HOA Constitutional Government

“Mandatory disclosure” required before HOA can act on allegations

Arizona Governor Napolitano signed 3 Homeonwer Association bills in one day!

SB1055: Allows homeowners to also fly military flags, like the USMC flag. Ariz. Sess. L. Ch 75 (2006).

SB1007: Closed loopholes in HOA excuses for not providing access to records. It also placed a minimum debt to the HOA of $1,200 before a foreclosure can be filed, or only after a one year wait (duplicated in SB1008). Ariz. Sess. L. Ch. 71 (2006).

Ground breaking legislation — This bill also incorporates SB1560. (In civil court, Arizona requires the mandatory disclosure of certain information between both parties as a means of avoiding a trial, since both sides will get a good look at the evidence and charges being made.) Before an HOA can take any legal action against a homeowner for allegations of any rules violation, it must:

*** provide written notice of the allegation and the proceedure to follow regarding the charges

*** the homeowner may send a written response by sending the response by certified mail within ten business days

*** The written explanation from the association shall provide at least the following information:

1. The provision of the community documents that has allegedly been violated.
2. The date of the violation or the date the violation was observed.
3. The first and last name of the person or persons who observed the violation.

*** The association shall not proceed with any action to enforce the community documents, including the collection of attorney fees, before or during the time [10 days].

During the week of March 27, 2006, Arizona legislators heard three HOA bills that would bring substantive changes to the treatment of homeowners in HOAs. Two of the three bills passed and were placed on the active calendar for a floor vote.
SB1560, mandatory disclosure, passed and HB2352, the restoration of the homestead exemption, failed. The other bill that passed related to providing due process protections to homeowners by allowing the Office of Administrative Hearings to adjudicate HOA disputes.

I prepared a 2 DVD set covering the hearings for the mandatory disclosure and homestead exemption bills. (Total time is 116 minutes). Listen to the Senators and their arguments in support of HOAs, and to Rep. Farnsworth who vainly attempts to explain the unequal protection of the laws in favor of HOAs against homeowners. Listen as the Senators make the case for state action with their support for HOAs, and the entwinement and symbiotic relationship between the state and the HOA that meet the US Suprme Court’s tests for state actors.

Middletown (Ohio) Journal letter

Letters to the Editor for March 31, 2006

I’d like to congratulate the Middletown Journal for its series on homeowner associations, because it tells the public about life in an HOA.

However, let me give you some observations concerning the content of the series. Basically, you are revealing that buyers choose HOAs for aesthetic reasons (“looks nice”) and for a preservation of property values. You are also revealing, as indicated by my comments in the series, that people are willing to trade a loss of rights and protections in order to attain their stated goals. The problem comes, however, when these rights are trampled on by the board at some time, any time, in the future, and the homeowner finds that he has limited or no protections, and that it’s too late to change anything. So he must either conform and accept the injustice, or move out.

People should ask why they are not being told about this loss of rights and protections that are not mentioned in any of the required disclosure documents. If HOAs are all that good, why is there this silence on the part of the government’s consumer protection agencies, as well as generally in the media?

March 26, 2006

HOA: About homeowners associations
Meghan Crosby, Cox News Service, middletownjournal.com (Ohio)

Community Associations Institute

One of the greatest advantages of living in a HOA is the maintenance of a neighborhood’s appearance, and, thus, its property values, according to Frank Rathbun, vice president of communications for Community Associations Institute in Alexandria, Va.

“The homeowners control their community. They vote for who represents them. They agree on rules, from architectural guidelines to fences and sheds. It’s the most basic form of democracy — homeowners representing their own best interest.”

“Most do enjoy living in HOAs. But some don’t. Not all people are made to live in community associations.”

Citizens for Constitutional Local Government

HOAs are unregulated mini-governments, according to George Staropoli, founder of Citizens Against Private Government HOAs in Scottsdale, Ariz. Staropoli, a business broker, is perhaps the nation’s most vocal critic of homeowners associations. He writes extensively against HOAs, has taken homeowner rights issues to state legislators and has a Web site — http://www.pvtgov.gov — where he challenges and monitors HOA legislation.

“They are private contracts, and local governments do not protect residents’ due process and equal opportunities of the law,” Staropoli said. “There’s no accountability, and they run as governments themselves.”

HOAs should come under the same protection of constitutional rights just like every other government entity, he said.

“When the board fines you, where do you go for your due process? You go right back to the same people who fined you,”

Staropoli said. He also said he has qualms with the constant monitoring of residents’ property by HOAs.

“It says that we, the board, don’t trust our neighbors, and we have to spy,” Staropoli said. “Is that how you generate a healthy, vibrant community?”

The following is an excerpt from Beanie Adolph’s testimony before the Texas House of Representatives Business and Industry committee hearing of March 21 that was considering a Texas version of UCIOA.

Is it proper for the state to create a form of local government that is not compatible with our American system of democracy?

Is it proper for the state to permit the existence of private quasi-governments that regulate and CONTROL the behavior of citizens without the same due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment?

When did “whatever the people privately contract” prevail over the protections of the U.S. Constitution?

And so we come to Act IV. The CAI is proposing its latest statute. This statute is so opposed to the freedom that is believed basic to our country that it defies reason that you are even considering it. The answer must be NO! a loud NO!. Freedom must be restored. Homestead protection must be restored.

I believe you take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Please be true to your country, to your state, and to your constituents and DENY this TUPCA proposal – and then AMEND THE PROPERTY CODE SO THAT HOA FORECLOSURE IS NO LONGER A THREAT TO HOMEOWNERS.

To view the complete statement, see Texas.