Author: HOAGOV

"The Voice for HOA Constitutionality". I have been a long-term homeowner rights authority, advocate and author of "The HOA-Land Nation Within America" (2019) and" Establishing the New America of independent HOA principalities" (2008). See HOA Constitutional Government at http://pvtgov.org. My efforts with HOAs took me to a broader concern that was deeply affecting the constituionality of HOAs. Those broad societal and plotical concerns caused me to start this new blog for my commentaries on the State of the New America.

No HOA police force — no HOA government!

In rebuttal to Mr. Dranias’ defense of his position on private HOA governments (see Goldwater Institute: regulating HOAs “stands Constitution on its head”, I am quite flattered that he mistakenly ascribes the argument of secessionist HOAs to me rather than to its originator, Robert A. Nelson, as indicated in my Commentary.
 
In his reply, he makes a fine distinction in reference to a government based on the use of a police force — a guess he means the right to lockup people — by municipalities and not by HOAs, which “justifies tailoring the principles found in the Bill of Rights to more tightly constrain the vast regulatory powers of local governments, rather than HOAs.”  And that tailoring apparently is, based on prior statements, “no contract interference.”  Mr. Dranias goes much too far in taking such a narrow view of what the Bill of Rights and Constitution are all about — and it ain’t merely contract interference.
 
As to his reference to “Staropoli’s mantra that an HOA is a private ‘government’ does not make it so” is quite correct, and neither does The Goldwater Institute’s lofty pronouncements.  Let’s debate the private government issue and related issue that HOAs are state actors.  Let’s not be surprised at the extent of contrary political and legal thought supporting the position that HOAs can be found to be state actors and be bound by the Bill of Right as any other government entity.  The published US Supreme Court criteria for state actors, not having been tested in court, include: a close nexus; symbiotic relationship; intertwinement with the operations of the entity; cooperation, support or coercion. An examination by a lay person can easily see such grounds based on a review of state laws. 
 
Let’s bring this important matter to the attention of a national organization that will sponsor such a discussion or conference and who will invite all parties to the table — and and means including pro-homeowner authorities and not this average Joe, and excluding all those property law attorneys who have not recognize arguments that HOAs are private governments.  

The 40 years of silence must come to an end now that some 20% of the US population live in HOAs.  Let’s get behind “transparency to the people” and “let them know what’s going on.”

Goldwater Institute: separate and unequal constitutions for HOAs

In reply to my Arizona Capitol Times Commentary of December 12th, Constitutional Center Director Nick Dranias believes HOAs are bona fide consensual relationships and regulating homeowners associations would “stand the Constitution on its head.”  (See Goldwater Institute: regulating HOAs “stands Constitution on its head”).

In the late 1950s the Southern states enacted a Poll Tax and instituted certain “tests” in order for citizens to be eligible to register to vote.  No federal or state laws were violated, since the states were permitted to determine the methods for registering citizens, so long as it was not based on race (15th Amendment).  Of course, the tax was set at a level very few Blacks could afford to pay, and among the test questions were such gems as (LBJ: Master of the Senate, Robert A. Caro, p. x, 2002).
Name all of Alabama’s 67 county judges.
What was the date that Oklahoma was admitted to the Union?
How many bubbles in  bar of soap?
While legal, these state laws were intended to keep Blacks from voting, and were plainly an unjust and unfair vehicle to support the will of the local power groups.  Today, we can ask about the intentions and use of privately developed HOA restrictive covenants, and the arguments by the legal-academic aristocrats promoting the supremacy of servitude laws over constitutional law:
Can private, contractual governments be used to  circumvent Constitutional protections?  If so, then what becomes of the Constitution?  Can the people opt-out of the Union?  President Lincoln didn’t think so, and Americans paid dearly to make that point.
The Goldwater Institute’s continued dialog on HOAs and the Constitution reflects the view of HOAs as independent principalities existing outside the Constitution, and thus establishing a new order for Americans, a New America of HOA-lands.

Goldwater Institute: regulating HOAs "stands Constitution on its head"

In reply to my Arizona Capitol Times Commentary of December 12th (see The HOA experiment in privatized government is alive and well, and growing), Constitutional Center Director Nick Dranias believes HOAs are bona fide consenual relationships and regulating homeowners associations would “stand the Constitution on its head.”  ——

HOAs are not private governments

By Nick Dranias

Friday, December 19, 2008

George K. Staropoli in his recent commentary, “Just what is the Goldwater Institute trying to say,” exhibits a deep misunderstanding of both the Institute’s reform proposals and constitutional law when he proclaims limitations on the power of local government will somehow lead to “secessionist” homeowner’s associations, which could then “circumvent the Constitution.”
Staropoli’s mantra that an HOA is a private “government” does not make it so. There is a fundamental difference between local governments, such as municipalities, which enjoy geographical monopolies on the use of force through their police powers, and HOAs, which clearly do not have such powers.
That difference is what justifies tailoring the principles found in the Bill of Rights to more tightly constrain the vast regulatory powers of local governments, rather than HOAs. Indeed, Staropoli’s radical notion that the principles found in the Bill of Rights should instead be applied through legislation to regulate private, consensual relationships stands the Constitution on its head. The Goldwater Institute stands proudly behind its idea that the equivalent of “municipal constitutions” are needed to reform local government.

####

Look for my rebuttal, coming soon, calling for a national debate on HOAs and the Constitution:   Can private, contractual governments be used to  circumvent Constitutional protections?  If so, then what is the purpose of the Constitution?

Goldwater Institute: regulating HOAs “stands Constitution on its head”

In reply to my Arizona Capitol Times Commentary of December 12th (see The HOA experiment in privatized government is alive and well, and growing), Constitutional Center Director Nick Dranias believes HOAs are bona fide consenual relationships and regulating homeowners associations would “stand the Constitution on its head.”  ——

HOAs are not private governments

By Nick Dranias

Friday, December 19, 2008

George K. Staropoli in his recent commentary, “Just what is the Goldwater Institute trying to say,” exhibits a deep misunderstanding of both the Institute’s reform proposals and constitutional law when he proclaims limitations on the power of local government will somehow lead to “secessionist” homeowner’s associations, which could then “circumvent the Constitution.”
Staropoli’s mantra that an HOA is a private “government” does not make it so. There is a fundamental difference between local governments, such as municipalities, which enjoy geographical monopolies on the use of force through their police powers, and HOAs, which clearly do not have such powers.
That difference is what justifies tailoring the principles found in the Bill of Rights to more tightly constrain the vast regulatory powers of local governments, rather than HOAs. Indeed, Staropoli’s radical notion that the principles found in the Bill of Rights should instead be applied through legislation to regulate private, consensual relationships stands the Constitution on its head. The Goldwater Institute stands proudly behind its idea that the equivalent of “municipal constitutions” are needed to reform local government.

####

Look for my rebuttal, coming soon, calling for a national debate on HOAs and the Constitution:   Can private, contractual governments be used to  circumvent Constitutional protections?  If so, then what is the purpose of the Constitution?

Has Calif. CLRC supported HOA industry in Davis-Stirling rewrite?

Excerpts from my letter to CLRC regarding its defense against claims of a pro-HOA bias.
 
 
Your email (see Appendix A) to Ms Vanitzian of December 12th has come to my attention.  Her complaint focused on the domination of  CLRC by real estate lawyers and the national business trade lobbying group, Community Associations Institute (CAI) in the presence of its California state chapter, the California Legislative Action Committee (a joint committee of eight CAI state chapters).  And that homeowner advocates have been excluded from any meaningful consideration of this Davis-Stirling rewrite that affects them, personally.
 
I must agree with Ms Vanitzian that there appears to be a bias in favor of these outsider attorney interlopers, these legal-academic aristocrats, claiming to represent the interests of the CID homeowners, and supported by the CAI national trade group that does not have any HOA membership category, just HOA management members. 
 
It is interesting to note that on March 24, 2008 Ms Vanitzian’s Letter to the Editor appeared in the Central Valley Business Times, in which she not only criticized AB 1921, but CLRC as well (see Appendix B).  On April 11th I emailed CLRC my criticisms of AB 1921 and CLRC’s failure to address Chapter 2, Member Bill of Rights, which was just an empty placeholder in the bill. 
 

CLRC apparently wrestled with what to do about a bill of rights and presented a perplexed state of mind to the public: 

 

However, a bill of rights would probably go beyond the substantive rights

that are currently provided in the law. What might those additional rights be? . . .

How would these rights apply in a CID context, where the governing body is

a private association rather than the state?  CLRC MM05-03.

 
And yet, CLRC sees no need for a Members Bill of Rights.  It has fallen right in line with the proponents of a New America of top-down special laws for the governance of a segment of the population living in HOAs.  Special laws that ignore the US Constitution with its concern for individual freedoms and liberties, for justice, and for protections against government abuse, whether public or private. 
 
 
Read the complete letter at CLRC.