An obvious HOA reform
Here's a newspaper editorial talking about Gilbert, Arizona's practice of requiring HOAs in all new construction, and then taking zero responsibility for dealing with the conflicts they cause, or as some would put it, the oppression of homeowners.
----------------
Gilbert’s Congress of Neighborhoods has been trying to get the Town Council to set up a municipal commission to deal with HOA issues. The organization’s chairman, Steve Maggs, says that since Gilbert mandates new subdivisions have HOAs, the town should take a role in trying to resolve disputes that sometimes arise. It’s a good suggestion, one that’s echoed by Gilbert resident Dan Watson on the following page. (Watson goes further, urging the Town Council to drop its mandate that new subdivisions have HOAs.) Homeowners associations are probably here to stay, for several good reasons. First, most homeowners like the having a neighborhood association protecting the appearance and property values of their area. Second, if private associations are maintaining neighborhoods, there is less demand for government to do the job — and that saves tax dollars. But the growth of HOAs has not been accompanied by a similar growth in checks and balances. Although the greatest check on HOA abuse is for homeowners to be aware of and involved with their association, even elected groups need oversight; that’s why the governor has veto authority over the Legislature. The Legislature has made some strides in recent years to bring some checks and balances to bear on HOAs, but has been appropriately cautious so as not to hamstring associations. It has also been reluctant to create a new state entity to mediate HOA disputes. The Gilbert Town Council should step in with a commission that acts as an ombudsman in hearing HOA disputes and possibly offering solutions. Perhaps airing disputes in public would be enough to win compliance with the commission’s recommendations.