Tag: HOA-Land

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)

The HOA apathy affliction: a political dynamic

Everyone is unhappy with the pronounced apathy among those living in HOA-Land, where the lack of homeowner protections works for the power-elite, the board and its attorney.  CAI has complained many times about apathy when homeowners complain about the conduct of their boards.  CAI also complains how it can’t make “necessary” changes to the CC&Rs to bring them current with the laws.

Because of this apathy, homeowner advocates who are aware of the inequities of their HOA predicament cannot get their good neighbors — those who pay their dues and obey the rules — to support them in their efforts to obtain justice for all members. 

A recent approach being used by CAI in Arizona is to call for the complete rewrite of the CC&Rs to make the HOA a better place, the ostentatious reason, while including even more oppressive covenants and covenants that are highly favorable to the HOA attorney and its income stream.  In order to accomplish this, recourse is made to playing loosey-goosey with the strict Arizona laws for amending the CC&Rs. 

The law requires a written explanation of each and every change being made, which can be cumbersome, but the law is there to protect the homeowners. It’s a cost of making sweeping amendments all at once.  But the homeowners say and do nothing except to sign away their rights as good team players.

The political impact of these sweeping changes is made real by the apathy of the majority of the homeowners to agree to whatever the board proposes with the blessings of the HOA attorney, who wrote the revised CC&RS.  They can affect your pocketbook, your property rights, and your already weak voting rights.

A common change, minority control, was defeated in the 2011 legislative session that permitted minority control of the amendment process, thereby giving the political machine in power basically complete control of the HOA and over its apathetic members.  This political tactic relies on homeowner apathy to succeed.  It removes a vote of all the members and the long held doctrine of a supermajority vote, usually 67%, and replaces it with a majority vote of only those voting. 

Even with a 50% quorum as little as a 25% approval can affect the rights of ALL members, whether they agree or not.  And with the pro-HOA laws and unconscionable adhesion CC&Rs contract, the members will be just pawns in the hands of the board – just pay your dues and shut up, or else!

Homeowner apathy is a serious affliction in HOA-Land.  Under the current environment, it is the homeowner who must stand up and fight for his rights, in the HOA and at the legislature to change the laws.

Read about the Fourth Amendment to the Apache Wells CC&Rs, one real example. Just scroll down.

HOA-Land — the failure to democratize

Note: The following is an excerpt from my paper, “Are the American people rejecting democracy at the local level?”

HOA-Land — the failure to democratize

 Will the acceptance of authoritarian private local governments in the US result in a weakening of democracy in America, and destroy “one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”?  

“Democratization” describes the processes underlying “the emergence, the deepening, and survival of democracy” in a society.  Democratization is also concerned with the forces that affect the sustainability of a democracy.  And that’s the issue before us:  Has the First American Experiment with representative democracy succumbed to the “emergence and acceptance of a quiet innovation in housing,” the Second American Experiment? This New America of HOA-Land?[i] 

In his “Theories of Democratization”,[ii] Christian Welzel presents a case well applicable to HOA societies.  Welzel believes that, “Democratization is sustainable to the extent to which it advances in response to pressures from within a society.”  It appears that HOA-Land dwellers feel no need to pressure for change, just like Mayer discovered with his interviews after WW II.

People power is institutionalized through civic freedoms that entitle people to govern their lives, allowing them to follow their personal preferences in governing their private lives and to make their political preferences count in governing public life.

Since democracy is about people power, it originates in conditions that place resources of power in the hands of wider parts of the populace, such that authorities cannot access these resources without making concessions to their beholders. But when rulers gain access to a source of revenue they can bring under their control without anyone’s consent, they have the means to finance tools of coercion.

 The above amply defines the dynamics of political machines and power cliques that operate, more or less, within all HOAs from benevolent dictatorships to rogue boards. And with respect to voting as the sole indicator of a democracy, it is well known that HOAs are woefully deficient in fair and just elections, with no “fair elections” laws in effect. Welzel goes on to say,

Many new democracies have successfully installed competitive electoral regimes but their elites are corrupt and lack a commitment to the rule of law that is needed to enforce the civic freedoms that define democracy. These deficiencies render democracy ineffective. The installation of electoral democracy can be triggered by external forces and incentives. But whether electoral democracy becomes effective in respecting and protecting people’s civic freedoms depends on domestic factors. Democracies have become effective only where the masses put the elites under pressure to respect their freedoms.

 Once again we are told that there’s a need for pressure from within, from those living in HOAs, to uphold their Constitutional protections.  Even if state governments decide to enforce constitutional protections and the equal application of state laws, it remains with the HOA-Land residents to defend our system of government.  Welzel reaffirms this essential requirement, “It is only when people come to find appeal in the freedoms that define democracy that they begin to consider dictatorial powers as illegitimate.”

 Welzel offers a path to victory to stop this erosion of democracy within America that is highly applicable to the social movement for HOA reforms.

 As social movement research has shown, powerful mass movements do not simply emerge from growing resources among the population. Social movements must be inspired by a common cause that motivates their supporters to take costly and risky actions. This requires ideological ‘frames’ that create meaning and grant legitimacy to a common cause so that people follow it with inner conviction.

This is why values are important. To advance democracy, people have not only to be capable to struggle for its advancement; they also have to be willing to do so. And for this to happen, they must value the freedoms that define democracy. This is not always a given, and is subject to changes in the process of value transformation.

 And what about our elected officials?

 However, although Welzel writes that “elites [those in power, the cliques] concede democracy even in the absence of mass pressures”, it is only “when these elites depend on the will of external powers and when these powers are pushing for democracy.”   But, with respect to HOA regimes, Americans cannot accept this state of affairs by state legislatures, especially not with respect to these fundamental issues of democratic governance — the very soul of this country.  The absence of legislative support, sua sponte (on their own), for HOA reforms throughout the country is inexcusable! 

 

[i]Understanding the New America of HOA-Land, George K. Staropoli (StarMan Publishing 2010).

[ii] “Theories of Democratization”, Christian Welzel, Democratization, Christian W. Haerpfer, ed.  (Oxford University Press USA 2009).

 

Goldwater Institute: separate and unequal constitutions for HOAs

In reply to my Arizona Capitol Times Commentary of December 12th, Constitutional Center Director Nick Dranias believes HOAs are bona fide consensual relationships and regulating homeowners associations would “stand the Constitution on its head.”  (See Goldwater Institute: regulating HOAs “stands Constitution on its head”).

In the late 1950s the Southern states enacted a Poll Tax and instituted certain “tests” in order for citizens to be eligible to register to vote.  No federal or state laws were violated, since the states were permitted to determine the methods for registering citizens, so long as it was not based on race (15th Amendment).  Of course, the tax was set at a level very few Blacks could afford to pay, and among the test questions were such gems as (LBJ: Master of the Senate, Robert A. Caro, p. x, 2002).
Name all of Alabama’s 67 county judges.
What was the date that Oklahoma was admitted to the Union?
How many bubbles in  bar of soap?
While legal, these state laws were intended to keep Blacks from voting, and were plainly an unjust and unfair vehicle to support the will of the local power groups.  Today, we can ask about the intentions and use of privately developed HOA restrictive covenants, and the arguments by the legal-academic aristocrats promoting the supremacy of servitude laws over constitutional law:
Can private, contractual governments be used to  circumvent Constitutional protections?  If so, then what becomes of the Constitution?  Can the people opt-out of the Union?  President Lincoln didn’t think so, and Americans paid dearly to make that point.
The Goldwater Institute’s continued dialog on HOAs and the Constitution reflects the view of HOAs as independent principalities existing outside the Constitution, and thus establishing a new order for Americans, a New America of HOA-lands.