Not Just Bikes / r/fuckcars / Urbanists / New Urbanism / Car-Free / Anti-Car - People and grifters who hate personal transport, freedom, cars, roads, suburbs, and are obsessed with city planning and urban design

Getting what amounts to an eviction notice on your HOUSE that you OWN because the HOA decided you've shown "repeated and flagrant violation" of the CC&Rs due to you driving a pickup which is now a "commercial vehicle" is not a pleasant experience. And that's on top of having to pay a micro-government on top of your local government on top of your state government. Build a fence if you don't like looking at your neighbors, don't start/invest into an HOA.
If i woke up tomorrow with ElonBucks™ levels of wealth, all I would fucking do is hire people to investigate and find the worst possible HOAs, and then buy up houses in their domains and then fuck them up the ass with lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit, until I owned all the properties, and then destroy the covenants. God it'd be so much fucking fun.
 
There's no comments on /r/fuckcars (despite 400 upvotes), but there are plenty on /r/Dallas:

Doing their "banner drop" at Klyde Warren Park really is ironic, because it's an urbanist dream—basically constructing a structure over a sunken freeway—to create a four-acre urban park. There is one road between the two sections but another was closed off.

Also, from where these people are standing (five of 'em--two hipsters, angry feminist, fast food wagie, and old she-hippie; the dude on the left looks like he's just passing by) there is LITERALLY A TROLLEY LINE RIGHT BEHIND THEM).


I'm not even making fun of it, I just thought it was amusing that they integrated the freeway design into the house's construction while creating a large setback in front of the house.

The issue is that progressives tend to be quite naive and a bit sheltered, and they don't make this distinction. They idealistically assume everyone is fundamentally 'good' and just needs a soft but helping hand to get out of the rut they're in, and that just isn't true of everyone. They try and help all homeless people the same way, which is harmful to the transiently homeless and simply unproductive with the chronically homeless.

The other problem is that progressives will cry about the lack of mental health facilities (blaming Reagan) but it was liberal courts that decided that you couldn't institutionalize people except under very specific circumstances and nowadays you have to have committed a crime and had a judge declare you mentally incompetent to stand trial.

In Florida, even in left-leaning areas they can and do will often lock up Florida Man for his antics--it's what happened to John Bulla and a few others.

No one is going to touch it because "the state can institutionalize you" is too much power to give anyone these days (and I believe at the time of O'Connor v. Donaldson, transgenderism was still on the DSM).

If i woke up tomorrow with ElonBucks™ levels of wealth, all I would fucking do is hire people to investigate and find the worst possible HOAs, and then buy up houses in their domains and then fuck them up the ass with lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit, until I owned all the properties, and then destroy the covenants. God it'd be so much fucking fun.

What would you replace it with? Bughives? Not defending HOAs but deed restrictions are the real thing holding neighborhoods together these days--it's non-governmental and has agreements about what you can and can't do with your property. Urbanists hate it because it's "essentially zoning" and will bring it up as an ACKSHUALLY when you point out that a world without zoning gets you something like Houston, but it circumvents faux-libertarian arguments and is only limited by what the government says you can't restrict (which unfortunately continues to grow).

Heck, I'm sure you can probably ward off a lot of problems by mandating that anyone who owns properties in the neighborhood has to live there as their primary residence.
 
Steve Lehto's channel has hundreds and hundreds of videos on HOA legal cases. I would never ever buy a home, especially a SFH in an HOA. Besides the "you never own your home either the bank owns it or you pay rent to the government" if you live in an HOA you *really* don't own it. You may say it's just about not leaving your grass 17" tall with cowtails or not painting it Hot Plum Purple but the nightmares are endless when they decide they don't like you.

Getting what amounts to an eviction notice on your HOUSE that you OWN because the HOA decided you've shown "repeated and flagrant violation" of the CC&Rs due to you driving a pickup which is now a "commercial vehicle" is not a pleasant experience. And that's on top of having to pay a micro-government on top of your local government on top of your state government. Build a fence if you don't like looking at your neighbors, don't start/invest into an HOA.
We don't have them here but I thought the point of an HOA was to avoid a neighborhoods becoming a run down nigger ghetto.

As for homes in general, the alternative is to have infinitely increasing rent paid to someone who can evict you at any time who will do the bare minimum in terms of maintenance. The home I own is a place for my family to grow in relative safety. Paying a few thousand dollars a year in property tax sucks but hey that's life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jhonson the Two
Doing their "banner drop" at Klyde Warren Park really is ironic, because it's an urbanist dream—basically constructing a structure over a sunken freeway—to create a four-acre urban park. There is one road between the two sections but another was closed off.
It comes up in urbanist media from time to time as an example of an "reconnecting the city" and "taking the streets back from the cars", but it's just a tiny bit of grass with some food trucks parked next to it; it would be completely unremarkable in the suburbs.
1748799940731.webp
The only features it has are a playground in the top left and a restaurant in the middle. The rest is just grass or concrete. No sports fields or anything.

It also didn't reconnect the city as the city was already connected before the park was built.
There's fencing forcing you to cross at an intersection and all of the roads existed long before the park:
1748800236372.webp
1748800383213.webp
 
What would you replace it with? Bughives? Not defending HOAs but deed restrictions are the real thing holding neighborhoods together these days--it's non-governmental and has agreements about what you can and can't do with your property. Urbanists hate it because it's "essentially zoning" and will bring it up as an ACKSHUALLY when you point out that a world without zoning gets you something like Houston, but it circumvents faux-libertarian arguments and is only limited by what the government says you can't restrict (which unfortunately continues to grow).
Probably wouldn't even really care, but it would be amusing to just sell them back off, or to develop bughives that are explicitly "what they want" but yet they hate them completely (like, they have parking, or no niggers, etc).

The reality that they hate to admit is that there's not actually that much "demand" for bughives, because if there were, they'd be built up. Look at NYC, where they DO regularly build new bughives.
 
We don't have them here but I thought the point of an HOA was to avoid a neighborhoods becoming a run down nigger ghetto.

As for homes in general, the alternative is to have infinitely increasing rent paid to someone who can evict you at any time who will do the bare minimum in terms of maintenance. The home I own is a place for my family to grow in relative safety. Paying a few thousand dollars a year in property tax sucks but hey that's life.
Plus, with houses, while in extreme cases you can get priced out of your neighborhood or it gets so shit you have to leave, whereas in apartment complexes you can get evicted because the owner found that they could sell out for a bigger, more expensive more building.

It comes up in urbanist media from time to time as an example of an "reconnecting the city" and "taking the streets back from the cars", but it's just a tiny bit of grass with some food trucks parked next to it; it would be completely unremarkable in the suburbs.

I've been to it (about a decade ago) and while it's fun to eat a slightly overpriced hot dog as you watch the cars zip below you, it isn't a real park-park and was closer to those "parks" in NYC than any park back home. It certainly doesn't make the downtown area anymore livable or convenient.

My point was that bugmen are never, EVER satisfied with what they get and act like it isn't enough.

Probably wouldn't even really care, but it would be amusing to just sell them back off, or to develop bughives that are explicitly "what they want" but yet they hate them completely (like, they have parking, or no niggers, etc).

The reality that they hate to admit is that there's not actually that much "demand" for bughives, because if there were, they'd be built up. Look at NYC, where they DO regularly build new bughives.

New York's not a good example because it's basically impractical to build anything that's not a condominium complex for the ultra-wealthy.

A better example could be that pointing out that mixed-use isn't the answer to "better neighborhoods" because the higher rents (combined with lack of parking) means that they always struggle. Unless it's already a shopping district, those ground-level tenants are just going to remain empty after some hipster burger place goes under after a year and other spaces never get used.
 
Plus, with houses, while in extreme cases you can get priced out of your neighborhood or it gets so shit you have to leave, whereas in apartment complexes you can get evicted because the owner found that they could sell out for a bigger, more expensive more building.
With fuckcars call it speculatory on my end or just armchair psychiatry, but does it seem like their property doesn't really mean anything to them, never mind other people's property. As previous posts have shown they don't seem to mind when their stuff gets stolen. If they get evicted they'll just find a new place to overcharge them on rent. If they burn a bridge with family because they have the wrong beliefs, they'll find a surrogate family. Everything is expendable, everything is replaceable in their world.
 
We don't have them here but I thought the point of an HOA was to avoid a neighborhoods becoming a run down nigger ghetto.
I always associated HOAs with newer neighborhoods. Never had a strong feeling about them either way. What they do I believe keeps the neighborhood nice, so your neighbor isn't dumping trash in his front yard. There's many of old houses here, and I only think there's one neighborhood that has an HOA, and it's the newest one.
 
I always associated HOAs with newer neighborhoods. Never had a strong feeling about them either way. What they do I believe keeps the neighborhood nice, so your neighbor isn't dumping trash in his front yard. There's many of old houses here, and I only think there's one neighborhood that has an HOA, and it's the newest one.
It's really hit or miss - I suspect the vast majority of HOAs are relatively innocuous (some around here are literally "you pay $x for snow plowing and mowing") but others are notoriously bad. Those are the ones you hear about.

The thing I've noticed is if the HOA DOES do stuff to make it nice, the amount you spend per month forever is often enough to just let you buy a nicer place without a HOA somewhere nearby.

I've heard that HOAs that get too big for their britches in CA can be declared a city, and then suddenly there's a bunch of shit they can't do.

The best HOAs are the ones that still forbid niggers. https://www.npr.org/2021/11/17/1049052531/racial-covenants-housing-discrimination
 
It's really hit or miss - I suspect the vast majority of HOAs are relatively innocuous (some around here are literally "you pay $x for snow plowing and mowing") but others are notoriously bad. Those are the ones you hear about.
Mine is pretty much minimal maintenance like a couple trash cans near some trails leading out of the area. Rules are don't cut down trees without permission, ask before building anything substantial and all cars visible from the street must be registered. In return I pay them $100/year. I think it's a fair deal. I suspect it was originally formed in the 1950s because the density required a communal water system as the lots are too small for each to have a well and septic system and it's not in a 'city' where they'd have that already.
 
With fuckcars call it speculatory on my end or just armchair psychiatry, but does it seem like their property doesn't really mean anything to them, never mind other people's property. As previous posts have shown they don't seem to mind when their stuff gets stolen. If they get evicted they'll just find a new place to overcharge them on rent. If they burn a bridge with family because they have the wrong beliefs, they'll find a surrogate family. Everything is expendable, everything is replaceable in their world.

I wouldn't say it's like that. They have possessions they value and would hate to lose and the concept of place doesn't exist ("rootless cosmopolitan", etc.), but it's a softer version of MovieBob's "no bad tactics, just bad targets". (We'll exclude the radical antifa types as that will dilute our comparison). Things that happen are either a problem depending on what the target is. Train hits car? Comedy; they probably deserved it. Car hits cyclist? "Traffic violence", the cyclist is was in the right no matter the circumstances. Neighborhood torn down for freeway? A tragedy. Neighborhood torn down for a new failtrain? Progress, tough shit.

Most of this isn't even being evil or psychopathic; if they even have the mental awareness to realize the difference it's just being self-centered, and being self-centered is one of the defining characteristics of what makes a bugman a bugman and why they're unpleasant people to be around.

Those aren't HOAs, those are neighborhood deeds. Some of them have more strange rules than others, my neighborhood is extremely anti-HOA but there are still rules and regulations, like how many livestock animals you can have on your lot (basically you can have x many "animal units" per acre, a horse or cow is one animal unit, sheep/goats are half, chickens are one-fifth).

Deeds are the restrictions and rules when you go into a subdivision, established by the first generation of neighbors with a time limit (after 30 years or whatever, it could expire). This is how some of the Houston neighborhoods changed—Greenway Plaza, a collection of office towers, a hotel, and other buildings linked with an underground shopping concourse (it sounds impressive, but the shopping concourse was never a big draw and was mostly a few restaurants and related businesses doing lunch-hour business)—was built when buying out a neighborhood, with the "hook" being that the deed restrictions were about to expire, they likely wouldn't be able to renew it (and commercial businesses could sprout up, as it was an Inner Loop-area subdivision with rising land values); so the neighbors took the generous buyout option.

HOAs are legal entities with fees, a board, and ownership in common areas (like a clubhouse and/or swimming pool).

Incidentally, the clubhouse and pool (some big apartment complexes have basically the same thing) provide a community anchor, which urbanists claim doesn't exist.

yeah the faggy ones are the ones that cost $250-500 a month or more. It gets nuts out there!

There'd better be nightly complementary drinks and hors d'oeuvres for that price.

Mine is pretty much minimal maintenance like a couple trash cans near some trails leading out of the area. Rules are don't cut down trees without permission, ask before building anything substantial and all cars visible from the street must be registered. In return I pay them $100/year. I think it's a fair deal. I suspect it was originally formed in the 1950s because the density required a communal water system as the lots are too small for each to have a well and septic system and it's not in a 'city' where they'd have that already.
Ideally you shouldn't have to have HOAs, if someone has to play tard wrangler to make sure that your neighbor's yard isn't a trash heap you have straight-up shitty neighbors.

But we're getting off track...not every single-family neighborhood has HOAs, and the ones you hear horror stories about are even fewer in number. In comparison, pretty much every established apartment building (except for the most disgusting, run-down duplexes/4-plexes) has a litany of rules, regulations, and fees.
 
it would be completely unremarkable in the suburbs
I've not been to Dallas but retarded yuppies have such weird relationships with urban parks. I have like 5 or 6 really nice parks within walking distance and they're just places for my kids to play, not a place for me to do yoga lessons or "go for a run" or play frolf of whatever. Completely different mindset, I guess it comes from them living in a shoebox.
 
Last edited:
There'd better be nightly complementary drinks and hors d'oeuvres for that price.
Some basically are "live in a country club" and can come close to being worth it - or more.

A friend had a house that was beautiful, up against a forest on one side and an immaculate golf course on the other, and there was a full-service restaurant and bar included in the HOA fees that was basically subsidized up the ass by everyone who barely lived there. He partook, and he said he could go there a whole fucking month and maybe see someone else 4-5 times max.
 
there was a full-service restaurant and bar included in the HOA fees that was basically subsidized up the ass by everyone who barely lived there
My vacation home overseas is like that.

Urbanists want to LARP as working class with the upper middle class amenities they had on campus. Except for in those rarified places though, it’s more or less impossible to find a critical mass of people with that much income that want a bug hive.

Which is why higher end places like what you’re talking about have privacy and seclusion as a feature. I’ll bet the restaurant delivers too so you don’t have to hear some shrieking drunk menopausal cunt while you eat.
 
I've not been to Dallas but retarded yuppies have such weird relationships with urban parks. I have like 5 or 6 really nice parks within walking distance and they're just places for my kids to play, not a place for me to do yoga lessons or "go for a run" or play frolf of whatever. Completely different mindset, I guess it comes from them living in a shoebox.

If you want to go for a run or play Frisbee golf you won't find anything like that in walking distance in an urban area. Usually there's one or two big parks and assuming they're reasonably well-maintained and well-policed, they'll be only near the ultra-rich neighborhoods that bugmen can never hope to live in. Sure, they're easily accessible by car but it won't be convenient if you're planning on not using a vehicle.

Some basically are "live in a country club" and can come close to being worth it - or more.

A friend had a house that was beautiful, up against a forest on one side and an immaculate golf course on the other, and there was a full-service restaurant and bar included in the HOA fees that was basically subsidized up the ass by everyone who barely lived there. He partook, and he said he could go there a whole fucking month and maybe see someone else 4-5 times max.

Kind of reminds me of the articles on private restaurants in these New York apartment buildings. Good for filtering out the riff-raff but it seems like a waste of time and money for everyone involved.

I read that even though Holiday Inn (in its independent days) ran restaurants that were open to the public (and even advertised in smaller markets), they were only marginally profitable.

Urbanists want to LARP as working class with the upper middle class amenities they had on campus. Except for in those rarified places though, it’s more or less impossible to find a critical mass of people with that much income that want a bug hive.

The only thing urbanists talk about is "walkability" in the "city". They don't ask for the other perks. For example--my campus included a few food court areas, which had a mixture of real brands and foodservice exclusive brands (the latter not being very good, when it was run by the campus it was excellent), as well as a (tiny) convenience store...so it would make sense that in or adjacent to the bughive apartments would be food courts not too dissimilar from a shopping mall with recognizable brands. So, maybe a pizza-by-the-slice restaurant, a generic cafeteria food restaurant, Chick-fil-A Express, and one or two others.

There's also the student recreation center, basically a free fitness center...but their "leaders" like Jason think that apartment dwellers have no need for a "fitness" center because you can walk on the sidewalk (despite fitness centers being extremely common in urban areas, if your apartment complex didn't already have some sort of weight room)...and finally the student commons, which has aforementioned dining centers, event space, and entertainment facilities (bowling, pool, arcade games...but no alcohol).

Obviously these would be very different if involving the general public (notice I didn't mention libraries, we all know about urban public libraries), but if you're still pining over amenities the university had, why don't they bring those up?
 
There's also the student recreation center, basically a free fitness center...but their "leaders" like Jason think that apartment dwellers have no need for a "fitness" center because you can walk on the sidewalk (despite fitness centers being extremely common in urban areas, if your apartment complex didn't already have some sort of weight room)...and finally the student commons, which has aforementioned dining centers, event space, and entertainment facilities (bowling, pool, arcade games...but no alcohol).
Gym of life is such bullshit. I actually gained weight being an urban bug man who walks everywhere than being a suburbanite. Everything is right out my door I don't really need to travel far, add on Uber eats and other continent delivery services there isn't really much reason to leave my apartment day to day. I was actually more active with my car because it was so much easier to grab a friend and go explore somewhere. Meanwhile I look out the window of my high-rise and just stay home because it is hot or rainy and traveling is a hassle.
 
It's really hit or miss - I suspect the vast majority of HOAs are relatively innocuous (some around here are literally "you pay $x for snow plowing and mowing") but others are notoriously bad. Those are the ones you hear about.
Yeah, all I think about the HOA for that neighborhood does is lawn stuff, and I think funds a day camp for the children during the summer so their parents can go to work. The worst case HOA I heard about was from a friend who moved to Florida, and they would obsess over the littlest details of the lawn. But she and the others voted that HOA out, so it's much better now.
Gym of life is such bullshit. I actually gained weight being an urban bug man who walks everywhere than being a suburbanite. Everything is right out my door I don't really need to travel far, add on Uber eats and other continent delivery services there isn't really much reason to leave my apartment day to day. I was actually more active with my car because it was so much easier to grab a friend and go explore somewhere. Meanwhile I look out the window of my high-rise and just stay home because it is hot or rainy and traveling is a hassle.
Me as well, the most I gained weight was when I was in my first year of university and when everything was walkable. Or well, "walkable" when it's uncomfortable because of the homeless (especially post 2020 it got real bad in some parts of the city). Everything being nearby, and easy to pay for really slowed me down and made me extremely lazy until I went to the gym. In fact, I remember less people walking in university and that entire city compared to suburbs and back home. Most everyone stayed in their apartments, and hid there all day just like they complain about rural and suburban communities. Absolute hypocrites.
 
Back