Tag: home rule

Will the AZ Legislature reject the Constitution: does the HOA control public streets?

Thanks to Dennis Legere of AZ Coalition, AZ HB 2470, as far as I can tell form LegiScan, there are no amendments to this bill. Interpretation: caps are new provisions; strikeouts are deleted.

“33-1818. Community authority over public roadways  A. For any planned community for which the declaration is recorded  after December 31, 2014 and Notwithstanding any provision in the community  documents, after the period of declarant control A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY  ACCEPTS THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF COMMUNITY ROADWAYS FROM THE  DECLARANT, an association has no authority over and shall not regulate any  roadway for which the ownership has been dedicated to or is otherwise held  by a THAT governmental entity.”

Sections (B) and (C) of ARS 33-1818 are deleted in their entirety. Note that there is no “IF” qualifier meaning that the bill is a mandate for state action. The bill states the law for all HOAs.

As of this date its sitting in the Rules committee. It must pass Rules in order to go to the floor for a House vote. Then again in the Senate. Therefore, advocate Call To Action is to email the House Rules Committee members and argue to pass on the bill for a floor vote. Let all the Representatives have their democratic say.

Historically, this control of public streets issue  started back in 2014. A comprised solution was found in  2014 (I was then involved with Sen. Barto) that split who controls into 2 time zones. If HOA formed after 2014 the municipality controls, otherwise control status remains as of 2014. The only active and relevant HOA, or pseudo, HOA was Sun City West — Up until 2025. STAY AWAKE, more coming.

The new bill, HB 2470, amends a technical correction amendment of 2023 (HB2298, CH. 84)) relating to ARS 33-1818. It stated that HOAs formed prior to January 2015 must call for a vote of the members to retain the HOA’s control of public streets within the HOA. Only if it already “regulates any roadway,” which I believe is only Sun City West – those  retirees.” (My HOA falls into this category, before 2015 with public streets, but not regulating them).

This bill makes it clear that once the developer/developer turns the streets over to the state, HOAs have no control over public streets within the HOA. A solid stand in support of the AZ Constitution and the laws of the land. Obviously, an HOA with no public streets is still possible, and the HOA bears all costs for the street.

There 98 RTS entries FOR the bill, and 30 opposed, including CAI, the League Of Arizona Cities & Towns, the towns of SURPRISE,  Gilbert and Goodyear.  I recognize some opponents as being individuals who are CAI member attorneys: Lynn Krupnik and Jason Smith.

This bill is really a power struggle between CAI and state enforcement of  the Constitution. Why then is CAI once again vehemently in support of private government HOA control of public streets and not the state when there are existing laws that would meet an HOA’s objective?  Specifically, seeking a variance from their local planning board, and in general creating HOAs under Arizona’s Home Rule statutes, which makes them  a municipality. Why? Because the real import of the bill is CAI’s control of HOA-Land without state oversight. One aspect of a slow death to a democratic America.

Do we need a private, parallel government? Why?

The answer to the title question is a resounding, NO!  Here are the reasons why not. In essence, all those state HOA/Condo Acts and statutes establish and permit a parallel system of local government— that regulates and controls the residents within its borders —  to function outside the Constitution.

First, it’s time for state legislatures and the judicial system to acknowledge their   willful blindness[1] that the HOA legal scheme, with its insistence and reliance on  equitable servitudes, that “the HOA CC&Rs have crossed over the line between purely property restrictions to establishing unregulated and authoritarian private governments.”  

Professor Evan McKenzie said it quite clearly some 29 years ago in his 1994 book, Privatopia, “”CIDS [HOAs] currently engage in many activities that would be prohibited  if they were viewed  by the courts as the equivalent of local governments.”[2] It remains true today!

Second, Why are there private HOA governments when there is home rule, charter governments?[3] 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. 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.

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.

Third, Just what are the valid reasons for sporting and encouraging private government by the state?  Answer: there’s no legitimate and valid reason for private, local government to exist outside the constitutional framework.  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.  

The constitutionality of statutes is subject to the doctrine of judicial review and scrutiny.[4] I have yet to see any valid government justification in support of the HOA legal scheme that deprives citizens of their constitutional and fundamental rights, which requires meeting the strict scrutiny test. Under strict scrutiny, “the government must prove that the challenged law is both narrowly tailored and the least-restrictive means available to further a compelling governmental interest.”

To argue, as have the states and pro-HOA supporters, that state and local government have an interest in reduced expenditures and the establishment of desirable community living does not carry weight. There are valid arguments that the HOA legal scheme denies fundamental and constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment,[5] which requires the application of strict scrutiny.  It has not been tested!

It is no wonder that state legislatures, CAI, and pro-HOA supporters avoid the issues of HOAs as de facto governments, and questions of judicial review.

The 64-dollar question is: Why do HOAs continue to exist and grow? Could it be, like drugs, there is widespread demand? Or is it because of the collaboration — as a group functioning as a monopoly[6] —   of CAI, the builders/developers, real estate agents, etc. to restrict housing solely subject to private governments? Is housing in HOA-Land equal to public, free-market housing?

Adopting the US Supreme Court’s decision in Brown,[7] “’separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” Separate HOA/condo housing under private governments is inherently unequal and a violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

The answer will be more discussed in more detail in a subsequent commentary.

NOTES

[1] Willful blindness is a legal concept that describes the state of deliberately ignoring or avoiding facts that would make them liable for a wrongful act. 

[2] Evan McKenzie. Privatopia: Homeowners Associations and the Rise of Private Residential Government, Yale Univ. Press, 1994.

[3] See America’s homeland: HOA law vs. Home rule law.

[4] See Judicial Scrutiny standards judge claims of constitutionality

[5] In general, see Desert Mountain opinion (AZ) constitutionality – part 2,  and Law review on CC&Rs constitutionality – part 1.

[6] A monopoly can be “a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service: ‘areas where cable companies operate as monopolies.’”

[7] Brown v. Bd of Education,  347 U.S. 483 (1954).

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)).

Support CO 22-1137 for HOA due process justice

Another HOA enlightenment bill has been proposed in Colorado, 22-1137, joining California’s and Arizona’s legislation to restore homeowner fundamental rights and freedoms.  Reading the bill as introduced, it addresses a number of issues designed to provide meaningful due process, to good extent, allowing for small claims adjudication and restrictions, limitations on the HOA’s right to fine, interest charges, late payments, work-out plan before foreclosure, and limits on the amount of collection to just 3 times amount owed (avoids unusual and cruel punishment charges). 

What more can a homeowner ask for to obtain justice and fairness within the HOA government? Go for the bill! Support it!  Get what you can before the evil empire strikes back and whittles the bill down!  Yet, to my disappointment, a homeowner advocacy group has found problems with this bill, all relating to how it would cost the HOA more money. 

What is needed, as I’ve repeatedly argued, is strong support for the sponsor, Rep. Naquetta Ricks, and an outpouring of emails to the legislators, especially to the committee members who will hear the bill.  If there is a Request To Speak option at the legislature, sign up and use it!

Related issues

In a broader view of HOAs as private, separate local governments keep in mind what has been ignored and bypassed by state legislatures across the country, including Colorado. Why are there private HOA governments when there are public home rule, charter governments?   

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.   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?

 (See America’s homeland: HOA law vs. Home rule law; Colorado Constitution, Art. XX, §6, Home rule for cities and towns).

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.