Comments on: Fair division in homeowner association fees

By: The ultimatum game played by children - Mind Your Decisions

The ultimatum game played by children - Mind Your Decisions — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 00:32:33 +0000

[...] is unfair. Fair division is a topic that comes up time and again, in splitting bills, determining homeowner fees, and even in eating peanut butter and jelly [...]

By: Rock, Paper, Scissors: Game Theory in Everyday Life (book review) - Mind Your Decisions

Sun, 21 Aug 2011 00:32:17 +0000

[...] The second chapter “I cut and you choose” is where the book picks up. This chapter offers a nice introduction to the concepts of minimax and fair division. Fisher illuminates fair division with anecdotes like how he got in trouble as a kid shooting fireworks, and as a consequence had to yield fireworks with his brother. The answer he intuitively arrived to as a kid was what he know realizes was an application of the minimax principle. I was also impressed that Fisher discusses the principle of equal division of the contested sum, which I have discussed twice before (regarding religion and homeowner fees). [...]

By: sydney

sydney — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 17:46:32 +0000

Homeonwer association fees are split evenly because it's the most democratic way to allocate costs. It really brings a neighborhood together, and avoids discrimination & grudges privatley heald between neghbors who may feel others are not paying their fair share. I'd imagine the HO costs would remain constant in a recession, unless there were additional amenities added to the neighborhood. However is places with high forclosue, fewers owners paying into a HO may lead to increased shared costs between the existing owners. homeowner list

By: Eyal

Eyal — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:03:00 +0000

Many great points made! I wanted to add one regarding proportional division. An argument can be made that a home which is twice as large should owe even more than twice as much. Someone with a large house not only has twice the space to protect but probably has items of greater value inside. For instance, a small house might have one TV and a rich tenant’s big home might have two TVs, but each TV is a flat screen plasma.

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

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:44:26 +0000

I think Hector should pay more for the security than the owner-occupants. Consider these three counter-points:

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?