Tag: individual rights

Pres. Obama speaks of American mindset operational in HOA-Land

The following comments by Obama well describe the mindset in operation in the HOA-Land Nation. It explains the conduct and behavior of the vast majority of HOA members who completely support the acts, actions, views, and values of their board of directors no matter what.[1]

In a recorded private call[2] in regard to the dropping of charges by AG Barr against Flynn, President Obama had this to say, “That’s the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried that basic — not just institutional norms — but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.”

Furthermore, President Obama made the following observations about the dramatic change in American values.

“What we’re fighting against is these long-term trends in which being selfish, being tribal, being divided, and seeing others as an enemy — that has become a stronger impulse in American life. . . . It has been an absolute chaotic disaster when that mindset — of ‘what’s in it for me’ and ‘to heck with everybody else’ — when that mindset is operationalized in our government.”

As for HOA-Land, “What’s in it for me” applies to maintaining property values and “to heck with everybody else” applies to failing to defend member rights of due process protection and the equal protection of the law. The means justify the ends – protecting my property value.

Notes

[1] See in general, “Part 1, social and political dynamics,” in The HOA-Land Nation Within America at Amazon.com).

[2] Obama private call, Michael Isikoff, YahooNews.com (May 8, 2020).

 

Goldwater Institute: stop mandating HOAs

I applaud The Goldwater Institute’s position that the government mandating of HOAs must cease. 

I believe that the Institute must also address the reality that government intervention has produced unjust laws that violate the rights and freedoms of the people.  And, in keeping with its philosophy of protecting individual rights, the Institute is in a position to support corrective action to remove these unjust laws that mimic the private declarations, creating an imprimatur of state approval of private contracts.
Either rescind the condo and planned community statutes need to be rescinded or protection provided for homeowner rights under the law.  The HOA governing documents, these so-called “private constitutions”, are a top-down imposition of profit seeking developers on the community by developers, encouraged, supported, and defended by state governments.
These private entity developers soon leave without any concerns about the problems of democratic government that they have created for the homeowners, the people.

****

The Goldwater Institute Daily Update, Jan. 13, 2009

The fix for HOAs won’t come from government

The Arizona Republic recently reported that developer abandonment threatens bankruptcy for “as many as 200 of the more than 10,000” Arizona homeowner’s association communities. If there is an HOA bubble that is about to burst, it was created by government mandates and subsidies, so the best reform option is to stop those policies, not throttle contractually-created communities with more regulation.

Tucked in the middle of the Republic’s article is a fleeting mention of how towns like Gilbert force developers to create HOA communities for new developments by conditioning required permitting and approvals on HOA creation. But local HOA mandates aren’t the only governmental intervention. For decades, the Federal Housing Administration has indirectly subsidized the creation of HOAs by giving buyers easier access to mortgage financing when buying into an HOA community.
Government policies have caused developers to oversupply HOAs to meet artificial demand for HOA communities. When HOAs are created to satiate government bureaucrats, rather than homeowners, it shouldn’t be surprising that many HOA communities are neither well-crafted nor homeowner-friendly. But, the solution to the HOA problem is not more government intervention. It is less. The first step is for government to stop mandating and subsidizing the creation of HOAs.
 

Nick Dranias holds the Goldwater Institute Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan chair for constitutional government and is the director of the Institute’s Dorothy D. and Joseph A. Moller Center for Constitutional Government.

HOA statutes create state actors and actions

[The message of this letter to the Arizona Legislators is valid in regard to the legislation and statutes of many other states. The corporate form of HOA governance needs and relies on its unjust power to deny homeowners their constitutional rights in order to coerce obedience. The special interests, especially CAI, prefer that these valid arguments not be exposed to the public, legislators or the media. This is just what we must do if we are to obtain fair and equitable treatment under the laws].

April 30, 2005

Dear Arizona Senators:

Please do not pass this Homeowner Association bill, HB2154. It will further entangle Homeowner Associations as state actors.

The amendments to ARS 33-1260 & 33-1806 read, in part,

(h) A statement that provides “I hereby acknowledge that the declaration, bylaws and rules of the association constitute a contract between the association and me (the purchaser).

I believe this would be challenged in court as violating other statutes on contract law that require a meeting of the minds and a signature by the homeowner. There is no explicit waiver of constitutional rights. The above wording is suitable for a government agency or some municipal government entity, but not for a private contractual arrangements.

For example, creating or modifying HOA Rules do not require the homeowner’s signature, or even a vote of the members. Adding this paragraph further strengthens the close nexus between the state and the HOA, and further solidifies the status of the HOA as a state actor(1).

The Arizona Constitution, Article II, Section 2, reads (my emphasis):

“All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.”

The provisions of HB2154, and ARS 33-1256 and 1260; 33-1803, 1806 and 1807; 42-13402 (common area valuation), collectively support the validity of arguments that HOAs are state actors and, thus, subject to the 14th Amendment protections of due process and the equal protections of the laws. Realizing that these statutes will soon be challenged, passing this bill should be carefully reexamined.

A short presentation of supporting constitutional arguments can be found below under Note 2.

Respectfully,

George K. Staropoli
Citizens For Constitutional Local Government

NOTES
1. This appears that this is the only bill out of 22 HOA bills that will be sent to the Governor, Other aspects that interfere with the homeowners rights inlcude: removal of disclosure of loss of homestead exemption (don’t tell the buyer); adds reasonable collection fees to HOA liens (actually, more fees to attorneys since attorney fees are already included); revises board removal procedures; replaces proxy voting with secret ballots without any protections relating to the counting and verification process, and any meeting “new business” leaves homeowner out on the cold.

2. Constitutional arguments, supported by case law, from Nowak & Rotunda, Constitutional Law §§ 12.3, 12.4, (6th Ed., West Group 2000) (my emphasis).

· Cases in which alleged wrongful activity . . . have a connection to state legislation present the widest scope of factual situations.
· When state legislation commands a certain activity, or officially recognizes its legitimacy, there is no question but that state action present whenever someone follows the guidelines of the statute [as demonstrated by the above mentioned statutes].
· Again the reason . . . is that the alleged wrongdoing appears to be connected to activities of the state in such a way that it can be said to be a denial of rights by the state itself.
· When judges command private persons to take specific actions which would violate the Constitution if done by the State, state action will be present in the resulting harm to constitutionally recognized rights [property and liberty rights].