Tag: local government

Political free speech both without and within the HOA

I recently came across a post by a Massachusetts law firm , MEEB, that basically summarized my arguments and positions on unconstitutional HOA governments.  In particular, alleged waivers of constitutional rights and the prohibition against private contractual government  HOAs from restricting political public speech.  That applies to both in the public domain and within the HOA community domain.

In its 2012 post, “Court Decisions May Make it Harder to Restrict Free Speech Rights,” decisions in 3 court cases (VT and MA) are reviewed. In essence, these decisions challenge “an assumption long held and widely recognized by courts in many jurisdictions that the freedom of speech guaranteed in the U.S. Constitutions does not apply in condominium communities.”  The reason offered, as I’ve mentioned many times, “citizens, a community association is not a governmental entity, so its rules are not subject to the same strict constitutional tests.

In contrast to Twin Rivers,  in Mazdabrook “the court noted [political speech] ‘lies at the core’ of our constitutional free speech protections.  Political signs advancing a resident’s candidacy are not by their nature incompatible with a private development. They do not conflict with the purpose of the development.”  And the court concluded “that the sign policy in question violates the free speech clause of the State Constitution.”

 In regard to the alleged waiver of fundamental rights (my emphasis),

The New Jersey court expressed serious concerns about whether and how condominium owners can  voluntarily waive their constitutional rights. Such waivers, the court said, “must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary…. [and] at the very least, [they] must be clear.  Mazdabrook’s rules did not specifically require Khan to waive his free speech rights, the court noted. Rather, “he was asked…to waive the right to post signs before getting board approval, without any idea about what standards would govern the approval process. That cannot constitute a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver of constitutional rights.”

 Mazdabrook’s rules did not specifically require Khan to waive his free speech rights, the court noted. Rather, “he was asked…to waive the right to post signs before getting board approval, without any idea about what standards would govern the approval process. That cannot constitute a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver of constitutional rights.”

In the Preu (MA) decision, the court addressed state actions by the HOA,

The court found that a law suit filed to enforce a community association’s rights under the state condominium statute constituted a “state action” that could subject association regulations to a constitutional test.

 The constitutional test would require strict scrutiny, which requires a necessary and compelling reason to restrict fundamental rights. Lesser loss of rights, say under state laws, would be subject to a lessor test, but more than the broader “a government’s general interest” that can easily be extended beyond justifiable logic.

In addition to the above rulings, California’s SB 1265 that states the HOA is a quasi-government faces a test in the legislature tomorrow. Let’s hope it passes.  The sponsor, Senator Wieckowski,  also managed to have SB 407 passed last year that broader prohibits restrictions on free speech regarding meeting rooms, assemblies, use of common areas, etc.

“It is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that members and residents of common interest developments have the ability to exercise their rights under law to peacefully assemble and freely communicate with one another and with others with respect to common interest development living or for social, political, or educational purposes.” (New Civ. Code 4515(a).

Now members can even make use of the ‘house organ,’ the monthly online or hardcopy communication provided to the membership for equal access to the membership for campaigning or publicizing opposing views.

Fundamental government functions: public or private HOA

Last month I commented on The Goldwater Institute’s Local Liberty Charter by Nick Dranias, its Director of the Center for Constitutional Government. The title asked the following question: Whither goest local government? Restrictive HOAs or responsible public government? A “follow-up” question that was not raised is:

Disregarding the knee-jerk reaction by those opposed to government involvement, “private enterprise can do the job better than government”, why, in the face of the serious problems surrounding the restrictive covenant, private government HOAs, does The Institute believe that restrictive covenants will provide for a better government?

It must be understood that we are not talking about providing services, such as trash, utilities, etc., but the basic functions of a government itself. What then becomes of public local government? In essence, the very concept of public government becomes an anachronism, replaced by myriads of independent local “principalities” since our now antiquated concept of government does not permit it to interfere with these private arrangements. What becomes of that initial contract between the people and its government, commonly known and referred to as the US Constitution? What becomes of the protections of individual freedoms and liberties protected by the Constitution?

Are these the concerns of the homeowners living in HOAs — those people whom we are told actually prefer and “love” HOAs? Definitely yes! Just look at the HOA reform legislation of substance, other than those dealing with the day-to-day operations. You will see legislation that attempts to restore fundamental rights and freedoms and “equal justice under the law” to homeowners living in HOAs, that were taken away by special interest influenced legislation.

I congratulate Mr. Dranias, and Shu Bartholomew, for keeping HOA issues before the general public: the basic issue is private or public local government. However, I was disappointed that Mr. Dranias’ appearance on the On The Commons internet talk radio show this past Saturday did not address these important HOA constitutional concerns.

There was, though, a brief mention of a loss of constitutional protections in HOAs. In response to Shu’s concern for private security use of radar guns and the absence of constitutional protections found in the public domain (32 – 35 minute mark), Mr. Dranias gave a response that might have been missed by most listeners. He referred to the city “spinning out or spitting out” a private entity to handle functions that it wanted to unload that such an entity was an agent of the city and was “bound by the same responsibilities of the city.” He added that, “the city cannot avoid its constitutional restrictions by contracting.” He spoke of “if this is an inherent function of government and they chose to contract it out . . . that person would be subject to constitutional law.”

The key point here is that the state did not establish the HOA (court rulings so hold) and, therefore, these private governments are not subject to constitutional protections. Again, this is the reason why there is a strong visceral reaction by CAI to any mention that HOAs are de facto governments.

In response to my email to Mr. Dranias, I was told that he will be addressing the issue in a future report. I eagerly await this report, and I await his return to On The Commons to speak of these concerns.