While the title of the Ken Stahl Pepperdine Law Review article[1] addresses the “validity of private deed restrictions” (CC&Rs) and “an unconstitutional taking” (eminent domain) with respect to affordable housing, Stahl’s investigation covers many of the HOA constitutionality concerns that I’ve raised over the years. He warns about legislative “overrides” – statutes that impinge on CC&Rs – and the balance of governmental powers between the state/county and private, contractual governments.
While the article is focused on California’s dealing with its affordable housing crisis, my annotations are questions focusing on the constitutionality of the HOA CC&Rs. The article covers a lot of ground – 55 pages of legalese — and so I will make several commentaries or, in this case, research memoranda. Starting at the beginning, the Abstract and Introduction materials, Professor Stahl speaks to:
- California legislature invalidating CC&Rs. We are aware of statutes regulating what HOAs can and cannot do on things like “pets, clotheslines, signs and flags” but the legislature is going a bit further in regard to local zoning, home rule statutes, and “overriding” many covenants in the interest of affordable housing.
- “The doctrine of “home rule” that places some outer limits on the ability of state legislatures to preempt local regulatory power.”
- Home rule statutes exist in all states that allow a high degree of community independence from state/legislative interference on local matters. The HOA scheme avoided these statutes that would provide all the current benefits but subject the HOA to the Constitution – HOA could not hide behind “not us, we are private” nonsense.
- This overriding is facing concerns of the state “taking” of property rights that HOA members agreed to under a private contract. This invokes eminent domain concerns of just compensation as I have raised with respect to the questionable HOA contract’s taking of a member’s property rights.
- All fifty states have detailed legislation regarding the governance and management of HOAs, including voting rules, budgeting, disclosure, and so forth, and a few states authorize state agencies to regulate HOAs.
- “HOAs are ubiquitous, vastly outnumbering local governments, and they act essentially as little municipalities, taxing residents through mandatory assessments and regulating land use with detailed restrictions, called “covenants, conditions, and restrictions” (CCRs), that often mirror local land use regulations. Indeed, CCRs are typically far more restrictive than local land use regulations in many respects.” There you have it, almost like McKenzie’s words in his 1994 Privatopia [2].
- The question of quasi-government HOAs is expressed as “the HOA is “simply a convenient mechanism to enforce those rights.” Recall my charge that “HOAs are a devise to circumvent the Constitution.” The rights in context above refer to “the extension of the property rights” imposed by the CC&Rs.
- “In contrast to the local government, which is considered a public body within the quasi-federal structure of state government, the HOA is generally considered a private entity, an extension of the property rights of homeowners.”
- The author is concerned about the aggressive nature of the California legislature in regulating and controlling HOAs, far beyond their previous involvements. They deal with “what HOAs are really about: the ability to strictly control the character of the community by excluding undesirable uses of property within the community.
- The controversial issue of consent to be governed or agreed to be bound does not escape Stahl’s view. “Homeowners are presumed to voluntarily subject themselves to CCRs when they choose to purchase property.” He makes the strong point that public policy “causes courts to treat them as formally private, in contrast to the coercive nature of land use regulations enacted by public municipalities.” This is a reference to the balance of power between the state and supposedly freely agreed to expression of homeowners, the CC&Rs.
- The mantra of CAI and legislators – You agreed to be bound! I witnessed an AZ legislator condemn a homeowner speaker that he was trying to get out of a contract that the speaker discovered was bad and he wasn’t going to be a part of it. A deal is a deal!
- The author believes that the newer legislative overrides will be constitutionally challenged, arguing “ that overrides are likely to be upheld against constitutional challenges except in very unusual circumstances.” In other words, Stahl seems to be saying that advocates can look to favorable legislation regarding due process and the equal protection of the laws for homeowners. He has already made favorable arguments in his journal article that simply need to be focused on justice and homeowner rights than just affordable housing.
I plan at least 2 additional commentaries concerning this article following its structure: the role of equitable servitudes (covenants) and CC&Rs, and constitutional concerns.
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank Barbara Lorraine-Johnston for bringing this law review article discussing many of the constitutional issues that I have repeatedly argued and commented on over the years. The importance of advocates bringing events, court cases, statutes, papers, articles, and law journal publications cannot be overstated. I can only comment on what comes to my attention.
For additional information, visit my comments, some 1,314 since 2004, can be found at HOA Constitutional Government. Become a Subscriber to receive automatic updates.
NOTES
[1] “The Power of State Legislatures to Invalidate Private Deed Restrictions: Is It an Unconstitutional Taking?” (pepperdine.edu). (50 Pepp. L. Rev. 579 (2023)). Kenneth Stahl is a Professor of Law and the director of the Environmental, Land Use, and Real Estate Law program at Chapman University Fowler School of Law.
[2] Evan McKenzie, Privatopia: Homeowners Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Government (1994) and Beyond Privatopia (2012)).
HOA Constitutional Government 