HOAs require unrealistic human behavior

Dear Arizona Republic Editor,

I'm amazed at the rose colored look at the hopeful benefits claimed by planned community supporters that HOAs help shape better communities. In "Neighborhood groups fight apathy", there's the failure to understand that, in spite of the special interest group's promotion, HOAs have not been about better communities, but about better property values. And to attain that goal, arbitrary and profit-motivated rules and restrictions are instituted and imposed on homeowners under the guise of fully informed consent.

This wishful thinking is reflected in statements, such as quoted, "a unique opportunity to become a close-knit community" and "to have pride in the cooperative relationship they have with their HOA." These are want-it-to-be statements, and are based on unrealistic human behavior. Apathy results when a certain behavior pattern is demanded in order to make the HOA work, but the members do not agree with the demands and feel helpless to change them. They really bought a home and not an active participation in the government of a society that demands behavior inconsistent with human behavior patterns.

If the state should stop mandating homeowner associations and ramming these unworkable demands on people, then the problems with homeowner associations will improve.

Legislators must accept responsibility for HOA problems

After a heated discussion at my annual HOA meeting relating to the board's failure to setup CC&R mandated reserves, a board member said to me,

"George, lighten up. This is a small social gathering of friendly neighbors seeking to maintain property values."

I replied,

"So long as the HOA has a right to take my house, or to impose financial difficulties for me and my family, supported by state laws that do not allow me proper due process if I disagree with the HOA, there can be no social gathering of friendly neighbors. This is a contractual arrangement that is one-sided against me, and all other individual homeowners. If you want a friendly social gathering of neighbors, throw away the threat of financial distress, the state supported CC&Rs, and we can then act like good, friendly neighbors."

Homeowner association problems continue year to year in each and every state as a result of the creation of laws, and the repeated refusal to correct their errors of judgment, by state legislatures that "sanction" and "bless" the unconscionable adhesion CC&Rs contracts.

The arguments made in this 2003 publication, The Case Against State Protection of Homeowner Associations, sadly, remain valid in the Arizona legislature and in the legislatures of others states, including California, Texas, Florida, New Jersey and Nevada. The problem can be stated in simple terms as had just occurred in regard to my small HOA in Arizona.

Nationwide Lobbyist for HOA Principalities

Excerpts from:

Community Associations Institute: Dominating the Emergence and Acceptance in America of a Quiet Political Revolution in Authoritarian, Contractual Private Local Government.


What has happened to America? How did this sad state of affairs come to be, here in America? The answer can be found in the words of a Texas real estate attorney proposing a new HOA act, TUPCA, before the Texas House Business & Industry hearing on March 31, 2006, which met to examine what should be done with HOA statutes. In answer to questions about the provisions and protections of the HOA, she replied, “There’s really an entwined relationship between HOAs and cities. They do that to protect the finances of the association. That was considered a progressive thing 25 years ago.”

CAI Founder, Byron Hanke, wrote in 1992 of his concerns for the change in direction of CAI, stating that CAI’s funding was based on it being “a research and education institute, not a lobbying/political organization, trade association or professional society with a narrow focus.” Today, CAI requires:

Every dollar of the mandatory $15 Advocacy Support fee goes directly to states with Legislative Action Committees and supports the efforts of CAI to represent and protect our members on state legislative and regulatory efforts.

Viewers to its web site are told,

CAI also advocates for legislative and regulatory policies that support responsible governance and effective management. We represent the interests of our members before the U.S. Congress, federal agencies, and other policy-setting bodies on issues such as taxes, insurance, bankruptcy reform and fair housing. In addition, state Legislative Action Committees represent CAI members before state legislatures and agencies on issues such as assessment collection, foreclosure, and construction defects. Moreover, in undertaking such review, state governments are urged to consider and give favorable treatment to one or more of the Uniform Community Association Acts.

In short, CAI has been setting itself up as the national private authority, a sort of Board of National HOA Governors, on local community governance through the adoption of uniform planned community acts that perpetuate the current anti-American HOA governments. In effect, the super, privatized agency to replace the US Constitutional system of government.

The complete 14-page paper can be read at Nationwide Lobbyist for Principalities.

Arizona breaks new ground in Homeowner Association reform legislation

"Mandatory disclosure" required before HOA can act on allegations

Arizona Governor Napolitano signed 3 Homeonwer Association bills in one day!

SB1055: Allows homeowners to also fly military flags, like the USMC flag. Ariz. Sess. L. Ch 75 (2006).


SB1007: Closed loopholes in HOA excuses for not providing access to records. It also placed a minimum debt to the HOA of $1,200 before a foreclosure can be filed, or only after a one year wait (duplicated in SB1008). Ariz. Sess. L. Ch. 71 (2006).

Ground breaking legislation -- This bill also incorporates SB1560. (In civil court, Arizona requires the mandatory disclosure of certain information between both parties as a means of avoiding a trial, since both sides will get a good look at the evidence and charges being made.) Before an HOA can take any legal action against a homeowner for allegations of any rules violation, it must:

*** provide written notice of the allegation and the proceedure to follow regarding the charges

*** the homeowner may send a written response by sending the response by certified mail within ten business days

*** The written explanation from the association shall provide at least the following information:

1. The provision of the community documents that has allegedly been violated.
2. The date of the violation or the date the violation was observed.
3. The first and last name of the person or persons who observed the violation.

*** The association shall not proceed with any action to enforce the community documents, including the collection of attorney fees, before or during the time [10 days].

Arizona Senators speak of HOA "entwinement" and "a symbiotic relationship"

During the week of March 27, 2006, Arizona legislators heard three HOA bills that would bring substantive changes to the treatment of homeowners in HOAs. Two of the three bills passed and were placed on the active calendar for a floor vote.
SB1560, mandatory disclosure, passed and HB2352, the restoration of the homestead exemption, failed. The other bill that passed related to providing due process protections to homeowners by allowing the Office of Administrative Hearings to adjudicate HOA disputes.


I prepared a 2 DVD set covering the hearings for the mandatory disclosure and homestead exemption bills. (Total time is 116 minutes). Listen to the Senators and their arguments in support of HOAs, and to Rep. Farnsworth who vainly attempts to explain the unequal protection of the laws in favor of HOAs against homeowners. Listen as the Senators make the case for state action with their support for HOAs, and the entwinement and symbiotic relationship between the state and the HOA that meet the US Suprme Court's tests for state actors.

‘He must either conform or move’

Middletown (Ohio) Journal letter

Letters to the Editor for March 31, 2006

I’d like to congratulate the Middletown Journal for its series on homeowner associations, because it tells the public about life in an HOA.

However, let me give you some observations concerning the content of the series. Basically, you are revealing that buyers choose HOAs for aesthetic reasons (“looks nice”) and for a preservation of property values. You are also revealing, as indicated by my comments in the series, that people are willing to trade a loss of rights and protections in order to attain their stated goals. The problem comes, however, when these rights are trampled on by the board at some time, any time, in the future, and the homeowner finds that he has limited or no protections, and that it’s too late to change anything. So he must either conform and accept the injustice, or move out.

People should ask why they are not being told about this loss of rights and protections that are not mentioned in any of the required disclosure documents. If HOAs are all that good, why is there this silence on the part of the government’s consumer protection agencies, as well as generally in the media?