HOA Constitutional Government

In order for an exchange of ideas to occur, I posted a comment to the CAI Ungated Blog of May 22nd in response to Mr. Skiba’s experiment with nonmember posts.

The full text of my comments can be found at Reply.

The latest response to advocates’ criticism of the Common Ground article, Critical Mass, and of CAI and HOAs in general, comes in another Tom Skiba, CEO of CAI, BLOG entry of May 22nd. So, allow this humble advocate who, in Mr. Skiba’s words, “revolt[s] at democracy at its most local form” to shed some light on these “word games” — you know, It depends on what the meaning of “Is”, is.

The CEO goes on to make contradictory statements, talking not about democratic governance, but about the business needs of associations,

What we cannot support are situations that compromise the financial health and well-being of associations, place an undue regulatory burden and cost on associations, or treat associations differently than any other type of business entity. Because that is what associations are – businesses.

They aren’t governments, they aren’t personal private clubs, and they certainly aren’t fascist states created to deprive poor, unsuspecting homeowners of their rights. They are businesses that need to be run in a professional and business-like manner.

Why, then the statements about democracy and the will of the people as stated in the BLOG? Because CAI needs the statutes and support of the legislators to sanction the unconscionable provisions of these CC&Rs; and for the enforcement of these contracts that are not understood by many homeowners, who are not asked to even initial no less sign them as must occur in a bona fide contract; and many other reasons, some mentioned here, and too many to list here.

Mr. Skiba’s BLOG simply reflects the “gotcha” by advocates, and the realization that there is no valid reason to restrict fundamental freedoms and liberties except to coerce compliance with the “laws” of defective, authoritarian regimes.

Read the complete response.

In the beginning
There was the land,
And the land was good
And the people were happy.

Soon upon the land
Came the moneychangers
In the guise of builders
Of the community.

And the moneychangers said
Behold, the covenants, conditions and restrictions
Were sacred and holy works,
And the people shall flourish and prosper.

Read the complete poem here.

Arizona bill HB2824 will provide for due process protections by means of administrative law hearings (OAH). The bill is stalled by recent amendments that remove an exclsuion regarding developers, which has invoked the ire of the builders who feel that they will lose control of their income stream. Paragraph (B) lists exclusions to OAH adjudication that included (3):

“3. Any dispute that arises during the period of declarant control as defined in sections 33-1250 and 33-1812.”

In order to get the bill accepted, we need to convince the powers that be at the legislature, that to reject the bill would be the granting of “special dispensation” to the profiteer developers who are chiefly responsible for the problems. It’s the developers who stuff the onerous CC&Rs down our throats that take away our constitutional rights. And now they want absolution from any accountability or restraint. This cannot be tolerated, and Arizona still be called a democracy.

Write the leadership and key legislators that the developers must also be held accountable. If not, then we want tradeoffs with a bill of right put into the CC&Rs. It’s that simple! Let the builders come back next year with a bill of rights and we, the homeowners, will decide whether or not its acceptable to us and maybe we will permit their exclusion. But, it must be down next year and not now!

HB2824 must pass this session!

Excerpt from L.A. Times column, Associations, May 21, 2006, with permission of the author Donie Vanitzian, relating to the sale of an HOA property. A writer asks:

Finally, I supplied an interested buyer with the association’s pro forma budget and some other papers the management company gave me. The buyer was unimpressed and refused to sign the offer to purchase without writing contingencies into the contract.

The buyer reserved the right to renege on the sale without penalties or forfeiture if the following contingencies were not met:

• The buyer’s acceptance of all of the association’s governing documents with copies of every amendment, rewrite and restatement.

• A forensic audit conducted by the buyer’s attorney or accountant of the association’s books, records and banking, at the buyer’s expense.

• An independent investigation of the association’s management company and personnel directly responsible for managing said association.

• A minimum of three years of final — not draft — board meeting minutes.

• Copies of all correspondence from seller to the board and from board to seller.

Here’s my problem: I’m moving because our association has a history of tyrannical boards and overspending without accountability. If the buyer learns of this, there goes the sale. Do I have to accept all these contingencies?