Tag: democracy

In search of the elusive ideal HOA agreement

 

I received an email from a well-intentioned homeowner in Georgia. He was on the committee to rewrite the CC&Rs to make it fair both to the 692 homeowners and the HOA, which, I hope he realizes, is the current board of directors. He asked for my input, so I wrote in return:

 

  1. Do you think the Committee can create a more perfect union than that attempted in writing the US Constitution?

  2. Do you think 692 people can agree on everything in the CC&RS that you are putting together?

  3. Do you think 692 people really care about HOA government participation, or did they just want to buy a home?

  4. Would the Committee and the HOA Board sign, along with the 692 owners, the  Truth in HOAs Disclosure Agreement?

  5. Would the Committee include a guarantee that the HOA will maintain property values in exchange for the various waivers and surrenders of the owner’s private property rights and interests, both explicitly stated or implied by the CC&Rs, or by future court rulings? If not, then what is the buyer getting from the HOA? In a true democracy, people give up certain of their rights to the government in exchange for gurantees, justice, protections against more powerful factions, and to obtain an orderly, smooth-running society.

  6. Would the Committee include a prohibition on“ex post facto” amendments to the CC&Rs, similar to that in the US Constitution? That is, honor all prior CC&Rs versions existing at the time of each owner’s purchase? In other words, they are all grandfathered.

  7. Would the Committee include wording to the effect that the HOA irrevocably agrees to be bound and subject to the US Constitution and Bill of Rights in the same manner as if it were a local public government entity, as all other forms of are bound and subject? The phrase, “in the same manner as if it were a local public government entity,” is mandatory. Simply agreeing to obey the Constitution, as found in some CC&Rs, is meaningless would not subject the private HOA entity to the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Now, I hope you will realize the impossibility of your task and its expected failure. No one can expect a bona fide acceptance and willingness to obey any CC&Rs that are created as a mass marketing device to be sold to the public at large. And one that cannot be modified by the buyer in a true give and take exchange necessary for a valid and binding contract.

Philippine HOA “Magna Carta” law not based on servitudes

Running through the first few pages of this 20-page PDF on what we would call an HOA Act, but called a “Magna Carta” for HOAs in the Philippines. “SECTION 1. Title. – This Act shall be known as the “Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners’ Associations”. It is a combined social welfare land, reform act and local citizen governance by means of non-profit entities  that allow multiple HOAs within a subdivision.

There is no equitable servitudes law for covenants running with the land that make a mockery of US claims to be the best democratic country in the world. There is no private agreements to replace the Constitution, and allowing the Justices and judges to treat as if it were just another piece of paper.

Most decisions are made by simple majority vote, and members “shall have the following duties (a) to pay membership fees, dues and special assessments; (b) to attend meetings of the association.” It appears that the Filipino law contains most of the same operating provisions as found in the US version. However, audited statements must be posted annually and filed with the national government agency overseeing HOAs (Sec. 17(c)).

Now, how about this requirement of one unified government rather than independent principalities as in the US”

SEC. 19. Relationship with National Government Agencies. – The associations shall complement, support and strengthen the efforts of the national government agencies in providing vital services to their members and help implement the national government policies and programs.
Associations are encouraged to actively cooperate with national government agencies in the furtherance of their common goals and activities for the benefit of the residents of the subdivisions and its environs.
National government agencies shall consult the associations where proposed rules, projects and/or programs may affect their welfare.

Interesting reading for the American legal-academic aristocrats seeking to become Philosopher-Kings, and announce what is good for the American people.

Before the HOA Syndrome there was The Milgram Experiment

The Milgram Obedience Experiment, The Perils of Obedience, By Kendra Cherry, About.com Guide

Why did so many of the participants in this experiment perform a seemingly sadistic act on the instruction of an authority figure? According to Milgram, there are a number of situational factors that can explain such high levels of obedience:

  • The physical presence of an authority figure dramatically increased compliance.
  • The fact that the study was sponsored by a trusted and authoritative academic institution led many participants to believe that the experiment must be safe.
  • The selection of teacher and learner status seemed random. [no vengeance factor]
  • Participants assumed that the experimenter was a competent expert.
  • The shocks were said to be painful, not dangerous.

Milgram wrote, “Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority” (Milgram, 1974).

Milgram’s experiment has become a classic in psychology, demonstrating the dangers of obedience.

####

The Milgram Experiment of 1961 was conducted to answer another question regarding the rise of Hitler and the Nazis (They Thought They Were Free, Milton Mayer, 1955). Milgram had “teachers”, authority figures, inflict electric shock on”students” who gave the wrong answers. The students, part of the experiment, did not receive any shocks but responded in greater and greater degrees of mock pain. The teachers were acting on instructions of the experimenter, the “authority” figure.

The experimenter issued a series of commands to prod the participant along:

  1. “Please continue.”
  2. “The experiment requires that you continue.”
  3. “It is absolutely essential that you continue.”
  4. “You have no other choice, you must go on.”

In other words, the experimenters wanted top know, “If a person in a position of authority ordered you to deliver a 400-volt electrical shock to another person, would you follow orders?”

“When Milgram posed this question to a group of Yale University students, it was predicted that no more than 3 out of 100 participants would deliver the maximum shock. In reality, 65% of the participants in Milgram’s study delivered the maximum shocks.”

Jump to today and the New America of HOA-Lands. Translate the experimenter as the HOA attorney or dictatorial HOA president or manager; the students as the homeowners; and the teachers as the go along board, ACC and the non-dictator presidents. These “go alongs” act on the “advice”, instructions or urgings of the above  authority figures,  the  “experimenters.”

It is important for advocates to know that, “Later experiments conducted by Milgram indicated that the presence of rebellious peers dramatically reduced obedience levels. When other people refused to go along with the experimenters orders, 36 out of 40 participants refused to deliver the maximum shocks.”

That’s a resounding,

STAND UP AND FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS! SPEAK OUT! CREATE REFORM GROUPS!

The acceptance of Privatopia and the New America of HOA-Land

In his recent interview on OnTheCommons, Evan McKenzie suggested that his new book, Beyond Privatopia, is a collection of his past papers. If so, I believe the following gives a glimpse into what the reader can expect.

In 2004, Arizona advocates had a tough fight to get HB 2402 passed into law. It was to eliminate HOA foreclosures, but we had to settle for no foreclosures for fines, retaining foreclosure for assessments.

McKenzie gave his views on HOA foreclosure and the need for HOAs to survive during this hard fought battle in his Privatopia Papers Blog of March 12 and 13, 2004. (Scroll down and read the March 12th entry, “The plain truth about HOA foreclosures…”, then read his defensive entry of the 13th, “More on foreclosure.” I, too, took offense to his views.

McKenzie’s comments were not at all helpful to the people suffering this gross injustice of this law. His statements reflected the views of the legal-academic aristocracy that the state must survive, that the state comes first. And by “state” I mean the HOA. That the New America of HOA-Land is a legitimate government of the people.

An excerpt from this lengthy entry sums it up,

A third [objection] is the lack of any alternative [by advocates] that would allow HOAs to continue functioning, and advocating instead for positions that would almost certainly destroy common interest housing and leave millions of people in major financial trouble. . . . HOAs would end up competing with all the other creditors–credit card companies, tax collectors, etc.–for the money they need to fix the roof this month. Net result: the existing owners bear the burden for the non-payers. . . . That is a completely unsustainable situation.

I’ve always been against associations having dictatorial power. I’m also against going to the opposite extreme and leaving them powerless. If we go from banana republics to failed states, most people won’t like the latter any better than the former, and somebody will have to pick up the pieces of failed CIDs. Who will that be?

McKenzie presumes that the status quo preserves the HOA, and that susbstantive reforms will only leave the HOA powerless and lead to its inevitable failure. As a political scientist, he does not address the questions that maybe, just maybe, with their current defective legal scheme that HOAs should be allowed to fail. He avoids “muni-zation”, creating special HOA “taxing districts” as public entities, as an alternative. He does not address the question as to why HOAs deserve government protections to foreclose for failures to pay “taxes” as if it were a public entity. The HOA has no hard cash outlays to recoup as a lender does.

Perhaps he fears that real democracy will destroy the HOA that needs strict enforcement of “laws” and an unquestionable obedience to its often arbitrary and capricious objectives in order for it to survive. That public government intrusion is worse than today’s unaccountable private HOA government intrusion. He no longer speaks in the same terms of the constitutional arguments as he did in the 1994 Privatopia.

History shows that successful social and political change involved both an intellectual group to guide and show the way, and an operational group to make their thoughts a reality — working together. You just need to look at the American Revolution, the Irish and Indian independence movements, and the rise of communism in Russia, China and Cuba. There are no intellectual leaders for HOA reforms, and that is a prime reason why the “pink flamingo groups” are not united.

In Gandhi’s dealings with the British Raj for independence, the Brits reminded him that India was a British Colony. He replied, “India belongs to the Indians.” 

In America today, America belongs to the people, not to the HOA regime.

Narrow interpretations of HOA law and Rule 11(a): CAI game plan?

 In order to understand CAI’s adversarial position to homeowner reforms and its activities to promote litigation challenges, we need to look into its activities and not its lofty pronouncements. As you know, Rule 11(a) requires that the attorney perform a reasonable inquiry into the genuine issues of law or fact of the HOA allegations before undertaking any law suit. (See HOA attorney failure to inquire into merits of a complaint — R Civ P. 11(a)). We can get a good idea of CAI’s motivations for pursuing litigation from its activities with respect to HOA reform laws.

In spite of strenuous opposition by advocates, the sponsor, Arizona Rep. Montenegro, pursued this bill, HB 2441, to the very last floor vote before it was soundly defeated. (See CAI soundly thrashed by Arizona Senate). His support for this disgraceful bill can only stem from 1) that he is true believer in the New America of HOA-Lands, or 2) that he succumbed to the heavy influence of the national trade organization, CAI.

Advocates had attempted to inform Montenegro and the legislators of CAI’s real intent, which was not the betterment of the community or the state of Arizona, but its own self-interests – control of the HOA landscape.  As further evidence of this opposition to the intent of the law, the former CAI chapter president and lobbyist, Scott Carpenter of Carpenter Hazlewood, released examples of what could be seen as “how HOAs can get around the law.”

In my comment to New Arizona laws for 2011 session — thanks to the legislators, I critique Carpenter’s “reasonable rules” that HOAs may impose on the recording of HOA meetings, the new HB 2445 law. One is a 24-hour prior written notice to the board, which can easily “disappear” at its convenience. Also, among is “reasonableness” are that all recordings must be on tripods and must use batteries – seems contradictory with respect to its stated concerns about safety issues. And that the HOA has a right to obtain a copy of the recording – at a reasonable cost. H’mmm, maybe the feel paranoid and that its own recordings won’t capture everything? Or is he just putting up obstacles “to make life difficult?”

Again, a CAI attorney, Carolyn Goldschmidt, takes up another controversial issue with respect to applicability of Title 10 statutes for nonprofit corporations and Title 33 statutes on HOAs and condos. (By the way, the resurrected statutes for ALJ adjudication of HOA disputes, SB 1148, does not permit the ALJ to decide issues outside of Title 33). Basically, does ARS 10-3708 or ARS 33-1812 control the holding of HOA elections and meetings? In an attempt to avoid the HOA statutes with respect to meetings and elections, Goldschmidt narrowly argues that an election without a meeting is valid under Title 10. Yet Title 33 contains strict requirements for meetings and elections – notice, ballot, agenda and quorums.

The HOA held an election that was not part of the meeting, as it claims, and the subsequent meeting just counted the votes but took no action. Say what? Isn’t a “certification” or a counting of election results at an annual meeting an “action”? And, as Goldschmidt well knows as she had participated in several OAH complaints, this dispute would not fall under the Office of Administrative Hearings jurisdiction by an ALJ. (And neither would the other very important common laws found in Chapters 6 and 3 of the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes).

It is these actions in the real world and not the pontifications by CAI and it seminars, conferences, articles, columns or interviews that reflect what CAI is all about. That reflect CAI attorney pursuits of litigation, advertising and advising loopholes in the laws using narrow interpretations of the law, which can be highly questionable under Rule 11(a). And it is not about principles of democratic government within the New America of HOA-Lands or making for a better America or community, its about power over the HOA second form of political government. And attorney fees.

If charged with violating Rule 11(a), and so judged, can the HOA file against the attorney for its attorney fees?