Category: Opinion

Posts by GKS

Before the HOA Syndrome there was The Milgram Experiment

The Milgram Obedience Experiment, The Perils of Obedience, By Kendra Cherry, About.com Guide

Why did so many of the participants in this experiment perform a seemingly sadistic act on the instruction of an authority figure? According to Milgram, there are a number of situational factors that can explain such high levels of obedience:

  • The physical presence of an authority figure dramatically increased compliance.
  • The fact that the study was sponsored by a trusted and authoritative academic institution led many participants to believe that the experiment must be safe.
  • The selection of teacher and learner status seemed random. [no vengeance factor]
  • Participants assumed that the experimenter was a competent expert.
  • The shocks were said to be painful, not dangerous.

Milgram wrote, “Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority” (Milgram, 1974).

Milgram’s experiment has become a classic in psychology, demonstrating the dangers of obedience.

####

The Milgram Experiment of 1961 was conducted to answer another question regarding the rise of Hitler and the Nazis (They Thought They Were Free, Milton Mayer, 1955). Milgram had “teachers”, authority figures, inflict electric shock on”students” who gave the wrong answers. The students, part of the experiment, did not receive any shocks but responded in greater and greater degrees of mock pain. The teachers were acting on instructions of the experimenter, the “authority” figure.

The experimenter issued a series of commands to prod the participant along:

  1. “Please continue.”
  2. “The experiment requires that you continue.”
  3. “It is absolutely essential that you continue.”
  4. “You have no other choice, you must go on.”

In other words, the experimenters wanted top know, “If a person in a position of authority ordered you to deliver a 400-volt electrical shock to another person, would you follow orders?”

“When Milgram posed this question to a group of Yale University students, it was predicted that no more than 3 out of 100 participants would deliver the maximum shock. In reality, 65% of the participants in Milgram’s study delivered the maximum shocks.”

Jump to today and the New America of HOA-Lands. Translate the experimenter as the HOA attorney or dictatorial HOA president or manager; the students as the homeowners; and the teachers as the go along board, ACC and the non-dictator presidents. These “go alongs” act on the “advice”, instructions or urgings of the above  authority figures,  the  “experimenters.”

It is important for advocates to know that, “Later experiments conducted by Milgram indicated that the presence of rebellious peers dramatically reduced obedience levels. When other people refused to go along with the experimenters orders, 36 out of 40 participants refused to deliver the maximum shocks.”

That’s a resounding,

STAND UP AND FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS! SPEAK OUT! CREATE REFORM GROUPS!

HOA Syndrome survey: YES, it exists!

The CBS TV Phoenix affiliate, KPHO reporter asked in its HOA Syndrome coverage, What could someone do to escape the HOA Syndrome? The only answer provided as to “move out”.

That was a completely unsatisfactory solution! In a hearing on HOA reform bills in this past session, a legislator stated that 94% of all new homes was in an HOA. A completely unsound solution not based on the facts.

Furthermore, it rewards the guilty parties. The government was not called upon to do something to stop this disgraceful condition in what the government continues to tout as “the next best thing to Mom’s apple pie.” There was no call for the immediate adoption of a consumer advisory like a Truth in HOAs Disclosure Agreement. There was no call for ADRE, the real estate department, to enforce its rule on material disclosure, R4-28-1101. There was no call for the Legislature to enforce HOA laws and to hold the HOA accountable under the laws, so homeowners can feel that there was someone on their side. That there was a viable method to ease the pain. KPHO offered no such call except to “move out.”

HOA SYndrome survey

KPHO’s internet survey, “Question of the Day,” asking whether the Syndrome does really exist has received, after 24 hours, a steady 67% YES replies from respondents. Perhaps this will be an awakening call that the legitimate grievances of homeowner rights advocates over the years are valid! And the only reply from the national pro-HOA trade lobbying group, CAI was a faint, “But, it’s not officially recognized.” Not even a word that something has to be done to make its claims of happiness and harmony a reality. Not a word!

As I wrote about not moving to Arizona, “You are on your own!”

Do not buy an HOA controlled home in Arizona — you are on your own!

In Arizona, neither its Attorney General nor real estate department, ADRE, will  get involved in HOA issues. The AG’s broad authority includes consumer protection involing real estate transactions and white collar crimes. ADRE’s stated mission also claims that it protects consumer home buyers: “We want to protect consumers from being harmed in real estate transactions.” Like with the AG, there’s is no exception in the laws for transactions and acts involving HOAs. (These agencies can’t explicitly exclude HOAs without incurring charges of violations of the constitutional prohibition against the unequal application of the laws).

The AG’s office, under its revised web site for the new AG, offers a number of consumer guides from auto purchases, Indian arts & crafts, predatory lending, and telephone scams, but not a word about HOAs. There is no “Truth in HOAs” pamphlet Its “Protecting Consumers” reads (emphasis added),

Consumer fraud, as defined by Arizona law, is any deception, false statement, false pretense, false promise or misrepresentation made by a seller or advertiser of merchandise. In addition, concealment, suppression or failure to disclose a material fact may be consumer fraud if it is done with the intent that others rely on such concealment, suppression or nondisclosure. Merchandise may include any objects, wares, goods, commodities, intangibles, real estate or services.

ADRE has Commissioner’s Rules, having the effect of law, that includes R4-28-1101, Duties to Clients. It, too, cautions about revealing material facts (emphasis added),

A. The licensee shall also deal fairly with all other parties to a transaction.

B. A licensee participating in a real estate transaction shall disclose in writing to all other parties any information the licensee possesses that materially or adversely affects the consideration to be paid by any party

When asked, for the third time over 7 years, why ADRE doesn’t enforce this rule when it comes to HOA transactions, its typical answer dealt with their non-regulation of HOAs, and, in this recent reply (emphasis added),

However the Department has to be advised, typically by way of official complaint, that there is an apparent abuse of the laws occurring. At that time, the Department would investigate and proceed from there. Without knowledge of a perceived violation occurring, the investigation cannot begin.

What we have here is a failure to act, a failure of government authorities to make their allegations about consumer protection — in effect their propaganda that deceives the people — a reality. It’s an instance of “the tail wagging the dog.” In regard to ADRE, the people, not the agency, must act. The agency will not act under its powers until some individual claims that a violation had occurred. I say again, ADRE wants you, the homeowner to file a complaint before it acts — “the Department has to be advised, typically by way of official complaint.”

But, what about adopting another approach like that used by police departments with their Internal Affairs department, which on its own, investigates seemingly suspect behavior, without a person having to come forth. This failure makes the true role of ADRE is BPOA— the Benevolent and Protective Order of Agents.

These deceptions reflect the deception found in the judicial branch misleading motto, ”Equal Justice Under the Law.” We all know that the laws can be unjust and selectively enforced, and we know that this is true of the HOAs laws in all states. And these deceptions reflect the ills of our society, the “Not me, I’m not responsible” attitude by those in authority.

“Blaming the wolf will not help the sheep much. The sheep must learn  not to fall into the clutches of the wolf.” Gandhi.

How is your state doing? Any better? Are you protected when you by into an HOA controlled home in your state? I think not! Will you sign the Truth in HOAs Disclosure Agreement  before you buy? Read and find out. Remember, you are on your own.

The acceptance of Privatopia and the New America of HOA-Land

In his recent interview on OnTheCommons, Evan McKenzie suggested that his new book, Beyond Privatopia, is a collection of his past papers. If so, I believe the following gives a glimpse into what the reader can expect.

In 2004, Arizona advocates had a tough fight to get HB 2402 passed into law. It was to eliminate HOA foreclosures, but we had to settle for no foreclosures for fines, retaining foreclosure for assessments.

McKenzie gave his views on HOA foreclosure and the need for HOAs to survive during this hard fought battle in his Privatopia Papers Blog of March 12 and 13, 2004. (Scroll down and read the March 12th entry, “The plain truth about HOA foreclosures…”, then read his defensive entry of the 13th, “More on foreclosure.” I, too, took offense to his views.

McKenzie’s comments were not at all helpful to the people suffering this gross injustice of this law. His statements reflected the views of the legal-academic aristocracy that the state must survive, that the state comes first. And by “state” I mean the HOA. That the New America of HOA-Land is a legitimate government of the people.

An excerpt from this lengthy entry sums it up,

A third [objection] is the lack of any alternative [by advocates] that would allow HOAs to continue functioning, and advocating instead for positions that would almost certainly destroy common interest housing and leave millions of people in major financial trouble. . . . HOAs would end up competing with all the other creditors–credit card companies, tax collectors, etc.–for the money they need to fix the roof this month. Net result: the existing owners bear the burden for the non-payers. . . . That is a completely unsustainable situation.

I’ve always been against associations having dictatorial power. I’m also against going to the opposite extreme and leaving them powerless. If we go from banana republics to failed states, most people won’t like the latter any better than the former, and somebody will have to pick up the pieces of failed CIDs. Who will that be?

McKenzie presumes that the status quo preserves the HOA, and that susbstantive reforms will only leave the HOA powerless and lead to its inevitable failure. As a political scientist, he does not address the questions that maybe, just maybe, with their current defective legal scheme that HOAs should be allowed to fail. He avoids “muni-zation”, creating special HOA “taxing districts” as public entities, as an alternative. He does not address the question as to why HOAs deserve government protections to foreclose for failures to pay “taxes” as if it were a public entity. The HOA has no hard cash outlays to recoup as a lender does.

Perhaps he fears that real democracy will destroy the HOA that needs strict enforcement of “laws” and an unquestionable obedience to its often arbitrary and capricious objectives in order for it to survive. That public government intrusion is worse than today’s unaccountable private HOA government intrusion. He no longer speaks in the same terms of the constitutional arguments as he did in the 1994 Privatopia.

History shows that successful social and political change involved both an intellectual group to guide and show the way, and an operational group to make their thoughts a reality — working together. You just need to look at the American Revolution, the Irish and Indian independence movements, and the rise of communism in Russia, China and Cuba. There are no intellectual leaders for HOA reforms, and that is a prime reason why the “pink flamingo groups” are not united.

In Gandhi’s dealings with the British Raj for independence, the Brits reminded him that India was a British Colony. He replied, “India belongs to the Indians.” 

In America today, America belongs to the people, not to the HOA regime.

Want more neighborly love? In an HOA??

 

I submitted the following comment to the shreveporttimes.com article, “A sign that we need more neighborly love.”

 

HOAs were never really about neighborly love.  They were promoted as such a fellowship of people with a common goal, “building better communities” and “fostering vibrant, harmonious communities” by the national lobbying organization.  But, in reality, they are highly divisive and adversarial because strict enforcement of often arbitrary and capricious rules abound, enforced by the “protection agency”, the HOA, whose directors are reminded that they can be sued for not enforcing the CC&RS or declaration.  Couple that with aggressive HOA lawyers whose income is not based on contentment and neighborly love, but on adversity that leads to the courtroom. It’s in their best interests to preserve the HOA in its current form.

This authoritarian form of government, backed by pro-HOA laws to inflict severe penalties on homeowner offenders but give a slap on the wrist to HOA offenders, make an excellent environment for the power seekers and misguided true believers who believe that they  are part of a grand and glorious new America. And for the profit-seeking developers, HOA vendors and lawyers.

IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, HOW ELSE CAN IT BE?  No country, no community has ever obtained strict compliance to rules that are aimed to preserve the state, like Nazi Germany  Communist Russia, without imposing restrictions on the rights and freedoms of its inhabitants  “in the name of the state.” Its corporate form of government is no different from any other business where there are the managers who control and the people who are to obey.  HOA directors are in the “management” class and homeowners are in the “employee” class, even though the “employees” may also be owners of the corporation.  And we all know that management does not have the 100% whole–hearted agreement and support of its people. 

Yet, the courts and state legislatures truly believe that the board speaks for the members on all matters, great and small. That the HOA is imbued with public government attributes and, ignoring the reality of a contract, by merely living and remaining subject to the HOA the “employee” surrenders all his rights and freedoms contrary to constitutional law. But, as we all know, how many people, employees, work and remain at a business for valid reasons other then that they fully consent to be governed by the corporation? The public officials have adopted this “remaining within the HOA” argument not because it is valid, but because it offers a plausible defense for their actions.

Want more neighborly love?  Hold HOA boards accountable for their actions, and provide protections for the rights and freedoms on the owners.  Forget the “we don’t want government” and get to “we want the same government protections as all others.