Tag: due process

HOA Common Sense, No. 5: Democratic elections

Democratic elections, No. 5

HOA members have been repeatedly told that they can change things in their HOA by voting for board members and even by changing the governing documents; that HOAs are democratic because members can vote to make these changes happen.  Well, does that make real sense when we know that countries like China and Cuba allow their people to vote? Yes, the people are allowed to vote, but no one would think to call these countries democratic.  Use your common sense!  You are being conned!

HOA members should read my discussion of the California case holding the HOA to have violated the law on fair elections procedures in Wittenberg v. Beachwalk HOA.[i] Such activities as only containing the board’s view of candidates, continuing holding elections until the board wins, and not allowing equal access for ‘town hall’ meetings by members.

Why is it that this country would participate in seeing that fair elections take place in other countries, but do nothing for the 23% of the American population living in HOAs?  While a few states like California have detailed statutes dealing with HOA elections, most do not have an oversight entity watching the elections as undertaken with these foreign country’s elections.  Worst of all, generally it is the HOA attorney or HOA manager who tally and report on the voting, but both cannot be seen as independent observers or neutral parties.  They are both agents of the HOA and not the membership.  That is like having a business’ attorney overseeing union elections.

Furthermore, the defenses of voting the bums out and changing the governing documents are without merit. These defenses reflect the erroneous implicit attitude  that HOAs are the same as public entities.  They are not!  The HOA’s “constitution and laws” are contained in an agreement between a single member and the HOA.  To say that “you”, a single member, can change governing documents or vote the bums out misstates the law and the single member’s ability or right to accomplish this goal.  The member needs the assistance, the cooperation and votes of other members in order to accomplish these changes. 

Without fair elections procedures that contain enforcement against HOA board wrongful acts, including retaliatory acts and intimidation by the board, voting in an HOA is a mockery of democracy.  Is this HOA government better than public government?  Common sense tells us no!

Obstacles to effective HOA reform legislation

Jim Lane, a NC HOA reform activist and website owner of Alliance of Homeowners Associations and Owners, asked the following HOA reform questions on the LinkedIn HOA group:

What are the three biggest “issues” (be specific)? What is standing in the way of resolving them? What should Owners be doing? How?

A good understanding of the issues surrounding HOA reform legislation requires expanded answers to these questions.  There are too many dogmatic mantras being espoused that are not supported by any convincing evidence, like “move out, “no contract interference,” “you agreed to be bound,” etc.  I can only provide an outline of my answers to these questions.  A deeper understanding can come from a study and analysis of my Commentaries over the years since 2004. (A keyword search is available).

First question: Essentially, I have identified 5 fundamental areas that require substantive reform legislation; legislation, if enacted would produce a trickle-down effect on many of the more serious issues confronting homeowner rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities allegedly waived or surrendered by homeowners.

They are:

  1. HOA foreclosure (cruel and unusual punishment; suspect category)
  2. Lack of due process protections (eliminate HOA banana republic justice)
  3. No clean elections laws for HOAs (eliminate HOA banana republic elections)
  4. No penalties against HOA board violations (equal application of the laws; detriment serving as a check and balance on HOA board violations)
  5. Wrongful application of a valid consent to agree (misapplication of the domination of servitudes law over constitutional and contract laws to make the HOA legal scheme work)

A failure to attain these broad, fundamental reforms will leave homeowner advocates at the continued mercy and whims of their legislatures, who are all pro-HOA.

Second question:  The answer to this question will disturb many, many homeowners and HOA reform advocates.  First, the 40 year-old national lobbying organization, Community Associations Institute (CAI) has dominated state legislatures. CAI has advocated its personal agenda under the guise of making for a better America, and a fear mongering not to support reform advocates who will kill your HOA and cause a loss in your property values.[1]  And then there was the inappropriate mass merchandising of the defective HOA concept to generate profits for the HOA promoters.

Second, like the German people who allowed the Nazi party to gain control over the most cultural and scientific country at that time,[2] homeowners jumped at the carrots being offered by the mass merchandisers and ignored the stick of a decline in democratic institutions and constitutional protections.  Many believed that they were good people supporting what was good for the community and the state, just like the German people eagerly believed.

The denial of the reality of the HOA legal scheme is a common behavior when a person’s self- image is being destroyed or radically altered.  When one’s self-image serves as the basis of how that person sees himself to be, many owners accepting the reality of the HOA concept would be destroyed. Their reactions would be an outright denial to the point of irrationality.  To say that their cherished HOA is a wrongful legal concept that is not for the betterment of society is too say that they are wrongful people not working for the betterment of society.  And they will not accept that. They will not accept the fact that they, like the emperor in The Emperor’s New Clothes,[3] were conned so they will continue to ignore reality and live in denial.

We see this reaction when pro-HOA supporters are pushed to defend their positions and they cannot, so they react with, essentially, an I don’t care attitude.

Third and Fourth questions:  The homeowners must, themselves, face this reality and become enlightened.  They must unite and stop the continued influence of CAI on their legislature.[4]  The homeowners must become proactive to enlighten and change public opinion that HOAs are not the next best thing to Mom’s apple pie.

 

References

 

[1] There are existing laws in every state that would enable HOA to maintain their unique relevance to the subdivision in terms of private rules and amenities, etc., but would return HOA to our American system of government.  However, that would mean CAI would lose much of its dominance and influence over HOAs. See A proposal for the “Muni-zation” of HOAs; Stop developers from granting private government charters.

[3] The Emperor’s New Clothes, Mindfully.org (http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Emperors-New-Clothes.htm), June 7, 2012.

Proposed HOA Study Committee issues of substance

The following topics have been proposed as issues of substance for the National HOA Member Citizens League Study Committees,

    1. Have homeowners given their consent to agree to the governing documents and to the waiver or surrender of their rights and freedoms as citizens?
    2. Are fair elections procedures needed to protect the democratic right to vote for HOA directors and/or officers?
    3. Are HOA members being denied due process protections as are provided public government?
    4. Is the right for HOAs to foreclose on homeowners an effective and legitimate method to collect assessment debts?
    5. Are HOAs being given special consideration by state legislatures by not subjecting the boards of directors to punishments and monetary penalties for violations of state laws and the governing documents?
    6. Are HOAs state actors?
    7. Are HOAs de facto but unrecognized political governments?
    8. Should HOAs be made subject to municipality statutes rather than corporation statutes?
    9. Should directors be required to take courses in government and nonprofit management?
    10. Should HOA managers and management companies be licensed and subject to random audits?

For more information on the HOA Organizational Development fresh approach to HOA reforms, and the National HOA Member Citizens League pro-con study committees, see HOA Organizational Development.

See also, HOA Organizational Development – a fresh approach to the ills of HOAs 

A further explanation of HOA Organizational Development

To the Sovereign of Arizona: where are the checks and balances on HOA governments?

I found the following resolution by the Arizona Legislature to re-affirm its sovereignty over Arizona personnel and its right to serve as a check and balance on the Federal government very intriguing.  I keep thinking about why the “Sovereign of Arizona” believes checks and balances are not needed with respect to the independent, private governments known as HOAs, to which it has given its active support and cooperation.

Apparently, this concern for government checks and balances has been found not necessary when it comes to HOA governments.  Apparently, obedience to the Arizona and US Constitutions with respect to due process protections and the equal protection of the laws for citizens living within these regimes has been found not necessary.  It seems that the warnings of James Madison in The Federalist Papers, #51 have been ignored:  “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary”.  Somehow average people become angels who can do no wrong when they become an HOA board member.

I would think that the citizens of Arizona do indeed need the long arm of the Federal government to serve as a check and balance since Arizona, and all other state governments, has failed to standby and to uphold the US Constitution. I think it is probably necessary for the Federal government to commandeer and nationalize Arizona personnel who participate in violating the US Constitution.

See The FEDS must restore law and order in secessionist HOA governments

  

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 1016 (2013)

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; amending article II, section 3, Constitution of Arizona; relating to the rejection of unconstitutional federal actions.

 Be it resolved by the Senate of the State of Arizona, the House of Representatives concurring:

 1. Article II, section 3, Constitution of Arizona, is proposed to be amended as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor:

 3. Supreme law of the land; authority to exercise sovereign authority against federal action; use of government personnel and financial resources

Section 3. A. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land to which all government, state and federal, is subject.

 B. To protect the people’s freedom and to preserve the checks and balances of the United States Constitution, this state may exercise its sovereign authority to restrict the actions of its personnel and the use of its financial resources to purposes that are consistent with the constitution by doing any of the following:

1. Passing an initiative or referendum pursuant to Article IV, part 1, section 1.

2. Passing a bill pursuant to Article IV, part 2 and article V, section 7.

3. Pursuing any other available legal remedy.

 C. If the people or their representatives exercise their authority pursuant to this section, this state and all political subdivisions of this state are prohibited from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate with the designated federal action or program.

 2. The Secretary of State shall submit this proposition to the voters at the next general election as provided by article XXI, Constitution of Arizona.

Combatting the CAI happiness in HOAs surveys

It is the CAI sponsored/conducted surveys of overall “happiness in HOAs” (my words) that advocates must come to deal with.  The surveys must be challenged and confronted, because the HOA lobbyists will show them, with a smile, to your state legislators. And then they will point out several other similar surveys. The legislators will simply glance at the data, smile, and say, “How can I help you?”

It is accepted doctrine, especially in the courts, that if a statement is not refuted it is taken as true. Same applies here when arguing for HOA reform legislation.  The surveys can be challenged on several points, such as, biased surveys even though the reputable Zogby conducts the actual survey under the sponsorship of CAI;  the questions asked and not asked; and the conclusions drawn from the data presented if you obtain access to the actual survey questionnaire and unedited responses. (Any reputable organization will provide this information as verification of its conclusions, as is standard operating procedure with any validly conducted research).

Take the latest CAI 2012 survey under “Association Rules”  that contained an assertion that 25% — note not 5% — had a  “significant” personal issue or disagreement” with their HOA. It also stated that just 42% were satisfied with the outcome. Yet, the survey concluded with the finding that just 8% dissatisfied with their board: “This strongly suggests that the vast majority of residents recognize and appreciate the net benefit of living in their communities—even when there are differences of opinion.”  The survey did not go into the nature of the disputes.  Were they trivial, or did they involve homeowner rights and the fair and just treatment of homeowners?

The following question was asked under “Pre-purchase Awareness:”  Did the fact that your current home is in a community association make you more likely to purchase or rent your home, make you hesitant about purchasing or renting your home or have no impact? An interesting question that indicates an awareness of advocate arguments that if they knew the whole truth about HOAs they wouldn’t buy into an HOA.  Of course the survey revealed that 64% indicated “no impact” and 29% indicated “more likely,” for a 93% positive view of HOAs.

However, no one was asked to read my Truth in HOAs Disclosure Agreement and its comments from readers, for example, that provided a lot of material information about HOA life.  What do you think the response would have been?  But, if nobody tells the legislators about the Truth in HOAs disclosure, or can get the local media to run a survey, then the legislators can pretend ignorance, or at least ignore the babblings of a few malcontents. 

It seems that the predominate attitude of the vast majority of state legislators is that the overall benefits of HOA legal scheme far outweigh any concerns for homeowner constitutional protections  – due process and the equal protection of the laws.

CAI’s Research Foundation makes the following broad claims in its Statistical Review (my emphasis),

Because of the fiscal challenges faced by many local municipalities, communities are often created with the stipulation that the developer will create an association that will assume many responsibilities that traditionally belonged to local and state government.  This privatization allows local jurisdictions to permit the continued development of needed housing without having to pay directly for that infrastructure through property taxes. . . . Community associations not only maintain home values, but also reduce the need for government oversight and expenditures by providing services, assigning payment responsibility to homeowners and being responsive to local concerns.

Read the above carefully!  Where are the protections for homeowner rights under the contractual, not public domain, nature of HOA governments?  There are no protections as one would expect under our system of democratic government.  That is inexcusable! And state legislators do not see any problems with private governments operating outside their state and US Constitutions.

 

If the above surveys and conclusions by CAI are not challenged, life will remain difficult for meaningful HOA reforms.