HOA = haphazardly organized absurdity

Last year I got involved in our townhome complex. We had been non-resident owners for 5 years, and visitors for many more years than that (the townhome was David's grandparents' place before we bought it). Before we moved in David and I had noted a gradual decline in the complex over the years, alongside an abrupt rise in dues. I figured, as I always do, I have no right to complain if I'm not willing to get involved and be part of a solution. Right off the bat I volunteered for a new committee tasked with identifying ways to improve life in the complex.

Turns out the HOA is managed in a marginally competent manner by a group of longtime residents. They don't exactly mismanage things, but they certainly don't manage things well either. Worse, they seem to actively undermine every new idea presented to them. Too late I discovered that the homeowners who populated the ad hoc committee I'd joined were on the outs with virtually every member of this closed-minded HOA's board of directors, that the feud was fairly longstanding though largely un-acted upon, and that the recently elected president of the board, a seemingly intelligent, personable guy, was very good at talking out of both sides of his mouth. I'd also begun to notice that the committee members had their own issues, some of which rendered them powerless; a lot of bark and no bite, if you will.

In a complex of 163 homes, where winters are mild and summer temperatures regularly reach the upper 80's, a glorious community swimming pool has been closed since September and looks not to be reopened before mid-summer due to seemingly nonchalant planning of repairs. This is a ridiculous problem to have, as it is so very fixable. It didn't take me long to see that we had more fundamental problems worthy of fixing, things like outdated fiscal planning, a lackluster landscape, and a rapidly deteriorating (some would say nonexistent) sense of community pride. The biggest problem of all though was that we seemed to have no one truly capable of (or in some cases interested in) fixing them.

Buoyed by my still-existent optimism last fall David won a hotly contested spot on the board of directors. He was elected and given the VP slot largely because he is a moderate, sensible person. Unfortunately the people he must work with are quite the opposite. In my opinion they are insecure, sheltered, fearful of change, and want to control things as a means of countering all of those. For the life of me I can't understand why these people are all so hateful and mistrusting. I'm not sure I've ever had to deal with such a negative concentration of people. Usually some common ground can be found, some nod given to civility or neighborliness or just plain curiosity about something new; not here.

I'm too tired at the moment to do justice to the lunacy that passes for so-called management and leadership. I'll just present you with a few images. Picture a defensive, ineffectual "professional" property manager who looks an awful lot like a young Wilford Brimley; a chain-smoking, pain-pill popping crazy board member who spends all his daylight hours dictating to the landscaping crew (while we pay their actual bosses for unused professional oversight); a renegade resident newsletter with a column titled "Musings from a bored meeting" in which the author (a local realtor) includes verbatim quotes from aforementioned crazy man; another resident who shouted at a board member--his neighbor--"You're what's wrong with this place" and shelled out $100 for a party after the board flatly rejected funding any social events; and various well entrenched cliques engaged in malicious gossip and the occasional flat out smear campaign (complete with letters and window signs). Suffice it to say that what happens at this complex is not conducive to making me want to remain much longer.

Sadder still is the fact that the spiteful shenanigans around here appear not to be unusual when it comes to HOAs. My next home will, I hope, not have a HOA associated with it. I'm afraid that my peaceful outlook might not be able to withstand such a test.

Placebos that kill

While the baby naps I'm catching up on some Freakonomics reading. Good thing, as I've missed some real doozies these past few months. For example there's this one on the unrealistic expectation that all drug/treatment effectiveness be evaluated in comparison to a placebo. (The title sort of says it all: "In a Parachute-Effectiveness Trial, Who Gets the Placebo?") Earlier this week in The Morning News they featured a website which displays front pages of major newspapers, side by side. Not essential, but interesting. Not even pretending to be essential are the various "aptonym" postings, wherein the authors share uncannily appropriate names (a meteorologist named Amy Freeze). As always the best parts of the Freakonomics blog are in the readers' comments. Check out the comments section of Creative Destruction, which plays to the blog's strength by simply seeking responses to the Jon Stewart-Jim Cramer interview. Fascinating stuff.