Perimeter Fence and Public Goods
Discussions in homeowners’ Associations (HOAs) frequently and easily spiral downward to pointless exchanges and invectives. Our barebones HOA is not immune from this. A recent burglary within the subdivision has led to some heated exchanges about whether the HOA should fix the perimeter fence near the home that was broken into. Below are my thoughts that I sent out:
I would like to share my thoughts on the issue of the perimeter fence as a public good in terms of providing security for the Beacon Court community. (We can have other potential conceptions of the fence as a public good, e.g. providing aesthetic appeal and increasing subdivision property values.)
One can stipulate that the perimeter fence is a public good for providing security but be unwilling to contribute to finance the public good. In contrast, one can argue that the perimeter fence is not a public good for providing security. I fall into the latter camp for two main reasons.
First, Beacon Court is an open community. Anyone can gain access to the front entry of all 14 houses. The perimeter fence would provide some level of security if Beacon Court was a gated community. A broken portion of the perimeter fence in a gated community would imply that someone without authorization can gain access to the houses within it. This is not the case here. Broken perimeter fence around Beacon Court would thus mainly facilitate access in and out of the house closest to the breach rather than granting access to the entire subdivision. Another way to think about this is that propsective burglars are likely breach the perimeter fence near the house they seek to burglarize.
Second, as a consequence of the first point, security becomes an issue at the level of individual residences. I presume that every homeowner on Beacon Court reserves the right to erect fences around their own property, between houses on Beacon Court as well as other sides. As a quick survey of the subdivision demonstrates, some owners—-such as the previous owners of my house—-have acted on that right, and others have not. Beacon Court homeowners’ ability to act on this right further compartmentalizes home security to the level of each house away from the level of the subdivision.
I would argue that the perimeter fence security is different from snow removal and common-area lawn mowing. For snow removal, we do not have legal and physical delineation of property lines on Beacon Court the road. Each house simply owns 1/14 of the road. Common-area lawn maintenance provides aesthetic appeal for the overall subdivision. I appreciate well maintained front lawn, even though I can’t see it from my house. For these reasons, I happily contribute to financing both public goods.
I am happy that Ed and Rhonda decided to invest in good fences surrounding the house. Given the increases in burglaries, I would have considered investing in good fences if the house did not already have them. Moreover, my wife and I are discussing the possibility of installing an alarm system, precisely because we understand that Beacon Court is an open community and security at the level of our house far predominates anything that subdivision can provide.
Susanne’s comment about the message: “You are such a professor….”
