Where Is The "Free-est" Place to Live?

[TripleB]

The least free place to live, as far as I have personally experienced is in Manhattan in an condo/apartment you buy that is subject to their board of whatever it's called. (they are like Homeowner's Associations but on Crystal Meth - these boards have approval to who you sell your apartment to, and if they don't approve, you can never sell it.)

Living here you are subject to ridiculous rules of NY State, ridiculous rules of NYC, and the ridiculous rules and control of the condo board.

What are the free-est places you can live? Obviously in a house that you own, so you are not subject to a HOA or Landlord. Probably in an undeveloped county land, where there's no municipal authority over you.

I hate the idea of buying land and then having to get permission from my masters in order to build something on it. I imagine everywhere in the US is like this, even in county-zoned places.

If freedom is your sole factor, where would you live? Ignore local jobs, taxes, weather, and anything else.

[moda0306]

I'd imagine AZ, TX, or somewhere else in the southwest.

[D1984]

If your main concept of "freedom" involves not wanting to have someone tell you what you can/can't put up on your land (so long as it isn't harming someone else) or do with your own property then perhaps rural Alabama or Mississippi would be what you are looking for; many unincorporated (i.e. not part of an actual incorporated city) areas in those states have little if any building/zoning codes to speak of. With that said; three caveats come to mind:

One, who the heck wants to live in rural Alabama???  :D (no offense intended to any rural Alabamans on here). Not really my idea of paradise and the tax system is one of the most regressive in the nation to boot (some counties in AL have 10% sales taxes-even on food and other basic necessities-when you count state tax, local tax, and local option tax).

Two, be careful (in Alabama, Texas, Mississippi, or anywhere else) about local laws that don't specifically prohibit or allow something (not just dealing with land use; these kinds of laws can be about anything) but that say it is up to the discretion of local authorties or cities; if someone in a local poistion of power or part of the local good ol' boy network takes a dislike to you then their "discretion" may come into play.

Three (and this also applies anywhere and kind of ties into number two above): Just because somewhere seems free on paper based on local and/or state laws doesn't mean that it will actually be experieinced as free to someone who isn't part of the local culture, religion, who didn't grow up there, etc. Sizable sections of Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho come to mind; not a whole lot of regulations once you get out of the cities and state/local taxes don't seem so bad but if you aren't a Mormon and/or don't lead a traditionally conservative lifestyle you won't fit in and the city/county government might give you hell for every little violation that they would overlook if you were a part of their little in-group.

As I recall, the Free State Project did a good bit of research a few years back into which states were "freest" considering size of government, local laws, restrictions on police powers, regulations, taxes, etc and Montana and New Hampshire topped the list.

[MediumTex]

I have lots of relatives who live in rural Mississippi and the people who live out there are good people, nothing wrong with them at all.

The thing is, though, I live in a different world than they do.  Every attempt I make to connect with them feels like I am trying to bridge a gulf that simply can't be bridged.  It's not that my world is better than theirs, it's just different.  The things that I like, am entertained by and which give my life meaning don't necessarily mean anything to them at all.

Living in such an environment on a full-time basis would probably not feel much like freedom to me, no matter how much flexibility I had in the use of my property.

[smurff]

And I live in the NYC metro area in a coop (cooperative apartment) where I had to be approved by the board of directors of the corporation that owns the property. 

The reality is that in NYC one is free to buy or not buy real estate, and there is a variety of different ownership vehicles for that. One is also free to rent, too.  The advantage of coops here, where people  all over the world see as a land of opportunity and want to move here onto this set of land-constrained islands is that it's less likely for your neighbor to sell his property to a drug dealer, an opium den, a chronic deadbeat, a bordello, a dance hall, a murderer--something condos can only protect against with high sales prices and monthly fees, which keep out the lower income end of these practitioners.

And don't forget that many of the restrictions in such properties are imposed by insurance companies, not necessarily the coop board.

Here you have the choice of single family homes, condos, coops, "condops" which are coops that run on
condominium rules, townhouses/rowhouses.

In other parts of the country there are real estate developments with homeowners associations that specify, under the threat of all sorts of penalties, every detail of the homes down to whether one can fly an American flag on ones own property. So there is the potential for dealing with real estate-related unfreedom even in states like Mississippi and Alabama.

[TripleB]

The advantage of coops here, where people  all over the world see as a land of opportunity and want to move here onto this set of land-constrained islands is that it's less likely for your neighbor to sell his property to a drug dealer, an opium den, a chronic deadbeat, a bordello, a dance hall, a murderer--something condos can only protect against with high sales prices and monthly fees, which keep out the lower income end of these practitioners.

The problem with this kind of power is that it's easily abused. What if the coop was staunchly left wing, and I had a very right wing public blog. They google my name, see the blog and decide they don't want "my type" living in their building.

Why did we let the murderer out of prison if he isn't able to integrate back into society and live a normal life? If he's not rehabilitated then let's keep him in jail indefinitely or execute him. Why let him out after 30 years in prison and then discriminate against where he can live? If he didn't "serve his time" then lock him back up. If he did, then let him live in your apartment building.

Why don't we have the problem throughout the country where people don't have tough coops to protect against drug dealers and bordellos from moving in next door? How does the rest of the country manage with this huge risk?

Perhaps because if a dance hall, bordello, or opium den wanted to move next door to a house, the neighbor would call the police and have them arrested. Certainly there's enough police in NYC to handle this... there's enough to unconstitutionally search every person entering the subway. Strange that there isn't enough to shut down opium dens and bordellos.

As far as HOAs being around the country, you're absolutely correct and I'm amazed that people move into houses/condos within them. Every financial forum I've been on has at least one major complaint per week about how horrible their HOA is screwing them over.

Perhaps with the proliferation of the internet, the next generation of home buyers will have better information at their disposal and simply boycott living in HOA locations. Or perhaps I'm the odd one in the bunch and people do prefer living in a coop and asking the board permission everytime you want to "pass water."

[shoestring]

I don't think any place that's ever existed has been well and truly free.  There's never been a state with voluntary taxation for example.

I think you've got to pick and choose based on your personal desires, and you must prioritized and compromise to feel as free as possible.  I for instance do not savor the thought of smoking certain substances, although I agree that it ought to be legal to do so.  Similarly, there are many, many people who refuse to or see no utility in owning a handgun.  I refuse to live anywhere I cannot own a handgun or have to register it with the authorities.

Neither of these criteria are "right".  They are personal however.

But for me a compromise might be to live somewhere certain substances are illegal but handguns aren't, like in many US states.  Someone else who's the opposite way well prefer somewhere in Europe.  It'd be better to have somewhere both are completely legal but utopia does literally mean nowhere.

[Tortoise]

You may want to check out the Free State Project (as D1984 mentioned). New Hampshire seems to be a state that a lot of freedom-loving people are especially drawn to. I've never visited the place, though.

http://freestateproject.org/

[smurff]

Most private corporations are like that. They can turn away prospective shareholders at will. The difference with a coop is that the private corporation owns real estate and the shareholders have the right to live in the real estate.

Coops aren't the only homeownership system that turns away people who might otherwise make good neighbors.  Some homeownership associations (condos especially) have the right to exercise the right of first refusal. Of course then they might have to buy the unit from the seller, but it is a way of exercising control.

[smurff]

Why did we let the murderer out of prison if he isn't able to integrate back into society and live a normal life? If he's not rehabilitated then let's keep him in jail indefinitely or execute him. Why let him out after 30 years in prison and then discriminate against where he can live? If he didn't "serve his time" then lock him back up. If he did, then let him live in your apartment building.

Maybe I should have used the example of convicted child molester instead of murderer in my example. The point is that apartment living involves lots of sharing, from walls to washers and dryers, and with the exception of some condo projects and townhouses/brownstones, most multiple residential properties, whether occupancy rights are held as tenants,
homeowners, or shareholders, exercise some discretion about who the walls and parking decks are shared.

I forgot to mention:  because of the hassles involved in buying a coop, they tend to sell at a discount to condominiums of the same size and with the same features in the same street block. I've seen the (almost) same condo unit sell for twice as much as its coop counterpart. That means a $1.6 million condo could sell for around $800K as a coop.

Forget single family residences in manhattan. There are so few affordable (under $5 million) left they've become tourist attractions and curiosities.

[smurff]

Now, TripleB, if you were talking about the distortions (and unfreedom) introduced to the housing markets by rent stabilization laws, I have to agree with you.

NYC has a very different residential market compared to the rest if the country. I believe in much of the USA some 60 to 70 percent of adults own their own homes and 30 to 40 percent rent. The stats may be different now as the foreclosure crisis continues. But in NYC it's the other way--about 70 percent renters and 30 percent homeowners.

[MachineGhost]

If freedom is your sole factor, where would you live? Ignore local jobs, taxes, weather, and anything else.

Antartica.

MG

[MachineGhost]

I don't think any place that's ever existed has been well and truly free.  There's never been a state with voluntary taxation for example.

Early Greece had liturgy.  Where peer pressure and ostracism was used instead of the barrel of the gun.

MG

[MachineGhost]

Here you have the choice of single family homes, condos, coops, "condops" which are coops that run on
condominium rules, townhouses/rowhouses.

What are the differences between a HOA, a condo and a coop/condops?

MG

[MachineGhost]

You may want to check out the Free State Project (as D1984 mentioned). New Hampshire seems to be a state that a lot of freedom-loving people are especially drawn to. I've never visited the place, though.

http://freestateproject.org/

I find the claims about NH to be spurious.  Most of the population seems to be East Coast Liberals living in bedroom commuter cities.  Not exactly a Libertarian bastion.  That the FSP can't get off the ground after all this time just tells me they're not radical enough to make a difference.

MG

[TripleB]

What are the differences between a HOA, a condo and a coop/condops?

Coop is an entity that owns the building and the units in it, and you "buy" into the entity so you have the right to live in the building, but because you don't really "own" the unit itself (because it's more of a 3rd party ownership arrangement), you can't sell the unit to whomever you'd like, and are essentially at the mercy of the board to let you move out. You will be paying fees monthly to the Coop for things like trash and security. If you stop paying the fees, they can kick you out and seize your "ownership" position.

A condo is more like a house, where you actually own it, except it's usually structured physically like an apartment. There are shared facilities and you usually won't have your own backyard. All condos (as far as I know) are part of HOAs (Home Owners Associations). The HOA owns and controls the common areas. By virtue of your condo being on the property, you must be part of the HOA. The HOA sometimes pays for shared cable TV, internet, water, and your monthly dues will include those fees built in, whether you want cable TV or not.

A HOA doesn't necessarily need to be used for condo-type units. There are housing developments where someone built 20 to 100 or so of the same type of houses in one area, sometimes as part of a gated community. You're living in your house, that looks like a regular residential house with a full back yard. But, you're under the auspice of the HOA. The HOA does things like tells people they can't leave disabled vehicles in their driveways. In theory, you give up freedom of what you can do (i.e. now you have to follow HOA rules, that are subject to change at any time if the board votes on it), to protect your investment to ensure your neighbors don't do stupid stuff that could devalue your property.

HOAs pass liability through to the homeowners/condo owners. If someone falls in a common area (whether they are a resident or not) and sue the HOA for $1M, then all the HOA members will pay a special fee to cover the $1M divided by the number of HOA members. If you fail to pay dues (either monthly or special assessment) then the HOA can assume ownership of your property and liquidate it.

My absolute favorite (sarcasm) part of HOAs is when the HOAs do criminal things like board members illegally giving no-bid construction contracts to their friends/family, and you sue the HOA, when you win the judgment, the HOA passes the judgement down to all the members as a special assessment fee, so now all your neighbors hate you forever.

HOAs also do things like tell you you cannot rent your condo/home out to people. If more than about 20% of people in a condo are renters, then the other owners typically cannot sell their units, because banks won't give mortgages if too many people in the units are renters, because the banks feel renters will allow the place to fall into disrepair, whereas the owners will be more responsible. Technically, this is again, "protecting your investment" because the HOA disallows your neighbors from renting their units (without permission) and thus freeing you up to sell because banks will issue mortgages if enough % of owners live there.

Personally, I'm disgusted enough reading through corporate employee handbooks, federal guidelines such as SOX and HIPAA, and criminal laws, to make sure I am following the rules, that I don't want to add HOA/Coop rules to the list of regulations I need to abide by.

I wasted 10 hours trying to beat a photo-radar ticket last year. I did beat it, because I found a "loophole" after spending 10 hours reading the law. What a waste of society's resources. A machine tickets me for going 11MPH in a speed zone that is artificially lowered by 10 MPH to get more tickets, and I waste 10 hours of my personal time (worth $200/hour billable to my clients at work) to bypass it, purely out of principal.

My point is that I don't want to live in a place where there's a 500 page HOA handbook I now need to read through and figure out how they are going to screw me because my satellite dish is 2 degrees askew to the left and they decide to fine me $100 for that (yes HOA can issue fines that if you don't pay, they can seize your unit and sell it).

[Freedom_Found]

You may want to check out the Free State Project (as D1984 mentioned). New Hampshire seems to be a state that a lot of freedom-loving people are especially drawn to. I've never visited the place, though.

http://freestateproject.org/

I find the claims about NH to be spurious.  Most of the population seems to be East Coast Liberals living in bedroom commuter cities.  Not exactly a Libertarian bastion.  That the FSP can't get off the ground after all this time just tells me they're not radical enough to make a difference.

MG

There is another free state project in Wyoming that is doing much better than the NH one. Check it out at http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswforum/index.php

Also, the most extensive study about levels of freedom in all 50 states is listed here: http://mercatus.org/freedom-50-states-2011

You can also use this site to change the weighting of what you think is most important for "freedom" just by moving the sliders. http://freedom.robocourt.com/

If you are interested in ranking the states on any one specific category (gun control, taxes, etc), just move all the sliders to the left (to zero) then move the one you are interested in to the right, and it will rank all the states from 1-50 based on that one category. Very interesting!!

Enjoy!!

[smurff]

What are the differences between a HOA, a condo and a coop/condops?

MachineGhost, I was going to write a long description of these, but the best place to look is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condop for condops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_cooperative for coops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condominium for condominiums

Especially interesting is the discussion on the wikipedia's "Housing Cooperative" page about the relationship between New York's rent control/rent stabilization laws, the subsequent inability of landlords to afford to maintain their properties (including pay taxes) and the formation of coops.  New York City, especially Manhattan, has a very different housing situation from the rest of the country because of its age, geography/topography (four of the five boroughs, including Manhattan, are on islands, which limits the ability to grow with population to vertical, multi-family developments rather than annexation of unincorporated lands), and rent stabilization laws.  Rent stabilization laws in particular govern how much a landlord can charge as maximum rent on a given unit, set the maximum amount the unit's rent can increase annually, and sets forth regulations on succession (which family member living in the unit gets to keep it, at the stabilized rate, when the original lessee dies), how much more the landlord can charge when renovations and other improvements to the property are made, etc.

Nearly every adult who has lived in New York City since the 1980s (if not earlier) has at least one housing horror story, usually some fallout of rent control/rent stabilization laws.  Nearly every landlord has horror stories, too, because of these laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_control_in_New_York has a good discussion of rent control, if you're curious enough to read up on it.  This gets back to the OP, which discussed how coops and other multifamily housing arrangements in Manhattan lead to less freedom.

Homeowners Associations (HOAs) are covered in the condominium and condop wikipedia pages.

[TripleB]

The rent in NYC is too damn high.