Las Vegas Now | Legislation Introduced to End HOA Corruption
Noto and others say Park Avenue and several other HOA's were allegedly part of a wide-reaching plan by Leon Benzer and his associates. He is a developer who is said to have used friends to take control of HOA boards and funnel questionable work to his construction company. Sources tell the I-Team, that money could add up to hundreds of millions of dollars.
Noto says the problem started with questionable elections, "There are hundreds of millions of dollars for them and if they can manipulate the law in their favor, then they're going to do it."
State Senator Mike Schneider proposed two bills Wednesday that would clamp down on HOA boards to open up the books and reveal any conflicts of interest. It would also bar people from tampering with board elections and if they do, it is a category C felony -- up to five years in prison.
-------------
So here is one state where one legislator is taking HOA and condo association corruption seriously. We will see who gets behind this and who tries to stop it. Anybody in the industry who is thinking in the long term should support this, because on top of all the other risks that go with buying a CID unit, if you add in the potential for Chicago-style election theft by outsiders, people may decide once and for all to reject this form of housing. I don't know who did what in the case that gave rise to this proposal, or even if anybody will be convicted, but there are just way too many cases of property manager embezzlement, board misbehavior, and abuse of owners. Calling them isolated examples is beside the point--all crimes are isolated examples, because most of the time people behave themselves. Crime is still a major social problem. And the need to clean up privatopia has never been more acute. This is especially true for condominiums, which always get hit hardest by recession and are now sliding into crisis all over the nation.
---------
update: The state of the condo market today reminds me of a great scene from the movie There Will Be Blood. The oil man, Daniel Plainview, wants to lease land from a lot of farmers so he can drill for oil. The farmers meet in a house to talk about the proposition, and the whole place erupts into a chaotic group argument. Here is what happens next:
Prescott: [Plainview has just stormed out of a town meeting] Mr. Plainview? No! Mr. Plainview, where are you going?
Plainview: I don't need the lease, thank you.
Prescott: We need you, we need you to...
Plainview: Too much confusion! Thank you for your time.
Prescott: No, no, no! There's no confusion! If you just...
Plainview: [stops in his tracks, stares down Prescott] I wouldn't take the lease if you gave it to me as a gift.
Plainview decides the whole situation is just too much trouble and too much risk, even though there is money to be made. And if the chaos and dysfunction in privatopia do not abate, soon you will not be able to give away a condo unit as a gift, because people will think it is just too much trouble and too much risk. For a housing sector that sells itself as carefree living, this would be not only ironic, but fatal.
So, I think CAI and other industry organizations should be working overtime to clean out the crooks and the sharpies. Prosecuting the crooks and sending them to prison would be a great place to start.
18 comments:
Isn't that like asking rats to be exterminators?
CAI's "ethics" code is obviously only for show given the extent of the Koger embezzlement scandal and other embezzlements publicized this past year. CAI isn't interested in getting rid of crooks, CAI is the crooks. Look at their public policies and read them carefully.
Sorry, but I have to take issue with the poster above who clearly is uninformed regarding CAI's membership, designation, and ethics processes.
CAI doesn't have police powers and only those individuals and companies who hold our designations are subject to our code of ethics. This is clearly stated on our website and in all our ethics and designations materials. Koger did not hold such designations either individually or corporately.
But let's look at the Koger case since it can be instructive. Who brought the fraud to the attention of the authorities - CAI members. Who worked with the Commonwealth to attempt to unravel and understand the situation - CAI members. Who assisted the hundreds of associations who were effected by this outrage - CAI members. Who continues to provide support to these associations to work through their financial challenges - CAI members. Our management company, attorney, CPA, insurance, and banking members have all spent countless hours trying to assist in rectifying a situation not of their making.
Unforunately none of the involved parties at Koger held any CAI designations so there were no ethics policies they were subject to that could be enforced. But to claim that the ethics policies mean nothing and they are not enforced belies the hundreds of hours we spend investigating ethics complaints and the revocation of designations (and earning power) that occurs each year.
Tom:
Thanks for addressing this issue.
Has CAI taken a position on Sen. Schneider's proposed legislation, or does it expect to? My post was directed to that particular issue.
The commenter went off in a different direction and you have responded to that. However, I do not believe that CAI's ethics policies are enough to solve the problem. Neither is civil litigation. I believe criminal prosecution is necessary.
As a former prosecutor I tend to believe in the deterrent value of criminal sanctions. I am hoping CAI will support measures to clean out the crooks using the criminal justice process. That will set an example that would deter others.
I trust, both, you, Dr. McKenzie and CAI, including Mr. Skiba, will stand behind prosecution of board members and their associates, who have targeted, terrorized, fraudulently assessed, fraudulently foreclosed and destroyed peoples lives and finances. Unfortunately, it appears, some of these individuals do have a CAI designation, or affiliation. CAI, or no CAI, designation they all need to be prosecuted, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE, and their victims rectified.
In my opinion, Mr. Skiba needs to look in his own back yard, and get rid of the trash. What some in this group have forgotten is, that people are not slaves and flunkies, to henchmen, thugs, bullies, liars, and any type of created conflict and extortion they can dream up, to steal homes.
When have you EVER seen CAI help a homeowner who has been victimized by one from their membership, or a board "influenced," by one from their membership?
Mr. Skiba, get to know who the real victims are. Lives, careers, families and finances have been shattered and devastated, by these "witch-hunts." Vulnerable populations have been helpless!
It is long overdue that those responsible be held accountable.
It is my perception that the comments of the first commenter are close to reality. It is the CAI and similar organizations who have opposed needed reforms of the HOA situation and have worked assiduously to make sure that homeowners are not really owners at all, but are really only "stakeholders" in a game in which the "owners" are raped, robbed and pillaged by a thicket of restrictions and legalisms in what should be their homes.
While I admire the work of Senator Schneider in this subject matter, I think attempts to reform the HOA system are so much, for lack of a better expression, "t*rd polishing." The entire CID concept is, in my view, fatally flawed, and will never provide a satisfactory solution to housing area governance.
Exacerbating the problem in many areas of the country is removing the forces of the free market by requiring an HOA for each new housing development. This is a heavy handed disservice to the public by denying choice to those of us who do not want to live under an HOA regime.
As stated in this thread, all forms of common interest housing are just too much financial, liability and legal risk for owners. I don't want a condo, or any kind of CID housing at any price. I want a stand alone home with absolutely NO HOA. Lacking that, I will just go rent an apartment.
Evan:
I will have to look into Sen. Schneider's proposal. With all 50 state legislatures in session this year, we are tracking almost 10,000individual pieces of legislation around the country.
You are right though, our ethics procedures are never going to be enough, if for no other reason than they are voluntary and only apply to those who commit the time and $ to enhance their knowledge and skills. That is why we also actively support the development of relevant manager licensing programs that set minimun standards for education, bonding, and performance like so many other professions such as accountants, attorneys, and hair dressers. That is why we support reasonable laws that ensure transparency and effective governance. But as you noted in several recent posts, additional oversight and regulation has value, but it also creates a monetary and non-monetary cost for associations and by extension individual unit owners. None of these will ever be a full solution, but each is a step in the correct direction.
Regarding our support of homeowners, your other commenters should at least try and learn something about CAI and our programs before they dismiss them. A majority of our 29,000 members are homeowners. We offer an extensive education program for homeowners beginning with new resident education on through advanced board training. We publish dozens of books, newsletters, magazines, etc. designed to educate boards and give them the tools to manage their assocations more efficiently and effectively. Most recently, we just filed an amicus on behalf of an individual homeowner in litigation with their Board of Directors at the state supreme court level.
I know that it is much easier to demonize and disregard those you view as opponents, but the reality is (as you know) we are frequently on the same side of key issues as the "self-styled" homeowner advocates. But you will never hear them admit that.
Finally, you made a critical point in one of your other posts. Those who are looking for a complete dissolution of the association concept are wasting their time. Never mind the fact that someone has to own and care for the common elements like roofs, HVAC systems, etc. The reality is that more than60 million Americans have their single largest chunk of personal equity tied up in their homes. Eliminating assocations would create such turmoil in the real estate market as to make the current foreclosure crisis look like cupcake day at a preschool.
Cheers,
Tom
I'm Annonymous2. Mr. Skiba, it is hilarious that you make a statement as ridiculous as CAI having an "ethics" process. Do you not yet understand the reputation CAI has acquired through its actions? Go do a search on Lexis or some legal databases and pull up all the lawsuits CAI has intervened in, brought, defended and what they have cost innocent homeowners by way of their obscene expenditures to keep control of money from/to HOAs. It is a bit galling that you choose to comment at all, especially outside your comfy CAI-protected cubby hole.
I'm Anon2. Well Mr. Skiba, since you've got the nerve to post on OUR forum, we've got the nerve to tell it like it is. You say "Eliminating associations would create such turmoil in the real estate market as to make the current foreclosure crisis look like cupcake day at a preschool." Are you kidding me?! NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, could create more turmoil in the real estate market than the damage that CAI as a trade group with minions exacting their mantra in every piece of legislation in California has already created. Californians can deal with NO HOAs, they cannot deal with the deceit perpetrated by CAI in nearly every vendor-related field dealing with HOAs. Your stupid cupcake comment is equivalent to "Let them eat cake." What you left out of that comment was that you dine on filet mignon while owners suffer to make ends meet, and yes--all because of your trade group's infiltration where it doesn't belong. The Calif. Gov. should foreclose every common interest development and do away with HOA housing projects altogether. THEN maybe we can get rid of your PAC and special interests dominating the laws that govern innocent owners in HOAs.
What a joke, Mr. Skiba. You are truly a fraud. I second Prof. McKenzie's position regarding criminal sanctions. Let's visit your remarks.
I have no doubt that many of your members are homeowners. There are two types - 1) those whom you claim to be member homeowners but who are compelled to involuntarily contribute to your organization under threat of foreclosure, and 2) those who are legitimate members of your organization that make a living extorting money from the aforementioned homeowners of #1.
How about that "dollar a door" campaign where homeowners are forced to contribute to your lobbying practices under threat of foreclosure on their homes? Every other "mandatory association" (state bar, unions, etc.) is required to allow members to refuse to contribute to lobbying efforts that are not in the "contributor's" interest. Surely, CAI would support addressing this issue ?
Your organization's lobbying practices are a pure deception on the public and the legislature. You claim that HOAs are democratic organizations and yet you wish to ensure that none of the fundamental elements necessary for a democracy exist in an HOA. I believe you personally have related your concerns about introducing fundamental constitutional protections in an HOA environment.
One of the fundamental principles in a democracy is transparency such as open records, open meetings, open elections, etc. In fact, an HOA's Board's attempts to obscure information is the first sign of the problems. My personal experience (hardly unique) is that the CAI management company is often the instigator of the "secret records" campaign and many of the other problems. Who is ALWAYS representing the Board? A CAI attorney. Who is ALWAYS attempting to thwart homeowner's ability to access the information? CAI. Who is ALWAYS opposed to open meetings, open records? CAI. This occurs in your lobbying practices and in court cases around the country.
You note that CAI supports the development of relevant manager licensing programs and reasonable laws to ensure transparency and effective governance. You compare them to accountants, attorneys, and hair dressers. Most professionals can lose their license for trying to absolve themselves of liability for their malpractice, yet the CAI management company contracts I have seen always require the HOA to indemnify the management company. Hmmm.
Reasonable governance? Your management companies educate board members on how to disenfranchise the vast majority of the homeowners. One of your "larger" members actually claims that the Board meetings of every one of their client associations is "open to the public" and that any member can participate in any committee. These board meetings aren't even open to members much less the public. This is beyond false advertising but will undoubtedly will be used as the basis for another one of those statistically biased "CAI polls".
How about your Public Policies? Your opposition to the FDCPA is but one of the more revealing things about your organization. Your stated opposition to applying the FDCPA to HOAs is your claim that the FDCPA was intended for unscrupulous debt collectors. Yet, the reason that you oppose the FDCPA is because the management companies and HOA attorney are the most unscrupulous debt collectors ever minted. The FDCPA prohibits the "priority of payment" scheme where your CAI member management companies and HOA attorneys threaten homeowners with the loss of their home unless they pay the management company and CAI attorney monies that the homeowner never agreed to. The FDCPA is the defense to this unscrupulous practice. State after state has had to adopt legislation to protect HOA members from the unscrupulous practices of YOUR organization. Instead of discouraging this unscrupulous practice, you honor attorneys who engage in these unscrupulous practices with the CCAL designation and you try to promote public policies to ensure that the unscrupulous practice of your members continues unabated.
Your organization creates "debt" out of thin air and generally promotes any policy that can create unlimited obligations to homeowners. You promote fines so that they may be entangled with the "priority of payment" scam to enable the vendors to extort money from the homeowners. You promote unlimited assessments proclaiming any homeowner who doesn't "go along" to be irresponsible, yet you would never consider forcing the HOA to be responsible by cutting costs or even more responsibly going "out of business". Although you claim the HOA is a business, it is not clear who its customers are.
The HOA is the mechanism for opening up an individual homeowner's pocketbook to CAI attorneys and management companies at the whim of these entities. If the HOA was prohibited from externalizing costs in this fashion and had to actually bear the cost, then we will see an end put to $10,000 attorney fees over an alleged $360 debt.
How about your policies for competition and deregulation? Your organization's public policies and conduct reveal your true objective for goods/services to be economically deregulated but also for the choice to be removed from the consumer. One perfect example is your organization's constant attacks on satellite dishes (you don't like competition for cable). The FCC has posted numerous cases where an involuntary member of an HOA was wrongfully threatened by the HOA regarding a satellite dish. Each time CAI filed a brief to protect the cable monopoly and attempting to interfere with the owners right to use and enjoyment of his own property.
Your Public Policy on telecommunications is in the same vein. You don't bother to mention that the contracts you are trying to protect are those exclusive contracts and bulk contracts that require the homeowner to pay for services that neither he nor his neighbor wants. Why is the purchase of a home being tied to involuntary purchases of services from private vendors?
You promote the myth of "choice" and yet heavily lobby to compel homeowners into HOAs against their will. This year we're seeing your organization promote annexation powers for HOAs. Since when should a private person be able to simply take the property of another private person? That's usually known as theft or conversion - yet you promote this insidious act.
Another thing your "Legislative Action Committee" has testified against this year is subjecting HOAs to the open meetings and open records act in this state. The CAI lobbyist was "concerned" that there were criminal sanctions for failure to comply with the open records and open meetings acts. The bill's author rebutted with the remark that CAI is always claiming that there are only isolated instances of problems and that the vast majority of HOAs don't have any problems - so there shouldn't be anything for the vast majority of HOAs to be concerned about. On the other hand, the conduct engaged in by these "isolated instances" should be discouraged with criminal sanctions.
As far as "eliminating associations", you might be right as far as condominium ownership is concerned. Of course, now even the Feds recognize what a LOUSY investment condominiums are and there are unfinished condominium projects throughout the country. Condominiums are even more scandal-ridden than SFH HOAs.
As far as SFH HOAs are concerned, there isn't any reason why you can't get rid of the HOA in most if not all cases. Certainly there is no reason why much of the HOA's authority cannot be curtailed.
Your remark about 60 million homeowners and equity deserves a rebuttal on two fronts. The first front is the false implications of popularity and choice. Your organization likes to claim that HOAs are "popular" yet you deliberately confuse "popularity" with "numerosity". Let me explain by analogy: Cockroaches are numerous, but that does not mean that they are popular - and they can be exterminated. As to choice, municipalities have been mandating HOAs for awhile thus ensuring that there isn't much choice.
The second front is the suggestion that HOAs protect "home values". How many times will this lie be repeated? As an academic matter, if you have unlimited assessments, liens on your property that can never be paid off, and you can't even sell what you bought, then how does that protect home value? Since HOAs in most states are immune from homestead laws, then you can lose every penny of equity at the whim of an unaccountable board and vendors who profit from this practice.
The reality that the vast majority of those 60 million Americans now have no equity or negative equity in their homes should also dispel the lies your organization promulgates. Oh, I know - you want to claim that "it's the economy" that is responsible. But when the economy is going good, you claim that any increase in value is attributed to the HOA yet you want to point the finger elsewhere when values fall. Should homeowners with negative equity have a cause of action against their HOA and your organization for deceptive trade practices?
There are ways to kill many SFH HOAs. For one, there is no need to have an HOA if you municipalize - nor is there a compensable taking for the "association" if the members a) terminate the HOA by vote or b) by eminent domain. Some form of protection is clearly necessary to protect homeowners from the predators that rationalize even the most insidious intrusion into the private property of owners under the pretext of "aesthetics". A constitutional government is far preferable to the banana republic government you promote.
You sir are a complete fraud as evidenced by your organization's conduct and its own equivocally stated "Public Policies"!
Well Anon2, I thought it was Evan's forum, not one belonging to some afraid to identify themselves anonymous web surfer. It sure looks like his face on the homepage to me.
I certainly disagree with Evan, Shu or Fred at times, but give them credit for having the courage of their convictions and the spine to post their thoughtful comments and opinions with attribution.
I thought the purpose of Evan's forum is to identify and address critical issues on a variety of topics related to common interest communities (and Chicago politics of course), debate and discuss them, and perhaps learn something. Guess I was mistaken. Evan, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
In fact the desire to discuss and learn is the very reason Evan has been invited to speak at various CAI events over the years. Because even though we don't always see eye to eye, vigorous debate and different points of view are valuable.
I suppose though when you have made up your mind as strongly as you appear to, such discussion and debate just provides an opportunity to create that uncomfortable feeling that occurs when a new idea leaks in.
Your comments further demonstrate that you know little about the history and evolution of community associations, their current position in the real estate marketplace around the country, and the financial and economic relationships that exist between government, developers, associations and individual homeowners, and of course the role and mission of CAI. I might suggest you re-read Evan's book for some perspective. I would also suggest Bob Nelson's 2005 book, Private Neighborhoods and the Transformation of Local Government (Urban Institute Press) for a different but equally interesting perspective.
The mere thought that the solution to the challenges our industry faces is to destroy all associations and financially destroy every homeowner in them is beyond laughable.
Evan: My apologies for outing you as thoughtful and reasonable.
Mr. Skiba,
Koger Management embezzled millions of dollars from HOA clients and extorted untold amounts from homeowners at closing through various fees. Like countless CAI management companies today, the Koger organization would not hesitate to jeopardize a closing in order to collect off the books amounts from the seller.
You deny that Koger Management was a member of CAI and yet there are numerous references stating that Koger Management was a member of CAI and that it provided memberships for its "professional managers".
see:
http://www.communityassociations.net/press_releases/2006/05/17/
Of course Koger is just one instance. Your members have tried to institutionalize the practice of diverting payments from homeowners to CAI vendors via numerous mechanisms such as resolutions on bank signature cards with Community Associations Banc (that's with a "c" because it is not a Bank with a "k").
Much of the embezzlement goes undiscovered because DAs treat it as a "civil matter" or a "contract dispute". The reason the FBI is involved in Las Vegas is because of statutory changes that caused the HOA to be classified as the local government that it really is. CAI absolutely fears having the light shown on HOAs because there are plenty more cases like the infamous Koger and Las Vegas cases where the vendors have pillaged the property owners. Leave it to the vendors to claim everything is "great" in HOA-land.
For years, CAI has claimed that people "chose" this and they "knew it when they purchased their property". Much like a victim of rape, the sellers cannot disclose the abuses in the HOA.
For many, CAI's mantra sounds a lot like "she deserved it because of the clothes she wore". The victim is expected to "keep quiet" so that their property won't be treated as 'damaged goods' to a prospective buyer. The victim is also expected to "shut up" in order to protect the reputation of the attacker (HOA) or the "reputation of the family" (i.e., neighborhood). If buyers actually knew what was going on it would certainly "harm property values". Is that what you mean by destroying property values?
Fewer and fewer people believe your self-serving version of the history of "community associations". Most of your propaganda consists of coined words carefully crafted to mislead homeowners. There isn't much room to debate in view of your own publicized Public Policies, your anti-homeowner amicus briefs such as those recorded at the FCC website, and the predatory conduct of CAI CCAL attorneys and management companies. Have you noticed how much more media attention is being shown regarding problems with HOAs?
Your position that homeowners "chose" to waive constitutional rights when you enter the gate and that homeowners aren't entitled to the bill of rights within an HOA are highly offensive to the 99% of homeowners that are not board members. If we were to accept the philosophies your organization touts we would still have racial covenants today, wouldn't we? I guess that's the kind of history that your organization prefers to ignore? How many cases has a CAI attorney represented the association in attempting to oppose Fair Housing Act standards under the theory that people chose to be discriminated against?
I've noticed a conspicuous change this year of CAI's usual mantra of "choice". There has been a noticeable shift to the claim that owners "need" HOAs. FYI, CAI needs HOAs but homeowners other than Board members and CAI vendors don't.
As far as single family home communities are concerned there is no evidence for your claim that getting rid of an HOA would harm property values. Your organization has operated largely by trying to scare people that an HOA is necessary to "preserve property values". What you fail to tell them is that you weren't preserving value of the home for the homeowner but rather for the CAI vendor.
Eliminating perpetual liens, the invention of new kinds of fees, constant threats by CAI management companies and attorneys, transfer fees, unlimited assessments, private fining, etc. would actually make homes a more desirable and more valuable place to live for the owner.
Mr. Skiba,
You state that CAI is in favor and supports controls on management companies of HOAs but I have yet to see any legislation introduced by CAI to license and oversee HOA Management companies and any attempts, no matter how small to do so have been met with OPPOSITION from CAI.
With all due respect I have a hard time believing that you are not aware of Sen Mike Schneider's legislation. But I do understand why you would not want to commit CAI's position to early.
I have just received a CAI CALL TO ACTION for a bill in the Arizona Legislature OPPOSING the bill HB 2034 and as usual, the statements are either misleading or straight lies. I have never seen any CAI CALL TO ACTION that stuck to the FACTS!! This folks is how CAI uses that $1.00 per door contribution they convince Boards to contribute to protect "them".
Is this how CAI's Ethics work??
Pat Haruff
www.CHORE.us
pharuff@earthlink.net
I am Anon3. Mr. Skiba, you stated "Well Anon2, I thought it was Evan's forum, not one belonging to some afraid to identify themselves anonymous web surfer." That is such a ridiculous cop out yet so typical of what you and your ilk, and trade group have been able to get away with, Blame the Victim. Nice try but void of substance. Mr.McKenzie's forum has a default name for posters as "Anonymous" therefore even you can figure out that those who do not put a name to a post are automatically called "Anonymous." Why don't you stop squirming in your seat and stick to what you do best, defending your political action committees and trade groups. And do it on your own trade group's litter chat box.
Mr. Skiba, you said in your post above "I thought the purpose of Evan's forum is to identify and address critical issues on a variety of topics related to common interest communities." And for once you are almost correct, however, there are NO COMMUNITIES, BUT we ARE all here to identify and address critical issues on a variety of topics related to real property interests located in common interest developments. Guess what? YOU and your trade groups are those issues and we're addressing them and they ARE CRITICAL!
"Chaos, dysfunction, risk, fatal." A good choice of words to describe far too many of these abusive groups. Severe negative impact, and the consequences thereof, on the health of the individual and family is the area that needs to be brought to the attention of the public. Many of these groups, and their practices,
are so destructive to basic survival and quality of life, that public health officials should be screaming out loud! A good indication of where we are headed is the fact that Social Security is awarding disability benefits for Post Trumatic Stress Disorder to individuals whose lives and health has been destroyed by these abusive boards, abusive board members, and their related individuals.
It is worse than most realize.
Let's just face it! The system totally failed the owners -- and the owners suffer. Protecting property values? What a joke! We see here in Florida lots of examples where associations look like war zones, because associations are flat broke and the remaining owners can't pay the ever increasing dues -- and special assessments -- any longer!
This HOA system is actual a financial trap for homeowners who are trapped with no way out!
And embezzlement is running rampant. Lots of money disappeared under the "supervision" of the two management companies, both CAI members. In one case the owners hired a law firm -- another CAI member -- to sort out the mess. So, far nothing! The owner of one firm said: "Nothing we can do! It was one of our employees -- and we fired her!" A plainly ridiculous statement!
Wasn't the law firm implicated in the HOA FBI investigation in Nevada as well a very prominent CAI member?
Let's face it: These HOAs have done nothing for owners -- only for the service providers. And the CAI is nothing but a trade organization for exactly these service providers -- no matter how they spin it!
Like the saying goes: "When you enter a HOA you are leaving the American Zone" -- and risk to be fleeced until you are flat broke.
I doubt that even the best laws can fix that flawed system that promotes greed!
Mr. Skiba,
One other thing I forgot to tell you about your coveted CAI and in particular the Arizona Central Chapter and it's LAC Co Chairs, those illustrious HOA Attorneys, Curtis Ekmark and Scott Carpenter. It seems that they have problems with understanding exactly what happens with legislation to change the Planned Community Act.
There is a bill in the legislature to make it VERY clear that an HOA has no legal authority over streets that are the property of the City. Those so called really smart fellows are crying, "if you do this you are changing the homeowners CONTRACT".
Now there is another bill waiting to go through the system that would CHANGE the percentage of members voting to pass an issue. In other words, an HOA that requires 2/3 vote to pass an issue would now only. Now this bill was actually written by Scott Carpenter. Maybe I am not as SMART as Ekmark and Carpenter along with the rest of CAI but wouldn't you have to agree that this legislation also changes the CONTRACT.
Ahhhh, I get it, if CAI wants it (to control the homeowners)its not bad for the homeowners but if CHORE or any other homeowner group wants it....the cry is "the sky is falling, the sky is falling".
Mr. Skiba, WHEN will you and your partners in crime tell the truth?
Did you know there is a law against lying to a legislator in Committee hearings??
I just know you will handle this disgusting situation ASAP!!
Pat Haruff
www.CHORE.us
pharuff@earthlink.net
Post a Comment