A libertarian community association in New Hampshire?

[jsorens]

Planned communities with their own "private governments," established contractually - variously known as neighborhood associations, community associations, or common-interest associations (CA's) - are a growing trend in the United States, particularly in the West. These associations are typically established in new developments, with Articles of Incorporation filed by the developer. They operate under governing boards that are almost always elected by residents, perhaps initially with some members appointed by the developer. Evidence has shown that homes in CAs see larger increases in property values than homes outside CAs, for a variety of reasons. CAs typically regulate what you can do to your property (architecture, landscaping, & so on), but the rules can be either strict or relaxed, precise or general. Sometimes they are also gated, which may or may not actually enhance security. Often they have special levies on residents to pay for neighborhood roads, sporting and entertainment options, snow removal, or items of common interest. There are even CAs for flying enthusiasts that maintain private airstrips. CAs frequently negotiate deals with the local government that exempt residents from local taxes paid for roads, utilities, or even schools, if the CA provides these services.

A common-interest association for libertarians would probably have some levies for maintaining common facilities and some limited restrictions on homeowners' treatment of their property in order to maintain property values. Of course, these levies and regulations would not be limitations on rights, per se, because they are voluntarily agreed to by all residents when they sign the contract purchasing or renting property in the CA. The attraction of a CA for libertarians would be the opt-out of local taxes, since most libertarians do not send their kids to public schools. This sort of opt-out would have to be negotiated between the developer and the local authority up-front. It is unlikely that a developer could legally exclude non-libertarians from living in the CA. However, non-libertarians are less likely than libertarians to live in a CA if it means that their kids can't go to the public school, or that they have to pay an annual levy for a community gun range, or a library stocked with Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard. Or annual gifts to the Free State Project, Cato Institute, and Reason Foundation. Or a flagpole that flies the Gadsden Flag. Let your imaginations run wild: there are plenty of ways you can set up a CA to filter out non-libertarians.

It could be either a whole neighborhood of standalone single-family homes or something as simple as a small condo complex. CAs come in all sizes.

Would Free Staters moving to NH be interested in living in such a place? I know some people at the Community Associations Institute ( http://www.caionline.org/ ), and they may well know developers who would be interested in this kind of project. Of course, it would probably be 5-10 years before anything would be built, if it ever happens - and there are plenty of obstacles. I don't believe that NH currently has any community associations of any kind - other than condo associations. However, I'd like to gauge interest & reactions to this idea. It may be a part of a long-term strategy aimed at continuing to draw freedom lovers into the Free State.

[BaRbArIaN]

If they had one in the Seacoast region sure.

[d_goddard]

No way.
Disengaging from society is unproductive and unhealthy.
We need to be out in the existing communities, winning hearts and minds.

[atr]

I don't believe that NH currently has any community associations of any kind - other than condo associations.

There are lots of community associations in NH. They include:

http://www.eastmannh.com/
http://www.rocherealty.com/communities.shtml

In addition, when common areas are formed within a new development, ownership often ends up in the hands of a newly-created neighborhood association.

My understanding is that to the extent that community associations exist in NH, they typically end up imposing burdens on the owners additional to and above and beyond the municipality's.

[Lloyd Danforth]

I've heard really bad things about some condo associations.

[jsorens]

No way.
Disengaging from society is unproductive and unhealthy.
We need to be out in the existing communities, winning hearts and minds.

I agree w/ that, but a CA isn't an isolated "compound" or anything; it's just a neighborhood for people of a particular interest. That said, I don't think a majority of Free Staters would be interested in this idea, but if enough are, building this sort of thing could attract more people to the Free State, which is a win-win for everyone. It's a way to bring in the "free towners" without trying to politically take over a town where lots of other people already live, or trying to create a town from scratch on some unincorporated, uninhabited territory in the northern wilderness.

[jsorens]

I've heard really bad things about some condo associations.

My understanding is that to the extent that community associations exist in NH, they typically end up imposing burdens on the owners additional to and above and beyond the municipality's.

Thanks for the info, Adam... It's interesting that some already exist, so presumably state law isn't too hostile toward these... Typically, neighborhood associations do impose more detailed property requirements than do zoning boards, and for the people that join them, that's the attraction. For instance, zoning boards in most states cannot require detailed aesthetic standards for new construction (exception: "historic preservation districts"). However, CAs can also get embroiled in legal disputes with owners who don't read the contracts they sign & don't want the rules applied to them. I suspect that a CA for libertarians would have to have fairly relaxed rules about what people can do with their property, & if you design a good governing instrument, then people know how the rules are made & what their contractual obligations are, making legal wrangling less likely.

[Rochelle]

Nah, no interest here. It sounds entirely too utopian..almost like the 19th century socialists who would go out and build their socialist planned communities, only to have them fall apart due to bickering in a few years.

The best "planned" communities for humans are the ones that spring up where ever we find ourselves

[jsorens]

Nah, no interest here. It sounds entirely too utopian..almost like the 19th century socialists who would go out and build their socialist planned communities, only to have them fall apart due to bickering in a few years.

The best "planned" communities for humans are the ones that spring up where ever we find ourselves

Well, whatever their flaws, I don't see CAs as utopian; I mean, tens of millions of Americans already live in these. By "planned" I just mean that there is a master development plan, with land set aside for residences, parks, businesses, and so on.

Here is the Wikipedia page for Summerlin, Nevada, a small city entirely comprised of homeowners' associations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerlin
From what I understand, they pay no taxes to any local authority, except maybe the county.

My biggest gripe about CAs is that I tend to associate them with wealthy, exurban, bedroom communities where no one actually works and plays, just sleeps. That stereotype is still generally true. But the people at the CAI mentioned (at this conference I attended) that there are now CAs moving into "new urbanism" and mixed-use development. In principle, it seems to me that you could have any kind of CA that you want: urban, rural, suburban, heavily planned, lightly regulated, whatever. For it to work in NH, it probably would have to be near pre-existing jobs, though. And to get the tax opt-outs we'd want, we might have to go to a town that was losing population & was willing to grant us the concessions we want in exchange for the economic stimulus we'd bring. Then there'd be the issue of setting up a CA that many libertarians would actually want to live in. I don't claim there aren't obstacles...

[error]

They probably need to eliminate the schools instead.

[jsorens]

There are 31 private roads in Hampton and every property owner is screaming for the Town to make their roads public because they have been taxed to death.  The Town looking for ways to cut expenses wants to eliminate garbage pick up and snow plowing of those roads.

Well, that's the deal: they should get reductions in taxes if the town isn't maintaining their roads. In this hypothetical libertarian CA scenario, I imagine that the town charter would be amended to guarantee that CAs would be able to opt out of any city services and receive a tax rebate equivalent to the reduction in city spending responsibility.

Last project I looked at for 64 new construction condos required a $22 million dollar construction loan to put in the road infrastructure, water, sewer and build the units.  La la la it all boils done to the money....

Yep, that's the biggest obstacle of them all. But if enough people are interested in living in a place like this, there's an incentive for a developer to build it. Doesn't have to be a libertarian developer, even.

[jsorens]

They probably need to eliminate the schools instead.

That's the big-ticket item. I think this whole idea will be worthwhile if & only if you can get that opt-out: no school taxes for our residents, we'll have our own homeschooling association or tuition school, thank you very much!

[anthonybpugh]

for me it would be a really big maybe.  Why in the hell would I turn over authority to a private government that I'm trying to wrest away from the other government?  I see a lot of comments from other libertarians that it is exceptable for the CA to behave in a manner which we would never allow from a government because it is obsensibly a private organization even though it essentially behaves in the exact same manner as any other municiple government out there.  I want to remove the ability of everyone to be able to control my property, not take it from one group and hand it over to another one who promises they can behave better.  I would agree to something like that only if I can be assured that their ability to pass rules is extremely limited. 

[jsorens]

for me it would be a really big maybe.  Why in the hell would I turn over authority to a private government that I'm trying to wrest away from the other government?  I see a lot of comments from other libertarians that it is exceptable for the CA to behave in a manner which we would never allow from a government because it is obsensibly a private organization even though it essentially behaves in the exact same manner as any other municiple government out there.  I want to remove the ability of everyone to be able to control my property, not take it from one group and hand it over to another one who promises they can behave better.  I would agree to something like that only if I can be assured that their ability to pass rules is extremely limited. 

You could have a completely "rule-less" community association, in principle. Is that what most prospective residents would want? This discussion should help tease out the answer to that question. One worry I have is that a rule-less CA might not seem either sincere or "responsible" to the town board with whom it would be negotiating. There would almost certainly have to be a formal governing structure, with an Articles of Incorporation and so on, but maybe the bylaws could severely limit its authority.

[d_goddard]

almost like the 19th century socialists who would go out and build their socialist planned communities

Oh hell, I would have dismissed this idea out of hand... but if you see what the Socialists have accomplished, in terms of effect on society... maybe there is something to this idea after all!