Author: HOAGOV

Without enforcement, just more Smoke & Mirrors

What is the purpose of the CID Ombudsman proposed in AB770? From the wording of the bill, it would be another clerical, paper-shuffling bureaucratic function. CLRC is supposed to be doing research on shortcomings of existing laws. After 40 years of homeowner oppression and abuse, AB770 wants the Ombudsman to now determine just what are the problems? In short, it would merely be a complaint desk to take the heat away from the legislators who continually refuse to sponsor CID reform bills of substance.

Without enforcement provisions in a bill there is no real law, just wishful guidelines to be realistically viewed as mere “policy statements”. This repeated refusal to hold CID boards that violate the law accountable to the state is a statement of public policy. This public policy statement says that it is in the best interest of the State of California not to hold CID board law-breakers accountable and answerable to society. Not answerable to the individual, as is the case with a civil suit, but answerable to the community in general.

Good public policy tells the community what the state believes is good, desirable behavior for the benefit of all members of the community, whether living or not living in a CID. And the current CID policy can only be interpreted that: it is good for California to allow unrestrained abuse and victimization of homeowners by CIDs.

The California Legislature continues to follow a path of protectionism for CIDs at the expense of the constitutional and property rights of individuals. Some may call this a new version of National Socialism where private property rights are extinguished in small communities in an unrealistic attempt to create a utopian society. (See the works of early socialists like Robert Owen, and American community builders like Ebenezer Howard and Jesse Clyde Nichols).

Homeowners need appropriate due process protections backed by enforcement of law-breakers, no matter who they may be. Homeowners need a tough sheriff, not an Ombudsman.

What You Should Know Before You Buy is the last entry in July for the CEO of CAI. It’s a response to severe criticism of HOAs and the lack of full disclosure and allegations of misrepresentations in the promotion and selling process. Here’s how CAI responds — it puts the blame on the Realtor organizations.

“But regardless of where you live or what type of home you are considering – you need to be an educated consumer in order to make a purchase decision that is right for you and your family. While some states have very comprehensive disclosure laws regarding the information a seller must disclose to a buyer regarding a home in a community association, other states have very limited or no such requirements. That is why buyers must know what questions to ask of their Realtor and the seller before signing on the dotted line.“

Yet, this publication also fails to fully disclose those aspects of loss of rights and homestead exemptions, failing of adequate due process by kangaroo courts, no accountability to the government (purely a civil action and no state penalties for behavior detrimental to society, like abuse of contractual obligations, etc), foreclosure punishments that can be viewed as excessive under the US Constitution, etc. No, nothing at all is mentioned. There is the implication, as above, that the existing state disclosure laws tell all — not at all!

Consumers must beware. The government is on the side of the developer! And so is CAI.

“Community Matters – What You Should Know Before You Buy”. (CAI 7/27/06 publication can be gotten from its web site)

David Kahne, a Houston ACLU attorney, who won the notable Brooks v. Northglen HOA case, has written on a HOA Bill of Rights for homeowners. Such a document has been absent from all CC&Rs going back to the Homes Association Handbook, TB #50, for the mass merchandising of planned communities, published in 1964 by ULI with the help of federal agencies.

David Kahne’s 69 page report can be found here:

http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/consume/2006_15_homeowner.pdf

Many HOA advocates are acknowledged by David. The cover page reads:

A BILL of RIGHTS for HOMEOWNERS in ASSOCIATIONS:
Basic Principles of Consumer Protection and Sample Model Statute

by David A. Kahne,
Law Office of David A. Kahne

The AARP Public Policy Institute, formed in 1985, is part of the Policy and Strategy Group at AARP. One of the missions of the Institute is to foster research and analysis on public policy issues of importance to mid-life and older Americans. This publication represents part of that effort.The views expressed herein are for information, debate, and discussion, and do not necessarily represent official policies of AARP.

MSN.COM has recently featured on its web page, if viewed with MS Internet Explorer browser, Debora Vrana’s article, The Runaway Power of Homeowners Associations (see note 1 for viewing information). This article contains a link to the Citizens for Constitutional Local Government web site and quotes its president, George K. Staropoli, as saying,

“No one tells buyers what deep doo-doo they can get into . . . It’s a government outside the U.S. government.”

“Page view” counts of this web site have reached monthly averages in just one day — over 1,400 page views bringing the total web site count to over 50,000. This response to the MSN article reflects a hunger by homeowners and home buyers for the truth about planned community living with its authoritarian, private governments operating outside the US Constitution protections of our liberties and freedoms. HOAs are regarded by the courts as private organizations that are not subject to the same US Bill of Rights as all other public government bodies — federal, state, city and municipal governments.

This jump in the Citizens’ web site viewers is a result of the feature placement of the HOA article warning the public of serious problems with HOA living, and also reflects the fact that no such information is available in the consumer and home buyer by the protection agencies at the state level — nothing by the appropriate state consumer protection agency, Attorney General, real estate department, HOA ombudsman, or other such agency whose mission is consumer protection. Rather, these agency web sites provide links to the industry promoters of HOAs in a blatant one-sided support of these private governments that deny constitutional protections.

Every viewer must demand from their state representatives and agency officials an answer as to why this is allowed to happen, and why the state is participating in hiding the truth from the public.

Note 1. Viewing information

MSN selects items to be featured. If the article is not found by clicking on left-side image ‘next’ until There Goes the Neighborhood image appears, enter the following web address — http://realestate.msn.com/buying/Articlenewhome.aspx?cp-documentid=653570

AOL or others using Netscape must switch to your MS IE browser, which is included on all Windows computers. After connecting with AOL or your browser, just bring up MSIE and then go to Msn.com

In further reaction to bona fide criticism, CAI continues its machinations of using front organizations in a futile attempt to legitimize it, those associations of hired hands, like COCA in Florida and CACM in California, and those illegitimate associations of the management-class HOA boards, like ECHO (Exec. council of Homeowners, which, in reality, is a misnomer and should be ECHOA, the Exec. Council of HOAs), as the voice of the homeowner before legislators and government agencies and commissions.

At no time have any of these industry supporters — the supporters of the fictitious person, the corporate HOA government — been granted any such authority by the homeowners, the employee-class within the corporate HOA business organization; not in the Declaration, nor by any valid vote or referendum on any particular issue by the homeowners. These groups are illegitimate representatives of the people, the homeowners. They act, however, as if they are the legitimate representatives in all political matters, but they are not the duly elected political representatives.

We see the comments by these groups in the July-August issue of CAI’s Common Ground magazine article, “Call & Response.” The comments that assert the right of the HOA, as an authoritarian private government operating outside the protections of the US Constitution, to control and regulate the people within the territory defined by the subdivision, the homeowners.

We see CAI’s attempt to enlist the support of homeowner associations in order to be the legitimate voice of the HOA, and by some far stretch of the imagination, of the people living in the association. As admitted by the CEO of CAI, Tom Skiba, HOAs are a business and not a government, yet in an outright contradiction to this statement, CAI continues to regard the HOA as the legitimate political government of the homeowners. In a clandestine operation, CAI has setup a website, http://www.responsibleneighbors.com/ as a front to appeal directly to California HOAs to support the CAI platform in the legislature.

Unfortunately, the HOA board speaks for the corporate entity, the HOA, and not the people, and have no legitimate authority to speak for the people. The legislators and government officials must clearly accept this fact. These government officials must look to the true homeowner advocates, and not be confused by the CAI attempt to instill confusion by referring to themselves as HOA advocates, for direction on how to proceed.

For important information on the role and purpose of CAI, see the CAI: The National Lobbyist for HOA Principalities Report.