1141
Looks like flock cameras lower property value
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2026
1141 points (99.5% liked)
deflock.me
494 readers
932 users here now
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are AI-powered cameras that capture and analyze images of all passing vehicles, storing details like your car’s location, date, and time. They also capture your car’s make, model, color, and identifying features such as dents, roof racks, and bumper stickers, often turning these into searchable data points. These cameras collect data on millions of vehicles—regardless of whether the driver is suspected of a crime. While these systems can be useful for tracking stolen cars or wanted individuals, they are mostly used to track the movements of innocent people.
Learn more at deflock.me
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
HOAs or something of similar form exist in a lot of places. They require residents to be involved though. Anybody who lives in an HOA or similar and doesn’t participate (go to meetings, read their bylaws etc.) contributes to the organization being abused.
And fuck you if you've got a job, right?
That's why all these HOAs are run by retirees with too much time on their hands.
Seems like the typical Americans apathy towards electing their representation in government applies other areas too.
I'm in Canada. As it says further down that Wikipedia article, HOAs for detached homes are very rare. Condo boards exist, but mostly by necessity if sharing a building.
Strata’s in Canada and HOAs in the US largely serve the same purpose with the biggest difference being financial interest in common property.
That's actually wrong. Homeowners associations require homeowners to be involved, not residents. There is actually a very strong difference between the meanings of "homeowner" and "resident".
In France a form of "HOA" exists for what some countries call condominium: co-owned lot of houses (FR: "lotissement"), or co-owned multi-appartments complexes. Only co-owners can participate to the full general assembly or be elected as a representative member in the "Conseil syndical" (aka. "CS", the council of co-owners representatives) ? Whether these owners reside in the complex does not matter, and such owners can be "moral entities" (ex: companies). On the other hand, residing rentees are not invited to participate, even remotely, to any of these general or CS-restricted assemblies. Usually these HOA and their provider named "syndic de copropriété" manage the complex as a whole, as they managed any part of the complex that is not a part of a unit. (aka. "common parts") The rentees are usually not even supposed to interact directly with the HOA.
Personal anecdote: residing as a rentee in an appartement inside a co-owned complex can lead to some interesting conflicts. For example, when the HOA doesn't maintain common water pipes, and these pipes flood the rented appartment, whose owner is neither available nor reactive. I've experienced the rentee side in this situation. Not fun. And it wasn't the clean water input. (And if you claim the owner wasn't fit to be a decent landlord, I'll actually agree. They weren't a malevolent, bad-faith greddy scum of a landlord, but they were indeed an incompetent one.)
Pedantic but technically correct, which is the best kind of correct, they say. My point still stands though. HOAs are just a smaller form of private government which requires involvement, voting and understanding of the homeowners involved.
I’m not particularly fond of HOAs and I’d prefer to see a return to community development like it used to be. The city itself being involved, designating common spaces for a neighborhood or community like parks, community centers, sports fields/facilities etc. instead of that falling under a private entity.
I’ll share my own personal anecdote: we bought our home ~6ish years ago and we had an HOA which was largely pointless. I organized the homeowners and engaged with the HOA processes and, today, we have an HOA in name only.
It’s too expensive and difficult to dissolve the HOA so instead we all agreed to stop paying dues, return what had already been paid and abandon the HOA.
Fortunately for us, the homeowners not only owned the homes but also the property each home sits on and there was no community property or services to deal with.
Dose "homeowner" in the USA refer to someone that eihtre don't own the home or the land on which it sits ?
I don't know if it is legal in France cause I have no skill in property right, but I never heard of this case. The closer I heard of if a shop "owner" (franchisee) that builds and open a franchise shop, but the franchise owning big company actually owns the land and the building. Never heard anything like it for homes, despite knowing the existence of systems like "viager".
True, with limitations. As said by others, there can be conflicts between multiple duties for a homeowner. (e.g. HOA meeting VS work obligation.) So the HOA should also have some systems to adapt to external constraints, like a procuration system for votes.
Also if some members of the HOA commit abuses, the responsibility of thei abuses will mostly sit on them. The non commited homeowner share a part of responsibility because of their negligence, bu the biggest part of responsibility is always owned by the perpetrators themselves, never by the victims. This part should never be omitted when communicating about abuses, as its omission carry a strong risk of shifting the responsability to the victims of said abuses. (That's probably why there are so strong reactions to your point.)
I'll fininsh with a fun fact about French HOA :
It can. It’s most common in townhomes where you own the house but everything outside of it including the exterior of the residence is “common property” or mobile home lots where you own the house itself but pay “rent” for the lot, utilities and common property maintenance.
I’ve never heard of an HOA that holds meetings where decisions are made or a vote is needed during working hours outside of retirement communities. Generally an HOA needs a quorum, typically 2/3 I believe, to enact bylaw changes, take certain actions etc. HOA disclosure is also required, at least where I am, at time of sale. Nobody should be “surprised” by an HOA.
Yes and no. If a homeowner has participated I believe that’s true. If a homeowner buys a home with an HOA and doesn’t read the bylaws beforehand, doesn’t read meeting notes, attend elections, share their complaints/concerns then they’ve, at least tacitly, endorsed the HOAs operations.
I think there are strong reactions for one of two reasons. For one, too many Americans are happy to not get involved and participate and then play victim. Second, I think many people don’t actually understand how HOAs truly work, or their sum total of experience is stories they’ve read or heard from others.
HOA are not in Canada.
Closest we have is strata when an apartment or condo is owned by all the owners having a share.
You have yearly vote for who sits on council, and bylaws can be changed by voting. The Strata does not have to approve your purchase into the unit like HOAs do to restrict the type of person who can own.
Both stratas and HOAs can have bylaws that allow them to approve buyers. The most significant difference between an HOA and a Strata Corp. is that in Strata’s the owners have a financial interest in the common property.
Looks like only financial approval (to ensure you can afford strata fees), and occupant count approval (like not a 10 person family in a 1 bedroom apartment) but Canada doesnt allow discriminatory buyer approval like HOAs in the states...strata just can't say no because no.
And rental bylaw got squashed with COVID
HOAs in the US are governed by the Fair Housing Act and can’t just say “no because no”.
You might be confusing deed covenants with HOAs.
Mostly my info was based on a documentary of HOAs that were still saying no, probably with excuses, to keep black people out of their neighborhood