Tag: coercive monopoly

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!

Do we need a private, parallel government? Why?

The answer to the title question is a resounding, NO!  Here are the reasons why not. In essence, all those state HOA/Condo Acts and statutes establish and permit a parallel system of local government— that regulates and controls the residents within its borders —  to function outside the Constitution.

First, it’s time for state legislatures and the judicial system to acknowledge their   willful blindness[1] that the HOA legal scheme, with its insistence and reliance on  equitable servitudes, that “the HOA CC&Rs have crossed over the line between purely property restrictions to establishing unregulated and authoritarian private governments.”  

Professor Evan McKenzie said it quite clearly some 29 years ago in his 1994 book, Privatopia, “”CIDS [HOAs] currently engage in many activities that would be prohibited  if they were viewed  by the courts as the equivalent of local governments.”[2] It remains true today!

Second, Why are there private HOA governments when there is home rule, charter governments?[3] All the states have a version of home rule that varies in the degree of independence granted to a local governments and under what terms. Under the Home Rule doctrine local communities are permitted a large degree of independence even to the extent that state legislative action is not necessary. What is Home Rule? In simple terms, it is a grant of authority and power — of independence — from the legislature to local communities.

There are no legitimate reasons why HOA governed communities cannot exercise effective and productive self-government while  being subject to constitutional law under home rule statutes.

Third, Just what are the valid reasons for sporting and encouraging private government by the state?  Answer: there’s no legitimate and valid reason for private, local government to exist outside the constitutional framework.  Home rule doctrine existed long before the advent of the HOA legal structure in 1964. That is not to say that it would have solved all problems and be a perfect government, but it would be a government under the Constitution, part of the Union,  like all other forms of local government.  

The constitutionality of statutes is subject to the doctrine of judicial review and scrutiny.[4] I have yet to see any valid government justification in support of the HOA legal scheme that deprives citizens of their constitutional and fundamental rights, which requires meeting the strict scrutiny test. Under strict scrutiny, “the government must prove that the challenged law is both narrowly tailored and the least-restrictive means available to further a compelling governmental interest.”

To argue, as have the states and pro-HOA supporters, that state and local government have an interest in reduced expenditures and the establishment of desirable community living does not carry weight. There are valid arguments that the HOA legal scheme denies fundamental and constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment,[5] which requires the application of strict scrutiny.  It has not been tested!

It is no wonder that state legislatures, CAI, and pro-HOA supporters avoid the issues of HOAs as de facto governments, and questions of judicial review.

The 64-dollar question is: Why do HOAs continue to exist and grow? Could it be, like drugs, there is widespread demand? Or is it because of the collaboration — as a group functioning as a monopoly[6] —   of CAI, the builders/developers, real estate agents, etc. to restrict housing solely subject to private governments? Is housing in HOA-Land equal to public, free-market housing?

Adopting the US Supreme Court’s decision in Brown,[7] “’separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” Separate HOA/condo housing under private governments is inherently unequal and a violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

The answer will be more discussed in more detail in a subsequent commentary.

NOTES

[1] Willful blindness is a legal concept that describes the state of deliberately ignoring or avoiding facts that would make them liable for a wrongful act. 

[2] Evan McKenzie. Privatopia: Homeowners Associations and the Rise of Private Residential Government, Yale Univ. Press, 1994.

[3] See America’s homeland: HOA law vs. Home rule law.

[4] See Judicial Scrutiny standards judge claims of constitutionality

[5] In general, see Desert Mountain opinion (AZ) constitutionality – part 2,  and Law review on CC&Rs constitutionality – part 1.

[6] A monopoly can be “a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service: ‘areas where cable companies operate as monopolies.’”

[7] Brown v. Bd of Education,  347 U.S. 483 (1954).

HOA constitutional “takings” and reasonable amendments

Awaiting an Arizona Supreme Court decision is a case involving a fairly common event in which investors buy up a majority of the condo units and vote to dissolve the condo. The owners are then subject to a forced sale against their will. In Cao v. Dorsey[1] investors owned 90 of 96 units but a homeowner challenged this forced sale under constitutional grounds.[2]  I address one constitutional issue here.

With respect to the governing AZ statute on these “takeovers,” the Court  held,

[We] hold that the statute [ARS 33-1228] is constitutional when applied to condominium owners who bought a condominium unit subject to terms that incorporate the statute. We also hold, however, that if there have been substantive post-purchase changes to the statute, the version of the statute in place at the time of purchase controls.

The statute allows for amendments to the CC&Rs, as commonly stated in the CC&Rs, based simply on the vote of the required approval percentage of owner votes, which the investor controls. The plaintiff argued that  the statute “is an unconstitutional taking of private property.” The Court clarified the law,

“Generally, ‘[t]aking one person’s property for another person’s private use is plainly Prohibited’. . . . Without an exception to the general rule, A.R.S. § 33-1228 is unconstitutional on its face.”

The meaning of “takings” refers to the constitutional prohibition of eminent domain takings of property interests when the property owner contests to the taking by the government. My argument criticizing the HOA’s right to take personal property with no compensation to the objecting owner can be found in HOA principalities where there’s no ex post facto or eminent domain protections (2009) and  Homeowners do not have HOA ‘eminent domain’ protection (2022).

A discussion followed as to what version of the law applied as it was amended after the plaintiff’s purchase.  Getting to the heart of the matter, the Court stated,

“[W]e will not ‘allow substantial, unforeseen, and unlimited amendments’ to the Declaration, as that ‘would alter the nature of the covenants to which the homeowners originally agreed.’ . . . We ‘will not subject a minority of landowners to unlimited and unexpected restrictions on the use of their land merely because the covenant agreement permitted a majority to make changes to existing covenants.’”

In short, no surprises and no adding new elements to the Declaration – CC&Rs without member approval. Future amendments, however, “cannot be ‘entirely new and different in character, otherwise they would exceed the reasonable expectations of the owners.’”  Furthermore, statutory amendments do not apply when, 

“the statutory amendments did not merely refine the statutes, correct errors, or fill in gaps, but substantively altered owners’ property rights beyond the “owners’ expectations of the scope of the covenants. . . . And substantive amendments to the Condominium Act cannot later be incorporated into the agreement without renewed consent.”

The Court vacated the trial court decision in favor of the HOA and sent the case back to the superior court based on its holdings. The decision has been appealed to the Supreme Court and we are waiting for its opinion.

What does this case mean?  What is all the hullabaloo about?  How important is a favorable supreme court decision? TEMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT! That’s why CAI is not only the HOA’s attorney but has also filed an amicus brief.  The holding of homeowner reasonable expectations regarding amendments opens the door to further challenges as to just what is reasonable in today’s HOA land agreements.  The opposition can say, “well, it is common that a development can be expected to be bought out, and therefore the holding is mute, not applicable anymore.”

The broader issue for advocates is to apply reasonable expectations to misrepresentations in the selling process that is intentionally designed to hide not only takings by the HOA but violations of the equal protection of the law. In the case of CAI, has its conduct over the years amounted to a coercive monopoly to keep control over the HOA-Land? How about the real estate agents and department looking the other way and concealing the facts?

It’s up to the homeowners and advocates to pursue these challenges that will open the doors to HOA reforms of substance.

Notes

[1]  CAO v. Dorsey, CA-CV 21-0275 (Ariz. App. Div.1, 2022). I would like to thank Dennis Legere, Arizona Homeowners Coalition,  for bringing this case to my attention and for providing me with the court filings. He has filed an AZ supreme court amicus brief  with attorney Jonathan Dessaules.

[2] This is the first of several planned reviews and case memoranda addressing the appellate court decision. To follow will be  reviews of the amicus briefs by AZ Homeowners Coalition,  The Goldwater Institute for the homeowner), and CAI (for the HOA), and the eventual supreme court decision.

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.