South Carolina lawmakers prepare to tackle divisive HOA issues | The Sun News
"A committee appointed by the South Carolina legislature to study contentious issues surrounding homeowners associations (HOA) identified numerous problems that require the state assembly’s attention, but failed to agree on solutions for key issues. There was no consensus on whether HOA managers should be licensed or certified, and the panel was split on the question of how long developers should be allowed to control an association."
I think it's great that the SC legislature decided to set up this committee, and if you read the details you can see that they tried to address a number of serious issues. But when it came to solutions, they couldn't agree on some of the most basic things:
"The panel was specifically tasked with reviewing five categories: whether HOA governing documents should be disclosed to homebuyers, education for homeowners and board members, manager certification, the time period of a developer’s control of an HOA, and the need for a uniform planned community act. The panel did agree that HOA governing documents should be disclosed to prospective buyers, particularly for new home sales."
They managed to agree that prospective buyers should actually be able to see the contents of the rules they would have to live by. Wow. And what is the meaning of "particularly for new home sales"? Why would people who buy an existing home be less entitled to know the terms and conditions?
State legislatures around the country take different views of their role with respect to CID housing. There are some states, such as California, where the legislature, guided to some extent by the California Law Revisions Commission, understands the need for regulation of HOA and condo boards. Some other states are more or less in that same camp--Maryland, Virginia, Nevada, Florida, Illinois--I'm not saying that these states have gotten everything right, but at least they have track records of dealing with significant issues and actually passing legislation. Then, on the other hand, you have these states where they don't seem to get the picture, or where the balance of political forces is such that they can't act. For example, in Arizona it seems that the pattern is always a bunch of separate, piecemeal bills rather than a coherent package.
There are millions of people living in associations run by their untrained neighbors and often unlicensed and untrained property managers. Developers frequently leave associations in a bad financial position. Many if not most associations have inadequate reserves. There has to be a coherent public policy framework with adequate institutional support and oversight, or the owners can be placed in serious jeopardy. The fact that the South Carolina legislature, at the dawn of the year 2016, can't get itself together to resolve some pretty basic issues, such as the obvious need for property managers to be licensed, is frightening.