Tag: constitution

Decl. of Indep. from HOA government — 2000

At this time when advocates are urging homeowners to present reform bills to their legislature, this earlier post of mine revealed the problem dealing with the legislature from the very beginning.  This 2014 repost refers to my appearance before the Arizona HOA Hearing committee in 2000, which also appeared in Robert Nelson’s book (p. 102) published by the Urban Institute Press.   

****

“In 2000, as a naïve and newbie to the politics at state legislatures, Arizona in particular, I addressed the HOA Study Committee on September 7th (3rd such meeting of unfulfilled 7) and submitted a statement titled, “HOMEOWNER’S DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE  from homeowner association governments.”  In it I quoted parts of the Decl. of Indep. And informed the committee that I had hoped that these hearings would bring forth a list of grievances for which homeowners were seeking redress. 

[In 2000 I testified – – -]

“And as in those times of 1776, a small, principled and dedicated group of citizens are seeking a redress of their grievances. They first looked to the existing government, the HOA Board, and failing to obtain satisfaction therein, must seek other means of redress – a radical change in the concept and legal structure of the homeowner association controlling document, the CC&Rs.

“Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, at this time I had hoped that the citizens of Arizona would be able to present and enumerate their long list of abuses, and solutions to these abuses, similar to as is found enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, without the interference and obstruction by elements of these ‘oppressive governments.’  I see that this will not be the case.

“The people of Arizona only wish to be able to present their case before this Committee in a fair and just manner. However, sadly I feel that, because of the composition of the committee, the homeowners are actually being placed on trial; that they are being asked to justify their grievances before their oppressors” [CAI].

****

Today, I think it would be helpful to adopt my statement and add those grievances that you feel need to be solved, and submit the entire package to your legislature and the media.  It would be your declaration from HOA governments, your petition for redress. Of course, the more signatures you have the better. 

WSJ poll on decaying American values shared by HOA-Land

As early as 2019 I began examining the relationship between the decaying national culture and that of the political and social culture of HOAs in HOA-Land. I came to the conclusion that the HOA social and political dynamics are identical as we have witnessed on the broad national scale. I am not sure as to what came first, the chicken or the egg? To what extend has the HOA independent principality mentality and legal scheme contributed to the national scene? Or are the HOA dynamics just a reflection of the broader culture in America today functioning in parallel with  the national malaise, are the private government HOAs?[i]

In “Part 1, The Cultural Dynamics of HOA-Land” of my HOA-Land Nation, I present my analysis of  the forces at work dominating the politics within the HOA private government.

“Basically, the HOA legal structure and scheme is authoritarian in nature: strong central power, limited political freedoms, no accountability, and under the rule of man, not law. The authoritarian nature of HOA-Land is masked by a thorough indoctrination that presents a false picture of the real estate subdivision as democratic, inappropriately named a community, simply because the members are allowed to vote, as meaningless as it is“.[ii]

Last month The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) conducted a poll on the decline in American values since 1998, just 25 years ago.[iii]  The University of Chicago interviewed 1,019 adults and revealed a decline that is reflected in   the HOA culture as well. In other words, Americans have changed their values to disregard the democratic values of our Founding Fathers.  And the private government CC&Rs constitution played a big part in this reshaping of America.

The WSJ findings reveal the interplay between the two cultures in several important aspects.

  • Community involvement … Dropped from 47% to 27%.  This finding supports HOA lack of involvement, non-volunteering members, the apathy, and failure to support substantive, well documented complaints by other members that is rampant throughout HOA-Land. HOA details can be read here HOA defect: volunteers & boards of directors.

·         Patriotism . . . Dropped from 70% to 38%.  How can it be explained? The prevalent conduct by the vast majority of HOA members who unquestionably accept the acts of the board of directors. When these actions are outright black and white violations of the Constitution, state laws and obligations of the HOA governing documents.  In short the HOA operates with impunity in regard to American values and beliefs, reflecting a lack of US patriotism and a preference for the HOA “constitution.”  HOA details can be read here:HOA Common Sense, No. 1: The New America of HOA-Land.

  • Money . . . rose from 31% to 43%.   The cultural messages over the last several decades have clearly been: greed is good; it’s all about me; and I want it all, and I want it now.  Paraphrasing the Reverend Wallis,

Do we want [property] values to prevail everywhere and in all things?  Are there some areas of life where [property] values should not determine what is most important — personal and family relationships, ethics and religion, community and public service and social justice?  Are there certain things degraded when [property values] are allowed to be the ultimate measure?  Are there certain social values and practices that are higher than market values?[iv] 

·         Religion . . . Dropped from 62% to 39%.  Each of the above drops in the conduct of Americans, also found in HOA-Land,  portrays a decline in the ethical and moral values and guidelines that were previously provided by institutional religions. “God id dead” is the watchword of federal government that has not provided a substitute code of conduct.     In America today, Rev. Jim Wallis wrote in 2010 (Rediscovering Values), “What has been deliberately and carefully made ‘socially acceptable’ was, not too long ago, thought to be irresponsible – both financially and morally.” See also,  God is dead, and so, too, are our unalienable rights.

NOTES:

[i] See Did HOA-Land contribute to the national disregard for democratic America?

[ii] George K. Staropoli,  The HOA-Land Nation Within America, StarMan Press, 2019.

[iii] WSJ/NORC Poll March 2023.

[iv] Jim Wallis, Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street, p. 27, Howard Books, 2010;

AZ legislature fears HOA failures if homestead protection permitted?

Why is the exclusion of homestead protection for private HOAs a matter for  the AZ Senate FIN committee?  Is the committee afraid that HOAs will begin to fail in droves due to dead beat members retaining up to $400,000 in homestead exemptions if foreclosed on? (The HOA equivalent to public taxes).  That’s odd, because for years CAI has presented surveys that all is well in HOA-Land with a 70% – 80% member approval.  Or is there fear mongering going on again?

H’mmm.  Suppose now that the fear is real and down go the HOAs, mainly on the directors failure to manage the HOA’s funds.  Why then should HOAs get preferred treatment in violation of the Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Declaration of Rights? Let them fail as any other poorly run organization!

§32. Constitutional provisions mandatory. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.

§13. Equal privileges and immunities.. No law shall be enacted granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens or corporations.

If the committee, and Legislature, proceed to withhold homestead protection then their act would be a clear violation of the AZ Constitution and subject to an easy challenge. It has happened in the past and the homeowners won! AZ Attorney General admits SB 1454 HOA to be invalid and without effect.

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.”

CAI: your friend or your foe?

Author’s note:  I’d like to thank the ever-alert Deborah Goonan of IAC for this important tip.

Unbelievably, the CAI Washington chapter spills the beans  on CAI’s mission and objectives.  As a tax-exempt 501(c)6 business trade nonprofit the oxymoron statements below admit to working for business entities and at the same time, serving the consumers of these services, the HOAs.  “to advocate on behalf of community associations.” 

CAI is not permitted to have HOAs as members, so it recruits the boards of directors as individual volunteers creating conflict of interest conditions. I offer this statement by the chapter to set the tone for my criticism of the following article.[1] Note it skips over serving its members, the attorneys and managers who are vendors to HOAs.

“Our Vision: “To be recognized as the leading resource for Community Associations and Business Partners.

“Our Mission: “Optimize the operations of Community Associations and foster value for our Business Partners.

“What We Do: 1. Advocacy – establish and enhance/maintain relationships with legislators and government officials and to advocate on behalf of community associations; 2. Member Development – boost membership and participation through enhanced outreach; 3. Education – provide a World-Class Education Curriculum for Stakeholders; 4. Member Services – maximize value provided to our current members, including Business Partners (events, conferences, materials, etc.).

“Who We Serve: “Community Association Leaders, Business Partners, CAI National, Community Association Members, Developers/Builders, Financial Institutions, Government Agencies, Insurers, Legislators, Managers, Media, Realtors, Sister Associations.

* * * *

Quorum Magazine article Based on the above stated mission and purpose of CAI, the Washington chapter’s magazine recounts a superficial, misleading whitewash portrayal of the history of HOAs in America[2]; it serves as good CAI propaganda and portrays an unprofessional social media illusion that  all’s well in HOA-Land. It is all real estate development oriented sold as a desired and well accepted housing alternative by uninformed individuals.

The article is devoid of constitutional and democratic concerns and validity centering on the HOA as another form of local government —  a contractual, private government.  These issues affecting the rights and freedoms of HOA members can be found in detail in the listed texts and selected quotes. Note the title of the texts, which says a lot.

  • Prof. Dilger wrote in Neighborhood Politics (1992)[3],

“For example, most of those who advocate the formation of RCAs [HOAs] assume that RCAs  . . . incorporate all the rights and privileges embodied in the US Constitution, including . . . the rights of due process and equal protection under the law found in the Fourteenth Amendment.”

  • Prof. McKenzie wrote in his landmark Privatopia (1994)[4],

“T]he property rights of the developer, and later the board of directors, swallow up the rights of the people, and public government is left as a bystander. . . . [Consequently,] this often leads to people becoming angry at board meetings claiming that their ‘rights’ have been violated – rights that they wrongly believe they have in a [HOA]. 

“CIDS [HOAs] currently engage in many activities that would be prohibited  if they were viewed  by the courts as the equivalent of local governments.” 

  • Steven Seigel wrote in his WM & Mary journal (1998)[5],

“Because of the traditional view, RCAs [HOAs] rarely have been deemed state actors subject to the requirements of the Constitution. As private entities, RCAs regulate behavior in a way that is anathema to traditional constitutional strictures;”

  • CAI-ULI funded publication Community Associations (2005)[6].

“[HOAs are] a consumer product sold by profit-seeking firm, a legal device, a corporation reliant on both coercive powers and voluntary cooperation, a democracy, and a lifestyle.  With this plan, TB50 [The Holmes Association Handbook] set out the plan that would be taken in forming the CAI.”

  • Franzese and Seigel argued in their Rutgers journal article (2008)[7]

“The laissez-fare approach to CIC [common interest communities]  regulation is reflected in the statutory law, which affords exceedingly few rights and protections to homeowners association residents.”

It can be safely concluded that CAI is not your friend, and any HOA in bed with CAI is representing its interests and not yours.

Notes

[1] Washington Metropolitan Chapter, CAI (Oct.18, 2022).

[2] “Community Associations – A Historical Perspective,” Quorum Magazine, CAI (August 2016, reprinted Oct. 2022).  

[3]  Roger Jay Dilger, Neighborhood Politics: Residential Community Associations in American Governance, p. 160, New York Univ. Press (1992). Formerly WVU Prof. Political Science and Director of Political Affairs.

[4] Evan McKenzie, Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Government,  Yale Univ. Press (1994).

[5] Steven Siegel, “The Constitution and Private Government: Toward the Recognition of Constitutional Rights in Private Residential Communities Fifty years After Marsh v. Alabama,” Wm & Mary Bill of Rights J., Vol. 6, Issue 2 (1998).

[6] Donald R. Stabile, Community Associations: The Emergence and Acceptance of a Quiet Innovation in Housing, p. 144 (2000). Funded by CAI and ULI.

[7] Paula A. Franzese and Steven Siegel, “The Twin Rivers Case: Of Homeowners Associations, Free Speech Rights And Privatized Mini-Governments,” 5 RUTGERS J.L. & PUB. POL’Y 630 (2008).