To expand on this - I’m interested in thinking about times that a cause we support won, not only because maybe it feels good to see positive stories instead of all negative, but also because specific examples might help illustrate why it won, and reveal strategies we can use in the future.
Our HOA amended the rules to keep predatory landlords out of the neighborhood. Like most people, I don’t like HOAs. But, I really hate predatory landlords. The HOA was having difficulty getting the necessary votes. So I got off my lazy ass and went door to door for weeks until we got all the votes we needed. I had some help, but I got about 80% of what we needed on my own. It was a lot of work, but it was worth it. Now when houses sell in the neighborhood, families buy them instead of corporations.
That’s great! Seems like a good example of a minor change for that moment but with a potentially huge impact over time. How did the amended rule first come up as a possible change? About how many votes were needed to get it passed?
The HOA board was concerned about all the rentals that were quickly popping up over the past few years. They hired a lawyer to write the proposed ammendment and the language of the ballot. This all happened prior to my involvement. I personally drummed up about 70 votes. It’s hard to get people to answer their doors these days. People assume you’re trying to sell them something.
At first glance, this just sounds like a “keep renters out because they’re bad for the existing owners’ property values” (as well as being on average younger, less wealthy, etc.) policy.
The same kind of reasoning is often used as a pretense to block construction and perpetuate the existing shortage. Pure self-interest masquerading as a good cause.
Well you have it completely wrong. The language was carefully crafted by the lawyer to exclude predatory corporate renters, not all renting. We have quite a few renters in the neighborhood, and if someone meets certain criteria (living in the neighborhood long enough, and other special circumstances) they are allowed to rent.
But I’m sure you’ll find some way to twist this too, so you can keep your moral superiority hard-on going.
That’s not what the word predatory means.
Usually that has to do with things like pricing (both initially and any future increases), handling of maintenance, problems, and of things like late payments, etc.
You’re looking at it once again purely through the lens of how it affects the existing owners. For example an existing long term owner in the area would not be considered predatory based on your criteria no matter how much price gouging they engage in.
Once again you have no clue what you’re talking about. I’ve seen how these scumbag corporate landlords operate and I don’t need a lesson on what predatory means. You’re projecting what you think our motivations are with zero context or knowledge about me or my neighbors. You either have some weird political axe to grind here or you’re just another pedantic knowitall keyboard warrior.
I don’t generally care for HOAs, and you’re right that rules shouldn’t be made just to protect existing owners’ property value.
A relatively new issue has been people buying houses to rent as airbnb/vrbo, which takes properties out of the available inventory for long term living, and raises the overall cost floor. Another one is big buyers like Zillow vacuuming up inventory and then algorithmically extracting more money when they sell, which also hurts the average person. Not sure if these issues were the primary driver in this case, but as described sounds like this HOA change would help.