California’s AB770 & the CID Ombudsman
Without enforcement, just more Smoke & Mirrors
What is the purpose of the CID Ombudsman proposed in AB770? From the wording of the bill, it would be another clerical, paper-shuffling bureaucratic function. CLRC is supposed to be doing research on shortcomings of existing laws. After 40 years of homeowner oppression and abuse, AB770 wants the Ombudsman to now determine just what are the problems? In short, it would merely be a complaint desk to take the heat away from the legislators who continually refuse to sponsor CID reform bills of substance.
Without enforcement provisions in a bill there is no real law, just wishful guidelines to be realistically viewed as mere “policy statements”. This repeated refusal to hold CID boards that violate the law accountable to the state is a statement of public policy. This public policy statement says that it is in the best interest of the State of California not to hold CID board law-breakers accountable and answerable to society. Not answerable to the individual, as is the case with a civil suit, but answerable to the community in general.
Good public policy tells the community what the state believes is good, desirable behavior for the benefit of all members of the community, whether living or not living in a CID. And the current CID policy can only be interpreted that: it is good for California to allow unrestrained abuse and victimization of homeowners by CIDs.
The California Legislature continues to follow a path of protectionism for CIDs at the expense of the constitutional and property rights of individuals. Some may call this a new version of National Socialism where private property rights are extinguished in small communities in an unrealistic attempt to create a utopian society. (See the works of early socialists like Robert Owen, and American community builders like Ebenezer Howard and Jesse Clyde Nichols).
Homeowners need appropriate due process protections backed by enforcement of law-breakers, no matter who they may be. Homeowners need a tough sheriff, not an Ombudsman.
What is the purpose of the CID Ombudsman proposed in AB770? From the wording of the bill, it would be another clerical, paper-shuffling bureaucratic function. CLRC is supposed to be doing research on shortcomings of existing laws. After 40 years of homeowner oppression and abuse, AB770 wants the Ombudsman to now determine just what are the problems? In short, it would merely be a complaint desk to take the heat away from the legislators who continually refuse to sponsor CID reform bills of substance.
Without enforcement provisions in a bill there is no real law, just wishful guidelines to be realistically viewed as mere “policy statements”. This repeated refusal to hold CID boards that violate the law accountable to the state is a statement of public policy. This public policy statement says that it is in the best interest of the State of California not to hold CID board law-breakers accountable and answerable to society. Not answerable to the individual, as is the case with a civil suit, but answerable to the community in general.
Good public policy tells the community what the state believes is good, desirable behavior for the benefit of all members of the community, whether living or not living in a CID. And the current CID policy can only be interpreted that: it is good for California to allow unrestrained abuse and victimization of homeowners by CIDs.
The California Legislature continues to follow a path of protectionism for CIDs at the expense of the constitutional and property rights of individuals. Some may call this a new version of National Socialism where private property rights are extinguished in small communities in an unrealistic attempt to create a utopian society. (See the works of early socialists like Robert Owen, and American community builders like Ebenezer Howard and Jesse Clyde Nichols).
Homeowners need appropriate due process protections backed by enforcement of law-breakers, no matter who they may be. Homeowners need a tough sheriff, not an Ombudsman.
posted by Citizens for Constitutional Local Government | 8:04 AM
<< Home