1040
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by livligkinkajou@slrpnk.net to c/nolawns@slrpnk.net

Bill was introduced in Sep/25, but I only got a whiff of it in the last couple of weeks

See House Bill HB1878: https://fastdemocracy.com/bill-search/pa/2025-2026/bills/PAB00038963/

Are there any other states/countries taking similar initiatives?

Summary:

Pennsylvania homeowners deserve the right to choose native plant species they desire for landscaping around their homes. However, work is needed to remove bottlenecks for homeowners to select native vegetation for their desired landscaping.

This legislation will prevent homeowners associations (HOAs) from unreasonably prohibiting the use of native plants for landscaping on private property. This ensures homeowners residing within an HOA the same ability to choose native landscaping as other homeowners.

Native plants provide many beneficial functions that many homeowners desire. These include being aesthetically pleasing and providing habitat for pollinators while being adapted to the site and typically requiring lower maintenance than non-native plants. [...]

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] WolfmanEightySix@piefed.social 6 points 1 day ago

Why are HOAs dictating what home owners can and can’t grow?

[-] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 1 points 18 hours ago

short answer: there's a misguided perception that a small patch of grass makes a house more valuable

long answer: HOAs are an illusion of self governance. in reality they serve banks and have become a common feature of nearly all housing developments. the banks originally acquired the land via violent means, declaring it their own despite the land already having residents in the form of indigenous people. it was then the banks who funded the violent enslavement of Africans and their trafficking accross the globe into the African Diaspora. the banks exist to serve white supremacy. they have done this in a variety of ways through the centuries. these are not all the ways:

  1. creating a split deed between the surface rights and mineral rights
  2. enforcement of structures of poverty through coagulating wealth
  3. entering contracts with slavers demanding perpetual enslavement of trafficked humans
  4. sponsoring segregationist policies
  5. redlining (not approving loans for minority homes and business purchases in certain parts of a city)
  6. the creation of HOAs to enforce white upper middle class ideals on lower middle class and working poor families
[-] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

For a supposedly Capitalist country, it's amazing that the US allows neighbours to decide themselves what others can or not do in their own land and force them to do it or not.

I'm thinking it's the bastard child of extreme aversion to having oversight institutions working for the common good, so instead of like in having Europe regional/country-wide rules which apply to everybody and are enforced by some oversight autority on what cannot be done in residential areas to avoid things like for example people operating poluting industries in residential areas, you get local groups with quite arbitrary power to decide what their neighbours can or cannot do, each local and with rules not at all consistent across the country (or at last a State).

It's a system incredibly open to abuse, especially by the kind of people we in my country call "small dictators" (the kind of people who, when they have some power over others, force them to do things purelly because they derive psychological enjoyment from imposing their will on others)

[-] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

HOAs are a patently un-American idea and are generally speaking viewed as such within the United States. I’m sure there are those who view them as a necessary evil, but by and large if you mention the acronym HOA in the U.S. you are more likely than not going to receive a look of unhappiness in return.

[-] wabasso@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yeah that’s interesting. I wonder if HOAs are an accepted implementation of “small government” or libertarianism.

[-] bridgeburner@lemmy.world 57 points 2 days ago

Kinda funny how Americans call their country "land of the free" but can't even do certain things on THEIR OWN PROPERTY because of the HOAs.

[-] Lemminary@lemmy.world 35 points 2 days ago

Should we go down the list of things Americans can't do but the rest of the world can? The irony of holding up freedom as their cornerstone while keeping the largest inmate population over bullshit without even a trial.

[-] 8oow3291d@feddit.dk 19 points 2 days ago

Number one on that list is health insurance being tied to your job. As in, some people literally die if they quit their job. Very freedom, much America.

[-] alternategait@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

I used to work in healthcare and bad news, the last 10 years the shit show has become even shittier in a way that feels like an acceleration. I left because I just couldn't deal and feel better working for a tech company that is at least transparent what they do. However, somewhere in the middle of my career I had a patient with an aggressive brain cancer that took him from being a middle class working guy to basically unable to move without assistance. However, when I met him he was not receiving chemo or radiation or any specific care because he was diagnosed with cancer after collapsing at work. He was diagnosed and directly lost his job. He had to wait for a new month to be covered by the insurance his family purchased through the ACA market place. He had already earned too much that year to qualify for Medicaid. He sat around for three and a half weeks loosing function and possibly metastasizing because no one would treat him.

load more comments (15 replies)
[-] notabot@piefed.social 104 points 2 days ago

HOAs are such a fascinatingly American thing. They seem to cause no end of annoyance for those living in them, and have few to no positive effects (at least, we don't hear about any positives), yet they persist.

Can those who are adversely affected not do anything about their local ones, or is it actually a case that they're not too bad for most people most of the time?

[-] evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

HOAs have a lot of applications that aren't horrible, you just probably dont hear about them. Neighborhoods with HOAs are often centrally planned, so there will be common areas that require upkeep like pools, clubhouses, parks, etc. They essentially take on a form of government role. In a lot of neighborhoods that are not part of an incorporated city, they do things like trash collection, road upkeep, snow plowing, etc.

I've lived in 2 places with an HOA, and in the one, all they did was the landscaping, even around all the yards of the houses. In the other, they handled the park/pool/clubhouse, and they did trash collection.

The down sides are often because the people in charge are just retirees who hunger for power, and there isnt much oversight from real government. Most people dont care enough to try to oust the bad leaders, so they stay in control, and they often do things that are illegal, but no one calls them out on it.

[-] mushroommunk@lemmy.today 60 points 2 days ago

There's very little people can do. In order to fix things you usually need to get on the board, but the people who run HOAs are usually retired nimby assholes and they hold meetings while most in the neighborhood are at work so nobody can oppose them. They then reelect themselves to the board and the cycle continues. HOAs are usually a thing set up by the builders to make their lives easier for some paperwork and stuff. They absolutely suck 99% of the time.

Native plant garden bans aren't just an HOA thing. Many counties or cities ban them too. Much of it stems for chemical manufacturers selling the white picket fence image after WWII to veterans receiving funding to buy a home. The chemical manufacturers pushed hard for that image so they could keep making as much profit as they made manufacturing for weapons during the wartime.

This means that trying to fight your HOA on yards is useless, you have to go higher and it's a big big fight

[-] grue@lemmy.world 28 points 2 days ago

HOAs are usually a thing set up by the builders to make their lives easier for some paperwork and stuff.

Builders are encouraged by the local government to set up HOAs because it lets said government shirk its responsibility to maintain infrastructure and services.

If your subdivision is gated, its streets are private and the homeowners are responsible for repaving them, for instance.

(Of course, that's only a motivation cities caught onto relatively recently. The original reason for HOAs -- at least for neighborhoods of single-family houses, as opposed to condos that have legitimate shared maintenance -- was to help keep black people out.)

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] curbstickle@anarchist.nexus 18 points 2 days ago

You hear about the shitty ones, tbh.

Mine covers the community pool, a few small playgrounds, gym, community garden, etc. Thats it.

No getting approval to have your door be blue instead of white, no measuring your grass height, or any of those shenanigans.

[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 2 days ago

HOAs offsets the cost and maintenance of roads and other civil services, so many counties love them because it keeps costs down for the government while charging the neighborhood. It keeps taxes down overall.

HOA benefit to have their own fiefdom, that allows them to weld near unchecked power because the turn out for board elections are even lower than most local elections.

Homeowners have the ability dissolve their HOA but they don't because people don't vote.

[-] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago

Dismantling them would require somehow introducing a vote to abolish the hoa, and a lot of people involved in hoas are ancient NIMBYs that have nothing better to do after retirement that be in other people's business. The purpose of an HOA is to ostensibly preserve property values, and only homeowners are allowed to vote, not any poor suckers that are renting and actually living there.

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Grass, when constantly mowed, is completely useless. I'm all for clovers and native plants growing on my lawn.

[-] prettybunnys@piefed.social 100 points 2 days ago

Maryland has HB232 which supersedes all HoA law and says any low impact landscaping / xeriscaping is permissible AND favored if it prioritizes native plants and fauna / pollinators.

The simplest thing to come of it is “you can’t force me to grow grass”

[-] rmuk@feddit.uk 30 points 2 days ago

Oh, shit, right, so I get to share something I learned fairly recently.

For much of human history, wealth could be measured many ways but by far the most powerful currency was land. Land meant resources, and the land's value was determined by what respirce it produced: fertile floodplains meant crops, lakes for fishing, forests for hunting, and, worst-case scenario, moorland could be used for grazing livestock. But what if that wasn't enough? What if you had huge tracts of land but your narcissism and insecurity were so overwhelming that you just needed to prove yourself even more?

Enter: lawns. Lawns are fields of grass, which is a useless crop that can only really be used for grazing. But the grass is kept so short that livestock can't graze on it. But grass like that can only be grown on plains that are ideal for crops, so you need to get rid of the crops. And short grass needs tending, tending with more care than any crop, so you need to have workers dedicated to it. That's what a lawn is: it's bragging, it's saying "not only do I have loads of top-quality land and an army of workers, I can afford to piss away huge swathes of it for absolutely no reason other than to prove that I can." It's hard to image a greater and more grotesque display of boujee excess than the lawn.

Of course, this is what makes the modern lawn all the more pathetic: that neatly parcelled-out vast tract of land you can afford to squander as a display of your immeasurable wealth is, like, a few meters across. It's like the Stamford apes experiment: they know what they must do, but not why they're doing it and, if they knew what a lawn really was and where it came from, I can't imagine many would be quite so attached. Then again, maybe they would be. Maybe they really do think their home is a castle and that they live in a kingdom they can walk around in thirty second.

[-] wabasso@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago

I’m new to this sub and consider myself anti-lawn. Can you recommend non-grass vegetation that is still easy for kids to play on and people to walk through?

[-] rmuk@feddit.uk 2 points 1 day ago

Red and white clover, provided you live in an area where they're native. They introduce nitrogen to the soil and pollinating insects love it, and it nice to lie on. You can grow clover mixed in with grass: because grass is more tolerant to being regularly walked on than clover, it creates nice natural-lookint pathways.

[-] livligkinkajou@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago

It really depends on your location and it could even include native grasses. I'd even recommend creating a post in the community asking for help so it gets more visibility

It is okay if you still need to have grass for children/high traffic areas, you don't need to remove it all, as even small patches with native plants can make a big difference

[-] deathbird@mander.xyz 14 points 2 days ago

I'm a way it seems bizarre that HOAs should be so broadly despised yet also broadly adopted. I suppose it has to do with the corners of the culture I sit in.

[-] VitoRobles@lemmy.today 8 points 1 day ago

The adoption is coming from the Epstein class who owns the property.

We are all just trying to find a place to live and pay rent.

[-] MajorasMaskForever@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

I think the reason for the mass adoption is the surface selling point (higher resale property value) plus the usual minor fee lull people into a false understanding of just how dangerous they can become once a person on a power trip gets into the board

[-] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 7 points 2 days ago

Municipalities are only giving licenses to new developments that have HOA included in, because HOAs transfer the necesario tax burden to the HOA. Americans would do anything for avoid paying taxes, including paying more for worst services paying private intermediates

[-] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 1 day ago

Americans would do anything for avoid paying taxes, including paying more for worst services paying private intermediates

Which is very weird. Property owners are still paying a tax for their property. Instead of going to a municipal government it goes to a private organization.

[-] MajorasMaskForever@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Oh god that's terrifying. I've heard of HOAs technically owning the roads and local infrastructure and then residents still get nailed on paying full property tax anyways

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 29 points 2 days ago

Can we vote to ban HOAs?

[-] Etterra@discuss.online 25 points 2 days ago

HOAs are the devil - even if I could afford property there's no house cheap enough to put up with one.

[-] azureskypirate@lemmy.zip 16 points 2 days ago

I had a thought the other day:

If your HOA sues you and YOU WIN, they (usually) have to pay your attorney fees in addition to their own.

But...you're part of the HOA. Your dues will go up to cover the costs of a stupid lawsuit that you beat.

[-] spazzman6156@sh.itjust.works 24 points 2 days ago

Just ban the fucking HOAs

[-] Iconoclast@feddit.uk 34 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

What's the point of even having a yard if it looks like the ones in the picture? Why not just go live in an apartment then. To me, owning a piece of land to enjoy was kind of the key reason I wanted to own a house in the first place.

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] Formfiller@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

They should be called KOA’s Karen’s of America

[-] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Already used by "Kampgrounds of America".

I'm not kidding.

https://koa.com/

[-] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 29 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

OP, this was introduced September 25, 2025 (you mention this), sponsored by 14 of the Pennsylvania House's 203 members (all Democratic in a split House), and its only action so far after introduction was to be referred to the Housing & Community Development Committee (read: nothing).

It's not dead per se, but it's made no progress whatsoever in six months, and the next session starts January 2027. This bill categorically is not evidence that it's "becoming law across America".

(Here's the bill on the official General Assembly website btw. I have no idea where Fast Democracy gets its summary you pasted here; an LLM?)

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] wirebeads@lemmy.ca 22 points 2 days ago

God forbid you have native plants that thrive for the entire local ecosystem it supports. This spreads out as the local habitats need to leave their native homes to find other sources for their foods. Plant native. It’s good for our planet!

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2026
1040 points (99.6% liked)

No Lawns

3903 readers
35 users here now

What is No Lawns?

A community devoted to alternatives to monoculture lawns, with an emphasis on native plants and conservation. Rain gardens, xeriscaping, strolling gardens, native plants, and much more! (from official Reddit r/NoLawns)

Have questions or don't know where to begin?

Where can you find the official No Lawns socials?

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS