The political ideology toward homeowners associations

The political system now rewards ideology over pragmatism . . . The Second Civil War[i]

 

The politics of ideology over reality has encroached upon the treatment of the people living in and the laws pertaining to homeowners associations.  The prevalent ideology, dogmatically pursued by the national lobbying trade organization, Community Associations Institute (CAI) and adopted by legislatures all across the country, is “no government interference”, or its other version, “no contract interference.” This mindset is applied regardless of the reality of events, conditions, and the repetitive and serious long-term problems with HOAs. 

 

This ideology was adopted only after the special interests obtained statutes in favor of HOA private governments that deny homeowners due process of law and the equal protection of the law.  After the legislatures’ adoption of these pro-HOA laws, the doors were slammed closed with the prevalent ideology of “no government interference”, which, in reality, should be “no more government interference.”  This mindset was echoed recently by the prestigious Goldwater Institute’s opposition this year to SB1162 in Arizona when it proclaimed the bill amounted to contract interference.[ii]  And again, we saw this ideology applied when the California Law Review Commission (CLRC) submitted legislative recommendations (AB1921)  pertaining to the rewrite of California’s HOA/Condo statutes with a blank chapter 2, “Members Bill of Rights.”[iii]

 

Will ideology prevail over justice, fair play, due process of law and the equal protection of the law for the people, the homeowners living in HOAs?  Will the Arizona statutes providing for the independent tribunal enforcement of the laws and CC&R “contracts”, as provided by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) be upheld as constitutional?[iv]   (OAH adjudicates the complaints for the Dept. of Fire, Building and Life Safety, DFBLS, granted such authority under the statutes). 

 

CAI lobbyist and HOA attorney Carpenter has filed for an injunctive order against OAH from hearing anymore HOA complaints as a result of the Judge’s decision.  Here’s the Attorney General’s objection to this order:

 

The Complaint requested the Court to reverse the final decision of the Administrative Law Judge issued in case no. HO 06-7/029 (Nancy Waugaman v. Troon Village Master Association). The scope of the requested relief was limited to the decision in that matter only. Under A.R.S. § 12-911(E), the Court’s authority is to “affirm, reverse, modify or vacate and remand” the challenged agency decision. The Court’s October 2, 2008, decision is consistent with the scope of review and is limited to a reversal of the final administrative decision in case no. HO 06-7/029. It does not order the injunctive relief proposed by Plaintiff/Appellant that would affect other similar administrative proceedings.

 

Homeowners are waiting for the Attorney General to appeal of that decision.  Homeowner complaints are still not being accepted.

 

Such an action appears frivolous and taking up the court’s time needlessly.  CAI had opposed this year’s SB1162 and HB 2724 that would have imposed penalties on such conduct by any party in an OAH hearing, or in an appeal of such hearing.  The bills were defeated.  See videos at http://youtube.com/hoagov. 

 

Is this what CAI means by supporting harmonious and vibrant communities?  To deny homeowner due process of law?  And what about the Troon Mountain HOA board of directors?  Why are they funding and supporting an obvious CAI interest?  And perhaps a conflict of interest with respect to the HOA client, Troon.  Is this how HOA-land government works for harmony and productive communities? Or are they, too, fighting in support of the CAI special interest battle to deny due process of law within the community?

 

I wrote the Arizona Attorney General on this matter, concluding with,

 

I’ve been informed that a decision on how to proceed should be reached this week.  However, on behalf of homeowners seeking the enforcement of the law – without which the law is meaningless – as provided by and made accessible by OAH adjudication of HOA complaints, I ask for a speedy appeal of Judge Downey’s decision. 

 

 

This sorrowful state of affairs is yet another example of the New America of HOA land principalities at work. See http://starman.com/starpub.  Arizona cannot be known as the “You Are On Your Own State” when it comes to protecting homeowners in HOAs.

 

 

Notes

[i] The Second Civil War, p. 12, Ronald Brownstein, Penguin Books, 2007.

HOA uses 'lost your rights' to obtain compliance

In this time of a presidential campaign with pronouncements of democracy and socialism, of centralized government and individual rights, and of support for corporations and a failure to help homeowners, I’d like to congratulate the L.A. Times and the Associations columnists, Vanitzian and Glassman, for their timely article concerning the rights of homeowners in HOAs/CIDs — “Obeying rules doesn’t mean yielding rights.”

 

In response to the writer’s statement about the board’s “nebulous lectures about ‘rights'”, the columnists’ reply is right on target: “Owners don’t give up any of their individual rights or liberties . . . when they purchase . . . ” a home in an HOA.  The surrender of one’s rights has always required an explicit consent to a specific right, and any generalized assertion of a loss of rights by the “central government”, the HOA board, is an arrogant assumption of wrongful powers. 

 

We are still in America, aren’t we?  Are we not talking about a government under contract, the HOA, and not a public government?  How dare the board ascribe attributes of public government to the HOA when there is a contract that specifies the duties, responsibilities and rights of all parties.  Does an absence of the surrender of a right mean that the board can usurp that right?  Contracts cannot  be modified without the consent of the other party.  The contract is meaningless when a socialistic “greater benefit” is allowed to deny the written contract.

 

Are we still a country under the rule of law, or under the rule of man?  Are HOAs free to do as they please in total disregard of the rights, privileges and immunities as stated by the supreme law of the land.  Has the Constitution been replaced by the property laws governing HOAs?

 

Apparently the California Law Review Commission (CLRC), a state agency, believes so when it recommended a rewrite of the CID statutes, the Davis-Stirling Act,  this year –  see SB1921.  CLRC didn’t feel it necessary under its duty to support the Constitution, and submitted a blank Chapter 2, “Member Bill of Rights”. (It was defeated for other reasons not related to protecting homeowner rights under the US and California constitutions).  My criticism can be found at CLRC.

 

 


HOA uses ‘lost your rights’ to obtain compliance

In this time of a presidential campaign with pronouncements of democracy and socialism, of centralized government and individual rights, and of support for corporations and a failure to help homeowners, I’d like to congratulate the L.A. Times and the Associations columnists, Vanitzian and Glassman, for their timely article concerning the rights of homeowners in HOAs/CIDs — “Obeying rules doesn’t mean yielding rights.”

 

In response to the writer’s statement about the board’s “nebulous lectures about ‘rights'”, the columnists’ reply is right on target: “Owners don’t give up any of their individual rights or liberties . . . when they purchase . . . ” a home in an HOA.  The surrender of one’s rights has always required an explicit consent to a specific right, and any generalized assertion of a loss of rights by the “central government”, the HOA board, is an arrogant assumption of wrongful powers. 

 

We are still in America, aren’t we?  Are we not talking about a government under contract, the HOA, and not a public government?  How dare the board ascribe attributes of public government to the HOA when there is a contract that specifies the duties, responsibilities and rights of all parties.  Does an absence of the surrender of a right mean that the board can usurp that right?  Contracts cannot  be modified without the consent of the other party.  The contract is meaningless when a socialistic “greater benefit” is allowed to deny the written contract.

 

Are we still a country under the rule of law, or under the rule of man?  Are HOAs free to do as they please in total disregard of the rights, privileges and immunities as stated by the supreme law of the land.  Has the Constitution been replaced by the property laws governing HOAs?

 

Apparently the California Law Review Commission (CLRC), a state agency, believes so when it recommended a rewrite of the CID statutes, the Davis-Stirling Act,  this year –  see SB1921.  CLRC didn’t feel it necessary under its duty to support the Constitution, and submitted a blank Chapter 2, “Member Bill of Rights”. (It was defeated for other reasons not related to protecting homeowner rights under the US and California constitutions).  My criticism can be found at CLRC.

 

 


Where's the compelling reason to protect HOAs?

 
“This expedient departure from principle was nothing new in American history” wrote James MacGregor Burns in Roosevelt: The Soldier of Freedom.   He was referring to the denial of constitutional rights resulting from the internment of the Japanese here in America. 
 
We all can understand expediency in the time of war, but where is the justification for the denial of constitutional rights to Americans living in homeowners associations?  What threat do HOAs pose to warrant the denial of rights, not as an expedient, but permanently?  However, the opposite is quite evident:  it is the government’s protection of these authoritarian regimes itself that is sanctioning this denial of rights.  And, it’s not even an expedient!  And, there’s no compelling justification for protecting the general interests, if any, of the government. 
 
How can anyone, including our government officials and legislators, truly accept the over-simplified, misleading sound-bite argument that “the homeowner signed a contract” in face of strong evidence to the contrary?  Or that, after the imposition of pro-HOA laws, any further attempt for reform now becomes “contract interference”?
 
It is disgraceful conduct by our government officials under strong special interest pressures.  If not pressure from the lobbyists, then it must be a rejection of American democracy by our government itself!
 
 
Welcome to the New America of independent HOA principalities!
See Author Show video on the exciting book, Establishing the New America of independent HOA

Where’s the compelling reason to protect HOAs?

 
“This expedient departure from principle was nothing new in American history” wrote James MacGregor Burns in Roosevelt: The Soldier of Freedom.   He was referring to the denial of constitutional rights resulting from the internment of the Japanese here in America. 
 
We all can understand expediency in the time of war, but where is the justification for the denial of constitutional rights to Americans living in homeowners associations?  What threat do HOAs pose to warrant the denial of rights, not as an expedient, but permanently?  However, the opposite is quite evident:  it is the government’s protection of these authoritarian regimes itself that is sanctioning this denial of rights.  And, it’s not even an expedient!  And, there’s no compelling justification for protecting the general interests, if any, of the government. 
 
How can anyone, including our government officials and legislators, truly accept the over-simplified, misleading sound-bite argument that “the homeowner signed a contract” in face of strong evidence to the contrary?  Or that, after the imposition of pro-HOA laws, any further attempt for reform now becomes “contract interference”?
 
It is disgraceful conduct by our government officials under strong special interest pressures.  If not pressure from the lobbyists, then it must be a rejection of American democracy by our government itself!
 
 
Welcome to the New America of independent HOA principalities!
See Author Show video on the exciting book, Establishing the New America of independent HOA