Tag: private govenments

The Lone Ranger still fights for HOA constitutionality

“(Common Ground, May/June 2006, Christopher Durso, Editor).

“CCLG’s [Citizens for Constitutional Local Government] founder and president, George Staropoli, for example, originally agreed to an interview but later changed his mind. In a brief phone call during which he’s quiet and almost courtly, he explains that Common Ground is CAI’s ‘house organ,’ and that he’d be more comfortable with a debate or similar format where he could express himself at length, without the risk of being quoted out of context. He asks that his prolific writings on the CCLG website speak for him, although a week or two later he sends an ‘open e-mail questionnaire to CAI’ containing four questions that sprout from CCLG’s mission.”

####

 As of this writing, the four questions, also sent to the Arizona Legislature, have not been answered by any party.  Why not?

“1. Is it proper for the state to create, permit, encourage, support or defend a form of local government of a community of people, whether that form of government is established as a municipal corporation or as a private organization that is not compatible with our American system of government?

“2. Is it proper for the state to permit the existence of private quasi-governments with contractual ‘constitutions’ that regulate and control the behavior of citizens without the same due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment; that do not conform to the state’s municipal charter or incorporation requirements; or do not provide for the same compliance with the state’s Constitution, statutes or administrative code as required by public local government entities?

“3. When did ‘whatever the people privately contract’ dominate the protections of the US Constitution? The New Jersey Appeals Court didn’t think so. Does “constructive notice”, the ‘nailing to the wall,’ the medieval method of notice, measure to the requisite level of notice and informed consent to permit the loss of Constitutional protections?

“4. Please state what, if any, are the government’s interests in supporting HOAs that deny the people their constitutional rights?”

Staropoli lists a selection of unsolicited testimonials over his many years of HOA activism.  

His latest activity in January 2024 was the publication of “Seeking HOA Constitutional Government: the continuing battle, Collected Writings.” It contains in one volume some 56 writings — emails, social media postings, and articles — presenting 24 years of historical events, case histories, legislation and related documents by proponents of the HOA status quo.

HOA Constitutional Government: collected posts

Before the AZ Supreme Court

The purpose of this book is to educate the people — the general public, the HOA members, the media, state legislators, and those learned authorities — who have been subjected to disinformation presenting a misleading view harmful to the Constitution and our democratic system of government.

The posts contained in Collected Writings have been selected from my Commentaries posted in HOA Constitutional Government (http://pvtgov.info).  There are over 1,300 posts dating back to 2004 discussing issues, and dealing with events, legislation, statutes, and state court appellate cases that came to my attention.  The Commentaries are short, to the point, and contain related notes, references, and links to complete papers and provide authoritative documents for further study. They are the original Commentaries with some technical adaptations.

Available shortly will be a 145-page paperback on Amazon. In draft is a Kindle eBook version also available on Amazon. There are 4 main areas covering countrywide events – developments as far back as 2000:

  • On Legislation
  • On the Bill of Rights
  • On the Judiciary
  • On Civics  

On this 2023 New Years Eve, resolutions to move forward on effective HOA constitutionality challenges and reforms would be very appropriate, and necessary.

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).

Political dynamics at play in HOA-Land

“In order to succeed you must accept the world as it is and rise above it”

Historians have referred to the American Revolution as the “American Experiment” because it introduced a modern, as of that time, form of a democratic republic.  Would such a government based on the principles, beliefs and values of our Founding fathers survive the passage of time?  However, over the past century there has been a slow but steady erosion of the American Experiment. 

Simply stated, the following questions remain unanswered by state legislatures or HOA special interests, first asked in 2005:

  1.     Can a legislature delegate its functions, not government services but functions, to private entities without oversight or compliance with the Constitution, as required of all government entities?
  2.      Can private parties enter into contractual arrangements using adhesion contracts and a constructive notice consent, which serves to regulate and control the people within a territory (an HOA), to circumvent the application of the Constitution?

(Why Homeowners Associations (HOAs) should and must be made political subdivisions) (2012).

Failing to address these fundamental questions has permitted HOAs to exist as de facto governments functioning as a second form of political government within the US. HOAs reject the US Constitution by their actions — forget the words.  In 1964, with the publication of the Homes Association Handbook, Technical Bulletin #50, by the Urban Land Institute, and with the support and funding of private interests and federal agencies, the birth of the Second American Experiment went largely unnoticed.  

“The special interest promoters have described this second Experiment, boastfully, not as a revolution, but as “The Emergence and Acceptance of a Quiet Innovation in Housing”.  This second experiment was not a strengthening of democracy, but one that promoted and established, with the support and cooperation of the state legislatures, private, contractual, authoritarian government regimes.”

Homeowners Associations: the Second American Experiment (2008).

 

Where is the “community” in a community association?

On the HOA Reform (FB) page a woman in medical distress and need of support wrote, in part, “Home health couldn’t get in, friends couldn’t get in, I live alone, no family here. I tried every local government and legal aid, no help. I wrote the BOD many times, and said at August meeting that I had stroke and need gate open.”

Her situation has occurred countless times — single or elderly woman, not on good health, low-income status, and living alone is the object of HOA board abuse. And she cannot get any support from her neighbors. I responded with:

This is the biggest hypocrisy of the use of the name, community association. There is no healthy, productive community of people and calling it so doesn’t make it so. Where is the good neighbor, help thy neighbor policy, and the compassion and the charity toward your neighbor by those who allegedly sought these values. No, none at all! Trying to call it an investment or a business is laughable when we all signed a real estate contract and not a commercial business (UCC) contract! The public has been conned. And your government believes its none of their business. It supports and encourages a successionist private government allowed to function outside the Constitution.

Welcome to The New America of Independent HOA Principalities.