Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for SB3572
This revision of the Common Interest Community Associations Act was just signed by Governor Quinn. The Act applies to non-condo associations, i.e., homeowners associations.
1 comment:
Anonymous
said...
Not impressed. What is helpful for homeowners here?
1. The ability of a corporate board to unilaterally alter the terms of "severed" "community" instruments"? At least the amendment to this curbed this a little bit.
2. The requirement that 2/3 of the members sign an incorporation statement before incorporating the area as a municipality? Voting for municipal status is generally based upon RESIDENCY not membership in a corporation. Why should owners of HOA-burdened property be less than citizens again? What about the other people who reside there but are not members? This is a bad provision.
3. Curious as to how #2 applies in declarant-controlled subdivisions. Corporate entities don't get to vote.
4. On another note, looking at the Illinois provisions it would appear that during the period of declarant control, homeowners might not have the status of "member" unless the declarations are written so as to allow them to vote but to make their votes worthless.
5. The "amend severed provisions" is problematic because you know boards and vendors are going to overreach and amend provisions unilaterally to "comply with the Act" but also to add a lot more trouble to the declarations and the new law doesn't prohibit that.
6. Re-visiting the municipalization issue, this seems very unclear. Are they talking about killing the HOA and forming a municipality or simply imposing a municipality on top of the HOA. In either case, one should not require consent of 2/3 of the "members". The issue is one of residency, and the existence of an HOA should not trump the right of non-members or even members from pursing municipalization.
1 comment:
Not impressed.
What is helpful for homeowners here?
1. The ability of a corporate board to unilaterally alter the terms of "severed" "community" instruments"? At least the amendment to this curbed this a little bit.
2. The requirement that 2/3 of the members sign an incorporation statement before incorporating the area as a municipality? Voting for municipal status is generally based upon RESIDENCY not membership in a corporation. Why should owners of HOA-burdened property be less than citizens again? What about the other people who reside there but are not members? This is a bad provision.
3. Curious as to how #2 applies in declarant-controlled subdivisions. Corporate entities don't get to vote.
4. On another note, looking at the Illinois provisions it would appear that during the period of declarant control, homeowners might not have the status of "member" unless the declarations are written so as to allow them to vote but to make their votes worthless.
5. The "amend severed provisions" is problematic because you know boards and vendors are going to overreach and amend provisions unilaterally to "comply with the Act" but also to add a lot more trouble to the declarations and the new law doesn't prohibit that.
6. Re-visiting the municipalization issue, this seems very unclear. Are they talking about killing the HOA and forming a municipality or simply imposing a municipality on top of the HOA. In either case, one should not require consent of 2/3 of the "members". The issue is one of residency, and the existence of an HOA should not trump the right of non-members or even members from pursing municipalization.
Post a Comment