Evan McKenzie tweeted: “What is it with some of these #HOA boards and lawyers?
Community Associations Network tweeted: “They are often told they can't make ‘exceptions or that making an ‘exception will lead to other problems.”
We hear this “zero tolerance” excuse all the time from the industry apologists. The solution is simple: prohibit H.O.A. corporations from enforcing restrictive covenants and assessing fines against homeowners.
Under such a system, H.O.A. corporations would still be able to maintain common elements. And individual owners would still be free to litigate against their neighbors for violations of the restrictive covenants. But most normal and rational and community-minded people aren’t going to sue their neighbors, unless it’s over something really damn important, or they’ve suffered actual damages. Corporations, on the other hand, are sociopaths — persons under the law but without morals, conscience, or empathy — and therefore aren’t restrained by such norms (or even common sense).
A resolution to prohibit H.O.A. fines was introduced to the Boulder County Colorado Democrat Party earlier this year — you can read the one page PDF document here — but it was never voted upon.
The Resolution Committee told me that there was “some resistance” to the idea. The (then) chairman of the B.C.D.P. Mark J. Williams is an advocate of heavy-handed corporate governance (“My concern is that this discussion is going to go all over the place and that we won't have a way to reach consensus. I personally don't support the Resolution because, as the former President of a local HOA, we found that in a few cases it was only the possibility of a fine being imposed that moved folks to taking actions that benefited the entire community” 06/01/2017).
And Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives K.C. Becker (Democrat), who represents part of Boulder, told me that H.O.A. issues don’t affect enough people for the legislature to worry about (35% of the state’s population), and that privatized corporate governance provides a positive experience for those subject to it (06/06/2017).
It’s not a stretch to say that the politics of Boulder makes it the Berkeley of the Rocky Mountains. It's often called "The People's Republic of Boulder" or "25 Square Miles Surrounded By Reality". The producers of Portlandia could have made their show about Boulder, and it would be the same show.
In the 2016 Colorado Democrat Caucuses, Sanders beat Clinton 60% to 40%. “Turnout vastly exceeded projections — and 2008 totals — at many of the party's 22 Boulder County caucus supersites Tuesday night, including locations in Boulder, Longmont and Lafayette … Though party officials and precinct leaders assured people waiting in line that everyone would get in, the crowds eventually were so overwhelming that many precincts already had met and selected delegates while long lines of people unwittingly waited patiently outside for a chance to be counted”. (Boulder Daily Camera. 03/01/2016).
If Boulder Democrats won’t support regulatory limits on the powers of H.O.A. corporations to prevent stuff like this from happening, who will?
> HOA Critics: Proposed Missouri Legislation Won’t Protect HomeownersMonday, March 06, 2017 : "Missouri homeowners longing for more accountability in their homeowners associations and protection from overzealous HOA boards may not find the answers they want in legislation recently proposed in the state House and Senate".
In Missouri, lawmakers are working on a proposal to make homes associations more accountable, with one saying homeowners in his district have become so incensed with their HOAs that “we are one step away from pitchforks and torches.”
In the few months since The Star’s report on HOAs from hell, horror stories continue to pile up and homeowners keep falling victim to thieves from within their ranks.
Lawmakers in some states are saying enough is enough. It’s time, they insist, to take on a more aggressive role in regulating the $85 billion industry.
“It’s the number one constituent issue in my district,” said Missouri state Rep. Bryan Spencer, a Republican from Wentzville, near St. Louis. “This is basic property owner rights. It’s a fundamental right that we should have as Americans.”
Spencer said he has sponsored two focus groups on HOAs and both sessions were packed. At the first one, he said, “everyone was standing around the room, the patio was full and people were standing out the door trying to listen in.”
The second was even bigger, he said.
“I brought in an HOA lobbyist and an HOA attorney,” Spencer said. “And I thought I was going to have to call the police. I thought we were going to have an incident, because people were that angry.”
(emphasis added)
That was nine months ago. It takes nine months to make a baby, and people speak of "the miracle of birth". You know what would really be a miracle? If our policy makers provided real relief and effective protections for the consumers of H.O.A.-burdened housing.
and yet again it has nothing to do with "property values" - the pretext under which trade groups of management companies, HOA attorneys, and builders try to rationalize restrictive covenants. "you knew it when you bought the house" falls flat - it just isn't going to work as a rationale for blind obedience to restrictions (or someone's interpretation of them). I'm guessing the HOA attorney will try to make this a bench trial to avoid any fact finding by a jury.
Evan McKenzie tweeted: “What is it with some of these #HOA boards and lawyers?”
Fifteen years ago, some guy named Evan McKenzie — you may have heard of him — told ABC’s 20/20 that "What's really driving this is the dynamics of these collection lawyers who are just out to generate fees” (04/20/2002).
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Eight years later, this same McKenzie fellow said that
“It's like something you would see in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. People think these things don't go on. But we know they go on every day in condo and homeowners associations.”
“These people who have no idea how to use power at all. They won't even accept limits on their power. They don't even know what the law requires of them, these directors. They go by what some lawyer tells them to do, which the lawyer tells them to do only because he or she knows they can get away with it. Because the only recourse you have is some civil suit. Here in Illinois, we don't have an Ombudsman. Most states don't. There's nowhere for owners to turn.”
“If the lawyer tells them ‘Oh, just jack 'em around. Who cares what the rules are? Who cares what the law says?’ it doesn't make any difference. The transaction costs of enforcing an owner's rights are so great that they are hardly ever able to do it.”
(“On the Commons”. 06/26/2010 at 00:22:48, emphasis added)
That was seven years ago. Since then, nothing has been done to provide real relief and effective protections for homeowners and residents in H.O.A.-burdened communities ("communisties"), despite claims by self-serving politicians and self-appointed activists to the contrary.
Two years ago, another H.O.A. corporation -- also in Missouri -- threatened another family over another child's playhouse:
"A Lee Summit neighborhood's attempt to foil a lawsuit over a swing set has failed."
"About 30 neighbors filled the Raintree Lake Property Owners Association meeting Tuesday night to voice their outrage over the lawsuit that hit a crucial stage on Monday." . . . "Marla Stout had the playset built two years ago for her girls, ages five and eight. They wanted it to be pink, but they settled on a subtle purple that she thought would fit well with the POA rules that it be 'in harmony' with the neighborhood." . . . "'Nobody that lives here complained,' said Dave Dawson, who lives right across the street." . . . "In November of 2014 the POA's lawyer sent the Stouts a letter informing them a lawsuit would be filed seeking a court order to remove the playhouse, which he referred to as a swing set. It warned that if the court ordered the swing set removed and the family refused to do so, it 'could result in your being held in civil contempt...which would bring with it a daily fine or jail time until the swing set was removed.'"
Obviously, nothing was done to prevent that type of thing from happening again. Nothing ever is.
Four years ago, you wrote that "When some of these industry attorneys (such as the one I was on the air with on KNPR the other day--see below) are talking to the media and extolling the virtues of HOAs and condo associations they often claim that the owners ARE the association. He used almost those exact words" (03/02/2013). So much for that claim by the industry attorneys that
- "the truth is that the association serves the owners", and
- "The 'association' may be a corporation but in fact it is all of our neighbors acting in concert", and that
- "Disputes between an owner and the 'association' are at base just arguments among individual owners. But many still don’t see it that way and choose instead to see the association as a monolith operating independently of the owners", and that
- H.O.A. boards are just doing "the messy jobs for us so we can all just be neighbors" (Tyler Berding, "It's Your Neighbors, Stupid!" 05/21/2011)
Perhaps the "messy job" of enforcing restrictive covenants should be taken away from the H.O.A. corporation and delegated back to the individual owners who, in addition to exercising more common sense and sense of community, won't have the perverse incentives and moral hazards and profit motive to engage in destructive litigation for trivial amounts and reasons. Prohibiting H.O.A. corporations from enforcing restrictive covenants and assessing fines would also make the plaintiffs and defendants more "equal before the law" should a dispute go to court. But nobody is interested in doing that.
IC_deLight said… “’you knew it when you bought the house’ falls flat - it just isn't going to work as a rationale for blind obedience to restrictions”
I disagree. Unfortunately, such rationalizations will continue to work for the foreseeable future. Oh, there will be people here and there who reject such notions, but adhesion documents “agreed” to via the legal fiction of constructive notice will continue to be enforced as contracts because…
Well, I’m not sure why. Other than humans are better at rationalizing than being rational. But I no longer believe we’re at some tipping point or on the verge of a preference cascade:
“This illustrates, in a mild way, the reason why totalitarian regimes collapse so suddenly…Such regimes have little legitimacy, but they spend a lot of effort making sure that citizens don't realize the extent to which their fellow-citizens dislike the regime. If the secret police and the censors are doing their job, 99% of the populace can hate the regime and be ready to revolt against it - but no revolt will occur because no one realizes that everyone else feels the same way. This works until something breaks the spell, and the discontented realize that their feelings are widely shared, at which point the collapse of the regime may seem very sudden to outside observers - or even to the citizens themselves. Claims after the fact that many people who seemed like loyal apparatchiks really loathed the regime are often self-serving, of course. But they're also often true: Even if one loathes the regime, few people have the force of will to stage one-man revolutions, and when preferences are sufficiently falsified, each dissident may feel that he or she is the only one, or at least part of a minority too small to make any difference.” (Glenn Reynolds. “Patriotism and Preferences". March 13, 2002).
Americans will continue to tolerate the abuses perpetrated by the C.A.I.’s goons, while being told — and believing - that they are somehow at fault for being victims.
Most of us go to work 8 hours a day, where we are paid to be managed and told what to do. Nobody in their right mind would pay their boss. But at the end of the day, tens of millions of Americans pay an H.O.A. corporation and "community manager" to be told what they can do at home. It is absolute insanity, yet we have been successfully conditioned to accept it as normal.
see also:
- Fred Pilot, “HOA Convenants Not Generally Regarded As Contracts” (12/31/2011)
> HOA Critics: Proposed Missouri Legislation Won’t Protect HomeownersMonday, March 06, 2017 : “Missouri homeowners longing for more accountability in their homeowners associations and protection from overzealous HOA boards may not find the answers they want in legislation recently proposed in the state House and Senate”.
prediction --> accurate
On 12/23/2016 the Kansas City Star reported that (in addition to the excerpt in my other comment above):
As lawmakers across the country prepare for their 2017 legislative sessions, those in some states will be considering measures designed to protect homeowners who live in HOAs.
In Missouri, Spencer [Missouri State Representative Bryan Spencer - Republican] said he and other legislators are working on a “homeowners’ bill of rights.”
The concept, he said, will be similar to the “right to work” legislation involving labor unions.
“With all the labor stuff that is going forward, they are comparing HOAs to ‘right to work,’ ” Spencer said. “They are saying that if ‘right to work’ deals with people being forced to join a union in order to have a place to work, HOAs are like being forced to join an association in order to have a place to live. It makes sense to me.”
Spencer, who lives in an HOA, said 27 new subdivisions are being developed in Wentzville. All, he said, are in HOAs: “You can’t buy a house nowadays without being in one.”
Many homeowners don’t realize the risks involved when they buy in an HOA, he said.
“They can file liens on your house and they charge administrative costs and charge interest on those liens, and then they charge more administrative costs to take a lien off once you catch up,” he said. “But if you don’t pay them, they can evict you from your own house and sell your house with the mortgage still attached to you.
“It’s like you don’t own private property; you just own a time share.”
IC_deLight said… “the pretext under which trade groups of management companies, HOA attorneys, and builders try to rationalize restrictive covenants. "you knew it when you bought the house" falls flat - it just isn't going to work as a rationale for blind obedience to restrictions (or someone's interpretation of them)” (09/18/2017).
Evan McKenzie wrote… “Do people generally obey their rules and make their assessment payments without having to be sued? Yes. You can dispute the meaning of 'voluntary' if you like, but the level of voluntary (not specifically coerced) compliance with CID regimes is very high. When the HOA president tells you to stop parking your car in the driveway overnight, nearly everybody moves it into the garage. Period. End of story.” . . . “For the most part, Americans are an obedient, rule-following, moralistic, pious lot who do what they are told by people in authority, regardless of whether it is the private mall cop or the local police. I do not expect widespread disobedience in CIDs. I do expect huge financial problems, but that is another issue.” (01/02/2012)
Tyler Berding wrote… “I agree with Evan that the vast majority of buyers of property within a common interest development do understand that there are covenants running with the land that impose certain restrictions on its use” . . . “To suggest otherwise would be insulting to most owners.” . . . "Yes, not only are CCRs covenants which can be enforced by the courts as can any contract, it is a business proposition that most people understand until they choose not to." (01/02/2012)
DeeAnn Myers, President of the Rockhill H.O.A. corporation in Blue Springs, Missouri, told KSHB-TV 41 Action News that… “We have kindly requested them to remove this unapproved structure numerous times to no avail. We know both the Goolsby's and their Real Estate Agent had copies of these rules prior to purchasing this home and have simply ignored them. At a recent HOA annual meeting the Board opened the floor to the Goolsby's to appeal their case and the HOA decided to hold firm in its original decision.” (09/15/2017).
Based on limitations of associational standing, HOAs have limited standing to sue their involuntary members.
U.S. Supreme Court was concerned about representative standing - which is what HOAs or their attorneys typically claim, i.e., that the corporation represent other homeowners.
Standing for such suits was limited to pursuit of injunctions unless the HOA itself had actual damages. However, the HOA in the latter case would be limited to pursuing recovery of its own damages, not damages to others. There is no damage to an HOA for virtually any breach of restrictive covenant. Grass too tall? HOA corporation not damaged. Paint color not approved? HOA corporation not damaged. Alleged damage to another owner? HOA corporation has no standing. "Fines"? Laughable. A fine is not compensation for other homeowners particularly since the HOA corporation keeps any such monies collected. A "fine" is not compensation for "breach of restrictive covenant" when the HOA corporation is never harmed.
IC_deLight said… “There is no damage to an HOA for virtually any breach of restrictive covenant. Grass too tall? HOA corporation not damaged. Paint color not approved? HOA corporation not damaged. Alleged damage to another owner? HOA corporation has no standing. ‘Fines’? Laughable.”
Except that the right of an H.O.A. corporation to claim monetary “damages” for covenants violations is both “contractual” and statutory.
Unfortunately, there is no political will to change that. Even the proposed resolution below (PDF here) was too controversial for a bunch of Progressive Sandersnistas :
WHEREAS, the development of H.O.A.-burdened communities represents an infusion of corporate culture and governance into the domestic lives of an increasing larger number of Coloradans, and Americans; and
WHEREAS, the owners and residents of H.O.A.-burdened housing live under a form of effectively unregulated privatized corporate governance, under the guise of contract law, without meaningful protections and enforceable rights under the law; and
WHEREAS, the State of Colorado has granted and permitted H.O.A. corporations a gross and unconscionable imbalance of power to wield over owners and residents of H.O.A.-burdened housing; and
WHEREAS, H.O.A. corporations have perverse incentives and moral hazards to initiate expensive and destructive litigation against individual owners and residents over trivial amounts and matters; and
WHEREAS, H.O.A. corporations have far too frequently demonstrated a willingness – if not an eagerness – to abuse their authority and power; and
WHEREAS, the current “band aid” approach of attempting to provide relief for owners of H.O.A.- burdened housing by addressing individual harms has been ineffective; and
WHEREAS, it is possible for violations of an H.O.A. corporation’s governing documents to be enforced in an open court of law, without the power to assess fines; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of individual homeowners, local communities and the State of Colorado, that H.O.A. corporations have no more power to enforce their governing documents than the individual homeowners possess;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Boulder County Democratic Party believes that “the power to assess fines against individual homeowners is a police and judicial power that should not be delegated to nor permitted by private corporations, and that H.O.A. corporations should be prohibited by law from issuing fines to homeowners, regardless of what is written in the governing documents of the H.O.A. corporation”, and urges State Legislators to enact such a ban.
As it turns out, the Boulder County Colorado Democrat Party does not believe that “the power to assess fines against individual homeowners is a police and judicial power that should not be delegated to nor permitted by private corporations, and that H.O.A. corporations should be prohibited by law from issuing fines to homeowners". Colorado Democrats are more than content to let the C.A.I.'s predation of homeowners continue unabated.
10 comments:
Evan McKenzie tweeted: “What is it with some of these #HOA boards and lawyers?
Community Associations Network tweeted: “They are often told they can't make ‘exceptions or that making an ‘exception will lead to other problems.”
We hear this “zero tolerance” excuse all the time from the industry apologists. The solution is simple: prohibit H.O.A. corporations from enforcing restrictive covenants and assessing fines against homeowners.
Under such a system, H.O.A. corporations would still be able to maintain common elements. And individual owners would still be free to litigate against their neighbors for violations of the restrictive covenants. But most normal and rational and community-minded people aren’t going to sue their neighbors, unless it’s over something really damn important, or they’ve suffered actual damages. Corporations, on the other hand, are sociopaths — persons under the law but without morals, conscience, or empathy — and therefore aren’t restrained by such norms (or even common sense).
A resolution to prohibit H.O.A. fines was introduced to the Boulder County Colorado Democrat Party earlier this year — you can read the one page PDF document here — but it was never voted upon.
The Resolution Committee told me that there was “some resistance” to the idea. The (then) chairman of the B.C.D.P. Mark J. Williams is an advocate of heavy-handed corporate governance (“My concern is that this discussion is going to go all over the place and that we won't have a way to reach consensus. I personally don't support the Resolution because, as the former President of a local HOA, we found that in a few cases it was only the possibility of a fine being imposed that moved folks to taking actions that benefited the entire community” 06/01/2017).
And Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives K.C. Becker (Democrat), who represents part of Boulder, told me that H.O.A. issues don’t affect enough people for the legislature to worry about (35% of the state’s population), and that privatized corporate governance provides a positive experience for those subject to it (06/06/2017).
It’s not a stretch to say that the politics of Boulder makes it the Berkeley of the Rocky Mountains. It's often called "The People's Republic of Boulder" or "25 Square Miles Surrounded By Reality". The producers of Portlandia could have made their show about Boulder, and it would be the same show.
In the 2016 Colorado Democrat Caucuses, Sanders beat Clinton 60% to 40%. “Turnout vastly exceeded projections — and 2008 totals — at many of the party's 22 Boulder County caucus supersites Tuesday night, including locations in Boulder, Longmont and Lafayette … Though party officials and precinct leaders assured people waiting in line that everyone would get in, the crowds eventually were so overwhelming that many precincts already had met and selected delegates while long lines of people unwittingly waited patiently outside for a chance to be counted”. (Boulder Daily Camera. 03/01/2016).
If Boulder Democrats won’t support regulatory limits on the powers of H.O.A. corporations to prevent stuff like this from happening, who will?
> HOA Critics: Proposed Missouri Legislation Won’t Protect Homeowners Monday, March 06, 2017 : "Missouri homeowners longing for more accountability in their homeowners associations and protection from overzealous HOA boards may not find the answers they want in legislation recently proposed in the state House and Senate".
prediction --> accurate
On 12/23/2016 the Kansas City Star reported that:
In Missouri, lawmakers are working on a proposal to make homes associations more accountable, with one saying homeowners in his district have become so incensed with their HOAs that “we are one step away from pitchforks and torches.”
In the few months since The Star’s report on HOAs from hell, horror stories continue to pile up and homeowners keep falling victim to thieves from within their ranks.
Lawmakers in some states are saying enough is enough. It’s time, they insist, to take on a more aggressive role in regulating the $85 billion industry.
“It’s the number one constituent issue in my district,” said Missouri state Rep. Bryan Spencer, a Republican from Wentzville, near St. Louis. “This is basic property owner rights. It’s a fundamental right that we should have as Americans.”
Spencer said he has sponsored two focus groups on HOAs and both sessions were packed. At the first one, he said, “everyone was standing around the room, the patio was full and people were standing out the door trying to listen in.”
The second was even bigger, he said.
“I brought in an HOA lobbyist and an HOA attorney,” Spencer said. “And I thought I was going to have to call the police. I thought we were going to have an incident, because people were that angry.”
(emphasis added)
That was nine months ago. It takes nine months to make a baby, and people speak of "the miracle of birth". You know what would really be a miracle? If our policy makers provided real relief and effective protections for the consumers of H.O.A.-burdened housing.
and yet again it has nothing to do with "property values" - the pretext under which trade groups of management companies, HOA attorneys, and builders try to rationalize restrictive covenants. "you knew it when you bought the house" falls flat - it just isn't going to work as a rationale for blind obedience to restrictions (or someone's interpretation of them). I'm guessing the HOA attorney will try to make this a bench trial to avoid any fact finding by a jury.
Evan McKenzie tweeted: “What is it with some of these #HOA boards and lawyers?”
Fifteen years ago, some guy named Evan McKenzie — you may have heard of him — told ABC’s 20/20 that "What's really driving this is the dynamics of these collection lawyers who are just out to generate fees” (04/20/2002).
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Eight years later, this same McKenzie fellow said that
“It's like something you would see in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. People think these things don't go on. But we know they go on every day in condo and homeowners associations.”
“These people who have no idea how to use power at all. They won't even accept limits on their power. They don't even know what the law requires of them, these directors. They go by what some lawyer tells them to do, which the lawyer tells them to do only because he or she knows they can get away with it. Because the only recourse you have is some civil suit. Here in Illinois, we don't have an Ombudsman. Most states don't. There's nowhere for owners to turn.”
“If the lawyer tells them ‘Oh, just jack 'em around. Who cares what the rules are? Who cares what the law says?’ it doesn't make any difference. The transaction costs of enforcing an owner's rights are so great that they are hardly ever able to do it.”
(“On the Commons”. 06/26/2010 at 00:22:48, emphasis added)
That was seven years ago. Since then, nothing has been done to provide real relief and effective protections for homeowners and residents in H.O.A.-burdened communities ("communisties"), despite claims by self-serving politicians and self-appointed activists to the contrary.
Two years ago, another H.O.A. corporation -- also in Missouri -- threatened another family over another child's playhouse:
"A Lee Summit neighborhood's attempt to foil a lawsuit over a swing set has failed."
"About 30 neighbors filled the Raintree Lake Property Owners Association meeting Tuesday night to voice their outrage over the lawsuit that hit a crucial stage on Monday."
. . .
"Marla Stout had the playset built two years ago for her girls, ages five and eight. They wanted it to be pink, but they settled on a subtle purple that she thought would fit well with the POA rules that it be 'in harmony' with the neighborhood."
. . .
"'Nobody that lives here complained,' said Dave Dawson, who lives right across the street."
. . .
"In November of 2014 the POA's lawyer sent the Stouts a letter informing them a lawsuit would be filed seeking a court order to remove the playhouse, which he referred to as a swing set. It warned that if the court ordered the swing set removed and the family refused to do so, it 'could result in your being held in civil contempt...which would bring with it a daily fine or jail time until the swing set was removed.'"
(KCTV-5, 08/11/2015. emphasis added)
Obviously, nothing was done to prevent that type of thing from happening again. Nothing ever is.
Four years ago, you wrote that "When some of these industry attorneys (such as the one I was on the air with on KNPR the other day--see below) are talking to the media and extolling the virtues of HOAs and condo associations they often claim that the owners ARE the association. He used almost those exact words" (03/02/2013). So much for that claim by the industry attorneys that
- "the truth is that the association serves the owners", and
- "The 'association' may be a corporation but in fact it is all of our neighbors acting in concert", and that
- "Disputes between an owner and the 'association' are at base just arguments among individual owners. But many still don’t see it that way and choose instead to see the association as a monolith operating independently of the owners", and that
- H.O.A. boards are just doing "the messy jobs for us so we can all just be neighbors" (Tyler Berding, "It's Your Neighbors, Stupid!" 05/21/2011)
Perhaps the "messy job" of enforcing restrictive covenants should be taken away from the H.O.A. corporation and delegated back to the individual owners who, in addition to exercising more common sense and sense of community, won't have the perverse incentives and moral hazards and profit motive to engage in destructive litigation for trivial amounts and reasons. Prohibiting H.O.A. corporations from enforcing restrictive covenants and assessing fines would also make the plaintiffs and defendants more "equal before the law" should a dispute go to court. But nobody is interested in doing that.
IC_deLight said… “’you knew it when you bought the house’ falls flat - it just isn't going to work as a rationale for blind obedience to restrictions”
I disagree. Unfortunately, such rationalizations will continue to work for the foreseeable future. Oh, there will be people here and there who reject such notions, but adhesion documents “agreed” to via the legal fiction of constructive notice will continue to be enforced as contracts because…
Well, I’m not sure why. Other than humans are better at rationalizing than being rational. But I no longer believe we’re at some tipping point or on the verge of a preference cascade:
“This illustrates, in a mild way, the reason why totalitarian regimes collapse so suddenly…Such regimes have little legitimacy, but they spend a lot of effort making sure that citizens don't realize the extent to which their fellow-citizens dislike the regime. If the secret police and the censors are doing their job, 99% of the populace can hate the regime and be ready to revolt against it - but no revolt will occur because no one realizes that everyone else feels the same way. This works until something breaks the spell, and the discontented realize that their feelings are widely shared, at which point the collapse of the regime may seem very sudden to outside observers - or even to the citizens themselves. Claims after the fact that many people who seemed like loyal apparatchiks really loathed the regime are often self-serving, of course. But they're also often true: Even if one loathes the regime, few people have the force of will to stage one-man revolutions, and when preferences are sufficiently falsified, each dissident may feel that he or she is the only one, or at least part of a minority too small to make any difference.” (Glenn Reynolds. “Patriotism and Preferences". March 13, 2002).
Americans will continue to tolerate the abuses perpetrated by the C.A.I.’s goons, while being told — and believing - that they are somehow at fault for being victims.
Most of us go to work 8 hours a day, where we are paid to be managed and told what to do. Nobody in their right mind would pay their boss. But at the end of the day, tens of millions of Americans pay an H.O.A. corporation and "community manager" to be told what they can do at home. It is absolute insanity, yet we have been successfully conditioned to accept it as normal.
see also:
- Fred Pilot, “HOA Convenants Not Generally Regarded As Contracts” (12/31/2011)
- Evan McKenzie, “Do Americans Consider CC&Rs Contracts, Revisted” (01/02/2012)
- Tyler Berding, “Do Owners Believe CC&Rs Are Contracts, Part Trois…” (01/02/2012)
- George Staropoli, “George Staropoli on the ‘Do Owners Believe CC&Rs Are Contracts?’ Debate” (01/04/2012)
- Fred Fischer, “Fred Fischer on the ‘Do Owners Believe CC&Rs Are Contracts?’ Debate” (01/04/2012)
> HOA Critics: Proposed Missouri Legislation Won’t Protect Homeowners Monday, March 06, 2017 : “Missouri homeowners longing for more accountability in their homeowners associations and protection from overzealous HOA boards may not find the answers they want in legislation recently proposed in the state House and Senate”.
prediction --> accurate
On 12/23/2016 the Kansas City Star reported that (in addition to the excerpt in my other comment above):
As lawmakers across the country prepare for their 2017 legislative sessions, those in some states will be considering measures designed to protect homeowners who live in HOAs.
In Missouri, Spencer [Missouri State Representative Bryan Spencer - Republican] said he and other legislators are working on a “homeowners’ bill of rights.”
The concept, he said, will be similar to the “right to work” legislation involving labor unions.
“With all the labor stuff that is going forward, they are comparing HOAs to ‘right to work,’ ” Spencer said. “They are saying that if ‘right to work’ deals with people being forced to join a union in order to have a place to work, HOAs are like being forced to join an association in order to have a place to live. It makes sense to me.”
Spencer, who lives in an HOA, said 27 new subdivisions are being developed in Wentzville. All, he said, are in HOAs: “You can’t buy a house nowadays without being in one.”
Many homeowners don’t realize the risks involved when they buy in an HOA, he said.
“They can file liens on your house and they charge administrative costs and charge interest on those liens, and then they charge more administrative costs to take a lien off once you catch up,” he said. “But if you don’t pay them, they can evict you from your own house and sell your house with the mortgage still attached to you.
“It’s like you don’t own private property; you just own a time share.”
IC_deLight said… “the pretext under which trade groups of management companies, HOA attorneys, and builders try to rationalize restrictive covenants. "you knew it when you bought the house" falls flat - it just isn't going to work as a rationale for blind obedience to restrictions (or someone's interpretation of them)” (09/18/2017).
Evan McKenzie wrote… “Do people generally obey their rules and make their assessment payments without having to be sued? Yes. You can dispute the meaning of 'voluntary' if you like, but the level of voluntary (not specifically coerced) compliance with CID regimes is very high. When the HOA president tells you to stop parking your car in the driveway overnight, nearly everybody moves it into the garage. Period. End of story.” . . . “For the most part, Americans are an obedient, rule-following, moralistic, pious lot who do what they are told by people in authority, regardless of whether it is the private mall cop or the local police. I do not expect widespread disobedience in CIDs. I do expect huge financial problems, but that is another issue.” (01/02/2012)
Tyler Berding wrote… “I agree with Evan that the vast majority of buyers of property within a common interest development do understand that there are covenants running with the land that impose certain restrictions on its use” . . . “To suggest otherwise would be insulting to most owners.” . . . "Yes, not only are CCRs covenants which can be enforced by the courts as can any contract, it is a business proposition that most people understand until they choose not to." (01/02/2012)
DeeAnn Myers, President of the Rockhill H.O.A. corporation in Blue Springs, Missouri, told KSHB-TV 41 Action News that… “We have kindly requested them to remove this unapproved structure numerous times to no avail. We know both the Goolsby's and their Real Estate Agent had copies of these rules prior to purchasing this home and have simply ignored them. At a recent HOA annual meeting the Board opened the floor to the Goolsby's to appeal their case and the HOA decided to hold firm in its original decision.” (09/15/2017).
Based on limitations of associational standing, HOAs have limited standing to sue their involuntary members.
U.S. Supreme Court was concerned about representative standing - which is what HOAs or their attorneys typically claim, i.e., that the corporation represent other homeowners.
Standing for such suits was limited to pursuit of injunctions unless the HOA itself had actual damages. However, the HOA in the latter case would be limited to pursuing recovery of its own damages, not damages to others. There is no damage to an HOA for virtually any breach of restrictive covenant. Grass too tall? HOA corporation not damaged. Paint color not approved? HOA corporation not damaged. Alleged damage to another owner? HOA corporation has no standing. "Fines"? Laughable. A fine is not compensation for other homeowners particularly since the HOA corporation keeps any such monies collected. A "fine" is not compensation for "breach of restrictive covenant" when the HOA corporation is never harmed.
IC_deLight said… “There is no damage to an HOA for virtually any breach of restrictive covenant. Grass too tall? HOA corporation not damaged. Paint color not approved? HOA corporation not damaged. Alleged damage to another owner? HOA corporation has no standing. ‘Fines’? Laughable.”
Except that the right of an H.O.A. corporation to claim monetary “damages” for covenants violations is both “contractual” and statutory.
Unfortunately, there is no political will to change that. Even the proposed resolution below (PDF here) was too controversial for a bunch of Progressive Sandersnistas :
WHEREAS, the development of H.O.A.-burdened communities represents an infusion of corporate culture and governance into the domestic lives of an increasing larger number of Coloradans, and Americans; and
WHEREAS, the owners and residents of H.O.A.-burdened housing live under a form of effectively unregulated privatized corporate governance, under the guise of contract law, without meaningful protections and enforceable rights under the law; and
WHEREAS, the State of Colorado has granted and permitted H.O.A. corporations a gross and unconscionable imbalance of power to wield over owners and residents of H.O.A.-burdened housing; and
WHEREAS, H.O.A. corporations have perverse incentives and moral hazards to initiate expensive and destructive litigation against individual owners and residents over trivial amounts and matters; and
WHEREAS, H.O.A. corporations have far too frequently demonstrated a willingness – if not an eagerness – to abuse their authority and power; and
WHEREAS, the current “band aid” approach of attempting to provide relief for owners of H.O.A.- burdened housing by addressing individual harms has been ineffective; and
WHEREAS, it is possible for violations of an H.O.A. corporation’s governing documents to be enforced in an open court of law, without the power to assess fines; and
WHEREAS, it is in the interest of individual homeowners, local communities and the State of Colorado, that H.O.A. corporations have no more power to enforce their governing documents than the individual homeowners possess;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Boulder County Democratic Party believes that “the power to assess fines against individual homeowners is a police and judicial power that should not be delegated to nor permitted by private corporations, and that H.O.A. corporations should be prohibited by law from issuing fines to homeowners, regardless of what is written in the governing documents of the H.O.A. corporation”, and urges State Legislators to enact such a ban.
As it turns out, the Boulder County Colorado Democrat Party does not believe that “the power to assess fines against individual homeowners is a police and judicial power that should not be delegated to nor permitted by private corporations, and that H.O.A. corporations should be prohibited by law from issuing fines to homeowners". Colorado Democrats are more than content to let the C.A.I.'s predation of homeowners continue unabated.
Post a Comment