...not to put too fine a point on it, but...
Fred Pilot has a comment regarding this paragraph in the Wasserman piece linked below:
"Amid more than 260,000 private communities nationally and 36,000 in California, at least one third have steadily put off raising necessary assessments for fear of political conflict, and now need repairs and facelifts for which they significantly lack money, say those who monitor homeowner association finances."
But according to Fred:
"I don't think Wasserman has it exactly right here since many HOA boards of directors as we know aren't all that politically responsive to the concerns of their constituents. In addition, boards can put assessment increases to a vote of the owners -- and in fact are required by law to do so in California if the increase exceeds 20 percent. I think the reluctance to increase regular assessments or levy special assessments is frequently because the directors themselves don't want to pay them. (You can quote me on your blog if you want)"
--------------------
But...but...but...I thought this was local democracy at its finest...the 21st century version of the New England town meeting...
Saturday, April 10, 2004
Green Valley News & Sun "HOA 'reform' losing ground"
Are those scare quotes around the word "reform," and if so why? The article stresses opposition to HB2402 from an association of associations.
Are those scare quotes around the word "reform," and if so why? The article stresses opposition to HB2402 from an association of associations.
Private communities come apart
When homeowners associations run short of cash, maintenance falls by the wayside
By Jim Wasserman, Associated Press
...What started 35 years ago as a pleasant community run by a private homeowners association has become an object lesson in the worst that can happen when such a neighborhood starts to unravel. Its original owners moved out, new owners failed to maintain the property, neglect accelerated into falling property values, then crime and eventual collapse. Now, state and local taxpayers are paying $80 million to turn it into a nonprofit housing complex called Phoenix Park. While extreme, it could be the fate of thousands of privately run communities throughout the nation, which are flirting with declines by failing to spend adequately on upkeep, even as owning a home in private communities has become the nation's fastest-growing lifestyle. Amid more than 260,000 private communities nationally and 36,000 in California, at least one third have steadily put off raising necessary assessments for fear of political conflict, and now need repairs and facelifts for which they significantly lack money, say those who monitor homeowner association finances.
--------------------
I'd suggest you read the whole article. Jim Wasserman has been doing HOA stories for some time and knows his stuff. This is an issue I've been harping on for about fifteen years and I have yet to see much legislative interest in it. I guess they are waiting for a full blown meltdown. Can you say "savings and loan industry," boys and girls?
When homeowners associations run short of cash, maintenance falls by the wayside
By Jim Wasserman, Associated Press
...What started 35 years ago as a pleasant community run by a private homeowners association has become an object lesson in the worst that can happen when such a neighborhood starts to unravel. Its original owners moved out, new owners failed to maintain the property, neglect accelerated into falling property values, then crime and eventual collapse. Now, state and local taxpayers are paying $80 million to turn it into a nonprofit housing complex called Phoenix Park. While extreme, it could be the fate of thousands of privately run communities throughout the nation, which are flirting with declines by failing to spend adequately on upkeep, even as owning a home in private communities has become the nation's fastest-growing lifestyle. Amid more than 260,000 private communities nationally and 36,000 in California, at least one third have steadily put off raising necessary assessments for fear of political conflict, and now need repairs and facelifts for which they significantly lack money, say those who monitor homeowner association finances.
--------------------
I'd suggest you read the whole article. Jim Wasserman has been doing HOA stories for some time and knows his stuff. This is an issue I've been harping on for about fifteen years and I have yet to see much legislative interest in it. I guess they are waiting for a full blown meltdown. Can you say "savings and loan industry," boys and girls?
Here's the .pdf version of 4th DCA opinion in Villa De Las Palmas HOA v. Terifaj
One interesting aspect of the Terifaj case is that the "no pets" rule was not recorded at the time Terifaj bought her unit, but Terifaj knew the rule existed. In other words, she had actual notice of the covenant but not record notice. How important is that? If you look at most cases on HOA covenant enforcement they nearly always emphasize that the restrictions were recorded and that means the owner took the property subject to the restrictions. Here, if they weren't recorded at the time of her purchase, to put this in animal metaphor terms, is this a case of "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"?
One interesting aspect of the Terifaj case is that the "no pets" rule was not recorded at the time Terifaj bought her unit, but Terifaj knew the rule existed. In other words, she had actual notice of the covenant but not record notice. How important is that? If you look at most cases on HOA covenant enforcement they nearly always emphasize that the restrictions were recorded and that means the owner took the property subject to the restrictions. Here, if they weren't recorded at the time of her purchase, to put this in animal metaphor terms, is this a case of "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"?
law.com - the Terifaj arguments
Here's a link to a summary of the Cal Supreme Court oral arguments in Villa De Las Palmas Homeowners Association v. Terifaj, held last Tuesday. Scroll down past the sex offender case to the bottom and you'll see it under the heading, "But Goldfish Don't Bark."
Here's a link to a summary of the Cal Supreme Court oral arguments in Villa De Las Palmas Homeowners Association v. Terifaj, held last Tuesday. Scroll down past the sex offender case to the bottom and you'll see it under the heading, "But Goldfish Don't Bark."
Why the Terifaj case?
The California Supreme Court is reviewing a lower court ruling in the Terifaj case, and I will link that opinion when I find it. But it is curious because Terifaj, which involves a "no pets" restriction, would seem to be governed by the Nahrsedt case that the Cal SC decided a few years back. That case said pet restrictions were reasonable and also established a pro-BOD standard for determining reasonableness (reasonable in the abstract rather than reasonable as applied in the instant case).
Anyway, why are they taking up such a similar issue? Does it mean they are going to reconsider Nahrstedt?
Here's some speculation from a person with some solid insider perspective, Marjorie Murray, Chief Legislative Advocate/CID Housing of the Congress of California Seniors:
Evan --
One ingredient which may be at work in the Supreme Court's willingness to review Paula Terifaj's case is AB 512 signed into California law last year. The law is obviously not retroactive.
However, it established the principles that (1) rulemaking is a joint function of boards and homeowners (2) rules must be in writing and promulgated (3) homeowners can exercise a referendum right in order to repeal rules. In other words, it establishes the principle -- without saying so -- that rulemaking is a political process and not the "rational" process that Nahrstedt presumes.
The sponsor of AB 512 was the California Law Revision Commission. You can come to your own conclusions about whether the court took this fact into consideration as well.
The Congress of California Seniors succeeded in getting AB 512 amended so that the original timetable for homeowners to respond to new rules proposed by the board was extended from 15 to 60 days. We also got it amended to make clear that boards could not deny homeowners access to membership records in order to organize a referendum, i.e. that access to records was a legitimate "member's interest" as defined in current California law.
Marjorie Murray
Chief Legislative Advocate/CID Housing
Congress of California Seniors
The California Supreme Court is reviewing a lower court ruling in the Terifaj case, and I will link that opinion when I find it. But it is curious because Terifaj, which involves a "no pets" restriction, would seem to be governed by the Nahrsedt case that the Cal SC decided a few years back. That case said pet restrictions were reasonable and also established a pro-BOD standard for determining reasonableness (reasonable in the abstract rather than reasonable as applied in the instant case).
Anyway, why are they taking up such a similar issue? Does it mean they are going to reconsider Nahrstedt?
Here's some speculation from a person with some solid insider perspective, Marjorie Murray, Chief Legislative Advocate/CID Housing of the Congress of California Seniors:
Evan --
One ingredient which may be at work in the Supreme Court's willingness to review Paula Terifaj's case is AB 512 signed into California law last year. The law is obviously not retroactive.
However, it established the principles that (1) rulemaking is a joint function of boards and homeowners (2) rules must be in writing and promulgated (3) homeowners can exercise a referendum right in order to repeal rules. In other words, it establishes the principle -- without saying so -- that rulemaking is a political process and not the "rational" process that Nahrstedt presumes.
The sponsor of AB 512 was the California Law Revision Commission. You can come to your own conclusions about whether the court took this fact into consideration as well.
The Congress of California Seniors succeeded in getting AB 512 amended so that the original timetable for homeowners to respond to new rules proposed by the board was extended from 15 to 60 days. We also got it amended to make clear that boards could not deny homeowners access to membership records in order to organize a referendum, i.e. that access to records was a legitimate "member's interest" as defined in current California law.
Marjorie Murray
Chief Legislative Advocate/CID Housing
Congress of California Seniors
Friday, April 09, 2004
State: Bills threaten condo boards' sway: legislation in the works would change the way associations alter the existing rights of condo owners
"Florida lawmakers are considering changing state law to give Florida's 1.1-million condo owners a way to challenge rules about pets, rental rights or parking spaces. Two bills working their way through the Legislature would require condo boards to hold a public hearing on altering rights owners had when they moved in, such as renting their condo seasonally. Owners also could demand a poll of everyone; a right could not be changed unless a majority agreed. Sellers would be required to provide potential buyers a simplified disclosure form detailing the financial health of the condominium association, including liabilities, such as lawsuits or future assessments.To avoid lawsuits, the legislation would create a state ombudsman's office that could mitigate complaints between condo owners and their association boards, an idea that has drawn criticism from one of the state's leading condominium lawyers. A $4 annual state fee that condo owners already pay for regulatory oversight would fund the office. Much of that money now funds general state government. House sponsor Julio Robaina, R-Miami, also wants to create a state advisory council to propose future changes to state law or the ombudsman office."
The industry is not happy with this proposed legislation. To wit: "Meanwhile Gary Poliakoff of Fort Lauderdale, whose law firm, Becker & Poliakoff, represents more than 4,000 condo associations in the state, led the opposition. "Those bills deserved to be drowned," Poliakoff said last week. In early March, Poliakoff wrote his clients: "During the 31-plus years I have been an advocate for the rights of condominium owners ... I have never seen proposed legislation which is more destructive."
"Florida lawmakers are considering changing state law to give Florida's 1.1-million condo owners a way to challenge rules about pets, rental rights or parking spaces. Two bills working their way through the Legislature would require condo boards to hold a public hearing on altering rights owners had when they moved in, such as renting their condo seasonally. Owners also could demand a poll of everyone; a right could not be changed unless a majority agreed. Sellers would be required to provide potential buyers a simplified disclosure form detailing the financial health of the condominium association, including liabilities, such as lawsuits or future assessments.To avoid lawsuits, the legislation would create a state ombudsman's office that could mitigate complaints between condo owners and their association boards, an idea that has drawn criticism from one of the state's leading condominium lawyers. A $4 annual state fee that condo owners already pay for regulatory oversight would fund the office. Much of that money now funds general state government. House sponsor Julio Robaina, R-Miami, also wants to create a state advisory council to propose future changes to state law or the ombudsman office."
The industry is not happy with this proposed legislation. To wit: "Meanwhile Gary Poliakoff of Fort Lauderdale, whose law firm, Becker & Poliakoff, represents more than 4,000 condo associations in the state, led the opposition. "Those bills deserved to be drowned," Poliakoff said last week. In early March, Poliakoff wrote his clients: "During the 31-plus years I have been an advocate for the rights of condominium owners ... I have never seen proposed legislation which is more destructive."
NBC 4 - House and Home - Houses Slip Further Out Of Californian's Reach
LOS ANGELES -- Slightly less than a quarter of Californians can afford to buy a median priced home, down from about 30 percent last year, a report released Thursday by the California Association of Realtors showed.
The minimum annual household income needed to buy a median-priced home at $394,300 in February was $91,690, based on a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage at 5.74 percent and a 20 percent downpayment, according to CAR. In February 2003, when the median price was $326,640 and the prevailing interest rate was 5.93 percent, CAR calculated the minimum annual income needed to buy a home was $77,220. Southern California's high desert area was most affordable area, with 55 percent of families earning enough to buy a median priced home.
---------------
And that is why people are spending four hours per day in their cars. Thanks to Fred Pilot for sending this link.
LOS ANGELES -- Slightly less than a quarter of Californians can afford to buy a median priced home, down from about 30 percent last year, a report released Thursday by the California Association of Realtors showed.
The minimum annual household income needed to buy a median-priced home at $394,300 in February was $91,690, based on a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage at 5.74 percent and a 20 percent downpayment, according to CAR. In February 2003, when the median price was $326,640 and the prevailing interest rate was 5.93 percent, CAR calculated the minimum annual income needed to buy a home was $77,220. Southern California's high desert area was most affordable area, with 55 percent of families earning enough to buy a median priced home.
---------------
And that is why people are spending four hours per day in their cars. Thanks to Fred Pilot for sending this link.
Southland's Census Story, in a Word: Boom!
Southern California picked up an estimated 1 million new residents over the last three years as the Bay Area — a population magnet during the dot-com boom — stagnated, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates. The figures show Southern California's pace of growth accelerating from the late 1990s — a finding that has significant consequences for a region already confronting congestion in everything from freeways to classrooms. In a reversal of past trends, most of Southern California's recent growth came from births — particularly in older, immigrant-heavy cities in Los Angeles and Orange counties — rather than from resettlement of adults seeking work, demographers said.Still, Southern California continues to attract new families — particularly to inland communities from Antelope Valley to Temecula, where homes cost less than in crowded coastal counties. "Cheap dirt … cheap houses," said John Husing, a Redlands economist. "No matter what anyone says, people continue to want a single-family detached home, and they will crawl over the hills from Orange and Los Angeles counties on their hands and knees to get it."
---------------
Indeed. So we have the Southern California population swelling by one million in three years, much of the growth being not in-migration of job seekers, as in the post-WWII years, but instead representing the high birthrate of immigrant families. That is very expensive growth because kids have to be educated, and that means pressure on the public schools and other public services. Note this from the article: "Andy McCue, director of the UC Riverside Center for Sustainable Suburban Development...predicted that swelling school-age populations in Riverside County alone over the next decade will require the construction of 36 elementary schools, 11 junior highs, and 10 high schools — costing an estimated $1.34 billion."
And the money to do that will come from...where, exactly? Homeowners? I don't think so.
As the article notes, traffic congestion is already beyond belief and getting worse. The cities, especially Los Angeles, are becoming unliveable for people who want the American Dream (as Husing notes above). So people are moving out to what was once the desert, where they end up in an HOA-run new development more often than not, that gives them at least the promise of suburban living--if you don't mind an ambient temperature that runs around 110 Fahrenheit in the summer and a four hour commute to work.
When I was a teenager I would ride my Yamaha 125 Enduro out in the desert around Palmdale and Lancaster. There was nothing anywhere to be seen but desert, and nobody complained about the howling of dozens of unmuffled two-stroke dirt bikes, because nobody could hear it. But now that whole area is full of houses, with the occupants driving two hours each way to LA and Orange County for work. The population explosion in Southern California is pushing people out to Pluto in search of a place to live a decent life. How long can this continue? What are the limits of this process? More to the point, is it the case that nobody in or out of government has the power to stop, slow, or even rationalize it?
Southern California picked up an estimated 1 million new residents over the last three years as the Bay Area — a population magnet during the dot-com boom — stagnated, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates. The figures show Southern California's pace of growth accelerating from the late 1990s — a finding that has significant consequences for a region already confronting congestion in everything from freeways to classrooms. In a reversal of past trends, most of Southern California's recent growth came from births — particularly in older, immigrant-heavy cities in Los Angeles and Orange counties — rather than from resettlement of adults seeking work, demographers said.Still, Southern California continues to attract new families — particularly to inland communities from Antelope Valley to Temecula, where homes cost less than in crowded coastal counties. "Cheap dirt … cheap houses," said John Husing, a Redlands economist. "No matter what anyone says, people continue to want a single-family detached home, and they will crawl over the hills from Orange and Los Angeles counties on their hands and knees to get it."
---------------
Indeed. So we have the Southern California population swelling by one million in three years, much of the growth being not in-migration of job seekers, as in the post-WWII years, but instead representing the high birthrate of immigrant families. That is very expensive growth because kids have to be educated, and that means pressure on the public schools and other public services. Note this from the article: "Andy McCue, director of the UC Riverside Center for Sustainable Suburban Development...predicted that swelling school-age populations in Riverside County alone over the next decade will require the construction of 36 elementary schools, 11 junior highs, and 10 high schools — costing an estimated $1.34 billion."
And the money to do that will come from...where, exactly? Homeowners? I don't think so.
As the article notes, traffic congestion is already beyond belief and getting worse. The cities, especially Los Angeles, are becoming unliveable for people who want the American Dream (as Husing notes above). So people are moving out to what was once the desert, where they end up in an HOA-run new development more often than not, that gives them at least the promise of suburban living--if you don't mind an ambient temperature that runs around 110 Fahrenheit in the summer and a four hour commute to work.
When I was a teenager I would ride my Yamaha 125 Enduro out in the desert around Palmdale and Lancaster. There was nothing anywhere to be seen but desert, and nobody complained about the howling of dozens of unmuffled two-stroke dirt bikes, because nobody could hear it. But now that whole area is full of houses, with the occupants driving two hours each way to LA and Orange County for work. The population explosion in Southern California is pushing people out to Pluto in search of a place to live a decent life. How long can this continue? What are the limits of this process? More to the point, is it the case that nobody in or out of government has the power to stop, slow, or even rationalize it?
Administrative agency to oversee Calif. HOAs?
Check out the latest from the California Law Revision Commission, where they are discussing the pros and cons of that very idea. It seems that it would be an agency with regulatory power, like the FCC or OSHA. This type of agency normally has rule-making authority, the ability to investigate alleged violations of those rules and bring charges, and some sort of administrative adjudication power. In other words, the HOA oversight agency would be...sort of like an HOA :-)
Check out the latest from the California Law Revision Commission, where they are discussing the pros and cons of that very idea. It seems that it would be an agency with regulatory power, like the FCC or OSHA. This type of agency normally has rule-making authority, the ability to investigate alleged violations of those rules and bring charges, and some sort of administrative adjudication power. In other words, the HOA oversight agency would be...sort of like an HOA :-)
Thursday, April 08, 2004
Neighbors howl about dog-park plan
Thanks to Mika Sadai for passing along this story. Here's a bit of it:
The pampered pooches of Birmingham have had their own bakery, water bowls
strategically placed throughout the shopping district and the kind of
fashionable attire any discriminating doggie would not be caught dead
without.
Now, they're getting their own park.
But the plan to designate a dog park on the border of Bloomfield Hills irks
some Bloomfield Estates subdivision residents, who are unleashing a lawsuit
on the City of Birmingham. Dog doo -- and the other issues associated with
cavorting canines -- doesn't belong in their neighborhood, they've argued to
Oakland County Circuit Judge Deborah Tyner. She has scheduled a motion for
summary disposition on April 21.
"Dogs bark and they make noise and they stink and they leave things behind
on property," said Raymond Morrow, the Troy-based Bloomfield Estates
Homeowners Association attorney. "The people that live across the street and
next to it, they're aghast at this."
-----------------------
Thanks to attorney Morrow for informing us that dogs bark AND make noise. I did not know this. Ours, a large rottweiler-descended mutt named Rocko, can only bark, so perhaps we should teach him to play the French horn so that he can keep up with the other dogs who are more versatile. He doesn't stink, although he does have a needle-sharp set of king-size choppers, one of which accidentally made an inch-long rip in my right palm a couple of months ago, requiring five stitches. It was entirely my fault. Poor Rocko didn't even know what happened and was very worried about me. I think.
Thanks to Mika Sadai for passing along this story. Here's a bit of it:
The pampered pooches of Birmingham have had their own bakery, water bowls
strategically placed throughout the shopping district and the kind of
fashionable attire any discriminating doggie would not be caught dead
without.
Now, they're getting their own park.
But the plan to designate a dog park on the border of Bloomfield Hills irks
some Bloomfield Estates subdivision residents, who are unleashing a lawsuit
on the City of Birmingham. Dog doo -- and the other issues associated with
cavorting canines -- doesn't belong in their neighborhood, they've argued to
Oakland County Circuit Judge Deborah Tyner. She has scheduled a motion for
summary disposition on April 21.
"Dogs bark and they make noise and they stink and they leave things behind
on property," said Raymond Morrow, the Troy-based Bloomfield Estates
Homeowners Association attorney. "The people that live across the street and
next to it, they're aghast at this."
-----------------------
Thanks to attorney Morrow for informing us that dogs bark AND make noise. I did not know this. Ours, a large rottweiler-descended mutt named Rocko, can only bark, so perhaps we should teach him to play the French horn so that he can keep up with the other dogs who are more versatile. He doesn't stink, although he does have a needle-sharp set of king-size choppers, one of which accidentally made an inch-long rip in my right palm a couple of months ago, requiring five stitches. It was entirely my fault. Poor Rocko didn't even know what happened and was very worried about me. I think.
Why 44% of New Hampshire voters should not be allowed to vote in November
44% of them think the US economy is still in recession
...a recession is defined as two or more quarters of negative growth in the Gross Domestic Product
and the economy has had positive economic growth for NINE consecutive quarters.
I think anybody who still believes the national economy is in recession should stay home on November 2, 2004, and watch reruns of The Dukes of Hazzard. Leave the voting to grown-ups, OK?
44% of them think the US economy is still in recession
...a recession is defined as two or more quarters of negative growth in the Gross Domestic Product
and the economy has had positive economic growth for NINE consecutive quarters.
I think anybody who still believes the national economy is in recession should stay home on November 2, 2004, and watch reruns of The Dukes of Hazzard. Leave the voting to grown-ups, OK?
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
AZ foreclosure bill clears committee, but in radically reduced form
HB 2402, that would have made HOAs wait 3 years to foreclose and also require that the foreclosure sale be for fair market value, passed out of the Senate Government Committee today, but in a form that leaves its proponent unhappy. I hear from several people that the committee was set to vote a clear "no" on the bill, so a deal was struck that removed the three-year waiting period and fair market value provision, along with other language. What is left? No foreclosure for fines generated from rules violations. A massive disappointment for the bill's proponents, but on the other hand banning foreclosure for fines is something they certainly wanted, so it's a net gain on the reform front. The industry people, such as the CAI folks who strongly opposed the bill, can live with what passed and I hear they are ecstatic over the outcome.
HB 2402, that would have made HOAs wait 3 years to foreclose and also require that the foreclosure sale be for fair market value, passed out of the Senate Government Committee today, but in a form that leaves its proponent unhappy. I hear from several people that the committee was set to vote a clear "no" on the bill, so a deal was struck that removed the three-year waiting period and fair market value provision, along with other language. What is left? No foreclosure for fines generated from rules violations. A massive disappointment for the bill's proponents, but on the other hand banning foreclosure for fines is something they certainly wanted, so it's a net gain on the reform front. The industry people, such as the CAI folks who strongly opposed the bill, can live with what passed and I hear they are ecstatic over the outcome.
CleanCondos.org --
The Service Employees International Union is endorsing the Florida bills numbered H1223 and S2498 that would create an ombudsman office, mandate disclosure of BOD conflicts of interest, require "buyer beware" notices, and other measures. It is unusual for these HOA consumer protection bills to get support from interest groups, so this is a noteworthy development.
The Service Employees International Union is endorsing the Florida bills numbered H1223 and S2498 that would create an ombudsman office, mandate disclosure of BOD conflicts of interest, require "buyer beware" notices, and other measures. It is unusual for these HOA consumer protection bills to get support from interest groups, so this is a noteworthy development.
Charlotte Observer: Trash gets unequal treatment at condos--Some townhomes get own rollout containers; others must share bins (warning: registration required)
A double taxation conflict rears its head: "It's unjust," Schultze said. "We pay our taxes and we should be provided with the services the rest of the city gets."
A double taxation conflict rears its head: "It's unjust," Schultze said. "We pay our taxes and we should be provided with the services the rest of the city gets."
MSNBC - Private guards repel attack on headquarters--Blackwater Security sends helicopter to ferry out wounded Marine
An attack by hundreds of Iraqi militia members on the U.S. government's headquarters in Najaf on Sunday was repulsed not by the U.S. military, but by eight commandos from a private security firm, according to sources familiar with the incident.
-------------------
I have noticed the tenor of news coverage about the thousands of private security people in Iraq--overwhelmingly negative, often referring to them as "mercenaries." These are mostly ex-military from what I have read. The ones who were murdered and their bodies desecrated by maniacs in Fallujah were providing security for a food convoy. The ones in this story about Najaf performed heroically and saved the life of a wounded Marine, among others.
What exactly is the problem with this that has Dan Rather et al in a flat spin? First, it seems to me that plenty of people need protection in Iraq right now, and the military isn't mainly in the security guard business, so what exactly is the mainstream media's problem? Second, it is my understanding that these news agencies are some of the main employers of these folks for their own protection, so their surprise at the existence of "mercenaries" is obviously feigned and supremely hypocritical.
Maybe a security guard is a mercenary if hired by anybody other than a news agency. Is that the rule?
An attack by hundreds of Iraqi militia members on the U.S. government's headquarters in Najaf on Sunday was repulsed not by the U.S. military, but by eight commandos from a private security firm, according to sources familiar with the incident.
-------------------
I have noticed the tenor of news coverage about the thousands of private security people in Iraq--overwhelmingly negative, often referring to them as "mercenaries." These are mostly ex-military from what I have read. The ones who were murdered and their bodies desecrated by maniacs in Fallujah were providing security for a food convoy. The ones in this story about Najaf performed heroically and saved the life of a wounded Marine, among others.
What exactly is the problem with this that has Dan Rather et al in a flat spin? First, it seems to me that plenty of people need protection in Iraq right now, and the military isn't mainly in the security guard business, so what exactly is the mainstream media's problem? Second, it is my understanding that these news agencies are some of the main employers of these folks for their own protection, so their surprise at the existence of "mercenaries" is obviously feigned and supremely hypocritical.
Maybe a security guard is a mercenary if hired by anybody other than a news agency. Is that the rule?
Mercury News: A police presence for gated homes--Silver Creek complex to get traffic patrols
To outsiders, the gated community surrounding the Silver Creek Valley Country Club has everything a neighborhood could want: million-dollar homes, security guards, well-groomed yards and scenic views. But residents say there's one thing they don't have: a way to stop drivers from speeding on the 30 miles of roads inside the 1,500-acre community. That will change in May, when San Jose traffic officers will begin to enforce the laws that apply to private property as well as public. It's the first time an upscale community, which maintains the private roads with homeowner fees, has received the city service.
----------------------
Well, that's a switch. Usually cities avoid responsibility for things like this. Some CIDs have private speed limits and private speeding tickets.
To outsiders, the gated community surrounding the Silver Creek Valley Country Club has everything a neighborhood could want: million-dollar homes, security guards, well-groomed yards and scenic views. But residents say there's one thing they don't have: a way to stop drivers from speeding on the 30 miles of roads inside the 1,500-acre community. That will change in May, when San Jose traffic officers will begin to enforce the laws that apply to private property as well as public. It's the first time an upscale community, which maintains the private roads with homeowner fees, has received the city service.
----------------------
Well, that's a switch. Usually cities avoid responsibility for things like this. Some CIDs have private speed limits and private speeding tickets.
Voters in Inglewood Turn Away Wal-Mart
"A bid by the world's largest corporation to bypass uncooperative elected officials and take its aggressive expansion plans to voters failed Tuesday, as Inglewood residents overwhelmingly rejected Wal-Mart's proposal to build a colossal retail and grocery center without an environmental review or public hearings. "
--------------------------
So there won't be a Walmartville after all. But note this comment from a local lawmaker: "They want to be the big gorilla and not even offer one banana," Assemblyman Jerome Horton (D-Inglewood) said Tuesday. "Clearly, this is a test site for Wal-Mart to determine if they can go from city to city to city, preempting state law and local building and safety codes…. I think everyone should prepare for a full frontal attack from Wal-Mart." That is an interesting prospect. Wal-Mart could go voter shopping until they find 40 places where the population is willing to give them the extremely one-sided arrangement they want--one no public official would ever agree to, but maybe some voters somewhere will. They could probably stretch the opposition pretty thin if they hit four or five towns at once...
"A bid by the world's largest corporation to bypass uncooperative elected officials and take its aggressive expansion plans to voters failed Tuesday, as Inglewood residents overwhelmingly rejected Wal-Mart's proposal to build a colossal retail and grocery center without an environmental review or public hearings. "
--------------------------
So there won't be a Walmartville after all. But note this comment from a local lawmaker: "They want to be the big gorilla and not even offer one banana," Assemblyman Jerome Horton (D-Inglewood) said Tuesday. "Clearly, this is a test site for Wal-Mart to determine if they can go from city to city to city, preempting state law and local building and safety codes…. I think everyone should prepare for a full frontal attack from Wal-Mart." That is an interesting prospect. Wal-Mart could go voter shopping until they find 40 places where the population is willing to give them the extremely one-sided arrangement they want--one no public official would ever agree to, but maybe some voters somewhere will. They could probably stretch the opposition pretty thin if they hit four or five towns at once...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)