Tag: linkedin

AZ’s ominous SB 1482: the return of unconstitutional SB 1454

As last year’s sponsor of the unconstitutional SB 1454 amendments, Rep. Ugenti, vowed to reintroduce the bill. The reincarnation of her trice failed bill is now the omnibus SB 1482.  It’s really her HB 2371 that had twice failed and she attempted to get it passed as part of Sen. Griffins’ SB 1454. (see AZ Attorney General admits SB 1454 HOA to be invalid and without effect).

As an omnibus bill it contains the 5 separate topics relating to HOAs, which make it an omnibus bill. They are: planning board prohibitions on requiring HOAs; permitting the display of political signs, regulations on renter rights and protections, and permitting unlicensed and untrained HOA managers to represent HOAs in small claims court and before administrative hearings.

Some say that omnibus bills help legislators better understand broad changes in the subject of the bill.  But, are the above mentioned 5 topics really related to make a better understanding of the broad changes? No, not all. They are just separate changes, separate bills, thrown together for a reason. And that reason, as attorney Tim Hogan pointed out last year, is to get bills that could not stand and get passed on their own lumped together to obtain sufficient support by giving something to every supporter. It also involves accepting changes to the law that are of no interest to or concern of the supporter. These other changes are an “I don’t care” attitude.  So omnibus bills become law based on “I don’t care” how these non-interest changes affect others.

For example, what has planning boards got to do with better understanding the need for HOA managers to represent HOAS?  Nothing!  It’s an evil, an undemocratic mechanism to get support for unwanted bills. “Because of their large size and scope, omnibus bills limit opportunities for debate and scrutiny. Historically, omnibus bills have been used to pass controversial amendments. For this reason, some consider omnibus bills to be anti-democratic.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_bill). It forces an all or nothing choice.

Remember that it was Sen. Griffin, now the lead sponsor of SB 1482, who allowed her bill to be amended by Rep. Ugenti last year.  Apparently she was rewarded with the President Pro Tem position in the Senate.  And, Rep. Ugenti will get to hear the bill, if passed by the Senate, as she is Chair of the House Government committee.

Here we go again!  Kill the bill for a fourth time and force the legislature to introduce separate bills to allow a vote of one’s conscience and not an “I don’t care” vote.

Letter criticizes CLRC rewrite of Davis-Stirling (HOA) statutes

Below are excerpts from my January 30th  4-page letter to CLRC.

“I read Ms. Vanitzian’s LA Times column of December 29, 2013, Attempt to Simplify California Condo Laws Ends in Confusion and your response contained in MM14-09. As you may be aware I commented on her article in two parts. . . .  If you are looking for facts, allow me to introduce a few.  I recall Susan French’s study in 2000 (H-850), at the request of CLRC, that started the ball rolling ‘to clarify the law [and] establish a clear, consistent, and unified policy with regard to formation and management of these developments.’ 

“Still, much of her report aside from the need for clarity, Part II, sections C and D, called for protections of homeowner rights and a bill of rights statute in the rewrite of Davis-Stirling. . . .  Whatever happened to the proposed ‘Chapter 2, Members Rights, Article 1, Bill of Rights,’ (MM06-25)?

“There was my letter (MM05-25s1) arguing for the need for this equal rights chapter, to which you answered with, ‘Beyond the scope of this project’ even though French had recommended protecting homeowner rights. . . . It is obvious that this rework by stakeholders without meaningful homeowner input easily leads to clarifications and simplifications as interpreted solely by this group, from its perspective, which would not protect the homeowner. The new D-S cannot be seen as the result of an unbiased effort and with integrity.

“The approach used by CLRC has the smell of corporatism, the rule by a handful of corporations.  It is a form of government that flows from fascism as defined by its founder, Italy’s Benito Mussolini, Il Duce.  ‘Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it . . . . Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State . . . interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.’

“CLRC responded with, ‘However, a bill of rights would probably go beyond the substantive rights that are currently provided in the law’ (MM05-03), but in the next sentence dismissed the US Bill of Rights as non-existent substantive law. The obvious answer – as there were a number of published books, papers and journals from nationally recognized researchers and political scientists relating to this issue – was to recognize that indeed HOAs were de facto governments and to subject them to the Constitution.”

****

The cry “no government interference” while accepting HOA private government interference is irrational.  This acceptance of undemocratic, authoritarian HOA government with less protection of individual rights and freedoms than public government is a rejection of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights. These people have lost their common sense!

Neither CLRC nor CAI will go down in history as Heroes of the American Republic, but perhaps may be remembered as Heroes of HOA-Land. 

The complete critical letter can be found at MM14-09s1.

HOAs with police powers: sliding down the slippery slope to HOA-Land

In State of NC v. Weaver[1] an HOA security officer stopped a driver on the suspicion of speeding within the HOA grounds.  Even though there were almost identical circumstances in Poris v. Lake Holiday[2] – uniforms, patrol car marked “Metro Public Safety,” and flashing lights – where the Illinois court held that security agents had the right to stop and detain drivers, the state in this appeal argued that the security officer was not a state agent. 

 The HOA authorized the security officers “to issue civil citations and fines to anyone on the property who violated the rules and regulations of the community (fines to be collected by a debt collector).  Note the broad grant of power to the security officers to fine and collect debt from non-members (the question of public streets remains unknown).  Therefore, it should not be surprising that the trial court had held:  “1. The armed security guard . . . [a]cted as an agent for the State[.]; 2. The armed security guard is a State actor.”[3]

 In reply, the State argued that:  “a traffic stop conducted entirely by a nonstate [emphasis added] actor is not subject to reasonable suspicion because the fourth amendment does not apply.”  In other words, while a cop had to have had a good suspicion that a crime was committed in order to stop and detain, it did not pertain to the security agent who was not a state agent, and constitutional protections did not apply as it does not apply to the HOA contract in general.

The question of whether or not the officer was acting under HOA orders was avoided, thus not allowing the question of HOAs as state actors to be entertained.   Questions like: Was the HOA’s authority to have its security agency act with civil police powers – stop and detain – constitutional?  Was the HOA, itself, a state actor?[4]

Where did the HOA get such authority? Certainly not by delegation from the NC legislature as required by law even for the creation of state agencies.  (In Arizona, constitutionality challenges were mounted by CAI attorneys questioning the authority of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to adjudicate HOA disputes).

But, this constitutionality issue was not the question before the court, but should have been as it pertained to the legality of the initial stop and detain act by the security officer.

The appellate court maintained that there was no evidence that the officer was acting to assist bona fide law enforcement officers or was asked by them for assistance.  However, it ignored its own acknowledged fact that the officer detained the defendant when  he smelled alcohol and “asked defendant to “step out of [the] vehicle and have a seat on the . . . sidewalk[.]”

The appellate court also ignored the trial court finding, which was not challenged by the State, that: “No Longer was he performing under Metro’s contract. After issuing the civil citation his actions exceeded his contractual authority. His goal and purpose evolved into detaining [d]efendant until local law enforcement arrived.” Was this a legitimate citizen’s arrest?

And what if the officer was acting under contract?  Then what?  Not addressed.

The appellate court dismissed the findings that the HOA security officer was a state actor and the case goes back to the trial court to decide its merits.  Namely, as a private citizen did the officer unconstitutionally stop and detain the defendant?  Poris said no. Federal court decisions on Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration laws put a strong damper on even police stopping and detaining citizens. 

So, where do we go from here?    Hopefully to answer the question of the HOA’s authority to act with police powers, a power confined to civil, not private, government.

 

 References

 

[1] State of NC v. Weaver, NO. COA13-578 (NC App. 12-13-2013). This appeal centered on the trial court’s granting of a motion to suppress evidence in the DUI case, because the security officer was a state actor.  It does not consider the very important issue of HOAs as state agents. The defendant was represented in the appeals case by NC’s version of a public defender.

[2] See in general, Corporatism in America: IL Supreme Court grants HOA police powers to arrest and detain.

[3] A ‘state actor’ can be defined simply as ‘an arm of the state’ as if it were a public agency or entity.  As such, the HOA would then be subject to 14th Amendment restrictions that protect your rights.  See Do state HOA Statutes Establish HOAs as State Actors?

It’s time for others to act for HOA reforms

After 13 years as an activist for HOA reforms across the country I am withdrawing my active involvement in HOA issues. However, I will remain an observer of events, commenting from time to time on the broader constitutional issues. 

Over these years I have provided a wealth of information and legal authorities as a source of materials for HOA reform legislation and in dealing with state legislatures.   A summary of the issues that I consider critical at this turning point in HOA reform advocacy can be found in the PDF file, HOA Common Sense: rejecting private government.  One point that I make is why are HOAs allowed to escape constitutional compliance when even every state’s home rule laws require compliance?

A final comment:  When these broad constitutional issues are ignored as justification for reform, then advocates have accepted the legitimacy of the HOA scheme and pro-HOA laws.  This acceptance of the “robber barons” reduces the debate to a wrongful equality of rights argument, to a “we must treat both sides fairly.”  As history has shown, the advocate generally loses.

HOA Common Sense, No. 9: HOA governments in fact

HOA Governments in fact, No. 9

I believe all HOAs should be required to have a sign at the main entrances to the subdivision that clearly states: “You are now leaving the American Zone.”[1]

De facto governments.

Is the HOA a mini or quasi government?  Is it a state actor? Or is it just another business with special privileges?  I believe we all can agree that the status of HOAs is that they are de facto – they exist — governments, not recognized by the state under municipality statutes just as Cuba is a de facto government not recognized by the US. 

What is the uniquely defining attribute of a government that distinguishes it from a business or non-profit charity?  Understand that all the functions that the CAI lawyers claim to make the HOA a business can also be used to claim that businesses are governments. Think about it.  Yes, they share the same functions – taxes/assessments, fines/penalties, courts/hearings, ordinance/rules and regs, etc. But the basic criterion is that “modern states are territorial, their governing body exercise control over the persons and things within their frontiers.[2]  This alone singles distinguishes a government from a business or charity.

Black’s Law[3] attempts to clarify what is commonly accepted as a political government: A government is “The principles and rules determining how a state is regulated.”  A nation is “a community of people inhabiting a defined territory and organized under an independent government; a sovereign political state.” And politics is “The science of the organization and administration of the state.” The general understanding uses the terms ‘people,’ ‘territory’, ‘regulation,’ and ‘state/nation’. 

Now, I know the above may be confusing, but the skilled HOA attorneys will do their parsing and word game analysis (depends on what the meaning of ‘is,’ is) of these definitions seeking to create reasonable doubt as to what the people know to mean as “government.”  You know, such as the argumentative asinine statement that, is the owner of a football stadium that regulates the people in the stadium a government?  

I prefer the simpler, down to earth answer given by Justice Stewart regarding what is pornography,

“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [hard-core pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it . . . .”[4]

It is interesting to note that David Wolfe, a founder of CAI back in 1973, had the following to say in 1978 when CAI debated the status of HOAs as a government.

One legal opinion offered in support of construing CAs [HOAs] as a government noted that the Supreme Court had required constitutional procedures in a ‘company town’ and with ‘political parties’; from this view CA actions were ‘public’ in a constitutional sense. . . . Wolfe concluded that a new definition of a CA as a government was needed to bring about Lewis Mumford’s vision of a democracy.[5]

And long ago in 1994 Prof. McKenzie wrote, “HOAs currently engage in many activities that would be prohibited if they were viewed by the courts as the equivalent of local governments.[6]

The defective legal scheme

Please understand that all substantive (as opposed to changes to laws affecting HOA operating methods and procedures) reform legislation is an attempt to restore your rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities as citizens.  They were taken away by the HOA biased laws that granted the HOA power to deny or did not prohibit the HOA from denying your constitutional rights.  Yet, even the most independent local control over people found in a state’s home rule statutes requires allegiance to the US and state constitutions.[7]  Why do HOAs get special laws?  Why are they exempt from the Constitution?  It doesn’t add up!

You may ask, What for?  The answer is obvious: for the survival and acceptance of a defective legal scheme that seeks to impose authoritarian governments on unsuspecting people. If boards and officers are to be held accountable, who would volunteer?  Well, why not pay them a salary so accountability can be demanded?  WHAT!!!  If they are going to be paid and held accountable, then members have a right to demand qualified board members and not any ole body who would like to be on the board.

Wait!  Wait! I can see readers recoiling in horror.  “The horror . . . the horror . . .” (from the movie Apocalypse Now!).   So, boards are generally not paid and are volunteers, without any special training.  At least the legislature and city councils have tradition and long established rules and procedures with staff to assist the law makers, but HOAs are “on the fly” – on the job,  decide as you go.  No wonder we have all these problems with capable governance.  And the volunteers and the special interests lament, “but we are volunteers helping to make a better community. You can’t hold us responsible and accountable. We need a free reign.”  Yeah!  Right!  Free to create havoc!

All because the mass merchandising of the HOA concept could not be sold under such conditions that demanded prudent accountability.

And, the concept could not fly without mandatory members and compulsory dues.  The founders of the HOA scheme who wrote the HOA “bible” in 1964 well knew this. And in order for the HOA to legally bind subsequent home owners the founders had to resort to servitudes running with the land, or equitable servitudes/covenants.[8]  

But, the equitable servitudes doctrine brought a host of ills detrimental to the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which very disappointedly the courts have held superior to the supreme law of the land.[9]  They have allowed for the establishment of the New America of HOA-Land with communities governed by de facto authoritarian, private government regimes known as HOAs.

HOA member Declaration of US and State citizenship

All that is needed to have HOAs rejoin the Union is for state legislatures to pass a bill that states:

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the governing documents, or other laws to the contrary,

Wherefore, the members of the association, having not waived or surrendered their rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities as citizens of the United States under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and as citizens of the state within which they reside, the CC&Rs or Declaration for any planned community, condominium association or homeowners association shall state, or be amended to comply, that, “The association hereby waives 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.

PS.  I apologize for the intrusion by WordPress to have added underlines to certain words.

References

[1] As contained on the On The Commons website, Shu Bartholomew, Producer and Host (http://onthecommons.us).

[2] “State”, Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Ed.

[3] Id.

[4] Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 US 184 (1964).

[5] Quoted in Community Associations: The Emergence and Acceptance of a Quiet Innovation in Housing, Donald R. Stabile (Greenwood Press, 2000), pp. 164 -167. Lewis Mumford was a 1920s utopian community promoter.

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

[7] A legislature’s grant of autonomy for local government to act without legislative approval on acceptance of certain terms (Blacks’ Law Dictionary, 7th Ed.); “as long as they obey the state and federal constitutions” (Home Rule, Wikipedia (http://tinyurl.com/nyqpd2a).

[8] The Homes Association Handbook, Urban Land Institute Technical Bulletin #50 (1964); See my analysis at Analysis of The Homes Association Handbook.

[9] Most notable are: Inwood v. Harris, 736 S.W.2d 632 (Tex. 1987) (Texas Constitution overridden by covenants running with the land); Villa de Las Palmas v. Terifaj, 90 P.3d 1223 (CAL. 2004) (amended restrictions are binding on all in violation of ex post facto prohibition doctrine); Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers, 929 A.2d 1060 (NJ 2007) (fundamental rights denied and business judgment rule is sufficient protection of homeowner rights).