A Minimalistic HOA? A Reformed HOA? Dissolution? We have Choices

A "guest column" by my neighbor, Martin Spiering:

I agree with Steve Lapham's view that the Quail Valley HOA board has gotten involved with a predatory industry--his meticulous reporting and the recent discussions at the board meetings bear this out. This is a nationwide problem, so we are not alone in confronting this dilemma.

It's a little jarring to read the minutes of the recent HOA board meeting because one might get the impression that nothing is really amiss, and that both the board and the property management company are hard at work to make things better. (They are hard at work it seems, but the focus and outcomes of that work are, from the point of view of many in this community, making things worse).

If property management is a for-profit company, they will have a strong incentive or even imperative to take out more money from the community than the community receives in services from them. One sign of the strong profit motivation is that the current management, by many accounts, acts like a de facto government body (setting and enforcing [often arbitrary] rules and regulations and collecting fines), rather than a contractor/vendor (working for the community and being subject to regular and detailed performance review).

Realizing that things have become very upside-down is a valuable learning experience (it's surely been for me), and the more widely these concerns and discussions are shared in Quail Valley, the more likely it will be that some alternative ways of effective and compassionate local governance come into view.

For example, a "minimalistic" HOA could focuses only on essential things like trash collection and safety--this focus could be in terms of efforts to reduce crime by building a friendly and resilient neighborhood, for example, through community events (e.g., at the swimming pool and community center), enlisting a security company only if there is a measurable benefit in doing that.

Such an HOA's focus would be restricted to commissioning critical work that takes care of lawn mowing and tree trimming in the shared areas and addresses hazards such as unsafe trees or structures in these areas. It would be asking residents only to fix things like dangling gutters or leaning fences that pose imminent dangers. It would not get involved in aesthetic decisions, such as what fences, sheds, or decks should be allowed; what the color of a mail box, shutter, or door should be; whether a footpath or stoop is perfectly level or straight; or whether the grass in the front yard is 5 inches rather than 1 inch long.

It's worth checking one's own comfort level with such an approach (should it come into the running). It would greatly reduce the burden on the HOA board of having to keep track of myriad things and give individuals some wider choices. But not all of these choices may jibe with one's own aesthetic sense or idea of how things should look. For example, chipped paint on a door or shutter or sprouting flowers in an unmowed lawn may evoke a sense of poetic wonder in one person, but a sense of neglect or carelessness in another. Being embedded in and having a feel for what a diverse community means for oneself, and what the community values, can help us develop a common understanding and set priorities.

Another approach may be to work on dissolving an HOA that might be unreformable in part because not enough capable people may be willing to serve on its board. (Note 1 re dissolution) People may avoid running for office because they worry about getting "sucked into" a mode of operation that's unhealthy and draining both for themselves and the community. (Having compassion for those currently serving on the board who may have been sucked into this mode of operation after perhaps starting out with laudable ideals of truly serving the community helps me often in dealing with the anger and sense of profound puzzlement that arise when learning about how things have gone wrong and hurt some of the most vulnerable among us.)

Instead of an HOA, Montgomery County government would take over, which might actually be a better way to go if more and more communities were going the same route. Pooled resources (i.e., fees and taxes) usually do better and are used more efficiently than very fragmented ones. (For example, it would not be wise for Quail Valley HOA to buy its own snowplowing truck. The county does that.) But dissolving the HOA would mean handing over some "local" control to the county. It could mean possibly paying higher taxes--though, still likely lower than the current HOA fees--again something to mull over.

Many thanks Steven and all of you for doing this hard but necessary work. --Martin

** **** ** **** ** **** ** **** **

Note 1. The HOA can be dissolved if 2/3 of the homeowners vote to do so, according to the QV HOA Articles of Incorporation, Part IV, page 9. There may be amendments or other impediments to achieving that end; it's hard to tell; the OCOC informed me that many the legally valid founding documents for Maryland HOAs are not available to the public on any website. What a mess. -- Steve Lapham

** **** ** **** ** **** ** **** **

Read all of the Chapters of "Living on Cuckoo Court" at tinyurl.com/CuckooCourt.

Read about condo and HOA "dysfunction, corruption, and abuse" all across America at IndependentAmericanCommunities.com.