Denver Neighborhood Rescued from 3-Year-Old Chalk Artist

A Denver homeowner association has outlawed sidewalk drawings in chalk by a pre-school girl. 

Three-year old Emerson Cohen's artistic rampage was cut short by leaders of a residential development built on the site of the old Stapleton airport. From Denver's CBS 4: 

"We live on a courtyard and we all bought into the notion that we were sharing a space," said [mother Sarah] Cohen.

But the group — called a Innovations and Courtyard Traditions at Stapleton, a sub-association of the Stapleton MCA (Master Community Association) — said because it is a shared space, anything that offends, disturbs or interferes with the peaceful enjoyment isn't allowed. It seems that some neighbors have complained.

"The association is trying to go down a path of do no harm and prevent the sidewalk art as opposed to… until such time as it can get together and discuss it," said the attorney representing the group.

Cohen said no neighbors have mentioned anything to her. She also plans to keep letting her daughter use chalk to decorate the common area.

"It's summertime and God forbid my daughter is drawing flowers, her name and hearts," said Cohen.

The concerns will be brought up in a future meeting and then it will be up to the residents to decide.

One person's experiment in living is another's busybody hell: A few years ago Virginia Postrel looked at the unbearable pettiness of neighborhood aesthetic enforcers. 

Comments

[Number 7]

my god, a lawyer is involved in a kid playing with chalk.

[Number 7]

ohm- billiable hours, billable hours, billable hours- ohm.

[BoscoH]

The problem with HOAs is that they get in the way of people living in close quarters just working things out amicably and efficiently. Like today... our neighborhood has been having street reconstruction going on for a week. We were asked to move cars to give the workers access to the area as scheduled. Our street and the adjacent street were supposed to be finished Tuesday. But today, they're out paving, and one guy who thought it was all done hadn't moved his car. Well, they were ready to tow and the busy body neighbors were out watching hoping to see the poor asshole's car towed because he didn't follow the rules. I went out there and told everyone involved that there would be no towing until an attempt was made to contact the owner. You see, our HOA doles out parking permits even though there is ample parking for everyone, so they have permit numbers and license plates on file. Did anyone, including the hired "security", think to try to call the owner. No. So I insisted that they try to contact him, they did, and the guy quickly got there to move his car.

The part I can't believe is that we're all being threatened by the HOA and security with towing for the silliest of reasons. Why aren't we all looking out for each other? It's not much effort and not so difficult. Instead, we let these inconsiderate thugs shove us all around and make us conform to their whims.

[Episiarch]

Like government and bureaucracy, the worst kind of petty tyrants are drawn to HOAs as they are, in their way, another bureaucracy. They have rules that can be enforced without resort to common sense, and give the petty tyrant the power to hassle the neighbors.

This is why you don't join an HOA, unless, of course, you are fond of and plan to follow every rule. And even then, if it dismays you to see the petty tyrants try to fuck fellow HOA members rather than help them, you still don't want to join an HOA.

[General Butt Naked]

I couldn't even imagine living like that. It's not human.

And the people that sign up for that shit and call the media when the totally expected happens are poopstains. Fuck those people, yo. We had a guy on the news here that was bitching because they made him take down his tacky multi-colored jesus and mary statues from his yard. He claimed that it was religious persecution. Dude, do you read the shit you sign, at all?

[VG Zaytsev]

I disagree.

HOAs are a bizarre form of privatized government and as has been noted they attract the operation always devolves to the worst sort of busybody douchebags.

As far as read the contract or whatever specious bullshit is used to justify their petty tyranny, the same could be said for read the fucking law of any random shitsburg where you may want to buy property or open a business.

[General Butt Naked]

It's exactly what I see from busybody douchebags passing laws that I'd never sign up voluntarily to be at their mercy. And when you sign on that dotted line you are at their mercy, regardless of whether it's fair or not.

I mean, come on, you put a piece of paper in front of me that allows others power over my actions with nebulous and vague rules that are just a legally backed enforcement of someone's subjective aesthetic tastes and I'd at least stop a minute to ponder the freedoms that I was abdicating.

There isn't a place on this earth that you can get away from meddling assholes and their laws, why sign up for more?

[VG Zaytsev]

I haven't and won't.

But HOAs are empowered by the state. They are not a natural evolution of property rights.

[General Butt Naked]

But HOAs are empowered by the state.

You could say the same for any group of contractually bound individuals.

And if someone owns property, but will only sell to people that agree to certain terms he seems completely within his rights to do so. If the buyer doesn't like the terms they can take their business elsewhere.

[VG Zaytsev]

And if someone owns property, but will only sell to people that agree to certain terms he seems completely within his rights to do so.

I reject the validity of making a sale conditional on the future behavior of the buyer.

Besides, that situation will never arise from a free market.

[General Butt Naked]

You're going to need a little more than that.

If contracts cannot ensure the future behavior, to a point, of a participant they're pretty much useless.

Why wouldn't an HOA ever arise in a free market?

[VG Zaytsev]

If contracts cannot ensure the future behavior, to a point, of a participant they're pretty much useless.

How so?

I contract to buy a shovel from you for $10. I pay you the ten dollars and take the shovel. Contract fulfilled.

How is it valid for you to place a condition that I cannot use the shovel for gardening? How can you enforce that without a quasi-governmental organization?

Ultimately, contracts exist to formalize voluntary exchanges. Value for value. Limiting non relevant future behavior is a non sequitur.

When you purchase any property the contract is fulfilled by giving the seller money and the buyer taking possession and title.

Period.

If the seller wants to retain control, for whatever reason, then he should structure the deal as a long term lease.

[VG Zaytsev]

Fucking squirrels.

And anyways the situation is not one of a seller imposing conditions on a buyer but rather an originator imposing conditions on all subsequent transactions.

When I buy a has from Vladimir we are both limited by conditions set by Gregori, not Usiri who sold to Vladimir, nor Jon who sold to Usiri etc.

That is fundamentally different than conditions voluntarily agreed to by the buyer and the seller in a mutually beneficial exchange And no different than laws imposed by some government

[General Butt Naked]

The conditions of the sale of an HOA home are voluntarily agreed upon and mutually beneficial.

The proof?

The signatures on the contract.

And no one, as far as I know, is being coerced into buying HOA properties.

Are you arguing that HOAs should be illegal?

[VG Zaytsev]

The proof?

The signatures on the contract.

And the same signature with that logic argues that the a property buyer agrees to all the property laws in that jurisdiction.

Are you arguing that HOAs should be illegal?

I think that they should not have any coercive power. That covenants should be unenforceable. HOA's of course could still exist as voluntary associations but they should not have an ability to to fine property owners for violating their bullshit rules.

[General Butt Naked]

And the same signature with that logic argues that the a property buyer agrees to all the property laws in that jurisdiction.

Sorry, no. Two separate things.

[VG Zaytsev]

Why?

[VG Zaytsev]

How are HOAs different than labor unions?

Both use state power to compel people into organizations that constrict their individual behavior as a condition for exercising a fundamental right, ie to own property in the case of HOAs and to contract their labor in the case of Unions.

[np]

You cannot be bound to HOAs by contract via a natural derivation from property rights IF they do not have any title to the property. Period.

An owner may sell his property and HOA membership along with it BUT you should be then free cancel your membership.

Real contracts, as derive from property rights (which in turn derive from natural rights) are not magical pieces of paper that give rise to any inherent ethical obligation. No, real contracts are only predicated by exchange.

That is, IF failure to fulfill a contract results in loss or damage, only then can a contract be enforced. For example, I pay $10,000 for a job, but you only finish $5,000 worth. Failure to fulfill the contract results in theft of $5,000. That is how contracts are enforced--by exchange--and their only method of ethical obligation. They are NOT promises, no matter what institutions are behind them.

[Fluffy]

I think the comparison of labor unions to HOA's is useful.

It's possible for both to arise in a free market. But we currently don't have a free market, in either case.

The NLRB has given unions lots of special privileges, particularly in conjunction with their formation. That means that no union currently existing in the US can be regarded as a free-market entity.

Local governments routinely give preference to developments that include HOA's. So that's your coercion right there. When I, or anyone else, can build whatever I want whenever I want on whatever property I own, THEN there won't be any coercion.

[R C Dean]

I reject the validity of making a sale conditional on the future behavior of the buyer.

It happens all the time. In particular, when a sale is seller-financed, the sale is conditioned on all kinds of things, most notably making payments on time, but there are often a number of other conditions as well.

Besides, that situation will never arise from a free market.

Why, exactly, would this particular sort of purely voluntary agreement never arise in a free market?

[RPR2]

the HOAs should be evaluated and assigned a negative dollar value on appraisals relative to the rules and past actions.

[jester]

Ah, yes, the petty tyrants. In my case, as a condo-living fuck, I am periodically given notice for this or that indiscretion. My favorite was a notice about something so petty that I cannot even recall what it was that I called the HOA and reminded them that for at least a month at that time I had a blue plastic sheet for a rooftop after a freak windstorm had toppled the chimney of my building. I not-so-kindly pointed out that with that kind of an eye-sore, why were they bothering me with x. I never heard a response but the next day my roof was repaired. Probably just coincidence.

[Yuno Hoo]

anything that offends, disturbs or interferes with the peaceful enjoyment

You mean, like members of the homeowner association occupying the shared space?

[Anacreon]

And the same bureaucrat types in government want more of shared spaces like this and much less private property. In the SF Bay Area, the regional Central Planners are putting forth a plan that 75% of all new development in suburbs must be mid-to-high rise multifamily structures. Because private property and single family detached homes are the evil cause of social in-justice, and lead to climate change. (They really are saying this.)

[jester]

NYT front page. God-forbid poor folk in India should enjoy AC...because they're, they're those poor people in India and there's a lot of THEM.

Fucking Progressive Elitist Racist Douchebags...and that goes for the pile o' shit POTUS on whom you project yourselves.

[matth]

When I saw that it occurred to me that NYC is much cooler than most of India. It would be the charitable thing to do to remove the a/c from homes and businesses in NYC and ship them to New Delhi.

[widget]

[mother Sarah] Cohen

If someone could take the trouble find Ms Cohen's mailing address I will gladly send her a gift certificate to Party City where she can purchase a plastic tiara....

http://www.partycity.com/produ.....vSet=tiara

...and a squirt gun to wash her problems away.

[SIV]

She's 3. You know the "art" has got to suck to anyone other than her parents and grandparents. Seems like a hose would be cheaper than an attorney. Unless they have watering restrictions!

[mad libertarian guy]

HOAs are no less vile than Congresscritters. Their mentalities are the same; the only difference is a matter of scale. Unfortunately, HOAs can have much more power over some individuals than the government can.

The only people who volunteer to run HOAs are busybody fucks whose best poace is rotting in hell.

Fuck HOAs.

[SIV]

Fuck the people who sign the contract and whine about the terms later too. I have no less sympathy for the little girl than I do for the heroic wounded veterans who get fined for flying American flags but a contract is a contract. It's not some meaningless thing like those stupid click-through licensing agreements.

[BoscoH]

The calculus changes when the terms you are asked to sign are not enforced or just unenforceable. But what ends up happening is that everyone is a rule violator to some extent, and if you realize that and keep track of your enemies, you have all the leverage you need to live peacefully beside them. It's pretty screwed up to have to operate that way though.

[widget]

I guess my age shows too. I remember this.

http://designblog.nzeldes.com/.....eula-sigh/

[Paul.]

And where is Borland now? Exactly. Other companies took lessons from Borland and learned the lessons of monetizing the shit out of licensing.

"Oh, you want to use that in more than one place? That'll be another seat license..."

[Mo]

They're owned by Micro Focus and still rake in $170M a year. It's no Microsoft, but it ain't nothing.

[VG Zaytsev]

Fuck the people who sign the contract and whine about the terms later too.

And fuck the people that buy property of start a business without reading all of the laws that may apply to them.

What's the difference?

[BMFPitt]

Who says there's a difference?

It's just that most people who open businesses actually do tend to pay attention to things like that.

When I was buying a house, I told my real estate agent that if she showed me a house with a HOA I'd just get in my car and that would be the last she'd see or hear from me.

[VG Zaytsev]

Perhaps I was being too obtuse.

I don't see a lot of difference between HOAs and any other form of government.

I don't think that either should be able to violate the fundamental rights of people and I reject the premise that contracts can be contingent upon future behavior, and thereby limit it, that underlies the validity of HOAs.

[widget]

...and I reject the premise that contracts can be contingent upon future behavior...

My brain hurts.

[VG Zaytsev]

Yes poorly worded on my part.

I mean future behavior after the contract is fulfilled.

When I buy your house the contract is fulfilled by my giving you the purchase price and my taking the possession and title. It is invalid to hold a buyer five transactions removed from ours and forty years in the future to provisions of our contract.

[Jumbie]

Dude, it's a long established practice in property law that you CAN set behaviour and usage rules for real estate.

For instance you can bequeath land to your children with the proviso that it can never be sold except to a blood relative. My grandma once gave land to my uncle on the condition that it remain a playground (Bastard reneged after she died and no one in the family wants the headache of suing him over it though.

You can set ANY condition you want basically and the subsequent owners can only take possession if they accept the conditions, so 40 years and 5 owners later, a new owner has to agree to the contract terms to gain possession.

Rich people do this shit all the time to protect their legacies.

[R C Dean]

It is invalid to hold a buyer five transactions removed from ours and forty years in the future to provisions of our contract.

No, its not. Real estate agreements can attach to the property itself.

Under your approach, any easement would automatically terminate when the property is sold.

[widget]

OK.

[R C Dean]

What's the difference?

One practical difference is that the sum total of the HOA contract is put in front of you before you sign on. That's not the case with laws.

I've never been in an HOA, so this is a real question: Can your HOA contracts be amended without your individual consent?

[BMFPitt]

They can't broadly give themselves new powers, but they can greatly expand existing powers. Usually the contract doesn't say "Thou shalt not have a flag on your porch." It'll say, "You must follow the aesthetic guidelines as determined by the HOA board." The HOA board being made up entirely of busybodies that have nothing better to do.

Even if they overstep, at the very least you'll spend a ton of money fighting them (and of course you're partially bankrolling the other side.)

[BoscoH]

They don't need to be. The board can hire and fire management companies, security firms, enact parking policies, etc. They can exercise favoritism with maintenance and repairs. They can even meet contrary to quorum requirements and then tell you to sue them if you dislike any resulting decisions.

There are few private vendors you deal with in life that you can't fire and replace with another, even if it's a bit expensive to do so. Not so with an HOA, and they end up with broad discretion to fuck you from every direction should they get an itch.

[Keith3D]

"Fuck the people who sign the contract and whine about the terms later too."

HOA's can change the rules as they go along by merely voting to do so. I've had them decide to completely prohibit parking on the street (as in paint all the curbs red, tow-away), as a way to "fight back" against people having more guests around than some old shut-ins apparently were comfortable with.

But as much as I hate those collectivist HOA fascists, I don't think prohibiting a girl from chalking up a shared area is that bad of a restriction. It should be pretty clear if you belong to an association, that stuff like that will never go over.

[np]

Fuck the people who sign the contract and whine about the terms later too. I have no less sympathy for the little girl than I do for the heroic wounded veterans who get fined for flying American flags but a contract is a contract. It's not some meaningless thing like those stupid click-through licensing agreements.

Yes, it IS a meaningless thing. What you've done is, through some irrational, illogical method, made mere promises to have magical force.

repeating:

You cannot be bound to HOAs by contract via a natural derivation from property rights IF they do not have any title to the property. Period.

An owner may sell his property and HOA membership along with it BUT you should be then free cancel your membership.

Real contracts, as derive from property rights (which in turn derive from natural rights) are not magical pieces of paper that give rise to any inherent ethical obligation. No, real contracts are only predicated by exchange.

That is, IF failure to fulfill a contract results in loss or damage, only then can a contract be enforced. A contract can only be enforced by restitution, to the extent that its failure of fulfillment results in damage or loss.

For example, I pay $10,000 for a job, but you only finish $5,000 worth. Failure to fulfill the contract results in theft of $5,000. That is how contracts are enforced--by exchange--and their only method of ethical obligation. Promises cannot be forcefully bound, no matter what institutions are behind them.

[np]

If I promise to do a job for you, but you haven't paid me yet, then any contract drawn up stating so--doesn't matter if it's signed by the president, the UN or whoever--has no natural force because there's nothing to enforce!

The logical conclusion of that contract-as-magic principle results in things like being able to punish apostasy from an organization. Or any other forms of slavery. And people who make that claim without any coherent principle would then have to make "exceptions". Real laws (not man-made laws) have NO exceptions. 1+1=2, 1+2=3, 1+3=4.. then you do NOT make an exception stating well, in this case 1+4=7.

Again, this wouldn't be possible from contracts as derived from natural rights because you are only exchanging services or membership in such organization for whatever they or you get in return i.e. membership in exchange for psychic benefits. Ending of contract simply means of such exchange. Or fulfullment of conditional exchange if there have been property already exchange like in the previous example, but that's it. Your own free will cannot be exchanged because it is inalienable, only your labor and property, either immediately through sale, or conditional on future conditions through contract.

[R C Dean]

If I promise to do a job for you, but you haven't paid me yet, then any contract drawn up stating so--doesn't matter if it's signed by the president, the UN or whoever--has no natural force because there's nothing to enforce!

So, if I suffer actual damages because you have violated our agreement, I have no recourse?

There is such a thing as a "reliance" interest in contracts. For example:
You promise to fix my roof by the end of the week, and I promise to pay you when the work is done. You don't fix my roof on time, and it rains like hell, causing me actual out of pocket damage. That's just my tough luck? You have no liability at all for your failure to keep a promise, when that failure is the cause of my loss?

[np]

Answering late, but I think you probably have an idea from what I stated below. The answer to that question is an clear "Yes"

It was your choice that you relied on my words. Mere speech cannot force you, your reliance of waiting was a voluntary act. The solution: two parts, first as I've stated below: something predicated on exchange such that failure to fulfill constitutes theft/damage and the way to do this is without mere promises are bonds/liens/collateral agreement (i.e you're both on the hook with a bond). This is what's used now in construction projects, and what used to be the norm over a century ago, with classical liberalism, before the state decided to step in and start arbitrarily dictating contract (it was an ironic twist since british courts started to determine the limits of restitution; people relied on the state more and this transformed from using bonds to guarantee commitment to mere state power, which in turn gave rise to "promise contracts"). The second part in addition are essentially a type of credit or personal-reputation rating of the other person, if they break the bond, which you then keep (bond is paid back + pay for job when it's done; but bond is in exchange for guaranteeing the contractor the work, i.e. you won't bail out on him; it also works to incentive him not bailing out on you)

[np]

In a free society, if an HOA really wants to enforce its rules, then it actually needs to put up some money and buy the fucking properties, then it can sell access and limited usage of the properties.

Notice even now, the situation is different, which is to say inconsistent, outside of housing/real estate, where other property subject to the principle of first sale. A car manufacturer would have no rights to enforce prohibiting people from using their cars in certain ways, such as modifications, after its sold, because that particular physical car is yours. On the other hand, they would IF rather than selling, they lease the car to you.

[R C Dean]

In a free society, if an HOA really wants to enforce its rules, then it actually needs to put up some money and buy the fucking properties, then it can sell access and limited usage of the properties.

Once your realize that the HOA is originally created by the developer, that's exactly how they work. The developer sells property with "limited usage" per the HOA contract.

[R C Dean]

You cannot be bound to HOAs by contract via a natural derivation from property rights IF they do not have any title to the property.

I think you're wrong about that. HOA contracts are a derivation of property rights.

All the property in the HOA was originally held by the developer, who is free to contract however he wishes when he sells it, because its his. The contracts that he agrees to all have the HOA, which by the terms of his sale of his property, attaches to the property itself and thus to subsequent buyers. There is a straight chain of title on the HOA right back to someone who actually owned the property.

[np]

Except where in the title does it state that the HOA also shares in the ownership?

Like I stated, a seller or the developer may conditionally sell the property provided that you accept HOA membership, BUT there is no natural property right that obligates you to keep that membership, if they also do not own the property.

[np]

That would be valid only if what's sold is shares of ownership. Selling the property where you are liable for anything on it, but not complete ownership cannot be derived from property or natural rights.

It's the same for any condition placed on inheritance. You can grant inheritance conditionally, but conditions afterward cannot be enforced, if the property is fully transferred.

[np]

For example, I can conditionally sell you a house upon the agreement that you first paint it blue. But I cannot enforce that condition after selling it, nor prevent you from painting it another color, if I do not partake in ownership.

But partaking in ownership not only means partaking in all decisions with regards to the property, whereby all owners of shares must agree, but also sharing in all liabilities. I doubt HOAs share in any liability whatsoever.

[BMFPitt]

For example, I can conditionally sell you a house upon the agreement that you first paint it blue. But I cannot enforce that condition after selling it, nor prevent you from painting it another color, if I do not partake in ownership.

Legally you can. For up to 99 years after the contract is signed. I understand that you want that to not be true, but the rest of us are talking about the real world - specifically the U.S. - and not the fantasy world you wish existed.

[np]

But that is entirely what's wrong. There's no unified principle. You start making arbitrary exceptions and decisions. This for example, entirely conflicts with the legal first-sale principle.

[niobiumstudio]

They certainly can be enforced, if you sign a contract willingly, as long as the enforcement is spelled out in the contract, why can you not enforce it? If you sell someone a house on the condition that they don't alter it for X amount of years, and you spell out in the contract that there is Y fine for that condition being broken, there is no reason you can't collect civilly on that breach of contract (as long as all contractual laws have been followed). And yes, HOAs DO share liability. In fact, 100% of the liability is theirs within the common space and they all carry liability insurance.

[np]

But that liability is only limited to that common space (which you do not own) and not on your own property (which you do own)

Again, you take the promised-base contract route, rather than the debt-based contract route, which as I've stated is the natural derivation from natural and property right, are you willing to go the full extent? You can justify slavery. You can justify that the person never sell the house. You can justify nearly anything that would violate natural rights

[niobiumstudio]

I don't see why you couldn't legally enter into a contract that would infringe on natural or property rights. People do it every day in business forfeiting their free speech rights in NDA's and giving up their 2nd amendment rights through workplace policy contracts. I don't see why you couldn't voluntarily give away any other rights. While I believe you can justify slavery through contract, the "slave" would always have an out. They can simply say "Fuck you, sue me for breach of contract." The worst the "slaver" could do is get a judgement for whatever amount the "slave" owed him in labor. I see no reason why we can't do that.

[np]

I think you're confusing actual, real property ownership with conditional use or access.

NDA = I am granted access or use of your property; and in exchange I do not talk to anyone else about it.

But let's say you sell the thing under NDA to me afterwards. Well, in that case, I'd have the right the talk to other people about, because again, that item is now my property.

Your example with the slave conflicts with your premise of promised-based contracts. In that case it's an exchange of labor, NOT a contract to be a perpetual slave. Enforcing a promised-based contract implies no way out

I don't see why you couldn't voluntarily give away any other rights.
You can't give away rights even if you wanted to because rights are inalienable. What are alienable are your labor, your property. If you can give away or exchange rights, that means you can grant rights. But there's no such thing as a positive right!

[niobiumstudio]

"Enforcing a promised-based contract implies no way out"

Why is there no way out? You can freely breech a contract... In a Promise-based contract the only remedies to breech are spelled out within the contract itself.

[np]

Yes, you can freely breach any contract, but no-way-out means that such a promised-based contract can be enforced again with its terms i.e. being forced back into slavery or death.

debt or exchanged based contracts are enforced via restitution to the extent that violation of property rights are compensated for

[np]

If you want to "sell" it but enforce conditions, then you cannot actually sell it, as in a full transfer of title (and all liabilities, etc). You'd have to lease or rent it out. You can have essentially a one-time payment for 100 years for example, but it would still be clear that you do not own the property.

[BMFPitt]

How about you just admit that you don't want others to freely enter into contracts that you don't approve of and we can call it a day?

[R C Dean]

Except where in the title does it state that the HOA also shares in the ownership?

If you examine a typical easement, you will discover that the easement holder does not share in the ownership, either.

Selling the property where you are liable for anything on it, but not complete ownership cannot be derived from property or natural rights.

Where does it say that the only valid sale of property is an absolute, unconditional transfer of all rights in the property? Why can't two people agree to a partial transfer of rights, or restrictions on rights?

But I cannot enforce that condition after selling it, nor prevent you from painting it another color, if I do not partake in ownership.

Why not? I agreed to the condition, for my own reasons, so why shouldn't I be held to my agreement?

[np]

Well, yes easements are part of the ill-defined property rights issue. They're effectively property of the state. Basically setup to allow for public utility.

Why not? I agreed to the condition, for my own reasons, so why shouldn't I be held to my agreement?
Because then you wouldn't be the owner, I would. I wouldn't be selling you property of the car, I'd be selling you limited usage of it. That would be the only way to have it revert back or to satisfy conditions of exchange. So for example, aside from liabilities, if you died, the car reverts back to me, unless I agree to then grant your heirs access to the car, and so. But if I want nothing at all to do with the car, and to "sell" property of the car, then I can't enforce post-sale conditions.

[Bryan C]

"Fuck the people who sign the contract and whine about the terms later too."

But all contracts have limits. I can't sell you my car while enforcing a provision, say, that you never have children. Or that you never park in the rain. Nor can I sell you a house, but only under the condition that you never vote Libertarian. It's out of scope.

Nor should civil contracts carry criminal penalties. Sometimes violating the terms of a contract is less trouble than abiding by those terms; that's a valid decision which has no criminal implications in this sort of disagreement. If I'm ok with paying an ongoing fine so that I can leave my garage door open on weekends, then that's the end of it. If I choose not to pay the fine at all, the HOA is free to take civil action and endure whatever expense or public scorn comes from doing so. They should not be able to confiscate anyone's private property, because that property does not belong to them.

[R C Dean]

I can't sell you my car while enforcing a provision, say, that you never have children. Or that you never park in the rain.

I don't see any reason you couldn't put such a provision in the sale contract. Enforcing it would be hard, but that's for purely practical reasons.

I'm fascinated that a bunch of soi-disant libertarians, who are ordinarily all about freedom of contract, suddenly hit the brakes on "conditions subsequent."

[np]

From that rationale you can justify slavery. The logical extension of that allows enforcing punishing apostasy from any organization by death for example.

Your entire premise of contracts is based on mere promise. The proper exception-free principle derives from natural rights that is NOT promised-based but rather debt or exchanged-based contracts, again, such that not fulfilling it constitutes theft/damage/loss.

So to take his example, a proper contract would be "I'll give you use of this car for an unlimited, provided you don't have any children" BUT "If you do have children, I will take back the car" i.e. reversal of exchange.

If I sell you the car outright, and not be liable, that means not also responsible for insurance, accidents, damage, etc then I cannot enforce that since there's nothing to enforce in terms of restitution or exchange.

In other words, it's non-fulfillment did not constitute any violation of rights

[niobiumstudio]

You certainly could enforce a contract like that even if title and liability were transferred - it would just have to be worded properly so there was an exchange. For example, you can sell a car for X amount of dollars straight to a person. However, you can say "I will give you a discount of Y dollars on condition that you do not have a child." If the person has a child, you can then take them to court civilly and sue them for the Y discount you gave them. If you also put in the contract that failure of payment on judgement for Y discount is directly payable through the title of the car, there is no reason you can't go after that should the person refuse to pay the judgement. While no civil court would enforce that today, there is no reason I can think of you couldn't enter into a contract like that.

[R C Dean]

Your entire premise of contracts is based on mere promise.

Perhaps that's because many contracts are an exchange of promises.

The proper exception-free principle derives from natural rights that is NOT promised-based but rather debt or exchanged-based contracts, again, such that not fulfilling it constitutes theft/damage/loss.

So, if I promise to deliver a car to you tomorrow, and you promise to pay me for it, we don't have a contract for the sale of a car?

What you are saying is that many/most "executory" contracts are invalid. Which throws out an enormous number of contracts.

Of course, I may not be clear on what you mean by "debt or exchange-based contracts". As far as I can tell, a debt is a promise to pay later. And a contract is commonly defined as an exchange of promises.

[np]

Of course, I may not be clear on what you mean by "debt or exchange-based contracts". As far as I can tell, a debt is a promise to pay later. And a contract is commonly defined as an exchange of promises.

A debt-based contract is not a mere promise to pay later. Sale = immediate exchange; debt-based contract is similar to futures contracts for commodity exchanges. Conditional exchange where it is enforced and effectively entered only where there is exchange of property.

I pay you $10,000 for a job but you only complete $5,000 worth, there's a debt of $5,000. On the other hand if you just promised to do a job sometime in the future, but there's no exchange of property, therefore, nothing to enforce. A promise is mere speech. The words are your property, your right to utter. There's no loss on my end so there's nothing to enforce.

If you want commitments for future work, the proper way to do this is via bonds or some collateral agreement. Party A want to work for party B, but the job is 1 year out. Rather than B paying A now, party A can show some commitment by exchanging say some money for exclusive privilege of being granted the job 1 year out. Upon completion, or say sometime after starting the job, the bond can by paid back. In other words, there's now an exchange. A exchanges something to show B his committement, while B then in the future in return grant A the job.

[niobiumstudio]

Why does there have to be an exchange of bonds or goods for a "promise"? Why can't they just "promise" to do the job within a period specified by the contract? Of course the contract can specify within the contract that if the job isn't completed by X date, there is Y fee imposed on the contractor. Why does every contract have to impose an immediate exchange of goods/services to be valid?

[np]

Actually we already do some of this now via bonds and liens, particularly in construction work. Anyways, the reason why is a deontological one. From where does a promise--mere words--get their power? Why do rights suddenly spring up when you sign or write it in a certain way? Why does that not come about by just saying it, or writing it in email?

Aside from all sorts of slavery like conditions, such promised-based contracts can result in being forced into marriages even if you didn't agree to the marriage itself. For example, a parent may state that on condition of the child--let's say he or she is an adult already--staying at home, he promises to marry someone else in the future. A promised based contract cam make him forever bound, such that even if he leaves his parents, the contract be enforced by forcing him into marriage. Exchanged/property/natural rights based contract on the other hand, the conditions end when he leaves, or if he owes his parents money, when he pays them back, etc.

[Auric Demonocles]

Aside from all sorts of slavery like conditions, such promised-based contracts can result in being forced into marriages even if you didn't agree to the marriage itself. For example, a parent may state that on condition of the child--let's say he or she is an adult already--staying at home, he promises to marry someone else in the future. A promised based contract cam make him forever bound, such that even if he leaves his parents, the contract be enforced by forcing him into marriage.

I fail to see the problem here. You're saying that the kid agreed to get married if he stayed in the house past X date. He stayed past X. It's irrelevant if he later moves.

[np]

I'm saying the the condition for staying in the house the future agreement of marriage. But he no longer stays in the house. He leaves. His exchange has ended, that is, his vow for his stay. Based on promised-contracts, he would have to still get married even after he leaves.

But let us say he does get married while he is in the house, the condition of staying was that he does not divorce. Again, mere promised-based contract means parents can go after him, even after satisfying the exchange of property (or labor/acts), the act of marriage in return for staying. It creates permanent bondage for which no breach is possible. So he leaves, he decides on divorce. But the enforcer forces him to stay married. Again, the first question is pertinent here:

From where does a promise--mere words--get their power? Why do rights suddenly spring up when you sign or write it in a certain way? Why does that not come about by just saying it, or writing it in email?

Based on the deontological premise, what violation of the parents property rights occur after he left? If part of the agreement is taking money, then he can pay it back as restitution to get out of marriage, thereby fulfilling property exchange. Otherwise your premise requires alienability of free will, of breaking self-ownership, which is inherently impossible.

[Auric Demonocles]

So if I agree to pay you $5000 at some point in the future to stay in your house this year, once I leave your house it's too late and you can't get your money?

Based on the deontological premise, what violation of the parents property rights occur after he left?

The part where he didn't give them the agreed upon rent (in this case marriage). He used their place to live in but never paid the price he agreed upon.

[np]

No, because violation of contract results in violation of property rights. This isn't a mere promise.

Again, the idea is exchange: you stayed in my property, I gave you use of property and in return, I get the $5000. It is exactly the same principle of you giving me $5,000 now and then I exchange it for property use later.

However, in the case of marriage, there are two scenarios: he exchanges his vow i.e. his word, in return for use of property. Or he gets married and remains so for use of his property. But how can he be permanently bound after ward, just by a future promise (to get married or stay married), once he's fullfilled his part of the exchange? His "price" was already paid, his vow (first case), or the act of marriage (second case), which ends once the exchange is over; you cannot keep someone permanently bound by mere promise.

Again, this is different from your money situation--you renting my place for $5,000--because the key difference is: breakage entails violating property rights, where the exchange property is not fulfilled. In both his marriage cases it is.

Now, IF the parents wanted to more strongly enforce the committement, then that has to be done with again exchange of property such as I mentioned previously with bonds. So he remains married until the bonds are paid back

[Auric Demonocles]

Otherwise your premise requires alienability of free will, of breaking self-ownership, which is inherently impossible.

I didn't see the part of your hypothetical where he was forced to sign the contract with his parents.

[np]

A mere promise cannot carry any weight. I can sign a contract that I'm going to give you kidney a month from now and if that's it, then it's not enforceable. You're thinking "signing of contract" is somehow magical.

Again, the key question to ask is: what violation of rights of debt or owned property, of titles trasnferred (including "titles" of money) occurred should I break that promise?

If I say I'm going to give you a kidney, but you didn't pay me yet, well tough luck if I change my mind. Likewise if I gave you organ, for which you paid, but the second organ as mere promise as part of the contract, for which there is no exchanged property yet (i.e. no money for the second) How does a mere promise gain special power?

(again, solution are bonds/liens/collateral)

[niobiumstudio]

I doubt there is anything specific in the HOA contract about "Not Chalking the Sidewalk." I'm sure there are aesthetic rules, but they are most likely being interpreted (by HOA twatwaffles) and applied to what the homeowners, and most reasonable people, would construe to be unfair. You can't say "Fuck the people who signed the contract" if any reasonable person would agree with the signer that the child's behavior is proper under the terms of the HOA. If the homeowner agreed their contract covered that, they wouldn't have a lawyer. While I think HOAs are retarded and would never in my life be part of one, if a person bound by a contract is correct, they have every right to push back against what they believe to be misinterpretation of the contract.

[JeremyR]

You know, things like this make me realize that the real problem is that people just don't want to mind their own damn business.

On any sort of governmental level down to things like this, homeowners associations.

[Fluffy]

Dude, it's a long established practice in property law that you CAN set behaviour and usage rules for real estate.

Actually, I have always had a problem with that.

Ownership should consist of both liability and control.

If I own a piece of property and you are hurt while on that property, I am potentially liable. If taxes are due on the property, I am liable. If a workman's lien is filed on the property, I am liable. Etc.

Title restrictions on real estate are an attempt to get the control associated with ownership while passing the liability on to someone else.

I think property titles should only be considered transferred when they are transferred without any restriction or entail. If the former owner's desires are still in control of the property's use, they aren't the former owner. They're the current owner, and I am leasing the property. They should retain all tax liability for the property, all insurance liability, etc.

I think the fact that it's such a longstanding practice is precisely the thing that should show us that it's a bad practice. Title restrictions are a medieval practice that arose specifically to prevent people from "really" owning their property.

[R C Dean]

Title restrictions are a medieval practice that arose specifically to prevent people from "really" owning their property.

So you would prefer to outlaw certain voluntary contractual arrangements between the buy and seller of property, in the form of restrictions that attach to the property itself?

What about easements? Do they automatically end when whoever agreed to them sells the property?

[Shirley Knott]

4 Words:
Tragedy of the commons.

This shit is absolutely guaranteed to happen when there is "shared ownership" of a resource.
The ownership is a sham, the sharing is a sham, the news is very very old.
Nothing brings out the busybodies more than the feeling of entitlement that comes from a share, no matter how small, in a 'shared resource'.
The tragedy of the commons.
4 very important words for a very important concept.

[Brian from Texas]

I love my house. I put a lot of work in it. I even find most of my neighbors tolerable. But the day my neighborhood gets an HOA is the day I start looking for another place to live.

[R C Dean]

But the day my neighborhood gets an HOA is the day I start looking for another place to live.

I don't think an HOA can be imposed after the fact without the consent of everybody who will be in the HOA, so I think you're safe.

But, I'm not a real estate lawyer, so I could be wrong.

[TankoFon]

I think I like the sound of this. Wow.

http://www.Anon-Methods.tk

[ChrisO]

The "don't live in a HOA neighborhood if you don't want to deal with the cut-rate fascists" argument is more and more tenuous, as increasing numbers of localities mandate HOAs in new developments. In many large cities, it's getting harder to find neighborhoods without them.

I'm mixed on them, personally. In theory, they make sense, but only if they have limited power.

[R C Dean]

I'm pretty much where you are, ChrisO.

In particular, agencies of the state mandating HOAs renders them illegitimate for the same reason agencies of the state mandating unions renders them illegitimate, from a freedom of contract/association POV.

[Auric Demonocles]

You've done some wonderful articulation in this thread. I hate HOAs with a passion that can only be matched by someone growing up on 200+ acres of land, but the concept of conditional based sales is an important part of the free market.

[BMFPitt]

as increasing numbers of localities mandate HOAs in new developments

Sounds like a good reason not to live in that locality.

I built my house in 2009 and I sure as hell wouldn't if there was a HOA involved.

[ChrisO]

They typically happen in new developer-built communities, which is pretty much everything on the suburban edge of larger metro areas these days. You have to look to more rural areas or older neighborhoods to find HOA-free zones here in the DC area.

[BMFPitt]

That would be an accurate description of my house. No HOA.

[iraq]

Thanks

[????? ??????]

Thanks