How about "Lexusville"?
L.A. Considers Selling Its Name
Friday, March 12, 2004

LOS ANGELES — It’s home to fun, sun and Hollywood glamour -- and now the city of Los Angeles may be lending its name and image to the highest bidder.

Leaders of the cash-strapped city are considering selling the naming rights for Los Angeles to a variety of products. Coke or Pepsi could be the city’s official soft drink, for instance, and Lexus or BMW the official automobile.

Lawmakers say the choice for a budget-crunched city like Los Angeles comes down to raising taxes or finding other ways of raising necessary funds. New York and San Diego are already in the sponsorship game and are making millions.
.......
Read the rest so you won't think I'm making this up.

The plain truth about HOA foreclosures...
Homeowner Association Foreclosures: California Senate Housing Committee HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION FORECLOSURE HEARINGS


(My comments on foreclosure follow this is except from a BACKGROUND PAPER on
"HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION FORECLOSURE: DOES THE PUNISHMENT FIT THE OFFENSE?"
by Mark Stivers - Chief Consultant - California Senate Housing & Community Development
-----------------excerpt begins----------
...
Statistics show that homeowner associations foreclose on members homes for relatively small amounts of delinquent assessments in comparison to non-CID creditors. A 2001 study done by Sentinel Fair Housing conducted an evaluation of foreclosures in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Sacramento counties. The analysis reported that median amount owed in homeowner association foreclosures was $2,557; the median amount in all other cases was $190,000. The recent example of the Copperopolis family who lost their home for $120 could be seen as a extreme example but it demonstrates the legal authority that associations posses to foreclose for negligible amounts.

Associations primarily use non-judicial foreclosure which does not require review by a court. The California Civil Code stipulates that non-judicial foreclosure must be afforded basic due process and must be conducted "with fairness, openness and scrupulous integrity and the trustee must exercise sound discretion to protect the rights of all interested parties and obtain the best possible price." Several legal cases have asserted that the courts will scrutinize all non-judicial foreclosure sales for fairness and for a gross inadequacy of price . Although there are existing legal protections for the homeowner, in reality it is difficult for individual property owners to challenge the actions of the homeowner associations through the legal process after the fact.

Individuals who lose their home via the CID non-judicial foreclosure process often lose a significant amount of their equity due to the small amounts at which the homes are sold in auction. The minimum bid at sale is the amount owed to the homeowners association, regardless of how much the home is worth. In contrast, the judicial foreclosure process mandates that the minimum bid at foreclosure sale cover the amount owed, any junior liens, and the homestead amount which ranges from $50,000 to $150,000.

Alternatives to Non-Judicial Foreclosure

CID non-judicial foreclosures are unique in comparison to the process that most creditors must follow to collect on debts. Most creditors must go through the judicial process in a attempt to garner a judgement; once a judgement is obtained the court has the sole authority to stipulate the appropriate recourse to collect. Claims that are less than $5,000 could be handled in small claims courts which alleviates many of the legal and monetary obstacles to using the judicial process. Judgements can then be enforced through wage garnishments, liens on property and, ultimately, by judicial foreclosure.

In a judicial foreclosure the lender must file a lawsuit in the superior court of the county in which the property is located. The property owner must be served with a copy of the summons and complaint for foreclosure; a judicial foreclosure can take up to three years to complete. Foreclosure on a property under these provisions is subject to the homestead exemption, which protects the homeowner's equity in the property. The homestead exemption equals $50,000 for an individual, $75,000 for a family, or $150,000 for a person who is a senior or disabled.
...
----------------excerpt ends--------------
My comments:
So, what should be done? In my opinions, HOAs should not be allowed to use nonjudicial foreclosure. The practice is being abused by a small number of collections attorneys who have invaded the field of community association law but who in reality wouldn't recognize "community" if it walked up and bit them on the butt. These folks are community destroyers--the HOA version of divorce lawyers. Their goal is foreclosure, not collection of delinquent assessments.

But I do believe that HOAs need to have recourse to judicial foreclosure as a last resort. Associations need to get paid. They must be able to defend themselves against chronic deadbeats, or disaster will result for those who are paying their assessments as they are forced to carry the load for the free riders. Associations don't have the resources to cushion them for years of non-payment by a significant number of residents.

Leaving associations only with recourse to debtors' personal assets--garnishment, attachment, and so forth--will crush many innocent, dues-paying members, and eventually lead to association insolvency. At least, that's the way it looks to me.

Bad day in Druid Woods...
Condo residents get sticker shock
Druid Woods board assesses owners $7,650

By CHRISTOPHER QUINN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 02/29/04

Connie Hansard Perry stopped to pick up her mail Christmas Eve and saw a 77-year-old neighbor in Druid Woods condominiums, open letter in hand, sobbing.

Though Perry had a houseful of Christmas guests to attend to, she took time to try to comfort her friend.

Perry herself soon would need comforting. The letter was from the condo association board.

It said the 140owners in the Decatur complex owed the association $7,650 each. The association needed the money to repair water damage to one of five buildings, and owners had until the end of January to pay.

(Thanks to Shu Bartholomew for sending this along)

Disneyland becomes a gated community? Say it ain't so, Mickey!
Security Gates Going Up at Disneyland

By Associated Press

March 10, 2004, 6:29 PM EST

ANAHEIM, Calif. -- Reality is coming to Disneyland's fantasy world, in the form of permanent security gates. Bowing to terrorism fears, the Walt Disney Co. plans to build the gates at the Disneyland Resort next fall. The company had resisted security gates around Disneyland and the California Adventure theme park next door, believing the sense of fantasy would be spoiled.
Read the rest.

Fla. Condo Owners Spar Over Board Proposal
Punches Thrown During Meeting

UPDATED: 1:23 p.m. EST March 5, 2004

BOCA RATON, Fla. -- Condominium owners upset over a proposal that would require them to purchase country club memberships got into blows with board members at a meeting Thursday night in Boca Raton. Read all about it...

See you in the courts of appeals...
The trial court decision in Twin Rivers is a split decision that favors the defense. The Committee for a Better Twin Rivers has no standing to be in the case, so that leaves the individual committee members as plaintiffs. Both sides get summary judgment on some causes of action, framing the case for appeal on purely legal grounds. We won some causes of action under PREDFA, a state statute, but lost entirely on the main theory, the "functional equivalent of a municipality" theory. So according to Frank Askin we are headed for the appellate courts, where there is probably a better chance of prevailing. I never expected to win this case at the trial court level because those judges have to take all the heat as individuals whereas appellate justices sit in panels, and also it is hard for trial judges to make precedent setting decisions as that is normally seen as the province of appellate justices. As I see it, to quote King Theoden said at the start of the Battle of Helm's Deep, "So it begins..."

Twin Rivers decision tomorrow...
I have it on the best authority that the much-anticipated ruling on the Twin Rivers litigation will be announced to the parties tomorrow (Tuesday, 2/17) at noon. The decision will be released to the press on Wednesday. Stay tuned...

The judge will be deciding whether or not the New Jersey state constitution restricts the activities of "private" homeowner associations that are (in the plaintiffs' view) the functional equivalent of a municipality. If he rules for the plaintiffs, it would be a watershed event in the history of HOAs.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have been arguing in print since 1985 for this basic position, and as the expert witness for the plaintiffs in the Twin Rivers case (the Committee for a Better Twin Rivers) I also have an interest in seeing the side I support win the case.

Long-Distance Picketing: Wave of the Future?
Grocery Workers Protest at Home of Safeway CEO--sort of. Unfortunately for them, he lives in a gated community
from KPIX/KCBS
Wed Jan 28, 4:01 PM ET

Ann Notarangelo

Hundreds of grocery store workers marched on the Alamo estate of Safeway's CEO Wednesday

Some religious leaders from Southern California joined the group in asking for Steve Burd to end a bitter strike in Southern California.


The marchers were stopped about a half-mile from the gates to Burd's home, but later, a delegation of five clergy members were allowed to deliver messages from the union members and their supporters.

Full story here
Thanks to the redoubtable Fred Pilot for the tip to this story. Police, process servers, picketers, presidential candidates...nobody can get into these places. The mighty waves of democracy are crashing into vapor on the gates of private communities--is that about the size of it? There is a French Revolution smell to this whole thing. I wonder what the name of this place is...Thermidor Acres? Robespierre Place? Girondin Gardens?

Are local government perennially endangered?
The last quarter century has given us the end of the Great Society programs with their emphasis on federal aid to cities; the property tax revolt that clamped down on the ability of municipalities to jack up property taxes whenever they felt the need; the rise of homeowner associations and other forms of privatized local government alternatives; and a tremendous increase in hiring and spending by local governments. With slashed revenue sources and competition from the private sector, local government as a sector grew like crazy anyway. And all this amid predictions of doom and gloom from pundits like me.

Remember that movie Halloween where the monster keeps gets "killed" but every time, no matter what happens to him, a few minutes later he suddenly sits bolt upright while Jamie Lee Curtis is finally calling the police like she should have done about five minutes into the film?

Now, I'll grant you that some municipalities are indeed in sorry shape. There are some inner-ring Chicago suburbs--Harvey, for example--that are in desperate condition. Crime, no tax base, horrible schools, property values through the floor. I don't know what will become of places like that. But it is surprising how many inner ring suburbs have found some way to make it all work. Maybe they find a way to take advantage of their location, architecture, famous former inhabitants, a natural disaster, some part of the natural environment, a lawsuit--there are many ways.

And even if you can't do any of that, if you can just attract new common interest housing, then you can impose major concessions on the developer ("Build us a new high school!"), followed by impact fees and double taxation of the new HOA residents. And then, Bob's your uncle...life is good.

Gilbert, AZ, mandating HOAs
Thanks to the Yahoo group "hoanet" for some excellent work on developing the facts on the most important trend in the rise of residential private government: the increasingly common practice of cities requiring developers to create HOAs in new housing as the price of building in lucrative high-density PUD zones. This practice eliminates choice in the new housing market and conscripts people into HOAs whether they want them or not, and then forever after they are told by the courts that they chose HOA living of their own free will.
So...check out Gilbert, AZ, where you can read the Public Review Draft of Article 3.104 B-9 of its Unified Land Development Code. The section provides that, for developers who want to build in the planned development areas where higher density is permitted,
"The Planning Commission may recommend, and the Town Council may impose, conditions of approval including, but not limited to, the following matters:...9. Requirements for establishment of homeowners or property owners associations or other mechanisms to assure continued maintenance of landscape areas, trails, open spaces, shared parking and access areas, homeowners association facilities, fences.."

Now, this is what is being done in other parts of the nation, including right here in Chicago. Builders want to develop in the most desirable and profitable areas where higher density is permitted. Cities require them to create HOAs as a condition of entry into these areas. Why? Because the HOA does the city government's job in large part, and the city collects the same amount of tax dollars from the new owners without having to build the infrastructure or provide services. Pretty sweet, isn't it? In short, HOAs are a cash cow for local government. But then when the owners start complaining about loss of basic liberties and foreclosure, and other problems, the city suddenly becomes deaf. Solving the problems is somebody else's job--like, well...the court system, paid for by the state.
How long will this be allowed to continue?

Read the code for yourself right here.

Oh, and I read elsewhere that the house referred to in the story below, that was sold at foreclosure auction for $70,000, was recently appraised at $280,000. I can't confirm this, but that doesn't seem high for California.

Couple lose their home over $120 debt--state legislator promises bill to strip HOAs of foreclosure power
By Michael Kolber -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 a.m. PST Saturday, January 24, 2004
COPPEROPOLIS -- A retired couple's dispute with their homeowners association has spiraled out of control in this Calaveras County community -- and now they have lost their home less than a year after failing to pay $120 in annual dues.
Anita Radcliff, who owns the home with her husband, Thomas, said she had little hope of winning back the house, which the association's collection firm sold at a foreclosure auction in December for $70,000....Their case is a reminder that associations have the power to foreclose for past-due bills, regardless of the amount. State Sen. Rico Oller, R-San Andreas, said Thursday that he plans to author legislation this year that would take away the rights of associations to foreclose.
"It was $120, and they're going to take away his house. That should never happen in America," Oller said. "This is a case of an association exercising what is arguably their right, but in a totally unreasonable and extreme way."
Read the whole thing here.

California Law Revision Commission receives comments on its recommendations for architectural review procedures
The Commission grinds onward with sixteen pages of comments it has received from three people on its recommendation that existing California case law on architectural review should be codified--meaning, written into statutory law. The subtance of the law would say that architectural review decisions (request by owners to alter or add to their separate unit or interest) should be "made in good faith, pursuant to a fair and reasonable procedure, and that the decision not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious." Decisions would have to be put in writing, and if denied, the owner would have a "right of reconsideration by the board of directors" who denied the original request.
You can read the whole thing here.

Florida Legislature Select Committee Recommendations
From: Florida House of Representatives--
Representative Julio Robaina,
District 117:
First Report And Recommendations By Chairman Julio Robaina,
SELECT COMMITTEE ON CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION GOVERNANCE
--Some of the highlights of the recommendations:
--“Buyer Beware,” requiring a new Question and Answer sheet to be given to the potential buyer at the time of contract and again at the closing
--Background checks for potential board members
--conflict of interest reforms
--Issues voted on by board members that create a fiscal impact or hardship for the owner, must be approved and voted on under a special election by the majority of the unit owners
Full Report here.

Followup to rant below: So here's the the Defense of Marriage Act that John Edwards doesn't understand:

Now, read this and decide if this man is ready to be President:

1 USCA § 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.".

28 USCA § 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.".

OK, that's it. Now, how hard is that to grasp, for a practicing attorney who thinks he is smart enough to be President of the United States? Think he's ready to do the job? I don't.

Off-topic rant follows--I just can't stand it...
...that everybody is letting John Edward off the hook for completely misunderstanding the Defense of Marriage Act. Here is what he said on Thursday: ..."what happened with the Defense of Marriage Act is it took away the power of states, like Vermont, to be able to do what they chose to do about civil unions, about these kinds of marriage issues. These are issues that should be left -- Massachusetts, for example, has just made a decision, the supreme court at least has made a decision, that embraces the notion of gay marriage. I think these are decisions that the states should have the power to make. And the Defense of Marriage Act, as I understand it -- you're right, I wasn't there when it was passed -- but as I understand it, it would have taken away that power. And I think that's wrong. That power should not be taken away from the states. "
He was then given an opportunity to correct himself, and he insisted on this bone-head position even though it was obvious that Brit Hume was telling him he was wrong:
"HUME: Does not the Defense of Marriage Act specifically say that the court rulings in one state, which might, for example, recognize a gay marriage, may not be imposed on anther state? In other words, doesn't the Defense of Marriage go to the very position which you yourself take?
EDWARDS: No, the Defense of Marriage -- first of all, I wasn't in the Congress, I don't claim to be an expert on this. But as I understand the Defense of Marriage Act, it would take away the power of some states to choose whether they would recognize or not recognize gay marriages. That's my understanding of it."

Now, I have three problems with this. The first is that he is completely wrong. That is exactly the opposite of what the DOMA did. The act is very short and simple, and it does two things. It defines "marriage" as a man-woman union, wherever the word appears in federal law, and it absolves states from the obligation they would ordinarily have under the Full Faith and Credit Clause to recognize gay marriages authorized by other states. So, as Hume correctly said, the Act accomplished exactly what Edwards says still needs to be done.
Second, it is simply amazing to me that the press blew off such an enormous gaffe. If Dan Quayle or any other Republican did this, they would be forever branded as an airhead pretty-boy who was too lightweight for the presidency.
Three, why isn't he being criticized for his ridiculous excuse? Edwards blithely says, well, I wasn't in the Senate when this passed, and the press dutifullly accepts that nonsense as if it made sense. Is he only responsible for knowing about laws passed since he showed up in the Senate? How about the First Amendment? The Commerce Clause? The Civil Rights Acts? Can he claim that the Fair Housing Act allows racial discrimination in housing, and then when he is told it bans discrimination, just say, "Oh. Well, I wasn't in the Senate in 1968, so I'm no expert, but that's my understanding."
What was Edward doing in 1996, when the DOMA passed? He was a practicing attorney, for Pete's sake! And now he's a Senator, and he wants to be President in a year. And he's been running around the country debating and speaking for months. And the subject of gay marriage just happens to be hot now, with the Mass. supreme court making their famous decision. So why on earth is he spouting off about gay marriage when he hasn't bothered to read only the federal law on the subject? (The law can be found at 1 USCA 7 (the definition part) and 28 USCA 1738C (the full faith and credit part.)
This la-de-dah attitude toward the substance of policy is increasingly common, I think. Politicians are allowed to spout off about complicated issues based on their ideological orientation, their interest group base, and some half-baked understanding of the facts and the law. Then it's on to the next issue and the next news cycle, and it's as though it never happened. Al Sharpton's inability to distinguish between the Federal Reserve Board and the International Monetary Fund was similarly glossed over in the next day's news. The only difference between the two candidates' mistakes is that Sharpton has no chance of ever being elected. But people are now claiming that Edwards is a serious contender.
Wow. Talk about a guy who will need on-the-job training.

Glad to hear the Middle East is in good hands now...

After Tony and Kofi fail, Brad and Jennifer try Mid-East diplomacy
By Inigo Gilmore in Jerusalem
from The Telegraph
(Filed: 26/10/2003)


Bill Clinton failed, Tony Blair drew a blank and Kofi Annan made little progress. But now a team of Hollywood film stars is about to visit the Middle East on a private peace mission, in the belief that their charms will work magic on the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Brad Pitt, his wife, Jennifer Aniston, and Danny DeVito are among the stars who aim to succeed where world statesmen have stumbled.

"The past few years of conflict mean that yet another generation of Israelis and Palestinians will grow up in hatred," reads a statement from Pitt and Aniston. "We cannot allow that to happen."

Here's the whole story. Now, if only we could get them to take on HOA mediation...

Oppression: pick your brand, public or private
Apropos Oak Park, this place bans handguns, overnight parking on the streets, nuclear weapons (via signs posted at all main street entrances to the village), and all forms of non-niceness. It's the municipal equivalent of an HOA.

HOA tackles swingset blight
Now, here's something to be proud of. Stamping out those kiddie swing sets that are a little too tall. Way to go, board members. Nothing like grabbing favorable press for your community.

"Kids' play-set clash pits Gilbert families vs. HOA"

by Stephanie Paterik
The Arizona Republic
Oct. 25, 2003 12:00 AM

"Joel and Kerri Pogar have written the governor, rounded up their neighbors and spent six months in a law library drafting a suit against their homeowners association.

"The issue at hand? A backyard play set.

"The Gilbert couple say the HOA in Power Ranch, one of the town's poshest neighborhoods, forced them to get rid of a $4,000 play set because it was 2 feet higher than the 10 feet allowed by HOA design standards."


Read it all here.

Moving is hell
My wife and kids and I are in the middle of packing for a move from The People's Republic of Oak Park, Illinois, in the heart of Cook County, to a suburban setting in Lake County where I am told there are Republicans. Not in museums or zoos, either. They actually roam around free and even vote. All our neighbors here in OP--one of the strongest bastions of the left wing to be found on any continent--think that we will be shocked by the Neanderthal mentality that will surround us. I kind of doubt it. I have no problem seeing a flag flying from most every porch. Ours is up every day, along with a "We Support our Troops" sign, and we are a little tired of being the only ones. In fact, I think HOAs would be better places if they were a little less tightly-wound about this whole flag thing. When did the American flag ever reduce property values?