Home Owners Associations and the motivation to oppose annexation

I began to wonder why individuals who were not even residents of Hamilton County thus not affected by the annexation, would come out so strongly opposed to it. Realizing that some of these individuals were members of an HOA board in the area it started to become clearer.

In the absence of municipal services the HOAs effectively fill the void by providing a communal entity to more efficiently deliver the essentials like police, snow, common area maintenance, etc. They are also, in effect taxing authorities by way of their dues structures. EXCEPT they are not subject to nearly the oversight and public disclosure that municipalities are. The neighborhoods are governed by the "volunteers" who are elected by the small percentage of homeowners who attend the meetings (the general membership is invited only once annually, for the elections). I've attended some of these "annual" meetings and if a resident dares to question expenses by the HOA they are soundly beaten down by the board who really doesn't appreciate anyone questioning the wisdom of their decisions. They are, after all, the elected government of their little part of the world.

The HOA leaders are fighting this annexation tooth and nail to protect their power (and possible perks from vendors to the HOA). Heaven forbid that it would make sense for some of the neighborhoods to LOWER their dues and take advantage of the municipal services offered by Fishers. Sure the snow wouldn't move quite as fast but the HOAs are not giving residents the whole picture since they aren't required to disclose just how many tens of thousands of dollars of spending they control to "provide" services that are possibly being provided through rigged or no-bid contracts. At a minimum the annexation discussions should include the current real costs of these services (broken down on a per household basis, just as the Town Of Fishers is being required to do) to present a truly accurate picture of the situation. If the residents were to become as emotionally involved in their HOA as they are in this fight they would see that these HOA leaders can be meglomanic big spenders just as any mayor or town council can be.

Yes, the homeowners choose which neighborhood they want to live in and whether or not they agree to pay dues under an HOA contract. I would submit though that the choice of which community or area you want to live also comes with a "caveat emptor" in that if you choose to live in an unicorporated area, at some time you will become part of the corporation. It's the same thing as if you lived next to an undeveloped parcel of land it's likely that at some point your view will be spoiled by the development of housing or a cell phone tower or a gas station. I do agree that forced annexation carries a negative connotation but it certainly is not "wrong, period". Not in this case. The reality is that our taxes (the current residents of Fishers) will increase at a faster rate if ALL unannexed areas are not brought on to the rolls and that is not fair to us.

I've been accused of espousing the ideals of the democratic party but I'm all about capatalism and wealth preservation. My support of this annexation is (believe it or not) is in the interest of preserving more of MY acquired wealth.