If you think about how tax money is spent on the police force, you can see why income tax is progressive, too.

1.) Hector is only considering the security of contents in the home. Security is needed to prevent damage to the subdivision, keep out undesirable visitors and/or traffic, etc. The risk of something going wrong in an uninhabited house is much higher than in one which is occupied, ask any homeowners’ insurance agent. Pipes burst and are unnoticed; Houses can be damaged by weather and are not repaired; Landscaping withers, creates an eyesore, and brings down the property value of the neighborhood. Should Hector be required to reimburse the owner-occupants for their lowered property values?

2.) Hector is not considering that a neighborhood is actually a coalition of homeowners with similar values and lifestyles. If crimes occur, the neighbors are going to start not only securing their properties, but also looking out for their neighbors. Hector’s absence is depriving the neighborhood of the unpaid security he would provide as an inhabitant. Surely this has monetary value.

3.) If there were no inhabitants whatsoever, would the homeowners still pay for the security? Absolutely! Maybe not so far as gating the subdivision, but some form of security would be required. Otherwise the entire subdivision would be vulnerable to vandalism and raids, as building supplies also have value.

Another point I question is why Hector isn’t living in (or may never live in) his house? Haven’t we learned from this great recession that houses aren’t investment vehicles?

For example, one airline uses the following schema:

51-70 lbs: $90
71-100 lbs: $175

What this situation has that the HOA situation doesn’t, is that baggage weight directly relates to the cost of flying the plane. More weight = more fuel.

Does a person with a 51 lb piece of luggage have a legitimate complaint about paying the same amount as a person with a 70 lb piece of luggage? I think it’s safe to assume that the price is set to cover the heavier side of the scale.

So why wouldn’t the airline just charge per pound over 50? If $90 is the minimum necessary to cover a 70 lb bag then why not charge $3/lb?

If I had to guess, I’d say doing it the way they’re doing it is as a deterrant. People close to that threshold are more likely shave off some weight off of their luggage to avoid having to pay a lot for being only a few pounds over. This would limit the amount of overweight luggage and keep the planes cheaper to fly.

Houses in a given community are all pretty much the same. That means: same approximate value, same approximate income of owner(s), same approximate value “stuff” said owner(s) will have in the house. Thus it’s a safe assumption that the value of what is being protected is within a small range.

It’s also the easiest to enforce/manage with the fewest complaints.

The obvious short coming are people in Hector’s situation, but how can that even be judged? Is there an inspector that would come around every month to make sure you aren’t actually living there? How thorough would that inspection be? A person with a very spartan lifestyle could probably pull it off. Claims that neighbors see him at the house a lot could be explained by he is tending to the maintenance of the house.

I also don’t see that an unused house receives less security. Yes, the owner receives less benefit from security, as there are less valuables to be secured, but it requries the same level of time and effort to patrol and respond to anything involving that house. In fact, I would argue that unsued houses are a higher target for crimes. All a potential burglar sees is a house that no one ever visits, not that it is empty. In any event, what is the security company supposed to do? Close their eyes when they patrol past the house? Not respond to calls from other neighbors regarding suspcious activity at that house?

I don’t see that there are any cost differences from the point of view of security. That means any lower price on unused houses will require a price increase on used houses to make up the loss in profit.

In the end, you are basically just shifting the complaints from one side to the other (unused house owners to used house owners) and adding costs and efforts (verifying that unused houses are actually unused). I imagine that owners that use their houses have more sway in what happens within the community and, generally, outnumber owners that don’t use their houses.

2. Naturally homeowner association fees increase over time to reflect inflation and other cost increases. Why else might homeowner association fees increase?

Unfortunately the price would likely be controled by those willing to pay the most. The people with most valuables would want the highest level of protection. At that point it becomes a battle between people who want/need different levels of protection. Such a battle, I think, would favor those wanting more. Certainly the security company favors those willing to offer them more profit and from the point of view of the HOA, those willing to pay more are probably of a higher class and more likely to raise the quality of the community, both in appearances and from a house/land value perspective. If it came down to losing a high-income owner because there isn’t enough security, or a less high-income owner because they didn’t want to pay for more security, I think the general impression would be to let the lower income owner go.

3. During a bad economy, would you expect homeowner association fees to rise or fall? How might this change if costs were shared differently?

I think in such times people are more concerned about risks, whether or not said risks actually exist. I can see this leading to taking greater measures against said risks (imaginary or not) and pay more for security. Certainly the security company would play off those fears to sell more services.