The “end of denial” of unconstitutional HOAs

Ibram X. Kendi’s article, “The End of Denial,” appears in the September 2020 Atlantic Monthly. While Kendi argues that the upsurge in the denial of racism is a major step to ending racism in America, I can expand upon this mindset shift, this reorientation,  to ending the denial of the unconstitutionality of the HOA legal scheme and model of local government. This mindset shift will produce the broad, substantial reforms to the current prejudicial view favoring authoritarian,  private government HOAs.

Applying Kendi’s view to HOA constitutionality, Kendi urged “The American people [to] give policy makers an ultimatum: Use your power to radically reduce inequity and injustice, or be voted out”; and that “the American people [must] demand equitable results, not speeches that make them feel good about themselves and their country.”[1]

I have proposed a plan to accomplish this HOA mindset shift,

“Restructuring the HOA-Land Nation  requires a cultural change in in the way of life of members; and an appropriate change in attitude by  state legislatures, the people and the home buying public.”[2]

and describe the underlying HOA social and political culture,[3]

“This HOA-Land Nation Within America white paper challenges, confronts, and exposes the self-interest bias by pro-HOA stalwarts, and contains authoritative documentation and evidence as well as statements used in this indoctrination process.”

The question that I posed to the policymakers, the constitutional pundits, and Arizona Legislature as far back as 2006 remains long unanswered:

“Can private parties enter into contractual arrangements, using adhesion contracts and a constructive notice consent, that serve to regulate and control the people within a territory (an HOA), to circumvent the application of the Constitution?”

Following Kendi’s lead, it is well beyond time for the denial of unconstitutional HOAs to end. It remains in the hands of Americans to demand that the state and local governments, the policymakers, and the constitutional pundits restore full citizenship to Americans living in authoritarian, private governments functioning outside the Constitution.

References


[1] “Ibram X. Kendi on ‘The End of Denial’”, Press Room, The Atlantic Monthly, August 5, 2020.

[2] George K. Staropoli,  A Plan Toward Restoring the HOA Model of Governance, StarMan Publishing (2019). Amazon.com: https://www.amazon.com/dp/b089yvpcwp.

[3] George K. Staropoli, The HOA-Land Nation Within America, StarMan Publishing (2019). Amazon.com: https://www.amazon.com/dp/b07r6xc1yt.                               

Author: HOAGOV

I have been a long-term homeowner rights authority, advocate and author of "The HOA-Land Nation Within America" (2019) and"Establishing the New America of independent HOA principalities" (2008). See HOA Constitutional Government at http://pvtgov.org. My efforts with HOAs took me to a broader concern that was deeply affecting the constituionality of HOAs. Those broad societal and plotical concerns caused me to start this new blog for my commentaries on the State of the New America.

One thought on “The “end of denial” of unconstitutional HOAs”

  1. George:“Can private parties enter into contractual arrangements, using adhesion contracts and a constructive notice consent, that serve to regulate and control the people within a territory (an HOA), to circumvent the application of the Constitution?”

    Yes parties do enter commonly into adhesion contracts otherwise normal business activity could not function. However a better question is, Should adhesion contracts be be allowed that serve to regulate and control the people within a territory (an HOA), to and that circumvent the application of the Constitution ? No because it clearly violates the constitutional rights of people who are First buying land with or without, Second a housing dwelling upon it. Land ownership automatically comes with constitutional rights, protections and privileges and should not be allowed to be circumvented by any adhesion contract or any contract. HOA contracts interject, without consent others (private entries, local government  body’s etc.) wishes upon the land by eliminating and restricting the owners full right to use and enjoyment of they’re land. Facts ? First in the HOA world the initial contractual parties was only ONE, the builder/developer since no second party (buyer) existed to review or accept the constructive notice and contract they they would be bound to into perpetuity, otherwise known as, NO DUE PROCESS. Consequently the second party, the home buyers didn’t exist or were present at the contract creation table and therefore could not have or had any opportunity to give their consent of the final contract. Adhesion contracts by definition only represeant one party, because the other party do-sent exist until they buy a product or service covered by the contract such as;  Warranty’s are the best example of adhesion contracts. People buy a product or service and the buyers have no say as to the warranty provisions and must comply with its requirements to claim its benefits. The warranty only also apply’s to the product purchased and not to other items ( use enjoyment, behavior etc.) like HOA contracts do.  HOA contracts are a blatant misuse and application of adhesion contracts used as a coercive tool to force acceptance of HOA governace upon property buyers, to benefit others. Which also grants associations powers to restrict personal liberties and freedoms even for matters that do not directly impact health, safety or prevention of public nuisances. In addition allowing  HOA Boards to blantently misuse their powers to squelch the freedom of speech and expression including their members right and ability to meet and communicate socially between each other. Example, Val Vista Lakes HOA tried to restrict their members from communicating by social media which is not not within their authority to do. However they had the finical means to try so they did in an attempt to intimidate, scare and discourage members from communicating between each other. Other HOAs as revealed in AZ State testimony have refused members to meet within their own community facility’s to discuss HOA, election or other issues, thereby eliminating their members freedom of speech and right to assembly in facilities that the members own in common. Simply HOA Boards practice “suppression” of any thing they don’t want members to know about or suppress their members ability to meet, visit or speak out especially if it involves assocation elections.

    thanks,Fred FTucs

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.