Category: podcast

HOA social media misguided expectations

Way back when, in the beginnings of time when the internet was first being used to contact people — remember email lists — a CAI poster on its page recognized the fact that CAI could not control the internet, like presumably with the news media.  And thank goodness!

Given all the above, social media is inundated with homeowners facing serious problems with their HOA  and who cry out for help and assistance, but discover no solution to their complaints.  Yes, there’s plenty of good advice and suggestions, links to state laws and cases, etc.  The truth of the matter is that it is they, the poster, who must take action to resolve his grievances following the leads presented on the social media groups.

I’ve found that a good many of these complaints do not arise from a wrongful act by the HOA or a violation of the law. They are simply an exercise in the broad discretionary powers granted to the BOD in the governing documents; the homeowner just doesn’t like them. Nothing can be done except try to change the make up of the board, which requires a specified number of neighbors to join in. Fact chance!  Do they charge their town council with wrongdoing when they disagree with a position taken by the council?  Not usually.

While homeowners airing their problems on the internet may get   a large degree of sympathy — poor guy, they dun me wrong, unbelievable, etc. — nothing is accomplished when dealing with rogue HOAs and directors. By definition, the law and governing documents mean nothing to them, and they know that some 80+% will not take effective action – sue the bastards! And the numerous consumer protection – regulation agencies are ineffective lacking in punitive actions. The HOA holds all the aces; you lose!

The bottom line is to lobby the legislature to adopt 1)  substantive laws that protect your individual rights and freedoms supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution, 2) fair elections procedures to level the playing field for the democratic functioning of the HOA (how about ½ vote per lot if the owner resides less than 7 months), 3) attainable HOA enforcement procedures that effectively serve as a punishment  and as a detriment to further wrongful conduct, as exists with misdemeanors charges in the public domain, and 4) prohibit the cruel and unusual punishment allowed in the current  homeowner losers all foreclosure procedures.

All social media groups must make these reforms a top priority and inform the complaining homeowner that there is no push button instant solution to the ills of HOAs in our society.  We can only  hope that the majority of owners will finally realize that they are up the creek without a paddle and get angry enough to get involved wholeheartedly. This should be objective for all HOA social media groups.

HB 2158;  Ariz. Sess. Law Ch 125 (2022)

Reformatted for ease of comprehension. New law is shown in blue caps according to legislative rules. The law duplicates the provisions separately for Condo (ARS 33-1600 et seq.)  and Planned Community HOA (ARE 33-1800 et seq.)  statutes.

ARS 33-1261 (p. 3 – 4)

H. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION IN THE CONDOMINIUM DOCUMENTS,

  • AN ASSOCIATION MAY NOT PROHIBIT OR UNREASONABLY RESTRICT THE INDOOR OR OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF AN ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGN
  • BY A UNIT OWNER BY PLACEMENT OF A SIGN ON THAT UNIT OWNER’S PROPERTY, INCLUDING ANY LIMITED COMMON ELEMENTS FOR THAT UNIT THAT ARE DOORS, WALLS OR PATIOS OR OTHER LIMITED COMMON ELEMENTS THAT TOUCH THE UNIT, OTHER THAN THE ROOF.
  • AN ASSOCIATION MAY ADOPT REASONABLE RULES REGARDING THE PLACEMENT, LOCATION AND MANNER OF DISPLAY OF ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGNS,
  • EXCEPT AN ASSOCIATION SHALL NOT DO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. PROHIBIT THE DISPLAY OF ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGNS BETWEEN THE DATE THAT THE ASSOCIATION PROVIDES WRITTEN OR ABSENTEE BALLOTS TO UNIT OWNERS AND THREE DAYS AFTER THE CONDOMINIUM ELECTION.

2. LIMIT THE NUMBER OF ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC SIGNS, EXCEPT THAT THE ASSOCIATION MAY LIMIT THE AGGREGATE TOTAL DIMENSIONS OF ALL ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC SIGNS ON A UNIT OWNER’S PROPERTY TO NOT MORE THAN NINE SQUARE FEET.

3. REQUIRE ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGNS TO BE COMMERCIALLY PRODUCED OR PROFESSIONALLY MANUFACTURED OR PROHIBIT USING BOTH SIDES OF THE SIGN.

4. REGULATE THE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES SUPPORTED OR OPPOSED OR THE NUMBER OF BOARD MEMBERS SUPPORTED OR OPPOSED IN A RECALL OR THE NUMBER OF BALLOT MEASURES SUPPORTED OR OPPOSED ON AN ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGN.

5. MAKE ANY OTHER REGULATIONS REGARDING THE CONTENT OF AN ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGN, EXCEPT THAT THE ASSOCIATION MAY PROHIBIT USING PROFANITY AND DISCRIMINATORY TEXT, IMAGES OR CONTENT BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, FAMILIAL STATUS OR NATIONAL ORIGIN AS PRESCRIBED BY FEDERAL OR STATE FAIR HOUSING LAWS.

* * * *

J. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION IN THE CONDOMINIUM DOCUMENTS,

AN ASSOCIATION MAY NOT PROHIBIT OR UNREASONABLY RESTRICT A UNIT OWNER’S ABILITY TO PEACEFULLY ASSEMBLE AND USE COMMON ELEMENTS OF THE CONDOMINIUM IF DONE IN COMPLIANCE WITH REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS FOR THE USE OF THAT PROPERTY ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

AN INDIVIDUAL UNIT OWNER OR GROUP OF UNIT OWNERS MAY ASSEMBLE TO DISCUSS MATTERS RELATED TO THE CONDOMINIUM,

* * *

 1. “ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGN” MEANS A SIGN THAT SUPPORTS OR OPPOSES A CANDIDATE FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OR THE RECALL OF A BOARD  MEMBER OR A CONDOMINIUM BALLOT MEASURE THAT REQUIRES A VOTE OF THE ASSOCIATION UNIT OWNERS.

ARS 33-1808 (p. 7 – 8)

K. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION IN THE COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS,

  • AN ASSOCIATION MAY NOT PROHIBIT OR UNREASONABLY RESTRICT THE INDOOR OR OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF AN ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGN BY A MEMBER BY PLACEMENT OF A SIGN ON THAT MEMBER’S PROPERTY.
  •  AN ASSOCIATION MAY ADOPT REASONABLE RULES REGARDING THE PLACEMENT, LOCATION AND MANNER OF DISPLAY OF ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGNS,
  • EXCEPT AN ASSOCIATION SHALL NOT DO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
  • PROHIBIT THE DISPLAY OF ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGNS BETWEEN THE DATE THAT THE ASSOCIATION PROVIDES WRITTEN OR ABSENTEE BALLOTS TO MEMBERS AND THREE DAYS AFTER THE PLANNED COMMUNITY ELECTION.
    • LIMIT THE NUMBER OF ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC SIGNS, EXCEPT THAT THE ASSOCIATION MAY LIMIT THE AGGREGATE TOTAL DIMENSIONS OF ALL ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC SIGNS ON A MEMBER’S PROPERTY TO NOT MORE THAN NINE SQUARE FEET.
    • REQUIRE ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGNS TO BE COMMERCIALLY PRODUCED OR PROFESSIONALLY MANUFACTURED OR PROHIBIT USING BOTH SIDES OF THE SIGN.
    • REGULATE THE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES SUPPORTED OR OPPOSED OR THE NUMBER OF BOARD MEMBERS SUPPORTED OR OPPOSED IN A RECALL OR THE NUMBER OF BALLOT MEASURES SUPPORTED OR OPPOSED ON AN ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGN.
    • MAKE ANY OTHER REGULATIONS REGARDING THE CONTENT OF AN  ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGN EXCEPT THAT THE ASSOCIATION MAY PROHIBIT USING PROFANITY AND DISCRIMINATORY TEXT, IMAGES OR CONTENT BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, FAMILIAL STATUS OR NATIONAL ORIGIN AS PRESCRIBED BY FEDERAL OR STATE FAIR HOUSING LAWS.

* * *

M. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION IN THE COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS,

  • AN  ASSOCIATION MAY NOT PROHIBIT OR UNREASONABLY RESTRICT A MEMBER’S ABILITY TO PEACEFULLY ASSEMBLE AND USE COMMON AREAS OF THE PLANNED COMMUNITY IF DONE IN COMPLIANCE WITH REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS FOR THE USE OF THAT PROPERTY ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
  • AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OR GROUP OF MEMBERS MAY ASSEMBLE TO DISCUSS MATTERS RELATED TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY,
    • INCLUDING BOARD ELECTIONS OR RECALLS, POTENTIAL OR ACTUAL BALLOT ISSUES OR REVISIONS TO THE COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE OR SAFETY ISSUES OR ANY OTHER PLANNED COMMUNITY MATTERS.
    • A MEMBER MAY INVITE ONE POLITICAL CANDIDATE OR ONE NON-MEMBER GUEST TO SPEAK TO AN ASSEMBLY OF MEMBERS ABOUT MATTERS RELATED TO THE COMMUNITY.
    • THE ASSOCIATION SHALL NOT PROHIBIT A MEMBER FROM POSTING NOTICES REGARDING THOSE ASSEMBLIES OF MEMBERS ON BULLETIN BOARDS LOCATED ON THE COMMON AREAS OR WITHIN COMMON AREA FACILITIES.
    • AN ASSEMBLY OF MEMBERS PRESCRIBED BY THIS SUBSECTION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFICIAL MEMBERS’ MEETING UNLESS THE MEETING IS NOTICED AND CONVENED AS PRESCRIBED IN THE COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS AND THIS CHAPTER.

O. For the purposes of this section: ,

1. “ASSOCIATION-SPECIFIC POLITICAL SIGN” MEANS A SIGN THAT SUPPORTS OR OPPOSES A CANDIDATE FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OR THE RECALL OF A BOARD MEMBER OR A PLANNED COMMUNITY BALLOT MEASURE THAT REQUIRES A VOTE OF THE ASSOCIATION MEMBERS.

Preface to Restructure HOA Supplement

Preface

“People could care less about the truth. People buy promises and dreams. They’ll do anything to avoid reality” (anonymous)

The above quote, reflecting human nature,  gets to the very heart of the HOA-Land problem. It applies not only to SCG but to all HOA members throughout America.  In a sarcastic Nextdoor  post, the writer expressed his feelings that my posts were, in my words too cute, and that he didn’t want “to be in an association that George had anything to do with . . . and take his trouble making rhetoric to other lucky people.” I responded:

“My HOA right or wrong! So what if it has violated state laws and the governing documents, and refuses to defend itself. So what! As long as the amenities keep coming and assessments stay low, I guess all is OK.”

I have high hopes that all HOA members will follow their conscience and do what is right for their community, their state, and for America.  The alternative is a rejection of our democratic institutions, our constitutional government,  and the principles and values that we, as Americans, stand for.  The alternative is an acceptance of the HOA-Land Nation Within America.

* * * *

For this case study, my objective was to unveil the truth and advise the BOD of a $22 million revenues, 9,500 unit, active-adult community in Arizona as to its conduct in deciding difficult and controversial  issues.  I put my management/BOD skills to work and began the study. It is very important in the learning process to share recommendations with others, and to accept their constructive criticism. Readers can reject, modify, or remove recommendations. This approach sharpens one’s thinking and helps to make a more solid case for HOA reforms.

In regard to the SCG members at large — apathy evidenced by silence or perhaps fear — prevailed as commonly found in HOA-Land. The vast majority of comments  to my posts on social media and elsewhere were irrelevant and without merit. They failed to address my messages concerning  violations of the laws and governing documents by boards of directors.   Rather, they focused on my HOA right or wrong, take it or leave it, and move out. 

 The necessary first step for democratic reforms, as proposed in A Plan Toward Restructuring the HOA Model of Governance, is the reorientation and reeducation of the pubic and especially boards of directors. Based on my experience I presumed that  they are uninformed and many prefer to remain uninformed; wrongly believing, and being led to believe,  that their HOA is  a wonderful country club instead of a legally binding contract between them and their HOA. 

The findings from this research reaffirmed this view of HOA directors and members regardless of income or education levels — they are highly uninformed about the legal and governmental issues of an HOA association. It seems that the  boards of directors over the years were and are heavily influenced by the Community Associations Institute’s teachings and programs.

Collectively referenced as the CAI School of HOA Governance  stemming from its focus on “large-scale associations,” such as SCG. Some 13 SCG members served as CAI members, including CAI presidents or directors, while serving as SCG’s presidents, directors, and committee chairs.  Its impact is devastating and cannot be underestimated.

This finding was very disappointing!  The behavior and conduct by the leadership displayed false and misleading information, an illusion of “no problems here,” and for the most part, silence. It supported the position of authoritarian and cult followers as maintained in the Plan’s view of the HOA Culture, and its description of the social and political dynamics at work in HOA-Land.

This Supplement is organized in time sequence based on posts made to the HOA Constitutional Government website, including comments,  referencing or alluding to emails, to  the official Sun City Grand website’s News of the Day posts; and to posts and comments to social media websites: NextDoor (Desert Sage); Facebook’s Sun City Grand Members (AZ), closed by Administrator’ opposition; and Members of Sun City Grand AZ.

These exchanges are all reproduced as is, unedited except for  omissions of non-relevant sections.  In this manner, lacking audio-video materials, one can get a feeling of the posters’/commentators’ message tone.

George K. Staropoli

February 14, 2022

A history of the institutionalization of HOAs

After 58 years, the public, the legislators, the media, and the HOA boards of directors and vast majority of members have remained quietly accepting HOAs as a private form of local government.

“People could care less about the truth. People buy promises and dreams. They’ll do anything to avoid reality” (anonymous)

The above quote, reflecting human nature,  gets to the very heart of the HOA-Land problem. It applies to all HOA members throughout America.  In a sarcastic Nextdoor  post, the writer expressed his feelings that my posts presenting justifications for restructuring HOA-Land were, in my words too cute. He didn’t want “to be in an association that George had anything to do with . . . and take his trouble making rhetoric to other lucky people.”

I responded:

“My HOA right or wrong! So what if it has violated state laws and the governing documents, and refuses to defend itself. So what! As long as the amenities keep coming and assessments stay low, I guess all is OK.”

I have high hopes that all HOA members will follow their conscience and do what is right for their community, their state, and for America.  The alternative is a rejection of our democratic institutions, our constitutional government,  and the principles and values that we, as Americans, stand for.  The alternative is an acceptance of the HOA-Land Nation Within America.

Do you stand behind the US Constitution or your HOA ‘constitution’?

Many courts have referred to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) as the HOA constitution.

Arizona’s HB 2158 is a second try (Arizona HB 2052 restores homeowner constitutional speech protections ) to prohibit restrictions on HOA members’ freedom of political speech with respect to HOA governance issues and matters.  It has passed put of committee and Caucus.

This important bill has been sitting for an extended 2 week time awaiting the House leadership to schedule it for a full House vote of all the members. NOT A GOOD SIGN!  My years of experience lead me to believe it does not have the support of the leadershp that has the right, under House Rules,  to withhold bills from further votes.

HB 2158 (2022). You can read the bill at the legislature’s website. Read the important amendments below. This is your chance to stand up for constitutional protections against the CAI lobbyists, many whose members have been or are SCG directors – conflict of interest!

“L. Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents, an associociation [sic] may not prohibit or unreasonably restrict a member’s ability to peacefully assemble and use private or common areas of the planned community . . . . An individual member or group of members may organize to discuss or address planned community business, including board elections or recalls, potential or actual ballot issues or revisions to the community documents . . . . The association shall not restrict posting notices of these informal member meetings on physical or electronic bulletin boards used by the association for posting notices for the association’s or board of director’s official meetings.”

This bill has support from the Nevada Supreme Court opinion in Kosor (NV supreme court upholds HOAs as public forums (re: Kosor 2021)) that contained several California opinions serving as legal precedent.

 “[A] unit owner’s association or a planned community association (association) may not prohibit a unit owner or member (member) from peacefully assembling and using private or common elements of the community . . . legitimate and valid criticisms of your HOA and its president and board are protected from HOA lawsuits of defamation and libel.”

“Nextdoor.com post qualifies as a public forum for the purposes of anti-SLAPP protections. . . .these steps [Kosor’s statements] do not seem to differ significantly from that which might be required to view posts on Facebook; that is, a post on Nextdoor.com is as compatible with expressive activity as one on the other platform, which we have already held can support a public forum.”

“The HOA here is no less of ‘a quasi-government entity’

* * * *

The following is an excerpt from a lengthy email sent to me by a long time AZ homeowner rights advocate, Dennis Legere. It and his email are made public with Dennis’ permisssion.  It  reveals the obstacles an hostiity he faces trying the get HOA reform legislation to restore lost rights and freedoms. It contains his comments on the heavy opposition  from CAI and AACM (AZ managers association, CAI trained).

“The ridiculous nature and hidden motivation of the HOA trade groups [CAI and AACM] is what makes any HOA meaningful legislation so difficult to get introduced or protected from demands from the trade groups for provisions that benefit them only.”

Take back controll of your HOA!  Write your Representative in support of this bill. Also write the sponsor, Jack Kavanagh (jkavanagh@azleg.gov) and the House leaders in support of this bill urging that it be submitted for a hearing by all the House members. Do it today!

House leaders:

Rbowers@azleg.gov – Speaker (R)

tgrantham@azleg.gov – Speaker Pro Temp (R)

btoma@azleg.gov – Majority Leader (R)

lbiasiucci@azleg.gov – Majority Whip (R)

rbolding@azleg.gov – Minority Leader (D)

ddegrazia@azleg.gov – Minority Whip (D)

jlongdon@azleg.gov – Asst Minortiy Whip (D)