Author: HOAGOV

The CAI Nov/Dec 2006 Common Ground magazine has a reply to AARP Bill of Rights. (See AARP). It speaks of honor, demanding that the CC&Rs be honored by homeowners.

As to seniors paying their fair share, CG says,

“But it’s also true that collections are fundamental and necessary. . . . Accordingly it’s reasonable to expect all homeowners to honor their promise.”

For CAI is an honorable man, So are they all, all honorable men.

CAI assumes the purchase was above board made openly and freely, with access to all the information to make an informed choice; and that CAI has no prior knowledge that the CC&Rs take away fundamental rights and freedoms of Americans who believe the false promises of carefree living. Yet, the purchase process itself is not honorable, and the CC&Rs are unconscionable adhesion contracts.

How dare CAI demand that homeowners, alone, honor the CC&Rs when it knew all the while truth of the matter. Can anyone really believe that its legal counsel and its legal authorities had, and have, no inkling of the unconscionable adhesion contract nature of the CC&RS? And, as such are contrary to public policy and unenforceable?

The truth of the matter can be found in the bible that laid the groundwork for the mass merchandising of HOAs, the ULI Homes Association Handbook, TB#50, published in 1964. For a commentary on this publication, and on the role of CAI as the national lobbyist for planned communities and UCIOAs, see The Truth.

The CAI Nov/Dec 2006 Common Ground magazine has a reply to AARP Bill of Rights. (See AARP). It speaks of honor, demanding that the CC&Rs be honored by homeowners.

As to seniors paying their fair share, CG says,

“But it’s also true that collections are fundamental and necessary. . . . Accordingly it’s reasonable to expect all homeowners to honor their promise.”

For CAI is an honorable man, So are they all, all honorable men.

CAI assumes the purchase was above board made openly and freely, with access to all the information to make an informed choice; and that CAI has no prior knowledge that the CC&Rs take away fundamental rights and freedoms of Americans who believe the false promises of carefree living. Yet, the purchase process itself is not honorable, and the CC&Rs are unconscionable adhesion contracts.

How dare CAI demand that homeowners, alone, honor the CC&Rs when it knew all the while truth of the matter. Can anyone really believe that its legal counsel and its legal authorities had, and have, no inkling of the unconscionable adhesion contract nature of the CC&RS? And, as such are contrary to public policy and unenforceable?

The truth of the matter can be found in the bible that laid the groundwork for the mass merchandising of HOAs, the ULI Homes Association Handbook, TB#50, published in 1964. For a commentary on this publication, and on the role of CAI as the national lobbyist for planned communities and UCIOAs, see The Truth.

This brief is a must read, and should be brought to the attention of your legislators. A few excerpts:

“The Hannaman Report [NJ agency report, 10 years ago]is notable for its candor and its breadth.

For example, Mr. Hannaman states: “It is obvious from the complaints [to DCA (Dept of Consumer Affairs)] that that [home]owners did not realize the extent association rules could govern their lives.” Pa237. Mr.Hannaman goes on to set forth at length numerous examples of abuse of homeowner rights by New Jersey ineffectual and inadequate safeguards prevent and remedy such abuse.” P.4.

“Perhaps most alarming is the revelation that boards, or board presidents desirous of acting contrary to law, their governing documents or to fundamental democratic principles, are unstoppable without extreme owner effort and often costly litigation.” P. 5.

“It is no answer to say (as Appellants do) that private contractual agreements, or the “business judgment rule,” somehow trump constitutional principles, and that New Jersey community association residents have no constitutional rights because of some sort of “waiver” arising from the documents they signed when purchasing their homes.” P. 20.

The proposition that residents of Twin Rivers have no less a right to speak than nonresidents flows inexorably from these core principles. And the same result obtains by application of the “unconstitutional conditions” doctrine, and by application of the principle that servitudes that are either contrary to public policy or unconstitutional are unenforceable. P. 24.

The entire amicus curiae brief can be found here: AARP

Note: The NJ Supreme Court has yet to accept the amicus application. The HOA strongly opposes the filing of the brief, yet it had no objection to a brief by Community Associations Institute, CAI, that has a strong, non-neutral, stance with respect to the outcome of the Court’s decision.

–

Not many people knew Sabina Anna Prioletta, a single, 37 year-old female on government disability, weighing some 100 pounds at 5-2. She was trying to survive at the poverty level on the disability payments.

In 2001 she inherited enough money to buy a 924 square foot, 2 story attached home in Phoenix at Camelback and west 41st avenue, built in 1972 (one of the Hallcraft Villas subdivisions). Not the best part of town, but decent, and it was the only thing she could call her own, the only asset she had, her home.

Sabina wanted to be secure in her future and paid full price for home, some $35,000. Unfortunately, it was in a homeowners association.

For more, download this attached sad account (PDF).

“There, but for the grace of God, go I”

In “Are Your best Interests Served . . . ” (1) entry of Oct. 18th I wrote,

“Or, the American system of government must be redefined to include a new form of National Socialism that is not a guarantor or protector of your rights and freedoms.“

I chose ‘national socialism’ to reflect the position of CAI and planned community proponents that UCIOAs (2) are needed to combat the balkanization of America with the ensuing anarchy that we are witnessing as a result of unregulated planned community declarations. These governments will lead to a national confederation of private governments bound by the almost identical UCIOA “charters” or state laws, and “The United HOAs of America” (3) . Chapter 20 of Private Neighborhoods goes even further with its discussion of “Neighborhood Succession” from local government (4).

This new national socialism for planned communities is founded upon neoliberal values, namely, the privatization of government and the private sector can do it better. Other examples are: no government interference and best example of local government democracy, inability of local government to deal with HOAs, and of the need for uniform national laws for HOAs under the UCIOA mantra. (These pronouncements can be found by viewing CAI’s public policy positions on its web site). And who else in in a better position for a privatived national agency to regulated HOA?

Neo-liberalism is, simply stated, a privatization of government, reliance on the private sector to solve all our societal problems, and less government involvement. As such, the question for all Americans, as here with HOAs, is:

To what extent should this privatization of government deny Americans their fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under the US Constitution?

Notes:
1. http://pvtgov.blogspot.com/2006/10/are-your-best-interests-served-by-hoa.html.

2. See “National Lobbyist . . .”, http://pvtgov.blogspot.com/2006/04/nationwide-lobbyist-for-hoa.html, now Part 2 of “The Truth About . . .”, http://pvtgov.org/pvtgov/downloads/hoa_truth.pdf.

3. http://pvtgov.blogspot.com/2005/09/united-hoas-of-america.html.

4. See “HOA Succession from Local Government”, http://pvtgov.blogspot.com/2005/09/hoa-secession-from-local-government.html.