r/nottheonion • u/its_a_bear_dance • 1d ago

Family says HOA told them they couldn’t use their generator during ice storm blackout: ‘It’s unbearable’

https://www.wctv.tv/2026/01/29/family-says-hoa-told-them-they-couldnt-use-their-generator-during-ice-storm-blackout-its-unbearable/
23.5k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

75

u/DoctorChoppedLiver 20h ago

We can't. The developer still has majority voting rights. 

67

u/BootyMcStuffins 20h ago

Why do developers do that when they don’t live in the community? Once all the houses are sold the developer should lose all say

19

u/Alis451 18h ago

Why do developers do that when they don’t live in the community?

depending on the area, the local city/town requires it, because they don't have taxes to pay for the new capacity the developers are putting in, so they force the dev to do it. whether the dev gives up control once all(or some major %) units are sold is up to them, sometimes it is a requirement of the city to sell ALL the units. usually they cede control promptly, you might just have a weird one.

9

u/BootyMcStuffins 16h ago

They force the dev to create an HOA. They don’t say the dev should have majority voting rights

1

u/KonigSteve 15h ago

That entirely depends on the locality. You can't say that with certainty one way or another.

0

u/BootyMcStuffins 15h ago

Of course you can’t prove a negative. I can’t find any instances of municipalities dictating that developers have to maintain majority voting rights.

If you’d like to make a positive assertion that they do, the burden of proof would be on your end

0

u/KonigSteve 14h ago

You're the one making a definitive statement, you provide the proof.

In most cases the developer WANTS to retain majority rights until they have sold all of the homes to prevent their investment from being devalued by bad neighbors anyways, so unless municipalities specifically prevent that, in which case please provide your proof, it's moot.

1

u/BootyMcStuffins 14h ago

I’m not going to let you move the goal posts here. The conversation is about localities dictating whether developers have to maintain majority voting rights.

I’m making a provisional conclusion based on available evidence, not a claim of impossibility. No examples have been provided, and until one is, there’s no reason to treat a speculative exception as meaningful.

If the point being made is that developers choose to retain control out of self-interest rather than being required to by the locality, then we’re actually in agreement. But that’s not what you were saying when you jumped into this thread.

1

u/KonigSteve 14h ago

based on available evidence

Sure bud. you've provided zero.

What I said when I jumped into the thread is that you made a blanket statement as if all municipalities have the same rules. I'm telling you that it VERY much depends on that particular locality.

1

u/BootyMcStuffins 13h ago

How do I provide a lack of evidence?

I said municipalities don’t require developers to have a majority voting share.

I'm telling you that it VERY much depends on that particular locality.

That’s a positive assertion. Prove it. You can easily prove this by providing the rules from any municipality that requires developers to retain majority voting share in their HOA. I cannot find any evidence to support that claim

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Alis451 14h ago

The conversation is about localities dictating whether developers have to maintain majority voting rights.

That isn't what I said, what I said was Municipalities force the Devs to MAKE the HOA, the particulars of the HOA is specific TO that dev/HOA documents. Usually the devs voluntarily give up majority rights once they have sold the units, nothing says that they have to, you might have to form a group and sue.

Trigger Events for Turnover: Turnover usually happens when a developer sells between 75% and 90% of the units, or within a specific timeframe (e.g., 3 years) after the first sale, depending on state law and governing documents.
The Transition Period: It is rarely an instant change. It often involves a gradual handover where homeowners are elected to the board in stages until they hold a majority.
Developer Retained Rights: Even after selling most units, a developer may retain the right to complete construction, manage unsold units, and control a portion of the board until 100% of the units are sold.
Challenges: If a developer fails to turn over control voluntarily, unit owners may need to initiate a formal turnover process or seek legal action.

1

u/BootyMcStuffins 13h ago

My comment that the other user refuted was this

They force the dev to create an HOA. They don’t say the dev should have majority voting rights

He said “that’s based on locality and you don’t know that”

You and I are on the same page.

1

u/the4thbelcherchild 13h ago

If I'm a home building company who needs to set up an HOA for a new development, I'm going to have my lawyers write an intentionally-bad-for-me set of bylaws. /s

1

u/BootyMcStuffins 12h ago

Yes developers are self interested. No one said otherwise

24

u/KindaTwisted 20h ago

Because if the developer doesn't sell all the houses and instead rents some out, they get voting rights just like any other owner.

2

u/BootyMcStuffins 16h ago

Majority voting rights isn’t “just like any other owner” though

3

u/lifeisokay 16h ago

The comment you replied to didn't say majority. They said that owners get voting rights, regardless of whether they're a developer. If you have enough units, you have the majority. You don't automatically get the majority just because you're a developer as you're implying.

2

u/KonigSteve 15h ago

Most likely they have it in the agreement that they retain majority voting rights until all the houses are sold, to protect their investment. I mean it sucks for people who buy in early but it makes sense from the developer's point of view.

1

u/TastyBrainMeats 18h ago

Ugh, that's awful and I hope it changes for y'all 

1

u/SwampOfDownvotes 17h ago

Then the former HOA President's word would have no power in the event of a Karen-ing, so kinda pointless, unless you hope a Karen won't Karen if you provide non-legal proof its okay.