Tag: constitution

HOA Kindle books

I have compressed and summarized my research on HOA constitutional  issues over ten years and have produced several Kindle books for a comprehensive understanding of the issues.  The historical basis for the current version of utopian societies begins with a review of The Homes Association Handbook of 1964, and the history of Community Associations Institute.

I’ve tried to bridge the gap between the writings of the academic,  political scientists and the people, and present and clarify the constitutional issues facing the curent HOA hegal scheme.

The following Kindle ebooks are available for downloading

2.

The Foundations of Homeonwers Associations and the New
America REVISED by George K. Staropoli (Kindle Edition – Oct 14,
2009) – Kindle eBook

Buy: $5.95
Auto-delivered wirelessly

3.

Establishing the New America: independent HOA
principalities by George K. Staropoli (Kindle Edition – Jul 17,
2008) – Kindle eBook

Buy: $15.95
Auto-delivered wirelessly

4.

Understanding the New America of HOA-Lands by George Staropoli (Kindle Edition – Sep 24, 2010) – Kindle eBook

Buy: $8.95
Auto-delivered wirelessly

Court holds HOA elections are a matter of public interest

A California appellate court held that HOA elections are a matter of public interest and annual meetings are a public forum. Candidates are limited public figures with respect to the elections. Therefore, the anti-SLAPP law applied with respect to statements made by the candidates and their speech is protected.  A defamation lawsuit based on statements made by the candidates must survive a motion that the lawsuit was made to stifle public participation.

 

In Cabrera v. Alam the court held,

 

We reverse and remand with directions to grant the anti-SLAPP motion. Defendant carried his burden of showing the defamation claim was based on protected activity under section 425.16, subdivision (e)(3). We hold defendant’s statements were protected activity because they were made in a public forum at a homeowners association’s annual meeting and concerned an issue of public interest, namely, the qualifications of a candidate for office in the association. Plaintiff failed to carry her burden of showing a probability of prevailing on the merits of the defamation claim. Having thrust herself into the controversy surrounding the election of the association’s board of directors, she became a limited purpose public figure who was required to show defendant made the allegedly defamatory statements with malice. Plaintiff failed to produce any evidence showing defendant made the statements knowing them to be false or recklessly disregarding their falsity.

 

Another step toward the recognition of the reality that HOAs are indeed de facto governments and need to be recognized as state actors, and brought under the protections and prohibitions of the US Constitution.

CAI acknowledges “unconstitutional taking”, but not from homeowners

CAI-CLAC (CA CAI lobbying committee) has apparently discovered the meaning of “an unconstitutional taking” when it object to the new California law, SB 209, that permits homeowners to install electric vehicle charging stations in HOAs. CAI argued in its July 26, 2011 email release (not shown under HOT BILLS on its website), “a very significant problem remained unresolved in that the measure essentially condones an unconstitutional governmental “taking” of property that is commonly owned by all the members for the benefit of one. (My emphasis). I’m impressed that CAI acknowledges constitutional law.

 

However, CAI, that national leading HOA educational organization — as it likes to promote itself, but is truly a business trade group to help its members make $$$$ — has no quarrel with the taking of homeowners’ constitutional rights, freedoms, liberties, privileges and immunities as a result of the application of the common law of servitudes over constitutional law. The taking of constitutional rights and freedoms, and the violation of the equal application of the law and due process protections for homeowners in HOAs by constructive notice — the simple posting to the county clerk’s office — binds buyers to the CC&Rs sight unseen, never mind the absence of explicit consent.

 

CAI seems to take this fascist state approach, where the goals of the state, the HOA, come before individual rights, is an absolute, sacrosanct, untouchable right conferred upon the HOA, without regard to the US Constitution. The justification for the legitimacy of the HOA government is the lame excuse that the homeowner remains in the HOA and does not leave its jurisdiction, thereby giving his implied consent to be governed and to the surrender of his rights. But, the HOA is not a de jure public government that functions without any contract. The HOA is a contractual arrangement, and this application of public doctrine is an constitutional taking of the homeowners’ private property rights.

 

Sadly, state legislators see no evil, no rejection of the US Constitution, and the courts allow this secession from the Constitution to prevail. What is the purpose of a constitution if any two people can sign a document that says we reject the Constitution? What is happening to America?

 

As we discovered with regard to Arizona’s secessionist feelings earlier this year, Art. I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution prohibits compacts between the states without the consent of Congress: “No state shall, without the consent of Congress . . , enter into any agreement or compact with another state”. And to allow private citizens to do so makes a mockery of the Constitution and the American system of government.  Are we already in The New America of HOA-Land? 

 

Read on CAI, read on and learn more about constitutional law.

The hostile face of Arizona’s DFBLS to HOA dispute resolution

So I now ask, as the DFBLS website still informs viewers that there may be a fee increase, placed there soon after SB 1148 became law, “Why is there this heightened concern for HOA filing fees and not other fees? Have the pro-HOA special interests been at work making suggestions to, or whispering in the ears of, DFBLS Director Palma to increase the fees as part of their effort to stop justice for homeowners in HOAs? The same group that lost 42% of their cases before OAH, who had finally brought down the 2006 law as unconstitutional, and now threatens to do so again with SB 1148.

 

Please note that DFBLS is not listed inder ARS 41-1092(7), definitions by name of agency, as a “self-supporting regulatory agency”  . . . In fact, according to its minutes, the arguments for a fee increase were rejected by the JLBC on November 15, 2006.

Under the DFBLS web page, Homeowners Associations, why is there no information being provided to homeowners who may seek to file a complaint, except to have them read the law? Why is there no email contact provided for the public? For a $50 fee, DFBLS provides plenty of information under its mobile home obligations. And much, much more under its Fire Marshall and Manufacturing obligations.

Why is DFBLS presenting this hostile face to homeowners in HOAs seeking justice under the law?

Read the complete Commentary at DFBLS Hostility

the Truth in HOAs poll message is quite clear

In the Introduction to the Gutenberg Press ebook publication of Aristotle’s Politics, A. D. Lindsay wrote, “The existence of force is for Plato and Aristotle a sign not of the state but of the state’s failure. . . . the state represents their common agreement, force their failure to make agreement complete.”

The champion of the people, Thomas Jefferson in his 1801 inaugural address, stated, “That though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possesses their equal rights, which equal law is to protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

Evan McKenzie, in Beyond Privatopia, warns that, “Shifting political authority to relatively invisible boards of directors who are basically beyond democratic accountability but who control enormous amounts of money may be a dangerous practice.”

In contrast to those CAI, industry sponsored “satisfaction with HOA” surveys, a very direct and simple poll is being conducted on the internet. It addresses the issues of the legitimacy of HOA governance in regard to the validity of a genuine consent to be governed, and a surrender or waiver of an individual’s rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities. It asks the readers directly, ”Would you sign, or would have signed, the Truth in HOAs Disclosure Agreement?” (See Truth in HOAs disclosure poll — please vote your conscience<.

After just 4 days, the results have shown a steady outcome, with at this writing,

  • 83% responding to, “NO — Would anyone in their right mind knowingly sign such an agreement?”

  • 16% responding to, “NO — I won’t agree to accept such conditions although I want to protect my property values.

  • And one lonely vote for, “YES — I readily accept the conditions, and I want to protect my property values.”

  • and no responses to, “YES — I had no choice for comparable housing, so I accept the conditions.”

The absence of any support for choosing an HOA for its alleged property value protection must be noted. This absence allows for some important conclusions. Nobody has gone on record, even anonymously, to support what many have expressed as the outrageous propaganda by the pro-HOA factions in our society. This propaganda, in its fullest argument, declares that the people openly embrace the HOA concept and fully and knowingly consent to be governed by the HOA regime in every way. The lack of any supporting response, however, seems to indicate some embarrassment of having to admit to a falsehood. To indicate some feeling of guilt. A realization that if they respond YES that they will be rejecting our democratic system of government for empty promises of a few pieces of gold So, they cannot admit to it by voting YES.

It is also interesting to note the 16% response to rejecting the Agreement, but affirming the desire for protecting property values. Not presented here, but there are other means of providing for the HOA benefits that do not violate our principles of democratic government. One such proposed mechanism exists today, but the people have been conditioned to accept repressive private government over no public government with all its protections. (See my 2004, A proposal for the “Muni-zation” of HOAs; Stop developers from granting private government charters<.

It appears, in spite of outcrys and laments of defending the Constitution, that state legislators have adopted the attitude of the Emperor’s council of advisers in The Emperor’s New Clothes, and allowed themselves to be swayed by fast talking self-anointed pundits. They have allowed this state of affairs to exist, and to continue to grow. Example: in Beyond Privatopia McKenzie tells of a Madison, MS ordinance (10-406.14, 2006) that makes it unlawful to violate the CC&Rs and allows the HOA to file a civil court complaint.

And he presents the first steps in an explicit symbiotic relationship between cities and HOAs with the creation of a “Congress of Neighborhoods<"in Gilbert and Chandler, AZ that “formally links cities with associations” in a number or areas, including HOA educational seminars. How about constitutional law and government 101 seminars? None. The “Congress” sounds like the beginnings of The United HOAs of Arizona

The message of this Truth in HOAs Disclosure Agreement poll is quite clear. And again I ask, “Who will protect the people from powerful factions?”