Category: Opinion

The major social revolution of the 1960s changed more than our music and attitude toward sex, it produced a major deviation by the lowering of our high ideals, goals, values and standards of behavior.  In simple terms, this diminution of, collectively, our ethical values of right and wrong can be traced back to and reflected by the change in movie plots. 

No more did we see the good guys, “the white hats” vs. the bad guys, “the black hats.”  John Wayne (I speak of the romantic westerns of the late 1940s, including the 1956 Texas epic, The Searchers) was the epitome of the strong, “rugged individual” (a description no longer found in our conversation). He fought for a better America and for the people seeking to improve their life in a healthy and compassionate community.  The individual, the hero, was seen with respect to his effect on his community and on his country.

But, in the 1960s a new American hero came onto the movie scene, brought to us by none other than Clint Eastwood in his spaghetti westerns, and later by his portrayal of Dirty Harry with his “Go ahead, make my day” challenge to the bad guys.  The anti-hero was born, one who did what he thought was right regardless of the law, in pursuit of an individualized ethical concept of right and wrong.  This was the beginnings of the change and, some would say, the perversion of the role of the individual within society.  “If it’s good for me, it’s good for you” was the message being sent.  The “what’s in it for me”, or “if you can get away with it, good for you” motives  created for many, too many, a major  shift in American morality and ethics.  The individual came first, and his impact on others became secondary.  (Today’s financial problems can be characterized by such a view as contained in the 1987 movie, Wall Street, “Greed is good!”)

We see this change reflected in the HOA where the individualized interests of the board, usually dominated by the president’s views, has been institutionalized in the HOA legal scheme and its make-believe democratic setting.  It’s not difficult to see why a less than democratic “constitution” would be necessary to accomplish objectives foreign to American values and standards of a bona fide government of, by, and for the people.  Now, I know this view that HOAs are a rejection of democratic principles doesn’t sit well with those who believe in, are happy with, and who love their HOA.  But, nevertheless, this rejection cannot be denied.

Deepak Chopra, in his newly released book, speaks of a study showing that wealth does not necessarily increase one’s happiness.  (This should not be a surprise to many living in an HOA with its preoccupation with property wealth).  He echoes what The Dali Lama wrote in his 1999 book, Ethics for the New Millennium, that offered sound advice on creating happiness: “If we make the effort to be friendly, and have a regard for the wellbeing of others, we provide for our own happiness as well as theirs.”   Advice that seems well suited for HOA controlled communities, which as we well know, are focused on the material objectives of the “state”, the HOA.  Where the people supposedly chose, as we are reminded by the pro-HOA special interests, the material over the wellbeing of the community of people.  I keep thinking about The Dali Lama’s definition of ethics, and found basically in the writings of others, “An ethical act is one that does not harm  others’ experience or expectation of happiness.” 

What I find particularly interesting in this expression is the awareness of a mutual relationship between the actor and the people affected by the act.  An ethical act is not determined solely on the views of the actor alone, but by a mutual relationship.  In a healthy community, the pursuit of individual interests cannot be conducted as if in a vacuum without an awareness of and the effects on the mutual relationships that make and bind a community.

 

I just can’t seem to reconcile how an institutionalized philosophy that places the material over the ethical treatment of the people can make HOAs a better community, and America a better society.  Or how a philosophy that says the individual can do anything he wants, regardless of the effects on his community or on the greater community represented by his state and country, can be viewed as an improvement to the  philosophy of working together for a better life.    I just can’t!

 

The CAI College of Community Assn Lawyers member, by Scott B. Carpenter, had cows on his mind when he wrote about The Tragedy of the Common Elements.  Somehow  he stumbled upon a 1968 article about one herder’s cows damaging the common grazing area used for the benefit of all the herders, making an analogy to some “grazing amenity.”  He then jumps to HOAs with their common areas, basically the amenities.  Could Carpenter be confusing people with cows, and in following his herder story, that the overuse of the amenities by a lot owner’s family ruins it for the other members? 

He is concerned about Arizona law, ARS 33-1255(c)(2) that defers to the CC&Rs as to whether or not the homeowner affected by a damaged roof should alone pay for the cost of repairs, and that there should be no recourse to having the HOA pay out of its common funds.  He seeks to extend this statute to planned communities.

The “tragedy” he speaks of appears to be a question of scarce money in a tight economy.  However, there is no discussion of  past failures to provide for adequate reserves, or to raise assessments to cover these contingencies, although this is occurring today with respect to foreclosures.

Carpenter then makes the argument that the very philosophy of condo living with its communal structure is itself  “the very philosophy that feeds the Tragedy.”     Say what??  He  had defined the tragedy as “a dilemma in which individuals acting independently in their own self-interest can ultimately destroy a shared resource even where it is clear that it is not in anyone’s long term interest.”  

It appears then that CAI is heading to the Legislature to make this systemic alteration in the HOA legal scheme a law, a law that mandates that the individual “take the hit” and pay out of his own funds, and not from the collective “social security” common funds of the HOA.  In the tradition of pro-HOA attorney lobbyists,  reaching way out to make a weak case, Carpenter then asserts an unsubstantiated claim that those homeowners can’t be trusted and that they are out to get us!  He writes, “This would solve the problem of unit owners having an incentive to foist as many unit expenses onto the community association as possible.”

  

To be clear, Carpenter seems to be accepting the fact that the HOA is incapable of establishing sound financial management techniques that require increased assessments from the membership. That would be admitting a resounding negative to the HOA scheme, and negatives are taboo.  Establishing such reserves would then demand strict financial accountability by the HOA board and its management firm, which CAI has adamantly refused to allow.  “Trust the management” has been its propaganda.

 

CAI offers unworkable solutions that are divisive and adversarial:  go after the individual homeowner.  Forget about “we are in this together” and “we are a community.”   The survival of the HOA is paramount!  Forget about the American spirit that made America a great country.  No more let’s help the Jones build their barn, or take care of the Smith’s children while their mother lies very ill.  No, the individual must support the interests of the state, the HOA,  and the corporations that support the state, the HOA attorneys and management firms.   (It’s bad enough that the homeowner has unknowingly pledged his home as collateral for the HOA’s survival).

When will homeowners, the media, the public, and the legislators understand and accept that CAI has its own personal agenda, which is not in the best interest of the people or the state?

Read the full Commnetary at Tragedy.

WTVR.COM in Richmond, VA announced that two Congressmen have introduced a resolution (H. Res. 952) in the US House to permit the flag to be flown anywhere by Medal of Honor winners.  I congratulate these Congressmen, but the bill falls short of granting free speech rights to all Americans living in HOAs.

What is necessary is to educate Congress about the hidden aspects of the HOA legal scheme that denies citizens their rights under state and federal laws.  I commented on this article as follows:

Congress should look into the entire HOA legal scheme that creates a private, political government that controls and regulates the people within a territory, the subdivision subject to CC&Rs. Under unconscionable adhesion contracts, unsuspecting homebuyers are deprived of their constitutional rights to due process and the equal application of the laws.

State legislatures have not delegated any such governing powers to these private organizations! As a private organization, the HOA government is not subject to the 14th Amendment that all other forms of government are subject.

State laws are biased in favor of the HOA and against the homeonwers under a gross refusal to recognize the failures of a genuine, explicit consent to the loss of their rights and freedoms that are enjoyed by all others not living in an HOA.

Much more can be said!

Please visit http://pvtgov.org and my Commentaries at https://pvtgov.wordpress.com .

Please write and educate Congress, and especially Rep. Cantor, Minority Whip, (CA) and Representative McKeon (VA).  We know that CAI will!

From Rep. McKeon’s webpage:

“I was appalled to learn that one of our decorated Congressional Medal of Honor veterans was being prevented from proudly displaying the Flag of the United States of America in an honorable way,” said Rep. McKeon.  “This reminds me of that famous quote by George Washington: ‘The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country.’  Our service men and women – especially those living with honors and distinction- should be allowed to fly the flag that represents the very freedoms they fought so hard to protect.”

 

 

“It’s a sad day when a veteran of three wars is told he cannot fly the American flag on a poll outside of his home,” said Republican Whip Cantor.  “Col. Barfoot made countless sacrifices, wore our country’s uniform with honor, and has earned the right to proudly display the American flag.  I thank Col. Barfoot for his service and support his patriotism and efforts, as well as those here in the House, to allow him to fly his flag.”