell their house and not everyone likes the sight of rusting junk cars in the next yard over when they look out the window is unfortunate but something they'll just have to get over. Freedom means being able to live your life however you want as long as your not infringing on someone else's right to do the same even if they might completely disagree with how you choose to live.

Just as a reminder, value cannot be owned. What is in fact owned is tangible property. If one owned the value of their product competition on the market would have to be outlawed; any competition, in fact, would be illegitimate.

The neighborhood association is a property: the landlord of the neighborhood.

Because it owns a large-scale property, it can benefit from increasing returns to scale on neighborhood effects.

BWF89:

Almost nobody these days actually owns their own property. Texas is the only state where your allowed to own property in allodial title and I'd assume it's probably not even very common down there. Any kind of state enforced property tax, building code, zoning law, or neighborhood covenant is a form of tyranny. Curtailing and eventually taking away a mans right to own property is something right out of the Communist Manifesto. If you want to let your grass grow, park old junk cars in your yard, and erect a 20 foot tall neon pink statue of a penis in your back yard it's your property and your right to do so. Nobody unless you've signed some kind of voluntary agreement should be allowed to use force to get you to change something they don't approve of on your plot of land. If their property values happen to go down just because their trying to sell their house and not everyone likes the sight of rusting junk cars in the next yard over when they look out the window is unfortunate but something they'll just have to get over. Freedom means being able to live your life however you want as long as your not infringing on someone else's right to do the same even if they might completely disagree with how you choose to live.

This is a typically American point of view deriving from the fact that in America large-scale land production has always been done through the instruments of government. Telling people they need to accept junkyards in their neighbor's backyard is not a very insightful answer to the problem of neighborhood value.

BWF89:

Texas is the only state where your allowed to own property in allodial title

As I understand the term, allodial means essentially independent from the government. I'm not aware of anyone having an allodial title to any property here in Texas or anywhere else in the US. Even the Indian reservations have only the rights the US government allows them to have. And all property is taxed unless the government already own it.

If you want to get to the bottom line. The best info on the subject  is to be found by reading in the following article. 

 Mike 

 http://home.arcor.de/danneskjoeld/F/E/T/CommunitySHM_.htm

I suppose if you voluntarily moved there then you have voluntarily agreed to abide by their rules, even if that means paying a fine for breaking them.  All of that would have been spelled out in your agreement signed with them.  By moving into that neighborhood you have accepted that you do not have 100% freedom to do whatever you want with your property and that the HOA can force you to abide by the rules and regulations.

But again that was your choice.  If someone doesn't like keeping garbage in the garage but the HOA says you must you have three choices.  A) Petition the HOA to make an exception, B) move the garbage back into the garage (or perhaps around back so no one can see it) or C) move somewhere else where they don't have those restrictions.  Either that or you gotta live with the rules you agreed to follow.

Inquisitor:

Just as a reminder, value cannot be owned. What is in fact owned is tangible property. If one owned the value of their product competition on the market would have to be outlawed; any competition, in fact, would be illegitimate.

This is probably a topic for another thread, but Inquisitor, if that were true than if I stole something from its owner and destroyed it, than they would have no recourse. They did not own the value of the item, but only the item itself, which no longer exists, and thus is unrecoverable.

Competition would not have to be outlawed if people were seen to own the value of items, because creating a competing business in itself does nothing to the value of the first. It is solely the choices of the customers that determines the value, and this was so before the competing business started. The competitor did nothing to harm the value of the property, for the value is the same as it has always been: what the market determines at the time. It is not set.

This is a bit muddled (it's late), but people do own the value of their product... whatever that value happens to be when it is put on the market. Lawsuits do and should estimate the value of lost and destroyed property by looking at the value similar items have as revealed by the market.

Why on earth would they own it? Value is subjective and exists in the minds of the people valuing the good. It is ridiculous to say one owns this, equally ridiculous to saying one has "right" to their reputation (also a form of value, arguably.) At most, one has the right to have a good of the same kind given to them if their original good was destroyed, or enough money to buy an item of a similar kind,

Inquisitor:

Why on earth would they own it? Value is subjective and exists in the minds of the people valuing the good. It is ridiculous to say one owns this, equally ridiculous to saying one has "right" to their reputation (also a form of value, arguably.) At most, one has the right to have a good of the same kind given to them if their original good was destroyed, or enough money to buy an item of a similar kind,

Enough money to buy an item of a similar kind is the same as saying the value of the item, in a market-determined sense. I fail to see the distinction you apparently do, here. Another example of how a person owns the value of something is, say you own a painting. I scratch the paint by accident. You are entitled to get the difference in value from me, as determined by the market. We would find the difference in value between as similar a painting as possible, except without a scratch, on the market, to the value of one with such a scratch, and make up the difference. Alas, such a valuation of such unique items as paintings is an inexact thing, but still...

The point of restitution is to allow you to gain the good that was destroyed back. You will be reimbursed enough to buy the good back. Again, it is the good and not its value that is being replaced. The same applies in the case of a unique painting - you ought to be reimbursed as much as you spent on it, accounting for inflation &c. I suppose if you inherited it or otherwise never exchanged cash for it, then market valuation would come into play (in the form of current prices), but again this is because the item is irreplaceable, not because you owned the value of it, which exists solely in the minds of individuals.

Inquisitor:

The point of restitution is to allow you to gain the good that was destroyed back.You will be reimbursed enough to buy the good back. Again, it is the good and not its value that is being replaced.

Impossible. No two objects, however similar, are truly the same. Once a particular item is lost, it is gone forever. Its materials are no longer in the form which gave it its value, yet they still exist. If I scratch a painting and give you the scrapings, than by your logic you have lost nothing. What was lost is the value difference between the undamaged painting and the damaged one.

Inquisitor:

The same applies in the case of a unique painting - you ought to be reimbursed as much as you spent on it, accounting for inflation &c.

Nonsense! What if you bought it for far more than it was worth on the larger market? Should the damager be liable for your poor purchasing decisions? No! You should receive only the market determined value for the destroyed item. That value is what you're entitled to.

Let us instead say you have a common hammer. Say I take that hammer and bend it such that it is useless, than give it back. What have you lost? Utility? Which is a measure of what... hmm... value! You still have the hammer, the physical object. It is just worth less now. Its value has decreased. That is why I would owe you damages, or a new hammer. I need to replace the value of the hammer, despite the fact that the old hammer is still there.

Fine, but you are still making a conceptual mistake. You're trying to say that because a good can be represented in terms of its aggregate value (i.e. prices), that if it is damaged you should be given enough to buy it back at its going price, or restore it to its former level. How does this show you own its value? What is value? It is what individuals, subjectively, place upon a given good or service. How can you own this? You're equating the good with value. I'm saying this is incorrect, and that value is a mere measure of its utility, which cannot be owned; only the good can be owned. Value only serves as a guide for replacing/restoring it. Do we agree or not?