Nevadans Share Horror Stories of HOAs
When HOAs are created to satiate government bureaucrats, rather than homeowners, it shouldn't be surprising that many HOA communities are neither well-crafted nor homeowner-friendly. But, the solution to the HOA problem is not more government intervention. It is less. The first step is for government to stop mandating and subsidizing the creation of HOAs. Nick Dranias, Goldwater Institute
State legislators for many years have been getting an earful from property owners over housing association contract governance yet they fail to understand the root causes of the conflicts and act accordingly. It’s the same issues that faced early colonial America until they finally acted and abandoned charter Board governance in favor of something better where “we the people” have a place and vote at the creation table and legislators should do the same.
Privatizing services is one thing but privatizing housing is a whole other animal and without a doubt most likely unconstitutional. Because it first represents the delegation of inalieable rights to others which clearly violates constitutional law. Second it gives the developer and industry member professionals who sit at the contract creation table the right to dictate what they want the behavioral and social standards of the eventual owners to be. Even though they themselves most often do not, will not or ever live in the housing association that they create with voting standards so high that it assures that changes by eventual owners will not likely occur !!!
Mr. Drains is correct that the substantial reforms needed concerning these contractually-created associations probably won’t come from State legislation for two primary reasons. 1) The housing association trade group lobby, which is fully funded by the housing association members has the most access and greatest economic influence upon State legislators. The initial CID legislation of forty years ago that includes a large number of today’s accompanying housing association legislation was authored by the housing association trade members and supported by municipalities. Consequently neither party has an economic or social incentive to either abandon or move away from what they have exclusively created and control for their own benefit. In fact the more conflicts and problems that occur with their created “corporate product” the more the industry prospers economically and politically. 2) The very foundation of the CID housing model is its governance which is based on private contracts. Except are housing associations valid contracts when mandated and created by others as compared to if owners voluntarily create them after development build out ? When did “a meeting of the minds” between the developer and the buyers occur to create the contract? Why are the contracts (declarations) devoid of important disclosures of information that potential buyers into these nonprofit corporations are in titled to know ? When potential buyers consider signing a housing sales contract, is the attached HOA contract genuinely voluntary since refusal to accept its provisions and authority leaves the buyer with only one choice, to walk away? How can this be a “voluntary act” when neither the association nor the homeowners had actual notice or meaningful reflection to accept or reject such a contract given the fact that it was drafted by the developer as required by municipal mandate and then imposed upon the association before the homeowners existed or took control of the Board ?
The endless and “fundamentally unworkable” issues that surround privatized housing when under the authority of private contract governance created by others will continue. Until the property owners have a place, voice and vote at the governance creation table and their constitutional property and other rights returned. Because when housing is privatized, owners are reduced to being renters and only owners in name and this needs to change since contract governance is not the only or best way to govern CID housing !!
Thanks, Fred Fischer