HOA-Land – Page 9 – HOA Constitutional Government

HOA political dynamics: totalitarian democracy

HOA political dynamics: authoritarianism & totalitarian democracy

First, allow me to clarify some important concepts and definitions that I have employed to help in understanding my positions and views.

The term “HOA” is commonly used in 2 different aspects. While commonly used to refer to the alleged community, in reality the “community” is a real estate “package” of homes, landscaping, amenities, and rules.
“HOA” more aptly applies to the association itself, which is the de facto – in fact – political governing body of the subdivision or real estate “package.”
“Government,” meaning political government, is defined in its general sense as “the person or group that controls and regulates the people within a territory.” Since your subdivision is a territory, that makes the HOA a truly political government.
“Private government” is a de facto government as defined above not incorporated under municipal statutes but under nonprofit corporation statutes. As such, it is a functioning government unrecognized by the state as Cuba had been for years.
“Quasi-government” simply means for all intents and purposes having all the attributes of a municipal government, except the names have been changed to mislead the innocent public.
“HOA-Land” is my descriptive term for “the collection of fragmented independent principalities within America, known in general as “HOAs,” that are separate local private governments not subject to the constitution, and that collectively constitute a nation within the United States.”
“Structured tribalism.” Tribalism is a term currently in vogue to describe divisiveness in America. “Structured tribalism” extends that view to describe the intentionally planned policy for the acceptance and control of HOA-Land.[1] It views the fragmented HOA-Land as distinct villages and clans.

While the CC&Rs and declarations contain abundant boiler plate, each is a separate legal agreement and as such the HOA can be viewed as a village. The conglomeration of master planned communities or HOAs developed by the same developer can be seen as a clan. All stemming from the HOA “bible,” the 1964 Homes Association Handbook.[2]

In an earlier editorial on civic responsibility,[3] I questioned the allegiance, the loyalty, and the obligations of HOA members. Was it to the US Constitution or to the HOA “constitution,” the governing documents? I answered that it appeared to be the HOA first and foremost – secessionist — creating division within the country.

This was followed up by the editorials[4] where I examined the attitudes, beliefs, and values of the HOA members themselves. I focused on the aspect of long-term indoctrination by the HOA School of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, my categorization. The question yet to be addressed was: What role did the members play themselves in terms of a predisposition to accept authoritarian, private governance?

By serendipity, or by destiny, I just received an email discussing authoritarianism and totalitarian democracy.[5] It argued that Americans were accepting authoritarian control, which seemed to be a cause for the behavior of cult-like, dogmatic member acceptance of the HOA board’s (BOD) actions and attitudes. It seems that the more predisposed to authoritarian control the more the member acted as a diehard, dogmatic, true-believer in the BOD.

“There are a lot of Americans who do not care for democracy. They do not mind [failing] to follow the Constitution, or that [it] poses a danger to democracy.

“These “authoritarian followers,” as social science labels them, are also highly ethnocentric, thus frequently racist, nationalistic, deeply partisan, and threatened by “the other.” . . . Other testing shows these people are also highly defensive.”

The HOA legal structure and scheme is basically authoritarian in nature: strong central power, limited political freedoms, no accountability, and under the rule of man, not law.[6] The authoritarian nature of HOA-Land is masked by a thorough indoctrination[7] that the real estate subdivision is a democratic community (although the HOA is not a municipal entity but a private nonprofit association) because the members are allowed to vote, as meaningless as it is.

But the HOA is truly a totalitarian democracy. To paraphrase the founder of fascism, Benito Mussolini, “All within the HOA, nothing outside the HOA, nothing against the HOA.” The marketing and promotion of the HOA model of governance has been conducted in a very smooth manner: no negatives, “carefree living,” playing to the emotions and desires of the members, misleading statements to induce buying, and empty promises of “maintaining property values, ”etc.

Here’s are some of J. L. Talmon’s views of totalitarian democracy as found on Wikipedia (my emphasis):

“A totalitarian democratic state is said to maximize its control over the lives of its citizens by using the dual rationale of general will (i.e., “public good”) and majority rule. An argument can be made that in some circumstances it is actually the political, economic, and military élite who interpret the general will to suit their own interests.

“A totalitarian democracy . . . retains full power of . . . the right of control over everything and everyone. Maintenance of such power, in the absence of full support of the citizenry, requires the forceful suppression of any dissenting element except what the government purposely permits or organizes

“It is [the member’s] duty and responsibility to aid his compatriots in realizing [this right of control]. Moreover, any public or private activities that do not forward this goal have no useful purpose. Citizens of a totalitarian democratic state, even when aware of their true powerlessness, may support their government.”

Getting back to HOA-Land, it becomes disturbing that the application of authoritarianism and totalitarian democracy philosophy seems to fit quite well. Too well at that! But these views of HOA-Land are a valuable enlightenment because it takes HOA-Land out of the hands of the propagandists, out of the shadows, out of the darkness of Plato’s cave.[8] It reveals reality.

References

^[1] “In short, CAI has been setting itself up as the national private authority, a sort of Board of National HOA Governors,” CAI manifesto: CAI’s plan for HOA-Land in America, 2016.

[2] See my 2006, Analysis of The Homes Association Handbook.

[3] Civic responsibility vs. HOA member responsibility.

[4] HOA social dynamics.

[5] Verdict” email from Justia.

[6] “Authoritarian” can be defined as “a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms. Individual freedoms are subordinate to the state and there is no constitutional accountability and rule of law under an authoritarian regime.” Wikipedia.

[7] Supra n. 2.

[8] “In the Allegory of the Cave, Plato distinguishes between people who mistake sensory knowledge for the truth and people who really do see the truth.” (See Philosophyzer).

HOA social dynamics — “freedom of mind” pt. 1

HOA social dynamics and the loss of “freedom of mind”

By: George K. Staropoli, March 18, 2019

Part 1.

A very disturbing behavior by the vast majority of HOA members in many HOAs, both large and small, is their willingness, their wholehearted obedience, and their unquestioned loyalty to behave as instructed by their board of directors (BOD). When confronted with contradicting views, criticizing and opposing the BOD’s actions and conduct — supported by documentation in statutes, correspondence and BOD behavior — members simply ignore the evidence. These unknown neighbors, these strangers for the most part, who apparently cannot think for themselves can affect your home without your consent.

And when questioned and confronted as to their reasons and justifications for these outright illogical and wrongful acts by their BOD, the questioner is met with a cult-like resistance and dogmatic defense. The defenses are a combination of, among other things,

the BOD can do no wrong;
the BOD is made up of volunteers doing what’s right for the HOA;
outright denying and disputing the opposing arguments without investigation;
labelling the questioner as a troublemaker and attacking his motives; ostracize, and disparage;
a defense consisting of slogans and mottos, like “no government interference.”

The BOD demands faith (never question), loyalty (agreement with the BOD), and obedience (suffer the consequences for disobedience, both financially and emotionally). However, there may be a small opposition group, but it usually lacks the power to be effective because the governing documents have been designed to restrict such “upstarts.” HOAs restrict the freedom of political speech as permitted in the public domain.

I am aware of two instances — both in Arizona by upscale, large HOAs — of the extreme degree to which members display a lack of “freedom of the mind”[i] concerning amendments to the governing documents that have material consequences. In both cases the membership was given notice of serious violations of the law and governing documents supported by hard evidence. In both instances the BOD failed to address these concerns and to justify its actions. The vote was allowed to continue and the amendments became, in my view, falsely effective.

There is clear and convincing evidence that this irrational behavior is the result of a long-term, systematic program of indoctrination using propaganda[ii] as the means to accomplish the aims and goals – the “party line” — of the propagandists. Enforcement of the party line can be found in the same methods used to enforce cult obedience.[iii] The causes of this state of affairs in HOA-Land[iv] are analogous to the pressures of the pre-WWII Germans and today in America with respect to Facebook and other businesses fostering social media for their own self-serving agenda, respectively.

Milton Mayer interviewed average Germans in 1955 asking how could they let the Nazis take control. One telling response was 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.”[v] The vehicle for this abandonment was the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda.

Roger McNamee[vi] describes Facebook’s motive and mission as to make money by allowing people to “talk” to each over the Internet. Facebook uses behavioral modification techniques such as, playing on “’lizard brain’ emotions such as fear and anger,” “giving users ‘what they want,’” and “[nudging] user attention in directions that Facebook wants.” Both examples seek to control and limit the people’s “freedom of mind” by indoctrinating them to their self-serving agendas. The analogies to HOA-Land are striking.

Continue with Part 2.

References

[i] See Social dynamics freedom of mind.pdf (2019), footnote 1.

[ii] Propaganda techniques: glittering generalities; testimonials from prominent people; name calling; use of false and misleading statements.

[iii] Obedience: “a form of “social influence in which a person yields to explicit instructions or orders from an authority figure.”

[iv] I have defined HOA-Land as a collection of fragmented independent principalities within America, known in general as “HOAs,” that are separate local private governments not subject to the constitution, and that collectively constitute a nation within the United States.

[v] They Thought They Were Free, Milton Mayer, 1955.

[vi] Zucked: Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe, Roger McNamee, Penguin Press (2019).

Is AZ ADRE violating 1st Amendment free speech on HOA public issues?

Regarding Arizona’s real estate department’s (ADRE) promotion of the HOA special interest organizations, CAI and AACM, in its Resources category on its HOA Due Process web page, there are no opposing homeowner rights views on HOA-Land. Nada!

These pro-HOA groups sustain, and continue to offer and promote the same failed arguments and “solutions,” of the past 23 years in Arizona. They are on record opposing due process and the equal protection of the laws for HOA members. It seems that they have adopted the view that the goals and objectives of the state, meaning the HOA government, supersedes the individual rights of the people, the HOA members. (See CAI manifesto: CAI’s plan for HOA-Land in America, a commentary on CAI’s “white paper.”

At a meeting with ADRE I argued for ADRE to remove CAI and AACM from or to add references to opposing views, well supported by evidence, to its web page. I suggested that my Constitutional Local Government or HOA Constitutional Government would provide a factual based view, and give the general public a “full disclosure” of life in HOA-Land. Let’s be fair! Let the homeowner choose after he has all the facts and not those of self-interested private vendor groups. This would be in keeping with ADRE’s mission “to protect the interests of the general public.”

If we are to make progress for HOA members, the policymakers move past what CAI and AACM have been saying in their voluminous promotional and marketing sayings — like its Factbook — and to what the CAI/AACM members are actually saying before state legislatures and the courts. The contradictions between the two are stark; one is talk, the other is action, as outlined in the materials presented to ADRE.

I am awaiting the decision of the ADRE Commissioner. It has been a month — a reasonable time to make two line changes on their web page — since I first contacted ADRE with the above request to remove the vendor organizations, or to add homeowner rights websites as a balanced recommendation. I hope that ADRE will act very quickly on this important request granting free speech to all sides of the controversial HOA issue.

The US Supreme Court decision in Con Ed v. Public Service Comm’n of NY (447 U.S. 530 (1980)) sheds some important light on ADRE’s unreasonable delay in acting on my request, which can only be interpreted as a denial. In Con Ed a state agency prohibited the inclusion of political material by a public utility company in its monthly billing statements. Among other things, the Court held: (my emphasis)

But when regulation is based on the content of speech, governmental action must be scrutinized more carefully to ensure that communication has not been prohibited “merely because public officials disapprove the speaker’s views.” (Part III(A)).

As a general matter, “the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. . .. To allow a government the choice of permissible subjects for public debate would be to allow that government control over the search for political truth. (Part III(B)).

The denial of opposing homeowner rights website inclusion on its Resources web page would constitute a First Amendment violation.

Homeowners can play a significant role by speaking out. Write about the quality of advice received from these organizations as to resolve problems with your HOA. Was it helpful? Were you satisfied? Please be sure to provide solid evidence – solid documentation – to support your request for help; no whining, no crying we was robbed.

Address these matters to Dan Gardner (dgardner@azre.gov), and send a copy to me at info@pvtgov.org with complete confidentiality.

The Two Americas: Constitutional America and HOA-Land

On this Memorial Day, May 30, 2016, America is fighting battles in a number of countries where our sons and daughter and our brothers and sisters have paid the ultimate price defending the United States of America, and the democratic values and beliefs of justice and equality for which it stands.

Yet, we have those in America firmly believing that the Constitution protects free speech, but not when private contracts are involved. And they support private agreements called Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) that cross over the line between purely property restrictions to establishing unregulated and authoritarian private governments. Florida attorney Ryan Poliakoff (brother of the late CAI activist attorney Gary Poliakoff) is one of them. These HOAs (an all-inclusive term) operate outside our constitutional system of government.

In his May 28^th column on Florida Today, he asks and answers the title question, “Did you sign away your free speech with HOA?”[1] with a firm YES. Why and for what system of government are our troops fighting and dying for? For the America of our Founding Fathers or for the misguided special interests who have a financial interest in HOA-Land, and who act and function as an oppressive oligarchy. (It is estimated that 20% – 23% of Americans live under HOA private governments). In our case, it means rule by the few special interests who lobby nationwide for pro-HOA legislation to protect the status quo.

I’m shocked at Mr. Poliakoff’s biased and simplified explanation and justification for HOA private governments; after all, he is a lawyer and dares speak of The Bill of Rights. He writes,

Private entities have no obligation to respect your right to say whatever you want, no matter how offensive it may be. . . . So if the rights and obligations of a mandatory membership community are contractual, and not municipal, shouldn’t they be allowed to restrict speech?

The most blatant misrepresentation of the facts occurs when he argues (emphasis added),

Personally, I agree with the majority position. I see no reason that persons who voluntarily bind themselves by, knowingly, buying property subject to restrictions should not be bound by those restrictions (unless the state passes laws that expressly limit the association’s power, such as the condominium laws that protect owners’ right to assemble, or the federal laws that guarantee every person the right to fly an American flag.)

Otherwise, I view deed-restricted communities as guided and governed by contracts, and I believe they should be treated, generally, the same as any private contract between individuals”.

I vehemently object to these misleading statements by an attorney! Apparently he has failed to read, or refuses to rebut, arguments that I raise with respect to 1) alleged agreement to a contract,[2] 2) HOAs as de facto governments hiding behind the privacy of the questionable CC&Rs contract,[3] and 3) the application of US Supreme Court criteria for a bona fide surrender/waiver of constitutional rights, including due process and the equal protection of the laws, which the HOA legal scheme fails miserably.

Furthermore, he should well know that the alleged contract is not between individuals or other HOA members, but between the HOA and the individual owner. Yet, he admits, by implication, that all HOA reform legislation is an attempt to restore lost rights, rights that belong to all Americans.

Mr. Poliakoff also informs his readers that he co-authored the 2009 book, New Neighborhoods[4] that contains the very same attitude and view towards independent HOA principalities as professed in this article. In my Amazon book review I wrote (emphasis added),

Ellen Hirsch de Haan, former CAI president, acknowledges that the biggest problem for the successful operations of these associations “is the lack of education among the consumers who are buying homes and units . . . . And the authors inform their readers that, “These neighborhoods could not operate without . . . the owners, who give up certain traditional homeowner rights for the good of the community.” “This is good”.

“The Poliakoff’s continue, informing their readers that “out of anarchy came utopia“, and quote an appellate court dicta that “each owner must give up a certain degree of freedom of choice which he might otherwise enjoy living in a separate, privately owned property.” The authors define the purpose of this book as, explaining “the workings of these communities — these New Neighborhoods — . . . and to let purchasers know just what they are getting into.”

I believe that Mr. Polikoff has failed miserably to fully educate the legislators, the media and the home buyers in both his book and in his recent article, both of which present the special interest “party line” and not the facts, the whole facts, and nothing but the facts.

This is not new or unique to Mr. Poliakoff. CAI has recently released a series of white papers, which I collectively refer to as the CAI Manifesto.[5] Kelly Richardson, national CAI Trustee and Realtor wrote about socialistic housing and submitting to the will of the community because, allegedly, that buyers had openly agreed to the surrender of their rights.

That’s the root of so many of the HOA horror stories we’ve all heard, as owners normally do not realize that their submission to the will of their new community is accomplished by the automatic application of covenants running with the residence. . . . The most caustic critics of HOAs in general are actually opposed to the concept of joint ownership. This is a completely unrealistic position . . .[6]

The positions taken in support of HOA-Land, as evidenced above, constitute a political movement — as any other recognized movement — that consists of separate and disparate collection of private governments not subject to the constitution because of a “verboten,” hands-off attitude, and have created 2 Americas. The divide is just a dangerous as a country divided over political philosophy as witnessed in our current political campaign. It must not be allowed to continue regardless of what party or person will sit in the White House.

References

[1] Did you sign away your free speech with HOA, FloridaToday (USA Today), Ryan Poliakoff , May 28, 2016.

[2] Consent to be governed, No. 4 of HOA Common Sense: rejecting private government.

[3] HOA Governments in fact, No. 9, Id. See also, CC&Rs are a devise for de facto HOA governments to escape constitutional government.

[4] New Neighborhoods—The Consumer’s Guide to Condominium, Co-Op and HOA Living.

[5] CAI manifesto: CAI’s plan for HOA-Land in America; See also, Deborah Goonan’s critique in “HOA laws and Free Speech, Right to Know”.

[6] Realtor magazine publishes HOA socialism by CAI Trustee, quoting A Note of Caution About HOAs, RealtorMag, Official Magazine of the National Association of Realtors, February 2015.

George Orwell’s 1984 is alive and well in HOA-Land

In 1949 George Orwell published 1984 where the fictional Oceania (formerly known as England) is a totalitarian state that has instituted a new society designed for the survival of the country. Oceania had introduced methods and techniques designed to protect the government at all costs: Big Brother is Watching You; Thought Police (don’t speak out or question, or else); Doublethink, creating the ability of the people to hold and accept two contradictory thoughts at the same time; Newspeak, the official language, replacing English, that redefines words and concepts; Ministry of Truth, the agency of propaganda and historic revisionism; and the Ministry of Love, the agency of regulations and enforcement.

Many can see the parallels and extensions of Orwell’s 1984 in the real 1984, and current world, of homeowner associations (HOAs) — authoritarian private governments. Let’s take a look.

The principles of 1984 can be identified within the HOA regime: Ministries of Love, the boards and HOA managers, coerce compliance with outrageous fines and claims of violations. The Thought Police, through the HOA vender organizations and lobbyists, use Doublethink and Newspeak to redefine everyday usage and meanings of words. Newspeak, or simply propaganda — lies and half-truths — to advance one’s interests, is extensively employed to defend the HOA regime. And, of course, there is the ever present all seeing eyes of the HOA — Big Brother is Watching You.

Of course, there are benefits to the state, the community and the residents, including the alleviation of irrational fears of the loss of property values. But at what price? At what cost? At the cost of leaving the American Zone (as expressed by Shu Bartholomew in On the commons.com) and the loss of member rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities protected by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The influence and acceptance of Doublethink has people believing that HOAs are democratic and not authoritarian regimes, because residents can vote – like in Cuba and China. That de facto HOA governments are businesses and not quasi-governments, because it is so declared. That it’s the members’ fault for not making desired reforms to the HOA legal structure, which contains a very high bar to effective member participation in HOA governance. That the members’ are expressing their individual rights and freedoms by surrendering them and accepting that the authoritarian board speaks for them. However, the board is legally responsible to speak for the HOA corporation in accordance with the CC&Rs that do not recognize the rights of individuals as set forth in the Preamble to the US Constitution.

Welcome to the New America of HOA-Land

I want YOU to

Join the HOA-Land Nation, today!

Read the complete paper at 1984

share

share

share

share

share