Should the FEDS get involved in HOA-Land abuse even though HOAs are controlled by state laws? It would need to come under the approach that state laws are so varied that uniform laws must be adopted, and not by ULC that is steeped in the past and promotes more bad laws. This “what state are you in and that’s the law” has been a general argument for federal law and is a reason for federal intervention in the courts.
With all due respect for the hard work of several reform social media groups, getting the attention of state legislatures and DOJ/FBI depends upon the credentials of advocates. Can they make arguments at the level where the courts and lawyers will stand up and take notice? This is a longtime failure of HOA reform efforts even though they have obtained important reforms here and there over the years.
These reforms, for the most part, are rooted in “operational” reforms that affect the laws now on “the books” — the overwhelming bad laws dealing with day-to-day operations and functions of the HOA. This reform legislation is needed to bring a fair and just treatment under the constraints of the HOA legal scheme until reforms of substance are adopted.
Allow me to explain with an example. There are many “good” laws that are designed to protect the homeowner and his rights, and put restrictions on the HOA. They may even have strong enforcement provisions with criminal violations. Great? On the surface yes because enforcement is still the task not of the state, but the homeowner who has to bring such charges. The state – district/county attorneys and attorney generals — are not obligated to act. BUT, by definition, a crime is an act harmful to the state beyond one person. “Crime is “the intentional act usually deemed socially harmful or dangerous . . . prohibited and punishable by law.”
This “not my job,” hands-off posture constitutes an error of omission by the state that, under the obligations of the Constitution.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to . . . establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility . . . promote the general Welfare . . ..”
Stay with me. What is necessary is to rewrite the CC&Rs that is based on The Homes Association Handbook, as the Founding Fathers did when they threw out the Articles of Confederation for the US Constitution. There has been and is little support for this approach, which I believe is the result of a lack of understanding and a fear that their HOA would be abolished — a very successful fear mongering by CAI. And that includes a fear of CAI.
Over the years I filed an IRS tax-exempt complaint against CAI for having the customers of its members also a member of the business trade group in violation of its tax-exempt status. In 2005 CAI had to drop HOAs pe se from membership. Earlier this year I filed a 40-page complaint with the antitrust division of DOJ arguing that CAI was a monopoly, and has acted to thwart competition and the free entry into the HOA education market.
Recently I asked for support of my appeal to the Federalist Society to encourage and promote dialogue on the constitutionality of and loss of citizen rights in an HOA. The Society’s mission is educational for lawyers and student lawyers, and has a national program of local law school chapters to debate issues. (Notable attorneys and government officials attend these meetings. My grandson had the opportunity to meet the Governor.) I argued that new lawyers sally forth lacking the truth about HOA-Land serving to perpetuate the unjust laws.
HOA reformers and groups must present themselves as knowledgeable advocates, united nationally, who understand the law and the judicial process. Reformers need to be able to stand up before CAI, the courts, and state legislators and win! As I posted elsewhere, I am still waiting for an answer to my 2006 challenge to debate the CAI “elite” lawyers who are members of CAI’s CCAL.
As the renowned international management consultant Peter F. Drucker made clear, “A mission statement has to be operational; otherwise, it’s just good intentions.“
HOA Constitutional Government 