HOA homeowners are ‘the forgotten man’

HOA homeowners are the “forgotten man” to use FDR’s characterization of the farmers and working-class citizens during the Great Depression of the 1930s. As Governor of NY running for the Presidency, FDR addressed the nation on April 7, 1932. The relevant parts are provided below.

“It has been said that Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo because he forgotten his infantry . . . . The present administration in Washington provides, I think, a close parallel. It has either forgotten or does not want to remember the infantry of our economic army.  These unhappy times call for the plans of 1917  that build from the bottom and not the top down . . . that puts their faith in the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid . . . .”

In short, the people count and have been ignored by the rich and powerful people and corporations. The Depression needs to focus on the unemployed people if this country is to survive the Depression.

Today our nation is facing the real possibility of the loss of our democratic principles  as set forth in the US Constitution. Yet, little attention had been paid the  authoritarian private government HOAs that have succeeded from the Union; the HOA legal scheme has become an institution and accepted as “that’s the way it is.”  (See The HOA-Land Nation  Within America).

Are the homeowners in HOAs the forgotten men and women of our times?  I think so.  The evidence is quite clear that today, as occurred some 90 years ago, they have been abandoned by special interest corporations and government posing as friends of the people.  And there is not nor has there been a protector of the people since FDR and JFK.

Undue influence of CAI on HOA

I posted this in reply to a simplistic Nextdoor post that wrote that HOAs are governments:

Yes, HOAs and SCG are not simply nonprofits, charities, or for-profit entities. They are, in a complete description, a contractual, private government allowed to function outside constitutional protections under the guise that the members openly and with full knowledge agreed to surrenders and waivers of their rights under the US and state Constitutions.

I suggest concerned people seeking the truth read my simple pamphlet, “HOA Common Sense: rejecting private governments” as a starter. We can then have a meaningful discussion of the issues. It’s on Amazon for just $3.00 Kindle edition.

Or go to https://pvtgov.wordpress.com and search on Common Sense. A preface can be read here Preface to HOA Common Sense. SHALL WE MOVE AHEAD IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER?

America’s homeland: HOA law vs. Home rule law

Why are there private HOA governments when there are home rule, charter governments?

Getting down to the issues of state laws relating to local governments, let’s examine the doctrine of home rule. Under the home rule doctrine local communities are permitted a large degree of independence even to the extent that state legislative action is not necessary. What is home rule? In simple terms, it is a grant of authority and power — of independence — from the legislature to local communities.  (See HOAs violate local home rule doctrine and are outlaw governments; AZ Supreme Court, Tucson v. Arizona, CV-11-0150-PR (2011).)

 All the states have a version of home rule that varies in the degree of independence granted to a local governments and under what terms. Check your state laws under home rule or charter government. Strict states treat the home rule powers strictly as set forth in the statutes, like agency enabling acts. Most states have allowed for wider freedoms to local home rule governments, with some allowing for local government charters functioning as a local constitutions.  In all cases it’s a grant of independent governance from the legislature on local matters.

As an example, Arizona’s Constitution allows for home rule charter governments.

 “The purpose of the home rule charter provision of the Constitution was to render the cities adopting such charter provisions as nearly independent of state legislation as was possible. . . .  ‘[A] home rule city deriving its powers from the Constitution is independent of the state Legislature as to all subjects of strictly local municipal Concern.’”

The masquerade

Given this existing legal mechanism for strong, independent  local control, why was there a need for the creation and approval of, and the support for, private government HOAs?  Could it be as Prof. McKenzie stated in his 1994 book, Privatopia? “CIDs [HOAs/POAs/RCAs] currently engage in many activities that would be prohibited if they were viewed by the courts as the equivalent to local governments.”

It’s obvious that it was not to create healthy, productive communities.  Was it a business venture from the start to make profits for the originators masquerading as a public serve and benefit?? Was it for the real estate agents and the home builders, and to cut state government costs?

HOA associations are political bodies

The effective management of a political community, as are HOAs, and remain part of the greater political communities of their state and federal government, necessitates a rejection of the HOA legal scheme and its protectives laws.    There are no legitimate reasons why HOA governed communities cannot exercise effective and productive self-government while  being subject to constitutional law under home rule statutes.

Home rule doctrine existed long before the advent of the HOA legal structure in 1964. That is not to say that it would have solved all problems and be a perfect government, but it would be a government under the Constitution, part of the Union,  like all other forms of local government.  

If the initial 1964 HOA concept had included home rule provisions, then there would be no need for a restructuring.

A history of the institutionalization of HOAs

The creators and developers of the homeowner association concept and legal structure (1964)  immediately ran into problems and by 1973 had to form the Community Associations Institute (CAI) to resolve them.  In 2000, CAI and ULI boasted of their long-term success in institutionalizing homeowners associations into the American fabric – HOA-Land. The subtitle of their self-congratulatory book reads: “The Emergence and Acceptance of a Quiet Innovation in Housing”.

After 58 years, the public, the legislators, the media, and the HOA boards of directors and vast majority of members have remained quietly accepting HOAs as a private form of local government.

“People could care less about the truth. People buy promises and dreams. They’ll do anything to avoid reality” (anonymous)

The above quote, reflecting human nature,  gets to the very heart of the HOA-Land problem. It applies to all HOA members throughout America.  In a sarcastic Nextdoor  post, the writer expressed his feelings that my posts presenting justifications for restructuring HOA-Land were, in my words too cute. He didn’t want “to be in an association that George had anything to do with . . . and take his trouble making rhetoric to other lucky people.”

I responded:

“My HOA right or wrong! So what if it has violated state laws and the governing documents, and refuses to defend itself. So what! As long as the amenities keep coming and assessments stay low, I guess all is OK.”

I have high hopes that all HOA members will follow their conscience and do what is right for their community, their state, and for America.  The alternative is a rejection of our democratic institutions, our constitutional government,  and the principles and values that we, as Americans, stand for.  The alternative is an acceptance of the HOA-Land Nation Within America.

What does “HOA” really mean?

What are we talking about when we hear “I live in an HOA” or “what are my HOA fees?” Allow me to clarify some important concepts and definitions that I have employed to help in understanding what we are really talking about.

• The term “HOA” is commonly used in 2 different aspects.
  • While commonly used to refer to the alleged community, in reality the “community” is a real estate “package” of homes, landscaping, amenities, and rules.
  • “HOA” more aptly applies to the association itself, which is the de facto – in fact – political governing body of the subdivision or real estate “package.”
• “Government,” meaning political government, is defined in its general sense as “the person or group that controls and regulates the people within a territory.” Since your subdivision is a territory, that makes the HOA a truly political government.
• “Private government” is a de facto government as defined above not incorporated under municipal statutes but under nonprofit corporation statutes. As such, it is a functioning government unrecognized by the state as Cuba had been for years.
• “Quasi-government” simply means for all intents and purposes having all the attributes of a municipal government, except the names have been changed to mislead the innocent public.
• “HOA-Land” is my descriptive term for “the collection of fragmented independent principalities within America, known in general as “HOAs,” that are separate local private governments not subject to the constitution, and that collectively constitute a nation within the United States.”
• “Structured tribalism.” Tribalism is a term currently in vogue to describe divisiveness in America. “Structured tribalism” extends that view to describe the intentionally planned policy for the acceptance and control of HOA-Land.[1] It views the fragmented HOA-Land as distinct villages and clans.

When I speak of restructuring the HOA, I am referring to the authoritarian, undemocratic body functioning outside of constitutional protections, and making it a democratic government subject to homeowner constitutional protections.