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.

HOA uses 'lost your rights' to obtain compliance

In this time of a presidential campaign with pronouncements of democracy and socialism, of centralized government and individual rights, and of support for corporations and a failure to help homeowners, I’d like to congratulate the L.A. Times and the Associations columnists, Vanitzian and Glassman, for their timely article concerning the rights of homeowners in HOAs/CIDs — “Obeying rules doesn’t mean yielding rights.”

 

In response to the writer’s statement about the board’s “nebulous lectures about ‘rights'”, the columnists’ reply is right on target: “Owners don’t give up any of their individual rights or liberties . . . when they purchase . . . ” a home in an HOA.  The surrender of one’s rights has always required an explicit consent to a specific right, and any generalized assertion of a loss of rights by the “central government”, the HOA board, is an arrogant assumption of wrongful powers. 

 

We are still in America, aren’t we?  Are we not talking about a government under contract, the HOA, and not a public government?  How dare the board ascribe attributes of public government to the HOA when there is a contract that specifies the duties, responsibilities and rights of all parties.  Does an absence of the surrender of a right mean that the board can usurp that right?  Contracts cannot  be modified without the consent of the other party.  The contract is meaningless when a socialistic “greater benefit” is allowed to deny the written contract.

 

Are we still a country under the rule of law, or under the rule of man?  Are HOAs free to do as they please in total disregard of the rights, privileges and immunities as stated by the supreme law of the land.  Has the Constitution been replaced by the property laws governing HOAs?

 

Apparently the California Law Review Commission (CLRC), a state agency, believes so when it recommended a rewrite of the CID statutes, the Davis-Stirling Act,  this year –  see SB1921.  CLRC didn’t feel it necessary under its duty to support the Constitution, and submitted a blank Chapter 2, “Member Bill of Rights”. (It was defeated for other reasons not related to protecting homeowner rights under the US and California constitutions).  My criticism can be found at CLRC.

 

 


HOA uses ‘lost your rights’ to obtain compliance

In this time of a presidential campaign with pronouncements of democracy and socialism, of centralized government and individual rights, and of support for corporations and a failure to help homeowners, I’d like to congratulate the L.A. Times and the Associations columnists, Vanitzian and Glassman, for their timely article concerning the rights of homeowners in HOAs/CIDs — “Obeying rules doesn’t mean yielding rights.”

 

In response to the writer’s statement about the board’s “nebulous lectures about ‘rights'”, the columnists’ reply is right on target: “Owners don’t give up any of their individual rights or liberties . . . when they purchase . . . ” a home in an HOA.  The surrender of one’s rights has always required an explicit consent to a specific right, and any generalized assertion of a loss of rights by the “central government”, the HOA board, is an arrogant assumption of wrongful powers. 

 

We are still in America, aren’t we?  Are we not talking about a government under contract, the HOA, and not a public government?  How dare the board ascribe attributes of public government to the HOA when there is a contract that specifies the duties, responsibilities and rights of all parties.  Does an absence of the surrender of a right mean that the board can usurp that right?  Contracts cannot  be modified without the consent of the other party.  The contract is meaningless when a socialistic “greater benefit” is allowed to deny the written contract.

 

Are we still a country under the rule of law, or under the rule of man?  Are HOAs free to do as they please in total disregard of the rights, privileges and immunities as stated by the supreme law of the land.  Has the Constitution been replaced by the property laws governing HOAs?

 

Apparently the California Law Review Commission (CLRC), a state agency, believes so when it recommended a rewrite of the CID statutes, the Davis-Stirling Act,  this year –  see SB1921.  CLRC didn’t feel it necessary under its duty to support the Constitution, and submitted a blank Chapter 2, “Member Bill of Rights”. (It was defeated for other reasons not related to protecting homeowner rights under the US and California constitutions).  My criticism can be found at CLRC.

 

 


Where's the compelling reason to protect HOAs?

 
“This expedient departure from principle was nothing new in American history” wrote James MacGregor Burns in Roosevelt: The Soldier of Freedom.   He was referring to the denial of constitutional rights resulting from the internment of the Japanese here in America. 
 
We all can understand expediency in the time of war, but where is the justification for the denial of constitutional rights to Americans living in homeowners associations?  What threat do HOAs pose to warrant the denial of rights, not as an expedient, but permanently?  However, the opposite is quite evident:  it is the government’s protection of these authoritarian regimes itself that is sanctioning this denial of rights.  And, it’s not even an expedient!  And, there’s no compelling justification for protecting the general interests, if any, of the government. 
 
How can anyone, including our government officials and legislators, truly accept the over-simplified, misleading sound-bite argument that “the homeowner signed a contract” in face of strong evidence to the contrary?  Or that, after the imposition of pro-HOA laws, any further attempt for reform now becomes “contract interference”?
 
It is disgraceful conduct by our government officials under strong special interest pressures.  If not pressure from the lobbyists, then it must be a rejection of American democracy by our government itself!
 
 
Welcome to the New America of independent HOA principalities!
See Author Show video on the exciting book, Establishing the New America of independent HOA

Where’s the compelling reason to protect HOAs?

 
“This expedient departure from principle was nothing new in American history” wrote James MacGregor Burns in Roosevelt: The Soldier of Freedom.   He was referring to the denial of constitutional rights resulting from the internment of the Japanese here in America. 
 
We all can understand expediency in the time of war, but where is the justification for the denial of constitutional rights to Americans living in homeowners associations?  What threat do HOAs pose to warrant the denial of rights, not as an expedient, but permanently?  However, the opposite is quite evident:  it is the government’s protection of these authoritarian regimes itself that is sanctioning this denial of rights.  And, it’s not even an expedient!  And, there’s no compelling justification for protecting the general interests, if any, of the government. 
 
How can anyone, including our government officials and legislators, truly accept the over-simplified, misleading sound-bite argument that “the homeowner signed a contract” in face of strong evidence to the contrary?  Or that, after the imposition of pro-HOA laws, any further attempt for reform now becomes “contract interference”?
 
It is disgraceful conduct by our government officials under strong special interest pressures.  If not pressure from the lobbyists, then it must be a rejection of American democracy by our government itself!
 
 
Welcome to the New America of independent HOA principalities!
See Author Show video on the exciting book, Establishing the New America of independent HOA

AZ OAH adjudication of HOA disputes held unconstitutional

  

What do these book titles have in common?

 

1.  The Case Against State Protection of Homeowners Associations (2003).

2.  Establishing the New America of independent HOA principalities (2008).

 

 

They reflect the reality of the public policy in support of the privatization of government functions, not services, to HOAs without subjecting them to the 14th Amendment as are all other government entities subject.  Today, in Arizona we see another prime example of this public policy toward homeowners living in HOAs, this policy that  “You are on your own.”

 

On October 2nd, the superior court appeal decision of the OAH case (See OAH-07-029 update: HOA appeals that OAH is unconstitutional) was handed down, declaring the DFBLS/OAH enabling statute unconstitutional.  See court decision: Troon Village v.Waugaman,   See Attorney General’s brief in support of constitutionality.

 

On October 7th, calls to DFBLS on HOA complaints resulted in a statement that DFBLS was not hearing complaints due to receiving a decision from the court that the law was unconstitutional.  After several calls by several persons getting several DFBLS employees, I was finally told that the Director said not to accept anymore HOA complaints.  He was attending a funeral.  This is a unilateral action against the people of Arizona and a violation of due process.

 

Viewing the department’s web page shows no notice or advisory to the effect of:  As a result of a trial court decision declaring the HOA statute unconstitutional, we are temporarily suspending accepting HOA complaints.  We have referred this matter to our attorney, the Attorney General, for guidance as to how we are to proceed.  This would have been the “upfront” approach to serving the public. 

 

So, homeowners are in a limbo state waiting to see what the AG will do. Will he appeal the decision?   Will he defend the legislation, as earlier, as constitutional?  Or will he defend the DFBLS decision not to hear any further complaints, and that the people should go back and get proper legislation?  In the past, repeated appeals to the AG for consumer protection enforcement against HOAs resulted in the same latter response: get new laws. 

 

Who is defending the people, the citizens, the homeowners, against authoritarian HOA principalities?  “We must make the injustice visible” said Gandhi.  Homeowners and everyone interested in preserving fundamental American vales and beliefs in justice, fair play and the equal protection of the law must speak  out — to the AG, to their legislators, to the media.

 

 

In February  2007 we saw another instance whereby the DFBLS Director took independent action to deny homeowners due process of law.  He took it upon himself to raise the filing fee from $550 to $2,000. After a substantial uproar, the single count filing fee was returned to $550.  See Arizona HOA complaint filing fee returns to $550.