Saturday, February 23, 2013

SB 33 Senate Bill - INTRODUCED

SB 33 Senate Bill - INTRODUCED: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 53395 of the Government Code is amended to read: 53395. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that the state and federal governments have withdrawn in whole or in part from their former role in financing major, regional, or communitywide infrastructure, including highways and interchanges, sewage treatment and water reclamation works, water supply and treatment works, flood control and drainage works, schools, libraries, parks, parking facilities, open space, and seismic retrofit and rehabilitation of public facilities. (b) The Legislature further finds and declares that the methods available to local agencies to finance public works often place an undue and unfair burden on buyers of new homes, especially for public works that benefit the broader community. (c) The Legislature further finds and declares that the absence of practical and equitable methods for financing both regional and local public works leads to a declining standard of public works, a reduced quality of life and decreased safety for affected citizens, increased objection to otherwise desirable development, and excessive costs for homebuyers.
This bill if enacted could help reverse the trend of the past four decades to shift the burden of infrastructure costs to homebuyers and mandatory membership common interest developments that effectively impose a second layer of residential property taxation via HOA assessments.

1 comment:

Fred Fischer said...

This situation is yet another intolerable act imposed upon property buyers when municipalities mandate the private ownership of common area’s/amenities within zoning codes like PUDs/PADs. Because it strips buyers out of many of their constitutional, historic and other rights and protections through an adhesion contract as a condition of sale among other reasons.

Then the fictitious legal entity called an association (HOA, POA, condo etc.) must be financially feed to fulfill its ownership and maintenance responsibility’s. That also supports other business who in whole or in part also depends upon the fictitious entity for it’s livelihood or as a source of tax revenue as the municipality’s do. Except most often these private entities have no source of independent income so buyers must become members at purchase so they can be conscripted to both operate and most important financially provide the entity’s operating funds. In addition as a bonus insurance plan each members private property has an automatic lien placed upon it to assure the private entity has a permanent and almost unlimited income source into perpetuity. Unlike the members who make up the fictitious entity itself who don’t also have an equal or permanent income source to assure their existence into perpetuity as they have provided for the entity.

Finally the courts have ruled that the CC&Rs are of mutual benefit and the HOA industry claims that associations make better community. Therefore if CIDs really are of great benefit then shouldn’t the members who have the most vested financial interest, are paying all the expenses, taking the risks and are liable for everything. Also be equally receiving the services and benefits of attorneys which they are required to pay for ? Consequently private ownership of common areas and some amenities perhaps cannot be or should be abolished in future housing. However many things are for sure for economic, social and constitutional reasons such as, the municipality’s decade’s old “private ownership for common areas” policy in all housing types needs to stop and a choice needs to be returned to both developers and property buyers.