AZ looking at special taxing districts for certain HOAs � HOA Constitutional Government
From George Starapoli's blog--he calls our attention to a bill that would prohibit land use approval bodies from mandating the creation HOAs, unless certain improvements are involved in the subdivision (such as a golf course, a lake, etc.). The alternative is to create a special improvement district.
5 comments:
Decent bill that does not go far enough. There are too many "outs". In addition, the specific exceptions indicate that the bill has already been compromised by a few specific interests. The "cost" of being able to continue to impose HOAs is as small as a pool or segregating part of the property (no minimum area) to be "commercial". Why isn't the area that would be covered by an HOA corporation by definition "commercial"?
At any rate, the current "in" for the last decade has been to make all these places "mixed use" - not for the benefit of the homeowners but rather for the benefit of the developer. The subdivisions were already being created with a portion that was commercial. "Commercial use" should not be open license to have unconstitutional private governance and private taxation of the property owners within the subdivision.
The light at the end of the tunnel is that if this bill gets passed, future amendments to broaden the bill could be easily accomplished by filing a bill to repeal individual exceptions. For this reason and others you will almost certainly see CAI opposing this bill. Let's watch what the HOA vendor trade group does in response to this bill!
Pretty meaningless given that most any typical development will qualify as a PUD under the many exceptions.
I assume this bill does not apply to attached housing developments. Does anyone know?
The main intent of HB2474 is not to eliminate the creation of (CIDs) Planned Community’s but instead to provide Developers and buyers an alternative choice to privatized ownership/governance of common areas in some future CIDs.
This bill doesn’t affect the CIDs that exist today or the livelihood of those who service them. Instead it will affect how many CIDs under private governance can be built in the future. Since currently municipalities overwhelmingly mandate a "one type of private ownership/governance” fits all policy and this needs to change.
Government policies have caused developers to oversupply HOAs to meet artificial demand for HOA communities. 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.
by Nick Dranias, Goldwater Institute Jan. 13, 2009
The main intent of HB2474 is not to eliminate the creation of (CIDs) Planned Community’s but instead to provide Developers and buyers an alternative choice to privatized ownership/governance of common areas in some future CIDs.
This bill doesn’t affect the CIDs that exist today or the livelihood of those who service them. Instead it will affect how many CIDs under private governance can be built in the future. Since currently municipalities overwhelmingly mandate a "one type of private ownership/governance” fits all policy and this needs to change.
Government policies have caused developers to oversupply HOAs to meet artificial demand for HOA communities. 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.
by Nick Dranias, Goldwater Institute Jan. 13, 2009
Post a Comment