Tag: government

In a democracy approaching corporatism, HOAs are iconic

America is still a democracy, I hope, and firmly in support of the capitalistic economy philosophy – people are  free to do as they please.  This freedom rejects government restraint and relies on the competing self-interests of the people.  In simple terms, “what’s good for business is good for the country.”

But, is America going off the deep end of capitalism toward fascism?  “Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”  So said Benito Mussolini, the founder of modern fascism in 1922 Italy.   How much of a democracy can exist under a fascist system that places government power in the hands of corporations?  Just look at the fantastic wisdom of the US Supreme Court in its United decision that corporations are people and can make campaign contributions.  And how about its Kelo decision where the court redefined “government use” as “government purpose” and took away a person’s home for private corporation development.

And then there’s this thing called a planned community, with its corporate form of private government commonly known as a homeowners association.  Where law firms and property management corporations have extreme influence or almost complete control of the HOA. Where the legal structure and pro-HOA statutes favor the corporation government over the rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities of the people.

In a democracy, how could this come to be?  In a democracy the answer must lie in the will of the people that either supported this evolution, or idly stood by and did nothing.  Mayer wrote (They Thought They Were Free), speaking of the Nazi take-over of democratic pre-war Germany,  that the “good” Germans went along “in the usual sincerity that required them only to abandon one principle after another, to throw away, little by little, all that was good.”  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.”

It was the will of the people, the voice of the majority that spoke and elected our representatives:  the President, Congressmen, and state legislators and governors.  And it is the voice of the people to accept HOAs in spite of its rejection of our founding principles in favor of corporatism, with its self-interest motivations for profits and property values. And we have become true believers in that “what’s good for the HOA is good for the member-owners.”  Or, has the voice of the people become the voice of the corporations?

American founding principles stand at odds with the self-serving HOA corporatism of the HOA-state objectives, which prevail over our founding principles.  This is the fundamental issue to be resolved!  And it cannot be resolved without legislation that addresses violations of our founding principles as contained in American organic law – the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Articles of Confederation and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. 

In a democracy, the people must act to reject corporatism/fascism and demand conformity with American principles of democratic government. But, that first requires the election and enlightenment of representatives who understand the need to return to our founding principles. 

Why Homeowners Associations (HOAs) should and must be made political subdivisions

Simply stated, the following questions remain unanswered by state legislatures or HOA special interests:

1.      Can a legislature delegate its functions, not government services but functions, to private entities without oversight or compliance with the Constitution, as required of all government entities?

 2.      Can private parties enter into contractual arrangements using adhesion contracts and a constructive notice consent, which serve to regulate and control the people within a territory (an HOA), to circumvent the application of the Constitution?

Failing to address these fundamental questions has permitted HOAs to exist as de facto governments functioning as a second form of political government within the US. HOAs reject the US Constitution by their actions — forget the words.  Consider the following:

1.      “A rose by any other name is a rose.”  Taxes are HOA assessments; ordinances are rules and regulations; board is the legislature/city council; government agency is architectural control committee (ACC); citizens are members; judiciary is board/ACC; constitution is the CC&Rs; laws are the by-laws; etc.

2.      State legislatures have not enacted laws that delegate their legislative functions to the HOA private entities with oversight or constitutional compliance, as required by long standing legal doctrine. 

 [i]t is a well established theory that a legislature may not delegate its authority to private persons over whom the legislature has no supervision or control. . . .The legislature cannot abdicate its functions or subject citizens and their interests to any but lawful public agencies, and a delegation of any sovereign power of government to private citizens cannot be sustained nor their assumption of it justified.[i]

 3.      Furthermore, “Agreements violating constitutional provisions, county codes, and municipal ordinances are illegal to the same extent as agreements violating statutory enactments.”[ii]

4.      For those states with “home rule” laws that permit a wide range of independent law-making at the local level, the governing body remains subject to the constitution and laws of the state. 

5.      Attempts to enumerate the specific functions of an entity, which are unique to political governments and make them a government and not something else, like the archaic public functions test of 1946,[iii] fail as being contrary to constitutional law.  Compare these questionable definitive “public” functions to the legal requirements set forth in the laws of each state applicable to municipal governments.

6.      The unique factor that determines the broad concept of “government” is simply:  any governing body that controls and regulates the people within a territory is a de facto government. Take Cuba for instance, a de facto yet unrecognized government. Sadly, HOAs are not recognized either.

Modern states are territorial, their governments exercise control over persons and things within their frontiers. . . . A state should not be confused with the whole community of persons living on its territory [such as churches or corporations].[iv] 

7.      Several political scientists believe that HOAs should be declared as sui generis (one of a kind) private governments.  However, evidence based on existing HOA state laws have made HOAs an “arm of the government” (state actors) according to the US Supreme Court criteria:[v]   state protective statutes reflecting a cooperation with HOAs, through state support or coercion; by a symbiotic relationship, close nexus, or an entwinement between the state and the HOA.

In general, every special or private law which directly proposes to destroy or affect individual rights, or does the same thing by restricting the privileges of certain classes of citizens and not of others, when there is no public necessity for such discrimination, is unconstitutional and void.[vi]

8.      Defining HOAs as a sui generis entity without the requirement that HOAs are indeed bodies politic or state entities rejects the US Constitution. HOAs have seceded from the Union by virtue of their private contracts that do not hold the HOA governing body subject to the laws of the land. 

9.      CC&Rs are created by private parties, none being an actual member or resident of the subdivision at the time of formation, who enter into contractual arrangements that have been described by the courts as the HOA’s “constitution.”  The CC&Rs serve to regulate and control the people within a territory (an HOA), thereby circumventing the application of the Constitution and, specifically, the 14th Amendment equal application of the laws and due process protections. 

A statute infringes the constitutional guarantee of equal protection if it singles out for discriminatory legislation particular individuals not forming an appropriate class and imposes on them burdens or obligations or subjects them to rules from which others are exempt.[vii]

In order for a waiver of a constitutional right to be valid, it must be made voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly and with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.[viii]

 10.  The persistent and profuse arguments, by the HOA special interests, that HOAs are not governments can easily be seen as attempts to avoid HOAs being subject to constitutional conditions and restrictions that protect the people.  “In the context of community associations, the unwise extension of constitutional rights to the use of private property by members . . . .”[ix]

 

Further readings

Commentaries:                               

1.       The Legitimacy of HOA Governance

2.       AARP Amicus Curiae brief in Twin Rivers NJ constitutionality suit

3.       The Constitutionality of state protected homeowners associations

4.       Why haven’t the 1983 HOA problems of America II been resolved?

5.       HOA Case History: state actors or mini/quasi government

 

General reading:

1.       Beyond Privatopia: Rethinking Residential Private Government, Evan McKenzie, Urban Institute Press, 2011.

2.       Establishing the New America of Independent HOA Principalities, George K. Staropoli, Starman Publishing, 2008 (ISBN 978-0-9744488-3-1).

3.       Neighbors AT War! The Creepy Case Against Your Homeowners Association, Ward Lucas, Hogback Publishing, 2012.

4.       Privatopia: Homeowners Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Governments, Evan McKenzie, Yale Univ. Press, 1994.

5.       Villa Appalling! Destroying the Myth of Affordable Community Living, Donie Vanitzian, Villa Appalling Publishing, 2002.

                                               

Legal Authority Notes:

[i]    Emmett McLoughlin Realty v. Pima County, 58 P.3d 39 (2002).

[ii]   17A Corpus Juris Secundum Contracts § 213.

[iii]  Marsh v. Alabama, 326 US 501 (1946); Shelly v. Kraemer, 334 US 1 (1948).

[iv]  “State,” Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Ed.

[v]    Brentwood v. Tennessee School, 531 US 288 (2001).

[vi] 16B American Jurisprudence 2d Constitutional Law § 874.

[vii]  16B American Jurisprudence 2d Constitutional Law § 871.

[viii]  16 Corpus Juris Secundum Constitutional Law § 82.

[ix]   Community Associations Institute (CAI) amicus curiae to NJ Appellate Court in CBTR v. Twin Rivers HOA, 890 A.2d 947 (2004).

High Noon in HOA-Land: members who permit lawless boards to function

Marshall Will Kane

Marshall Will Kane (left) throws his badge to the ground with disdain after defending Hadleyville, where the good people of Hadleyville stood by and did nothing.  (The 1952 movie, High Noon).

Some 60 years after the events in Hadleyville, thousands of HOAs follow in the footsteps of the Hadleyville townspeople and do nothing to rid their HOA of lawless rogue boards of directors.

How did this come to be?  Could it be like the townspeople, they FEAR reprisals from a lawless, vindictive and punitive board?  Could it be the indoctrination into obeying authority figures and the acceptance of imposed roles to conform to the group’s rules, right or wrong (See, “Why do people harm others in HOAs?”)?

Could it be a malaise, a general apathy as described in The HOA apathy affliction: a political dynamic and The role of the HOA apathy affliction in circumventing public policy on how the HOA lawyers work apathy in their favor?   While these acts describe a particular aspect of HOA oppression, in total, it must be understood that the pro-HOA laws (no punishment for board violations) and the unconscionable adhesion CC&Rs contract favoring the HOA contribute to the failure to develop a bona fide community spirit and a community centered civic virtue.

The development of a healthy community spirit and civic virtue are essential to eradicating apathy. Virtue can be defined simple as “conformity to a standard of right,” civic virtue as “a commitment to democratic principles and values,” and community spirit as “an involvement in and concern for one’s local community.”

CAI defines community spirit as having “pride in a community” and offers steps to produce this emotional identification: getting involved in activities outside the HOA, holding entertainment party and events, and becoming active in the community (Best Practices, “Harmony and Spirit”). No mention at all about civic virtue as a necessary part of creating a healthy community, and that a concern for the community must address issues of civic virtue. 

How can civic virtue and a healthy community spirit develop when the homeowner is placed in an environment and culture that opposes any such proactive activities?  As investigative reporter Ward Lucas points out in his new book, Neighbors At War!

Welcome to the weird world of HOAs . . . where life, liberty and property are in the hands of your neighbors, neighbors who are unconstrained by law . . . . That’s right!  These boards for the most part are not obligated to protect or respect any human or civil rights. . . . The very structure of Homeowners Associations gives them the ability to exert bully power on a completely arbitrary basis.

The apathy, the lack of HOA civic virtue, and the lack of a genuine, healthy community spirit that allow lawless rogue boards to violate the law and governing documents is the result of the above mentioned HOA legal structure and dynamic forces.  The legal structure of the HOA is secessionist, rejecting the principles and values of the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence for a fascist contractual government focused on maintaining property values. Where, as in fascism, individual rights, freedoms, and privileges and immunities guaranteed to all citizens do not matter. 

 

HOAs undermine our constitutional democracy!

Police ignore HOA complaints with tragic consequences

This news report addresses the repeated erratic behavior of homeowner in HOA that went ignored and a neighbor is forced to defend himself. Many times I’ve been told that the police would reject complaints of assault, harassment, charges of embezzlement and theft among other complaints. They have adopted this “hands-off” HOAs policy that denies citizens the equal protection of the law.  And, county/district attorneys often tell homeowners seeking to file a complaint to first file the complaint with the police.

Given the widespread reporting of oppressive, authoritarian HOAs acting irrationally, arbitrarily, and violating the laws, the failure of the government to provide practical protections for homeowners in HOAs is tantamount to playing Russian Roulette with the lives of people living in HOAs.

 

Clashes precede man’s killing

“Days before the incident, the homeowners association filed an injunction against Gallik, who had moved in the home in May 2007.

“According to the injunction: ‘He makes verbal threats to the association’s agents and members; walks around the community with a whiteboard chained around his neck stating ‘Death to Southshore Falls,’ has strung clothing lines along the front of the property; bathes in the front driveway and in the dwelling’s gutters to compensate for lack of running water, runs a generator from the front driveway to compensate for lack of working electricity, wanders in the common area allowing his dog to defecate in the middle of the road.’”

The injunction filed by the HOA against the problem homeowner included this statement, “The police insist such assaults and threats of violence are an association matter.”

 

 

CAI attorney stalwart defends HOA Land private constitutions and so-called bill of rights

The CAI stalwarts once again responding to my challenge to defend the constitutionality and legal status of the HOA legal scheme, including the highly questionable assertion of a “consent to agree” under the constructive notice doctrine.  This time, dedicated CAI stalwart Beth Grimm enters the arena with her August 2012 e-newsletter, What’s new in HOA Land . . .  The topic is, “Homeowners Bill of Rights.”

From the very start she informs her readers, in a round-about way, that there are no federal or state constitutions applicable to HOA private agreements.  I’ve been saying that for years!  And she points out that, “Without A Constitution What Is a Bill of Rights Worth?”  Grimm continues in what must be taken as a joke, in full agreement with the comment by Bill Davis, with a quote from Thomas Jefferson about the need for a bill of rights after admitting there is no HOA constitution.  

It appears that the reader is entering the realm of the attorney “word-game,”  where long established concepts and meanings are distorted to suit the attorney’s private agenda.  It’s an indoctrination and propaganda tactic. Welcome to Newspeak.

In strict legal terms, the assertion by Grimm that the governing documents are the HOA’s constitution is not correct.   But the courts have upheld the CC&RS as if they were just like a political constitution and interpreted them as a de facto constitution.  And as I have tried to explain, state laws like the California Davis-Stirling Act, the UCIOA acts, and other state HOA “Acts” serve as a parallel code of public laws applicable at the local government level to the class of nonprofit private governments called HOAs. 

The courts have also applied public government attributes, conditions and rights to these private contracts that are not contained in the explicit CC&RS covenants, and have applied overly broad interpretations as to what the members have agreed to without their signature – just by simply taking their deed in hand.  In other words, the activist courts are imputing a “consent to agree” that does not exist in the CC&RS. And nobody warns the unsuspecting homeowner of the consequences of reaching out for that deed. Nobody!

A host of reputed rights are then examined by Grimm, but they read more like the documents of the Rights and Responsibilities of members (a document first used to explain what a democracy is all about and how citizens are to act;[i] and a publication of CAI Central). It is in stark contrast to the preamble to the US Bill of Rights, emphasis added,

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

This long time CAI stalwart attorney does not address the constitutional concerns raised in my The Truth in HOAs Disclosure Agreement, nor does she call for CAI to conduct such a poll. There is no support for my Declaration of US and State Citizenship. Grimm’s presentation misses this important point.

Nor does she mention that back in the 2008 – 2009 the California Law Review Commission’s attempt to rewrite the Davis-Stirling Act contained a proposed Chapter 2, Member Bill of Rights.  It was quickly removed and has not been adopted in the new law to become effective in 2014.  Nor does she present the homeowner advocates proposed homeowners bill of Rights published in the now defunct AHRC website and the AARP version written by David Kahne in 2006, among others.

It should be noted that in 2008 the Uniform State Laws Commission adopted a bill of right for UCIOA (UCIOBORA), but did not incorporate it was a part of UCIOA.  Rather, they created a separate version so that states can choose to adopt its so-called bill of rights or leave them out.  To date, no state has adopted this bill of rights.  It reads like your CC&Rs and pro-HOA state laws.  Nothing at all like the US Bill of Rights or the state Declarations of rights.

If HOA Land is to join the union and lose its independent principality status, thereby providing constitutional protections to the homeowners,  then Beth Grimm and all other CAI legal-academic aristocrats should be demanding the amendments to the Declaration  and state laws as proposed in my Declaration above,

The association hereby waivers and surrenders any rights or claims it may have under law and herewith unconditionally and irrevocably agrees 1) to be bound by the US and State Constitutions, and laws of the State within which it is located, as if it were a subdivision of the state and a local public government entity, and 2) that constitutional law shall prevail as the supreme law of the land including over conflicting laws and legal doctrines of equitable servitudes.

Why aren’t they?  The above state law and mandatory Declaration amendments will put an end to the jokes and word games that attempt to hide the fact that HOAs are de facto but unrecognized governments operating outside the Constitution. And there will be a bona fide Bill of rights!

 

[i] The Rights of Man, Thomas Paine, 1791; The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1793, French revolution origins)