Tag: bill of rights

KY legislators allow HOA private contract to determine public policy

This failed bill reflects the facts of life that HOA private agreements control the public policy for all citizens of a state. Read this simple bill. It is disgraceful!

In Arizona, the Senate debated such unconstitutional powers of private government HOAs over regulating public streets. (See Arizona Senators debate HOA legal status and The power of private HOA contracts, and other “voices of the people”). HOAs have become the second form of local political government in this country, and have been accepted and supported by state legislatures in violation of their oaths to support the US Constitution.

This bill, an emergency bill for a disabled boy who lives in an HOA, whose parents built a play house in their backyard, without HOA permission, was rejected with 6 out of 14 committee members not voting. I believe the KY legislators caved in to the powers of the HOA industry, and. shamefully took no sides. Disgraceful!!

AN ACT relating to the protection of disabled children.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky:

âSECTION 1. A NEW SECTION OF KRS CHAPTER 382 IS CREATED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

(1) Any owner of real property used as that person’s actual residence shall have the right to alter or construct on that property any structure reasonably necessary or convenient for the accommodation or therapy of a physically disabled person residing on that property who has not reached the age of majority, provided that the alteration or construction is recommended by a physician for the accommodation or therapy of the disabled person and the alteration or construction does not otherwise violate local, state, or federal law.

(2) The application of any property agreement or provision arising by deed, covenant, servitude, contract, or other instrument or agreement that would limit the rights granted by this section is hereby declared to be contrary to the public policy of the Commonwealth and any attempted application of these provisions in violation of this section shall be void and unenforceable.

âSection 2. This Act shall be known and may be cited as Cooper’s Law.

âSection 3. Whereas the immediate effectuation of the fundamental rights created by this section is necessary to protect the physically disabled children of this state from pending harm and no good cause exists for delay, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Act takes effect upon its passage and approval by the Governor or upon its otherwise becoming a law.

“and justice for all” not available by HOA due process clause

The Dec. 1, 2011 Condo Issues.com blog by Tyler Berding has, as it title, the long hoped for condition sought by homeowners: “And Justice for All.”  Except the author, Steve Weil, fails to make the case that such is the condition in HOAs with their disgraceful, commonly found  due process clause: “after notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Period. Citing almost identical California law only supports the legislature’s pro-HOA authoritarian regime and its denial of fundamental protections of individual rights and liberties. Apparently he never saw the 1979 Al Pacino movie by the same title.

Weil goes on to make his “expert” legal view by citing the Aliusi v Fort Washington Golf Club case, which is not a private government HOA dispute. He speaks of 1) revealing the name of the accuser, 2) the submission of evidence, and 3) makes a good point on the details required by a proper notice, or “indictment,” of wrong-doing. He buries the principles of “and justice for all” in his discussion of issues 1 and 2 above, but, reading between the lines, agrees with the right to confront witnesses and to see and challenge the evidence. Weil concludes with, “the reason for “due process” is to give one who is the target of a hearing a fair chance to defend him/herself.”

However, he makes the pro-HOA assumption, an ipse dixit, that the board, the “jury”, is indeed interested in justice, for if it truly were, it would establish an independent tribunal for hearings. “Giving the owner this opportunity helps reveal the real and relevant facts and thus also aids the board’s decision-making process.”

Finally, the author well understands the moral and ethical aspect of legitimate government and laws. He ends with the need for homeowner acceptance of HOA justice with, “an owner who feels they were given a “fair shake” is much more likely to agree with the board’s disciplinary decision and comply with the governing documents.” It is a long established doctrine, going back to the Greek philosophers, that the legitimacy of government depends on fair and just laws, and the fair and just enforcement of these laws. It is well established that HOA private governments are unjust and authoritarian in structure with a façade of democracy — just because a member can vote does not make an entity a democracy.

There are no due process protections for homeowners in HOAs that would pass judicial scrutiny. Arguments that buyers agreed to be bound to the CC&Rs and bylaws is a mockery of the facts, as the selling process is ripe with misrepresentation — false statements, half-truths, and “no negatives.” See Truth in HOAs disclosure poll — please vote your conscience.

Constitutional free speech in HOA upheld in this surprising case

“Court documents indicate [homeowner] Immelt got upset after being told she had violated a homeowner’s association rule. Immelt borrowed a friend’s car, pulled up in front of the home of the neighbor who reported her and honked the horn repeatedly for up to 10 minutes. Several neighbors were awakened.

“Immelt was convicted of violating a local noise ordinance that prohibits sounding a horn for anything other than public safety or a publicly sanctioned event. Immelt appealed, saying her constitutional free speech rights were violated and that the ordinance was too broad. Her conviction was upheld in appellate court.

“While the court didn’t decide if what Immelt did constituted protected speech, it concluded that the noise ordinance Immelt was arrested under could ban’”protected forms of expressive conduct involving horn honking. It therefore fails constitutional scrutiny’.”

Who says the Constitution means nothing?

State of Washington v. Immelt, No. 83343-5, 2011 Wash. LEXIS 825,* (Wash. Oct 27, 2011). Very long case.

You can vote in China, and in your HOA

In addition to my oft repeated “you can vote in China, and in your HOA” to illustrate that  democracy is not measured solely by the right to vote, here’s another similarity:

“In China, we hold the welfare of the state above the rights of
the individual”   (from the movie, Red Corner, 1997),

which is another of my favorite observations about the New America of HOA-Land.

But most people don’t care about democracy.  Until they fall from power or face the anger of the political machines that run their beloved HOA.

Truth In HOAs Poll update: 9% would surrender their rights to HOA

Aug. 15, 2011 results

The initial response after 1 day to my Truth In HOAs Poll of July 12th was a 98% vote of NO, they could not agree to the Disclosure Agreement. Only 1 YES vote was recorded. Understanding that this may reflect an anti-HOA audience, I allowed the Poll to remain open this past month (and will remain open) to record any change in attitude by the respondents, noting that pro-HOA polls sponsored by CAI and RIM have recorded a 70% “satisfied with their HOA” response.

The Truth In HOAs internet poll is freely available to all on the internet by simply visiting my Commentaries blog, and as notified by my numerous email list posts, my responses to homeowner inquiries, and links provided in my comments to many online media articles. It s not a telephone calling from a pre-selected list.

Within 2 weeks the YES votes for both categories dropped somewhat to 95% with a split between “YES, I would sign” regardless and “YES, I would sign, but I want property value protections.” Today, a month later with a small increment in respondents, the YES responses come to 9% and the NO response to 91%. The split in YES votes shows an small widening with the unconditional YES dominating.

It’s hard to believe that there are some people who have no concern for their rights. This 9% represents “hard-liners or “true believers.” The results are unmistakably clear as homeowner rights advocates have been shouting for years – the support for a valid consent to be governed by the courts and state legislatures is based on a false and misguided view of the authoritarian, private government HOA regimes that are unaccountable to the legitimate and legal constitutional public government.

The HOA supporters, including CAI, do not have clean hands! It’s well beyond time to stop this mockery of the Constitution and mockery that HOAs represent the true voice of the people. And, the state legislatures well know that there are existing statutes that permit “private communities” to exist yet be accountable to Constitutional public government as a state entity, and retain the perceived benefits of restricted amenities, “ordinances,” community “taxes,” etc. (See a Proposal for the Muni-zation of HOAs).

I invite any and all online media, and those public interest organizations who fight for individual rights, to duplicate this poll for their viewers. Let’s get to the whole truth by publishing this poll, or stop telling your viewers that you tell the truth!!!

It should be noted that another marked rebuttal to these “satisfied” polls was a recent Phoenix CBS affiliate, KPHO, poll on whether or not an HOA Syndrome – a PTSD resulting from living in an HOA, diagnosed by Dr. Gary Solomon – was real. The KPHO internet poll results showed a 69% response that the HOA Syndrome was alive in HOAs. (See HOA Syndrome survey: YES, it exists!).

Please freely distribute this commentary/email to interested parties and your local media.