Tag: quasi-government

Do you stand behind the US Constitution or your HOA ‘constitution’?

Many courts have referred to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) as the HOA constitution.

Arizona’s HB 2158 is a second try (Arizona HB 2052 restores homeowner constitutional speech protections ) to prohibit restrictions on HOA members’ freedom of political speech with respect to HOA governance issues and matters.  It has passed put of committee and Caucus.

This important bill has been sitting for an extended 2 week time awaiting the House leadership to schedule it for a full House vote of all the members. NOT A GOOD SIGN!  My years of experience lead me to believe it does not have the support of the leadershp that has the right, under House Rules,  to withhold bills from further votes.

HB 2158 (2022). You can read the bill at the legislature’s website. Read the important amendments below. This is your chance to stand up for constitutional protections against the CAI lobbyists, many whose members have been or are SCG directors – conflict of interest!

“L. Notwithstanding any provision in the community documents, an associociation [sic] may not prohibit or unreasonably restrict a member’s ability to peacefully assemble and use private or common areas of the planned community . . . . An individual member or group of members may organize to discuss or address planned community business, including board elections or recalls, potential or actual ballot issues or revisions to the community documents . . . . The association shall not restrict posting notices of these informal member meetings on physical or electronic bulletin boards used by the association for posting notices for the association’s or board of director’s official meetings.”

This bill has support from the Nevada Supreme Court opinion in Kosor (NV supreme court upholds HOAs as public forums (re: Kosor 2021)) that contained several California opinions serving as legal precedent.

 “[A] unit owner’s association or a planned community association (association) may not prohibit a unit owner or member (member) from peacefully assembling and using private or common elements of the community . . . legitimate and valid criticisms of your HOA and its president and board are protected from HOA lawsuits of defamation and libel.”

“Nextdoor.com post qualifies as a public forum for the purposes of anti-SLAPP protections. . . .these steps [Kosor’s statements] do not seem to differ significantly from that which might be required to view posts on Facebook; that is, a post on Nextdoor.com is as compatible with expressive activity as one on the other platform, which we have already held can support a public forum.”

“The HOA here is no less of ‘a quasi-government entity’

* * * *

The following is an excerpt from a lengthy email sent to me by a long time AZ homeowner rights advocate, Dennis Legere. It and his email are made public with Dennis’ permisssion.  It  reveals the obstacles an hostiity he faces trying the get HOA reform legislation to restore lost rights and freedoms. It contains his comments on the heavy opposition  from CAI and AACM (AZ managers association, CAI trained).

“The ridiculous nature and hidden motivation of the HOA trade groups [CAI and AACM] is what makes any HOA meaningful legislation so difficult to get introduced or protected from demands from the trade groups for provisions that benefit them only.”

Take back controll of your HOA!  Write your Representative in support of this bill. Also write the sponsor, Jack Kavanagh (jkavanagh@azleg.gov) and the House leaders in support of this bill urging that it be submitted for a hearing by all the House members. Do it today!

House leaders:

Rbowers@azleg.gov – Speaker (R)

tgrantham@azleg.gov – Speaker Pro Temp (R)

btoma@azleg.gov – Majority Leader (R)

lbiasiucci@azleg.gov – Majority Whip (R)

rbolding@azleg.gov – Minority Leader (D)

ddegrazia@azleg.gov – Minority Whip (D)

jlongdon@azleg.gov – Asst Minortiy Whip (D)

What does “HOA” really mean?

What are we talking about when we hear “I live in an HOA” or “what are my HOA fees?” Allow me to clarify some important concepts and definitions that I have employed to help in understanding what we are really talking about.

  • The term “HOA” is commonly used in 2 different aspects.
    • While commonly used to refer to the alleged community, in reality the “community” is a real estate “package” of homes, landscaping, amenities, and rules.
    • “HOA” more aptly applies to the association itself, which is the de facto – in fact – political governing body of the subdivision or real estate “package.”
  • “Government,” meaning political government, is defined in its general sense as “the person or group that controls and regulates the people within a territory.” Since your subdivision is a territory, that makes the HOA a truly political government.
  • “Private government” is a de facto government as defined above not incorporated under municipal statutes but under nonprofit corporation statutes. As such, it is a functioning government unrecognized by the state as Cuba had been for years.
  • “Quasi-government” simply means for all intents and purposes having all the attributes of a municipal government, except the names have been changed to mislead the innocent public.
  • “HOA-Land” is my descriptive term for “the collection of fragmented independent principalities within America, known in general as “HOAs,” that are separate local private governments not subject to the constitution, and that collectively constitute a nation within the United States.”
  • “Structured tribalism.” Tribalism is a term currently in vogue to describe divisiveness in America. “Structured tribalism” extends that view to describe the intentionally planned policy for the acceptance and control of HOA-Land.[1] It views the fragmented HOA-Land as distinct villages and clans.

When I speak of restructuring the HOA, I am referring to the authoritarian, undemocratic body functioning outside of constitutional protections, and making it a democratic government subject to homeowner constitutional protections.

“Private Metropolis” revisited

It is my strong belief that  the HOA legal model of local government played a part  in the demise of democracy in America[i] has been greatly assisted by the recent publication Private Metropolis.[ii]  In my prior post on Private Metropolis,[iii] I was very pleased by the opening Introductory paragraph,

The opening introductory segment encompasses a wide description of special  governmental units. It is loaded with constitutional issues and controversies that says it all quite plainly: “quasi-governments,” “shadow local states,” “the municipality is no longer the privileged seat of governance,” and “special purpose local governments” (including homeowner associations with some 27% of the population — according to CAI — as residents), that “became, in effect, shadow governments.” 

Unfortunately, these highly descriptive political concepts  used in this very broad study of local government failed to appropriately address the form of local government known as HOAs.  Scant attention is given to these associations by the authors. In the 312 pages “homeowner association” is mentioned just once and “CID” twice. But “shadow government” and “quasi-government” and “special districts” are tossed around quite frequently. Readers, having read the very enticing title, will be greatly disappointed by its failure to deal with the most direct affront to the eclipse of local democratic government: the HOA legal model of governance that has been supported by all state legislatures across this country.

HOAs, my generic term for community and homeowners associations, satisfy the fundamental definition of a political government.  Black’s Law Dictionary (7th Ed.) definition separates the men from the boys: “Modern states are territorial; their governments exercise control over persons and things within their frontiers.”  And that is the unique feature of political government that  distinguishes an HOA from  a business, a non-profit charity, a club, a union, etc. I believe that the decision to form HOA governance outside the domain of public government was intentional to avoid constitutional restrictions.[iv]

They are a de facto yet unrecognized form of local government — other forms being mayor-council, council-manager — born and created as private entities, and as such,  have escaped, for the most part, under the common defense prohibiting  any ”law impairing the obligation of contracts.” Although the other forms of public local government are subject and held to the Constitution and the laws of the land. HOAs meet every criteria set forth by the authors as indicated above and epitomize the eclipse of local democratic government. 

The authors appear to admit the failure of the  ivory tower “philosopher kings” (my terms) to actively participate in preventing the fall of local democracy: “Instead, even scholars who study local governments [only recently realized] the degree to which quasi-public institutions are insulated from the democratic process.”  That applies strongly to authoritarian HOA governments. 

Notes

[i] See in general, Whither goest local government? Restrictive HOAs or responsible public government (2009); CAI’s early awareness of HOA constitutionality, public mini-government (2021); HOAs are another form of local government (2021).

[ii] Private Metropolis: the Eclipse of Local Democratic Government,  Dennis R. Judd, Evan McKenzie, Alba Alexander, Global and Community Series, Vol. 32, Univ. of Minneapolis Press (June 22, 2021).

[iii]  Private Metropolis: explaining the demise of local public government.

[iv] CC&Rs are a devise for de facto HOA governments to escape constitutional government.

Private Metropolis: explaining the demise of local public government

My repeated efforts to instill, to inculcate, a necessary broad  understanding  of democratic principles and government — and the part played by the HOA legal model of local government — in the demise of democracy in America[1] has been greatly assisted by the recent publication Private Metropolis.[2] (It was published at the same time as my amicus curiae filing with Arizona Supreme Court in Tarter[3]).

The opening introductory segment encompasses a wide description of special  governmental units. It is loaded with constitutional issues and controversies that says it all quite plainly: “quasi-governments,” “shadow local states,” “the municipality is no longer the privileged seat of governance,” and “special purpose local governments” (including homeowner associations with some 24% of the population as residents), that “became, in effect, shadow governments.” 

My 21 year long-term effort in the trenches  has been to introduce the broad level constitutional issues and democratic philosophy to the average American, who does not know and cannot understand the words of these learned political scientists. I have, for the most part, failed. Private Metropolis gives me additional support and the basis for continued efforts to educate the public at large who suffer the consequences of a  “not my job” attitude.

It is up to the homeowner advocates and HOA boards to embrace this reality and expose the arguments of supportive political scientists to the policy makers in your state, as well as educating the media  on its  continued silence on these issues.

Endnote

[1] See in general, Whither goest local government? Restrictive HOAs or responsible public government (2009); CAI’s early awareness of HOA constitutionality, public mini-government (2021); HOAs are another form of local government (2021).

[2]  Private Metropolis: the Eclipse of Local Democratic Government,  Dennis R. Judd, Evan McKenzie, Alba Alexander, Global and Community Series, Vol. 32, Univ. of Minneapolis Press (June 22, 2021).

[3] Pro Se Bendt amicus brief accepted by AZ Supreme Court.

In Kosor the NV appellate court upholds HOAs as public forums

In January of this year I posted the Nevada Supreme Court’s opinion on HOAs as public forums and the president as a limited-purpose public figure (NV supreme court upholds HOAs as public forums).  Last month on an appeal (Olympia v. Kosor, No. A-17-765257-C (Nev. Ct. App. 2021) from the remand, to  let the trial court hear the case on above issues, the appellate Court upheld the supreme courts findings and opinion.

The tremendous constitutional question of free political speech on issues of HOA governance was upheld. Finally! In doing so, the Court also held, citing several cases that [note 1],

  • [the HOA]  “is a quasi-government entity ‘paralleling in almost every case the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a municipal government.’”
  • the Nevada Supreme Court has found the [the HOA] Board to be in the nature of a quasi-government entity largely paralleling the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a municipal entity and its meetings similar in function to a governmental body.
  • homeowners’ associations open meetings are public forums as such associations play ’a critical role in making and enforcing rules affecting the daily lives of [community] residents.’”  
  • “the HOA meetings at which Kosor made certain of the statements at issue were ‘public forums’ … because the meetings were ‘open to all interested parties, and … a place where members could communicate their ideas. Further, the…meetings served a function similar to that of a governmental body.”
  • In deciding this Motion, this Court also concludes Plaintiffs at least constitute limited-purpose public figures.
  • The test for determining whether someone is a limited public figure includes examining whether a person’s role in a matter of public concern is voluntary and prominent.” [as is the case with HOA boards and presidents]
  • the issues Defendant raised involve efforts to encourage homeowner participation in and oversight of the governance of Southern Highlands, “an inherently political question of vital importance to each individual and to the community as a whole.”

. . . .

Your HOA cannot stop your free speech if you argue Kosor! Just be careful about making harsh, accusatory statements that violate elements of defamation that will  defeat your free speech.

NOTE 1. Damon v. Ocean Hills Journalism Club, 102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 205, 214 (2000); Cohen v. Kite Hill Cmty. Ass’n, 191 Cal. Rptr. 209, 214 (1983); Pegasus v. Reno Newspapers, Inc., 57 P.3d 82, 91 (2002).