Tag: CAI lobbyists

HOA reform advocates: the enemy is us

Let me start by saying that I have the utmost respect to the handful of persons, advocates, who have actively supported HOA reforms of substance over the years, and have had some success.  To all others I say, the enemy is us.

I well understand the reasons and justifications of people refusing to get actively involved. Personally, talking over the phone and through emails, that most do not have the temperament, want someone to solve their own personal issue with an attempt to expand it nationally, fear retaliation, fear legal issues and the government, and just don’t care about government issues in general.

The numerous social media reform groups, some old but most are new less than 3 years, have not only failed but have  resisted the establishment of a unified,  bona fide and legitimate, national entity; argued as far back by Evan McKenzie when interviewed by Shu Bartholomew, to the best of my recall, sometime before 2004. Today, I must regrettably say some groups make this claim, but they are in name only.

And so, the many Davids believe that they can defeat the mighty Goliath of CAI. The newbie leaders who rise from time to time and disappear a few years later, start by believing that CAI acts in good faith and they can work things out for the protection of homeowner rights. They quickly discover that they have been had, been played with, and realize they are helpless to withstand the entrenched CAI. Today, many who are beginning to be actively involved realize the dominance of CAI over their legislature.

Watch AZ CAI lobbyist at work, 2010, before committee dodge questions, make false statements, and avoid hard questions. Who Controls public streets? HOA or municipality? Part 2 of 3 (youtube.com). (Early quality video).

As the adage goes, as a figural demonstration of one’s commitment to reforms, “put your money where your mouth is.” However, in reality, I have asked people to buy my book, HOA Constitutional Government, as a demonstration of national commitment on a national website, Amazon, but have received token response.

In my announcement I  clearly stated, and still abide by it, that if there were such a legitimate national reform group I would assign all my royalties to that organization.  $15.00 is a trivial show of commitment but will be effective for recognition of national support. BUY NOW! Amazon books.

Taking a positive perspective, I noticed over the past few years a growing trend toward legislation and court decisions in several states affirming constitutional and fundamental rights of HOA members. That’s a good sign that advocate messages and communications are having an effect. 

Now is the time to strike while the iron is hot! Get unified, get organized, get focused, and stop the HOA social media reform groups’ fragmentation of me first, NIMBY policy.

collective writings — immediate release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                 Contact: George K. Staropoli, 602-228-2891

The battle for HOA Constitutional Government

Surprise, AZ – February 1, 2024 — For over 60 years, since 1964, the controversial issue as to the validity and constitutionality of Homeowners associations (HOAs, PUDs, POAs, condos) has been ignored by state legislatures, attorney generals, the judiciary, and the media.

In order to set the record straight and to educate and reorient the policy makers, the constitutionality of HOAs is raised in the collective writings of long time HOA reform activist and nonlawyer, George K. Staropoli. In his  January 9, 2024 published HOA Constitutional Government: the continuing battle,  he has presented 56 of his 1,300 social media posts over his 24 years as a reform activist.

These posts – as originally written and not as legal advice or opinion — contain his views based on documented legislation, case histories,  statements and various releases by the parties including the lobbyist entity, in their  own words.

The case is made that 1) the HOA declaration of CC&Rs is ab initio unconstitutional and invalid; 2) the CC&Rs are a devise to escape the application of constitutional protections; 3)  HOAs are permitted to do things municipal governments are not allowed; 4) there is no genuine, valid support for “agreed to be bound” under the application of equitable servitudes constructive notice doctrine; and 5) the judiciary has failed to educate  judges and law students on laws and principles affecting the HOA legal scheme.

It is argued that this irresponsible state of affairs is primarily the result of the dominance and influence on the policy makers by the national HOA lobbying trade group.  All the state HOA “Acts” and laws constitute “new law,” and the HOA legal scheme has been treated as sui generis; mixing laws of the land with new meanings and definitions to sell the HOA legal scheme to all Americans.

These Acts are nothing more than parallel laws to the Constitution, and superseding the Constitution in many court decisions. In a selected entry Staropoli quotes CAI’s brief to the NJ court in 2006:

“In the context of community associations, the unwise extension of constitutional rights to the use of private property by members . . . raises the likelihood that judicial intervention will become the norm.”

* * * *

Get HOA Constitutional Government – amazon.com

HOA Constitutional website: http://pvtgov.info. Staropoli has had his per se AZ Supreme Court amicus briefs challenging HOA constitutionality accepted by the court.

CA’s condo-mania: AB 1033 allows ADUs to be 2-person condos

A very disturbing 19-page California bill, AB 1033 (Ch. 752)[1], became law this week that extends HOA-Land with respect to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)[2]. The rationale seems to be to support low-income housing given the scarcity of California,  and gain income for retired people as well. It allows the property owner to have a livable unit (ADU) on his property  but requires  the owner to form a two-person condo on what was his single-family property. The accessory unit can then be sold as a condo unit subject to the Davis-Stirling condo laws. Why, I ask???

In order to make this plan work a complicated series of amendments were added. In other words, a planning board, for instance, is given authority to allow this approach to housing, along with changes to building requirements, codes, etc.

The Legislative Digest states,

“This bill would, in addition, authorize a local agency to adopt a local ordinance to allow the separate conveyance of the primary dwelling unit and accessory dwelling unit or units as condominiums, as specified, and would make conforming changes. By imposing new duties on local governments with respect to the approval of accessory dwelling units, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.”

To me, this seems  like a lot of about nothing, unnecessarily complicating property rights and housing.    BUT, extending the fragmented HOA-Land and further eroding adherence to the Constitution – more individual rulers functioning outside the Constitution. It goes beyond home rule laws and the medieval fiefdoms.[3] There is no oath  of allegiance to support the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. And condos pay minimal taxes as a non-profit.  So, what’s the story??

To paraphrase Jack and the Beanstalk, “Fee-fi-fo-fum, I smell the blood of a CAI man.”  CAI-CLAC is the very powerful and highly active CAI legislative action committee (LAC) representing all CAI California chapters. And then there’s Echo,[4] whose membership structure duplicates the  CAI membership structure.

Who says CAI is not a coercive monopoly?[5] Take a close look at California again. Are their any voices in support of homeowners to compete with CAI?  No, sorry to say, although one group has had some influence on legislation but it does not stand close to the overall impact of CAI on events concerning HOA-Land.

NOTES

[1] Bill Text – AB-1033 California Family Rights Act: parent-in-law: small employer family leave mediation: pilot program.

[2] ADUs come in all shapes and sizes – for example, a converted garage, a small home in the backyard, or, as often seen in San Francisco, an unused portion of the main house.

[3] A fief was a central element in medieval contracts based on feudal law. It consisted of a form of property holding or other rights granted by an overlord to a vassal, who held it in fealty (oath to the lord) or “in fee” in return for a form of feudal allegiance, services, and/or payments. 

[4]  “Educational Community for Homeowners (Echo) is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to assisting California homeowners associations. Members receive guidance through live webinars, Members receive guidance through live webinars, virtual seminars and workshops.

[5] Is CAI a coercive monopoly? Definitely YES!

The need to regulate CAI monopoly

To answer to the question I raised, “Is CAI a coercive HOA monopoly?,” required further research and analysis, which resulted in  finding extensive and strong evidence, gathered from over the years, that CAI is definitely acting in violation of the anti-trust statutes; steps need to be taken to break up the monopoly.  Below are my recommendations to regulate CAI’s activities to allow for the voice of others to be heard, especially from owners of HOA homes who suffer under the monopoly.

A.       Regulations on CAI monopolistic activities

1.       CAI to cease all references and implications that it represents HOAs before the legislature, all government bodies, before the courts and including amicus curiae briefs without express consent to do so;

2.      Require CAI to state that it is a business trade nonprofit, explicitly a 501(c)6 and not an educational entity;

3.      Inform readers that it cannot have HOAs as members since HOAs are consumers of the services provided by the trade group members;

4.      It is actively engaged in lobbying state legislatures on bills favorable to the HOA  and not necessarily to the membership;

5.      Inform owners and the public in general that its attorney members represent the HOA personified by the Board of Directors and not the member.

B.    Regulations on HOA activities in support of CAI monopoly

1.       Similar to representing employees in bargaining with management, propose federal laws that permit and protect HOA members to organize its membership to bargain in good faith for amendments to the governing documents and Rules changes;

2.      Propose legislation that allows for the creation and protection of a national HOA Homeowners Coalition, similar in intent as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB);

3.      To restrict the HOA from interference with the newly established  organized national and state  member entities;

4.      Quarterly inform the membership of the number of directors, officers, managers, and attorneys who are members of CAI;

5.      Publish the total annual amount of spending for CAI dues paid for any HOA members, donations, other fees, and expenditures paid for by the HOA;

6.      Inform the membership that all communications with their attorney are not exempt from disclosure by state law,

7.      and all communications with the HOA attorney constitutes corporate documents that are accessible to the members, unless explicitly exempted under  “Pending or contemplated litigation” apply;

8.     The CC&Rs or Declaration for any planned community, condominium association or homeowners association shall state that, “The association hereby waivers and surrenders any rights or claims it may have, and herewith unconditionally and irrevocably agrees to be bound by the US and State Constitutions and laws of the State as if it were a local public government entity.”

Is CAI a coercive HOA monopoly?

Community Associations Institute (CAI) dominates themarket for HOA educational services and controls the market around it by means of its extensive lobbying of state legislatures and by holding seminars, conferences and publications extolling its self-serving agenda that promotes the HOA legal structure and scheme; by the support  of state agencies that sponsor CAI seminars and classes, and by private entities trained under the CAI education program – ECHO in California and CALL in Florida, as examples. It has become successful in lessening competition as a result of its “improper conduct.”

A quick review of the internet postings shows (emphasis added),

“[The]  courts ask if that leading position was gained or maintained through improper conduct—that is, something other than merely having a better product, superior management or historic accident. In the end, courts will decide whether the monopolist’s success is due to ‘the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.’”

“Coercive monopoly” is defined as:

“A monopoly that is created using extraordinary power such as a government or international agency. For example, a government that grants legal protections to firms that create barriers to entry to prevent competition. Firms commonly lobby governments for rules that protect them from competition.”

With respect to CAI, a tax-exempt nonprofit, can it be charged as a monopoly? It is a well-established fact that no state has granted  CAI a protective government monopoly exclusion —  the right to lessen competition. And that includes local governments in several states that openly support and encourage the CAI HOA program; some states have actually employed CAI as its authority to educate the public regarding HOAs.

The  answer is YES according to the following Supreme Court case. The case addresses the instance where  the state assigns a “governmental monopoly” (making it a state-actor) to an entity (which HOAs are not), but must explicitly state that the entity has the right to lessen competition,

“Under this Court’s state-action immunity doctrine, when a local governmental entity acts pursuant to a clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed state policy to displace competition, it is exempt from scrutiny under the federal antitrust laws. In this case, we must decide whether a Georgia law that creates special-purpose public entities called hospital authorities and gives those entities general corporate powers, including the power to acquire hospitals, clearly articulates and affirmatively expresses a state policy to permit acquisitions that substantially lessen competition. Because Georgia’s grant of general corporate powers to hospital authorities does not include permission to use those powers anticompetitively, we hold that the clear-articulation test is not satisfied, and state-action immunity does not apply.”

 (F.T.C. v. Phoebe Putney Health System (133 S.Ct. 1003 (2013)).

CALL TO ACTION

I believe the case can be made for a CAI monopoly and for the Feds to  investigate (Citizens Complaint Center, Antitrust Division, DOJ),  and to file an appropriate antitrust lawsuit ASAP.