Legislative "good conscience" non-consent to support HOA reforms

Following up on my last post, “Are legislatures sovereigns who can do no wrong?“, the failure of legislators to obey, uphold and enforce the laws is a serious example of the non-consent by our public representatives to be governed by the laws of the land.  This non-consent, with the implied legislators’ “all good conscience”, is usually accompanied some simplistic rational justification, such as with HOA reform bills: “The homeowners agreed to follow the rules”, “They are trying to get out of a contract”, “HOAs are a good thing for he people “,  or “Why change the law for a few malcontents?”  This non-consent serves as the basis for their acts of commission and omission in opposition to HOA reforms.

 I find it hypocritical that while legislators justify their failure to deal fairly with and to provide “equal justice under the law” for homeowners in HOAs, they do not admit to or accept homeowner non-consent, “in all good conscience”, to be governed by the HOA regime.  This homeowner non-consent is based on arguments well founded in fact, and supported in law or in the extension of the law.

 And, it should be well understood that the legislatures, and the courts, must stop hiding behind their rationale that homeowners associations are not government entities, because they are not chartered under state municipality laws or delegated such authority by the legislature.  They must begin to recognize that HOAs are indeed de facto governments that have been allowed, by the acts of commission and omission by the legislatures and courts themselves, to operate outside constitutional restrictions and protections of homeowner rights.

 Subjecting theses private governments to the Constitution would fulfill the “equal justice under the law” and due process protections of the 14th Amendment.  And, within this act of  “joining the union”, HOAs can still retain their private use and private lands nature of the subdivision by simply using the special taxing district model —  those in the subdivision pay for the privacy of occupation and use of amenities.  And with their own “ordinances.” 

 These private “contracts” would then not violate good public policy, would not be unconscionable, and would not violate the Constitution.  HOA laissez-faire regulation and interference into private property rights would end with accountability to the state, as required of all other government entities.  How could the legislatures and courts not consent in all good conscience to such a plan?  The Constitution is, after all, much more than that disjointed contract interference clause of paragraph 1, sec. 10 of Article I: No State shall . . . pass any . . . law impairing the obligations of contracts.”

Published in: on July 12, 2009 at 8:52 am  Comments (2)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://pvtgov.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/legislative-good-conscience-non-consent-to-support-hoa-reforms-2/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

2 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. George I listened to your video and want to say thank you for all your hard work fighting against the abusive HOA/POA. We are a 902 mobile home park in hobe sound. Our documents and three local attorneys advised our BOD we are a Voluntary property owners assoc. and if we choose we may join in the social club for a fee.
    The problem in our community is our BOD are acting as though we are a mandatory POA and they send out invoiced yearly for dues.They use this money to sue the homeowner and take his house. They vote and change our deed restrictions then they record the changes they make in the county court house. The most serious deed restriction change they made was back in 1989 when they had a vote and changed everyones deed to their property and made this community a 55+
    I just witnessed one of my neighbors who fought them and lost because he could not afford a lawyer. This is what the the POA lawyer said to the judge and the judge agreeded. This 46yr old man who by the way is disabled lived in his homesteaded property. He had a letter from the POA accepting and approving him to live in Ridgeway Mobile Home Park. After he moved in he was sent a letter to move out because he was NOT 55.
    He lost his case and home for this REASON>
    The POA attorney told the judge the mans homestead was voided and invalid because he should not have been living there in the first place and if he had told the person who issued him his homestead exemption that he was 46 and living in a 55 community she would have NEVER issued him a homestead exemption. Not only did he lose his case they sold his home for a NON EQUITY

  2. superdrupermegapuper54321…

    Very usefull info. Thanks!…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s