You don’t own a condo. In a condo, there is generally no individual ownership of land; the unit owners jointly own the land and building exteriors. Each unit owner has rights only to the unit’s interior space. All other spaces are controlled by the condo owners’ association.
It’s so wild that you’re so uneducated, and so confident all at the same time. You’re not taking reality for what it is, instead you’ve reached a conclusion - and then you work backwards to justify that conclusion, even to the point of deluding yourself into thinking something is one way, when it clearly isn’t; and then mocking someone for correcting you.
Nobody is talking about land, they’re talking about housing. Nobody thought they owned the land underneath a condo, and frankly you’re the idiot for assuming as much.
You don’t own the interior like you think you do either. The condo can force you to sell it at any time they like. The concept of ownership begets control. If you don’t control it, then you aren’t the owner.
An HOA in a neighborhood of single family homes can do the same thing.
Isn’t the whole idea that you dislike people being annoying? The point of that legislation is to remove people who are being egregiously annoying by breaking the rules of the HOA…
HOAs were designed to keep black people, the poor, and other ‘unwantables’ out of rich white neighborhoods, so no - they were specifically designed to keep me out of them, but thanks.
Wouldn’t you know it, car culture, roads, and suburbs were designed for the same exact reason and perpetuate the same bias to this day- looks like we have a common cause! The answer, however, is not creating an even more antisocial society or abandoning society altogether. Quite the opposite, actually.
You’ve never heard of white flight? Redlining? The black neighborhoods that were paved over in cities to create highway interchanges smack in the middle of them, enabling whites to flee to redlined neighborhoods newly built with government subsidies, into homes bought with VA loans that weren’t offered to blacks? The highways dividing white neighborhoods from black neighborhoods in cities to this day? Reliable transportation and all the things it enables being locked down just to those who can individually provide it for themselves, after black people were discriminated against and locked out of wealth for decades? Other community amenities, like schools and libraries and community centers, being funded by property taxes and therefore drastically lower quality or completely non-existent in lower-income neighborhoods (where blacks have been pushed to) that can be completely ignored by the wealthy because they are now a problem that is over there in a different area code than theirs? All of this taking place in the era of the southern strategy, where lawmakers refrain from using the N-word or stating their goals outright, but the intention and outcome is “blacks get hurt worse than whites”.
It was re-segregation under the guise of “progress” in a deeply racist society that collectively shit their pants because blacks were finally catching up, developing things like black wall streets and thriving, prosperous communities (that were first on the chopping block when they wanted to level things for a highway) and black businesses, and using their collective voice to fight back after centuries of injustice. Detroit, Atlanta, St. Louis, Chicago, these cities were all fucking powerhouses with high percentages of black population for their times, that were destroyed by suburbanization and the construction of highways and the physical division they created.
Yeah, save it. You can disagree, you’re entitled to your opinion, but you would be deeply mistaken.
Yes, absolutely there are some examples of that through history - but the things you talk about weren’t done for the express purpose of harming black society. They didn’t install roads JUST to roll over black neighborhoods, it’s that those neighborhoods were conveniently black so it aligned with their racism.
And the other things you state are tax distribution moreso than roads. Car culture is not anti-black, as it’s one of the few things that actually allow a lot of minority cultures to express themselves. Donks, Lowriders, etc - all allowed Hispanic, Black, and otherwise marginalized communities to come together over something we all enjoyed.
I don’t know why nobody understands that cars aren’t just transportation for a lot of people. They are a point of pride, they are something that people enjoy, customize, and genuinely love. It would be wrong to say that cars and car culture is anti black.
If you can’t read the article I referred to, I guess you can’t exactly discuss this in good faith now can you.
The condo association controls how long you have that condo for. If they can force you to sell it at any time, then you don’t own it, do you…
Can you make improvements to the condo? Put in a jacuzzi tub? Oh – you can’t. How about building new walls? Can’t do that either. Can you choose a different internet service provider? Oh, weird – condos have contracted providers that you’ve gotta use. For all of this “I can totally own a condo”…you sure aren’t able to do the things which beget actual ownership, now can you? So you can purchase temporary residence in a housing-cubicle – but don’t pretend that is actual ownership. If you owned it, you could demolish everything within and nobody would care. But that’s not the case. So you don’t own it.
If I wanted to demolish my house tomorrow, I could. Because I own it. If I want to add walls, change electrical, paint it a new color, change the roof, add a second floor, add a jacuzzi tub, all things that I can do. Granted I have to get permits for some of those things, but condos control IF you can do those things at all.
I’m perfectly happy living without those things. Especially if it means my neighbor’s stupid Jacuzzi tub isn’t going to cause mold in the building or come hurdling down through my ceiling.
If I don’t like my condo, I’ll sell it and buy a better one, as there are improvements that I did which didn’t involve changing walls or electrical (which you can do with board approval if you really want to), like updating the kitchen and bathrooms and floors, and therefore it has most likely appreciated in value since I bought it. I have exclusive rights to the proceeds from the sale because I own it and I really have never had any urge do anything stupid that would piss off the HOA (re: my neighbors) because I’m a decent person and considerate of others. The community is worth that small sacrifice of not being an asshole.
But ultimately, I’m not owning it as an investment vehicle. I’m owning it to live in and to keep my money in my own name instead of putting it into some landlord’s pocket.
Demolition will not be necessary because I don’t care about the land underneath it, I care about the building itself.
The internet is perfectly good and if it’s not, my neighbors will probably agree, and we can vote to change providers because we are all voting members of the HOA, but ideally that would be something provided by the city as it doesn’t really make sense to run multiple lines for multiple providers in a dense urban setting. In that case, the whole city gets to vote! I have up to 600mbps fiber optic in my current complex, though, so I don’t think that will really be necessary.
I’m sure you’ll find a problem with that, but you’re way out in the country and don’t like cities anyways, so catering to you would probably not be very healthy for the city.
Being co-owner does mean you own it. It is a form of owning that is perfectly acceptable to me. I would gladly own a condo if I could afford it. I don’t need to own the land my property is on to consider myself a homeowner.
You don’t own a condo. In a condo, there is generally no individual ownership of land; the unit owners jointly own the land and building exteriors. Each unit owner has rights only to the unit’s interior space. All other spaces are controlled by the condo owners’ association.
It’s so wild that you’re so uneducated, and so confident all at the same time. You’re not taking reality for what it is, instead you’ve reached a conclusion - and then you work backwards to justify that conclusion, even to the point of deluding yourself into thinking something is one way, when it clearly isn’t; and then mocking someone for correcting you.
Peak Lemmy right here folks.
Nobody is talking about land, they’re talking about housing. Nobody thought they owned the land underneath a condo, and frankly you’re the idiot for assuming as much.
You don’t own the interior like you think you do either. The condo can force you to sell it at any time they like. The concept of ownership begets control. If you don’t control it, then you aren’t the owner.
An HOA in a neighborhood of single family homes can do the same thing.
Isn’t the whole idea that you dislike people being annoying? The point of that legislation is to remove people who are being egregiously annoying by breaking the rules of the HOA…
It’s designed specifically for people like you!!!
HOAs were designed to keep black people, the poor, and other ‘unwantables’ out of rich white neighborhoods, so no - they were specifically designed to keep me out of them, but thanks.
Wouldn’t you know it, car culture, roads, and suburbs were designed for the same exact reason and perpetuate the same bias to this day- looks like we have a common cause! The answer, however, is not creating an even more antisocial society or abandoning society altogether. Quite the opposite, actually.
Yeah, I’m gonna disagree on that one.
You’ve never heard of white flight? Redlining? The black neighborhoods that were paved over in cities to create highway interchanges smack in the middle of them, enabling whites to flee to redlined neighborhoods newly built with government subsidies, into homes bought with VA loans that weren’t offered to blacks? The highways dividing white neighborhoods from black neighborhoods in cities to this day? Reliable transportation and all the things it enables being locked down just to those who can individually provide it for themselves, after black people were discriminated against and locked out of wealth for decades? Other community amenities, like schools and libraries and community centers, being funded by property taxes and therefore drastically lower quality or completely non-existent in lower-income neighborhoods (where blacks have been pushed to) that can be completely ignored by the wealthy because they are now a problem that is over there in a different area code than theirs? All of this taking place in the era of the southern strategy, where lawmakers refrain from using the N-word or stating their goals outright, but the intention and outcome is “blacks get hurt worse than whites”.
It was re-segregation under the guise of “progress” in a deeply racist society that collectively shit their pants because blacks were finally catching up, developing things like black wall streets and thriving, prosperous communities (that were first on the chopping block when they wanted to level things for a highway) and black businesses, and using their collective voice to fight back after centuries of injustice. Detroit, Atlanta, St. Louis, Chicago, these cities were all fucking powerhouses with high percentages of black population for their times, that were destroyed by suburbanization and the construction of highways and the physical division they created.
Yeah, save it. You can disagree, you’re entitled to your opinion, but you would be deeply mistaken.
Yes, absolutely there are some examples of that through history - but the things you talk about weren’t done for the express purpose of harming black society. They didn’t install roads JUST to roll over black neighborhoods, it’s that those neighborhoods were conveniently black so it aligned with their racism.
And the other things you state are tax distribution moreso than roads. Car culture is not anti-black, as it’s one of the few things that actually allow a lot of minority cultures to express themselves. Donks, Lowriders, etc - all allowed Hispanic, Black, and otherwise marginalized communities to come together over something we all enjoyed.
I don’t know why nobody understands that cars aren’t just transportation for a lot of people. They are a point of pride, they are something that people enjoy, customize, and genuinely love. It would be wrong to say that cars and car culture is anti black.
You own a condo. That’s how it works. The shared land is a different matter.
Please stop. You’re making embarrassingly bad arguments.
If you can’t read the article I referred to, I guess you can’t exactly discuss this in good faith now can you.
The condo association controls how long you have that condo for. If they can force you to sell it at any time, then you don’t own it, do you…
Can you make improvements to the condo? Put in a jacuzzi tub? Oh – you can’t. How about building new walls? Can’t do that either. Can you choose a different internet service provider? Oh, weird – condos have contracted providers that you’ve gotta use. For all of this “I can totally own a condo”…you sure aren’t able to do the things which beget actual ownership, now can you? So you can purchase temporary residence in a housing-cubicle – but don’t pretend that is actual ownership. If you owned it, you could demolish everything within and nobody would care. But that’s not the case. So you don’t own it.
If I wanted to demolish my house tomorrow, I could. Because I own it. If I want to add walls, change electrical, paint it a new color, change the roof, add a second floor, add a jacuzzi tub, all things that I can do. Granted I have to get permits for some of those things, but condos control IF you can do those things at all.
That’s not ownership. That’s a lease.
Yes, you own it. All of what you bring up is a legal issue that can be changed.
I’m perfectly happy living without those things. Especially if it means my neighbor’s stupid Jacuzzi tub isn’t going to cause mold in the building or come hurdling down through my ceiling.
If I don’t like my condo, I’ll sell it and buy a better one, as there are improvements that I did which didn’t involve changing walls or electrical (which you can do with board approval if you really want to), like updating the kitchen and bathrooms and floors, and therefore it has most likely appreciated in value since I bought it. I have exclusive rights to the proceeds from the sale because I own it and I really have never had any urge do anything stupid that would piss off the HOA (re: my neighbors) because I’m a decent person and considerate of others. The community is worth that small sacrifice of not being an asshole.
But ultimately, I’m not owning it as an investment vehicle. I’m owning it to live in and to keep my money in my own name instead of putting it into some landlord’s pocket.
Demolition will not be necessary because I don’t care about the land underneath it, I care about the building itself.
The internet is perfectly good and if it’s not, my neighbors will probably agree, and we can vote to change providers because we are all voting members of the HOA, but ideally that would be something provided by the city as it doesn’t really make sense to run multiple lines for multiple providers in a dense urban setting. In that case, the whole city gets to vote! I have up to 600mbps fiber optic in my current complex, though, so I don’t think that will really be necessary.
I’m sure you’ll find a problem with that, but you’re way out in the country and don’t like cities anyways, so catering to you would probably not be very healthy for the city.
Can I haz walkable city now?
Being co-owner does mean you own it. It is a form of owning that is perfectly acceptable to me. I would gladly own a condo if I could afford it. I don’t need to own the land my property is on to consider myself a homeowner.