Tag: legislature

Corporatism in America: IL Supreme Court grants HOA police powers to arrest and detain

see-no-evilS
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil

“We are not final because we are infallible,
but we are infallible because we are final.”[i]

This Commentary excerpts relevant arguments from the court’s opinion in Poris v. Lake Holiday[ii] relating to police powers and false imprisonment.  I find it necessary to use excerpts so you, the reader, can follow the issues and analysis as they actually occurred before the court.  I believe this is the best way to understand public policy and how the laws are interpreted by the HOA attorneys and courts.  Please read through this lengthy commentary, and discuss with others.

 

FIRST, let’s look at the analysis of the appellate court’s finding that the stopping of the member for an HOA rule violation was unlawful. The appellate court held,

“Specifically, plaintiff [homeowner] argued that: the Association was not authorized by law to stop vehicles and detain drivers;

 “[S]ecurity guards occupy the same status as private citizens.

 “[HOA] security officers were attempting to assert police powers that they had neither the right nor the power to assert. [my emphasis].

 “Because [the HOA] restrained plaintiff for violating an Association rule, not a criminal law, plaintiff established the elements necessary for his false imprisonment claim.”

It is important to understand the detailed reasoning as to why the HOA had no powers to arrest was given:  

“The appellate court concluded that security officers are without legal authority to stop and detain drivers for violating Association rules, because those rules are enacted by the Association, not the General Assembly, and therefore do not constitute an ’offense’ . . . .”

NOW, let’s see how the 7 wise men of the Illinois Supreme Court saw the law. 

Police powers.

 “Plaintiff contends that only the Illinois legislature has the authority to create a private or public police department. . . . Plaintiff and the appellate court err in viewing this issue as one involving private citizens improperly attempting to assert police powers. . . . The appellate court failed to consider the Association’s enforcement of its rules and regulations in the context of its authority as a voluntary association to enact and enforce those rules and regulations.

 “[Since] courts generally will not interfere with the internal affairs of a voluntary association absent mistake, fraud, collusion or arbitrariness. . . . plaintiff generally complains that the Association was unlawfully exercising police powers and authority . . . . However, plaintiff does not, and cannot, argue that the Association and its security officer did not act consistently with its bylaws, or its rules and regulations . . . . ¶

”Plaintiff also argues that the Association is exceeding the legislative powers granted to not for profit homeowner’s associations in enacting and enforcing its traffic rules.  . . . each corporation shall “have and exercise all powers necessary or convenient to effect any or all of the purposes for which the corporation is formed.”  [IL statute].  . . . Regulating and enforcing traffic rules is reasonably necessary to maintain the Lake Holiday roadways.

“The Association rules and regulations were enforced only on Association property, and citations for violations of the rules and regulations were only issued to Association members. Consequently, the Association was not unlawfully exercising police powers that it did not possess, but rather was acting within its authority as a voluntary association to adopt and enforce its own rules and regulations.

 “We can discern no logic in allowing a private homeowners association to construct and maintain private roadways, but not allowing the association to implement and enforce traffic laws on those roadways.”

 And finally, false imprisonment.

 “[T]he appellate court erred in analyzing [the HOA’s] stop of plaintiff in terms of a private citizen effecting a citizen’s arrest, rather than analyzing the stop as pursuant to Association rules and regulations. . . . These facts would lead a person . . . to believe or entertain a strong and honest suspicion that plaintiff was guilty of violating Association rules. Consequently, [the HOA] had probable cause to believe that an offense was committed by plaintiff, which is an absolute bar to plaintiff’s claim for false imprisonment. [my emphasis].”

 

My perspective

 In Poris we have another instance of a state supreme court holding private contracts superior to the Constitution (See NJ supreme court opinion in Twin Rivers[iii]).  Apparently, the only thing that the Constitution has to say is an absolute “no contract interference.”  Note how the court adopted a narrow reading of the laws as it parsed and examined the precise wording of the laws, not stepping back in its alleged legal wisdom seeing only the trees and not the ugly forest.

 The court cleverly ignored the question of detaining non-members, and the question of public streets.

Think of the implication that a non-profit, any non-profit, can enforce its rules even by detain and arresting its member.  And think of the impact on the US Supreme Court question, and Arizona laws (SB 1070), dealing with similar issues of detention, probable cause, and reasonable suspicion by police officers to demand “your papers” to uncover illegal immigrants.

 I can summarize the Illinois opinion with the simple statement by William Pitt, part of which appears on the façade of the Arizona Supreme Court building: 

Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it: and this I know, my lords, that where law ends, tyranny begins!”[iv]

 For more on corporatism, see In a democracy approaching corporatism, HOAs are iconic 

Endnotes

[i] Justice Robert Jackson, Brown v. Allen, 334 US 443 (1953). (Robert H. Jackson was also US Attorney General and chief US prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials).

[ii]Poris v. Lake Holiday, 2013 IL 113907 (Jan. 25, 2012). (It should be noted that I cannot find any record of the amicus curiae for the HOA, an Illinois Association of Lake Communities).

[iii]Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers, 929 A.2d 1060 (NJ 2007).

[iv] This statement was made by Lord Chatham (William Pitt) to the British House of Lords in January 1770.

legislative support for HOA regimes has created a dysfunctional society

“The times, they are a changin”

When state legislators allow private government HOAs to be unaccountable to state laws as required by all other government entities, then an attitude that anything goes develops. Why? Because there are no penalties to serve as a check and balance on HOA activities.  It creates a lawless attitude of, “Go for it, what do you have to lose?”   It creates a dysfunctional society.

 It is commonly known that state legislators have a blind adherence to the false belief that HOAs do no wrong, and that there is no need for HOA penalties to serve as detriments to intentional and willful violations of the laws.   State legislators continue to believe that homeowners are openly and fully informed when accepting a deed binding them to an unsigned contract; and that the HOA and its special interest attorney national organization are acting in good faith.  

State legislators continue to believe that the HOAs and their hired hands, the management firms and attorneys, will comply with both the letter and intent of state laws, rather than seeking loopholes for income producing court cases. Such dogmatic beliefs have created a dysfunctional society operating outside constitutional government under a second set of laws just for HOA subdivisions.

 And we know where this can and has led to:  financial and emotional stress and even deaths attributed to the enforcement of HOA rules uber alles (German for “above all”). The latest shocking incident, after the Trayvon Martin incident (HOA liability: respondeat superior and agents as in Trayvon case), is the incident reported in the Sun-Sentinel article, “Parking at home shouldn’t bring tow — or death.”

Ask yourself why do towing companies roam the streets towing cars in private communities without obeying the laws, or without getting a complaint from the HOA? BECAUSE they can and because the HOA really doesn’t care — its rules are being enforced by someone else. And there are no penalties against HOA boards violating their own governing documents. The HOA is the sovereign, and it can do no wrong!

 However, there is hope. An indication of a return to sanity comes from the Republican Party’s realization that its obsessive adherence to dogmatic principles of laissez-faire corporatism has been a failure. (HOAs are a prime example of corporatism in operation in America).  Republicans are beginning to think in terms of less dogma but a more principled “protecting private property,”  always a fundamental principle of this country.  It stands in opposition to socialist states operating for the benefit of the corporation and not for the rights of the people.

 State legislators should take heed. They have created a dysfunctional society with their unreasonable and irrational support of authoritarian HOA regimes.  It’s well beyond time for an awakening, enlightenment, in their views of authoritarian HOA private regimes.

AZ looking at special taxing districts for certain HOAs

A number of legislators are behind HB2474, a bill that restricts planning boards and municipalities from mandating HOAs unless the development has one of the following: a pool, a clubhouse, a lake, a golf course, or one of a few other amenities.  If not, which pertains to those developments with just common areas or smaller amenities than those required, any proposed planned community must conform to Title 48, Special Taxing Districts, Chapter 4, Municipal Improvement Districts, or Chapter, County Improvement Districts, and be a government entity.

I have urged such an approach over the years as uses existing law and creates a government entity, subject to the 14th Amendment.  The Representatives are Townsend, Orr, Stevens, Borrelli, Boyer and Petersen.

The short bill reads:

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Title 9, chapter 4, article 6, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 9-461.15, to read:

 9-461.15. Planned communities and homeowners’ associations; limitation; municipal improvement districts

 A.     The planning agency of a municipality in exercising its authority pursuant to this title shall not require as part of a subdivision regulation or approval or a zoning ordinance that a subdivider or developer construct or establish a planned community as defined in section 33-1802 unless the planned community association owns or is otherwise liable for any portion of the costs of any one or more of the following special features:

 1. A golf course.

2. One or more lakes.

3. A swimming pool with an area of more than one thousand two hundred square feet.

4. A clubhouse or other community building that is more than two thousand five hundred square feet in size.

5. An orchard or other agricultural feature that in aggregate covers two acres.

6. An equestrian area or facility.

7. A landing strip, runway or other similar feature designed to be used for aircraft.

8. A commercial property.

9. A public or private school.

10. One or more churches.

B. For any proposed planned community that does not contain one or more special features as prescribed by subsection A of this section, the municipal planning agency shall require the formation of a municipal improvement district pursuant to title 48, chapter 4.

 Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 6, article 1, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding section 11-810, to read: [Reads as above, except a conformity to Chapter 6 of Title 48].

 

As a reference, please see my 2004 Commentary, A proposal for the “Muni-zation” of HOAs; Stop developers from granting private government charters.

Evan McKenzie on HOA consent, disclosure and realtors

“The typical homeowner has no idea what he is getting into — or what kind of HOA leadership he will be dealing with — when he signs a binding contract to move into an HOA-governed subdivision.”

So spoke internationally recognized and outspoken advocate for HOA reforms, Professor Evan McKenzie (author of Privatopia: Homeowners Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Government (1994) and Beyond Privatopia (2012)) in an interview for the Evansville Courier and Press (“Woman says HOA demanded microchip in her dog”).  And with respect to consent and the inadequacy of state mandated disclosure documents, McKenzie calls them “hopelessly inadequate.”  He is quoted as saying, “If (realtors) cared about this, which they don’t, they would be establishing policies.”

I’ve written on the topic of why people choose to live under HOA regimes and who remain silent. As a sample, there is the  oppressive structure of the HOA (Why do people harm others in HOAs?), the “unspoken alliance of no negatives about HOAs” (Good night and very good luck – the unspoken media HOA alliance, CA court upholds HOA suit against real estate agents), and the failure of state legislatures to uphold constitutional rights (Proposed “consent to be governed” statute, the “Truth in HOAs” bill).  One can conclude that the HOA institution is basically corrupt (as defined: impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle; perversion of integrity).

I have repeatedly argued for the education — the enlightenment — of the public, the media and state legislators as to the truth of the matter, understanding that the unspoken alliance is still at work.  Where there is a lack of understanding, actual or pretended, then educate as to the truth. Help others to understand.  And this enlightenment requires that advocates challenge, confront and expose the non-truths being continuously aired by pro-HOA special interests (Path to Victory at the Legislature).

Thank you Evan for your effort to enlighten others as to the reality of the HOA concept and its defects.

 

Read this highly informative article at CourierPress.com.

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.