Friday, January 08, 2010

Mesa offers classes on how to run, live in HOAs

Mesa offers classes on how to run, live in HOAs: "THIS IS THE CITY'S CONCERN?

Yes. Mesa keeps track of homeowners associations in the city and currently has 412 of them on file. The Neighborhood Services Department regularly works to connect them with city resources and help them deal with their particular challenges."

Six sessions at ten bucks each, and Nirvana is just around the corner.


Anonymous said...

"Jan. 20: Lawyers will speak on creating and enforcing CC&Rs, legal jurisdictions, and homeowners' rights and obligations."

should be

"Jan. 20: Lawyers will speak on creating and enforcing CC&Rs, legal jurisdictions, and homeowners' obligations."

since homeowners in HOASSRs do not have rights.

Fred Fischer said...

I have no issue with education until those who create and sustain the problems pose (masquerade) as educators.

Community associations are creatures of statute that were created and authored to primarily benefit first the developers then soon after became the foundation of municipal housing fiscal policy. Protecting property values and enforcing the CC&Rs are secondary issues that are used as marketing strategies to sell the privatized housing concept to consumers so they will accept them instead of running away.
Education according to whom ? Any municipality who provides HOA education is the equivalent of hire ring a wolf to educate sheep about predators.
Will Mesa’s educators reveal that HOA members have bought into a business partnership were their homes/condo's are used as collateral to assure the HOAs existence into perpetuity ? Or that, the laws have been written so that the interests of the HOA corporation -- collective ownership -- takes priority over the US constitutions protections and interests of individual property owners. Or that they will never truly own their homes even after the mortgage is paid off ? Or that the HOA industry mislead the State legislators into eliminating the HOA members $ 150,000 Homestead protection to benefit the HOA Corporation. Which also eliminated the States protection against it’s residence becoming destitute and then having to become wards of the State ?

Anonymous said...

A year ago, my HOA proposed amending the CC&Rs to include, among other things, funding for "education" of the board members.

At the meeting, one of the spokespersons for the amendments was a lawyer from the HOA's law firm (the board of directors and property manager were also present). We were told how this "eduction" would allow the board to do their jobs better.

What the lawyer, board, and property manager did not disclose -- and I did not find out until later, from the law firm's own web site -- is that the HOA's law firm offers these "education" classes. Things like "How To Deal With Difficult Homeowners," etc.

The law firm has a direct financial interest in the amendments to the CC&Rs -- one of their lawyers was paid sever hundred to several thousand dollars (?*) to lobby for these changes -- yet neither the lawyers, the board of directors, nor the property manager chose to disclose this to us.

The official reason for the lawyer being there was to explain all of the amendment to us. Which leads to me conclude that (1) if we need a lawyer to explain a dozen pages of amendments, I don't think the homeowners can meaningfully give consent or make an informed vote for any changes, (2) the lawyer, of course, does not represent the homeowners, but the HOA corporation (which is de facto run by the lawyers and property managers), and (3) the real purpose of the lawyer being there was simply to provide an excuse for the law firm to bill the HOA.

As for the status of the amendments, I have not heard anything in the past eight months. Perhaps the plan was scrapped. Or perhaps the election was never held, and they just had the court approve the changes without telling us. Nothing would surprise me at this point.

* To this day, nobody from the HOA board of directors nor property management company will tell me how much the lawyer was paid to be there. Only that she was "very expensive."