Realty Times - "Runaway Housing Market Could Jump Track"
"If predictions about interest rates, housing prices, and foreclosures are accurate, then the United States is looking at a 'housing train wreck.' The housing train wreck will affect middle-class families as well as low- and moderate-income homeowners," said John H. Vogel, Jr., professor and faculty director at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH. In "Reflections on the U.S. Mortgage Market," penned for the Urban Land Institute, Vogel says too many households are over extended, primarily because of easy money -- easy mortgage money."
-------------------
Point being that many of us are now house-poor, making house payments that far exceed recommended levels, facing increasing property taxes and other rising costs. Add to the mix that millions of people are also forced to pay increasing HOA assessments, something this article doesn't mention, and you have even more financial pressure. It works as long as you have two wage-earners, low interest rates, and no costly surprises like a $20,000 special assessment. But that leaves a lot of people on the high wire hoping they don't encounter a stiff breeze.
Saturday, April 03, 2004
Friday, April 02, 2004
USATODAY.com - Brawl breaks out in anger management assembly
"WOODLAWN, Md. (AP) — A brawl broke out during an anger management assembly at a suburban high school. Two people were arrested and 11 students were suspended after a shoving match escalated into a melee during Thursday's assembly. Authorities said a confrontation between a student's mother and a group of girls who had been bothering her daughter turned into a shouting match, and led to pushing and hitting, before the crowd of 750 students erupted into "chaos," said C. Anthony Thompson, principal of Woodlawn High School. The melee began as students on stage acted out peaceful ways to resolve conflict during the assembly..."
------------
And here I was thinking that courses like this might be useful in HOAs. I was speaking with a newspaper reporter not long ago about this very idea. Back to the drawing board...
"WOODLAWN, Md. (AP) — A brawl broke out during an anger management assembly at a suburban high school. Two people were arrested and 11 students were suspended after a shoving match escalated into a melee during Thursday's assembly. Authorities said a confrontation between a student's mother and a group of girls who had been bothering her daughter turned into a shouting match, and led to pushing and hitting, before the crowd of 750 students erupted into "chaos," said C. Anthony Thompson, principal of Woodlawn High School. The melee began as students on stage acted out peaceful ways to resolve conflict during the assembly..."
------------
And here I was thinking that courses like this might be useful in HOAs. I was speaking with a newspaper reporter not long ago about this very idea. Back to the drawing board...
7 steps to survive life in a homeowners association
...and now Bankrate gives you the how-to skinny. But I thought there were supposed to be 12 steps...
...and now Bankrate gives you the how-to skinny. But I thought there were supposed to be 12 steps...
Hate your homeowners association? - Mar. 15, 2004
CNN Money belatedly discovers HOAs and weighs in on the "disgruntled owners" front. Most publications did this generic story sometime before 1995. The angle is the usual "owner versus association" one, with the usual "informed consumer" resolution. No discussion of the social or political issues other than the HOA litigation explosion. But there's no harm in repeating the basics every now and then.
CNN Money belatedly discovers HOAs and weighs in on the "disgruntled owners" front. Most publications did this generic story sometime before 1995. The angle is the usual "owner versus association" one, with the usual "informed consumer" resolution. No discussion of the social or political issues other than the HOA litigation explosion. But there's no harm in repeating the basics every now and then.
Thursday, April 01, 2004
Michelle Malkin: A closer look at left-wing thuggery
So now Michelle Malkin has done a full run-down on the group I declined to name in the preceding post. She's not interested in the gated communities angle, but consider that the tactics of this groups could be copied by PETA or any number of other groups that have no political power through parties or interest groups, but who are so self-righteous and intolerant that they think they deserve to control the policy agenda regardless. I think terrorizing policy makers in their homes will become increasingly common, and the only recourse for the victims is to head for Security Acres. That's not a good thing in my book, but you can't blame them.
So now Michelle Malkin has done a full run-down on the group I declined to name in the preceding post. She's not interested in the gated communities angle, but consider that the tactics of this groups could be copied by PETA or any number of other groups that have no political power through parties or interest groups, but who are so self-righteous and intolerant that they think they deserve to control the policy agenda regardless. I think terrorizing policy makers in their homes will become increasingly common, and the only recourse for the victims is to head for Security Acres. That's not a good thing in my book, but you can't blame them.
Monday, March 29, 2004
Demonstrators Swarm Around Rove's Home (washingtonpost.com)
"Memo to self: Move to gated community"
At least that's what I imagine Karl Rove is thinking this morning, after this happened:
"Several hundred people stormed the small yard of President Bush's chief political strategist, Karl Rove, yesterday afternoon, pounding on his windows, shoving signs at others and challenging Rove to talk to them about a bill that deals with educational opportunities for immigrants."
---------------------
The demonstrators were from a Chicago-based coalition of various groups whose name I will not reproduce because I don't want to give them any publicity. They have been around since the early 1970s and have done this exact thing many times. Here's a paragraph from their web page, although I won't link to it:
"Direct action is a way to be heard. NPA does not employ professional lobbyists, nor does it have access to the halls of power. NPA has people power. When someone in a position of power refuses to meet with NPA leaders, NPA responds with an action. An action means dozens of busloads of neighborhood people showing up at someone's office or front lawn with a bullhorn and a demand for the target to meet with NPA. Previous direct action events include bringing over a thousand people to the homes of Andrew Cuomo, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; Sen. Phil Gramm(R-TX); Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan."
Faced with tactics like this, influential people think long and hard about living in gated communities. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rush Limbaugh, and many other celebrities and politicians live in them already. Here's an object lesson in why. You have three choices. One is to put up with this kind of thing until the police arrive and chase them off. The second is to move someplace where it can't happen. The third is to solve it yourself by appearing on the front steps with a big dog and a shotgun. Rove chose #1 and probably wishes he had chosen #2. I would have chosen #3, but I think in DC that would make me the criminal.
This sort of activism encourages, and practically requires, the powerful to secede from society and head for a fortified compound. These are airhead tactics, in my book. Short-sighted, offensive, narcissistic, and destructive.
"Memo to self: Move to gated community"
At least that's what I imagine Karl Rove is thinking this morning, after this happened:
"Several hundred people stormed the small yard of President Bush's chief political strategist, Karl Rove, yesterday afternoon, pounding on his windows, shoving signs at others and challenging Rove to talk to them about a bill that deals with educational opportunities for immigrants."
---------------------
The demonstrators were from a Chicago-based coalition of various groups whose name I will not reproduce because I don't want to give them any publicity. They have been around since the early 1970s and have done this exact thing many times. Here's a paragraph from their web page, although I won't link to it:
"Direct action is a way to be heard. NPA does not employ professional lobbyists, nor does it have access to the halls of power. NPA has people power. When someone in a position of power refuses to meet with NPA leaders, NPA responds with an action. An action means dozens of busloads of neighborhood people showing up at someone's office or front lawn with a bullhorn and a demand for the target to meet with NPA. Previous direct action events include bringing over a thousand people to the homes of Andrew Cuomo, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; Sen. Phil Gramm(R-TX); Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan."
Faced with tactics like this, influential people think long and hard about living in gated communities. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rush Limbaugh, and many other celebrities and politicians live in them already. Here's an object lesson in why. You have three choices. One is to put up with this kind of thing until the police arrive and chase them off. The second is to move someplace where it can't happen. The third is to solve it yourself by appearing on the front steps with a big dog and a shotgun. Rove chose #1 and probably wishes he had chosen #2. I would have chosen #3, but I think in DC that would make me the criminal.
This sort of activism encourages, and practically requires, the powerful to secede from society and head for a fortified compound. These are airhead tactics, in my book. Short-sighted, offensive, narcissistic, and destructive.
Sunday, March 28, 2004
Here's the opinion in U.S. v. Gould
...which is the case I referred to below. Seems the police had a tip that Gould was going to kill two judges. They went to his trailer and were admitted by a roommate named Cabral. They do a "protective sweep" of the trailer for Gould, including his bedroom. No Gould. But they search under the bed and in the closets, and in one closet they find...three rifles. Eventually they find Gould outside in the woods. He says the guns belong to somebody else, but that's beside the point.
Which is...Cabral had no authority to consent to a search of Cabral's room, so did the police have the right to search it anyway under the "protective sweep" exception to the warrant requirement? Note that it wasn't incident to arrest, because they seached the room before they found him. Normally the "protective sweep" exception applies to search incident to arrest. So that's why this case is so unusual.
I think this case will draw some commentary from legal beagle types. Will the USSC get involved? Who knows...
...which is the case I referred to below. Seems the police had a tip that Gould was going to kill two judges. They went to his trailer and were admitted by a roommate named Cabral. They do a "protective sweep" of the trailer for Gould, including his bedroom. No Gould. But they search under the bed and in the closets, and in one closet they find...three rifles. Eventually they find Gould outside in the woods. He says the guns belong to somebody else, but that's beside the point.
Which is...Cabral had no authority to consent to a search of Cabral's room, so did the police have the right to search it anyway under the "protective sweep" exception to the warrant requirement? Note that it wasn't incident to arrest, because they seached the room before they found him. Normally the "protective sweep" exception applies to search incident to arrest. So that's why this case is so unusual.
I think this case will draw some commentary from legal beagle types. Will the USSC get involved? Who knows...
TheNewOrleansChannel.com - News - Court Opens Door To Searches Without Warrants
"NEW ORLEANS -- It's a groundbreaking court decision that legal experts say will affect everyone: Police officers in Louisiana no longer need a search or arrest warrant to conduct a brief search of your home or business. Leaders in law enforcement say it will provide safety to officers, but others argue it's a privilege that could [editorial note: COULD???] be abused. The decision was made by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Two dissenting judges called it the "road to Hell."
--------------------
Well, look on the bright side. At least now the rest of the nation is catching up with Privatopia and getting rid of those antiquated 18th century notions of "civil liberties."
"NEW ORLEANS -- It's a groundbreaking court decision that legal experts say will affect everyone: Police officers in Louisiana no longer need a search or arrest warrant to conduct a brief search of your home or business. Leaders in law enforcement say it will provide safety to officers, but others argue it's a privilege that could [editorial note: COULD???] be abused. The decision was made by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Two dissenting judges called it the "road to Hell."
--------------------
Well, look on the bright side. At least now the rest of the nation is catching up with Privatopia and getting rid of those antiquated 18th century notions of "civil liberties."
Sun-Sentinel: South Florida news: "Legislators propose appointing ombudsman to protect condo residents"
"A bill creating an ombudsman with the power to fine condominium directors, remove them from association boards and resolve disputes has cleared its first hurdle in the state Legislature.
"The ombudsman provision is one of several that, if adopted, would be the most significant change to condominium law since 1991. The bill is designed to protect millions of condo residents by reining in the power of boards."
Read it all...
"A bill creating an ombudsman with the power to fine condominium directors, remove them from association boards and resolve disputes has cleared its first hurdle in the state Legislature.
"The ombudsman provision is one of several that, if adopted, would be the most significant change to condominium law since 1991. The bill is designed to protect millions of condo residents by reining in the power of boards."
Read it all...
Text of CBS foreclosure story
Dream Home Lost Over $120 Bill
COPPEROPOLIS, Calif., March 26, 2004
Dream Home Nightmare
(CBS) Last year was a bad one for the Radcliffs.
"My pain was so horrific," says Tom Radcliff. "My shoulders, my knees."
First his arthritis kicked up, then, as CBS News Correspondent Jerry Bowen reports, his wife Anita forgot about the homeowners dues.
"They were in the back of my mind," she says.
And then they lost their dream home. They were given three days notice to get off the property.
The $300,000 house they'd built in northern California was auctioned off to recover the dues they'd owed the Copper Cove Homeowners Association for almost a year. The debt? $120.
"I agree with you, it's only $120," says Copper Cove attorney Deon Stein.
"Why isn't the owner paying that? All of his neighbors are paying that to fund the operations."
There are a quarter-million homeowners associations in America. With dues that pay for everything from road maintenance to lakeside clubhouses, and they're powerful. A Florida couple may lose their home over a forbidden flagpole. And now, the Radcliffs.
"All my life savings is in this house," says Tom Radcliff.
One thing the Radcliffs don't understand is why the homeowner's association just didn't come by and tell them they had a problem. The association office is just two minutes down the road, but nobody said a word.
Legally the association didn't have to, and foreclosure is a proven tool. So the debt was turned over to a collection agency. And though the Radcliffs say they had a verbal agreement to pay off the delinquent annual dues, their house went on the auction block.
"It did not occur to me that they would foreclose," says Anita Radcliff. "I just thought people don't do things like that."
The Radcliff's case has prompted several proposed laws in California to prevent homeowners associations from doing it so quickly for such small amounts in the future.
"In many instances, seniors are targeted," says Marjorie Murray, of the Congress of California Seniors. "Seniors are seen as the golden goose sitting on the golden egg - valuable California real estate."
Copper Cove's attorney says the Radcliff's wound is self-inflicted.
"I certainly would not say they are victims, and if they are victims, they are victims of their own making," says Stein.
The Radcliff's $300,000 house went for just $70,000 to a speculator. They get most of the selling price after their debt is settled and get to stay put for now. And they're mad.
"If this were the Old West trying to get my property, there'd be a bunch of dead people out there on the ground," says Tom Radcliff.
But it's the New West, and the Radcliff's have a hired gun attorney who is suing, arguing the other side was just to quick on the trigger.
© MMIV The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Dream Home Lost Over $120 Bill
COPPEROPOLIS, Calif., March 26, 2004
Dream Home Nightmare
(CBS) Last year was a bad one for the Radcliffs.
"My pain was so horrific," says Tom Radcliff. "My shoulders, my knees."
First his arthritis kicked up, then, as CBS News Correspondent Jerry Bowen reports, his wife Anita forgot about the homeowners dues.
"They were in the back of my mind," she says.
And then they lost their dream home. They were given three days notice to get off the property.
The $300,000 house they'd built in northern California was auctioned off to recover the dues they'd owed the Copper Cove Homeowners Association for almost a year. The debt? $120.
"I agree with you, it's only $120," says Copper Cove attorney Deon Stein.
"Why isn't the owner paying that? All of his neighbors are paying that to fund the operations."
There are a quarter-million homeowners associations in America. With dues that pay for everything from road maintenance to lakeside clubhouses, and they're powerful. A Florida couple may lose their home over a forbidden flagpole. And now, the Radcliffs.
"All my life savings is in this house," says Tom Radcliff.
One thing the Radcliffs don't understand is why the homeowner's association just didn't come by and tell them they had a problem. The association office is just two minutes down the road, but nobody said a word.
Legally the association didn't have to, and foreclosure is a proven tool. So the debt was turned over to a collection agency. And though the Radcliffs say they had a verbal agreement to pay off the delinquent annual dues, their house went on the auction block.
"It did not occur to me that they would foreclose," says Anita Radcliff. "I just thought people don't do things like that."
The Radcliff's case has prompted several proposed laws in California to prevent homeowners associations from doing it so quickly for such small amounts in the future.
"In many instances, seniors are targeted," says Marjorie Murray, of the Congress of California Seniors. "Seniors are seen as the golden goose sitting on the golden egg - valuable California real estate."
Copper Cove's attorney says the Radcliff's wound is self-inflicted.
"I certainly would not say they are victims, and if they are victims, they are victims of their own making," says Stein.
The Radcliff's $300,000 house went for just $70,000 to a speculator. They get most of the selling price after their debt is settled and get to stay put for now. And they're mad.
"If this were the Old West trying to get my property, there'd be a bunch of dead people out there on the ground," says Tom Radcliff.
But it's the New West, and the Radcliff's have a hired gun attorney who is suing, arguing the other side was just to quick on the trigger.
© MMIV The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Yahoo! News - U.N. Projects Historic City Populations by 2007
By Grant McCool
"UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - For the first time in history, most of the world's population will live in cities by 2007, U.N. demographers said on Wednesday.
They said that 48 per cent of the world's population lived in urban areas in 2003 and this was "expected to exceed the 50 percent mark by 2007, thus marking the first time in history that the world will have more urban residents than rural residents."They projected that the world's urban population would rise to 5 billion by 2030 from an estimated 3 billion in 2003. Conversely, demographers expect the rural population to decline to 3.2 billion from 3.3 billion in 2003 by that year.
Global urban populations would grow at an annual average rate of 1.8 percent and double at that rate in 38 years, according to the U.N. Population Division report, "World Urbanization Prospects: The 2003 Revision." Tokyo, the world's most populous city with 35 million, was projected to still be the largest in 2015 with 36 million people, followed by the Indian cities of Bombay at 22.6 million and New Delhi at 20.9 million. Next on the list were Mexico City at 20.6 million and Sao Paulo at 20 million."
--------------------
And this raises some interesting questions. How is all this urbanization to be accomplished? How will the new housing be constructed and how will services be provided? If recent experience in other nations is any guide, the answer is: through privatization and the creation of housing that resembles American common interest developments.
By Grant McCool
"UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - For the first time in history, most of the world's population will live in cities by 2007, U.N. demographers said on Wednesday.
They said that 48 per cent of the world's population lived in urban areas in 2003 and this was "expected to exceed the 50 percent mark by 2007, thus marking the first time in history that the world will have more urban residents than rural residents."They projected that the world's urban population would rise to 5 billion by 2030 from an estimated 3 billion in 2003. Conversely, demographers expect the rural population to decline to 3.2 billion from 3.3 billion in 2003 by that year.
Global urban populations would grow at an annual average rate of 1.8 percent and double at that rate in 38 years, according to the U.N. Population Division report, "World Urbanization Prospects: The 2003 Revision." Tokyo, the world's most populous city with 35 million, was projected to still be the largest in 2015 with 36 million people, followed by the Indian cities of Bombay at 22.6 million and New Delhi at 20.9 million. Next on the list were Mexico City at 20.6 million and Sao Paulo at 20 million."
--------------------
And this raises some interesting questions. How is all this urbanization to be accomplished? How will the new housing be constructed and how will services be provided? If recent experience in other nations is any guide, the answer is: through privatization and the creation of housing that resembles American common interest developments.
Slimewatch
As usual, some of the owner activists have gone off the deep end over my comments concerning foreclosure. I don't mind being disagreed with, and I welcome reasoned debate because I always learn from it. I received some good questions and criticisms from people, and thanks for that.
However, the problem once again is that there are these people who think the purpose of the internet is to make it easy for them to insult people who have the temerity to hold an opinion they don't like. Their idea of debate is just name-calling. I guess this makes them feel powerful or something, as if they had actually accomplished something for the first time in their lives.
I just don't have the time or the inclination to be engaged with these folks in any way or at any level, even to point out how wrong they are. Somebody--maybe it was Churchill--said that you should never fight in the mud with a pig because you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it.
Anyway, what kind of conversation is it where you spent an hour crafting and writing an argument with facts and inferences and conclusions, and the response is basically, "YOU ROTTEN *&(^%$()(_)(*&&^^^^%%$$!!@@#!!!"
My solution is simple. I just set up filters that automatically trash all e-mail that could possibly be from or about people who behave like that, and I don't read the message boards where they post, ever again. If group moderators won't keep things civil by weeding out the slander and profanity, then bye-bye. That's my policy.
So, the bad thing about the internet is that it has too many people who abuse it. The good thing is you can make them disappear.
As usual, some of the owner activists have gone off the deep end over my comments concerning foreclosure. I don't mind being disagreed with, and I welcome reasoned debate because I always learn from it. I received some good questions and criticisms from people, and thanks for that.
However, the problem once again is that there are these people who think the purpose of the internet is to make it easy for them to insult people who have the temerity to hold an opinion they don't like. Their idea of debate is just name-calling. I guess this makes them feel powerful or something, as if they had actually accomplished something for the first time in their lives.
I just don't have the time or the inclination to be engaged with these folks in any way or at any level, even to point out how wrong they are. Somebody--maybe it was Churchill--said that you should never fight in the mud with a pig because you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it.
Anyway, what kind of conversation is it where you spent an hour crafting and writing an argument with facts and inferences and conclusions, and the response is basically, "YOU ROTTEN *&(^%$()(_)(*&&^^^^%%$$!!@@#!!!"
My solution is simple. I just set up filters that automatically trash all e-mail that could possibly be from or about people who behave like that, and I don't read the message boards where they post, ever again. If group moderators won't keep things civil by weeding out the slander and profanity, then bye-bye. That's my policy.
So, the bad thing about the internet is that it has too many people who abuse it. The good thing is you can make them disappear.
Legislative update
I checked Lexis yesterday and I noted that the Arizona anti-foreclosure bill passed the House, where it originated, and is now in the Senate having been refered to a couple of committees. This is H.B. 2402. It passed the house with a three year waiting period rather than the original seven years, and it requires that the home be sold for "fair market value." There are lots of questions about how this bill would work in practice and perhaps the Senate committees will get into that.
In California, I see two foreclosure-related bills. One is AB 1527, having to do with "actual notice" before foreclosure, and the other is AB 1682, that would make a number of changes in foreclosure and would require that non-judicial foreclosure be for the assessed value of the property.
In Florida, there are two competing bills. One is SB 2984, emanating from the Jeb Bush-appointed HOA Task Force, and the other is H.B. 1223, from Rep. Robaina, chair of the House Select Committee on Condominium Governance. The Task Force bill would require mediation for election and recall disputes and make other procedural changes. The Robaina bill is the ombudsman proposal. It will be interesting to see how these things play out.
I checked Lexis yesterday and I noted that the Arizona anti-foreclosure bill passed the House, where it originated, and is now in the Senate having been refered to a couple of committees. This is H.B. 2402. It passed the house with a three year waiting period rather than the original seven years, and it requires that the home be sold for "fair market value." There are lots of questions about how this bill would work in practice and perhaps the Senate committees will get into that.
In California, I see two foreclosure-related bills. One is AB 1527, having to do with "actual notice" before foreclosure, and the other is AB 1682, that would make a number of changes in foreclosure and would require that non-judicial foreclosure be for the assessed value of the property.
In Florida, there are two competing bills. One is SB 2984, emanating from the Jeb Bush-appointed HOA Task Force, and the other is H.B. 1223, from Rep. Robaina, chair of the House Select Committee on Condominium Governance. The Task Force bill would require mediation for election and recall disputes and make other procedural changes. The Robaina bill is the ombudsman proposal. It will be interesting to see how these things play out.
Memo to Scotland: Here is how we do it in the USA.Gun toters halt robbery attempts
Note that these are two separate self-defense situations in the Detroit area. The piece is from the Detroit Free Press.
-------------------------
"Farmington Hills police said a 32-year-old Novi woman, who had a permit to carry a small-caliber pistol in her purse, stopped a man armed with a 9mm semiautomatic handgun from taking her $40,000 diamond ring and Rolex watch.
"Police Chief William Dwyer said the woman, whose name was not released, was in the parking lot of a business at 12 Mile and Drake, where she worked in the accounting department, when a man confronted her Friday morning.
"When he came within about 10 feet, Dwyer said, the woman calmly pulled the gun out of her purse and pointed it at the man -- identified as Carl Walker, 21, of Detroit.
"Walker did not draw his weapon, police said. Instead, he ran to a nearby car and the woman called 911. Police later arrested Walker and recovered a pistol. Two companions, Monique Bell, 26, of Detroit and Daphne Patterson, 28, of Southfield, also were arrested."
...
" Two other men -- a father-son team accused of trying to rob a 65-year-old retiree -- are expected to be arraigned this morning in St. Clair County.
"The men already had robbed one woman before being stopped by the home owner's bullet on Friday, police said.
"The Ft. Gratiot Township home owner answered his door on Keewahdin Road about 8 p.m. and was accosted by a 20-year-old Worth Township man armed with a handgun. When the young man's attention was diverted, police said the home owner grabbed his own .38-caliber handgun and fired.
"'The round ended up coming out of his buttocks, so I'm sure he'll be thinking about that old man every time he sits down for a while,' said Detective Lt. Mike Bloomfield of the St. Clair County Sheriff's Department."
--------------------
See, this is what I call privatization. You take the law enforcement function and you break it down to the individual level, where the individual citizen is trusted with having enough good sense to use force only when and to the extent that it is warranted. Contrast that with the Scottish/British approach, where you have to depend entirely on the government. In other words, self-defense is fully socialized. If they aren't around when you need them, and of course they hardly ever are because crooks don't generally commit robberies in front of police officers, you are supposed to...do what, exactly? Curl up in the fetal position and beg the criminals for mercy?
Note that these are two separate self-defense situations in the Detroit area. The piece is from the Detroit Free Press.
-------------------------
"Farmington Hills police said a 32-year-old Novi woman, who had a permit to carry a small-caliber pistol in her purse, stopped a man armed with a 9mm semiautomatic handgun from taking her $40,000 diamond ring and Rolex watch.
"Police Chief William Dwyer said the woman, whose name was not released, was in the parking lot of a business at 12 Mile and Drake, where she worked in the accounting department, when a man confronted her Friday morning.
"When he came within about 10 feet, Dwyer said, the woman calmly pulled the gun out of her purse and pointed it at the man -- identified as Carl Walker, 21, of Detroit.
"Walker did not draw his weapon, police said. Instead, he ran to a nearby car and the woman called 911. Police later arrested Walker and recovered a pistol. Two companions, Monique Bell, 26, of Detroit and Daphne Patterson, 28, of Southfield, also were arrested."
...
" Two other men -- a father-son team accused of trying to rob a 65-year-old retiree -- are expected to be arraigned this morning in St. Clair County.
"The men already had robbed one woman before being stopped by the home owner's bullet on Friday, police said.
"The Ft. Gratiot Township home owner answered his door on Keewahdin Road about 8 p.m. and was accosted by a 20-year-old Worth Township man armed with a handgun. When the young man's attention was diverted, police said the home owner grabbed his own .38-caliber handgun and fired.
"'The round ended up coming out of his buttocks, so I'm sure he'll be thinking about that old man every time he sits down for a while,' said Detective Lt. Mike Bloomfield of the St. Clair County Sheriff's Department."
--------------------
See, this is what I call privatization. You take the law enforcement function and you break it down to the individual level, where the individual citizen is trusted with having enough good sense to use force only when and to the extent that it is warranted. Contrast that with the Scottish/British approach, where you have to depend entirely on the government. In other words, self-defense is fully socialized. If they aren't around when you need them, and of course they hardly ever are because crooks don't generally commit robberies in front of police officers, you are supposed to...do what, exactly? Curl up in the fetal position and beg the criminals for mercy?
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Man Who Killed Armed Intruder Jailed Eight Years
This amazing article is from The Daily Scotsman:
"Carl Lindsay, 25, answered a knock at his door in Salford, Greater Manchester, to find four men armed with a gun. When the gang tried to rob him he grabbed a samurai sword and stabbed one of them, 37-year-old Stephen Swindells, four times. Mr Swindells, of Salford, was later found collapsed in an alley and died in hospital.
"Lindsay, of Walkden, was found guilty of manslaughter following a three-week trial at Manchester Crown Court. He was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment."
------------
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight...I guess those hoary notions of "self-defense" have gone the way of the old home-is-your-castle thing...at least, in Scotland. I'd say William Wallace must be spinning like a top. Maybe if Mr. Lindsay had used a Claymore instead of a samurai sword it would have been a lesser sentence.
This amazing article is from The Daily Scotsman:
"Carl Lindsay, 25, answered a knock at his door in Salford, Greater Manchester, to find four men armed with a gun. When the gang tried to rob him he grabbed a samurai sword and stabbed one of them, 37-year-old Stephen Swindells, four times. Mr Swindells, of Salford, was later found collapsed in an alley and died in hospital.
"Lindsay, of Walkden, was found guilty of manslaughter following a three-week trial at Manchester Crown Court. He was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment."
------------
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight...I guess those hoary notions of "self-defense" have gone the way of the old home-is-your-castle thing...at least, in Scotland. I'd say William Wallace must be spinning like a top. Maybe if Mr. Lindsay had used a Claymore instead of a samurai sword it would have been a lesser sentence.
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
My ears are burning...somebody must be talking about me.
Over at "HOAs", Mika Sadai's Yahoo group that owner activists frequent, a min-debate about me popped up amid the serious discussions they are having on the legislative front--(and by the way, if you haven't checked out that group, along with George Staropoli's "hoanet" you ought to).
The issue was that I practiced law for ten years, including six years in civil litigation when I did mostly HOA representation. Does that mean that my views on the subject--in this case my opinion that HOAs need to have some recourse to foreclose--are suspect?
This is an interesting predicament when you think about it. If you have never worked in the industry you are morally pure, but on the other hand you don't really know what's going on behind the curtain. If you have done legal work for associations, you are tainted forever, but you have a body of knowledge that can only be acquired by experience. This is similar to the issue that broke up the friendship between Sartre and Camus. Sartre believed philosophers should get their hands dirty by being involved in practical politics (which in that case meant revolution), and Camus said he would stick to writing. So--which is better--the knowledge you gain from actual involvement with an imperfect system, or the moral purity you keep by never doing the work? Hard to say.
As for me, I think I was lucky to have the best of both worlds. I stumbled into HOA practice from the construction defect side, and I never did any covenant enforcement or collections work, and never wanted to. I was a litigator, better known as a trial attorney. My job was representing the association against the developer or against an insurance company, or some variation on that theme.
But of course from doing this, I learned a lot about how associations work and how lawyers do covenant drafting and enforcement along with association general counsel work. I certainly began to see very quickly how the cards are stacked against the owners. I noticed among other things how the lawyer works with the BOD, and how the owners are shut out of the loop most of the time, and how a great deal depends on how the lawyer views the owners. Some attorneys want to keep the owners informed and supportive, but others think the mushroom theory is the way to go (keep them in the dark and give them just enough BS to keep them alive). It became obvious to me that the best lawyers understand that it is much better in the long run to keep the owners involved.
So I'd say that I had the best of both worlds in that I learned about this industry without having to go up against individual owners. I saw good board members and control-freak nut cases, and saw the same kind of variation with the owners--some were terrific, others were...not. Good and bad lawyers, board members, and owners. Kind of like people in general. The problem is an unbalanced system that has little or no protection for owners against the misbehavior of lawyers and board members, while there are all kinds of checks against owners getting away with anything improper.
I think this experience did influence my views on many things. As for foreclosure, to me it is an extremely harsh remedy that should only be available as a last resort and with greatly increased limitations and protections for the owner. I want to stop these foreclosures for $250 and $2500 in attorney fees, and I think nonjudicial foreclosure should be legally prohibited.
But to take away the foreclosure power completely is the wrong way to go, it seems to me. Banning HOA foreclosure is premised on the illusion that there is somebody else to pay the bills, some pocketbook or cash trove somewhere that will pay the pool cleaning company and resurface the streets. But there isn't. There is no getting around the fact that when you buy into an HOA you take on a major financial responsibility. If the association doesn't pay its bills, then IT will become the debtor, and IT will be getting attacked by collection agencies.
The way things are shaping up I think even with foreclosure power many more associations are going to be in wobbly shape in the near future. If associations can't keep the flow of assessments coming in because people feel they have no teeth, it will be that much harder.
And if you are pro-owner, if you want owners to be happy, you don't want their association to be in financial trouble. I just can't see how increasing the financial fragility of HOAs is good for owners, and if somebody can, please explain it to me. The biggest problem potentially facing owners--one I think the owner groups should think about fixing legislatively--is what I call the "bottomless pit" liability of individual owners for corporate debts and liabilities. The law is shaping up so that the owners are going to be stuck with the bills for BOD-generated liabilities, non-dischargable in corporate bankruptcy--(see Le Parc and Oak Park Calabasas). That would include debts and tort judgements. This is a frightening prospect indeed. Jim Lingl, an attorney who does a lot of legislative work in California, is trying to get a bill passed that would protect owners against this sort of thing. If you have a story to tell him about such an incident, send him an e-mail at lingllaw@aol.com
Over at "HOAs", Mika Sadai's Yahoo group that owner activists frequent, a min-debate about me popped up amid the serious discussions they are having on the legislative front--(and by the way, if you haven't checked out that group, along with George Staropoli's "hoanet" you ought to).
The issue was that I practiced law for ten years, including six years in civil litigation when I did mostly HOA representation. Does that mean that my views on the subject--in this case my opinion that HOAs need to have some recourse to foreclose--are suspect?
This is an interesting predicament when you think about it. If you have never worked in the industry you are morally pure, but on the other hand you don't really know what's going on behind the curtain. If you have done legal work for associations, you are tainted forever, but you have a body of knowledge that can only be acquired by experience. This is similar to the issue that broke up the friendship between Sartre and Camus. Sartre believed philosophers should get their hands dirty by being involved in practical politics (which in that case meant revolution), and Camus said he would stick to writing. So--which is better--the knowledge you gain from actual involvement with an imperfect system, or the moral purity you keep by never doing the work? Hard to say.
As for me, I think I was lucky to have the best of both worlds. I stumbled into HOA practice from the construction defect side, and I never did any covenant enforcement or collections work, and never wanted to. I was a litigator, better known as a trial attorney. My job was representing the association against the developer or against an insurance company, or some variation on that theme.
But of course from doing this, I learned a lot about how associations work and how lawyers do covenant drafting and enforcement along with association general counsel work. I certainly began to see very quickly how the cards are stacked against the owners. I noticed among other things how the lawyer works with the BOD, and how the owners are shut out of the loop most of the time, and how a great deal depends on how the lawyer views the owners. Some attorneys want to keep the owners informed and supportive, but others think the mushroom theory is the way to go (keep them in the dark and give them just enough BS to keep them alive). It became obvious to me that the best lawyers understand that it is much better in the long run to keep the owners involved.
So I'd say that I had the best of both worlds in that I learned about this industry without having to go up against individual owners. I saw good board members and control-freak nut cases, and saw the same kind of variation with the owners--some were terrific, others were...not. Good and bad lawyers, board members, and owners. Kind of like people in general. The problem is an unbalanced system that has little or no protection for owners against the misbehavior of lawyers and board members, while there are all kinds of checks against owners getting away with anything improper.
I think this experience did influence my views on many things. As for foreclosure, to me it is an extremely harsh remedy that should only be available as a last resort and with greatly increased limitations and protections for the owner. I want to stop these foreclosures for $250 and $2500 in attorney fees, and I think nonjudicial foreclosure should be legally prohibited.
But to take away the foreclosure power completely is the wrong way to go, it seems to me. Banning HOA foreclosure is premised on the illusion that there is somebody else to pay the bills, some pocketbook or cash trove somewhere that will pay the pool cleaning company and resurface the streets. But there isn't. There is no getting around the fact that when you buy into an HOA you take on a major financial responsibility. If the association doesn't pay its bills, then IT will become the debtor, and IT will be getting attacked by collection agencies.
The way things are shaping up I think even with foreclosure power many more associations are going to be in wobbly shape in the near future. If associations can't keep the flow of assessments coming in because people feel they have no teeth, it will be that much harder.
And if you are pro-owner, if you want owners to be happy, you don't want their association to be in financial trouble. I just can't see how increasing the financial fragility of HOAs is good for owners, and if somebody can, please explain it to me. The biggest problem potentially facing owners--one I think the owner groups should think about fixing legislatively--is what I call the "bottomless pit" liability of individual owners for corporate debts and liabilities. The law is shaping up so that the owners are going to be stuck with the bills for BOD-generated liabilities, non-dischargable in corporate bankruptcy--(see Le Parc and Oak Park Calabasas). That would include debts and tort judgements. This is a frightening prospect indeed. Jim Lingl, an attorney who does a lot of legislative work in California, is trying to get a bill passed that would protect owners against this sort of thing. If you have a story to tell him about such an incident, send him an e-mail at lingllaw@aol.com
Sunday, March 21, 2004
Big push for 'reform' sidesteps real issues
Here is attorney Scott Carpenter's counterpoint to the issues Pat Haruff addresses in the article linked below. Carpenter is a big supporter of HOA foreclosure powers.
Here is attorney Scott Carpenter's counterpoint to the issues Pat Haruff addresses in the article linked below. Carpenter is a big supporter of HOA foreclosure powers.
Time to rein in folks who prey and profit
This is an article by Arizona's CHORE activist Pat Haruff about HB 2402, a bill in the state legislature that would restrict HOA ability to foreclose on liens.
This is an article by Arizona's CHORE activist Pat Haruff about HB 2402, a bill in the state legislature that would restrict HOA ability to foreclose on liens.
baltimoresun.com - Barking loudly as CA watchdog is alliance's goal
Columbia is one of the largest planned communities in America and has had a lot of good press over the years, but it was recently the subject of a series of newspaper articles that mainly focused on problems.
Columbia is one of the largest planned communities in America and has had a lot of good press over the years, but it was recently the subject of a series of newspaper articles that mainly focused on problems.
Another Case of Guilt by Association
More HOA violence, this time with a 78 year old woman as the victim. Here's a passage from the article by columnist Dana Parsons"
"When people sense that the person lording power over them is being unreasonable, the resentments and frustrations build. Sometimes, they explode with disastrous consequences. Homeowners association board members can satisfy themselves simply by saying that violence is the fault of the perpetrator. It is, to be sure. But if only for their own preservation, why not take a moment and ask why that violence sometimes comes looking for them."
That's a surprisingly unsympathetic take on a man allegedly thumping an elderly woman, I'd say. Sounds a bit like the old "She had it coming" philosophy on rape. I wonder how the victim feels, reading that in the Los Angeles Times. Similar sentiments are popping up in owner activist newsgroups, with some people calling her vulgar names. They don't know her, of course--they are just slandering her because she is an HOA director and that's enough.
So, do some people want an open season on BOD members?
More HOA violence, this time with a 78 year old woman as the victim. Here's a passage from the article by columnist Dana Parsons"
"When people sense that the person lording power over them is being unreasonable, the resentments and frustrations build. Sometimes, they explode with disastrous consequences. Homeowners association board members can satisfy themselves simply by saying that violence is the fault of the perpetrator. It is, to be sure. But if only for their own preservation, why not take a moment and ask why that violence sometimes comes looking for them."
That's a surprisingly unsympathetic take on a man allegedly thumping an elderly woman, I'd say. Sounds a bit like the old "She had it coming" philosophy on rape. I wonder how the victim feels, reading that in the Los Angeles Times. Similar sentiments are popping up in owner activist newsgroups, with some people calling her vulgar names. They don't know her, of course--they are just slandering her because she is an HOA director and that's enough.
So, do some people want an open season on BOD members?
Saturday, March 20, 2004
Interlude...Night of the Living Lobsters...
Frozen Lobsters Brought Back To Life
Jay Lindsay, Associated Press
Thursday, March 18, 2004
BOSTON -- Call it cryonics for crustaceans. A Connecticut company says its frozen lobsters sometimes come back to life when thawed.
Trufresh began freezing lobsters with a technique it used for years on salmon after an offhand suggestion by some workers. It found that some lobsters revived after their subzero sojourns.
Now, Trufresh is looking for partners to begin selling the lobsters commercially. The company was scheduled to attend the International Boston Seafood Show, which began Sunday, armed with video showing two undead lobsters squirming around after being frozen stiff in a minus-40 degree chemical brine for several minutes.
Read it for yourself...and fear the lobster tank...
Frozen Lobsters Brought Back To Life
Jay Lindsay, Associated Press
Thursday, March 18, 2004
BOSTON -- Call it cryonics for crustaceans. A Connecticut company says its frozen lobsters sometimes come back to life when thawed.
Trufresh began freezing lobsters with a technique it used for years on salmon after an offhand suggestion by some workers. It found that some lobsters revived after their subzero sojourns.
Now, Trufresh is looking for partners to begin selling the lobsters commercially. The company was scheduled to attend the International Boston Seafood Show, which began Sunday, armed with video showing two undead lobsters squirming around after being frozen stiff in a minus-40 degree chemical brine for several minutes.
Read it for yourself...and fear the lobster tank...
"Meeting turns violent; two arrested"--down in sunny Florida, where people retire to enjoy a life of serenity...I have highlighted a couple of the juicy details and taken out people's names, replacing them with letters. Kafka-like of me, don't you think?
By Lee Helscel © South Marion Citizen
03/19/2004
(what follows is the first few graphs of the story--link to the whole thing follows)
A meeting of approximately 135 homeowners to discuss issues they have with the developer of Cherrywood Estates and to explore forming a homeowners association ended abruptly March 11. Before it ended tempers flared, a man was given the bum's rush and two men were arrested by Marion County Sheriff's deputies.
About 35 minutes into the 6 p.m. meeting, one of the organizers, C, spotted the developer's field superintendent, H, in the audience. At the time, C had finished speaking, and co-organizer of the meeting, B, was at the podium in the community room at Queen of Peace Catholic Church.
C walked to the back of the room and asked H to leave. When the non-Cherrywood resident declined to go, C and the crowd gathering around them began demanding that he leave, with shouts of, "You don't belong here."
When residents discovered C's tape recorder on the table, the men around the 41-year-old man began to get angry and demanding that he leave. At least one man placed his hands briefly around H's neck.
H, who remained passive during the incident, later said two men, at different times, grabbed him around the neck with their hands. A Sheriff's report notes a one-and-a-half-inch abrasion on the left side of H's neck was consistent with being grabbed around the neck.
During the scuffle a man identified as T allegedly picked up a chair, as if to hit H with it, the report charged. There were two or three persons between H and the man with the chair, and did it didn't appear as if the man was able to swing the impromptu weapon. He set it was set aside.
H's tape recorder was taken from him and the half-dozen men around him were becoming more vocal and adamant about getting the perceived intruder out the meeting. Collectively they got him out of his chair as a woman, identified as K, positioned herself between H and the crowd as he made his way to the door.
The Cyber Citizens for Justice web site has the whole story--things definitely got out of hand.
By Lee Helscel © South Marion Citizen
03/19/2004
(what follows is the first few graphs of the story--link to the whole thing follows)
A meeting of approximately 135 homeowners to discuss issues they have with the developer of Cherrywood Estates and to explore forming a homeowners association ended abruptly March 11. Before it ended tempers flared, a man was given the bum's rush and two men were arrested by Marion County Sheriff's deputies.
About 35 minutes into the 6 p.m. meeting, one of the organizers, C, spotted the developer's field superintendent, H, in the audience. At the time, C had finished speaking, and co-organizer of the meeting, B, was at the podium in the community room at Queen of Peace Catholic Church.
C walked to the back of the room and asked H to leave. When the non-Cherrywood resident declined to go, C and the crowd gathering around them began demanding that he leave, with shouts of, "You don't belong here."
When residents discovered C's tape recorder on the table, the men around the 41-year-old man began to get angry and demanding that he leave. At least one man placed his hands briefly around H's neck.
H, who remained passive during the incident, later said two men, at different times, grabbed him around the neck with their hands. A Sheriff's report notes a one-and-a-half-inch abrasion on the left side of H's neck was consistent with being grabbed around the neck.
During the scuffle a man identified as T allegedly picked up a chair, as if to hit H with it, the report charged. There were two or three persons between H and the man with the chair, and did it didn't appear as if the man was able to swing the impromptu weapon. He set it was set aside.
H's tape recorder was taken from him and the half-dozen men around him were becoming more vocal and adamant about getting the perceived intruder out the meeting. Collectively they got him out of his chair as a woman, identified as K, positioned herself between H and the crowd as he made his way to the door.
The Cyber Citizens for Justice web site has the whole story--things definitely got out of hand.
Monday, March 15, 2004
...and still more on foreclosure...
I have received numerous e-mails from people about my foreclosure posts. Here's an answer I drafted this morning to one of them, from an Arizona resident who informed me that the legislative proposal for a 7 year waiting period to foreclose has been cut to 3 years. She is against it and she's right--it's still a bad idea. Here's why:
---as I said this morning to my correspondent from AZ...
There certainly need to be limits on the power of foreclosure, but they should not be arbitrary or overly burdensome. This three year time limit is both. This time limit proposal puts the burden for correction on the homeowners who pay their assessments. That is just plain ridiculous, because they are not the problem. The highly-publicized disastrous examples that spawned this legislative reaction are the result of procedures that allow for abuse. The problem is not that HOAs foreclose too soon--the problem is that there are lawyers who abuse the process. I would prefer a monetary limit rather than a time limit, along with other procedural reforms (see below).
This 3 year limit would be very hard on the conscientious owners who pay, and especially in the small developments (fewer than 100 units) that form the bulk of recent development. For small associations with few members, waiting three years means that for the entire term, those who pay are carrying on their backs those who don't. That is a lot to ask of people who are, after all, usually of the same general economic status as the non-payer.
And if there is an emergency that requires a special assessment, the burden gets much worse--not only do they have to come up with a big lump sum for their own unit, but they have to pay a share of their neighbor's as well. The "snowballing" or "tipping" or "critical mass" nature of this is obvious--it will increase the likelihood that more and more people will go into arrears, increasing the burden on those who remain, etc., until the whole financial capacity of the association collapses.
The timing of these proposals couldn't be worse. This is absolutely the worst possible time to start limiting the powers of associations to meet their financial obligations. Here's why.
As association property ages, the need for major repairs becomes a certainty--it is literally just a matter of time, and the clock is ticking on an enormous amount of common interest housing constructed in the 1980s and 1990s. There are usually insufficient reserves to pay for these major repairs. That means special assessments and borrowing become necessary. The biggest "sleeper" issue facing common interest housing is unlimited "bottomless pit" financial liability for major repairs that would fall ultimately on the individual owner--I repeat: on the individual owner.
The Le Parc case and the Oak Park Calabasas case in California are great examples of this, where association boards incurred multi-million dollar liabilities (in the form of contract and tort judgments) in disputes with contractors over major repairs, and then the HOA corporation files for bankruptcy because they can't pay. The bankruptcy judges said that the creditors can proceed directly against the assets of the individual owners for the liabilities of the corporation.
This is potentially a huge problem. If associations can't foreclose for three years on those who don't pay, the ultimate burden falls on those who are paying--without any limit, because these massive association liabilities can't be discharged in bankruptcy.
Who would want to buy a unit of common interest housing knowing all this? Knowing that you are not only agreeing to limits on the use of your property, and to pay your share of assessments--but to pay a share of your neighbor's as well, and that it could end up costing you everything you have? Of all the times to impair associations' financial capabilities, this is absolutely the worst. What next? A law mandating that all these possible financial obligations--for neighbors who don't pay, and for association culpability--be disclosed to prospective purchasers? Is the intent to kill the market completely? I know that's what many HOA activists want, but does the legislature want that, too?
The other main reason legislative blocking of foreclosures is a bad idea has to do with the banking and mortgage insurance businesses. These proposals would make common interest housing a riskier investment for mortage lenders and mortgage insurers, because the association's ability to maintain the common property (which is of course part of the value of the mortgage) would be greatly reduced. Most associations run on a shoestring as it is. Increased risk means increased costs for the owners.
The real problem is not the existence of the foreclosure power--it is abuse of the process by some unscrupulous attorneys who can't get people into foreclosure fast enough.
I think a better set of reforms would include:
1. Eliminating nonjudicial foreclosure, leaving only judicial procedures; it is in the NJF process that most of the abuses have been uncovered. Judicial supervision would prevent most of this. Taking people's homes away is serious business, and it should be approved by a judge before it happens.
2. Limit attorney fees, especially for trivial, automated tasks like sending a computer generated letter
3. Allow foreclosure for the amount of the assessments and late charges only, not the attorney fees. Let the attorney go after personal assets. The justification for allowing foreclosure is to keep the association solvent, not to make the lawyer rich.
4. Monetary limits, rather than time limits, to prevent foreclosure for tiny amounts of assessments and thousands in attorney fees. What should the amount be? I would think at least $1000 in assessments should be at stake, but that would need to be talked about.
5. Procedural restrictions to guarantee that this is a real, good-faith, non-payment situation and not a ripoff, such as requiring the HOA to prove up due diligence in offering a payment plan before foreclosing, and proving that it is not one of these cases where the delinquent owner was turned away when he/she tried to pay because the check was off by fifty cents or some such nonsense.
I could go on, but the point is that foreclosure should be reformed--just not with this time limit approach. The problem is a small number of predatory lawyers who abuse the process, and sleepwalking boards of directors who do whatever the lawyer tells them to do. Fix that problem. Change the procedures to make them fair.
I have received numerous e-mails from people about my foreclosure posts. Here's an answer I drafted this morning to one of them, from an Arizona resident who informed me that the legislative proposal for a 7 year waiting period to foreclose has been cut to 3 years. She is against it and she's right--it's still a bad idea. Here's why:
---as I said this morning to my correspondent from AZ...
There certainly need to be limits on the power of foreclosure, but they should not be arbitrary or overly burdensome. This three year time limit is both. This time limit proposal puts the burden for correction on the homeowners who pay their assessments. That is just plain ridiculous, because they are not the problem. The highly-publicized disastrous examples that spawned this legislative reaction are the result of procedures that allow for abuse. The problem is not that HOAs foreclose too soon--the problem is that there are lawyers who abuse the process. I would prefer a monetary limit rather than a time limit, along with other procedural reforms (see below).
This 3 year limit would be very hard on the conscientious owners who pay, and especially in the small developments (fewer than 100 units) that form the bulk of recent development. For small associations with few members, waiting three years means that for the entire term, those who pay are carrying on their backs those who don't. That is a lot to ask of people who are, after all, usually of the same general economic status as the non-payer.
And if there is an emergency that requires a special assessment, the burden gets much worse--not only do they have to come up with a big lump sum for their own unit, but they have to pay a share of their neighbor's as well. The "snowballing" or "tipping" or "critical mass" nature of this is obvious--it will increase the likelihood that more and more people will go into arrears, increasing the burden on those who remain, etc., until the whole financial capacity of the association collapses.
The timing of these proposals couldn't be worse. This is absolutely the worst possible time to start limiting the powers of associations to meet their financial obligations. Here's why.
As association property ages, the need for major repairs becomes a certainty--it is literally just a matter of time, and the clock is ticking on an enormous amount of common interest housing constructed in the 1980s and 1990s. There are usually insufficient reserves to pay for these major repairs. That means special assessments and borrowing become necessary. The biggest "sleeper" issue facing common interest housing is unlimited "bottomless pit" financial liability for major repairs that would fall ultimately on the individual owner--I repeat: on the individual owner.
The Le Parc case and the Oak Park Calabasas case in California are great examples of this, where association boards incurred multi-million dollar liabilities (in the form of contract and tort judgments) in disputes with contractors over major repairs, and then the HOA corporation files for bankruptcy because they can't pay. The bankruptcy judges said that the creditors can proceed directly against the assets of the individual owners for the liabilities of the corporation.
This is potentially a huge problem. If associations can't foreclose for three years on those who don't pay, the ultimate burden falls on those who are paying--without any limit, because these massive association liabilities can't be discharged in bankruptcy.
Who would want to buy a unit of common interest housing knowing all this? Knowing that you are not only agreeing to limits on the use of your property, and to pay your share of assessments--but to pay a share of your neighbor's as well, and that it could end up costing you everything you have? Of all the times to impair associations' financial capabilities, this is absolutely the worst. What next? A law mandating that all these possible financial obligations--for neighbors who don't pay, and for association culpability--be disclosed to prospective purchasers? Is the intent to kill the market completely? I know that's what many HOA activists want, but does the legislature want that, too?
The other main reason legislative blocking of foreclosures is a bad idea has to do with the banking and mortgage insurance businesses. These proposals would make common interest housing a riskier investment for mortage lenders and mortgage insurers, because the association's ability to maintain the common property (which is of course part of the value of the mortgage) would be greatly reduced. Most associations run on a shoestring as it is. Increased risk means increased costs for the owners.
The real problem is not the existence of the foreclosure power--it is abuse of the process by some unscrupulous attorneys who can't get people into foreclosure fast enough.
I think a better set of reforms would include:
1. Eliminating nonjudicial foreclosure, leaving only judicial procedures; it is in the NJF process that most of the abuses have been uncovered. Judicial supervision would prevent most of this. Taking people's homes away is serious business, and it should be approved by a judge before it happens.
2. Limit attorney fees, especially for trivial, automated tasks like sending a computer generated letter
3. Allow foreclosure for the amount of the assessments and late charges only, not the attorney fees. Let the attorney go after personal assets. The justification for allowing foreclosure is to keep the association solvent, not to make the lawyer rich.
4. Monetary limits, rather than time limits, to prevent foreclosure for tiny amounts of assessments and thousands in attorney fees. What should the amount be? I would think at least $1000 in assessments should be at stake, but that would need to be talked about.
5. Procedural restrictions to guarantee that this is a real, good-faith, non-payment situation and not a ripoff, such as requiring the HOA to prove up due diligence in offering a payment plan before foreclosing, and proving that it is not one of these cases where the delinquent owner was turned away when he/she tried to pay because the check was off by fifty cents or some such nonsense.
I could go on, but the point is that foreclosure should be reformed--just not with this time limit approach. The problem is a small number of predatory lawyers who abuse the process, and sleepwalking boards of directors who do whatever the lawyer tells them to do. Fix that problem. Change the procedures to make them fair.
Sunday, March 14, 2004
Beware Dihydrogen Monoxide!
City falls victim to Internet hoax, considers banning items made with water
The Associated Press
Last Updated 3:40 a.m. PST Sunday, March 14, 2004
ALISO VIEJO, Calif. (AP) - City officials were so concerned about the potentially dangerous properties of dihydrogen monoxide that they considered banning foam cups after they learned the chemical was used in their production.
Then they learned that dihydrogen monoxide - H2O for short - is the scientific term for water.
Isn't Aliso Viejo in Orange County, CA, ground zero for CID housing?
City falls victim to Internet hoax, considers banning items made with water
The Associated Press
Last Updated 3:40 a.m. PST Sunday, March 14, 2004
ALISO VIEJO, Calif. (AP) - City officials were so concerned about the potentially dangerous properties of dihydrogen monoxide that they considered banning foam cups after they learned the chemical was used in their production.
Then they learned that dihydrogen monoxide - H2O for short - is the scientific term for water.
Isn't Aliso Viejo in Orange County, CA, ground zero for CID housing?
Saturday, March 13, 2004
More on foreclosure
Some people in the anti-HOA activist ranks are angry because I said yesterday that, although I think nonjudicial foreclosure should be banned, associations need to have recourse to foreclosure to collect unpaid assessments (but not fines--that's a different issue). That means judicial foreclosure, where the association has to file a lawsuit and a judge makes the final decision after hearing from both sides. I'm talking about a last resort, with procedural protections against abuse and with limits on attorney fees.
Some of these anti-HOA activist comments make good points about issues like homestead protection, how long should statutes mandate before foreclosure is allowed, and so forth. All good points. They have answers, and in many states such protections and time limits already exist. The problem with NJF is that there is no lawsuit and no judge and no protections--it is a draconian practice that should be banned because it can't be fixed to make it fair.
But the loudest complainers, as usual, show the same characteristics. One is the typical tone--uncivil rage, peppered with insults and vulgarity. Another is the refusal to deal with inconvenient facts or arguments, better known as "reality." A third is the lack of any alternative that would allow HOAs to continue functioning, and advocating instead for positions that would almost certainly destroy common interest housing and leave millions of people in major financial trouble. That, of course, is the hidden agenda of some of these folks.
Here are some of the inconvenient facts: (1) The vast majority of associations are under-reserved already. (2) As housing built during the 1980s and 1990s ages, the need to maintain, repair, and replace commonly owned property is increasing every day, leading to major special assessments (see below) all over the nation. (3) People typically spend as much on a house as they can possibly qualify for, which means more house than they can really afford, so they are often house-poor. (4) We are in a soft employment market that could last for years, in which white collar workers are losing jobs and staying unemployed longer than before. (5) When money gets tight, the first homeowner expense people try to shirk is their HOA assessments. If push comes to shove, they will make their house payment and their property tax payment and their homeowner insurance payment (both of the latter often escrowed into their house payment anyway), and not pay their HOA assessment. (6) When people don't pay their assessments, the rest of the owners get stuck paying in their stead. That makes the non-payers "free riders" on the backs of those who are paying. (7) Real property deteriorates quickly if it isn't maintained--the cost of necessary repair snowballs fast when water starts coming in.
All the above is basically simple math and common sense, and everybody who knows anything about common interest housing knows it is all true. Property and debt collection laws vary from state to state, but all I can say is I don't think associations can remain solvent if all they can do is go after people's wages and personal assets--cars, boats, bank accounts, and so forth. Like it or not, there are people who get very good at not owning things that can be attached by judgment creditors. HOAs would end up competing with all the other creditors--credit card companies, tax collectors, etc.--for the money they need to fix the roof this month. Net result: the existing owners bear the burden for the non-payers.
That is a completely unsustainable situation. The owners who pay would go deeper in the hole covering for those who didn't, and then more of them would stop paying the increased assessments, increasing the burden on those who still do, who would then stop. This is what we call a "tipping" or "critical mass" phenomenon, and you can cound on it happening.
So, knowing all this, why do people say that associations should not be allowed to foreclose, no matter how far in arrears an owner goes?
Simple. The obvious intent some people have is to create a legal environment in which HOA owners can ignore all the obligations that are contained in their governing documents, tell their board to sod off, and live exactly as they would if they had bought conventional single family housing. No assessments to pay, no rules to follow. They would make association obligations voluntary instead of mandatory. If you have no commonly owned property to maintain, that might be just fine with most owners and that's why some associations with no common property have just sort of disappeared. But if you do have common property, it's not fine at all.
That situation would, of course, leave the entire burden of paying assessments and following rules and maintaining commonly owned property to those who voluntarily chose to do so. They would carry the burden--in this case, the assessment burden--for all the unit owners. That would never work, for the reasons described above. Soon nobody would pay or obey because it would be economically irrational to do so.
I've always been against associations having dictatorial power. I'm also against going to the opposite extreme and leaving them powerless. If we go from banana republics to failed states, most people won't like the latter any better than the former, and somebody will have to pick up the pieces of failed CIDs. Who will that be?
But maybe that is exactly what will happen. Maybe this will be the year when associations take their biggest hit in state legislatures. It is an election year, and legislators have proven themselves to be capable of most anything at such times. There have been so many outrageous and highly publicized abuses of the foreclosure power by unscrupulous lawyers that there may well be a kind of legislative over-reaction. I have been warning the industry about this sort of reaction for years, with very limited success, but it's not something I want to be right about at long last, because a lot of ordinary HOA residents may be the ones to suffer.
I don't want to be right about assocation abuses leading to bad reforms. I also don't want to be right about what those reforms will bring about.
Some people in the anti-HOA activist ranks are angry because I said yesterday that, although I think nonjudicial foreclosure should be banned, associations need to have recourse to foreclosure to collect unpaid assessments (but not fines--that's a different issue). That means judicial foreclosure, where the association has to file a lawsuit and a judge makes the final decision after hearing from both sides. I'm talking about a last resort, with procedural protections against abuse and with limits on attorney fees.
Some of these anti-HOA activist comments make good points about issues like homestead protection, how long should statutes mandate before foreclosure is allowed, and so forth. All good points. They have answers, and in many states such protections and time limits already exist. The problem with NJF is that there is no lawsuit and no judge and no protections--it is a draconian practice that should be banned because it can't be fixed to make it fair.
But the loudest complainers, as usual, show the same characteristics. One is the typical tone--uncivil rage, peppered with insults and vulgarity. Another is the refusal to deal with inconvenient facts or arguments, better known as "reality." A third is the lack of any alternative that would allow HOAs to continue functioning, and advocating instead for positions that would almost certainly destroy common interest housing and leave millions of people in major financial trouble. That, of course, is the hidden agenda of some of these folks.
Here are some of the inconvenient facts: (1) The vast majority of associations are under-reserved already. (2) As housing built during the 1980s and 1990s ages, the need to maintain, repair, and replace commonly owned property is increasing every day, leading to major special assessments (see below) all over the nation. (3) People typically spend as much on a house as they can possibly qualify for, which means more house than they can really afford, so they are often house-poor. (4) We are in a soft employment market that could last for years, in which white collar workers are losing jobs and staying unemployed longer than before. (5) When money gets tight, the first homeowner expense people try to shirk is their HOA assessments. If push comes to shove, they will make their house payment and their property tax payment and their homeowner insurance payment (both of the latter often escrowed into their house payment anyway), and not pay their HOA assessment. (6) When people don't pay their assessments, the rest of the owners get stuck paying in their stead. That makes the non-payers "free riders" on the backs of those who are paying. (7) Real property deteriorates quickly if it isn't maintained--the cost of necessary repair snowballs fast when water starts coming in.
All the above is basically simple math and common sense, and everybody who knows anything about common interest housing knows it is all true. Property and debt collection laws vary from state to state, but all I can say is I don't think associations can remain solvent if all they can do is go after people's wages and personal assets--cars, boats, bank accounts, and so forth. Like it or not, there are people who get very good at not owning things that can be attached by judgment creditors. HOAs would end up competing with all the other creditors--credit card companies, tax collectors, etc.--for the money they need to fix the roof this month. Net result: the existing owners bear the burden for the non-payers.
That is a completely unsustainable situation. The owners who pay would go deeper in the hole covering for those who didn't, and then more of them would stop paying the increased assessments, increasing the burden on those who still do, who would then stop. This is what we call a "tipping" or "critical mass" phenomenon, and you can cound on it happening.
So, knowing all this, why do people say that associations should not be allowed to foreclose, no matter how far in arrears an owner goes?
Simple. The obvious intent some people have is to create a legal environment in which HOA owners can ignore all the obligations that are contained in their governing documents, tell their board to sod off, and live exactly as they would if they had bought conventional single family housing. No assessments to pay, no rules to follow. They would make association obligations voluntary instead of mandatory. If you have no commonly owned property to maintain, that might be just fine with most owners and that's why some associations with no common property have just sort of disappeared. But if you do have common property, it's not fine at all.
That situation would, of course, leave the entire burden of paying assessments and following rules and maintaining commonly owned property to those who voluntarily chose to do so. They would carry the burden--in this case, the assessment burden--for all the unit owners. That would never work, for the reasons described above. Soon nobody would pay or obey because it would be economically irrational to do so.
I've always been against associations having dictatorial power. I'm also against going to the opposite extreme and leaving them powerless. If we go from banana republics to failed states, most people won't like the latter any better than the former, and somebody will have to pick up the pieces of failed CIDs. Who will that be?
But maybe that is exactly what will happen. Maybe this will be the year when associations take their biggest hit in state legislatures. It is an election year, and legislators have proven themselves to be capable of most anything at such times. There have been so many outrageous and highly publicized abuses of the foreclosure power by unscrupulous lawyers that there may well be a kind of legislative over-reaction. I have been warning the industry about this sort of reaction for years, with very limited success, but it's not something I want to be right about at long last, because a lot of ordinary HOA residents may be the ones to suffer.
I don't want to be right about assocation abuses leading to bad reforms. I also don't want to be right about what those reforms will bring about.
Friday, March 12, 2004
How about "Lexusville"?
L.A. Considers Selling Its Name
Friday, March 12, 2004
LOS ANGELES — It’s home to fun, sun and Hollywood glamour -- and now the city of Los Angeles may be lending its name and image to the highest bidder.
Leaders of the cash-strapped city are considering selling the naming rights for Los Angeles to a variety of products. Coke or Pepsi could be the city’s official soft drink, for instance, and Lexus or BMW the official automobile.
Lawmakers say the choice for a budget-crunched city like Los Angeles comes down to raising taxes or finding other ways of raising necessary funds. New York and San Diego are already in the sponsorship game and are making millions.
.......
Read the rest so you won't think I'm making this up.
L.A. Considers Selling Its Name
Friday, March 12, 2004
LOS ANGELES — It’s home to fun, sun and Hollywood glamour -- and now the city of Los Angeles may be lending its name and image to the highest bidder.
Leaders of the cash-strapped city are considering selling the naming rights for Los Angeles to a variety of products. Coke or Pepsi could be the city’s official soft drink, for instance, and Lexus or BMW the official automobile.
Lawmakers say the choice for a budget-crunched city like Los Angeles comes down to raising taxes or finding other ways of raising necessary funds. New York and San Diego are already in the sponsorship game and are making millions.
.......
Read the rest so you won't think I'm making this up.
The plain truth about HOA foreclosures...
Homeowner Association Foreclosures: California Senate Housing Committee HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION FORECLOSURE HEARINGS
(My comments on foreclosure follow this is except from a BACKGROUND PAPER on
"HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION FORECLOSURE: DOES THE PUNISHMENT FIT THE OFFENSE?"
by Mark Stivers - Chief Consultant - California Senate Housing & Community Development
-----------------excerpt begins----------
...
Statistics show that homeowner associations foreclose on members homes for relatively small amounts of delinquent assessments in comparison to non-CID creditors. A 2001 study done by Sentinel Fair Housing conducted an evaluation of foreclosures in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Sacramento counties. The analysis reported that median amount owed in homeowner association foreclosures was $2,557; the median amount in all other cases was $190,000. The recent example of the Copperopolis family who lost their home for $120 could be seen as a extreme example but it demonstrates the legal authority that associations posses to foreclose for negligible amounts.
Associations primarily use non-judicial foreclosure which does not require review by a court. The California Civil Code stipulates that non-judicial foreclosure must be afforded basic due process and must be conducted "with fairness, openness and scrupulous integrity and the trustee must exercise sound discretion to protect the rights of all interested parties and obtain the best possible price." Several legal cases have asserted that the courts will scrutinize all non-judicial foreclosure sales for fairness and for a gross inadequacy of price . Although there are existing legal protections for the homeowner, in reality it is difficult for individual property owners to challenge the actions of the homeowner associations through the legal process after the fact.
Individuals who lose their home via the CID non-judicial foreclosure process often lose a significant amount of their equity due to the small amounts at which the homes are sold in auction. The minimum bid at sale is the amount owed to the homeowners association, regardless of how much the home is worth. In contrast, the judicial foreclosure process mandates that the minimum bid at foreclosure sale cover the amount owed, any junior liens, and the homestead amount which ranges from $50,000 to $150,000.
Alternatives to Non-Judicial Foreclosure
CID non-judicial foreclosures are unique in comparison to the process that most creditors must follow to collect on debts. Most creditors must go through the judicial process in a attempt to garner a judgement; once a judgement is obtained the court has the sole authority to stipulate the appropriate recourse to collect. Claims that are less than $5,000 could be handled in small claims courts which alleviates many of the legal and monetary obstacles to using the judicial process. Judgements can then be enforced through wage garnishments, liens on property and, ultimately, by judicial foreclosure.
In a judicial foreclosure the lender must file a lawsuit in the superior court of the county in which the property is located. The property owner must be served with a copy of the summons and complaint for foreclosure; a judicial foreclosure can take up to three years to complete. Foreclosure on a property under these provisions is subject to the homestead exemption, which protects the homeowner's equity in the property. The homestead exemption equals $50,000 for an individual, $75,000 for a family, or $150,000 for a person who is a senior or disabled.
...
----------------excerpt ends--------------
My comments:
So, what should be done? In my opinions, HOAs should not be allowed to use nonjudicial foreclosure. The practice is being abused by a small number of collections attorneys who have invaded the field of community association law but who in reality wouldn't recognize "community" if it walked up and bit them on the butt. These folks are community destroyers--the HOA version of divorce lawyers. Their goal is foreclosure, not collection of delinquent assessments.
But I do believe that HOAs need to have recourse to judicial foreclosure as a last resort. Associations need to get paid. They must be able to defend themselves against chronic deadbeats, or disaster will result for those who are paying their assessments as they are forced to carry the load for the free riders. Associations don't have the resources to cushion them for years of non-payment by a significant number of residents.
Leaving associations only with recourse to debtors' personal assets--garnishment, attachment, and so forth--will crush many innocent, dues-paying members, and eventually lead to association insolvency. At least, that's the way it looks to me.
Homeowner Association Foreclosures: California Senate Housing Committee HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION FORECLOSURE HEARINGS
(My comments on foreclosure follow this is except from a BACKGROUND PAPER on
"HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION FORECLOSURE: DOES THE PUNISHMENT FIT THE OFFENSE?"
by Mark Stivers - Chief Consultant - California Senate Housing & Community Development
-----------------excerpt begins----------
...
Statistics show that homeowner associations foreclose on members homes for relatively small amounts of delinquent assessments in comparison to non-CID creditors. A 2001 study done by Sentinel Fair Housing conducted an evaluation of foreclosures in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Sacramento counties. The analysis reported that median amount owed in homeowner association foreclosures was $2,557; the median amount in all other cases was $190,000. The recent example of the Copperopolis family who lost their home for $120 could be seen as a extreme example but it demonstrates the legal authority that associations posses to foreclose for negligible amounts.
Associations primarily use non-judicial foreclosure which does not require review by a court. The California Civil Code stipulates that non-judicial foreclosure must be afforded basic due process and must be conducted "with fairness, openness and scrupulous integrity and the trustee must exercise sound discretion to protect the rights of all interested parties and obtain the best possible price." Several legal cases have asserted that the courts will scrutinize all non-judicial foreclosure sales for fairness and for a gross inadequacy of price . Although there are existing legal protections for the homeowner, in reality it is difficult for individual property owners to challenge the actions of the homeowner associations through the legal process after the fact.
Individuals who lose their home via the CID non-judicial foreclosure process often lose a significant amount of their equity due to the small amounts at which the homes are sold in auction. The minimum bid at sale is the amount owed to the homeowners association, regardless of how much the home is worth. In contrast, the judicial foreclosure process mandates that the minimum bid at foreclosure sale cover the amount owed, any junior liens, and the homestead amount which ranges from $50,000 to $150,000.
Alternatives to Non-Judicial Foreclosure
CID non-judicial foreclosures are unique in comparison to the process that most creditors must follow to collect on debts. Most creditors must go through the judicial process in a attempt to garner a judgement; once a judgement is obtained the court has the sole authority to stipulate the appropriate recourse to collect. Claims that are less than $5,000 could be handled in small claims courts which alleviates many of the legal and monetary obstacles to using the judicial process. Judgements can then be enforced through wage garnishments, liens on property and, ultimately, by judicial foreclosure.
In a judicial foreclosure the lender must file a lawsuit in the superior court of the county in which the property is located. The property owner must be served with a copy of the summons and complaint for foreclosure; a judicial foreclosure can take up to three years to complete. Foreclosure on a property under these provisions is subject to the homestead exemption, which protects the homeowner's equity in the property. The homestead exemption equals $50,000 for an individual, $75,000 for a family, or $150,000 for a person who is a senior or disabled.
...
----------------excerpt ends--------------
My comments:
So, what should be done? In my opinions, HOAs should not be allowed to use nonjudicial foreclosure. The practice is being abused by a small number of collections attorneys who have invaded the field of community association law but who in reality wouldn't recognize "community" if it walked up and bit them on the butt. These folks are community destroyers--the HOA version of divorce lawyers. Their goal is foreclosure, not collection of delinquent assessments.
But I do believe that HOAs need to have recourse to judicial foreclosure as a last resort. Associations need to get paid. They must be able to defend themselves against chronic deadbeats, or disaster will result for those who are paying their assessments as they are forced to carry the load for the free riders. Associations don't have the resources to cushion them for years of non-payment by a significant number of residents.
Leaving associations only with recourse to debtors' personal assets--garnishment, attachment, and so forth--will crush many innocent, dues-paying members, and eventually lead to association insolvency. At least, that's the way it looks to me.
Bad day in Druid Woods...
Condo residents get sticker shock
Druid Woods board assesses owners $7,650
By CHRISTOPHER QUINN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 02/29/04
Connie Hansard Perry stopped to pick up her mail Christmas Eve and saw a 77-year-old neighbor in Druid Woods condominiums, open letter in hand, sobbing.
Though Perry had a houseful of Christmas guests to attend to, she took time to try to comfort her friend.
Perry herself soon would need comforting. The letter was from the condo association board.
It said the 140owners in the Decatur complex owed the association $7,650 each. The association needed the money to repair water damage to one of five buildings, and owners had until the end of January to pay.
(Thanks to Shu Bartholomew for sending this along)
Condo residents get sticker shock
Druid Woods board assesses owners $7,650
By CHRISTOPHER QUINN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 02/29/04
Connie Hansard Perry stopped to pick up her mail Christmas Eve and saw a 77-year-old neighbor in Druid Woods condominiums, open letter in hand, sobbing.
Though Perry had a houseful of Christmas guests to attend to, she took time to try to comfort her friend.
Perry herself soon would need comforting. The letter was from the condo association board.
It said the 140owners in the Decatur complex owed the association $7,650 each. The association needed the money to repair water damage to one of five buildings, and owners had until the end of January to pay.
(Thanks to Shu Bartholomew for sending this along)
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Disneyland becomes a gated community? Say it ain't so, Mickey!
Security Gates Going Up at Disneyland
By Associated Press
March 10, 2004, 6:29 PM EST
ANAHEIM, Calif. -- Reality is coming to Disneyland's fantasy world, in the form of permanent security gates. Bowing to terrorism fears, the Walt Disney Co. plans to build the gates at the Disneyland Resort next fall. The company had resisted security gates around Disneyland and the California Adventure theme park next door, believing the sense of fantasy would be spoiled.
Read the rest.
Security Gates Going Up at Disneyland
By Associated Press
March 10, 2004, 6:29 PM EST
ANAHEIM, Calif. -- Reality is coming to Disneyland's fantasy world, in the form of permanent security gates. Bowing to terrorism fears, the Walt Disney Co. plans to build the gates at the Disneyland Resort next fall. The company had resisted security gates around Disneyland and the California Adventure theme park next door, believing the sense of fantasy would be spoiled.
Read the rest.
Saturday, March 06, 2004
Fla. Condo Owners Spar Over Board Proposal
Punches Thrown During Meeting
UPDATED: 1:23 p.m. EST March 5, 2004
BOCA RATON, Fla. -- Condominium owners upset over a proposal that would require them to purchase country club memberships got into blows with board members at a meeting Thursday night in Boca Raton. Read all about it...
Punches Thrown During Meeting
UPDATED: 1:23 p.m. EST March 5, 2004
BOCA RATON, Fla. -- Condominium owners upset over a proposal that would require them to purchase country club memberships got into blows with board members at a meeting Thursday night in Boca Raton. Read all about it...
Thursday, March 04, 2004
See you in the courts of appeals...
The trial court decision in Twin Rivers is a split decision that favors the defense. The Committee for a Better Twin Rivers has no standing to be in the case, so that leaves the individual committee members as plaintiffs. Both sides get summary judgment on some causes of action, framing the case for appeal on purely legal grounds. We won some causes of action under PREDFA, a state statute, but lost entirely on the main theory, the "functional equivalent of a municipality" theory. So according to Frank Askin we are headed for the appellate courts, where there is probably a better chance of prevailing. I never expected to win this case at the trial court level because those judges have to take all the heat as individuals whereas appellate justices sit in panels, and also it is hard for trial judges to make precedent setting decisions as that is normally seen as the province of appellate justices. As I see it, to quote King Theoden said at the start of the Battle of Helm's Deep, "So it begins..."
The trial court decision in Twin Rivers is a split decision that favors the defense. The Committee for a Better Twin Rivers has no standing to be in the case, so that leaves the individual committee members as plaintiffs. Both sides get summary judgment on some causes of action, framing the case for appeal on purely legal grounds. We won some causes of action under PREDFA, a state statute, but lost entirely on the main theory, the "functional equivalent of a municipality" theory. So according to Frank Askin we are headed for the appellate courts, where there is probably a better chance of prevailing. I never expected to win this case at the trial court level because those judges have to take all the heat as individuals whereas appellate justices sit in panels, and also it is hard for trial judges to make precedent setting decisions as that is normally seen as the province of appellate justices. As I see it, to quote King Theoden said at the start of the Battle of Helm's Deep, "So it begins..."
Monday, February 16, 2004
Twin Rivers decision tomorrow...
I have it on the best authority that the much-anticipated ruling on the Twin Rivers litigation will be announced to the parties tomorrow (Tuesday, 2/17) at noon. The decision will be released to the press on Wednesday. Stay tuned...
The judge will be deciding whether or not the New Jersey state constitution restricts the activities of "private" homeowner associations that are (in the plaintiffs' view) the functional equivalent of a municipality. If he rules for the plaintiffs, it would be a watershed event in the history of HOAs.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have been arguing in print since 1985 for this basic position, and as the expert witness for the plaintiffs in the Twin Rivers case (the Committee for a Better Twin Rivers) I also have an interest in seeing the side I support win the case.
I have it on the best authority that the much-anticipated ruling on the Twin Rivers litigation will be announced to the parties tomorrow (Tuesday, 2/17) at noon. The decision will be released to the press on Wednesday. Stay tuned...
The judge will be deciding whether or not the New Jersey state constitution restricts the activities of "private" homeowner associations that are (in the plaintiffs' view) the functional equivalent of a municipality. If he rules for the plaintiffs, it would be a watershed event in the history of HOAs.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have been arguing in print since 1985 for this basic position, and as the expert witness for the plaintiffs in the Twin Rivers case (the Committee for a Better Twin Rivers) I also have an interest in seeing the side I support win the case.
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
Long-Distance Picketing: Wave of the Future?
Grocery Workers Protest at Home of Safeway CEO--sort of. Unfortunately for them, he lives in a gated community
from KPIX/KCBS
Wed Jan 28, 4:01 PM ET
Ann Notarangelo
Hundreds of grocery store workers marched on the Alamo estate of Safeway's CEO Wednesday
Some religious leaders from Southern California joined the group in asking for Steve Burd to end a bitter strike in Southern California.
The marchers were stopped about a half-mile from the gates to Burd's home, but later, a delegation of five clergy members were allowed to deliver messages from the union members and their supporters.
Full story here
Thanks to the redoubtable Fred Pilot for the tip to this story. Police, process servers, picketers, presidential candidates...nobody can get into these places. The mighty waves of democracy are crashing into vapor on the gates of private communities--is that about the size of it? There is a French Revolution smell to this whole thing. I wonder what the name of this place is...Thermidor Acres? Robespierre Place? Girondin Gardens?
Grocery Workers Protest at Home of Safeway CEO--sort of. Unfortunately for them, he lives in a gated community
from KPIX/KCBS
Wed Jan 28, 4:01 PM ET
Ann Notarangelo
Hundreds of grocery store workers marched on the Alamo estate of Safeway's CEO Wednesday
Some religious leaders from Southern California joined the group in asking for Steve Burd to end a bitter strike in Southern California.
The marchers were stopped about a half-mile from the gates to Burd's home, but later, a delegation of five clergy members were allowed to deliver messages from the union members and their supporters.
Full story here
Thanks to the redoubtable Fred Pilot for the tip to this story. Police, process servers, picketers, presidential candidates...nobody can get into these places. The mighty waves of democracy are crashing into vapor on the gates of private communities--is that about the size of it? There is a French Revolution smell to this whole thing. I wonder what the name of this place is...Thermidor Acres? Robespierre Place? Girondin Gardens?
Sunday, January 25, 2004
Are local government perennially endangered?
The last quarter century has given us the end of the Great Society programs with their emphasis on federal aid to cities; the property tax revolt that clamped down on the ability of municipalities to jack up property taxes whenever they felt the need; the rise of homeowner associations and other forms of privatized local government alternatives; and a tremendous increase in hiring and spending by local governments. With slashed revenue sources and competition from the private sector, local government as a sector grew like crazy anyway. And all this amid predictions of doom and gloom from pundits like me.
Remember that movie Halloween where the monster keeps gets "killed" but every time, no matter what happens to him, a few minutes later he suddenly sits bolt upright while Jamie Lee Curtis is finally calling the police like she should have done about five minutes into the film?
Now, I'll grant you that some municipalities are indeed in sorry shape. There are some inner-ring Chicago suburbs--Harvey, for example--that are in desperate condition. Crime, no tax base, horrible schools, property values through the floor. I don't know what will become of places like that. But it is surprising how many inner ring suburbs have found some way to make it all work. Maybe they find a way to take advantage of their location, architecture, famous former inhabitants, a natural disaster, some part of the natural environment, a lawsuit--there are many ways.
And even if you can't do any of that, if you can just attract new common interest housing, then you can impose major concessions on the developer ("Build us a new high school!"), followed by impact fees and double taxation of the new HOA residents. And then, Bob's your uncle...life is good.
The last quarter century has given us the end of the Great Society programs with their emphasis on federal aid to cities; the property tax revolt that clamped down on the ability of municipalities to jack up property taxes whenever they felt the need; the rise of homeowner associations and other forms of privatized local government alternatives; and a tremendous increase in hiring and spending by local governments. With slashed revenue sources and competition from the private sector, local government as a sector grew like crazy anyway. And all this amid predictions of doom and gloom from pundits like me.
Remember that movie Halloween where the monster keeps gets "killed" but every time, no matter what happens to him, a few minutes later he suddenly sits bolt upright while Jamie Lee Curtis is finally calling the police like she should have done about five minutes into the film?
Now, I'll grant you that some municipalities are indeed in sorry shape. There are some inner-ring Chicago suburbs--Harvey, for example--that are in desperate condition. Crime, no tax base, horrible schools, property values through the floor. I don't know what will become of places like that. But it is surprising how many inner ring suburbs have found some way to make it all work. Maybe they find a way to take advantage of their location, architecture, famous former inhabitants, a natural disaster, some part of the natural environment, a lawsuit--there are many ways.
And even if you can't do any of that, if you can just attract new common interest housing, then you can impose major concessions on the developer ("Build us a new high school!"), followed by impact fees and double taxation of the new HOA residents. And then, Bob's your uncle...life is good.
Gilbert, AZ, mandating HOAs
Thanks to the Yahoo group "hoanet" for some excellent work on developing the facts on the most important trend in the rise of residential private government: the increasingly common practice of cities requiring developers to create HOAs in new housing as the price of building in lucrative high-density PUD zones. This practice eliminates choice in the new housing market and conscripts people into HOAs whether they want them or not, and then forever after they are told by the courts that they chose HOA living of their own free will.
So...check out Gilbert, AZ, where you can read the Public Review Draft of Article 3.104 B-9 of its Unified Land Development Code. The section provides that, for developers who want to build in the planned development areas where higher density is permitted,
"The Planning Commission may recommend, and the Town Council may impose, conditions of approval including, but not limited to, the following matters:...9. Requirements for establishment of homeowners or property owners associations or other mechanisms to assure continued maintenance of landscape areas, trails, open spaces, shared parking and access areas, homeowners association facilities, fences.."
Now, this is what is being done in other parts of the nation, including right here in Chicago. Builders want to develop in the most desirable and profitable areas where higher density is permitted. Cities require them to create HOAs as a condition of entry into these areas. Why? Because the HOA does the city government's job in large part, and the city collects the same amount of tax dollars from the new owners without having to build the infrastructure or provide services. Pretty sweet, isn't it? In short, HOAs are a cash cow for local government. But then when the owners start complaining about loss of basic liberties and foreclosure, and other problems, the city suddenly becomes deaf. Solving the problems is somebody else's job--like, well...the court system, paid for by the state.
How long will this be allowed to continue?
Read the code for yourself right here.
Thanks to the Yahoo group "hoanet" for some excellent work on developing the facts on the most important trend in the rise of residential private government: the increasingly common practice of cities requiring developers to create HOAs in new housing as the price of building in lucrative high-density PUD zones. This practice eliminates choice in the new housing market and conscripts people into HOAs whether they want them or not, and then forever after they are told by the courts that they chose HOA living of their own free will.
So...check out Gilbert, AZ, where you can read the Public Review Draft of Article 3.104 B-9 of its Unified Land Development Code. The section provides that, for developers who want to build in the planned development areas where higher density is permitted,
"The Planning Commission may recommend, and the Town Council may impose, conditions of approval including, but not limited to, the following matters:...9. Requirements for establishment of homeowners or property owners associations or other mechanisms to assure continued maintenance of landscape areas, trails, open spaces, shared parking and access areas, homeowners association facilities, fences.."
Now, this is what is being done in other parts of the nation, including right here in Chicago. Builders want to develop in the most desirable and profitable areas where higher density is permitted. Cities require them to create HOAs as a condition of entry into these areas. Why? Because the HOA does the city government's job in large part, and the city collects the same amount of tax dollars from the new owners without having to build the infrastructure or provide services. Pretty sweet, isn't it? In short, HOAs are a cash cow for local government. But then when the owners start complaining about loss of basic liberties and foreclosure, and other problems, the city suddenly becomes deaf. Solving the problems is somebody else's job--like, well...the court system, paid for by the state.
How long will this be allowed to continue?
Read the code for yourself right here.
Couple lose their home over $120 debt--state legislator promises bill to strip HOAs of foreclosure power
By Michael Kolber -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 a.m. PST Saturday, January 24, 2004
COPPEROPOLIS -- A retired couple's dispute with their homeowners association has spiraled out of control in this Calaveras County community -- and now they have lost their home less than a year after failing to pay $120 in annual dues.
Anita Radcliff, who owns the home with her husband, Thomas, said she had little hope of winning back the house, which the association's collection firm sold at a foreclosure auction in December for $70,000....Their case is a reminder that associations have the power to foreclose for past-due bills, regardless of the amount. State Sen. Rico Oller, R-San Andreas, said Thursday that he plans to author legislation this year that would take away the rights of associations to foreclose.
"It was $120, and they're going to take away his house. That should never happen in America," Oller said. "This is a case of an association exercising what is arguably their right, but in a totally unreasonable and extreme way."
Read the whole thing here.
By Michael Kolber -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 a.m. PST Saturday, January 24, 2004
COPPEROPOLIS -- A retired couple's dispute with their homeowners association has spiraled out of control in this Calaveras County community -- and now they have lost their home less than a year after failing to pay $120 in annual dues.
Anita Radcliff, who owns the home with her husband, Thomas, said she had little hope of winning back the house, which the association's collection firm sold at a foreclosure auction in December for $70,000....Their case is a reminder that associations have the power to foreclose for past-due bills, regardless of the amount. State Sen. Rico Oller, R-San Andreas, said Thursday that he plans to author legislation this year that would take away the rights of associations to foreclose.
"It was $120, and they're going to take away his house. That should never happen in America," Oller said. "This is a case of an association exercising what is arguably their right, but in a totally unreasonable and extreme way."
Read the whole thing here.
California Law Revision Commission receives comments on its recommendations for architectural review procedures
The Commission grinds onward with sixteen pages of comments it has received from three people on its recommendation that existing California case law on architectural review should be codified--meaning, written into statutory law. The subtance of the law would say that architectural review decisions (request by owners to alter or add to their separate unit or interest) should be "made in good faith, pursuant to a fair and reasonable procedure, and that the decision not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious." Decisions would have to be put in writing, and if denied, the owner would have a "right of reconsideration by the board of directors" who denied the original request.
You can read the whole thing here.
The Commission grinds onward with sixteen pages of comments it has received from three people on its recommendation that existing California case law on architectural review should be codified--meaning, written into statutory law. The subtance of the law would say that architectural review decisions (request by owners to alter or add to their separate unit or interest) should be "made in good faith, pursuant to a fair and reasonable procedure, and that the decision not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious." Decisions would have to be put in writing, and if denied, the owner would have a "right of reconsideration by the board of directors" who denied the original request.
You can read the whole thing here.
Florida Legislature Select Committee Recommendations
From: Florida House of Representatives--
Representative Julio Robaina,
District 117:
First Report And Recommendations By Chairman Julio Robaina,
SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION GOVERNANCE
--Some of the highlights of the recommendations:
--“Buyer Beware,” requiring a new Question and Answer sheet to be given to the potential buyer at the time of contract and again at the closing
--Background checks for potential board members
--conflict of interest reforms
--Issues voted on by board members that create a fiscal impact or hardship for the owner, must be approved and voted on under a special election by the majority of the unit owners
Full Report here.
From: Florida House of Representatives--
Representative Julio Robaina,
District 117:
First Report And Recommendations By Chairman Julio Robaina,
SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION GOVERNANCE
--Some of the highlights of the recommendations:
--“Buyer Beware,” requiring a new Question and Answer sheet to be given to the potential buyer at the time of contract and again at the closing
--Background checks for potential board members
--conflict of interest reforms
--Issues voted on by board members that create a fiscal impact or hardship for the owner, must be approved and voted on under a special election by the majority of the unit owners
Full Report here.
Saturday, January 24, 2004
Followup to rant below: So here's the the Defense of Marriage Act that John Edwards doesn't understand:
Now, read this and decide if this man is ready to be President:
1 USCA § 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.".
28 USCA § 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof
"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.".
OK, that's it. Now, how hard is that to grasp, for a practicing attorney who thinks he is smart enough to be President of the United States? Think he's ready to do the job? I don't.
Now, read this and decide if this man is ready to be President:
1 USCA § 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.".
28 USCA § 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof
"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.".
OK, that's it. Now, how hard is that to grasp, for a practicing attorney who thinks he is smart enough to be President of the United States? Think he's ready to do the job? I don't.
Off-topic rant follows--I just can't stand it...
...that everybody is letting John Edward off the hook for completely misunderstanding the Defense of Marriage Act. Here is what he said on Thursday: ..."what happened with the Defense of Marriage Act is it took away the power of states, like Vermont, to be able to do what they chose to do about civil unions, about these kinds of marriage issues. These are issues that should be left -- Massachusetts, for example, has just made a decision, the supreme court at least has made a decision, that embraces the notion of gay marriage. I think these are decisions that the states should have the power to make. And the Defense of Marriage Act, as I understand it -- you're right, I wasn't there when it was passed -- but as I understand it, it would have taken away that power. And I think that's wrong. That power should not be taken away from the states. "
He was then given an opportunity to correct himself, and he insisted on this bone-head position even though it was obvious that Brit Hume was telling him he was wrong:
"HUME: Does not the Defense of Marriage Act specifically say that the court rulings in one state, which might, for example, recognize a gay marriage, may not be imposed on anther state? In other words, doesn't the Defense of Marriage go to the very position which you yourself take?
EDWARDS: No, the Defense of Marriage -- first of all, I wasn't in the Congress, I don't claim to be an expert on this. But as I understand the Defense of Marriage Act, it would take away the power of some states to choose whether they would recognize or not recognize gay marriages. That's my understanding of it."
Now, I have three problems with this. The first is that he is completely wrong. That is exactly the opposite of what the DOMA did. The act is very short and simple, and it does two things. It defines "marriage" as a man-woman union, wherever the word appears in federal law, and it absolves states from the obligation they would ordinarily have under the Full Faith and Credit Clause to recognize gay marriages authorized by other states. So, as Hume correctly said, the Act accomplished exactly what Edwards says still needs to be done.
Second, it is simply amazing to me that the press blew off such an enormous gaffe. If Dan Quayle or any other Republican did this, they would be forever branded as an airhead pretty-boy who was too lightweight for the presidency.
Three, why isn't he being criticized for his ridiculous excuse? Edwards blithely says, well, I wasn't in the Senate when this passed, and the press dutifullly accepts that nonsense as if it made sense. Is he only responsible for knowing about laws passed since he showed up in the Senate? How about the First Amendment? The Commerce Clause? The Civil Rights Acts? Can he claim that the Fair Housing Act allows racial discrimination in housing, and then when he is told it bans discrimination, just say, "Oh. Well, I wasn't in the Senate in 1968, so I'm no expert, but that's my understanding."
What was Edward doing in 1996, when the DOMA passed? He was a practicing attorney, for Pete's sake! And now he's a Senator, and he wants to be President in a year. And he's been running around the country debating and speaking for months. And the subject of gay marriage just happens to be hot now, with the Mass. supreme court making their famous decision. So why on earth is he spouting off about gay marriage when he hasn't bothered to read only the federal law on the subject? (The law can be found at 1 USCA 7 (the definition part) and 28 USCA 1738C (the full faith and credit part.)
This la-de-dah attitude toward the substance of policy is increasingly common, I think. Politicians are allowed to spout off about complicated issues based on their ideological orientation, their interest group base, and some half-baked understanding of the facts and the law. Then it's on to the next issue and the next news cycle, and it's as though it never happened. Al Sharpton's inability to distinguish between the Federal Reserve Board and the International Monetary Fund was similarly glossed over in the next day's news. The only difference between the two candidates' mistakes is that Sharpton has no chance of ever being elected. But people are now claiming that Edwards is a serious contender.
Wow. Talk about a guy who will need on-the-job training.
...that everybody is letting John Edward off the hook for completely misunderstanding the Defense of Marriage Act. Here is what he said on Thursday: ..."what happened with the Defense of Marriage Act is it took away the power of states, like Vermont, to be able to do what they chose to do about civil unions, about these kinds of marriage issues. These are issues that should be left -- Massachusetts, for example, has just made a decision, the supreme court at least has made a decision, that embraces the notion of gay marriage. I think these are decisions that the states should have the power to make. And the Defense of Marriage Act, as I understand it -- you're right, I wasn't there when it was passed -- but as I understand it, it would have taken away that power. And I think that's wrong. That power should not be taken away from the states. "
He was then given an opportunity to correct himself, and he insisted on this bone-head position even though it was obvious that Brit Hume was telling him he was wrong:
"HUME: Does not the Defense of Marriage Act specifically say that the court rulings in one state, which might, for example, recognize a gay marriage, may not be imposed on anther state? In other words, doesn't the Defense of Marriage go to the very position which you yourself take?
EDWARDS: No, the Defense of Marriage -- first of all, I wasn't in the Congress, I don't claim to be an expert on this. But as I understand the Defense of Marriage Act, it would take away the power of some states to choose whether they would recognize or not recognize gay marriages. That's my understanding of it."
Now, I have three problems with this. The first is that he is completely wrong. That is exactly the opposite of what the DOMA did. The act is very short and simple, and it does two things. It defines "marriage" as a man-woman union, wherever the word appears in federal law, and it absolves states from the obligation they would ordinarily have under the Full Faith and Credit Clause to recognize gay marriages authorized by other states. So, as Hume correctly said, the Act accomplished exactly what Edwards says still needs to be done.
Second, it is simply amazing to me that the press blew off such an enormous gaffe. If Dan Quayle or any other Republican did this, they would be forever branded as an airhead pretty-boy who was too lightweight for the presidency.
Three, why isn't he being criticized for his ridiculous excuse? Edwards blithely says, well, I wasn't in the Senate when this passed, and the press dutifullly accepts that nonsense as if it made sense. Is he only responsible for knowing about laws passed since he showed up in the Senate? How about the First Amendment? The Commerce Clause? The Civil Rights Acts? Can he claim that the Fair Housing Act allows racial discrimination in housing, and then when he is told it bans discrimination, just say, "Oh. Well, I wasn't in the Senate in 1968, so I'm no expert, but that's my understanding."
What was Edward doing in 1996, when the DOMA passed? He was a practicing attorney, for Pete's sake! And now he's a Senator, and he wants to be President in a year. And he's been running around the country debating and speaking for months. And the subject of gay marriage just happens to be hot now, with the Mass. supreme court making their famous decision. So why on earth is he spouting off about gay marriage when he hasn't bothered to read only the federal law on the subject? (The law can be found at 1 USCA 7 (the definition part) and 28 USCA 1738C (the full faith and credit part.)
This la-de-dah attitude toward the substance of policy is increasingly common, I think. Politicians are allowed to spout off about complicated issues based on their ideological orientation, their interest group base, and some half-baked understanding of the facts and the law. Then it's on to the next issue and the next news cycle, and it's as though it never happened. Al Sharpton's inability to distinguish between the Federal Reserve Board and the International Monetary Fund was similarly glossed over in the next day's news. The only difference between the two candidates' mistakes is that Sharpton has no chance of ever being elected. But people are now claiming that Edwards is a serious contender.
Wow. Talk about a guy who will need on-the-job training.
Monday, October 27, 2003
Glad to hear the Middle East is in good hands now...
After Tony and Kofi fail, Brad and Jennifer try Mid-East diplomacy
By Inigo Gilmore in Jerusalem
from The Telegraph
(Filed: 26/10/2003)
Bill Clinton failed, Tony Blair drew a blank and Kofi Annan made little progress. But now a team of Hollywood film stars is about to visit the Middle East on a private peace mission, in the belief that their charms will work magic on the Israeli-Arab conflict.
Brad Pitt, his wife, Jennifer Aniston, and Danny DeVito are among the stars who aim to succeed where world statesmen have stumbled.
"The past few years of conflict mean that yet another generation of Israelis and Palestinians will grow up in hatred," reads a statement from Pitt and Aniston. "We cannot allow that to happen."
Here's the whole story. Now, if only we could get them to take on HOA mediation...
After Tony and Kofi fail, Brad and Jennifer try Mid-East diplomacy
By Inigo Gilmore in Jerusalem
from The Telegraph
(Filed: 26/10/2003)
Bill Clinton failed, Tony Blair drew a blank and Kofi Annan made little progress. But now a team of Hollywood film stars is about to visit the Middle East on a private peace mission, in the belief that their charms will work magic on the Israeli-Arab conflict.
Brad Pitt, his wife, Jennifer Aniston, and Danny DeVito are among the stars who aim to succeed where world statesmen have stumbled.
"The past few years of conflict mean that yet another generation of Israelis and Palestinians will grow up in hatred," reads a statement from Pitt and Aniston. "We cannot allow that to happen."
Here's the whole story. Now, if only we could get them to take on HOA mediation...
HOA tackles swingset blight
Now, here's something to be proud of. Stamping out those kiddie swing sets that are a little too tall. Way to go, board members. Nothing like grabbing favorable press for your community.
"Kids' play-set clash pits Gilbert families vs. HOA"
by Stephanie Paterik
The Arizona Republic
Oct. 25, 2003 12:00 AM
"Joel and Kerri Pogar have written the governor, rounded up their neighbors and spent six months in a law library drafting a suit against their homeowners association.
"The issue at hand? A backyard play set.
"The Gilbert couple say the HOA in Power Ranch, one of the town's poshest neighborhoods, forced them to get rid of a $4,000 play set because it was 2 feet higher than the 10 feet allowed by HOA design standards."
Read it all here.
Now, here's something to be proud of. Stamping out those kiddie swing sets that are a little too tall. Way to go, board members. Nothing like grabbing favorable press for your community.
"Kids' play-set clash pits Gilbert families vs. HOA"
by Stephanie Paterik
The Arizona Republic
Oct. 25, 2003 12:00 AM
"Joel and Kerri Pogar have written the governor, rounded up their neighbors and spent six months in a law library drafting a suit against their homeowners association.
"The issue at hand? A backyard play set.
"The Gilbert couple say the HOA in Power Ranch, one of the town's poshest neighborhoods, forced them to get rid of a $4,000 play set because it was 2 feet higher than the 10 feet allowed by HOA design standards."
Read it all here.
Moving is hell
My wife and kids and I are in the middle of packing for a move from The People's Republic of Oak Park, Illinois, in the heart of Cook County, to a suburban setting in Lake County where I am told there are Republicans. Not in museums or zoos, either. They actually roam around free and even vote. All our neighbors here in OP--one of the strongest bastions of the left wing to be found on any continent--think that we will be shocked by the Neanderthal mentality that will surround us. I kind of doubt it. I have no problem seeing a flag flying from most every porch. Ours is up every day, along with a "We Support our Troops" sign, and we are a little tired of being the only ones. In fact, I think HOAs would be better places if they were a little less tightly-wound about this whole flag thing. When did the American flag ever reduce property values?
My wife and kids and I are in the middle of packing for a move from The People's Republic of Oak Park, Illinois, in the heart of Cook County, to a suburban setting in Lake County where I am told there are Republicans. Not in museums or zoos, either. They actually roam around free and even vote. All our neighbors here in OP--one of the strongest bastions of the left wing to be found on any continent--think that we will be shocked by the Neanderthal mentality that will surround us. I kind of doubt it. I have no problem seeing a flag flying from most every porch. Ours is up every day, along with a "We Support our Troops" sign, and we are a little tired of being the only ones. In fact, I think HOAs would be better places if they were a little less tightly-wound about this whole flag thing. When did the American flag ever reduce property values?
Saturday, October 11, 2003
Go Cubs!
Condolences to Floridians, who have to deal with all the issues of common interest housing as well as the Floundering Fish. As I write it is 7-0 Cubs in Game 4. Matt Clement, he of the cow-pie-on-the-chin, Amish-farmer-on-the-mound look, is inexplicably winning the game. Until tonight I considered him a curse on the Cubs, some sort of albatross, or perhaps albacore, who was sent to torment the team that has been sentenced to permanent ignomnity for not letting a guy bring his goat into the stadium in 1947, or some such rot. But here's a guy with a goat beard winning a game that any rational human would think he was going to lose. It could change at any minute, but so far it is a strange and terrible thing to behold. As a Chicagoan I can do nothing but chortle with glee as The Man With the Strange Thing on His Face inches toward a victory.
Go figure.
Condolences to Floridians, who have to deal with all the issues of common interest housing as well as the Floundering Fish. As I write it is 7-0 Cubs in Game 4. Matt Clement, he of the cow-pie-on-the-chin, Amish-farmer-on-the-mound look, is inexplicably winning the game. Until tonight I considered him a curse on the Cubs, some sort of albatross, or perhaps albacore, who was sent to torment the team that has been sentenced to permanent ignomnity for not letting a guy bring his goat into the stadium in 1947, or some such rot. But here's a guy with a goat beard winning a game that any rational human would think he was going to lose. It could change at any minute, but so far it is a strange and terrible thing to behold. As a Chicagoan I can do nothing but chortle with glee as The Man With the Strange Thing on His Face inches toward a victory.
Go figure.
Tuesday, October 07, 2003
Request for comments on CAI Bill of Rights
In February I will be speaking at the annual Community Association Law Seminar sponsored by the Community Associations Institute. I'll be at a panel discussion on "Is 'Rights and Responsibilities for Better Communities' the Answer to HOA Critics?" That is a reference to a document that you can view on line at the CAI website, here. The other panelists will be attorneys Molly Foley-Healey (primary author of "Rights and Responsibilities") and Dave Ramsey, and property manager Sandra Denton.
I would appreciate receiving any intelligent, reasoned opinion on the subject from interested observers. Note "intelligent, reasoned." That means, please, no venomous screeds, conspiracy diatribes, or calls for the abolition of common interest housing. This is a panel about whether or not the CAI "Rights and Responsibilities" document will satisfy HOA critics. If yes, then why? If no, then why not? I don't promise to answer all the e-mails I get on this, although I'll try to acknowledge them all. But I am genuinely interested in taking in whatever you all have to say. The deadline for submission of my paper to CAI is Monday, November 3, so keep that in mind. Thanks for your help.
In February I will be speaking at the annual Community Association Law Seminar sponsored by the Community Associations Institute. I'll be at a panel discussion on "Is 'Rights and Responsibilities for Better Communities' the Answer to HOA Critics?" That is a reference to a document that you can view on line at the CAI website, here. The other panelists will be attorneys Molly Foley-Healey (primary author of "Rights and Responsibilities") and Dave Ramsey, and property manager Sandra Denton.
I would appreciate receiving any intelligent, reasoned opinion on the subject from interested observers. Note "intelligent, reasoned." That means, please, no venomous screeds, conspiracy diatribes, or calls for the abolition of common interest housing. This is a panel about whether or not the CAI "Rights and Responsibilities" document will satisfy HOA critics. If yes, then why? If no, then why not? I don't promise to answer all the e-mails I get on this, although I'll try to acknowledge them all. But I am genuinely interested in taking in whatever you all have to say. The deadline for submission of my paper to CAI is Monday, November 3, so keep that in mind. Thanks for your help.
McKenzie is back on the air!
Sorry for the long absence. We went on vacation in Panara, Iowa and had no computer access at all except for one visit to a nice lady at the management office of the local homeowner association who let me sit at her desk and check my e-mail. How's that for irony?
Then I went to the American Political Science Association annual meeting in Philadelphia, where 5000 political scientists had to wait in long lines to check their e-mail at about 12 computers.
Then my son and I went to Glasgow, Scotland, where I spoke at an international conference on gated communities. This was put on by the University of Glasgow, and it was a great success. The papers will be posted on the web soon, along with some of the Powerpoint presentations, and I'll give you all the URL when it is up.
Sorry for the long absence. We went on vacation in Panara, Iowa and had no computer access at all except for one visit to a nice lady at the management office of the local homeowner association who let me sit at her desk and check my e-mail. How's that for irony?
Then I went to the American Political Science Association annual meeting in Philadelphia, where 5000 political scientists had to wait in long lines to check their e-mail at about 12 computers.
Then my son and I went to Glasgow, Scotland, where I spoke at an international conference on gated communities. This was put on by the University of Glasgow, and it was a great success. The papers will be posted on the web soon, along with some of the Powerpoint presentations, and I'll give you all the URL when it is up.
Monday, August 04, 2003
Can't blame this on an HOA...
"After eight months of scouring Northern California for a slice of tranquility to purchase as his family's vacation property, Berkeley resident B. J. Miller found 40 acres deep in the El Dorado County wilderness. With the closest neighbor a quarter-mile away, Miller began settling into his corner of the wild. The troubles of the world, however, caught up with him. Sometime in the past two months, somebody stole everything inside Miller's house -- and then stole the house. "
As Thomas Hobbes said, life in a state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
Read the story.
"After eight months of scouring Northern California for a slice of tranquility to purchase as his family's vacation property, Berkeley resident B. J. Miller found 40 acres deep in the El Dorado County wilderness. With the closest neighbor a quarter-mile away, Miller began settling into his corner of the wild. The troubles of the world, however, caught up with him. Sometime in the past two months, somebody stole everything inside Miller's house -- and then stole the house. "
As Thomas Hobbes said, life in a state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
Read the story.
Saturday, August 02, 2003
California Law Revision Commission site
After reading the previous post, some people may want to check out the Commission's work product to date. Follow this link to the
California Law Revision Commission.
After reading the previous post, some people may want to check out the Commission's work product to date. Follow this link to the
California Law Revision Commission.
Remarkable memo to California Law Revision Commission
I can't vouch for the authenticity of this memo, but it looks to be a genuine correspondence from retired Judge Charles Egan Goff to the California Law Revision Commission, the body that is currently considering major reforms to the law governing HOAs in California. Here's the lead, followed by a link to the whole document:
Charles Egan Goff
California
MEMORANDUM - July 3, 2001
TO: CALIFORNIA LAW REVISION COMMISSION
RE: HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATIONS - STUDY H-851 Law Revision Commission
RECEIVED
JUL 12 2001
File:__________________
In 1791 Thomas Paine wrote in Rights of Man: "Defects of every government
and constitution, both as to principals and form, must be on a parity, be as
open to discussion as the defects of a law, and it is the duty which every
man owes to society to point them out...."
It's a tribute to California's Legislature and Executive that this body
exists to improve their work, even to disagree with it when necessary. So it
is especially an honor for this worshipper of Our Constitution to address
you.
Briefly I beg you to consider turning Homeowners' Associations from purely
for-profit business enterprises into democratic societies, recalling Madison
's statement: "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil
society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it is obtained, or
until liberty be lost in the pursuit." (Federalist #52.) This is an ancient
law: "Justice and only justice you shall pursue." (Deuteronomy 16:19.)
My concerns and recommendations are six...
...and on that dramatic note, you are invited to proceed to the full document. I added the italics around the money quote.
I can't vouch for the authenticity of this memo, but it looks to be a genuine correspondence from retired Judge Charles Egan Goff to the California Law Revision Commission, the body that is currently considering major reforms to the law governing HOAs in California. Here's the lead, followed by a link to the whole document:
Charles Egan Goff
California
MEMORANDUM - July 3, 2001
TO: CALIFORNIA LAW REVISION COMMISSION
RE: HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATIONS - STUDY H-851 Law Revision Commission
RECEIVED
JUL 12 2001
File:__________________
In 1791 Thomas Paine wrote in Rights of Man: "Defects of every government
and constitution, both as to principals and form, must be on a parity, be as
open to discussion as the defects of a law, and it is the duty which every
man owes to society to point them out...."
It's a tribute to California's Legislature and Executive that this body
exists to improve their work, even to disagree with it when necessary. So it
is especially an honor for this worshipper of Our Constitution to address
you.
Briefly I beg you to consider turning Homeowners' Associations from purely
for-profit business enterprises into democratic societies, recalling Madison
's statement: "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil
society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it is obtained, or
until liberty be lost in the pursuit." (Federalist #52.) This is an ancient
law: "Justice and only justice you shall pursue." (Deuteronomy 16:19.)
My concerns and recommendations are six...
...and on that dramatic note, you are invited to proceed to the full document. I added the italics around the money quote.
Friday, August 01, 2003
HOAs in the American Heartland
I take a certain childish pleasure in having been ridiculed for saying back in 1985 that private residential government was the most significant trend in housing and local governance. One Los Angeles Times reporter--Bob Sipchen, if memory serves--referred to me as a "crackpot." Book publishers told me confidently that homeowner associations were only found in Florida and a few other hot places where retirees congregated in condominiums and played shuffleboard while waiting for Death.
Here's a story from the Des Moines Register, in Iowa. That's IOWA, the landlocked, potato covered, football-crazed center of gravity of the American heartland. Can anybody read this and still underestimate the significance of common interest housing?
Neighborhood property rules for homes a growing trend
By MICHOLYN FAJEN
Register Correspondent
07/31/2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residents who live in West Des Moines' Southwicke town homes must keep their garage doors closed, and they can't have big pets. If the town-home owners want to build a deck, they must first get permission from the homeowners association.
Members of Urbandale's Lake Halice homeowners association can't swim in the lake or use gas-powered boats.
Nationally, homeowners associations govern an estimated 80 percent of new homes. More than 55 million Americans are in homeowners associations, according to the California-based American Homeowners Resource Center. Of those homeowners, 75 percent believe the rules that govern their neighborhoods are appropriate.
"It protects us all and keeps the neighborhood beautiful," said Jody Warth, a member of West Des Moines' Heatherwood Association. "The goal is to avoid eyesores. Our neighborhood is a huge green space that works hand-in-hand with nature, and it's because we don't mess around with the natural aesthetics of the area."
Homeowners associations usually are created by the developer or builder and are typically run by an elected board. Common covenants - or property-use rules - cover the signature features of a neighborhood. Rules may include having a specified number of trees planted in the yard, muted colors of siding, requirements on fencing material or type of shingles. Association membership usually isn't optional.
"We do operate essentially as a government," said Jerry Manning, president of Country Club homeowners association in Clive. "You have a governing body, covenants that dictate what the homeowner can do, the power to assess dues and to enforce those dues and guidelines. But that power essentially comes from the people."
The emphasis in the last graph is mine. By all means, read the whole thing...
I take a certain childish pleasure in having been ridiculed for saying back in 1985 that private residential government was the most significant trend in housing and local governance. One Los Angeles Times reporter--Bob Sipchen, if memory serves--referred to me as a "crackpot." Book publishers told me confidently that homeowner associations were only found in Florida and a few other hot places where retirees congregated in condominiums and played shuffleboard while waiting for Death.
Here's a story from the Des Moines Register, in Iowa. That's IOWA, the landlocked, potato covered, football-crazed center of gravity of the American heartland. Can anybody read this and still underestimate the significance of common interest housing?
Neighborhood property rules for homes a growing trend
By MICHOLYN FAJEN
Register Correspondent
07/31/2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residents who live in West Des Moines' Southwicke town homes must keep their garage doors closed, and they can't have big pets. If the town-home owners want to build a deck, they must first get permission from the homeowners association.
Members of Urbandale's Lake Halice homeowners association can't swim in the lake or use gas-powered boats.
Nationally, homeowners associations govern an estimated 80 percent of new homes. More than 55 million Americans are in homeowners associations, according to the California-based American Homeowners Resource Center. Of those homeowners, 75 percent believe the rules that govern their neighborhoods are appropriate.
"It protects us all and keeps the neighborhood beautiful," said Jody Warth, a member of West Des Moines' Heatherwood Association. "The goal is to avoid eyesores. Our neighborhood is a huge green space that works hand-in-hand with nature, and it's because we don't mess around with the natural aesthetics of the area."
Homeowners associations usually are created by the developer or builder and are typically run by an elected board. Common covenants - or property-use rules - cover the signature features of a neighborhood. Rules may include having a specified number of trees planted in the yard, muted colors of siding, requirements on fencing material or type of shingles. Association membership usually isn't optional.
"We do operate essentially as a government," said Jerry Manning, president of Country Club homeowners association in Clive. "You have a governing body, covenants that dictate what the homeowner can do, the power to assess dues and to enforce those dues and guidelines. But that power essentially comes from the people."
The emphasis in the last graph is mine. By all means, read the whole thing...
...and Chris Webster responds to Sarah
Further upgrading the intellectual quality of this blog, Chris Webster (see below) responds to Sarah's comments...
From Chris:
Continuing the discussion...a few thoughts in response to Sarah's comments.
Sarah, your first and second contrasted pictures do not seem mutually exclusive
to me. It may be that municpal government has over-reached itself and this is
why private governance has stepped into the breach. This is not inconsistent
with the private version being riddled with inefficiecies and inequities. The
state steps in to mitigate against private neighbourhood market failures. And so
the iterative process proceeds. If the institutions of demoncracy and
accountability are open, transparent etc, one might assume, (with Karl Popper)
that the social experiment ends up with a net gain to society (forgetting about
the spill-over issue for the moment and just concentrating on the welfare of
those within private communities - the same argument can be developed in respect
of social spill-overs but will have a different conclusion).
Talking about market failure, Oliver Williamson's idea of remediability as an
efficiency criteria is an interesting one (eg Williamson 1999 Public and Private
Bureacracies JLEO Vol 15). Neo classical economists got it wrong by defining
efficiency in terms of utopia (Demsetz 1969 - 'Nirvana economics' JLE Vol 12) -
markets failing when compared to the 'perfect market'. The big mistake there was
to ignore the costs of the government interventions which such analysis
prescribed (the zero transction cost assumption of orthodox economics).
Actually, as Ronald Coase (1964 'The Regulated Industries' AER Vol 12) points
out, 'until we realize that we are choosing between social arrangements which
are all more or less failures, we are not likely to make much headway'.
Williamson's transaction cost approach, while having its flaws, seems a useful
one for exploring the issues of private government. Its emphasis is on
evaluating the match between, on the one hand, the attributes of a particular
set of transactions (for example the transactions between neighbour and
neighbour; home-owner and the agency owning the local public good assets etc)
and on the other, alternative governance frameworks. The sunk costs of the
extant set of institutions (eg. traditional municipal government) should
feature in the evaluation - hence the idea of remediability - do the costs of
creating new institutions outweigh the benefits of change? The costs of the
American urban system turning to private government include the post-contract
adjustment costs of litigation (which are, of course, unkown at the time of
individual home-owner investment but which become more predictable over time).
As these costs become more predictable they can be factored into contracts,
private governance rules and state institutions via special provisions (as Sarah
notes exist in the UK system to protect lesees from forfeiture, for example, or
they can be factored into price (higher price to reflect risk). Either way,
society learns over time how to organise itself to progressively reduce the
costs of competition and conflict over scarce resources.
Further upgrading the intellectual quality of this blog, Chris Webster (see below) responds to Sarah's comments...
From Chris:
Continuing the discussion...a few thoughts in response to Sarah's comments.
Sarah, your first and second contrasted pictures do not seem mutually exclusive
to me. It may be that municpal government has over-reached itself and this is
why private governance has stepped into the breach. This is not inconsistent
with the private version being riddled with inefficiecies and inequities. The
state steps in to mitigate against private neighbourhood market failures. And so
the iterative process proceeds. If the institutions of demoncracy and
accountability are open, transparent etc, one might assume, (with Karl Popper)
that the social experiment ends up with a net gain to society (forgetting about
the spill-over issue for the moment and just concentrating on the welfare of
those within private communities - the same argument can be developed in respect
of social spill-overs but will have a different conclusion).
Talking about market failure, Oliver Williamson's idea of remediability as an
efficiency criteria is an interesting one (eg Williamson 1999 Public and Private
Bureacracies JLEO Vol 15). Neo classical economists got it wrong by defining
efficiency in terms of utopia (Demsetz 1969 - 'Nirvana economics' JLE Vol 12) -
markets failing when compared to the 'perfect market'. The big mistake there was
to ignore the costs of the government interventions which such analysis
prescribed (the zero transction cost assumption of orthodox economics).
Actually, as Ronald Coase (1964 'The Regulated Industries' AER Vol 12) points
out, 'until we realize that we are choosing between social arrangements which
are all more or less failures, we are not likely to make much headway'.
Williamson's transaction cost approach, while having its flaws, seems a useful
one for exploring the issues of private government. Its emphasis is on
evaluating the match between, on the one hand, the attributes of a particular
set of transactions (for example the transactions between neighbour and
neighbour; home-owner and the agency owning the local public good assets etc)
and on the other, alternative governance frameworks. The sunk costs of the
extant set of institutions (eg. traditional municipal government) should
feature in the evaluation - hence the idea of remediability - do the costs of
creating new institutions outweigh the benefits of change? The costs of the
American urban system turning to private government include the post-contract
adjustment costs of litigation (which are, of course, unkown at the time of
individual home-owner investment but which become more predictable over time).
As these costs become more predictable they can be factored into contracts,
private governance rules and state institutions via special provisions (as Sarah
notes exist in the UK system to protect lesees from forfeiture, for example, or
they can be factored into price (higher price to reflect risk). Either way,
society learns over time how to organise itself to progressively reduce the
costs of competition and conflict over scarce resources.
Sarah Blandy's comments on the NYT article
Sarah Blandy is Senior Lecturer in Housing Law, based in the School of Environment and Development, Sheffield Hallam University, England. She is part of the international network of scholars on gated and private communities. I'm happy to be able to post her comments:
From Sarah Blandy:
Some thoughts from an English lawyer on the NYT article and Chris's response:
- it's an interesting cyclical process if you accept the view that private governance steps into the gap left by inefficient national
government (lack of security and fear of crime) and by inefficient local government (poor provision of services), but then itself becomes
too oppressive and has to be curbed by government legislation;
- I think the above gives a more realistic picture than GCs being a response to / retreat from over-reaching municipal government accreting
to itself neighbourhood level governance functions; - there are checks against corrupt municipal government - and I suppose GCs can be self-correcting in that oppressive officers of HOAs can
be voted out, but this appears not to be happening in the States (is that right?);
- I think the GC phenomenon is culturally determined; American culture seems to be very litigious, but on the other hand a lot of American
cultural values make their way over to the UK sooner or later... but I would be surprised if we saw the same scenarios as in the NYT article
over here. This view is partly based on the difference in property law between the States and England, which means that GCs have a
different legal framework. Here, most GCs are set up on a leasehold basis, and there is a long history of mutually enforceable leasehold
covenants in blocks of flats and in many housing developments - but not a lot of litigation between residents or between management company
and individual residents (there have been some cases); and English law provides considerable protection for leaseholders against forfeiture
of the lease for breach of covenant.
Sarah Blandy is Senior Lecturer in Housing Law, based in the School of Environment and Development, Sheffield Hallam University, England. She is part of the international network of scholars on gated and private communities. I'm happy to be able to post her comments:
From Sarah Blandy:
Some thoughts from an English lawyer on the NYT article and Chris's response:
- it's an interesting cyclical process if you accept the view that private governance steps into the gap left by inefficient national
government (lack of security and fear of crime) and by inefficient local government (poor provision of services), but then itself becomes
too oppressive and has to be curbed by government legislation;
- I think the above gives a more realistic picture than GCs being a response to / retreat from over-reaching municipal government accreting
to itself neighbourhood level governance functions; - there are checks against corrupt municipal government - and I suppose GCs can be self-correcting in that oppressive officers of HOAs can
be voted out, but this appears not to be happening in the States (is that right?);
- I think the GC phenomenon is culturally determined; American culture seems to be very litigious, but on the other hand a lot of American
cultural values make their way over to the UK sooner or later... but I would be surprised if we saw the same scenarios as in the NYT article
over here. This view is partly based on the difference in property law between the States and England, which means that GCs have a
different legal framework. Here, most GCs are set up on a leasehold basis, and there is a long history of mutually enforceable leasehold
covenants in blocks of flats and in many housing developments - but not a lot of litigation between residents or between management company
and individual residents (there have been some cases); and English law provides considerable protection for leaseholders against forfeiture
of the lease for breach of covenant.
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
Thoughts Provoked by Chris Webster's Comments
I've been saying for 18 years that the governance issues are the Achilles heel of this form of privatization.
Internally, many associations tend to display either too much apathy or too much conflict. Most are under-reserved, and the bottom third of the CID price curve is filling up with first-time buyers who have zilch in the bank, so when major repairs are needed associations tend to borrow the money and using their assessment stream as the security. The incentives work to almost guarantee inadequate reserves--if Americans move every five years on average, why pay today for somebody else's new roof in ten years? Sure, a smart buyer checks out the reserves, but how many buyers are that smart?
Externally, it is still unclear how CIDs are going to be built into the intergovernmental system, other than the fact that local governments like using them as cash cows.
Some state legislatures are indeed beginning to address these issues seriously, but they have had a tendency to focus on piecemeal, micro-management issues, passing laws saying it's OK to fly Old Glory if it isn't too big, or precisely how to handle proxies in HOA elections, instead of addressing the big issues--civil liberties, financial responsibility, secession, tax equalization, etc.
This policy area went from invisible to "Oh, my God," in about ten years--the 1980s. Now those who understand the problems are scared that touching things will make them worse.
Chris laid out the alternatives very well, I think. Maybe things are evolving toward greater accountability and maybe they aren't. We will see. I'd be interested in hearing what others think.
I've been saying for 18 years that the governance issues are the Achilles heel of this form of privatization.
Internally, many associations tend to display either too much apathy or too much conflict. Most are under-reserved, and the bottom third of the CID price curve is filling up with first-time buyers who have zilch in the bank, so when major repairs are needed associations tend to borrow the money and using their assessment stream as the security. The incentives work to almost guarantee inadequate reserves--if Americans move every five years on average, why pay today for somebody else's new roof in ten years? Sure, a smart buyer checks out the reserves, but how many buyers are that smart?
Externally, it is still unclear how CIDs are going to be built into the intergovernmental system, other than the fact that local governments like using them as cash cows.
Some state legislatures are indeed beginning to address these issues seriously, but they have had a tendency to focus on piecemeal, micro-management issues, passing laws saying it's OK to fly Old Glory if it isn't too big, or precisely how to handle proxies in HOA elections, instead of addressing the big issues--civil liberties, financial responsibility, secession, tax equalization, etc.
This policy area went from invisible to "Oh, my God," in about ten years--the 1980s. Now those who understand the problems are scared that touching things will make them worse.
Chris laid out the alternatives very well, I think. Maybe things are evolving toward greater accountability and maybe they aren't. We will see. I'd be interested in hearing what others think.
Chris Webster comments on NYT Article
One of the most knowledgeable and perceptive people studying the rise of private local government is Chris Webster, Professor of Urban Planning and Director of the Centre for Education in the Built Environment at Cardiff University in Wales. He has studied gated communities in China and is co-organizer of an international network of scholars studying the rise of private communities around the world, the next gathering of which is in Glasgow, September 18-19, 2003.
Chris has two websites that people interested in this subject should check out. One is
www.spontaneous-cities.com, and the other is www.gated-cities.com.
Chris has these reactions to the NYT article, and in my view he has framed the issues beautifully:
"I'm a self-confessed neutral in the private governance debate but find the kind
of behaviour documented in Evan's wonderful article as appalling as the
antagonists undoubtedly do. Some of the questions raised for me are: (a) Is this
just a step in an evolutionary process by which society works out an acceptable
institutional framework for governing neighbourhoods effectively. There is
evidence of a process at work, with laws appearing to curtail HOA powers,
requiring them to hold minimum sink funds etc. Such laws are appearing thick and
fast in countries all around the world. Their purpose - to constrain the
competition for shared resources within privately governed neighbourhoods - a
competition that appears to be frequently stacked unacceptably in favour of
powerful members of committees, developers etc. One could assume that in twenty
years time some of the worst excesses of the emerging market in private
neighbourhoods will have been ironed out. (b) Alternatively, will private
neighbourhoods burn themselves out with litigation. In which case, we are
witnessing a market-led social experiment that might end up proving, after all,
that traditional municipal government is in fact a rather efficient
institution. One should ask the question - if municipal bureacracies are such an
inefficient way of managing cities at the fine grained scale (as alleged by HOA
protagonists), why did they emerge in the way they did in the first place? They
must be good at something. c) Related to this - are the transactions governed by
neighbourhood governments (traditional of proprietary) what James Wilson has
called 'Sovereign Transactions' - transactions where the integrity of the state
is at risk. Also, are they charactersed by strong asset specificity? On both
accounts, there may be apriori reason to govern them by bureacracies. (d)
Conversely, have municipal governments over-reached themselves during the past
100 years by accreting neighbourhood level governance functions to their other
bureacratic functions? (e) Is the scenario depicted in Evan's piece a peculiarly
North American phenomenon? Does proprietary n'hood government have to evolve
that way or might it follow a different path in societies with different
cultural values? It is widely accepted in some Asian countries without strong
traditions of modern municipal government."
One of the most knowledgeable and perceptive people studying the rise of private local government is Chris Webster, Professor of Urban Planning and Director of the Centre for Education in the Built Environment at Cardiff University in Wales. He has studied gated communities in China and is co-organizer of an international network of scholars studying the rise of private communities around the world, the next gathering of which is in Glasgow, September 18-19, 2003.
Chris has two websites that people interested in this subject should check out. One is
www.spontaneous-cities.com, and the other is www.gated-cities.com.
Chris has these reactions to the NYT article, and in my view he has framed the issues beautifully:
"I'm a self-confessed neutral in the private governance debate but find the kind
of behaviour documented in Evan's wonderful article as appalling as the
antagonists undoubtedly do. Some of the questions raised for me are: (a) Is this
just a step in an evolutionary process by which society works out an acceptable
institutional framework for governing neighbourhoods effectively. There is
evidence of a process at work, with laws appearing to curtail HOA powers,
requiring them to hold minimum sink funds etc. Such laws are appearing thick and
fast in countries all around the world. Their purpose - to constrain the
competition for shared resources within privately governed neighbourhoods - a
competition that appears to be frequently stacked unacceptably in favour of
powerful members of committees, developers etc. One could assume that in twenty
years time some of the worst excesses of the emerging market in private
neighbourhoods will have been ironed out. (b) Alternatively, will private
neighbourhoods burn themselves out with litigation. In which case, we are
witnessing a market-led social experiment that might end up proving, after all,
that traditional municipal government is in fact a rather efficient
institution. One should ask the question - if municipal bureacracies are such an
inefficient way of managing cities at the fine grained scale (as alleged by HOA
protagonists), why did they emerge in the way they did in the first place? They
must be good at something. c) Related to this - are the transactions governed by
neighbourhood governments (traditional of proprietary) what James Wilson has
called 'Sovereign Transactions' - transactions where the integrity of the state
is at risk. Also, are they charactersed by strong asset specificity? On both
accounts, there may be apriori reason to govern them by bureacracies. (d)
Conversely, have municipal governments over-reached themselves during the past
100 years by accreting neighbourhood level governance functions to their other
bureacratic functions? (e) Is the scenario depicted in Evan's piece a peculiarly
North American phenomenon? Does proprietary n'hood government have to evolve
that way or might it follow a different path in societies with different
cultural values? It is widely accepted in some Asian countries without strong
traditions of modern municipal government."
Sunday, July 27, 2003
Update on Hamilton, NJ, case of POW/MIA Flag
See June 27 Privatopia Papers, below: Pay our lawyer and we'll call it even...
Seems that after all the bad press the association that went after a vet for flying the POW/MIA flag is moving toward what it sees as a reasonable solution: pay the association's legal fees, amounting to $1000, and a $50 fine.
So goes the story...
See June 27 Privatopia Papers, below: Pay our lawyer and we'll call it even...
Seems that after all the bad press the association that went after a vet for flying the POW/MIA flag is moving toward what it sees as a reasonable solution: pay the association's legal fees, amounting to $1000, and a $50 fine.
So goes the story...
Heaven or Hell: We Build, You Decide
Homeowner horror stories: Associations are heaven or hell
By Paul Bannister • Bankrate.com
To many people it's Shangri-La. Heaven. Paradise.
Everybody's lawn is manicured. No one's gone to an electric chartreuse and fuchsia color scheme. No one's got her granny panties -- or thongs, for that matter -- flapping on a clothesline. No junk cars in the side yard. No sofas on the front porch.
Everything looks wonderful.
To others, it's sheer hell. Hades. Purgatory.
Skip one Saturday mowing the lawn and the Gestapo comes down on you. Four hundred and some houses are the same boring shade of beige. You can't get that nice fresh-air fragrance in your unmentionables. That classic Corvette you were planning to restore got towed away, and your wife has been officially informed that the cute little swing near the front door is a violation punishable by death.
Depending on your perspective, your homeowner's association is either the best of all worlds ... or the worst
Read at Bankrate.com, and check the mortgage rates while you're at it.
Homeowner horror stories: Associations are heaven or hell
By Paul Bannister • Bankrate.com
To many people it's Shangri-La. Heaven. Paradise.
Everybody's lawn is manicured. No one's gone to an electric chartreuse and fuchsia color scheme. No one's got her granny panties -- or thongs, for that matter -- flapping on a clothesline. No junk cars in the side yard. No sofas on the front porch.
Everything looks wonderful.
To others, it's sheer hell. Hades. Purgatory.
Skip one Saturday mowing the lawn and the Gestapo comes down on you. Four hundred and some houses are the same boring shade of beige. You can't get that nice fresh-air fragrance in your unmentionables. That classic Corvette you were planning to restore got towed away, and your wife has been officially informed that the cute little swing near the front door is a violation punishable by death.
Depending on your perspective, your homeowner's association is either the best of all worlds ... or the worst
Read at Bankrate.com, and check the mortgage rates while you're at it.
New York Times Weighs in on HOAs, Quotes Your Humble Correspondent
Homeowner Boards Blur Line of Who Rules Roost
By MOTOKO RICH
The New York Times, July 27, 2003
PHOENIX — Joseph Haggerty may own the most expensive garbage can in America.
Because he kept it in the front yard, not the back, his homeowners association took him to court for violating community rules. After a four-year standoff over whether neighbors could see it behind a shrub, he lost and was ordered to pay $11,978.75 in fines and legal fees.
For Ralph Blevins, the problem was an unsightly toolshed behind his town house in Raleigh, N.C. His homeowners association removed the shed one night, and Mr. Blevins, a 62-year-old civil engineer, protested by withholding $750 in maintenance fees. The association foreclosed and bought the town house at an auction for just $3,000.
About one in six people in the nation, or roughly 50 million residents, lives in a community governed by a homeowners association, from co-op buildings in New York City to suburban subdivisions. Formed to take care of the small tasks that fall through the cracks of municipal government, like picking up garbage and repainting curbs, some homeowners associations are asserting far broader powers, backed by local courts.
Cities and counties, which are reluctant to raise taxes to pay for services, have in many cases stepped aside, allowing associations to become de facto governments with increasing authority over daily life.
The growth of associations has created "a whole sector of people who don't use public services," said Evan McKenzie, a professor of political science at the University of Illinois in Chicago who has written widely about the subject. Homeowners who live in such communities, he added, "don't need local governments."
Read and download before it disappears...
Homeowner Boards Blur Line of Who Rules Roost
By MOTOKO RICH
The New York Times, July 27, 2003
PHOENIX — Joseph Haggerty may own the most expensive garbage can in America.
Because he kept it in the front yard, not the back, his homeowners association took him to court for violating community rules. After a four-year standoff over whether neighbors could see it behind a shrub, he lost and was ordered to pay $11,978.75 in fines and legal fees.
For Ralph Blevins, the problem was an unsightly toolshed behind his town house in Raleigh, N.C. His homeowners association removed the shed one night, and Mr. Blevins, a 62-year-old civil engineer, protested by withholding $750 in maintenance fees. The association foreclosed and bought the town house at an auction for just $3,000.
About one in six people in the nation, or roughly 50 million residents, lives in a community governed by a homeowners association, from co-op buildings in New York City to suburban subdivisions. Formed to take care of the small tasks that fall through the cracks of municipal government, like picking up garbage and repainting curbs, some homeowners associations are asserting far broader powers, backed by local courts.
Cities and counties, which are reluctant to raise taxes to pay for services, have in many cases stepped aside, allowing associations to become de facto governments with increasing authority over daily life.
The growth of associations has created "a whole sector of people who don't use public services," said Evan McKenzie, a professor of political science at the University of Illinois in Chicago who has written widely about the subject. Homeowners who live in such communities, he added, "don't need local governments."
Read and download before it disappears...
Prepare to be Assimilated...
Richard White: Get used to the idea of homeowner's associations
Sunday, July 27, 2003
By RICHARD WHITE, Special to the Naples Daily News
Q. When we purchased our home two years ago, it was not until after we signed all the papers and all funds transferred did we find out the home was located in an area with a homeowner's association. Neither the seller nor real estate agents mentioned this fact. We did not want a home in this type of area and now we are stuck. Were any of these people in violation of the law? If so, what can we do about it? S.U. — Miami
A. The obvious answer is to contact an attorney for an opinion. But, that is not the total answer. The fact is that more than 90 percent of all homes resold today are in some type of association. Almost 100 percent of new home are in an association. It is the future of home buying to expect that there will be an association of some type. I wish I could help, but you should have asked the question in the beginning. You could write letters to the real estate offices and boards, but it will not solve your situation. Sorry.
So shut up and go read the rest of the Q & A, Pilgrim.
Richard White: Get used to the idea of homeowner's associations
Sunday, July 27, 2003
By RICHARD WHITE, Special to the Naples Daily News
Q. When we purchased our home two years ago, it was not until after we signed all the papers and all funds transferred did we find out the home was located in an area with a homeowner's association. Neither the seller nor real estate agents mentioned this fact. We did not want a home in this type of area and now we are stuck. Were any of these people in violation of the law? If so, what can we do about it? S.U. — Miami
A. The obvious answer is to contact an attorney for an opinion. But, that is not the total answer. The fact is that more than 90 percent of all homes resold today are in some type of association. Almost 100 percent of new home are in an association. It is the future of home buying to expect that there will be an association of some type. I wish I could help, but you should have asked the question in the beginning. You could write letters to the real estate offices and boards, but it will not solve your situation. Sorry.
So shut up and go read the rest of the Q & A, Pilgrim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)