Meanwhile everyone else can clearly understand governments also have the ability to choose to not be sued and give themselves immunity from their actions. Go ask all the people who get kicked out of their homes and paid seemingly pennies on the dollar from imminent domain or people who have their homes taken with civil asset forfeiture how easy the process was to dispute these takings and how successful they were at resolving it.
> You are deliberately ignoring the point with extraneous details.
I'm just trying to showcase how nonsensical your question of "how do you challenge HOA fines?" is and how you never actually expected a real answer from it.
If your point was that some HOAs have binding arbitration clauses, and you think those are generally bad, you maybe should have just said that instead of asking a question one couldn't possibly answer completely or wholly accurately. I didn't even know that's what you were going after with your original question, as once again every HOA bylaws I considered didn't have it in there. If my answer was entirely based off the bylaws I have in my drawer, binding arbitration would have never even come up. If you didn't want someone to actually answer the question you probably shouldn't ask it. A better first reply to my comment would have been something like:
"But sometimes its difficult challenging HOAs due to binding arbitration clauses."
Which, sure, can be true. Then we'd be talking about binding arbitration and its pros/cons instead of talking about questions which practically can't have specific answers without more details.
Suggesting disputing HOA fees means binding arbitration is like saying it costs hundreds of dollars to register a car. Sure, maybe in some jurisdictions that's true. But it only cost me $75 to register a car here. You can't possibly answer the question "How much does it cost to register a car?" accurately without further details. If you're wanting to talk about how some jurisdictions have high fees, just say that instead. See my point?
