Author: HOAGOV

Dear Editor of Common Ground,

As I wrote to the legislators, I now address these questions to CAI as a public interest organization that repeatedly lobbies every state legislature, and ask that it respond to these important issues in its upcoming May-June article, “Fear and Loathing Inside the anti-HOA Movement.”

HOA reforms needed to guarantee U.S. Constitutional protections
Replacing democratic local governments with authoritarian private governments: Is this good public policy?

At the heart of the matter is the continued replacement of democratic local government, governments subject to the U.S. Constitution and 14th Amendment prohibitions, with contractual, authoritarian private governments that are not subject to the prohibitions of the 14th Amendment.

The two broad prohibitions within this amendment are the equal application of the law and the due process clauses that are not applicable to private agreements. Or are they?

I ask the legislators, the public interest organizations and policy makers to consider the following questions:

1. Is it proper for the state to create, permit, encourage, support or defend a form of local government of a community of people, whether that form of government is established as a municipal corporation or as a private organization that is not compatible with our American system of government?

2. Is it proper for the state to permit the existence of private quasi-governments with contractual “constitutions” that regulate and control the behavior of citizens without the same due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment; that do not conform to the state’s municipal charter or incorporation requirements; or do not provide for the same compliance with the state’s Constitution, statutes or administrative code as required by public local government entities?

3. When did “whatever the people privately contract” dominate the protections of the US Constitution? The New Jersey Appeals Court didn’t think so. Does “constructive notice”, the “nailing to the wall”, that medieval method of notice, measure up to the requisite level of notice and informed consent to permit the loss of Constitutional protections?

4. Please state what, if any, are the government’s interests in supporting HOAs that deny the people their constitutional rights?

George K. Staropoli, Pres.
Citizens for Constitutional Local Government

March 16, 2006

This land is NOT your land!

This land was NOT made for you and me!

These are the new lyrics to the well known folksong.

On PBS this week in Phoenix, you heard a grand old tune as sung by the Minstrels, the successor group to the 1960s The New Christy Minstrels. This Land is Your Land was written in the 1930s by, and sung by, Woody Guthrie, and resurrected in the 1960s by Randy Sparks.

It was sung at the time of the Cuban Missile crisis when people on the East coast were being told to store food and water, and to tune in to an important broadcast by President Kennedy. (It was only after the fall of communism in Russia did we learn, from previously secret files, that the local Russian military commander in Cuba had final authority to launch nuclear weapons against America in the event of an invasion of Cuba. He did not need to get permission from Moscow.)

That was another America, another era, long gone away where principles and character mattered. Now it’s, “What’s in it for me?”

Today, your land belongs to the HOA Board that is controlled by the special interest lobbyists, CAI, who have created and fought vigorously to repress your freedoms and rights. They spew grandiose platitudes in the name of a better America, but their personal agenda is one of a profit making bonanza. We don’t need authoritarian governments, whose premise is that you can’t trust your neighbor and that he must be watched vigilantly, and misinforming the people in order to make their “better America” happen.

We need,

This land is MY land, not your land!

See two important news videos demonstrating the homeowners’ fight for US Constitutional protections taken away only if they live in an HOA. See Arizona’s Speaker Pro Tempore, Bob Robson, continue to deny these rights and defending the undemocratic, authoritarian private contractual governments known as HOAs.

In Arizona, there are 5 senior citizen HOA subdivisions sold under the Robson Communities umbrella that contain some 32,000 families who were never told that they had surrendered their homestead exemption rights, and still are unaware of this loss. The bills being stalled would restore these rights taken away from this class of citizens by statute in 1996.

View videos

See two important news videos demonstrating the homeowners’ fight for US Constitutional protections taken away only if they live in an HOA. See Arizona’s Speaker Pro Tempore, Bob Robson, continue to deny these rights and defending the undemocratic, authoritarian private contractual governments known as HOAs.

In Arizona, there are 5 senior citizen HOA subdivisions sold under the Robson Communities umbrella that contain some 32,000 families who were never told that they had surrendered their homestead exemption rights, and still are unaware of this loss. The bills being stalled would restore these rights taken away from this class of citizens by statute in 1996.

View videos

Greg Mocker of local Phoenix CBS TV asked those hard questions of Arizona Speaker Pro Tempore and Rules Committee Chair Bob Robson. And Robson answered that he will protect these private contractual governments because he doesn’t trust the average homeowner who will turn into a deadbeat as soon as we restore the equal application of the laws to HOAs — the homestead exemption and due process protections guaranteed by the Constitution, except in private government HOAs. What Rules Chair Robson had also said is that he will protect these private organizations and deny homeowners the protections of the 14th amendment.

Why is he supporting HOA principalities allowed to operate outside the American system of government? Why isn’t our American system of democracy good enough for HOAs? Why is the House promoting authoritarian governments that do not protect those cherished rights and freedoms guaranteed for all Americans?

Is the Speaker Pro Tempore making policy statements for the House leadership? These are precisely the statements and attitudes that make HOAs state actors.

We are witnessing the Tyranny of the Legislature, where one person is allowed by the leadership to control the fate of millions of good people in Arizona. House Rule 37(3) allows the representatives to submit removal requests to place these bills on the active calendar. Where is the vote? Why this highly unusual tactic of not allowing a floor vote by all the Representatives? Because the votes are there to pass these bills on the floor, that’s why!

Here are excepts from Robson’s interview:

“Rules should not be changed”. (To pass these new bills. Greg’s retort: What about in 1996 when you took away these rights?)

”I don’t feel comfortable with certain aspects of this . . .” (the homestead exemption bill.) Well, it’s a single sentence change and his responsibilities lie in the area of questions of constitutionality and nothing else as governed by the House Rules. It is not his call — it’s an abuse of discretion and authority!! Placing everyone under the same laws cannot be seen as being unconstitutional. But removing them as in 1996 is unconstitutional.

“Without the homestead exemption you have a situation where people can let there dues lapse … “(this is outright protection of private organizations without any governmental interest to offset the unequal application of the laws. Further, it looks down with disdain and distrust upon the good people of Arizona who are living in HOAs.

“The quality of life will definitely be distorted …” Is he now the Guardian and Official Protector of the Quality of Life? What audacity by the Speaker Pro Tempore. Shame on him!

Homeowner rights advocates must not allow these statements to go unanswered and be accepted as, “That’s the way it is. Get used to it!”