AZ HB 2030 – slippery slope to Sanford police dept.?

The failures and continued actions of the Sanford, FL police department, with respect to the failure to uphold the laws on arrest in the Trayvon slaying, is disturbing. It reeks of a total disregard for justice and fair play. It causes me to consider what if your neighborhood HOA had these powers? The public policy with respect to HOAs has been a hands-off policy with and no accountability under the law – let them do as they please. Just as it seems the Sanford police department has adopted with its failure to arrest Zimmerman.

And yet, the Arizona Legislature sees no serious issue with the unrestricted delegation of regulatory powers to HOAs over parking on public streets as set forth in HB 2030.

“An association may regulate the parking of noncommercial vehicles on any roadway for which the ownership has been dedicated to or is otherwise held by a governmental entity . . . .”

My suggested amendment was ignored, “may regulate the parking . . . only with respect to parking by the members of the HOA who have waived their right to public parking on public streets within the HOA governed subdivision.” And the legislature rejected the position that the HOA can get a variance if it has legitimate parking concerns, like everybody else! The legislative intent to allow further unrestricted powers to these independent HOAs has become much clearer.

Would this bill put us on the slippery slope path that can produce an event like the Trayvon slaying? In Arizona, you can carry concealed weapons almost anywhere. The bill does not create any new laws, but is simply a re-affirmation for all to know of who runs local government. If this bill becomes law, then I believe we are on the slippery slope to the “law and order” of the wild, wild west by the power factions, like the cattle barons, railroad, and mining interests of the Old West. Arizona already had one incident where two HOA board members were killed in 2000 during a board meeting.

Although the bill is only about parking at this point, the real import of this bill is the starting out on the slippery pathway to further lawlwssness by HOAs. Where does it say that the the uniformed and arm-banded “HOA Security,” the police arm of the HOA, cannot stop and detain – that means ‘arrest’ — people on public streets? And Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio doesn’t want to do police public streets in HOA subdivisions. And we well know the great care and concern for proper procedure and obedience to the laws as exhibited by HOAs today in other areas. Can an incident like in Sanford happen with this grant of unrestricted powers?

Won’t happen here? Too far fetched? Wanna bet? To a lesser extent lawlessness  is happening everyday in HOA-Land, with respect to such issues as, failing to respond to records requests, making up rules on the fly, arbitrarily fining people, “political machine” elections, and going to court on the most trivial grounds, etc.  Now what will these rogue boards do next?

Advertisements
Published in: on April 1, 2012 at 11:24 am  Comments (7)  
Tags: , , , , , , ,

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://pvtgov.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/az-hb-2030-slippery-slope-to-sanford-police-dept/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

7 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. So, SB2030 failed to pass. Can an HOA in AZ currently regulate parking on a city street only between certain hours?

  2. Hello! I was looking into whether or not my HOA (I’m in NV) could restrict whether or not I was able to have security cameras on my property and this page (though not necessarily relevant) was one of the search results. This is a bit off for a comment but I just wanted to say Thanks PVTGOV for the book quote – my husband LOVES reading WWII books, normally about battles but also about the politics (and the lead up to certain politics) and I hadn’t heard of that book before (I am still early 20s but no excuse I suppose!) so I bought it for him and I know he will be excited- sociology was one of his favorite subjects and this seems to be along that vein. I know it isn’t necessarily related to my initial query on what my HOA can or cannot allow, but it was a delightful serendipity!

  3. Where does it say that the HOA cannot mandate security cameras inside people’s homes. Or enter people’s homes to search for covenant violations?

    Nowhere.

    • My gosh, what a statement! Simply put, where does it say it can?

      The powers of a private government HOA, the directors and officers and their management agents, are stated in the CC&Rs and the by-laws. Unlike public government under the Constitution, it cannot assume powers not granted in that contract. Furthermore, that common law source, the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes, sec. 3.1, clearly states that covenants — you know, those statements in the HOA “constitution” — are valid if not arbitrary and capricious, unreasonable, not contrary to public policy, or not unconstitutional. It may surprise you, but HOA cannot do anything it pleases.

      The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects . . . . “ is a fundamental constitutional right. The Supreme Court has held that privacy is a fundamental right. And then, since there is no contractual agreement in the CC&RS granting explicit permission to enter a member’s home, there are state laws against trespass. In some states, I understate the homeowner can shoot a trespasser at the drop of a hat, no questions asked.

      • George,

        You of all people should know better than to state that HOAs are bound by the Bill of Rights. For somebody who’s always saying that HOAs should be bound by the constitution, you’re undercutting yourself here.

        For example,

        http://www.ccfj.net/TVCH10shoddyconstrsign.html

        “Resident: HOA Threatens To Break Into Home”
        Article and Video Courtesy of
        Channel 10 — Just News — Miami
        Published January 8, 2010

        HOMESTEAD, Fla. — A South Florida couple said their homeowners’ association has threatened to break into their home to remove a sign posted in a window.

        Bill Elliot and his girlfriend, Mary Ann Frye, bought a single-family home in Aruba at the Oasis in Homestead in 2007. The couple said the house is infested with Chinese drywall, and they want Lennar to buy them out so they can move on.

        The couple has posted two signs on their property — one on the front lawn, another in a window.

        . .

        At first Elliot’s neighborhood association sent a friendly reminder saying he could have no signs, displays, advertisements or lettering without approval. Then, he received a lawyer’s letter warning if the signs don’t come down, the association will come and remove them.

        A letter from Association Law Group said, “Should no one be home at the time the Association comes, the services of a locksmith will be utilized and you will be responsible for the cost.”

        “How would you feel if someone said they were going to come with a locksmith and open your door?” said Elliot. “They’re threatening to break into our home.”

        “We have a right to tell people how we feel. This is what America is all about,” said Frye.

        But Local 10 has discovered something Elliot and Frye didn’t know. According to the by-laws that govern the neighborhood, which Elliot signed when he bought the house, the association does have the right to enter his property and remove any violations after a written notice.

      • It seems you are eithered bored with nothing better to do or just being plain argumentative. The article you re-printed has nothing to do with your original post, nor that I contradicted myself somehow.

        In the reprinted incident, we have a surrender of rights by the homeowner, or at least a court upheld surrender of rights. The question of consent to be bound is another issue discussed elsewhere. Most CC&Rs permit the HOA to enter private property under specific circumstances.

        You have backed away from your premise that nothing prevents an HOA from entering private propertyand contradicted it with this re-print. The homeowner has been deemed to have consented and that covers unconstiutional violations by the board.

        Move on.

  4. How the slippery slope comes to be.

    In his 1955 book, They Thought They Were Free, journalist Milton Mayer wrote about the beginnings of the new order in Germany, the WWII Nazis Party.

    “What happened was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little . . . to believing that the situation was so complicated that their government had to act on information which the people could not understand. This separation of the government from people,
    this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and insensibly, each step disguised. [The government] provided an excuse not to think, for people who did not want to think anyway.”

    And as the new order took hold, there came the “us against them” mentality,

    “On the one hand your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party intimidate you. On the other hand, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic, or even neurotic. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves. . . . Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to
    God.”


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