I’m tired of these CAI “satisfaction surveys,” the latest of which carries the title, “Home Sweet HOA.” Is CAI having acceptance problems and has to resort to the above loaded slogan? Thanks to the increasing, more down-to-earth critical internet articles and social media posts by homeowner rights advocates like myself, it sure seems so!
Don’t be fooled by a survey conducted by a leading pollster like Zogby as to the validity of the survey. There is a lot that goes into an honest and valid survey that CAI does not provide the necessary details. In research surveys, like these surveys sponsored by CAI’s Research Foundation, questions need to be answered like, who are the respondents and what do they know about HOAs? If their knowledge is limited and restricted as to the basic facts about HOA “communities,” then the validity of their responses must be questioned. Their responses are biased!
To use a legal term, there is probable cause to conduct a balanced survey into HOA satisfaction.
Two homeowner rights advocates, Sara Benson (Chicago) and Jill Schweitzer (Phoenix), were responsible for 2 online polls on homeowner satisfaction with HOAs. In stark contrast, not surprisingly, the Combined Advocate Surveys, as I refer to them, revealed opinions and views refuting the results of the CAI “happiness” surveys.
In statistical terms, the George Analytics table below shows that the CAI and Combined [advocate survey] responses (average percentages) come from 2 distinct samples, segments, of the HOA population.
(See 2016 Combined Advocate Surveys vs. CAI surveys ).
The Combined Advocate Surveys demonstrate that the CAI surveys are not representative of all HOA members. They are not valid for the entire population of HOA owners, but just for that selected grouping of uninformed respondents.
I CHALLENGE CAI TO CONDUCT A SURVEY BASED ON MY 2011 “Truth in HOAs Model Act.” Sections 1 and 2 of the proposed act pertain to mandatory inclusions in all CC&Rs, and simply states, in part,
No provision of any contract or any declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions affecting lawful property uses of residences in a subdivision or condominium is enforceable in this state unless the party [HOA] seeking to enforce the provision proves by clear and convincing evidence that 1) the provision being enforced was knowingly and voluntarily agreed to . . . .
Section 3 spells out a required buyer agreement form to be signed by the potential HOA member, which explicitly alerts the buyer to hidden facts about life in HOA-LAND. Subsection 3(d) states, in part,
I understand that the association, as a private entity and not an arm of the state, is not subject to the restrictions and prohibitions of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution that otherwise protects the rights of the people . . . .
And finally, section 4 is an explicit surrender and waiver by the HOA that the HOA
herewith unconditionally and irrevocably agrees to be bound by the US and State Constitutions and laws of the State as if it were a local public government entity.
Let’s get to the bottom of these happiness allegations. Let’s have the members speak for themselves. If all is well and good as CAI has maintained over the years, there should be no problems signing the agreement or adopting the model disclosure act.