Criticizing HOA Governance Is Not Being Anti-HOA
We hear the criticism most often when NVHOAReform posts make their way through social media: because so much of our work focuses on HOA problems, the Coalition must be anti-HOA. That is completely off target.
Social media is full of people quick to dismiss criticism of HOA governance as hostility toward HOAs themselves. But pointing out where a system fails is not the same as opposing the system. That is also one reason NVHOAReform is not directly tied to social-media platforms. The Coalition’s work is meant to stand on the substance of the issues, not on the churn, personalities, or instant reactions that often dominate -- and too often degrade -- social-media debate.
HOAs can provide real value. Many associations are well run, maintain common property responsibly, manage shared expenses competently, and are served by volunteer directors who genuinely try to do the right thing. Those associations are not the reason NVHOAReform exists.
The Coalition focuses on what happens when an association is not well run—and when the legal and regulatory system fails to provide an effective remedy. NVHOAReform’s members and most supporters live in HOAs with their families. For many, their home is also their largest single investment. They therefore have every reason to want HOA governance to succeed, not fail.
There is an important difference between opposing HOAs and questioning how HOA power is exercised. A system can work well for most people and still contain serious defects that matter greatly to those who encounter them. Owners living under responsible boards may never experience arbitrary enforcement, questionable election practices, unchecked legal spending, or regulators unwilling to answer basic questions about association authority.
Other owners do. Their experiences should not be dismissed simply because they are not universal.
The same is true of the reforms NVHOAReform advocates. Stronger accountability rules are not aimed at good boards. Good boards generally do not need protection from rules requiring fair elections, lawful enforcement, transparency, meaningful owner participation, and clear limits on association authority.
Those rules matter when governance breaks down.
As NVHOAReform’s founder, I see no contradiction in that. I am a retired Air Force veteran who has flown in combat and believes service to this country includes a duty to speak up when one believes government or public institutions are getting something wrong. Criticism does not make me or the others that do speak out anti-American. It reflects a belief that institutions worth valuing are also worth improving.
I see little difference in my own community. Questioning how an HOA, regulators, or other government officials, elected or appointed, exercises substantial authority over people’s homes, money and property rights is not hostility toward the community. It is part of caring about how that community is governed.
Criticism of those failures and areas of improvment is not opposition to HOAs or thier governance role. It is an argument that HOA governance should work better—for owners, for responsible board members, and ultimately for the associations themselves.
