Tag: public government

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. 

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

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

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 serve to regulate and control the people within a territory (an HOA), to circumvent the application of the Constitution?

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.  Consider the following:

1.      “A rose by any other name is a rose.”  Taxes are HOA assessments; ordinances are rules and regulations; board is the legislature/city council; government agency is architectural control committee (ACC); citizens are members; judiciary is board/ACC; constitution is the CC&Rs; laws are the by-laws; etc.

2.      State legislatures have not enacted laws that delegate their legislative functions to the HOA private entities with oversight or constitutional compliance, as required by long standing legal doctrine. 

 [i]t is a well established theory that a legislature may not delegate its authority to private persons over whom the legislature has no supervision or control. . . .The legislature cannot abdicate its functions or subject citizens and their interests to any but lawful public agencies, and a delegation of any sovereign power of government to private citizens cannot be sustained nor their assumption of it justified.[i]

 3.      Furthermore, “Agreements violating constitutional provisions, county codes, and municipal ordinances are illegal to the same extent as agreements violating statutory enactments.”[ii]

4.      For those states with “home rule” laws that permit a wide range of independent law-making at the local level, the governing body remains subject to the constitution and laws of the state. 

5.      Attempts to enumerate the specific functions of an entity, which are unique to political governments and make them a government and not something else, like the archaic public functions test of 1946,[iii] fail as being contrary to constitutional law.  Compare these questionable definitive “public” functions to the legal requirements set forth in the laws of each state applicable to municipal governments.

6.      The unique factor that determines the broad concept of “government” is simply:  any governing body that controls and regulates the people within a territory is a de facto government. Take Cuba for instance, a de facto yet unrecognized government. Sadly, HOAs are not recognized either.

Modern states are territorial, their governments exercise control over persons and things within their frontiers. . . . A state should not be confused with the whole community of persons living on its territory [such as churches or corporations].[iv] 

7.      Several political scientists believe that HOAs should be declared as sui generis (one of a kind) private governments.  However, evidence based on existing HOA state laws have made HOAs an “arm of the government” (state actors) according to the US Supreme Court criteria:[v]   state protective statutes reflecting a cooperation with HOAs, through state support or coercion; by a symbiotic relationship, close nexus, or an entwinement between the state and the HOA.

In general, every special or private law which directly proposes to destroy or affect individual rights, or does the same thing by restricting the privileges of certain classes of citizens and not of others, when there is no public necessity for such discrimination, is unconstitutional and void.[vi]

8.      Defining HOAs as a sui generis entity without the requirement that HOAs are indeed bodies politic or state entities rejects the US Constitution. HOAs have seceded from the Union by virtue of their private contracts that do not hold the HOA governing body subject to the laws of the land. 

9.      CC&Rs are created by private parties, none being an actual member or resident of the subdivision at the time of formation, who enter into contractual arrangements that have been described by the courts as the HOA’s “constitution.”  The CC&Rs serve to regulate and control the people within a territory (an HOA), thereby circumventing the application of the Constitution and, specifically, the 14th Amendment equal application of the laws and due process protections. 

A statute infringes the constitutional guarantee of equal protection if it singles out for discriminatory legislation particular individuals not forming an appropriate class and imposes on them burdens or obligations or subjects them to rules from which others are exempt.[vii]

In order for a waiver of a constitutional right to be valid, it must be made voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly and with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.[viii]

 10.  The persistent and profuse arguments, by the HOA special interests, that HOAs are not governments can easily be seen as attempts to avoid HOAs being subject to constitutional conditions and restrictions that protect the people.  “In the context of community associations, the unwise extension of constitutional rights to the use of private property by members . . . .”[ix]

 

Further readings

Commentaries:                               

1.       The Legitimacy of HOA Governance

2.       AARP Amicus Curiae brief in Twin Rivers NJ constitutionality suit

3.       The Constitutionality of state protected homeowners associations

4.       Why haven’t the 1983 HOA problems of America II been resolved?

5.       HOA Case History: state actors or mini/quasi government

 

General reading:

1.       Beyond Privatopia: Rethinking Residential Private Government, Evan McKenzie, Urban Institute Press, 2011.

2.       Establishing the New America of Independent HOA Principalities, George K. Staropoli, Starman Publishing, 2008 (ISBN 978-0-9744488-3-1).

3.       Neighbors AT War! The Creepy Case Against Your Homeowners Association, Ward Lucas, Hogback Publishing, 2012.

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

5.       Villa Appalling! Destroying the Myth of Affordable Community Living, Donie Vanitzian, Villa Appalling Publishing, 2002.

                                               

Legal Authority Notes:

[i]    Emmett McLoughlin Realty v. Pima County, 58 P.3d 39 (2002).

[ii]   17A Corpus Juris Secundum Contracts § 213.

[iii]  Marsh v. Alabama, 326 US 501 (1946); Shelly v. Kraemer, 334 US 1 (1948).

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

[v]    Brentwood v. Tennessee School, 531 US 288 (2001).

[vi] 16B American Jurisprudence 2d Constitutional Law § 874.

[vii]  16B American Jurisprudence 2d Constitutional Law § 871.

[viii]  16 Corpus Juris Secundum Constitutional Law § 82.

[ix]   Community Associations Institute (CAI) amicus curiae to NJ Appellate Court in CBTR v. Twin Rivers HOA, 890 A.2d 947 (2004).

Learn to accept and love your HOA — It’s here to stay.

In the one week since seeking support for a White House petition to declare people living in HOAs still citizens of this country, only 50 have submitted a petition. I would like to thank those special 50 persons who took a simple step to fight for their rights. And your rights, too.

Homeowners living in HOAs and the people at large have spoken, or more correctly, have spoken with their silence. Homeowner rights advocacy is a myth, as is the America being taught to your children or grandchildren in public schools. At the local government level, government by business driven, profit-seeking organizations with their adhesion Declaration of CC&Rs contracts are becoming the norm for local government in America.

Political scientists like Robert H. Nelson, and none other than The Goldwater Institute in Arizona, have supported  local government by restrictive covenant contracts that are not subject to the US Constitution.

Over the years I’ve tried to present, discuss and explain the fundamental issues of our constitutional democratic government with respect to homeowners associations.  There is nothing more I can say or do.  You have spoken.

Welcome to the New America of HOA-Land.
Learn to accept and love your HOA. It’s here to stay.

White House petition to defend US citizenship of people in HOAs

To My Fellow Americans,

As a long-time advocate for constitutional local government I am greatly disturbed by the existence of local governments that exist and function every day throughout America, but are not subject to the US Constitution.  They are known as homeowners associations.  Special interests have effectively campaigned not to have HOAs viewed as a second form of political government, but this effort is misleading and self-serving.

HOAs do provide a beneficial service to the community, but at the cost on an unknowing surrender and waiver of basic homeowner rights and protections – the misleading aspect of the statements made by pro-HOA special interests.  However, the benefits of HOAs can be obtained within our constitutional system of government, which provides protections that are absent in the imposed profit-seeking developer CC&Rs contracts.

I ask each of you to consider the following question:

Is it proper for the state to create, permit, encourage, support or defend a form of local government of a community of people that is not compatible with our American system of government?

The answer to this question by state legislatures has been, Yes, thereby permitting HOA secession and establishing the HOA as an independent principality.   

As stated in the We the People petition to the White House, state legislatures have failed to uphold the Constitution and protect homeowner private property rights, and their privileges and immunities under the Constitution.  In view of this default, only the Federal government can provide this protection. It is a necessary and legitimate function of the Federal government to protect your rights and freedoms without overburdening contractual rights.

Let Washington know that we are still citizens of this country; we are still Americans!! 

Please read and sign our We the People petition that can be found at: Petition.   Because of the limitations on the We the People website, you can read rhe complete petition at: FULL PETITION

(Expired Dec. 21, 2012 with a pitiful 76 petitions).

Respectfully requested,

George K. Staropoli

HOA board education or indoctrination?

Donna DiMaggio Berger of Florida’s CAN HOA advocacy group wrote about the increasing numbers of board members seeking to be educated in HOA matters and in the affairs of HOA-Land (Do most Condo & HOA Directors want to be educated?).  I agree with Donna that these private government officials need to be educated, because unlike pubic government officials there is no long term infrastructure or institutional culture to guide them. 

Neither are there the penalties against wrong-doing as we have with laws holding public officials accountable.  Yes, not only must these private officials be properly educated, but be held accountable, too.  But, accountability is not discussed.

Sadly, in regard to the educational materials, the pro-HOA believers and groups ignore the fact that the “teachings” are really indoctrination courses into how to behave in HOA-Land under its unconscionable and oppressive adhesion contract, supported by pro-HOA laws and top-down UCIOA covenants. The materials flow from the pseudo-educator, the national lobbying trade group, which seeks to maintain the inequities of the HOA legal scheme.  They teach “how to behave as a good HOA member and avoid financial and emotional stress, and the good chance of losing your home if disobedient.”  And that is, is to follow the rules and to participate under procedures that thwart participation by “outsiders.”

There is no presentation of constitutional issues, of 14th Amendment violations, of the fallacies in the “consent to agree” argument, of no clean elections laws or of unacceptable due process procedures as a few examples.  Not even a discussion of the validity of my Truth in HOAs Disclosure Agreement argument.  Not even an invitation for attendees to proclaim their US citizenship status by signing the Declaration of US and State Citizenship form.

And why not?  Why aren’t these issue made public and taught by the great HOA educators?  Maybe, just maybe, as Col. Jessup shouted out in the movie, A Few Good Men, “You can’t handle the truth!”   Why are they afraid of the truth?