From Marjorie Murray at CCHA:
---------------
Since we’re going to the polls today, we thought this would be a good time to post the lawsuit brought two weeks ago by the ACLU to force a homeowner association and its property manager to keep their mitts off the HOA resident exercising his constitutional right to post political signs.
Here’s the link to the ACLU lawsuit on the CCHAL website: http://www.calhomelaw.org/doc.asp?id=1246. Keep this link handy in case someone tells you that you can’t post a political sign during an election.
Hassling homeowners over political signs could easily happen again. The entire association industry was opposed to the Longville bill, AB1525, when it was going through the policy committees in the California Legislature. Here’s the list of registered opponents from the Senate analysis right before the bill went to the Governor’s desk: http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/asm/ab_1501-1550/ab_1525_cfa_20030902_095635_sen_floor.html
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/25/03)
Community Associations Institute, unless amended
Executive Council of Homeowners, unless amended
California Association of Community Managers
On the list are the three trade groups that collect homeowner money and then use it to lobby against homeowner rights in Sacramento – like homeowners’ right to constitutionally protected free speech.
If the trade groups want to lobby in Sacramento on behalf of their members, we absolutely support their constitutional right to political free expression.
But we sure wish they’d quit using homeowner money in Sacramento to dismantle the Bill of Rights.
CCHAL NewsBrief
November 2, 2010
Marjorie Murray, President
Center for California Homeowner Association Law
1305 Franklin Street, Suite 201
Oakland, California 94612
5 comments:
> If the trade groups want to lobby in Sacramento on behalf of their members,
> we absolutely support their constitutional right to political free expression.
> But we sure wish they’d quit using homeowner money in Sacramento to dismantle the Bill of Rights.
It's sad that the left-wing ACLU is doing more to protect individual private property rights than any conservative or libertarian organization.
Conservatism and libertarianism have descended into a parody of corporatism -- where any abuse and violation of individual property rights is allowed as long as it's in the fine-print of some document called a contract that one side can unilaterally amend.
Or, as the Professor described it:
"repressive libertarianism," where certain people who call themselves libertarians invariably side with property owners who want to limit other people's liberties through the use of contract law. Property rights (usually held by somebody with a whole lot of economic clout) trump every other liberty.
What makes the conservative and libertarian position on H.O.A.s infuriating is that they have no problem wanting to regulate the relationship between employees, employers, and labor unions.
eg, "right-to-work" laws that prohibit mandatory membership in a labor union as a condition of employment, and "paycheck protection" laws that prohibit a labor union from spending dues for political campaigns and lobbying, are both policies favored by conservatives and libertarians.
Yet mandatory membership in an H.O.A. union as a condition of home ownership, where the H.O.A. union can channel dues to the Communisty Associations Institute for political campaigns and lobbying, are deemed to be private contracts voluntarily chosen by the homeowner. Any attempt at regulation of H.O.A. unions is viewed as government interference of some sacred principal.
And while conservatives and libertarians favor some forms of "tort reform," because our society has become overlawyered, they support the parasitic tort lawyers who feed upon American homeowners. The only "tort reform" laws favored by the Right are those which limit the ability of individuals to sue corporations, but not the other way around.
The conservative and libertarian position is the result of a knee-jerk reaction against any government regulation (except regarding labor unions and PayPal). Even Adam Smith recognized the need for some regulation against powerful interests:
"Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respects a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments, of the most free as well as of the most despotical."
The facts mentioned about this proposed State bill reveals two important facts that contributes greatly to the endless issues that surround privatized housing.
1. That developments that are under housing/condo association control are not by definition, communities.
2. That the vast majority of trade groups that have the word, homeowners in their titles are misleading everyone because they don't represent the homeowners.
These two facts among many others are a big part of why housing/condo associations are "fundamentally unworkable" for it's members. While on the other hand being a gold mine for the housing association industry trade groups, service providers and municipalities who assume few risks or liabilities while gaining, revenues and a secure and lucrative livelihood off housing association members.
The facts mentioned about this proposed State bill reveals two important facts that contributes greatly to the endless issues that surround privatized housing.
1. That developments that are under housing/condo association control are not by definition, communities.
2. That the vast majority of trade groups that have the word, homeowners in their titles are misleading everyone because they don't represent the homeowners.
These two facts among many others are a big part of why housing/condo associations are "fundamentally unworkable" for it's members, as proven by history. While on the other hand being a gold mine for the housing association industry trade groups, service providers and municipalities who assume few risks or liabilities while gaining, revenues and a secure and lucrative livelihood off housing association members.
This link (to aclu case) appears to be behind a paywall.
The facts mentioned about this proposed State bill reveals two important facts that contributes greatly to the endless issues that surround privatized housing.
1. That developments that are under housing/condo association control are not by definition, communities.
2. That the vast majority of trade groups that have the word, homeowners in their titles are misleading everyone because they don't represent the homeowners.
These two facts among many others are a big part of why housing/condo associations are "fundamentally unworkable" for it's members. While on the other hand being a gold mine for the housing association industry trade groups, service providers and municipalities who assume few risks or liabilities while gaining, revenues and a secure and lucrative livelihood off housing association members.
Post a Comment