Ungated :: AARP, Community Associations, Rights, and Responsibilities
Here is Tom Skiba's take on AARP's Homeowners Bill of Rights. Follow link to his blog and there you will find a link to the full CAI position paper on AARP's B of R:
- The paper was prepared by a homeowner advocate attorney in Texas [note from Evan: that would be David Kahne], and not by AARP staff. As you might imagine, there was very limited input from industry representatives including CAI, NAHB, the National Council of Commissioners on Uniform State Law (who drafted UCIOA and similar legislation) and others.
- AARP has not adopted the proposed Bill of Rights as an official legislative position, although the report has been sent to their state offices.
- Sadly, the paper also seems to intimate that mature Americans are incapable of managing their own affairs and protecting their own interests. Personally, I think that seriously underestimates AARP's own members.
Yet the report raises some important issues and includes some potentially beneficial ideas on ensuring that communities serve all of their owners fairly, equitably, and harmoniously.
While we disagree on many of the details, we believe that this process can have positive outcomes.
------------------
I think it is great that Tom sees the AARP as raising important issues and containing some good ideas. I have to read the full CAI reaction, but these bullet points do stir some preliminary thoughts. First, what is a "homeowner advocate attorney"? David is an attorney, and he has represented homeowners. Is there something wrong with that? I don't see how that comment has any bearing at all on the AARP document, much less deserving to be given bullet point status as though it was some sort of "gotcha." The document went through outside review as well, so it isn't as though it went from David's computer to the publisher with nobody checking it out. Seems to me lots of "industry attorneys" have been doing all the drafting for about fifty years, so can somebody else take a crack at it for a change?
Second, why should there be input from industry representatives in the drafting of the AARP document? The premise of the document--the reason it needs to be written, in other words--is that the law as written in most states is heavily loaded for the industry (lawyers and other professionals) and for the BODs, and against the owners. The whole point here is to give the owners some protections. The AARP document is a starting point. The time for the industry to weigh in is now, I would say--not while the owner protections were being drafted.
And finally, the idea is not that owners are little children who need paternalistic policy. The need for a bill of rights comes from the untenable legal position HOA owners find themselves in, courtesy of the cozy relationship between real estate developers and local governments. I am talking about blanket imposition of reams of lawyer-drafted, non-negotiable, boilerplate, developer-friendly, board-friendly, and often repressive rules on owners who have to take the whole package or forget about the home they wanted to buy. And with so many of these projects having similar substantive and procedural content, and with so little choice left in the market due to municipal mandates and developer preferences, the case for a little legislative protection of owners is compelling.
That's why the trend in so many state legislatures is now pro-owner. And I don't think the genie can be put back in the bottle. I will read CAI's take on the AARP proposals carefully and hope for the best. But I think David Kahne and AARP are definitely deserving of high praise, and I hope good things come of their efforts.
6 comments:
Evan,
As both a member of CAI and a BOD president, I agree totally with YOUR comments and reject the hogwash peddled by Tom Skiba.
HOA's are illegitimate governments. They are not businesses. And it is wonderful to see legislatures turn pro-owner.
Evan:
A couple of follow-up thoughts.
First, I think it is appropriate to describe David as a "homeowner advocate attorney" as that is how others who describe themselves as "homeowner advocates" describe him. I guess I could have said civil rights attorney or attorney who regularly represents homeowners against their HOA's, but homeowner advocate attorney seemed to be the most clear and succint. And certainly in the case of a paper like this you would want to know the source. Had the document been drafted by one of our CAI members I am sure that some of the descriptions by others would have been even more colorful and even slanderous.
More importantly, it is interesting that AARP contracted out this project. I think this is meaningful, as is the lack of input from other sources. If the project was truly, to create a discussion, identify issues, and search for practical solutions, as AARP claims, then it would seem to me that collaboration, consensus, and cooperation would be the approach. Instead we got a paper that is clearly and proudly from one point of view. The list of acknowledgements brings together some of the most anti-association folks from around the country. That's OK, let's just be honest and up-front that this is driven solely by individuals with specific agendas and is not some attempt at consensus-building or problem-solving.
You are right that the paper did go through a review process before it was released. Actually one AARP staff described the review as a "massive rewrite". If such a policy document requires that much review and rewrite then perhaps it isn't approaching the issue from the most balanced perspective, the perspective that AARP claimed they were working towards.
I also think that the response within the homeowner advocate community to this paper has been very interesting. It seems to be very much a love it or hate it response depending on the individual.
Finally, the devil (as always) is in the details. As you will see from our detailed response, we want to work with AARP in making communities more livable and more responsive to their homeowners. I just don't believe that it is a one way street. I think CAI made that clear in 2003 when we developed "Rights and Responsibilities for Better Communities" http://www.caionline.org/rightsandresponsibilities/ which addressed all aspects of the relationship between homeowners, boards, and their communities.
Tom Skiba writes " ... it is interesting that AARP contracted out this project..."
Just curious. What is interesting about AARP 'contracting this project out' as you mysteriously write? Are you implying something on par with privatizing the VA?
-----------
Evan writes: "And finally, the idea is not that owners are little children who need paternalistic policy."
I enjoyed that sentence. AARP's 'management' does insist an carrying out a paternalistic role in what AARP does and does not do. Which, of course, does not mean they do not do good and needed things, which they do. AARP cannot decide whether they are a business which must 'sell' their customers (eg silly insulting magazines with reconstructed oldsters on the covers) or a organization supporting some subset of older Americans.
Wow, this gets more and more fascinating.
I'm not sure quite where to begin on all this except perhaps to renew my invitation to Evan and Tom to join us On The Commons to talk about this further. I notice that my friend, Pia Trigiani, as Chair of the Government and Public Affairs Committee signed off on the 4 page letter to AARP so I am including her in my invitation.
Tom, you have complained in the past that there is no dialog between the industry and the actual homeowners and in your comments on Evan's blog today you complain about the lack of "consensus", "collaboration" and "cooperation" in your continued beef about the AARP BoR.
Perhaps you could explain what CAI, and maybe you personally, have done to change that? I have heard from homeowners across the country who say you refuse to take or return their calls. My last invitation to you to join us On The Commons was ignored. Is that how you plan on building consensus and promoting cooperation between the two groups?
Evan, I agree with you, David Kahne is an attorney, one of a handful nationwide who will represent homeowners. There is no "Homeowner Institute" with a staff of attorneys whose raison d'etre is to track and write legislation to protect the individual rights of the homeowners. This is very much a "David" and Goliath story.
Our David has been in the trenches for a long time and has seen the good, the bad and the oh so very ugly that this country's 300,000 associations dish up. Why not have David Kahne write up the proposed BoR? I support David 150% and thank him for taking the time to work on this much needed document.
Your complaint about the lack of industry input on a Homeowner BoR is laughable, to say the least. It is a bit like American Colonists asking King George to help them write the Declaration of Independence.
I also find it very amusing Tom, that you are so opposed to any kind of legislative intervention. Don't CAI chapters have their state Legislative Action Committees (LACs) that spend time writing proposed legislation designed to increase the powers of associations? Is CAI going to do away with their many LACs across the country to try to stem the tide of all these HOA laws? Or is it just homeowner friendly legislation that you dislike so much?
Tom, perhaps you could explain what difference it makes how many people are in an HOA controlled development when it comes to a BoR? In your initial post you complain that, and I quote; "In addition, it attempts to prescribe a universal set of conditions that would apply to all associations, whether they had 2 units or 20,000." Exactly what "rights" should not apply equally to all homeowners, regardless of the size of their HOAs? The right to be told about rules and charges? Or don't you believe that "fairness in litigation" should be a concern for some homeowners? And I suppose these same concerns don't quite extend to the "Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act". Don't you believe the UCIOA, written by industry, should apply to ALL associations, regardless of their size?
While I can not speak FOR the AARP, nor can I report on any communications with them, I CAN tell you that MANY MANY homeowners expressed their dissatisfaction with AARP's response in the past to HOA issues. Perhaps the folks at AARP, like many legislators across the country, were at a loss of what to do and so they contracted with an attorney who understood the issues. For that, I do applaud them.
And finally, I was fortunate enough to meet the late Byron Hanke. He believed that "education" was the solution for the many problems in associations and so he founded CAI to do just that. Four decades and counting and CAI is STILL singing the same sad song about the solution being education. CAI has been allegedly "educating" Americans, and the world, on how to live in HOAs and the problems not only persist but they get worse with each passing day. What went wrong?
Again, I invite Evan, Tom and Pia Trigiani to join us On The Commons to talk about this.
Shu Bartholomew
In response to Gail's question. I found it unusual for AARP to "contract" this out since their Policy Institute has a relatively large staff (AARP is a $1 billion/year business) and historically appears to have conducted most of their other projects internally (of course seeking broad external input).
Mr. Skiba,
What happened prior to 2003? Was it open season on innocent, unsuspecting homeowners? While many people see the dangers of some of these groups, as many of them have become dictatorships, run by pimps, I do not believe most of the, "folks," are, "anti- association."
I believe people want, expect and anticipate the same rights in home ownership as any other American. I have yet to meet one person who has ever known their neighbor, friend; or fellow board member, can conspire, plan and carry out an elaborate, illegal scheme with an agenga to attempt to destroy their lives and families, destroy their finances and steal their home.
If your goal is to educate the homeowner, maybe you would like to start with the historical, truthful, actions of some of those within your chapters.
Innocent people and families are homeless, Mr. Skiba, due to the "some of your groups, out of control."
How about if it was YOU and YOUR FAMILY? Would the non- accountability position, of the National Group, be enough of an explanation for you; pay your bills, and provide for your family?
Please, walk a mile in ONE of these victim's shoes, Mr. Skiba, before you think you know it all!
Post a Comment