Tag: public roads

Will the AZ Legislature reject the Constitution: does the HOA control public streets?

Thanks to Dennis Legere of AZ Coalition, AZ HB 2470, as far as I can tell form LegiScan, there are no amendments to this bill. Interpretation: caps are new provisions; strikeouts are deleted.

“33-1818. Community authority over public roadways  A. For any planned community for which the declaration is recorded  after December 31, 2014 and Notwithstanding any provision in the community  documents, after the period of declarant control A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY  ACCEPTS THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF COMMUNITY ROADWAYS FROM THE  DECLARANT, an association has no authority over and shall not regulate any  roadway for which the ownership has been dedicated to or is otherwise held  by a THAT governmental entity.”

Sections (B) and (C) of ARS 33-1818 are deleted in their entirety. Note that there is no “IF” qualifier meaning that the bill is a mandate for state action. The bill states the law for all HOAs.

As of this date its sitting in the Rules committee. It must pass Rules in order to go to the floor for a House vote. Then again in the Senate. Therefore, advocate Call To Action is to email the House Rules Committee members and argue to pass on the bill for a floor vote. Let all the Representatives have their democratic say.

Historically, this control of public streets issue  started back in 2014. A comprised solution was found in  2014 (I was then involved with Sen. Barto) that split who controls into 2 time zones. If HOA formed after 2014 the municipality controls, otherwise control status remains as of 2014. The only active and relevant HOA, or pseudo, HOA was Sun City West — Up until 2025. STAY AWAKE, more coming.

The new bill, HB 2470, amends a technical correction amendment of 2023 (HB2298, CH. 84)) relating to ARS 33-1818. It stated that HOAs formed prior to January 2015 must call for a vote of the members to retain the HOA’s control of public streets within the HOA. Only if it already “regulates any roadway,” which I believe is only Sun City West – those  retirees.” (My HOA falls into this category, before 2015 with public streets, but not regulating them).

This bill makes it clear that once the developer/developer turns the streets over to the state, HOAs have no control over public streets within the HOA. A solid stand in support of the AZ Constitution and the laws of the land. Obviously, an HOA with no public streets is still possible, and the HOA bears all costs for the street.

There 98 RTS entries FOR the bill, and 30 opposed, including CAI, the League Of Arizona Cities & Towns, the towns of SURPRISE,  Gilbert and Goodyear.  I recognize some opponents as being individuals who are CAI member attorneys: Lynn Krupnik and Jason Smith.

This bill is really a power struggle between CAI and state enforcement of  the Constitution. Why then is CAI once again vehemently in support of private government HOA control of public streets and not the state when there are existing laws that would meet an HOA’s objective?  Specifically, seeking a variance from their local planning board, and in general creating HOAs under Arizona’s Home Rule statutes, which makes them  a municipality. Why? Because the real import of the bill is CAI’s control of HOA-Land without state oversight. One aspect of a slow death to a democratic America.

For AZ HOAs, public roads means public laws prevail

An interesting federal case came to my attention that involved public access to public roads. In this Puerto Rican case, Watchtower Bible [Jehovah Witnesses] v. Municipality of Santa of Isabel, CIV. NO. 04-1452 (2013), the First Circuit overturned the District Court’s decision and held that the Jehovah Witnesses’ free speech rights were violated.  This case was the remand from the First Circuit in Watchtower Bible v. Sagardia de Jesus, 634 F.3d 3 (2011)).

Shades of Marsh v. Alabama (326 U.S. 501), that 1946 federal case where Jehovah Witnesses attempted to distribute literature in a company town with public access. WOW! (Cited in  Sagardia de Jesus).  Marsh led to the US Supreme Court’s “public functions” test to determine if private organizations were state actors. (Today, there are other tests for HOA state action that nobody seems willing to pursue).

The municipality operated a Public Housing Agency, similar to the “projects” build in the 1950s in Chicago and New York City.  Where there are unmanned gates (“unmanned urbanizations”), entry to the public road is based upon acceptance by a resident who answers a buzzer or gets a call from the visitor. However, Puerto Rico has explicit laws that require all roads to be public roads open to all the people, with the usual police powers exceptions for the health and safety of the residents.  Like criminals don’t get access, etc.

 In dealing with the remand, to tighten the rules in accordance with the laws, the court noted that,

If access to public streets can be denied to them, then access can be denied to anyone. For example . . . the press could also be prevented from entering a gated community to cover the reactions of residents to a court ruling, as that in this case.

The court made the following general statement that has direct application to private government HOA regimes (my emphasis),

 Even today, many nations of the world inadequately protect, or worse, fail to protect, these rights that we often take for granted. This case demonstrates this Nation’s deep history of protecting civil liberties. Any antipathy by individual residents of gated communities towards Jehovah’s Witnesses or members of any other religious faith should yield to common sense and respect for the Rule of Law, product of the United States and Puerto Rico Constitutions.