Where Georgia is ahead of the curve: The privatization of political rallies | Political Insider blog
"The incident at Burt’s Pumpkin Farm in Dawsonville was, in fact, a precursor to a new, defining feature of politics in 2016 – the privatized presidential rally. Other candidates have engaged in culling potential disruptors – whether inconvenient reporters or suspected counter-demonstrators — from their mass gatherings. Prior to Georgia’s primary earlier this month, two black college students were ejected from a Hillary Clinton rally at Atlanta City Hall by police, for scrawling “Black Lives Matter” on the back of a campaign sign. But it is the Republican campaign of Donald Trump that has carried crowd (and press) control to a new extreme. Two things you can always count on at his raucous rallies: Loud music, and the disembodied male voice that makes it clear that “this is a private event paid for by Mr. Trump.”
-----
Well, of course Trump uses "private property rights" to silence freedom of speech. He's a real estate developer, after all, and they figured out that game a long time ago. This is why so many CID residents get in trouble for political expression--they are on private property and under the rule of a private government, courtesy of a real estate developer and a local government that (wink wink) knew nothing, nothing.
You know what is really funny? There are some people who consider themselves homeowner activists who support Trump. How clueless is that?
Saturday, March 19, 2016
Thursday, March 17, 2016
CAI supports federal legislation to give income tax deduction for association assessments
CAI Government Affairs Blog
"U.S. Representatives Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA) and Mike Thompson (D-CA) introduced a measure that would allow homeowners in community associations who earn $115,000 or less in annual income to deduct up to $5,000 of their association fees and assessments from their federal tax liability. Community Associations Institute (CAI) has expressed support for the bill. The federal legislation will benefit many of the more than 66 million Americans who live in homeowners associations, condominium communities, cooperatives and other planned communities."
--------------
Stay tuned--let's see if this Democrat-sponsored bill goes anywhere in a Republican-dominated, Tea Party-crazed, House of Representatives.
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Thoughts on micropolitics and macropolitics
When I first started writing about CIDs, I realized that there were two sets of issues I wanted to write about, and I divided them into micropolitics and macropolitics. Micropolitics means all the things that go on inside associations that are ruled by private governments, and for me the most important issues have to do with the relationship between unit owners and their BOD. Macropolitics refers to the relationship between associations and the rest of society, such as governments and developers. One important issue of macropolitics is to what extend this type of real estate development contributes to segregation--by race, income, age, and other factors.
Both these issue areas are important. Unfortunately, many people are intensely interested in issues of micropolitics, but don't care about the macropolitics issues at all. This is really too bad. It speaks to a lack of political awareness that undermines a lot of the activism people are involved with. When people trot off to the state capitol to make impassioned pleas for the rights of CID unit owners, claiming oppression at the hands of BODs and professionals, they run into legislators who may be unsympathetic. Why? Because they are thinking of these activists as over-privileged homeowners who have voluntarily isolated themselves from the rest of society in exclusive enclaves, and who now want to remake the deal they agreed to.When I tried to interest foundations in studying this subject and doing adult education, I ran into the same stereotype there.
Over the years I have done everything I could to dismantle that perception. I have written and talked about municipal mandates, adhesion contracts, lack of choice in the housing market, conscripting moderate and even low income people into condos and townhomes, and so forth. But the perception is still there.
I think if owner activists tried to link their causes with those of other interest groups that have larger concerns and broader constituencies, such as consumers, seniors, affordable housing advocates, for example, it would make their activism more effective. It would help to dispel the spoiled rich suburbanite/gated community stereotype.
I also think that people need to give more thought to association finances. This is both micro and macro politics. How can you claim to be an advocate for owner interests if your burning passion is to see associations disintegrate financially from being unable to collect overdue assessments? The owners you claim to care about are the ones who would get hurt. The issue is not whether they should be able to collect assessments from every owner. Of course they should, because the owners who pay end up carrying the burden of those who don't. And defunct associations hurt all the owners and the surrounding communities, with some level of local government left with the problems. The issues that need attention are about how and what associations should be able to collect--what practices are unfair or abusive, how should assessment levels be determined, what fees and charges should be permissible, etc.
Finally--this type of housing is not going away. It is here to stay. In fact, it has been spreading all over the world. Spending time and energy trying to abolish CID housing is unproductive and reveals a lack of understanding of why this is happening. Local governments are not going to go back to the days when they used taxing and bonding capability to build and maintain the infrastructure needed to support private residential development. They are too busy trying to find money to fill potholes and keep bridges from collapsing. Developers, state legislators, lenders, and federal bureaucrats have institutionalized CID housing and will continue to be the norm in new construction in the years to come.
Both these issue areas are important. Unfortunately, many people are intensely interested in issues of micropolitics, but don't care about the macropolitics issues at all. This is really too bad. It speaks to a lack of political awareness that undermines a lot of the activism people are involved with. When people trot off to the state capitol to make impassioned pleas for the rights of CID unit owners, claiming oppression at the hands of BODs and professionals, they run into legislators who may be unsympathetic. Why? Because they are thinking of these activists as over-privileged homeowners who have voluntarily isolated themselves from the rest of society in exclusive enclaves, and who now want to remake the deal they agreed to.When I tried to interest foundations in studying this subject and doing adult education, I ran into the same stereotype there.
Over the years I have done everything I could to dismantle that perception. I have written and talked about municipal mandates, adhesion contracts, lack of choice in the housing market, conscripting moderate and even low income people into condos and townhomes, and so forth. But the perception is still there.
I think if owner activists tried to link their causes with those of other interest groups that have larger concerns and broader constituencies, such as consumers, seniors, affordable housing advocates, for example, it would make their activism more effective. It would help to dispel the spoiled rich suburbanite/gated community stereotype.
I also think that people need to give more thought to association finances. This is both micro and macro politics. How can you claim to be an advocate for owner interests if your burning passion is to see associations disintegrate financially from being unable to collect overdue assessments? The owners you claim to care about are the ones who would get hurt. The issue is not whether they should be able to collect assessments from every owner. Of course they should, because the owners who pay end up carrying the burden of those who don't. And defunct associations hurt all the owners and the surrounding communities, with some level of local government left with the problems. The issues that need attention are about how and what associations should be able to collect--what practices are unfair or abusive, how should assessment levels be determined, what fees and charges should be permissible, etc.
Finally--this type of housing is not going away. It is here to stay. In fact, it has been spreading all over the world. Spending time and energy trying to abolish CID housing is unproductive and reveals a lack of understanding of why this is happening. Local governments are not going to go back to the days when they used taxing and bonding capability to build and maintain the infrastructure needed to support private residential development. They are too busy trying to find money to fill potholes and keep bridges from collapsing. Developers, state legislators, lenders, and federal bureaucrats have institutionalized CID housing and will continue to be the norm in new construction in the years to come.
Woman convicted of looting homeowners associations in Simi Valley, Calabasas
Woman convicted of looting homeowners associations in Simi Valley, Calabasas: "The owner of a now-defunct management company in Thousand Oaks has been convicted of systematically looting hundreds of thousands of dollars from two homeowners associations in Simi Valley and Calabasas.
Kristin Davis, 46, was found guilty this month by a Ventura County Superior Court jury of stealing from the Big Sky Homeowners Association in Simi Valley and the Oak Park Calabasas Homeowners Association, which her company managed."
--------------------
One of these, Oak Park Calabasas, was involved in numerous mega-lawsuits a few years ago arising out of insurance claims and breach of contract disputes.
Kristin Davis, 46, was found guilty this month by a Ventura County Superior Court jury of stealing from the Big Sky Homeowners Association in Simi Valley and the Oak Park Calabasas Homeowners Association, which her company managed."
--------------------
One of these, Oak Park Calabasas, was involved in numerous mega-lawsuits a few years ago arising out of insurance claims and breach of contract disputes.
Dozens of Lowcountry homeowners associations sue property manager | News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | WCIV
Dozens of Lowcountry homeowners associations sue property manager | News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | WCIV: "CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCIV) — "More than 50 homeowners associations from Seabrook to Summerville filed a lawsuit this week alleging that a property manager billed at least some of them for services that weren't provided.
The nearly five dozen plaintiffs filed the lawsuit Monday in Charleston County Circuit Court alleging that Marshland Communities and its owner, Karen Colie, misappropriated funds from at least some of them."
---------------
The manager says she "made some terrible mistakes in an effort to stay afloat and it has caught up with me." The temptation to do these things has proven too great for many managers and officers, who have helped themselves to association funds in one way or another. With owners often not paying much attention, and little if any government oversight, it is easy to see why this happens to often.
The nearly five dozen plaintiffs filed the lawsuit Monday in Charleston County Circuit Court alleging that Marshland Communities and its owner, Karen Colie, misappropriated funds from at least some of them."
---------------
The manager says she "made some terrible mistakes in an effort to stay afloat and it has caught up with me." The temptation to do these things has proven too great for many managers and officers, who have helped themselves to association funds in one way or another. With owners often not paying much attention, and little if any government oversight, it is easy to see why this happens to often.
Inside the "Disney for Adults" That Could Help Deliver Florida to Donald Trump | Mother Jones
Inside the "Disney for Adults" That Could Help Deliver Florida to Donald Trump | Mother Jones:
"The largest retirement community in the United States is home to 49 golf courses, dozens of restaurants, a college, an app, and three movie theaters spread across three counties in an area larger than Manhattan. Since the first trailers popped up in cattle country an hour north of Orlando, Florida, four decades ago, the Villages has swelled to a population of more than 114,000 people; almost all are over the age of 55, white, and drive around the community in golf carts that can be outfitted to resemble taxis, fire trucks, or tanks. Residents refer to the place as "Disney for adults." In addition to being one of the most quintessentially Florida places on Earth, the Villages is one of the most Republican places in Florida. For years its politics were dominated by H. Gary Morse, the late conservative megadonor who built the community and helped send Marco Rubio to the Senate six years ago and Mitt Romney to the nomination in 2012. On Tuesday night, voters there will go a long way toward determining who comes away with the state's 99 delegates. Rubio, who spoke to an overflow crowd at a rec center here on Sunday, is staking his political future on a strong showing. But lately, everything is turning up Trump."
-----------------------
The Villages is a monster retirement community in Florida that has a number of HOAs within it, but they all operate under the ultimate power of a special district that is about as undemocratic as any jurisdiction can be. I did a paper on it last year that will be a book chapter soon. But the interesting angle in this article is that a recent straw poll indicates The Villages is overwhelmingly pro-Trump. If the general election vote in Florida is close, what happens in The Villages could tilt the election to Der Drumpenfuhrer. Why is it Trump Country? "In many respects, the villages is a kind of Donald Trump Fantasyland, a world devoid of Muslims or almost any people of color, where the golf is always free and America has always been great."
"The largest retirement community in the United States is home to 49 golf courses, dozens of restaurants, a college, an app, and three movie theaters spread across three counties in an area larger than Manhattan. Since the first trailers popped up in cattle country an hour north of Orlando, Florida, four decades ago, the Villages has swelled to a population of more than 114,000 people; almost all are over the age of 55, white, and drive around the community in golf carts that can be outfitted to resemble taxis, fire trucks, or tanks. Residents refer to the place as "Disney for adults." In addition to being one of the most quintessentially Florida places on Earth, the Villages is one of the most Republican places in Florida. For years its politics were dominated by H. Gary Morse, the late conservative megadonor who built the community and helped send Marco Rubio to the Senate six years ago and Mitt Romney to the nomination in 2012. On Tuesday night, voters there will go a long way toward determining who comes away with the state's 99 delegates. Rubio, who spoke to an overflow crowd at a rec center here on Sunday, is staking his political future on a strong showing. But lately, everything is turning up Trump."
-----------------------
The Villages is a monster retirement community in Florida that has a number of HOAs within it, but they all operate under the ultimate power of a special district that is about as undemocratic as any jurisdiction can be. I did a paper on it last year that will be a book chapter soon. But the interesting angle in this article is that a recent straw poll indicates The Villages is overwhelmingly pro-Trump. If the general election vote in Florida is close, what happens in The Villages could tilt the election to Der Drumpenfuhrer. Why is it Trump Country? "In many respects, the villages is a kind of Donald Trump Fantasyland, a world devoid of Muslims or almost any people of color, where the golf is always free and America has always been great."
Sunday, March 06, 2016
Trump Announces Rally at UIC Next Week, Thousands RSVP to Protest - University Village - DNAinfo.com Chicago
Trump Announces Rally at UIC Next Week, Thousands RSVP to Protest - University Village - DNAinfo.com Chicago
As many of you know, I have taught political science at UIC since 1994. This event is creating quite a stir around campus. There is a protest being organized on Facebook and other social media. There was also a movement to cancel the event that was immediately rejected by the Chancellor, and I agree with him. Let Trump speak at UIC, and let the protesters have their say as well.
And let me say this--when he shows up at UIC on Friday, his followers may be in for a big surprise. I wonder how much Trump's organizers knew about UIC and the surrounding area when they chose this site. UIC is in the heart of Chicago, near Greektown, Little Italy, the Latino neighborhood called Pilsen, and the African-American west side and south side. It is the most diverse university in the most diverse general area that you can imagine. UIC has over 29,000 students. As the University reported in September, 2015, "UIC’s well-known diversity continues, with a racial and ethnic makeup of its student body that is 37.7 percent white, 18.4 percent Asian, 20.8 percent Hispanic/Latino and 7.9 percent African-American. Undergraduate enrollment is 33.7 percent white, 28.2 percent Hispanic/Latino, 22.2 percent Asian, and 8.1 percent African-American." It will be interesting to see what the ratio is of protesters to supporters.
As many of you know, I have taught political science at UIC since 1994. This event is creating quite a stir around campus. There is a protest being organized on Facebook and other social media. There was also a movement to cancel the event that was immediately rejected by the Chancellor, and I agree with him. Let Trump speak at UIC, and let the protesters have their say as well.
And let me say this--when he shows up at UIC on Friday, his followers may be in for a big surprise. I wonder how much Trump's organizers knew about UIC and the surrounding area when they chose this site. UIC is in the heart of Chicago, near Greektown, Little Italy, the Latino neighborhood called Pilsen, and the African-American west side and south side. It is the most diverse university in the most diverse general area that you can imagine. UIC has over 29,000 students. As the University reported in September, 2015, "UIC’s well-known diversity continues, with a racial and ethnic makeup of its student body that is 37.7 percent white, 18.4 percent Asian, 20.8 percent Hispanic/Latino and 7.9 percent African-American. Undergraduate enrollment is 33.7 percent white, 28.2 percent Hispanic/Latino, 22.2 percent Asian, and 8.1 percent African-American." It will be interesting to see what the ratio is of protesters to supporters.
New Illinois Condominium & HOA Report Reveals 50,000 Associations - Evanston Review
New Illinois Condominium & HOA Report Reveals 50,000 Associations - Evanston Review
"The state of Illinois currently has more than 50,000 active condominium and homeowner associations containing nearly 600,000 residential units, new comprehensive research by Association Evaluation, LLC has revealed. The Community Associations Institute, a respected national organization, lists a total of 18,250 condominium and HOAs in Illinois as of 2015." Our research team was surprised to learn that thousands of condominium and HOA associations were uncounted in Illinois," said Sara Benson, president of Association Evaluation, LLC, a Chicago-based real estate data-analysis firm...Association Evaluation is marketing its condominium and HOA data to condo service providers such as attorneys, property management companies, landscapers, and remodeling and repair tradesmen including roofers, plumbers and contractors."
-----------------
CAI's estimates have been used by just about everybody because the Census Bureau can't be bothered asking questions about this, and most state and local governments are happy to just let CIDs proliferate without much oversight, even to the point of not keeping track of how many there are. Sara and her organization have a different methodology than CAI uses, and they came up with a much higher number. I don't know which is more accurate at this point, although of course I want to find out. I'm not clear on the methodology Sara's organization is using, and the Trib article doesn't explain it very well: "The data was gathered from physical reviews and Google rooftop checks of thousands of condo and HOA properties, and an analysis of the Secretary of State records." You have to be careful with Secretary of State searches because they lump all corporations and LLCs together and you have to decide which is an HOA or condo association. Often it is clear, sometimes it is not (see for yourself).
I also don't see any motivation for CAI to understate the numbers. But it does lead me to wonder--if it is true that CAI's numbers for Illinois are low, then are their numbers for other states and their national numbers also understated? For example, in their latest Statistical Review. CAI says there are 333,600 associations nationwide, with 26.7 million units of housing and 66.7 million people. Sara says that CAI's Illinois numbers are way low. CAI finds 18,250 association and Sara says there are 270% more than that. So they claim that CAI only found 36.5% of the association in the state. That is an enormous difference in estimates--if you extrapolate from the claims about Illinois, then do we have close to one million associations in this country? To be continued.
"The state of Illinois currently has more than 50,000 active condominium and homeowner associations containing nearly 600,000 residential units, new comprehensive research by Association Evaluation, LLC has revealed. The Community Associations Institute, a respected national organization, lists a total of 18,250 condominium and HOAs in Illinois as of 2015." Our research team was surprised to learn that thousands of condominium and HOA associations were uncounted in Illinois," said Sara Benson, president of Association Evaluation, LLC, a Chicago-based real estate data-analysis firm...Association Evaluation is marketing its condominium and HOA data to condo service providers such as attorneys, property management companies, landscapers, and remodeling and repair tradesmen including roofers, plumbers and contractors."
-----------------
CAI's estimates have been used by just about everybody because the Census Bureau can't be bothered asking questions about this, and most state and local governments are happy to just let CIDs proliferate without much oversight, even to the point of not keeping track of how many there are. Sara and her organization have a different methodology than CAI uses, and they came up with a much higher number. I don't know which is more accurate at this point, although of course I want to find out. I'm not clear on the methodology Sara's organization is using, and the Trib article doesn't explain it very well: "The data was gathered from physical reviews and Google rooftop checks of thousands of condo and HOA properties, and an analysis of the Secretary of State records." You have to be careful with Secretary of State searches because they lump all corporations and LLCs together and you have to decide which is an HOA or condo association. Often it is clear, sometimes it is not (see for yourself).
I also don't see any motivation for CAI to understate the numbers. But it does lead me to wonder--if it is true that CAI's numbers for Illinois are low, then are their numbers for other states and their national numbers also understated? For example, in their latest Statistical Review. CAI says there are 333,600 associations nationwide, with 26.7 million units of housing and 66.7 million people. Sara says that CAI's Illinois numbers are way low. CAI finds 18,250 association and Sara says there are 270% more than that. So they claim that CAI only found 36.5% of the association in the state. That is an enormous difference in estimates--if you extrapolate from the claims about Illinois, then do we have close to one million associations in this country? To be continued.
Friday, March 04, 2016
Is your home at risk for takeover? State law allows for condos to be forcibly taken - ABC15 Arizona
Is your home at risk for takeover? State law allows for condos to be forcibly taken - ABC15 Arizona
"The Arizona Condominium Act (ARS33-1228) allows for an HOA to disband if 80 percent of the members agree to it. In this case the investors were the 80 percent. Forcing the remaining owners to sell at what they called market value set at $75,000. That number was determined by an appraiser, hired by the investor-run HOA according to the termination agreement filed with the county. These folks say it was just enough to pay off their mortgages and left nothing to even put toward a down payment."
------------
I get lots of comments and emails from people saying they want owners to have the power to dissolve their HOA, and sometimes that's the sensible thing to do. But that can also be done by an investor-owner with 80% of the voting interests, who can then force the remaining owners to sell.
Wednesday, March 02, 2016
What Will Become of Levittown, Pennsylvania? - CityLab
What Will Become of Levittown, Pennsylvania? - CityLab: "The archetypal postwar suburb has less socioeconomic diversity—and hardly more racial diversity—than it did in the 1950s."
--------------
Race restrictive covenants and burning crosses on lawns will tend to cut down on racial diversity. These days there are less obvious ways to accomplish the same objectives.
--------------
Race restrictive covenants and burning crosses on lawns will tend to cut down on racial diversity. These days there are less obvious ways to accomplish the same objectives.
Tuesday, March 01, 2016
The rise of American authoritarianism - Vox
The rise of American authoritarianism - Vox
"Hetherington and Weiler published a book about the effects of authoritarianism on American politics. Through a series of experiments and careful data analysis, they had come to a surprising conclusion: Much of the polarization dividing American politics was fueled not just by gerrymandering or money in politics or the other oft-cited variables, but by an unnoticed but surprisingly large electoral group — authoritarians. Their book concluded that the GOP, by positioning itself as the party of traditional values and law and order, had unknowingly attracted what would turn out to be a vast and previously bipartisan population of Americans with authoritarian tendencies...Trump, it turns out, is just the symptom. The rise of American authoritarianism is transforming the Republican Party and the dynamics of national politics, with profound consequences likely to extend well beyond this election.
--------------
Authoritarianism is the best predictor of liking Trump.
"Hetherington and Weiler published a book about the effects of authoritarianism on American politics. Through a series of experiments and careful data analysis, they had come to a surprising conclusion: Much of the polarization dividing American politics was fueled not just by gerrymandering or money in politics or the other oft-cited variables, but by an unnoticed but surprisingly large electoral group — authoritarians. Their book concluded that the GOP, by positioning itself as the party of traditional values and law and order, had unknowingly attracted what would turn out to be a vast and previously bipartisan population of Americans with authoritarian tendencies...Trump, it turns out, is just the symptom. The rise of American authoritarianism is transforming the Republican Party and the dynamics of national politics, with profound consequences likely to extend well beyond this election.
--------------
Authoritarianism is the best predictor of liking Trump.
Monday, February 29, 2016
A Country Breaking Down by Elizabeth Drew | The New York Review of Books
A Country Breaking Down by Elizabeth Drew | The New York Review of Books: "The near-total failure of our political institutions to invest for the future, eschewing what doesn’t yield the quick payoff, political and physical, has left us with hopelessly clogged traffic, at risk of being on a bridge that collapses, or on a train that flies off defective rails, or with rusted pipes carrying our drinking water. Broadband is our new interstate highway system, but not everyone has access to it—a division largely based on class. Depending on the measurement used, the United States ranks from fourteenth to thirtieth among all nations in its investments in infrastructure. The wealthiest nation on earth is nowhere near the top."
'via Blog this'
'via Blog this'
HOA HOMEFRONT: Take care when selecting board members - Press Enterprise
HOA HOMEFRONT: Take care when selecting board members - Press Enterprise: "Yes, amazingly, no education or license is required to manage California associations and no education is required to serve on California HOA boards. Florida in 2013 began requiring HOA directors to certify they had read the governing documents and promise to uphold them, or to take an HOA certification course. Nevada’s CAI Chapter created a “Dedicated Community Association Leader” (“DCAL”) distinction, in which the volunteer receives about 30 hours of training. That is presently voluntary, but hundreds of Nevada volunteers have already attained their DCAL certification. In 2008, the Community Associations Institute in California sponsored AB 2806, which would have required volunteer directors obtain at least three hours of education. During the legislative process, the bill was diluted from a mandatory to a voluntary education law and then was vetoed by the Governor, who said voluntary laws are not helpful."
--------------
Board members and officers who don't know how to do their jobs--there is so little oversight that nobody has any idea how bad the situation really is.
--------------
Board members and officers who don't know how to do their jobs--there is so little oversight that nobody has any idea how bad the situation really is.
Condo residents warned against purchasing electric cars - WHEELS.ca
Condo residents warned against purchasing electric cars - WHEELS.ca:
"Residents of a west-end high-rise condominium just got the following message in a letter from their management board president:“Don’t buy an electrically powered vehicle in the expectation that you can have it recharged or powered on our premises … for now, thinking about buying an electrically powered vehicle may not be a practical thing.”"
'via Blog this----------------
Well...this is disappointing. When will building practices catch up with the demand for electric cars?
"Residents of a west-end high-rise condominium just got the following message in a letter from their management board president:“Don’t buy an electrically powered vehicle in the expectation that you can have it recharged or powered on our premises … for now, thinking about buying an electrically powered vehicle may not be a practical thing.”"
'via Blog this----------------
Well...this is disappointing. When will building practices catch up with the demand for electric cars?
Police in Condos | Michelle Kelly's Condo Law Blog
Police in Condos | Michelle Kelly's Condo Law Blog:
'via Blog this'
"What does the board have to do if the police attend with a warrant? What if they don’t have a warrant? When should the condominium contact the police because of an incident that occurred on the property? In the past these questions were not easy to answer. While the condominium’s lawyer could provide general advice, there wasn’t really much case law to support the advice. Fortunately, in the past few years there have been cases that give some guidance. The courts have confirmed that residents have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of a condominium. Here are a few court of appeal decisions in the area: R. v. White (2015), R. v. Labelle (2016), and R. v. Drakes (2009). "
-------------------------
These situations are complicated by the individual interest/common interest property ownership arrangement, building entry controls, and board responsibility for owner safety.
'via Blog this'
"What does the board have to do if the police attend with a warrant? What if they don’t have a warrant? When should the condominium contact the police because of an incident that occurred on the property? In the past these questions were not easy to answer. While the condominium’s lawyer could provide general advice, there wasn’t really much case law to support the advice. Fortunately, in the past few years there have been cases that give some guidance. The courts have confirmed that residents have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of a condominium. Here are a few court of appeal decisions in the area: R. v. White (2015), R. v. Labelle (2016), and R. v. Drakes (2009). "
-------------------------
These situations are complicated by the individual interest/common interest property ownership arrangement, building entry controls, and board responsibility for owner safety.
What does it say about the GOP that Trump is the white supremacists’ candidate? - The Washington Post
What does it say about the GOP that Trump is the white supremacists’ candidate? - The Washington Post
"Maybe the Republican Party cracked the seal on this kind of thing in 2014, when it elevated Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) to the top tier of the House Republican leadership. Scalise, as a state legislator, once addressed a white supremacist convention of the European-American Unity and Rights Organization. He says he had no idea that it was a racist group, but a local reporter says he also told her at the time that Louisiana voters should think of him as “David Duke without the baggage.”
"Maybe the Republican Party cracked the seal on this kind of thing in 2014, when it elevated Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) to the top tier of the House Republican leadership. Scalise, as a state legislator, once addressed a white supremacist convention of the European-American Unity and Rights Organization. He says he had no idea that it was a racist group, but a local reporter says he also told her at the time that Louisiana voters should think of him as “David Duke without the baggage.”
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Know Your Fascist Dictators
Know Your Fascist Dictators
"As long as we're on to the subject of fascist dictators and Donald Trump being compared to Adolf Hitler in major urban newspapers, I thought I should speak up on behalf of fascist dictator Benito Mussolini as the true proto-Trump."
===
From Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo, a more precise analysis of fascist dictators. See also Dana Milbank on the same comparison, and I could go on.
"As long as we're on to the subject of fascist dictators and Donald Trump being compared to Adolf Hitler in major urban newspapers, I thought I should speak up on behalf of fascist dictator Benito Mussolini as the true proto-Trump."
===
From Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo, a more precise analysis of fascist dictators. See also Dana Milbank on the same comparison, and I could go on.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Former Mexican President Vicente Fox: "We’re ‘Not Paying For That F*cking Wall’
http://www.mediaite.com/online/former-mexican-president-were-not-paying-for-that-fcking-wall/
Beautiful. I love it. And here's another one I heard:
2016: No way Trump gets elected President!
2017: No way President Trump fires all those nukes!
2018: No we are doing what those apes say!
You have to find humor where you can in these times.
Beautiful. I love it. And here's another one I heard:
2016: No way Trump gets elected President!
2017: No way President Trump fires all those nukes!
2018: No we are doing what those apes say!
You have to find humor where you can in these times.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
Rush Limbaugh: What This Election Is Really About and What's Really at Stake - The Rush Limbaugh Show
MUST HEAR!!! Rush Blows the Lights Out in the Final Hour! What This Election Is Really About and What's Really at Stake - The Rush Limbaugh Show
I can't stand Rush Limbaugh, but this explanation of what the election is about for people like him is amazingly candid. It explains the massive disconnect between the right wing base and the Republican Party and the rise of Trump. It explains why no candidate supported by the Republican "establishment," not even the far-right poster boy Marco Rubio, can get any traction in the primaries. It explains what all these "angry voters" are really angry about.
It comes down to this. The right-wing base is comprised of angry, frightened white people who are desperately resisting the gradual but inevitable transformation of the US from a white majority country to a multi-ethnic nation.There are many other issues in this election, but ultimately, Limbaugh is really saying, this is the only issue that really matters. This is the last chance, Limbaugh says. He lays it all out: the Democrats and Republicans are collaborating to make the US a majority non-white nation full of layabout immigrants and others in the Democratic coalition (Limbaugh's racism has never been even slightly concealed) who will vote for socialism.
Limbaugh played twice this clip from Marco Rubio, and then he explained what it means to people like him. I put the key language in bold type.
RUBIO: As far as the 12 million here that are, look, I don't believe the American people support some sort of militaristic roundup of individuals, and I don't think you could carry it out, the sort of tactics that would require would offend the American people. And the good news is we don't have to do it that way. If you secure our border, if you secure our border, if you put in place mandatory E-Verify, if you put in place a mandatory entry-exit tracking system, if we prove to the American people that illegal immigration is finally under control, I think the American people will respond in a very rational, reasonable, but responsible way.
For Limbaugh, and for millions of other people, this is easy to interpret--it means that the GOP establishment (and remember that Rubio is now their choice) is complicit with the Democratic party in an effort to (1) not really close the border, and (2) give citizenship, including voting rights, to 12 million or more undocumented immigrants who are already here. Why? Democrats, he says, want voters who are dependent on government programs, which will guarantee their rule forever. The Republican establishment mistakenly believes that outreach to non-white voters is the only way forward for their party. They believe that Latino and Asian voters have enough cultural conservatism to find their party attractive. Limbaugh says the party is clueless. In truth, Limbaugh says, this is the road to ruin for the party. If immigration isn't stopped and 12 million people deported, America as a white majority nation with a capitalist economy is doomed. Here's the way Limbaugh said it:
"It's about preserving a distinct American culture which is under assault, which is under siege. And it's being brought to us by the Democrat Party, which is trying to register all kinds of new voters all the time 'cause they need a permanent underclass of people incapable of taking care of themselves, incapable of providing for themselves who will always be counted on to vote Democrat to be taken care of... If you believe in a certain cultural America, it's under siege. There's nothing to join with on the other side in preserving it. They want to tear it down, transform it, and rebuild it. They have to be defeated. This is why the Republican Party's worthless. They don't even think this way. The Republican Party's thinking about showing they can work together, they can cooperate, make Washington work. Sorry; we're so past that, we're so far past that, it's irrelevant. We're talking about holding on and preserving the country as founded."
He goes on to say that winning the election isn't enough, because "these people have to be defeated. They have to be overwhelmed." There is no compromise, no middle ground, no "bringing the country together," because "We're too divided."
Understand that this is not just Limbaugh. Listen to Mark Levin, or Laura Ingram, or Ann Coulter, or Michael Savage. They all have millions of people listening to them. They all say that immigration is the single most important issue facing (white) America. Eric Cantor, the second most powerful Republican in the House, lost his seat to a Tea Party nutburger over one issue: the slightest, most tentative indication that he might, maybe, be willing to go along with some timid immigration reform. His district tossed him out over that one issue. This xenophobia and racism is exactly what Trump has tapped into. This is why so many different groups within the right wing base--evangelicals, cultural conservatives, ideological conservatives, neoconservatives, you name it--don't care about their differences with Trump on any of their issues. They don't care about his ignorance, lack of political experience, or any other mistake or gaffe or flaw. As Trump says, they wouldn't care if he murdered somebody. Because they know one thing: Donald Trump is a "strong leader" and the most outspoken, aggressive, angry, anti-immigrant candidate they have ever heard, and that is enough for them. This is the racist, xenophobic American right rising up against the changing demographics of the USA, and Trump has fired them up like nothing this country has seen since the 1920s, when the KKK had as many as six million members. They believe that if he gets to the White House, he will somehow preserve White America, even if he has to trample all over the Constitution, the laws, the media, and anybody or anything else.
This is the tiger that Trump is riding. I don't know if he has thought about how and when he gets off, which is always the challenging part. Talk show hosts and candidates just have to talk, but elected officials have to act. The congressional GOP is already the most dysfunctional major party in the developed world. Add to that a president with no experience and narcissistic personality disorder leading a rabble of tens of millions of scared and angry white people, and 2017 could be an interesting year.
I can't stand Rush Limbaugh, but this explanation of what the election is about for people like him is amazingly candid. It explains the massive disconnect between the right wing base and the Republican Party and the rise of Trump. It explains why no candidate supported by the Republican "establishment," not even the far-right poster boy Marco Rubio, can get any traction in the primaries. It explains what all these "angry voters" are really angry about.
It comes down to this. The right-wing base is comprised of angry, frightened white people who are desperately resisting the gradual but inevitable transformation of the US from a white majority country to a multi-ethnic nation.There are many other issues in this election, but ultimately, Limbaugh is really saying, this is the only issue that really matters. This is the last chance, Limbaugh says. He lays it all out: the Democrats and Republicans are collaborating to make the US a majority non-white nation full of layabout immigrants and others in the Democratic coalition (Limbaugh's racism has never been even slightly concealed) who will vote for socialism.
Limbaugh played twice this clip from Marco Rubio, and then he explained what it means to people like him. I put the key language in bold type.
RUBIO: As far as the 12 million here that are, look, I don't believe the American people support some sort of militaristic roundup of individuals, and I don't think you could carry it out, the sort of tactics that would require would offend the American people. And the good news is we don't have to do it that way. If you secure our border, if you secure our border, if you put in place mandatory E-Verify, if you put in place a mandatory entry-exit tracking system, if we prove to the American people that illegal immigration is finally under control, I think the American people will respond in a very rational, reasonable, but responsible way.
For Limbaugh, and for millions of other people, this is easy to interpret--it means that the GOP establishment (and remember that Rubio is now their choice) is complicit with the Democratic party in an effort to (1) not really close the border, and (2) give citizenship, including voting rights, to 12 million or more undocumented immigrants who are already here. Why? Democrats, he says, want voters who are dependent on government programs, which will guarantee their rule forever. The Republican establishment mistakenly believes that outreach to non-white voters is the only way forward for their party. They believe that Latino and Asian voters have enough cultural conservatism to find their party attractive. Limbaugh says the party is clueless. In truth, Limbaugh says, this is the road to ruin for the party. If immigration isn't stopped and 12 million people deported, America as a white majority nation with a capitalist economy is doomed. Here's the way Limbaugh said it:
"It's about preserving a distinct American culture which is under assault, which is under siege. And it's being brought to us by the Democrat Party, which is trying to register all kinds of new voters all the time 'cause they need a permanent underclass of people incapable of taking care of themselves, incapable of providing for themselves who will always be counted on to vote Democrat to be taken care of... If you believe in a certain cultural America, it's under siege. There's nothing to join with on the other side in preserving it. They want to tear it down, transform it, and rebuild it. They have to be defeated. This is why the Republican Party's worthless. They don't even think this way. The Republican Party's thinking about showing they can work together, they can cooperate, make Washington work. Sorry; we're so past that, we're so far past that, it's irrelevant. We're talking about holding on and preserving the country as founded."
He goes on to say that winning the election isn't enough, because "these people have to be defeated. They have to be overwhelmed." There is no compromise, no middle ground, no "bringing the country together," because "We're too divided."
Understand that this is not just Limbaugh. Listen to Mark Levin, or Laura Ingram, or Ann Coulter, or Michael Savage. They all have millions of people listening to them. They all say that immigration is the single most important issue facing (white) America. Eric Cantor, the second most powerful Republican in the House, lost his seat to a Tea Party nutburger over one issue: the slightest, most tentative indication that he might, maybe, be willing to go along with some timid immigration reform. His district tossed him out over that one issue. This xenophobia and racism is exactly what Trump has tapped into. This is why so many different groups within the right wing base--evangelicals, cultural conservatives, ideological conservatives, neoconservatives, you name it--don't care about their differences with Trump on any of their issues. They don't care about his ignorance, lack of political experience, or any other mistake or gaffe or flaw. As Trump says, they wouldn't care if he murdered somebody. Because they know one thing: Donald Trump is a "strong leader" and the most outspoken, aggressive, angry, anti-immigrant candidate they have ever heard, and that is enough for them. This is the racist, xenophobic American right rising up against the changing demographics of the USA, and Trump has fired them up like nothing this country has seen since the 1920s, when the KKK had as many as six million members. They believe that if he gets to the White House, he will somehow preserve White America, even if he has to trample all over the Constitution, the laws, the media, and anybody or anything else.
This is the tiger that Trump is riding. I don't know if he has thought about how and when he gets off, which is always the challenging part. Talk show hosts and candidates just have to talk, but elected officials have to act. The congressional GOP is already the most dysfunctional major party in the developed world. Add to that a president with no experience and narcissistic personality disorder leading a rabble of tens of millions of scared and angry white people, and 2017 could be an interesting year.
20 forced from condo complex deemed uninhabitable | WPRI 12 Eyewitness News
20 forced from condo complex deemed uninhabitable | WPRI 12 Eyewitness News
"WOONSOCKET, R.I. (WPRI) — Twenty people were displaced from their homes Tuesday after a Woonsocket condominium complex was declared uninhabitable, and the city is now threatening legal action if the building is repaired. Many residents have called the Social District Condominiums home for years, but Tuesday was the last day they were allowed to stay in the three-story, six-unit building. Some were able to find another place to stay while others are having a hard time finding a new home. “I just need an apartment for me and my babies,” said Merlin Jackson. “Put a roof over their head. That’s what I’m concerned about and that’s what I want.” City Solicitor Michael Marcello said the building had more than $3,000 in unpaid water and sewer fees. Trash could be seen piling up outside, creating a fire hazard, and squatters were known to live there."
------------------
Another busted condo project. Nobody knows how many there are. I know that here in Chicago there are at least 200 that came to the attention of the city. There are hundreds in Florida, probably hundreds in Nevada.
"WOONSOCKET, R.I. (WPRI) — Twenty people were displaced from their homes Tuesday after a Woonsocket condominium complex was declared uninhabitable, and the city is now threatening legal action if the building is repaired. Many residents have called the Social District Condominiums home for years, but Tuesday was the last day they were allowed to stay in the three-story, six-unit building. Some were able to find another place to stay while others are having a hard time finding a new home. “I just need an apartment for me and my babies,” said Merlin Jackson. “Put a roof over their head. That’s what I’m concerned about and that’s what I want.” City Solicitor Michael Marcello said the building had more than $3,000 in unpaid water and sewer fees. Trash could be seen piling up outside, creating a fire hazard, and squatters were known to live there."
------------------
Another busted condo project. Nobody knows how many there are. I know that here in Chicago there are at least 200 that came to the attention of the city. There are hundreds in Florida, probably hundreds in Nevada.
Eric Glazer: should Florida HOAs get the same protections as condos?
THE FLORIDA HOA & CONDO BLOG
Eric Glazer is a Florida attorney who says the answer is "yes." Read his argument above, and see also this story about his efforts.
Eric Glazer is a Florida attorney who says the answer is "yes." Read his argument above, and see also this story about his efforts.
Monday, February 22, 2016
It's official: the presidential election is a horse race
The corporate media have decided to interpret this presidential race entirely as a sporting event. They have been trending this way for a long time, and now it is everything. They will talk only about opinion polling and election results. The presidential election is a horse race, and the only thing that matters is handicapping, and then reporting win, place, or show. Watching this coverage I feel like I'm sitting with my dad on the rail at Santa Anita. If you want to know what the candidates have done in the past, or what they promise to do if elected, I guess you will have to hunt for that on the Internet, because you won't see such things as Marco Rubio's insane tax policies and war plans exposed on television.
Sunday, February 21, 2016
Market for Fixer-Uppers Traps Low-Income Buyers - The New York Times
Market for Fixer-Uppers Traps Low-Income Buyers - The New York Times
Thanks to Fred Pilot for this link:
"Dozens of these houses were scooped up after the financial crisis by investors, who then make deals with low-income home buyers unable to get traditional mortgages. The arrangement is something like buying a home on an installment plan, with a high-interest, long-term loan called a contract for deed, or land contract. But for buyers lured by the dream of homeownership, these seller-financed transactions can become a money trap that ends with a quick eviction by the seller, who can flip the home again. Before the housing crisis, low-income buyers got too much of a house that they couldn’t afford. Now, they are getting too little of a house that they can’t afford to repair."
Thanks to Fred Pilot for this link:
"Dozens of these houses were scooped up after the financial crisis by investors, who then make deals with low-income home buyers unable to get traditional mortgages. The arrangement is something like buying a home on an installment plan, with a high-interest, long-term loan called a contract for deed, or land contract. But for buyers lured by the dream of homeownership, these seller-financed transactions can become a money trap that ends with a quick eviction by the seller, who can flip the home again. Before the housing crisis, low-income buyers got too much of a house that they couldn’t afford. Now, they are getting too little of a house that they can’t afford to repair."
Bernie Sanders Says Low Voter Turnout Led to Loss in Nevada | TIME
Bernie Sanders Says Low Voter Turnout Led to Loss in Nevada | TIME
"What I’ve said over and over again, we will do well when young people, when working-class people come out,” Sanders said on NBC’s Meet the Press. “We do not do well when the voter turnout is not large. We did not do as good a job as I had wanted to bring out a large turnout.”
-----------
That's a bad sign for Bernie Sanders, who is right when he says he needs a "political revolution." Bernie is in an incredibly difficult position because he doesn't have a party to lead. The Democratic Party is not a democratic socialist party, and Bernie has never been a Democrat. Now he''s running for the nomination of the party, but the party will fight him until he drops out. He, on the other hand, can't launch a full-on attack on the party, because he needs partisan Democrats to vote for him. And he can't really attack the last two Democratic presidents, even though both of them are against him, because a Democratic candidate has to say the last two Democratic presidents were successful. Bernie is trying to get around these problems by creating a social movement. But there are few things in politics harder to do than creating, sustaining, and leading a successful social movement. Bernie's movement is only a few months old and what they did in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina is impressive, but it is heavily reliant on demographic groups that are notorious for low turnout, especially young voters and low-income people. Bernie is trying to be a transformative figure in American politics, like FDR and Ronald Reagan. They remade their parties, creating new governing coalitions. But they weren't outsiders, like Bernie. Reagan had a record as a Republican governor when he ran for President, and FDR was a lifelong Democrat. Both had solid connections to powerful emerging forces within their parties. They were influential figures with clout, and didn't try to do end runs around their parties. The Democratic Party has intentionally sidelined its left wing for the last 30+ years. I don't see how Bernie can stage a takeover of that party, coming from outside it. I think that would take somebody who has a ton of credibility within the party. Maybe Bernie is starting something that will get picked up by others, but I just don't see his path to the nomination this year.
"What I’ve said over and over again, we will do well when young people, when working-class people come out,” Sanders said on NBC’s Meet the Press. “We do not do well when the voter turnout is not large. We did not do as good a job as I had wanted to bring out a large turnout.”
-----------
That's a bad sign for Bernie Sanders, who is right when he says he needs a "political revolution." Bernie is in an incredibly difficult position because he doesn't have a party to lead. The Democratic Party is not a democratic socialist party, and Bernie has never been a Democrat. Now he''s running for the nomination of the party, but the party will fight him until he drops out. He, on the other hand, can't launch a full-on attack on the party, because he needs partisan Democrats to vote for him. And he can't really attack the last two Democratic presidents, even though both of them are against him, because a Democratic candidate has to say the last two Democratic presidents were successful. Bernie is trying to get around these problems by creating a social movement. But there are few things in politics harder to do than creating, sustaining, and leading a successful social movement. Bernie's movement is only a few months old and what they did in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina is impressive, but it is heavily reliant on demographic groups that are notorious for low turnout, especially young voters and low-income people. Bernie is trying to be a transformative figure in American politics, like FDR and Ronald Reagan. They remade their parties, creating new governing coalitions. But they weren't outsiders, like Bernie. Reagan had a record as a Republican governor when he ran for President, and FDR was a lifelong Democrat. Both had solid connections to powerful emerging forces within their parties. They were influential figures with clout, and didn't try to do end runs around their parties. The Democratic Party has intentionally sidelined its left wing for the last 30+ years. I don't see how Bernie can stage a takeover of that party, coming from outside it. I think that would take somebody who has a ton of credibility within the party. Maybe Bernie is starting something that will get picked up by others, but I just don't see his path to the nomination this year.
Jeffrey Toobin on Antonin Scalia
Looking Back - The New Yorker
"Antonin Scalia, who died this month, after nearly three decades on the Supreme Court, devoted his professional life to making the United States a less fair, less tolerant, and less admirable democracy. Fortunately, he mostly failed. Belligerent with his colleagues, dismissive of his critics, nostalgic for a world where outsiders knew their place and stayed there, Scalia represents a perfect model for everything that President Obama should avoid in a successor. The great Justices of the Supreme Court have always looked forward; their words both anticipated and helped shape the nation that the United States was becoming. Chief Justice John Marshall read the new Constitution to allow for a vibrant and progressive federal government. Louis Brandeis understood the need for that government to regulate an industrializing economy. Earl Warren saw that segregation was poison in the modern world. Scalia, in contrast, looked backward."
----------------
Toobin just eviscerates Scalia in this piece, and he's right. Scalia was one of the worst Supreme Court justices in a century. His so-called judicial philosophy was really just a smoke screen that he used to justify imposing his retrograde values on the country. He was not an originalist, or a textualist, except when it suited him. Whenever he wanted, he ignored the text of the constitution and the imaginary "original meaning" of the words. He was notorious for taking all-expenses-paid junkets on the tab of rich people, and giving bloviating speeches to the Federalist society where he would pronounce his dogmatic personal opinions on matters coming before the courts, and then he would arrogantly reject demands that he recuse himself for obvious bias. Scalia's hypocrisy knew no limits. He was a right-wing movement judicial activist with a totally predictable voting record who claimed to be a deep believer in judicial restraint, and just laughed when people pointed that out. Listen to the screams of anguish at his passing from Rush Limbaugh and all the other right wing AM radio and Fox News loons. They knew exactly what Scalia was all about. That was the joke Scalia was always smirking about. He was a fraud, he knew it, and he got away with. It made him happy to do things like giving the presidency to Bush, empowering the gun bullies who are terrorizing the country, striking down the Voting Rights Act, denouncing gays and lesbians, and unleashing the tidal wave of dark money that is drowning what was left of democracy in the US. The best thing that could happen to Scalia's judicial legacy is obliteration. He will go down in history as a reactionary sideshow who held back social and political progress.
"Antonin Scalia, who died this month, after nearly three decades on the Supreme Court, devoted his professional life to making the United States a less fair, less tolerant, and less admirable democracy. Fortunately, he mostly failed. Belligerent with his colleagues, dismissive of his critics, nostalgic for a world where outsiders knew their place and stayed there, Scalia represents a perfect model for everything that President Obama should avoid in a successor. The great Justices of the Supreme Court have always looked forward; their words both anticipated and helped shape the nation that the United States was becoming. Chief Justice John Marshall read the new Constitution to allow for a vibrant and progressive federal government. Louis Brandeis understood the need for that government to regulate an industrializing economy. Earl Warren saw that segregation was poison in the modern world. Scalia, in contrast, looked backward."
----------------
Toobin just eviscerates Scalia in this piece, and he's right. Scalia was one of the worst Supreme Court justices in a century. His so-called judicial philosophy was really just a smoke screen that he used to justify imposing his retrograde values on the country. He was not an originalist, or a textualist, except when it suited him. Whenever he wanted, he ignored the text of the constitution and the imaginary "original meaning" of the words. He was notorious for taking all-expenses-paid junkets on the tab of rich people, and giving bloviating speeches to the Federalist society where he would pronounce his dogmatic personal opinions on matters coming before the courts, and then he would arrogantly reject demands that he recuse himself for obvious bias. Scalia's hypocrisy knew no limits. He was a right-wing movement judicial activist with a totally predictable voting record who claimed to be a deep believer in judicial restraint, and just laughed when people pointed that out. Listen to the screams of anguish at his passing from Rush Limbaugh and all the other right wing AM radio and Fox News loons. They knew exactly what Scalia was all about. That was the joke Scalia was always smirking about. He was a fraud, he knew it, and he got away with. It made him happy to do things like giving the presidency to Bush, empowering the gun bullies who are terrorizing the country, striking down the Voting Rights Act, denouncing gays and lesbians, and unleashing the tidal wave of dark money that is drowning what was left of democracy in the US. The best thing that could happen to Scalia's judicial legacy is obliteration. He will go down in history as a reactionary sideshow who held back social and political progress.
Thursday, February 18, 2016
Hickory Woman Accused of Embezzling from Homeowners' Association
"56-year-old Kim Elaine Lofton of 12th Street Drive N.W. in Hickory was served a true bill of indictment by Hickory Police at about 5:40 Friday afternoon (February 12) on one felony count of embezzlement. The charge dates back to July of 2014 when representatives of the Manor House condominiums on 12th Street Drive N.W. reported issues with the president of their homeowners’ association. The reporting parties believed that homeowner’s fees were unaccounted for. An audit showed a shortage of $140,000. The losses occurred from the time Lofton initially served as president in 2008 until the alleged embezzlement was reported in 2014."
------------------
http://www.whky.com/archive/item/10023-hickory-woman-accused-of-embezzling-from-homeowners-association?utm_content=buffer47d80&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#.VsYL6fkrKUl
Friday, February 12, 2016
Hillary and Bernie -- work within the system or change it?
In the last two debates between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, they have begun to argue about the most fundamental political choice there is. If you are political person who thinks this country isn't all it could or should be, how should you spend your time and energy?
One path, the one Hillary Clinton has followed, says you should work inside the existing system, and to the extent you can, make it work for people and ultimately improve it. Make it less corrupt, more open, more sensitive to the needs of the many instead of the few. And as you work within that system, you rise up through its institutions until one day you will have real power. At that point, you will be have real influence and can accomplish real reform. German student radical Rudi Dutschke called this the "long march through the institutions of power." This is essentially the argument that Hillary Clinton makes about herself and about President Obama. People like Clinton and Obama ultimately don't believe that rapid, major, social and political change is possible in the near term, so they try to do the best they can within the limits imposed on political choices by "reality," by which they mean the existing distribution of power. They get credentials from the best universities, enter the professions, take jobs that pay well, become wealthy and powerful, and eventually get to know the economic and political elites who run this country. Now Hillary Clinton stands at the doorstep of the US Presidency, and she promises to do everything that is possible if she gets that job.
And of course that is exactly what Barack Obama promised when he was running: hope and change. He talked like somebody who meant to make fundamental changes. But in truth he has always been somebody who works within the system. That's what he was here in Illinois as a state Senator, that's what he was as a US Senator, and that's what he was as President. When he became President at a time of economic crisis, when he had the best opportunity since FDR to get the public behind him and make major changes, he didn't do it. Instead, he settled for trying to deal with the crisis in the context of existing institutions. He continued Bush's wars and even escalated the war in Afghanistan; instead of nationalizing or breaking up the big banks that crashed the world economy, he continued the bank bailouts and did virtually nothing for home owners; in a futile effort to compromise with Republicans who hated him, he signed legislation that he promised he would never sign to continue Bush's tax cuts on the rich; he signed a health care reform bill without doing anything to fight for the public option that supposedly distinguished him from Hillary Clinton; he has done nothing but talk about the gun psychosis that is sweeping the nation; and on and on. But (his defenders would say) look at what he accomplished--significant re-regulation of Wall Street; reducing US casualties in overseas wars and trying to make other nations defend themselves; the stock market soared, federal deficits and the unemployment rate have been going down steadily, millions of people now have health insurance, we are no longer a global pariah that invades countries based on lies.
So goes the defense of the "work within the system" approach.
But Bernie Sanders represents the other alternative: being an uncompromising radical who never abandons the quest for major social and political change. Bernie Sanders won't even call himself a Democrat and instead identifies himself as a democratic socialist. He wants to change the system in fundamental ways and will never be satisfied with working at the margins. People like Bernie view people like Hillary as sellouts who looked after themselves instead of joining the collective effort to change the entire system. It would take a massive collective effort, but if enough people joined, anything could be accomplished. That's what Bernie means when he calls for a "political revolution." He's talking about a mass movement that mobilizes up to 99% of the society against the plutocrats who really hold virtually all the real power.
If you look through the history of the US and around the world, you will see that such mass movements are few and far between. You will also find that they often end up taking strange courses that can be quite ugly. The standard conservative argument against radical change through mass movements is Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France, in which he shows how the leaders of the revolution turned the people against the church, the monarchy, and all other institutions that they had ever respected. The result was a parade of human misery and eventual restoration of the monarchy.
Keep in mind that Clinton and Sanders are baby boomers, and so am I. We remember the way this eternal conflict--incremental reform versus radical change--divided our generation. People called each other sellouts, greedheads, hopeless utopian posers, and so on. This played itself out in the 1980s, when the neoliberals and the Democratic Leadership Council succeeded in steering the Democratic Party away from social democratic goals and toward southern white guys, big corporations, and interventionist foreign policy. Bill Clinton, Bruce Babbitt, Chuck Robb, Al From--they set up the playbook for winning elections with this so-called "centrist" approach. And Obama is very much a neoliberal, but one who uses progressive rhetoric.
And now here we are, at another moment in American history where tens of millions of people are just flat ticked off, and the eternal choice presents itself: incremental reform, or radical change?
If Bernie Sanders wins the presidency, Obama will be the last neoliberal Democratic president and we enter a new era of politics. But if he loses the nomination to Clinton, it will be business as usual for the Democrats. If Bernie wins the nomination and gets obliterated in the general election, the left will not recover in our lifetime. And that, of course, is Clinton's argument: I represent the limits of what is possible in this country, at this time. Vote for me or the Republicans take over every branch of the national government, and everything will be much, much worse.
And now in 2016, Democrats are asked to choose once again between these two approaches. Given the political and economic circumstances in this country right now, the stakes are high.
One path, the one Hillary Clinton has followed, says you should work inside the existing system, and to the extent you can, make it work for people and ultimately improve it. Make it less corrupt, more open, more sensitive to the needs of the many instead of the few. And as you work within that system, you rise up through its institutions until one day you will have real power. At that point, you will be have real influence and can accomplish real reform. German student radical Rudi Dutschke called this the "long march through the institutions of power." This is essentially the argument that Hillary Clinton makes about herself and about President Obama. People like Clinton and Obama ultimately don't believe that rapid, major, social and political change is possible in the near term, so they try to do the best they can within the limits imposed on political choices by "reality," by which they mean the existing distribution of power. They get credentials from the best universities, enter the professions, take jobs that pay well, become wealthy and powerful, and eventually get to know the economic and political elites who run this country. Now Hillary Clinton stands at the doorstep of the US Presidency, and she promises to do everything that is possible if she gets that job.
And of course that is exactly what Barack Obama promised when he was running: hope and change. He talked like somebody who meant to make fundamental changes. But in truth he has always been somebody who works within the system. That's what he was here in Illinois as a state Senator, that's what he was as a US Senator, and that's what he was as President. When he became President at a time of economic crisis, when he had the best opportunity since FDR to get the public behind him and make major changes, he didn't do it. Instead, he settled for trying to deal with the crisis in the context of existing institutions. He continued Bush's wars and even escalated the war in Afghanistan; instead of nationalizing or breaking up the big banks that crashed the world economy, he continued the bank bailouts and did virtually nothing for home owners; in a futile effort to compromise with Republicans who hated him, he signed legislation that he promised he would never sign to continue Bush's tax cuts on the rich; he signed a health care reform bill without doing anything to fight for the public option that supposedly distinguished him from Hillary Clinton; he has done nothing but talk about the gun psychosis that is sweeping the nation; and on and on. But (his defenders would say) look at what he accomplished--significant re-regulation of Wall Street; reducing US casualties in overseas wars and trying to make other nations defend themselves; the stock market soared, federal deficits and the unemployment rate have been going down steadily, millions of people now have health insurance, we are no longer a global pariah that invades countries based on lies.
So goes the defense of the "work within the system" approach.
But Bernie Sanders represents the other alternative: being an uncompromising radical who never abandons the quest for major social and political change. Bernie Sanders won't even call himself a Democrat and instead identifies himself as a democratic socialist. He wants to change the system in fundamental ways and will never be satisfied with working at the margins. People like Bernie view people like Hillary as sellouts who looked after themselves instead of joining the collective effort to change the entire system. It would take a massive collective effort, but if enough people joined, anything could be accomplished. That's what Bernie means when he calls for a "political revolution." He's talking about a mass movement that mobilizes up to 99% of the society against the plutocrats who really hold virtually all the real power.
If you look through the history of the US and around the world, you will see that such mass movements are few and far between. You will also find that they often end up taking strange courses that can be quite ugly. The standard conservative argument against radical change through mass movements is Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France, in which he shows how the leaders of the revolution turned the people against the church, the monarchy, and all other institutions that they had ever respected. The result was a parade of human misery and eventual restoration of the monarchy.
Keep in mind that Clinton and Sanders are baby boomers, and so am I. We remember the way this eternal conflict--incremental reform versus radical change--divided our generation. People called each other sellouts, greedheads, hopeless utopian posers, and so on. This played itself out in the 1980s, when the neoliberals and the Democratic Leadership Council succeeded in steering the Democratic Party away from social democratic goals and toward southern white guys, big corporations, and interventionist foreign policy. Bill Clinton, Bruce Babbitt, Chuck Robb, Al From--they set up the playbook for winning elections with this so-called "centrist" approach. And Obama is very much a neoliberal, but one who uses progressive rhetoric.
And now here we are, at another moment in American history where tens of millions of people are just flat ticked off, and the eternal choice presents itself: incremental reform, or radical change?
If Bernie Sanders wins the presidency, Obama will be the last neoliberal Democratic president and we enter a new era of politics. But if he loses the nomination to Clinton, it will be business as usual for the Democrats. If Bernie wins the nomination and gets obliterated in the general election, the left will not recover in our lifetime. And that, of course, is Clinton's argument: I represent the limits of what is possible in this country, at this time. Vote for me or the Republicans take over every branch of the national government, and everything will be much, much worse.
And now in 2016, Democrats are asked to choose once again between these two approaches. Given the political and economic circumstances in this country right now, the stakes are high.
Saturday, January 16, 2016
How Flint, Michigan's tap water became toxic - CNN.com
How Flint, Michigan's tap water became toxic - CNN.com
"In 2011, Flint was declared to be in a financial state of emergency, and the state took budgetary control. Therefore, all the decisions made during the water crisis were at the state level, which state officials confirmed, not by the City Council or the mayor. "When the governor appointed an emergency financial manager (in 2011), that person came here ... to simply do one thing and one thing only, and that's cut the budget, at any cost," said Michigan Congressman Dan Kildee. Kildee said the water crisis is indicative of an attitude about industrial towns such as Flint that have seen hard times in the past 30 years. They're often just forgotten, he said. "This case shows that you can't treat cities the way you treat some corporation that you might just sort of sell off," Kildee said.
--------
So Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan has presided over a public health nightmare in Flint that is right out of the 19th century. He put the city on a different source of water to save money. Now it looks as though the children of Flint have lead poisoning. Snyder is one of these gimlet-eyed, "venture capitalist," anti-government rich guys who get elected governor. Sort of like Bruce Rauner, who is currently destroying the State of Illinois. And Rick Scott, who has been trashing Florida pretty effectively. They have a lot in common. They don't know how government is supposed to work, or what it is supposed to do, or why. They all think they are geniuses because they are rich, and running a state is just like running companies--into the ground that is, which is often how they made their bucks. That, and screwing working people out of their jobs and pensions. Ultimately, they are sociopaths who do not experience empathy when other people suffer. It will be interesting to see how much longer they can play this game. Snyder ought to be in jail for allowing people to get lead poisoning, but I imagine he will just run for President instead.
"In 2011, Flint was declared to be in a financial state of emergency, and the state took budgetary control. Therefore, all the decisions made during the water crisis were at the state level, which state officials confirmed, not by the City Council or the mayor. "When the governor appointed an emergency financial manager (in 2011), that person came here ... to simply do one thing and one thing only, and that's cut the budget, at any cost," said Michigan Congressman Dan Kildee. Kildee said the water crisis is indicative of an attitude about industrial towns such as Flint that have seen hard times in the past 30 years. They're often just forgotten, he said. "This case shows that you can't treat cities the way you treat some corporation that you might just sort of sell off," Kildee said.
--------
So Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan has presided over a public health nightmare in Flint that is right out of the 19th century. He put the city on a different source of water to save money. Now it looks as though the children of Flint have lead poisoning. Snyder is one of these gimlet-eyed, "venture capitalist," anti-government rich guys who get elected governor. Sort of like Bruce Rauner, who is currently destroying the State of Illinois. And Rick Scott, who has been trashing Florida pretty effectively. They have a lot in common. They don't know how government is supposed to work, or what it is supposed to do, or why. They all think they are geniuses because they are rich, and running a state is just like running companies--into the ground that is, which is often how they made their bucks. That, and screwing working people out of their jobs and pensions. Ultimately, they are sociopaths who do not experience empathy when other people suffer. It will be interesting to see how much longer they can play this game. Snyder ought to be in jail for allowing people to get lead poisoning, but I imagine he will just run for President instead.
Monday, January 11, 2016
Injuries soar after Michigan stops requiring motorcycle helmets
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-helmetlaws-michigan-injury-idUSKBN0UL2JN20160107
"In the three years after Michigan repealed a mandatory motorcycle helmet law, deaths and head injuries among bikers rose sharply, according to a recent study. Deaths at the scene of the crash more than quadrupled, while deaths in the hospital tripled for motorcyclists. Head injuries have increased overall, and more of them are severe, the researchers report in the American Journal of Surgery...Among the accident victims brought to the hospital, the proportion of riders who had not been wearing a helmet rose four-fold, from 7 percent to 28 percent, the researchers found. About 10 percent of non-helmeted riders brought to the hospital died there, compared to 3 percent of those who had been wearing helmets. Among riders who died at the crash scene, the proportion not wearing helmets rose from 14 percent before the law was repealed to 68 percent afterward."
-----------------------
One more thing deregulated, and the costs are apparent. It isn't just the biker who suffers--they have families, friends, people they work for or with, and so forth. Then there are the medical and rehab bills for people with brain injuries.
"In the three years after Michigan repealed a mandatory motorcycle helmet law, deaths and head injuries among bikers rose sharply, according to a recent study. Deaths at the scene of the crash more than quadrupled, while deaths in the hospital tripled for motorcyclists. Head injuries have increased overall, and more of them are severe, the researchers report in the American Journal of Surgery...Among the accident victims brought to the hospital, the proportion of riders who had not been wearing a helmet rose four-fold, from 7 percent to 28 percent, the researchers found. About 10 percent of non-helmeted riders brought to the hospital died there, compared to 3 percent of those who had been wearing helmets. Among riders who died at the crash scene, the proportion not wearing helmets rose from 14 percent before the law was repealed to 68 percent afterward."
-----------------------
One more thing deregulated, and the costs are apparent. It isn't just the biker who suffers--they have families, friends, people they work for or with, and so forth. Then there are the medical and rehab bills for people with brain injuries.
Saturday, January 09, 2016
Why It’s Scary That the Mall of America Can Crush Dissent
Why It’s Scary That the Mall of America Can Crush Dissent
As I've been saying for many years...
"Mall of America’s ability to so zealously suppress the December 23 protest there highlights how, in a nation where more and more public life takes place in privatized spaces, the ability to exercise First Amendment rights has become increasingly contingent. From Zuccotti Park to Twitter, some of the last decade’s most iconic venues for dissent have been privately run. In cities like New York, privately owned public spaces have been proliferating for several decades, racing ahead of the case law that will ultimately decide their relationship to Constitutional rights. And legal experts expect social media to be a primary subject of First Amendment battles for decades to come.
“In the eyes of the law, those spaces for speech can be shut down and subject to arbitrary censorship in ways that the public square cannot,” said Teresa Nelson, legal director for the ACLU of Minnesota. “We either need to resolve to give up our First Amendment rights or get them to shift along with our changing technology.”
-------------
This situation was, as many of you know, at the core of the Twin Rivers case that went to the New Jersey Supreme Court. Rutgers Law School Professor Frank Askin brought the case on behalf of homeowners who tried to establish freedom of expression rights on the private property of their homeowner-association run private community. I was the expert witness for the owners, the Committee for a Better Twin Rivers. And a similar situation exists in many shopping malls, which in many communities are the only public spaces available to contact large numbers of people for political purposes.
As I've been saying for many years...
"Mall of America’s ability to so zealously suppress the December 23 protest there highlights how, in a nation where more and more public life takes place in privatized spaces, the ability to exercise First Amendment rights has become increasingly contingent. From Zuccotti Park to Twitter, some of the last decade’s most iconic venues for dissent have been privately run. In cities like New York, privately owned public spaces have been proliferating for several decades, racing ahead of the case law that will ultimately decide their relationship to Constitutional rights. And legal experts expect social media to be a primary subject of First Amendment battles for decades to come.
“In the eyes of the law, those spaces for speech can be shut down and subject to arbitrary censorship in ways that the public square cannot,” said Teresa Nelson, legal director for the ACLU of Minnesota. “We either need to resolve to give up our First Amendment rights or get them to shift along with our changing technology.”
-------------
This situation was, as many of you know, at the core of the Twin Rivers case that went to the New Jersey Supreme Court. Rutgers Law School Professor Frank Askin brought the case on behalf of homeowners who tried to establish freedom of expression rights on the private property of their homeowner-association run private community. I was the expert witness for the owners, the Committee for a Better Twin Rivers. And a similar situation exists in many shopping malls, which in many communities are the only public spaces available to contact large numbers of people for political purposes.
South Carolina lawmakers prepare to tackle divisive HOA issues | The Sun News
South Carolina lawmakers prepare to tackle divisive HOA issues | The Sun News
"A committee appointed by the South Carolina legislature to study contentious issues surrounding homeowners associations (HOA) identified numerous problems that require the state assembly’s attention, but failed to agree on solutions for key issues. There was no consensus on whether HOA managers should be licensed or certified, and the panel was split on the question of how long developers should be allowed to control an association."
---------
I think it's great that the SC legislature decided to set up this committee, and if you read the details you can see that they tried to address a number of serious issues. But when it came to solutions, they couldn't agree on some of the most basic things:
"The panel was specifically tasked with reviewing five categories: whether HOA governing documents should be disclosed to homebuyers, education for homeowners and board members, manager certification, the time period of a developer’s control of an HOA, and the need for a uniform planned community act. The panel did agree that HOA governing documents should be disclosed to prospective buyers, particularly for new home sales."
They managed to agree that prospective buyers should actually be able to see the contents of the rules they would have to live by. Wow. And what is the meaning of "particularly for new home sales"? Why would people who buy an existing home be less entitled to know the terms and conditions?
State legislatures around the country take different views of their role with respect to CID housing. There are some states, such as California, where the legislature, guided to some extent by the California Law Revisions Commission, understands the need for regulation of HOA and condo boards. Some other states are more or less in that same camp--Maryland, Virginia, Nevada, Florida, Illinois--I'm not saying that these states have gotten everything right, but at least they have track records of dealing with significant issues and actually passing legislation. Then, on the other hand, you have these states where they don't seem to get the picture, or where the balance of political forces is such that they can't act. For example, in Arizona it seems that the pattern is always a bunch of separate, piecemeal bills rather than a coherent package.
There are millions of people living in associations run by their untrained neighbors and often unlicensed and untrained property managers. Developers frequently leave associations in a bad financial position. Many if not most associations have inadequate reserves. There has to be a coherent public policy framework with adequate institutional support and oversight, or the owners can be placed in serious jeopardy. The fact that the South Carolina legislature, at the dawn of the year 2016, can't get itself together to resolve some pretty basic issues, such as the obvious need for property managers to be licensed, is frightening.
"A committee appointed by the South Carolina legislature to study contentious issues surrounding homeowners associations (HOA) identified numerous problems that require the state assembly’s attention, but failed to agree on solutions for key issues. There was no consensus on whether HOA managers should be licensed or certified, and the panel was split on the question of how long developers should be allowed to control an association."
---------
I think it's great that the SC legislature decided to set up this committee, and if you read the details you can see that they tried to address a number of serious issues. But when it came to solutions, they couldn't agree on some of the most basic things:
"The panel was specifically tasked with reviewing five categories: whether HOA governing documents should be disclosed to homebuyers, education for homeowners and board members, manager certification, the time period of a developer’s control of an HOA, and the need for a uniform planned community act. The panel did agree that HOA governing documents should be disclosed to prospective buyers, particularly for new home sales."
They managed to agree that prospective buyers should actually be able to see the contents of the rules they would have to live by. Wow. And what is the meaning of "particularly for new home sales"? Why would people who buy an existing home be less entitled to know the terms and conditions?
State legislatures around the country take different views of their role with respect to CID housing. There are some states, such as California, where the legislature, guided to some extent by the California Law Revisions Commission, understands the need for regulation of HOA and condo boards. Some other states are more or less in that same camp--Maryland, Virginia, Nevada, Florida, Illinois--I'm not saying that these states have gotten everything right, but at least they have track records of dealing with significant issues and actually passing legislation. Then, on the other hand, you have these states where they don't seem to get the picture, or where the balance of political forces is such that they can't act. For example, in Arizona it seems that the pattern is always a bunch of separate, piecemeal bills rather than a coherent package.
There are millions of people living in associations run by their untrained neighbors and often unlicensed and untrained property managers. Developers frequently leave associations in a bad financial position. Many if not most associations have inadequate reserves. There has to be a coherent public policy framework with adequate institutional support and oversight, or the owners can be placed in serious jeopardy. The fact that the South Carolina legislature, at the dawn of the year 2016, can't get itself together to resolve some pretty basic issues, such as the obvious need for property managers to be licensed, is frightening.
Friday, January 08, 2016
Supreme Court already ruled that feds rightly own occupied refuge | OregonLive.com
Supreme Court already ruled that feds rightly own occupied refuge | OregonLive.com
"Occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge question whether the federal government has unequivocal legal rights to own and manage that land, without regard to the wishes of local property owners and ranchers. Improbably, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on exactly that question, specifically regarding the lands of the original Malheur national refuge -- twice. Those rulings by the nation's highest court, in 1902 and in 1935, found that the federal government has an incontrovertible claim to the refuge's wetlands and lakebeds, dating back to the 1840s, when Oregon was still a territory. "Before Oregon was admitted to statehood, the United States is shown to have acquired title which it has never in terms conveyed away," Justice Harlan Stone wrote in 1935."
-----------------
The bonehead terrorist squatters claim they have "teams" looking into who owns the land, so they can give it back to them. But the land has been in federal ownership since the 1840s. The only people with any legitimate claim to that land, other than the federal government, would be Native Americans--if I'm reading the maps right, the Northern Paiute. But there appear to be no scruffy, ignorant, white guys in the chain of title to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. These clowns are squatters. Cliven Bundy and his sons are squatters and deadbeats. They have been grazing their cows on federal land without paying for it. People who use federal land for grazing, logging, mineral extraction get a much better deal than they would if the land were transferred to private ownership. They'd be paying some corporate landowner through the nose. But these bums won't even pay the low rates the feds charge. Instead, the Bundy family has fabricated a bunch of tall tales that give them imaginary title to federal land. But the Paiutes? They may have a real claim. Native people in Alaska, Canada, and elsewhere have actually settled such claims with national governments.
"Occupiers of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge question whether the federal government has unequivocal legal rights to own and manage that land, without regard to the wishes of local property owners and ranchers. Improbably, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on exactly that question, specifically regarding the lands of the original Malheur national refuge -- twice. Those rulings by the nation's highest court, in 1902 and in 1935, found that the federal government has an incontrovertible claim to the refuge's wetlands and lakebeds, dating back to the 1840s, when Oregon was still a territory. "Before Oregon was admitted to statehood, the United States is shown to have acquired title which it has never in terms conveyed away," Justice Harlan Stone wrote in 1935."
-----------------
The bonehead terrorist squatters claim they have "teams" looking into who owns the land, so they can give it back to them. But the land has been in federal ownership since the 1840s. The only people with any legitimate claim to that land, other than the federal government, would be Native Americans--if I'm reading the maps right, the Northern Paiute. But there appear to be no scruffy, ignorant, white guys in the chain of title to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. These clowns are squatters. Cliven Bundy and his sons are squatters and deadbeats. They have been grazing their cows on federal land without paying for it. People who use federal land for grazing, logging, mineral extraction get a much better deal than they would if the land were transferred to private ownership. They'd be paying some corporate landowner through the nose. But these bums won't even pay the low rates the feds charge. Instead, the Bundy family has fabricated a bunch of tall tales that give them imaginary title to federal land. But the Paiutes? They may have a real claim. Native people in Alaska, Canada, and elsewhere have actually settled such claims with national governments.
Last defendant in massive HOA scheme sentenced to prison | Las Vegas Review-Journal
Last defendant in massive HOA scheme sentenced to prison | Las Vegas Review-Journal
"The last defendant in the long-running investigation into the scheme to take over and defraud homeowners associations was sentenced to federal prison Tuesday. Stephanie Markham, 57, who now lives in New York, was ordered to serve 15 months behind bars and spend three years on supervised release after prison for lying about her role in the massive scheme. U.S. District Judge James Mahan also ordered Markham to perform 100 hours of community service. Her sentencing officially ends the largest public corruption case federal authorities have brought in Southern Nevada. More than 40 defendants, including lawyers and former police officers, either pleaded guilty or were convicted at trial. The high-profile case, which lasted more than eight years and led to several deaths, was overseen by the Justice Department's Fraud Section in Washington. The investigation became public in September 2008 when the FBI, Las Vegas police and IRS conducted raids across the valley."
"The last defendant in the long-running investigation into the scheme to take over and defraud homeowners associations was sentenced to federal prison Tuesday. Stephanie Markham, 57, who now lives in New York, was ordered to serve 15 months behind bars and spend three years on supervised release after prison for lying about her role in the massive scheme. U.S. District Judge James Mahan also ordered Markham to perform 100 hours of community service. Her sentencing officially ends the largest public corruption case federal authorities have brought in Southern Nevada. More than 40 defendants, including lawyers and former police officers, either pleaded guilty or were convicted at trial. The high-profile case, which lasted more than eight years and led to several deaths, was overseen by the Justice Department's Fraud Section in Washington. The investigation became public in September 2008 when the FBI, Las Vegas police and IRS conducted raids across the valley."
The State of Cooperative and Condominium Law in 2015 | New York Law Journal
The State of Cooperative and Condominium Law in 2015 | New York Law Journal
Here's one interesting change in application of the business judgment rule. Even if the owner can show favoritism by the board of directors, they have to prove prejudice to their interests as a result of the favoritism
"In South Tower Residential Board of Mgrs. of Time Warner Center Condominium v. The Ann Holdings,6 the First Department subtly adjusts the standard for self-interest on the board. The court wrote, "However, even if, arguendo, plaintiff engaged in some favoritism…, defendant failed to show prejudice therefrom." This is a clear carve out from previous doctrine, but it leaves unclear whether a challenge to a board for violation of the business judgment rule requires showing for any violation that there is both a violation and resultant prejudice."
Here's one interesting change in application of the business judgment rule. Even if the owner can show favoritism by the board of directors, they have to prove prejudice to their interests as a result of the favoritism
"In South Tower Residential Board of Mgrs. of Time Warner Center Condominium v. The Ann Holdings,6 the First Department subtly adjusts the standard for self-interest on the board. The court wrote, "However, even if, arguendo, plaintiff engaged in some favoritism…, defendant failed to show prejudice therefrom." This is a clear carve out from previous doctrine, but it leaves unclear whether a challenge to a board for violation of the business judgment rule requires showing for any violation that there is both a violation and resultant prejudice."
Thompson's Station residents sue over TV/Web service
Thompson's Station residents sue over TV/Web service
"A group of Thompson's Station residents is suing developers and a telecommunications company they say schemed — along with DirecTV and their respective homeowners' associations — to give the tiny Internet service provider a monopoly over their growing neighborhoods. Attorneys representing the homeowners are seeking class action status for the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court on Tuesday. It alleges that the developers of the town's Tollgate Village, Bridgemore Village and Canterbury subdivisions made arrangements with Crystal Clear Technologies to be the neighborhoods' sole Internet and TV-service provider."
----------------
I haven't read the complaint so I don't know the details beyond what is in this story. However, historically developers have often made deals with cable TV companies that owners later found unsatisfactory. One common practice was for the cable company run their cable up to all the lots in the subdivision at no charge to the developer, in exchange for the developer putting a provision in the CC&Rs that would prohibit all residents from using TV antennas. When HOAs enforced these bans, they would often think it was for aesthetic reasons, which I suppose is part of it too. But when satellite came along and HOAs tried to ban satellite dishes as "antennas," the satellite industry persuaded Congress and the FCC to stop that. In this case, the owners are claiming that they are locked into paying too much for poor service from a small provider, when they could (they say) make a better deal with a larger company.
Thanks to the person who sent me this story--I hesitate to put people's names up here unless I know it is OK with them.
"A group of Thompson's Station residents is suing developers and a telecommunications company they say schemed — along with DirecTV and their respective homeowners' associations — to give the tiny Internet service provider a monopoly over their growing neighborhoods. Attorneys representing the homeowners are seeking class action status for the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court on Tuesday. It alleges that the developers of the town's Tollgate Village, Bridgemore Village and Canterbury subdivisions made arrangements with Crystal Clear Technologies to be the neighborhoods' sole Internet and TV-service provider."
----------------
I haven't read the complaint so I don't know the details beyond what is in this story. However, historically developers have often made deals with cable TV companies that owners later found unsatisfactory. One common practice was for the cable company run their cable up to all the lots in the subdivision at no charge to the developer, in exchange for the developer putting a provision in the CC&Rs that would prohibit all residents from using TV antennas. When HOAs enforced these bans, they would often think it was for aesthetic reasons, which I suppose is part of it too. But when satellite came along and HOAs tried to ban satellite dishes as "antennas," the satellite industry persuaded Congress and the FCC to stop that. In this case, the owners are claiming that they are locked into paying too much for poor service from a small provider, when they could (they say) make a better deal with a larger company.
Thanks to the person who sent me this story--I hesitate to put people's names up here unless I know it is OK with them.
Wednesday, January 06, 2016
Florida: New Bills Impacting Homeowners’ Associations Filed for 2016 Legislative Session
Here is your morning engine-starter:
"HB 7031, Relating to the Marketable Record Title Act (MRTA) has been filed by the House Civil Justice Subcommittee. Specifically, the bill provides that covenants and restrictions of homeowners’ associations will not expire because of MRTA. This will save HOAs thousands of dollars by not having to “preserve” their covenants and restrictions or “revitalize” them if they expire. At this time, there is no Senate companion bill and it remains to be seen whether the title industry will support the bill. CALL is in support of this bill and we will keep you updated on its progress.
"Another bill of interest to HOAs, which some owners will like and others will not, is SB 1122 by Sen. Hays, Relating to Homeowners’ Associations. The primary emphasis of the bill is regulation of HOAs by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. Among other things, it will: (1) require all homeowners’ associations (HOAs) to pay $2.00 per parcel to the Department; (2) require mandatory binding arbitration of certain HOA disputes, including covenant enforcement, assessments, and official records; (3) increase the penalties for willful failure to withhold official records; and (4) change the triggers related to when a developer must turn over control of the association to the parcel owners.
"The 2016 Legislative session begins on January 12, 2016."
http://www.floridacondohoalawblog.com/2015/12/articles/assessment-collection/new-bills-impacting-homeowners-associations-filed-for-2016-legislative-session/
Tuesday, January 05, 2016
Suburban office parks are dying -- Mother Nature Network
Suburban office parks are dying because young people don't want to drive there | MNN - Mother Nature Network
There are several reasons, one of which is that urban young people are not getting driver's licenses like they once did. This is an interesting study and you can read the whole thing here.
"Suburban office buildings that have become obsolete due to car-centric and removed locations — and which do not have some factor that will remedy these traits in the future (such as a planned transit station or new highway exits) — are unlikely to achieve market-average rents as leases roll. In extreme cases, properties that are incurably obsolete — primarily those at undesirable locations or with building sizes or for plates that tenants now find either too large or too small — may never lease again."
There are several reasons, one of which is that urban young people are not getting driver's licenses like they once did. This is an interesting study and you can read the whole thing here.
"Suburban office buildings that have become obsolete due to car-centric and removed locations — and which do not have some factor that will remedy these traits in the future (such as a planned transit station or new highway exits) — are unlikely to achieve market-average rents as leases roll. In extreme cases, properties that are incurably obsolete — primarily those at undesirable locations or with building sizes or for plates that tenants now find either too large or too small — may never lease again."
Sunday, January 03, 2016
Bad bargain? Manufactured homeowners feel the financial strain | PBS NewsHour
Bad bargain? Manufactured homeowners feel the financial strain | PBS NewsHour
STEPHEN FEE: She bought this three-bedroom manufactured home for $113,000 dollars in a town where the median home value is $500,000.
CARLA BURR: “I chose to move here because it was a beautiful house. And I thought, man I could retire here.”
STEPHEN FEE: Now 61 years old, Burr – and her home – may need to move. While she owns the home — she made the purchase in cash — she doesn’t own the land underneath.
Every month, Burr pays rent to a property manager. Over the past ten years, that lot rent has gone up 30 percent, from $740 a month to $1,022 a month.
CARLA BURR: “I had no clue that the rent was going to go up the way it did. I mean, it’s to the point now where it’s more than half my Social Security. I would love to stay. And I would love to keep it right where it is. Because everything I have is here. All my church is here, my family’s here, everybody’s here.”
STEPHEN FEE: She bought this three-bedroom manufactured home for $113,000 dollars in a town where the median home value is $500,000.
CARLA BURR: “I chose to move here because it was a beautiful house. And I thought, man I could retire here.”
STEPHEN FEE: Now 61 years old, Burr – and her home – may need to move. While she owns the home — she made the purchase in cash — she doesn’t own the land underneath.
Every month, Burr pays rent to a property manager. Over the past ten years, that lot rent has gone up 30 percent, from $740 a month to $1,022 a month.
CARLA BURR: “I had no clue that the rent was going to go up the way it did. I mean, it’s to the point now where it’s more than half my Social Security. I would love to stay. And I would love to keep it right where it is. Because everything I have is here. All my church is here, my family’s here, everybody’s here.”
Armed protesters take over wildlife refuge in Oregon - CNN.com
Armed protesters take over wildlife refuge in Oregon - CNN.com
"(CNN) A group of armed protesters have taken over a building in a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon, accusing officials of unfairly punishing ranchers who refused to sell their land, a spokesman for the group told CNN. The protesters occupied part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns after a march supporting Dwight and Steven Hammond, two ranchers who are convicted of arson. Prosecutors said the Hammonds set the fire, which burned about 130 acres in 2001, to cover up poaching. The father and son were sentenced to five years in prison."
-----------
This is like something from The Walking Dead, where groups of armed men take whatever they want, based on some crazy moral code. Now this is happening in Oregon. And among these "I'm a law unto myself because I have an assault rifle" wanna-be warlords you will find two sons of Cliven Bundy, the squatter on federal land who provoked a standoff with federal authorities in May, 2014. In that confrontation, people were aiming rifles at federal officers, and the Obama administration made an enormous mistake by letting them get away with it. Now, predictably, they are at it again. Will the administration back down again, or finally do something about it? I don't see how people like this can be allowed to arm themselves and take over federal property, and then get away with threatening law enforcement.
The Hammonds are not there. They say they are going to surrender themselves and serve the prison sentence that they deserve. They slaughtered a herd of deer on federal land and then set a fire that burned 130 acres to cover up their crime, and there were witnesses to that, including the teenager they enlisted to start the fire for them. They were convicted in a jury trial. So the Hammond case really has nothing to do with this so-called protest. These militia thugs just want to make the Obama administration back down again, they are using the Hammond case as a pretext, and I suppose there's a good chance that the administration will do nothing once again, in the hope of avoiding bloodshed. But sooner of later, these people have to be confronted. Federal lands are for public use, and we can't allow people to take it by force for their own use and profit. That's what Bundy did--he used federal land to graze his cattle for free. The Hammonds used it for poaching. Now the militia goons are squatting in the administration building of a federal wildlife preserve. Enough. And take their guns.
The larger issue here is that people like the Koch brothers want to take federal land for their own use, and it seems that these highly publicized confrontations may be part of that effort.
"(CNN) A group of armed protesters have taken over a building in a federal wildlife refuge in Oregon, accusing officials of unfairly punishing ranchers who refused to sell their land, a spokesman for the group told CNN. The protesters occupied part of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge near Burns after a march supporting Dwight and Steven Hammond, two ranchers who are convicted of arson. Prosecutors said the Hammonds set the fire, which burned about 130 acres in 2001, to cover up poaching. The father and son were sentenced to five years in prison."
-----------
This is like something from The Walking Dead, where groups of armed men take whatever they want, based on some crazy moral code. Now this is happening in Oregon. And among these "I'm a law unto myself because I have an assault rifle" wanna-be warlords you will find two sons of Cliven Bundy, the squatter on federal land who provoked a standoff with federal authorities in May, 2014. In that confrontation, people were aiming rifles at federal officers, and the Obama administration made an enormous mistake by letting them get away with it. Now, predictably, they are at it again. Will the administration back down again, or finally do something about it? I don't see how people like this can be allowed to arm themselves and take over federal property, and then get away with threatening law enforcement.
The Hammonds are not there. They say they are going to surrender themselves and serve the prison sentence that they deserve. They slaughtered a herd of deer on federal land and then set a fire that burned 130 acres to cover up their crime, and there were witnesses to that, including the teenager they enlisted to start the fire for them. They were convicted in a jury trial. So the Hammond case really has nothing to do with this so-called protest. These militia thugs just want to make the Obama administration back down again, they are using the Hammond case as a pretext, and I suppose there's a good chance that the administration will do nothing once again, in the hope of avoiding bloodshed. But sooner of later, these people have to be confronted. Federal lands are for public use, and we can't allow people to take it by force for their own use and profit. That's what Bundy did--he used federal land to graze his cattle for free. The Hammonds used it for poaching. Now the militia goons are squatting in the administration building of a federal wildlife preserve. Enough. And take their guns.
The larger issue here is that people like the Koch brothers want to take federal land for their own use, and it seems that these highly publicized confrontations may be part of that effort.
Friday, January 01, 2016
Obama Program That Hurt Homeowners and Helped Big Banks Is Ending
Obama Program That Hurt Homeowners and Helped Big Banks Is Ending
"When President Obama announced the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, on February 18, 2009, in Mesa, Arizona, he promised it would assist 3 to 4 million homeowners to modify their loans to avoid foreclosure. Almost seven years later, less than 1 million have received ongoing assistance; nearly one in three re-defaulted after receiving inadequate modifications; and 6 million families lost their homes over the same time period.
"Now the program is ending."
------------
To me, HAMP is a symbol of the Obama administration's disastrous decision to put the welfare of the big banks that crashed the housing market and the world economy ahead of the millions of homeowners who lost their home equity, their homes, their jobs, and their retirement security. Obama had a historic opportunity to break up these predatory banks, send a whole lot of banksters to prison, make the banks refinance underwater mortgages so that people could stay in their homes, and set up much stronger regulation of a metastasizing financial industry that even now has us all at risk again. Instead he decided to bail out the banks and insurance companies without insisting on structural changes.
"When President Obama announced the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, on February 18, 2009, in Mesa, Arizona, he promised it would assist 3 to 4 million homeowners to modify their loans to avoid foreclosure. Almost seven years later, less than 1 million have received ongoing assistance; nearly one in three re-defaulted after receiving inadequate modifications; and 6 million families lost their homes over the same time period.
"Now the program is ending."
------------
To me, HAMP is a symbol of the Obama administration's disastrous decision to put the welfare of the big banks that crashed the housing market and the world economy ahead of the millions of homeowners who lost their home equity, their homes, their jobs, and their retirement security. Obama had a historic opportunity to break up these predatory banks, send a whole lot of banksters to prison, make the banks refinance underwater mortgages so that people could stay in their homes, and set up much stronger regulation of a metastasizing financial industry that even now has us all at risk again. Instead he decided to bail out the banks and insurance companies without insisting on structural changes.
Harbours Condominium lawsuit finds no wrongdoing - News and Tribune: News
Harbours Condominium lawsuit finds no wrongdoing - News and Tribune: News
Well, that's one way to put it, but there seems to have been another outcome:
"Although the state office wasn't able to find fraud or serious wrongdoing, Attorney General Greg Zoeller said changes to Indiana law that the case inspired were the most important result. 'When we first started, we didn't have the authority to review the finances of the homeowners association,' Zoeller said.
The statute that gave the attorney general the authority to investigate and take action on nonprofit organizations excluded homeowners associations. In 2011, the Indiana Legislature granted Zoeller that authority, largely because of the Harbours case, a news release states. That law was expanded in 2015 to give members of homeowners associations better access to financial information."
Well, that's one way to put it, but there seems to have been another outcome:
"Although the state office wasn't able to find fraud or serious wrongdoing, Attorney General Greg Zoeller said changes to Indiana law that the case inspired were the most important result. 'When we first started, we didn't have the authority to review the finances of the homeowners association,' Zoeller said.
The statute that gave the attorney general the authority to investigate and take action on nonprofit organizations excluded homeowners associations. In 2011, the Indiana Legislature granted Zoeller that authority, largely because of the Harbours case, a news release states. That law was expanded in 2015 to give members of homeowners associations better access to financial information."
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Russia eyes trillion rubles from privatization in 2016: finance minister | Reuters
Russia eyes trillion rubles from privatization in 2016: finance minister | Reuters
Here's the way they tell the story:
"Russia aims to raise 1 trillion rubles ($13.53 billion) from privatization next year, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said in an interview aired on Thursday, signaling a major acceleration of plans to sell state assets. These plans, ambitious on paper, have largely ground to a halt over the last three years against the background of poor stock market conditions, exacerbated by a plunge in oil prices and Western sanctions linked to the Ukraine conflict. However, the same negative economic developments also mean that the government is increasingly strapped for cash, giving it an incentive to speed up privatization as an alternative to raising taxes, cutting spending or exhausting fiscal reserves."
------------
Privatization in Russia is basically another word for corruption, and here they go again. In the US privatization usually means contracting out, regulated monopolies, concessions, franchises, or vouchers. In Russia, as in Europe, it usually means selling off public assets that were built and maintained at public expense, and that now become the property of some plutocrat who is, of course, not paying huge bribes to government officials, so don't ask. In case you were wondering what could be left to privatize, after they sold off the government industries and farms in the early 1990s, the answer is simple: oil companies. After all, as somebody put it, Russia has become a big gas station that produces almost nothing the world wants except oil and gas:
"He added that "in the first instance" the state oil firm Rosen (ROSN.MM) was being prepared for privatization. Bashneft (BANE.MM), a smaller oil company that was renationalized last year, is also under consideration."
Here's the way they tell the story:
"Russia aims to raise 1 trillion rubles ($13.53 billion) from privatization next year, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said in an interview aired on Thursday, signaling a major acceleration of plans to sell state assets. These plans, ambitious on paper, have largely ground to a halt over the last three years against the background of poor stock market conditions, exacerbated by a plunge in oil prices and Western sanctions linked to the Ukraine conflict. However, the same negative economic developments also mean that the government is increasingly strapped for cash, giving it an incentive to speed up privatization as an alternative to raising taxes, cutting spending or exhausting fiscal reserves."
------------
Privatization in Russia is basically another word for corruption, and here they go again. In the US privatization usually means contracting out, regulated monopolies, concessions, franchises, or vouchers. In Russia, as in Europe, it usually means selling off public assets that were built and maintained at public expense, and that now become the property of some plutocrat who is, of course, not paying huge bribes to government officials, so don't ask. In case you were wondering what could be left to privatize, after they sold off the government industries and farms in the early 1990s, the answer is simple: oil companies. After all, as somebody put it, Russia has become a big gas station that produces almost nothing the world wants except oil and gas:
"He added that "in the first instance" the state oil firm Rosen (ROSN.MM) was being prepared for privatization. Bashneft (BANE.MM), a smaller oil company that was renationalized last year, is also under consideration."
Cintra, Macquarie file bankruptcy on Indiana Toll Road | Examiner.com
Cintra, Macquarie file bankruptcy on Indiana Toll Road | Examiner.com
This is from September, 2014, but I just ran across it. This article lays out the way the "private-public partnership" (PPP) works, using the vaunted Indiana Toll Road privatization as an example. It starts when a state or local government decides that bonds, taxes, and user fees won't do to pay for a highway or other major infrastructure, so they consult some big investment bank about "creative financing" arrangements. The bank finds some gigantic pools of money floating around--sovereign wealth funds, hedge funds, and so forth--and they "lease" the asset from the state, using bonds to pay themselves back. The lease is for longer than the useful life of the asset. They set up a shell corporation--called a concessionaire--to operate the highway as a toll road. The toll doubles so the consumer gets hit, the investors get huge profits up front during the next 5-10 years, and then, when the asset is used up and needs work, they bankrupt the shell concessionaire. The losses fall on whoever gets stuck with the asset after the music stops, or the whole deal gets repackaged for a new investor. As the article explains:
"They structure the deals to be extremely long leases so that they can depreciate the road as an asset on their taxes. They put very little of their own money at risk as the equity (a mere $800 million out of a total $3.8 billion), and allow the private bond investors and/or taxpayers to take on the risk for the vast majority of its debt. The companies get their own equity back with some profit in just a few short years of collecting tolls. This leaves the other investors to the take the actual losses just about when the road is going to go bankrupt, and often when the road is also in need of major maintenance or rehabilitation."
And at the point the public is stuck with a used-up highway or other asset that they actually need to use to, you know, get to work. Now, you might think that this scam could be run only once, but it has been done many times. Does it surprise you that Texas thinks this is a great way to do things? What is even stranger is that this sort of thing is all the rage in Washington. The Treasury and DOT produced this paper: "Expanding the Nation's Infrastructure through Innovative Financing." It is quite enthusiastic about PPPs, despite the way they work out in practice, often to the detriment of the public:
https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documents/Expanding%20our%20Nation's%20Infrastructure%20through%20Innovative%20Financing.pdf
But then again, given that so many Americans have been brainwashed into hating the very idea of government, it is no surprise that they allow themselves to become victims of privatization schemes. All you have to do is promise people that "the private sector" is more efficient and that you will eliminate "waste, fraud, and abuse," and ordinary people go along with schemes that cost them jobs and money and wreck the public assets they need. But don't try and tell them that, because they heard The Truth from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.
If you need more, here is a three-part series that explains it.
This is from September, 2014, but I just ran across it. This article lays out the way the "private-public partnership" (PPP) works, using the vaunted Indiana Toll Road privatization as an example. It starts when a state or local government decides that bonds, taxes, and user fees won't do to pay for a highway or other major infrastructure, so they consult some big investment bank about "creative financing" arrangements. The bank finds some gigantic pools of money floating around--sovereign wealth funds, hedge funds, and so forth--and they "lease" the asset from the state, using bonds to pay themselves back. The lease is for longer than the useful life of the asset. They set up a shell corporation--called a concessionaire--to operate the highway as a toll road. The toll doubles so the consumer gets hit, the investors get huge profits up front during the next 5-10 years, and then, when the asset is used up and needs work, they bankrupt the shell concessionaire. The losses fall on whoever gets stuck with the asset after the music stops, or the whole deal gets repackaged for a new investor. As the article explains:
"They structure the deals to be extremely long leases so that they can depreciate the road as an asset on their taxes. They put very little of their own money at risk as the equity (a mere $800 million out of a total $3.8 billion), and allow the private bond investors and/or taxpayers to take on the risk for the vast majority of its debt. The companies get their own equity back with some profit in just a few short years of collecting tolls. This leaves the other investors to the take the actual losses just about when the road is going to go bankrupt, and often when the road is also in need of major maintenance or rehabilitation."
And at the point the public is stuck with a used-up highway or other asset that they actually need to use to, you know, get to work. Now, you might think that this scam could be run only once, but it has been done many times. Does it surprise you that Texas thinks this is a great way to do things? What is even stranger is that this sort of thing is all the rage in Washington. The Treasury and DOT produced this paper: "Expanding the Nation's Infrastructure through Innovative Financing." It is quite enthusiastic about PPPs, despite the way they work out in practice, often to the detriment of the public:
https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Documents/Expanding%20our%20Nation's%20Infrastructure%20through%20Innovative%20Financing.pdf
But then again, given that so many Americans have been brainwashed into hating the very idea of government, it is no surprise that they allow themselves to become victims of privatization schemes. All you have to do is promise people that "the private sector" is more efficient and that you will eliminate "waste, fraud, and abuse," and ordinary people go along with schemes that cost them jobs and money and wreck the public assets they need. But don't try and tell them that, because they heard The Truth from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.
If you need more, here is a three-part series that explains it.
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Homeowners uncertain of next step for flooded homes | KOMU.com | Columbia, MO |
Homeowners uncertain of next step for flooded homes | KOMU.com | Columbia, MO
This story is about Lake of the Ozarks, but it could just as easily come from any number of towns where people's homes are under water up to the roof line. The private and public costs to restore people's homes will be enormous.
This story is about Lake of the Ozarks, but it could just as easily come from any number of towns where people's homes are under water up to the roof line. The private and public costs to restore people's homes will be enormous.
'Trump Filter' Lets You Surf the Internet Without Seeing Donald Trump - Fortune
'Trump Filter' Lets You Surf the Internet Without Seeing Donald Trump - Fortune
Now if I can just get one for television.
Now if I can just get one for television.
Forecast for 2016 housing market
And the forecast is dinky condos for everybody under 40.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2015-year-in-review/will-housing-logjam-bust-2016-don-t-bet-mortgage-or-n487611?cid=sm_tw&hootPostID=4b446a66fb1cb79ce9b90b6d8e895280
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2015-year-in-review/will-housing-logjam-bust-2016-don-t-bet-mortgage-or-n487611?cid=sm_tw&hootPostID=4b446a66fb1cb79ce9b90b6d8e895280
Thursday, December 24, 2015
FBI: Financial Fraud Inside the Investigation of a Las Vegas Construction Boss
"When a federal judge sentenced former Las Vegas construction boss Leon Benzer to nearly 16 years in prison in August, it marked a final chapter in a $58 million fraud scheme that took investigators nearly a decade to unravel. Over a period of many years, Benzer brazenly sought to gain control of numerous condominium homeowners associations (HOAs) in the Las Vegas area to secure lucrative construction and other contracts for himself and additional conspirators. To date, 44 individuals, including numerous state officials, have been convicted of crimes in connection with the fraud—which has been described as one of the largest public corruption cases in Nevada history."
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2015/october/financial-fraud/financial-fraud
------------
This is a summary of the Benzer HOA takeover fraud investigation. The photo above is an undercover operative receiving a $20,000 bribe from one of the principals in the fraud. It was in a baby wipes box. How domestic.
Monday, December 21, 2015
Illinois condo law author arrested for 1973 murder
"He helped craft laws on which hundreds of condominium associations in Illinois are based but he is also a suspect in two murders. On Monday afternoon, Dr. Donnie Rudd, age 75, will be in a courtroom in Rolling Meadows, northwest of the Loop, for his first hearing since being extradited from Texas."
---------------
Donnie Rudd is a man of many parts--lawyer, scientist, maybe murderer? At one time he had a law practice in the Chicago area with 2000 clients, most of them HOAs. He was one of the co-authors of Illinois condo law: "Rudd has degrees in law, bioscience, bioengineering, and chemical engineering. He has more than 40 patents, mostly related to cell regeneration, repair of human tissue, and curing diseases to vital organs. He has written 15 books and more than 160 professional publications. In 1983, with state representative Ellis Levin, he co-wrote amendments to the Illinois Condominium Property Act."
However, the police also think that he murdered two people, so there's that.
http://www.loopnorth.com/news/mobi/murder1221.htm
Sunday, December 20, 2015
Isolated example number 12,345
DENVER - The owner of an Aurora-based community association management company voluntarily surrendered his license after there were complaints he was diverting homeowner association funds for his personal benefit, the Colorado Division of Real Estate announced Friday.
David W. Martin is the owner and designated manager of PMG Enterprises Inc., a community association management company.
http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2015/12/19/owner-of-aurora-hoa-management-company-allegedly-diverted-funds/77631880/
Massive HOA faces claims of assessment collection abuse
"Poinciana Villages, with nearly 70,000 residents and 23,000 homes, would be one of the largest cities in Central Florida if it were a municipality. Instead, it's one of the largest private homeowners associations (HOA) in the United States. But now the HOA is under fire for what residents say is a persistent and ongoing effort by outsourced debt-collection agencies to inflate back dues with thousands of additional dollars in legal fees and late charges. Some of the estimated 4,000-plus homeowners whose debt was sold — more than 1 of every 6 homes in the association — say they've never received a line-by-line breakdown of what those fees actually are. And by the time they're able reach someone at the agency, their late fees and legal fees have doubled, tripled, quadrupled and more. At issue, residents say, is the possibility of thousands of owners losing their homes because of ballooning debts that were originally only in the hundreds of dollars."
-----------
Because there aren't enough stories of individual owners losing their homes in HOA foreclosures with bogus charges, so it is time for mass-production foreclosure, using private debt-collection agencies.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/osceola/os-poinciana-hoa-turmoil-20151219-story.html
-----------
Because there aren't enough stories of individual owners losing their homes in HOA foreclosures with bogus charges, so it is time for mass-production foreclosure, using private debt-collection agencies.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/osceola/os-poinciana-hoa-turmoil-20151219-story.html
HOA fraud king Leon Benzer gets 15 1/2 years in prison
"Former construction company boss Leon Benzer, the man behind the massive scheme to take over and defraud Las Vegas-area homeowners associations, was sentenced Thursday to 15 ½ years in federal prison. U.S. District Judge James Mahan also ordered Benzer to serve five years of supervised release after prison and pay $13.4 million in restitution. Benzer, 48, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy, fraud and tax evasion charges, is to surrender to prison authorities Nov. 6."
------------
So ends the biggest white collar crime prosecution in the history of Las Vegas--eleven HOA taken over by a fraud ring and used to steal millions of dollars. But (see post below) we are not going to see the evidence, which remains sealed by virtue of the US Attorney's office and the federal judiciary. My view is the public needs to learn from this case. We have here the worst example ever seen of HOA private governments being taken over by vendors--contractors and lawyers, mainly--who used them like ATMs. These were people who knew the HOA industry from the inside--who knew how easy it can be for a small group of self-interested people to take over an HOA board of directors, because of the culture of non-participation that prevails in far too many common interest developments. This is a serious problem all over the country--in fact, all over the world. Nothing is going to change this situation--most people just don't want to be bothered with paying attention to the affairs of their HOA. Their lives are too busy already. The day will never come when owners live up to the ridiculous expectations that this institution imposes on them. The people who own units in CIDS are just consumers of a mass-produced product, and they need to be protected against the possibility that predatory industry insiders might take advantage of them. I realize that most lawyers, managers, and contractors are trustworthy, but owners have insufficient protection against those who are not. The prosecutors and judges need to open these files so the public and the media and the academy can see exactly how this scheme worked. Then legislators can take the necessary steps to fix this--starting with mandatory full public disclosure of the financial status of every single HOA and condo association.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/vegas-hoa-crime-kingpin-leon-benzer-sentenced-15-12-years-prison#st_refDomain=www.facebook.com&st_refQuery=/
------------
So ends the biggest white collar crime prosecution in the history of Las Vegas--eleven HOA taken over by a fraud ring and used to steal millions of dollars. But (see post below) we are not going to see the evidence, which remains sealed by virtue of the US Attorney's office and the federal judiciary. My view is the public needs to learn from this case. We have here the worst example ever seen of HOA private governments being taken over by vendors--contractors and lawyers, mainly--who used them like ATMs. These were people who knew the HOA industry from the inside--who knew how easy it can be for a small group of self-interested people to take over an HOA board of directors, because of the culture of non-participation that prevails in far too many common interest developments. This is a serious problem all over the country--in fact, all over the world. Nothing is going to change this situation--most people just don't want to be bothered with paying attention to the affairs of their HOA. Their lives are too busy already. The day will never come when owners live up to the ridiculous expectations that this institution imposes on them. The people who own units in CIDS are just consumers of a mass-produced product, and they need to be protected against the possibility that predatory industry insiders might take advantage of them. I realize that most lawyers, managers, and contractors are trustworthy, but owners have insufficient protection against those who are not. The prosecutors and judges need to open these files so the public and the media and the academy can see exactly how this scheme worked. Then legislators can take the necessary steps to fix this--starting with mandatory full public disclosure of the financial status of every single HOA and condo association.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/vegas-hoa-crime-kingpin-leon-benzer-sentenced-15-12-years-prison#st_refDomain=www.facebook.com&st_refQuery=/
Evidence in Las Vegas HOA prosecution remains sealed
"A total of 43 defendants either pleaded guilty or were convicted at trial in what prosecutors say is the largest public corruption case ever in Nevada. Prosecutors opposed dissolving the two protective orders — especially the one that covers the leak investigation, which focused on concerns that Quon was getting confidential information from the Nevada U.S. attorney's office and possibly elsewhere. The Justice Department in Washington took the reins of the HOA investigation after those allegations surfaced. The leak investigation delved into personal and romantic relationships of public officials who have not been charged criminally or disciplined administratively, Justice Department prosecutors argued. Foley shared the government's concerns in his order. "The government has made a sufficient showing that disclosure of these documents would potentially cause unfair prejudice to the individuals who were the subjects of the investigation, but to whom no charges, criminal or administrative, were ever brought," he wrote."
-----------
It has been reported since the start of the prosecution that Washington took over the prosecution because people in the local US attorney's office, and possibly one or more judges, were passing information to attorney Nancy Quon, one of the principals in the fraud ring. She committed suicide. And now the US attorney's office and the federal judiciary have decided that nobody gets to see the evidence in the HOA fraud case--6 million pages of documents. Is that because it includes evidence that might make the US attorney's office and the federal judiciary look bad?
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/mass-evidence-huge-hoa-scheme-remains-under-wraps
-----------
It has been reported since the start of the prosecution that Washington took over the prosecution because people in the local US attorney's office, and possibly one or more judges, were passing information to attorney Nancy Quon, one of the principals in the fraud ring. She committed suicide. And now the US attorney's office and the federal judiciary have decided that nobody gets to see the evidence in the HOA fraud case--6 million pages of documents. Is that because it includes evidence that might make the US attorney's office and the federal judiciary look bad?
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/mass-evidence-huge-hoa-scheme-remains-under-wraps
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Police bust weekly mahjong game played by elederly women
http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2015/11/24/police-bust-weekly-mahjong-game-played-by-elderly-women/
Local cops, having solved all the other crimes, decided to bust a mahjong game. The perpetrators range in age from 87 to 95. Who called the cops? Condo management. It would appear that in fact they didn't violate any law, but I suppose the giant wheel of justice will have to grind all this into dust and answer that question.
Local cops, having solved all the other crimes, decided to bust a mahjong game. The perpetrators range in age from 87 to 95. Who called the cops? Condo management. It would appear that in fact they didn't violate any law, but I suppose the giant wheel of justice will have to grind all this into dust and answer that question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)