Tag: Evan McKenzie

HOA reform advocates: the enemy is us

Let me start by saying that I have the utmost respect to the handful of persons, advocates, who have actively supported HOA reforms of substance over the years, and have had some success.  To all others I say, the enemy is us.

I well understand the reasons and justifications of people refusing to get actively involved. Personally, talking over the phone and through emails, that most do not have the temperament, want someone to solve their own personal issue with an attempt to expand it nationally, fear retaliation, fear legal issues and the government, and just don’t care about government issues in general.

The numerous social media reform groups, some old but most are new less than 3 years, have not only failed but have  resisted the establishment of a unified,  bona fide and legitimate, national entity; argued as far back by Evan McKenzie when interviewed by Shu Bartholomew, to the best of my recall, sometime before 2004. Today, I must regrettably say some groups make this claim, but they are in name only.

And so, the many Davids believe that they can defeat the mighty Goliath of CAI. The newbie leaders who rise from time to time and disappear a few years later, start by believing that CAI acts in good faith and they can work things out for the protection of homeowner rights. They quickly discover that they have been had, been played with, and realize they are helpless to withstand the entrenched CAI. Today, many who are beginning to be actively involved realize the dominance of CAI over their legislature.

Watch AZ CAI lobbyist at work, 2010, before committee dodge questions, make false statements, and avoid hard questions. Who Controls public streets? HOA or municipality? Part 2 of 3 (youtube.com). (Early quality video).

As the adage goes, as a figural demonstration of one’s commitment to reforms, “put your money where your mouth is.” However, in reality, I have asked people to buy my book, HOA Constitutional Government, as a demonstration of national commitment on a national website, Amazon, but have received token response.

In my announcement I  clearly stated, and still abide by it, that if there were such a legitimate national reform group I would assign all my royalties to that organization.  $15.00 is a trivial show of commitment but will be effective for recognition of national support. BUY NOW! Amazon books.

Taking a positive perspective, I noticed over the past few years a growing trend toward legislation and court decisions in several states affirming constitutional and fundamental rights of HOA members. That’s a good sign that advocate messages and communications are having an effect. 

Now is the time to strike while the iron is hot! Get unified, get organized, get focused, and stop the HOA social media reform groups’ fragmentation of me first, NIMBY policy.

Getting your HOA reform bills accepted

I’m pleased to see many of you are using my Commentaries on HOA Constitutional Government as part of your efforts to bring about HOA reform legislation.  Allow me to recommend a procedure that should improve more success in getting your legislators’ attention. Justification for my arguments below can be found in the “Recommend texts” below; homeowners and advocates cannot neglect these works of mine and others.

  • Legislators are immerged in tons of emails by many persons and “robo emails” — the same email sent by many persons —  get slight attention;
  • There is some success that your district representative will sponsor your bill and your reforms;
  • Emails from state residents to bill sponsors and committee chairs and members are generally read, but outsiders receive less attention unless   strong credentials are provided to counter CAI’s credentials;
  • The main focus of your email should be your reforms with the inclusion of works from others being supportive.
  • Have no fear of show the ugly forest through the trees by addressing constitutional violations that support your reform legislation — over my 24 years CAI has ignored any such discussion and will fight like hell to avoid constitutionality issues (I challenged them back in 2006, no response);
  • CAI and the legislators  will not put themselves in a highly vulnerable position of having to defend the indefensible, a rejection of the Constitution; it is their Achilles heel;
  • Have no fear of raising the important issues of intentional misrepresentation in the claimed  “you agreed  to be bound” CAI defense, invalidating the legitimacy of the adhesion CC&Rs contract;
  • Don’t be penny wise and pound foolish – spend some small change and get copies of publications that will serve as textbooks on getting your issues heard before your legislature (see “Recommended texts” below).

Recommended texts

Privatopia, Evan McKenzie (seminal book on private HOA government)

HOA Common Sense: rejecting private government, George K. Staropoli (entry level constitutional violations)

Take Back Your Government, Morgan Carroll (out of stock at Amazon; eBay, Thriftbooks)

HOA Constitutional Government, George K. Staropoli (a one volume collection of 56 events and situations over 24 years)

Law review on CC&Rs constitutionality – part 1

While the title of the Ken Stahl Pepperdine Law Review article[1] addresses the “validity of private deed restrictions” (CC&Rs) and “an unconstitutional taking” (eminent domain) with respect to affordable housing, Stahl’s investigation covers many of the HOA constitutionality concerns that I’ve raised over the years. He warns about legislative “overrides” – statutes that impinge on CC&Rs – and the balance of governmental powers between the state/county and private, contractual governments.

While the article is focused on California’s dealing with its affordable housing crisis, my annotations are questions focusing on the constitutionality of the  HOA CC&Rs. The article covers a lot of ground – 55 pages of legalese — and so I will make several commentaries or, in this case, research memoranda. Starting at the beginning, the Abstract and Introduction materials, Professor Stahl speaks to:

  • California legislature invalidating CC&Rs. We  are aware of statutes regulating what HOAs can and cannot do on things like “pets, clotheslines,  signs and flags” but the legislature is going a bit further in regard to local zoning, home rule statutes, and “overriding” many covenants in the interest of affordable housing. 
  • “The doctrine of “home rule” that places some outer limits on the ability of state legislatures to preempt local regulatory power.”
  • Home rule statutes exist in all states that allow a high degree of community independence from state/legislative interference on local matters.  The HOA scheme avoided these statutes that would provide all the current benefits but subject the HOA to the Constitution – HOA could not hide behind “not us, we are private” nonsense.
  • This overriding is facing concerns of the state “taking” of property rights that HOA members agreed to under a private contract. This invokes eminent domain concerns of just compensation as I have raised with respect to the questionable HOA contract’s taking of a member’s property rights.
  • All fifty states have detailed legislation regarding the governance and management of HOAs, including voting rules, budgeting, disclosure, and so forth, and a few states authorize state agencies to regulate HOAs.
  • “HOAs are ubiquitous, vastly outnumbering local governments, and they act essentially as little municipalities, taxing residents through mandatory assessments and regulating land use with detailed restrictions, called “covenants, conditions, and restrictions” (CCRs), that often mirror local land use regulations. Indeed, CCRs are typically far more restrictive than local land use regulations in many respects.”  There you have it, almost like McKenzie’s words in his 1994 Privatopia [2].
  • The question of quasi-government HOAs is expressed  as “the HOA is “simply a convenient mechanism to enforce those rights.”  Recall my charge that “HOAs are a devise to circumvent the Constitution.” The rights in context above refer to “the extension of the property rights” imposed by the CC&Rs.
  • “In contrast to the local government, which is considered a public body within the quasi-federal structure of state government, the HOA is generally considered a private entity, an extension of the property rights of homeowners.”
  • The author is concerned about the aggressive nature of the California legislature in regulating and controlling HOAs, far beyond their previous involvements. They deal with “what HOAs are really about: the ability to strictly control the character of the community by excluding undesirable uses of property within the community.
  • The controversial issue of consent to be governed or agreed to be bound does not escape Stahl’s view. “Homeowners are presumed to voluntarily subject themselves to CCRs when they choose to purchase property.” He makes the strong point that public policy  “causes courts to treat them as formally private, in contrast to the coercive nature of land use regulations enacted by public municipalities.”  This is a reference to the balance of power between the  state and supposedly freely agreed to expression of homeowners, the CC&Rs.
  • The mantra of CAI and legislators – You agreed to be bound! I witnessed an AZ legislator condemn a homeowner speaker that he was trying to get out of a contract that the speaker discovered was bad and he wasn’t going to be a part of it. A deal is a deal!
  • The author believes that the newer  legislative overrides will be constitutionally challenged,  arguing “ that overrides are likely to be upheld against constitutional challenges except in very unusual circumstances.”  In other words, Stahl seems to be saying that advocates can look to favorable legislation regarding due process and the equal protection of the laws for homeowners. He has already made favorable arguments in his journal article that simply need to be focused on justice and homeowner rights than just affordable housing.

I plan  at least  2 additional commentaries concerning this article following its structure: the role of equitable servitudes (covenants) and CC&Rs, and  constitutional concerns.

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Barbara Lorraine-Johnston  for bringing this law review article discussing many of the constitutional issues that I have repeatedly argued and commented on over the years.  The importance of advocates bringing events, court cases, statutes, papers, articles, and law journal publications cannot be overstated. I can only comment on what comes to my attention.

For additional information, visit my comments, some 1,314 since 2004, can be found at HOA Constitutional Government.  Become a Subscriber to receive automatic updates.

NOTES

[1] “The Power of State Legislatures to Invalidate Private Deed Restrictions: Is It an Unconstitutional Taking?” (pepperdine.edu). (50 Pepp. L. Rev. 579 (2023)). Kenneth Stahl is a Professor of Law and the director of the Environmental, Land Use, and Real Estate Law program at Chapman University Fowler School of Law.

[2] Evan McKenzie, Privatopia: Homeowners Associations  and the Rise of Residential Private Government (1994) and Beyond Privatopia (2012)).

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).

America’s homeland: HOA law vs. Home rule law

Why are there private HOA governments when there are home rule, charter governments?

Getting down to the issues of state laws relating to local governments, let’s examine the doctrine of home rule. Under the home rule doctrine local communities are permitted a large degree of independence even to the extent that state legislative action is not necessary. What is home rule? In simple terms, it is a grant of authority and power — of independence — from the legislature to local communities.  (See HOAs violate local home rule doctrine and are outlaw governments; AZ Supreme Court, Tucson v. Arizona, CV-11-0150-PR (2011).)

 All the states have a version of home rule that varies in the degree of independence granted to a local governments and under what terms. Check your state laws under home rule or charter government. Strict states treat the home rule powers strictly as set forth in the statutes, like agency enabling acts. Most states have allowed for wider freedoms to local home rule governments, with some allowing for local government charters functioning as a local constitutions.  In all cases it’s a grant of independent governance from the legislature on local matters.

As an example, Arizona’s Constitution allows for home rule charter governments.

 “The purpose of the home rule charter provision of the Constitution was to render the cities adopting such charter provisions as nearly independent of state legislation as was possible. . . .  ‘[A] home rule city deriving its powers from the Constitution is independent of the state Legislature as to all subjects of strictly local municipal Concern.’”

The masquerade

Given this existing legal mechanism for strong, independent  local control, why was there a need for the creation and approval of, and the support for, private government HOAs?  Could it be as Prof. McKenzie stated in his 1994 book, Privatopia? “CIDs [HOAs/POAs/RCAs] currently engage in many activities that would be prohibited if they were viewed by the courts as the equivalent to local governments.”

It’s obvious that it was not to create healthy, productive communities.  Was it a business venture from the start to make profits for the originators masquerading as a public serve and benefit?? Was it for the real estate agents and the home builders, and to cut state government costs?

HOA associations are political bodies

The effective management of a political community, as are HOAs, and remain part of the greater political communities of their state and federal government, necessitates a rejection of the HOA legal scheme and its protectives laws.    There are no legitimate reasons why HOA governed communities cannot exercise effective and productive self-government while  being subject to constitutional law under home rule statutes.

Home rule doctrine existed long before the advent of the HOA legal structure in 1964. That is not to say that it would have solved all problems and be a perfect government, but it would be a government under the Constitution, part of the Union,  like all other forms of local government.  

If the initial 1964 HOA concept had included home rule provisions, then there would be no need for a restructuring.