CID's Are Here To Stay
HOACIDSUCK
train with a paper sack (that being new CID developments), focusing on the
laws that apply to governing them would be the wiser move. Get government
out of your family rooms and bed rooms!
Les Thompson in CA
>From: "HOACIDSUCK" nos...@earthlink.net
>Date: 02/21/2001 7:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <9U%k6.1159$9z1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
AMEN!
Kathy
news:20010222115343...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
Why suggest to readers of this newsgroup to focus on laws and in the next
sentence plead for the gov't to leave you alone? How is getting the gov't
out of our privately-owned family/bedroom different from getting the gov't
out of our privately-owned common area?
They suck - keep them here - fix them - get better CC'rs, stay out of my
family room --- whew! HOACIDSUCK - spinning in circles apparently has you
very dizzy. Are you now attempting to tell those who do not want to live in
CIDs that they have nothing to say about it? That CIDs are to going be
bought by future consumers whether or not these future consumers want to
house themselves within CIDs? This is your definition of WISDOM?
Les, Years of hollering for government oversight of CIDs does NOT NOT NOT
equate to praying to get our
gov't out, ask your Master about these things - maybe she can clear it up
for you.
CIDs are for those who want them - not for those who do not. Some think
CIDs/HOAs suck - BUT, some people actually like things that others find
repulsive.
Why is the simple concept of clear choice so difficult for some of you to
grasp - ?
www.consumersforhousingchoice.org
HOACIDSUCK
"Kathy" <sta...@ocineter.net> wrote in message
news:3a96b...@news.starnetinc.com...
> > >From: "HOACIDSUCK" nos...@earthlink.net
> > >Rather than wasting time and energy on trying to stop a speeding
freight
> > >train with a paper sack (that being new CID developments), focusing on
> the laws that apply to governing them would be the wiser move. Get
government
> > >out of your family rooms and bed rooms!<
> >
> > AMEN!
> >
> Do you actually believe yourself?
> Why suggest to readers of this newsgroup to focus on laws and in the next
> sentence plead for the gov't to leave you alone?
Get real!
How is getting the gov't out of our privately-owned family/bedroom
different from getting the gov't
> out of our privately-owned common area?
I didn't make that comparison, you did!
>
> They suck - keep them here - fix them - get better CC'rs, stay out of my
> family room --- whew!
Look who's spinning!
HOACIDSUCK - spinning in circles apparently has you
> very dizzy. Are you now attempting to tell those who do not want to live
in
> CIDs that they have nothing to say about it?
Leave it to Kathy to read whatever it is she wants too, from others
comments!
That CIDs are to going be bought by future consumers whether or not these
future consumers want to
> house themselves within CIDs? This is your definition of WISDOM?
WHEW!
>
> Les, Years of hollering for government oversight of CIDs does NOT NOT NOT
> equate to praying to get our gov't out, ask your Master about these
things - maybe she can clear it up
> for you.
So we all follow Kathy's lead, and.....waite, hope, prey, and waite some
more, and in the meantime
forget any other avenues that don't approve with the Shell Answer Lady! Fat
Chance!
> CIDs are for those who want them - not for those who do not. Some think
> CIDs/HOAs suck - BUT, some people actually like things that others find
> repulsive.
Wish I could say the same about you! According to sales stactics people sure
do like CID's
>
> Why is the simple concept of clear choice so difficult for some of you to
> grasp - ?
Because it's not the only choice as you seem to think it is! Some of us get
damn sick and tired of you shooting off your mouth like some damned bible
pusher, forcing your ways as being the only resolve to the CID problem. So
until you can make a fucking difference in consumer choices stop your
damnation on others that find a different approach more suitable to them.
Got it?
Rico
> > CIDs are for those who want them - not for those who do not. Some think
> > CIDs/HOAs suck - BUT, some people actually like things that others find
> > repulsive.
>
> Wish I could say the same about you! According to sales stactics people sure
> do like CID's
People buy them, because they are the only thing being built.
Pot sales statistics are lousy, because pot -- something you cannot
overdose on -- is generally illegal. Tobacco and alcohol -- both
addictive products -- are the only things Government will allow to be
legally grown or manufactured, sold, and consumed in this country. This
may be why tobacco and alcohol sales are both overwhelmingly greater
than pot sales.
You cannot make valid judgments about what people "sure do like," where
government has overruled supply and demand.
Evan McKenzie wrote in "Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise
of Residential Private Government," "Such housing developments are
concentrated in the sunbelt states, including Florida and California,
but not because of regional consumer preferences. Rather, a great deal
of new housing has been built in the sunbelt in the past few decades,
and that new housing increasingly is CID housing. In fact, CIDs are
spreading wherever residential construction is taking place."
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300066384/commoninterestco/107-6118183-4822110
> > Why is the simple concept of clear choice so difficult for some of you to
> > grasp - ?
>
> Because it's not the only choice as you seem to think it is! Some of us get
> damn sick and tired of you shooting off your mouth like some damned bible
> pusher, forcing your ways as being the only resolve to the CID problem. So
> until you can make a <snip> difference in consumer choices stop your
> damnation on others that find a different approach more suitable to them.
> Got it?
Are you claiming that Kathy should let people *choose* the approach(es)
that are more suitable to them? That's pretty funny!
--
The preceding information is privileged and confidential and is true, to
the best of my knowledge and belief.
I am not a lawyer. I am not providing legal advice. You should consult
your own counsel for legal advice. The preceding opinions are my own.
http://www.ahrc.com/ http://propertyrightstexas.com/ http://hshia.org/
http://www.homeownerjustice.org/ http://www.cicproject.org/
http://starman.com/HOA/ http://www.ccfj.net/PProprights.htm
http://fcam.tripod.com/ http://www.consumersforhousingchoice.org/
http://www.dcwindustries.com/hoas.htm
http://users.erols.com/marylandhomeownersassociation/
http://pvtgov.org/pvtgov/ http://www.propertyrightsnc.com
http://www.homeownerassns-revision.net/
http://www.angelfire.com/fl3/consumeradvocacy/
http://loan.yahoo.com/m/ten.sm.html
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/001030/nycu/homeowners.htm
http://www.kiplinger.com/magazine/archives/2000/September/managing/hoa.htm
http://www.nypost.com/news/17072.htm
Kathy
next.
After likening consumer choice to a paper bag, these were YOUR comments:
... focusing on
> > the laws that apply to governing them would be the wiser move. Get
> government
> > > >out of your family rooms and bed rooms!<
> > >
Focusing on getting the real government to adopt laws to govern your private
property and at the same time focusing on getting gov't out of your private
property is focusing on opposite directions. Working against yourself shows
a lack of wisdom - you might just rip yourself apart!
Initiating change is done by taking a stand, and moving in one direction.
When you calm down, ... maybe it'll click.
Anyone else care to clear this up for HOACIDSUCK? Perhaps the frustration
of being bound by undesirable covenants and living under a regime s/he
thinks "suck" is causing confusion in his/her mind.
Anyway -- HOACIDSUCK, best of luck with your covenants. If you ever get
them *just right* you may wish to change your newsgroup handle.
www.consumersforhousingchoice.org
HOACIDSUCK
in the hell do you interpret linking "consumer choice" to a paper bag is
beyond me.
Get a life Kathy, nowhere in my post did I use the term "consumer choice"
or imply "consumer choice". You are so hell bent on you, that your inability
to read what is written is apparent. Do you constantly live in la-la land?
Snap out of it and sell your agenda rather than beating up on some personal
fantasy of trying to out do me. I'm not competing with you or "consumer
choice" nor do I choose too.
Maybe the "consumer choice" cause would be furthered if you actually spent
time working on it rather than wasting your time on some silly-assed
misinterpretations of yours, posted by what you consider to be a "chump" ( I
have doorknobs on my doors). Remember, your priorities are indicative to how
you are perceived.
"Kathy" <sta...@ocineter.net> wrote in message
news:3a97f...@news.starnetinc.com...
Rico
>
> HOACIDSUCK, You said one thing in one sentence and contradicted it in the
> next.
> After likening consumer choice to a paper bag, these were YOUR comments:
>
> ... focusing on
> > > the laws that apply to governing them would be the wiser move. Get
> > government
> > > > >out of your family rooms and bed rooms!<
> > > >
>
> Focusing on getting the real government to adopt laws to govern your private
> property and at the same time focusing on getting gov't out of your private
> property is focusing on opposite directions. Working against yourself shows
> a lack of wisdom - you might just rip yourself apart!
>
> Initiating change is done by taking a stand, and moving in one direction.
> When you calm down, ... maybe it'll click.
>
> Anyone else care to clear this up for HOACIDSUCK?
Your argument is clear to me.
> Perhaps the frustration
> of being bound by undesirable covenants and living under a regime s/he
> thinks "suck" is causing confusion in his/her mind.
>
> Anyway -- HOACIDSUCK, best of luck with your covenants. If you ever get
> them *just right* you may wish to change your newsgroup handle.
>
> www.consumersforhousingchoice.org
--
Rico
them is the tenth amendment.
http://www.EagleRing.com/foundations/billofrt.html
HOACIDSUCK
twisted way, doesn't necessarily mean I did. Go back to my original post and
read it.
Such a tough post to understand, wasn't it?
Like minds???
"Rico" <concerned...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A982C7C...@home.com...
HOACIDSUCK
private laws?news:3A982E56...@home.com...
Rico
>
> Just because Kathy said I linked consumer choice to a paper bag in her own
> twisted way, doesn't necessarily mean I did.
Show me where I claimed you did.
> Go back to my original post and read it.
I did.
http://www.mailgate.org/misc/misc.consumers.house.homeowner-assn/msg04892.html
> Such a tough post to understand, wasn't it?
Actually, the question of whether you can push for homeowner-friendly
legislation, while simultaneously advocating the ouster of Government
from our family rooms and bed rooms, is complicated. The
morally-bankrupt Industry, however, writes and sponsors legislation that
modifies and controls our "private contracts" while claiming that
Government shouldn't interfere in private contracts all the time.
> Like minds???
I never wrote that term. That's from a welcome letter of a Yahoo! Group
I didn't write.
If you can't show me where I said you linked consumer choice to a paper
bag, then we are not of like minds.
HOACIDSUCK
> Actually, the question of whether you can push for homeowner-friendly
> legislation, while simultaneously advocating the ouster of Government
> from our family rooms and bed rooms, is complicated. The
> morally-bankrupt Industry, however, writes and sponsors legislation that
> modifies and controls our "private contracts" while claiming that
> Government shouldn't interfere in private contracts all the time.
Don't need to push for homeowner friendly legislation, show me a legal
precedent that prohibits HOA's from adopting a maintenence contract to
govern them. Where does the LAW mandate the terms and conditions in the
construction of CC&R's?
>
THE CONTRACT THEORY OF ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT:
The homeowners and the association being created by the homeowners enter
into the following agreement:
PURPOSE OF THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION:
It shall be the purpose of this association to maintain the common areas
by using the combined buying power of the homeowners who are members to
retain gardeners and other tradesmen at the lowest possible prices while
providing the best possible service. The association shall have no other
powers.
DUES
Each homeowner member agrees that to accomplish this purpose, the member
must timely pay his membership dues. Such dues shall be set from time to
time so that the money collected shall be sufficient to meet the expenses of
maintenance. A sum not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the total estimated
annual expenses may be collected by the board as a contingency fund for the
annual expenses for that year. If the contingency fund remains unused, no
such extra money shall be collected in the following year. The board shall
present a budget reflecting both actual expenses for the year and
anticipated expenses for the following year, along with the amount of
monthly dues required to pay such expenses. This budget shall be approved by
a majority of the homeowners before any such dues shall be collected.
MAJOR EXPENSES
Where major expenses are required (for example, major repairs to the
building or buildings, termite control, roofing, and the like), the
association shall determine the timetable for such repairs by using
standardized tables for like repairs and alert homeowners at least one year
in advance of any such repair that an assessment for those repairs will be
made, and the expected amount of the assessment. The association shall not
maintain reserves.
PAYMENT OF MAJOR ASSESSMENTS
Major assessments may be paid by the homeowners to the association in
monthly installments over a period of time not to exceed one year. Failure
to pay such assessments may result in the association placing a lien for
such assessments on the property, however, such liens shall not take
precedence over any prior lien or mortgage, and such liens shall not be
foreclosed upon until the sale of the property or the death of the last
surviving titleholder.
RESTRICTIONS ON ASSOCIATION POWERS
The homeowner's association shall not act in any capacity to restrict or
otherwise impact the use and enjoyment of the property by the individual
homeowners. To that extent, the association shall not make rules, levy fines
for failure to adhere to such rules or conduct itself in such a manner that
any homeowner or group of homeowners is omitted from any decision making
process undertaken by the association. The association shall do only those
acts, which are specified in this agreement and no others.
TERM LIMITS
A member of the board of a homeowners association shall serve no more than
three consecutive terms on the board, regardless of position held. Any term
of office shall not exceed two years. A period of two years shall pass
before a member may once again be elected to the board of the association.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
This paragraph is in the process of being researched/written. It revolves
around Buyers/Sellers, and Boards with respect to property rights in voting
proxies and the day-to-day running of the HOA in a CID. i.e., who's "say" is
it? The Buyer? The Seller? The Board?
RECORD OF ACTIONS
All actions of the board shall be recorded in minutes of the board. Said
minutes shall be available to members upon demand. Records shall be
maintained for a period of not less than seven years in a form that makes
them easily understood and available. Such availability is limited to
normal business hours. The board members acknowledge and agree that the
records belong to each member and that the board is responsible for creating
and
maintaining them.
P.Flamingo
people who are currently living in these regimes who were misled, not disclosed
or outright deceived into believing they purchased something other than HOA
life. what do we do about them? many have been outpriced by the housing market
and can not afford to move. There must be some protections put in place for
them - especially since many are retirees. (And for those who believe that
HOA's make property values go up - B>S> - it has nothing to do with that)
P.Flamingo
Rico wrote:
>
>
> You cannot make valid judgments about what people "sure do like," where
> government has overruled supply and demand.
The big question then becomes - is government/municipality willing to give up the HOA
cash cow? I don't think so. I think we should try to convince them that for every HOA
lawsuit clogging the court dockets, thousands of dollars are being spent in taxes and does
nothing to fatten those coffers. Consumer protections are necessary no matter what
product you buy. It is amazing that in likely the largest investment we are making, there
are NONE! Actually, I take that back - you do have to sign a disclosure statement if
someone died in the house the last 36 months - NOT THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT! Who the
hell (no pun intended) thought of that one?
>
>
> Evan McKenzie wrote in "Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise
> of Residential Private Government," "Such housing developments are
> concentrated in the sunbelt states, including Florida and California,
> but not because of regional consumer preferences. Rather, a great deal
> of new housing has been built in the sunbelt in the past few decades,
> and that new housing increasingly is CID housing. In fact, CIDs are
> spreading wherever residential construction is taking place."
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300066384/commoninterestco/107-6118183-4822110
>
Rico
>
> Rico wrote:
>
> >
> > You cannot make valid judgments about what people "sure do like," where
> > government has overruled supply and demand.
>
> The big question then becomes - is government/municipality willing to give up the HOA
> cash cow?
If not, then they are *not* representing the people. Government is *not*
supposed to represent government.
"Sooner or later, [CID] owners will realize that local and state
governments are balancing their budgets on the backs of CID residents.
That could open up a full public policy debate over the role of CIDs
that should have happened 20 years ago." -- Evan McKenzie, author of
"Privatopia: Homeowners Associations and the Rise of Residential Private
Government"
http://www.uchastings.edu/plri/96-97tex/cidhome.htm
The PEOPLE have not authorized Government to override free market
forces, and mandate CIDs to the exclusion of non-CID housing. Cuban
cigars are an international relations matter; pot is bad for you. How do
you rationalize taking away housing choice?
http://www.consumersforhousingchoice.org/
> I don't think so. I think we should try to convince them that for every HOA
> lawsuit clogging the court dockets, thousands of dollars are being spent in taxes and does
> nothing to fatten those coffers.
Do they care?
http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/expn.asp?ID=1021273&SORT=5&ELECTION=2000G
Do we really have to coerce and bribe
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAISLA/message/122 our representatives the
way CAI does http://www.caionline.org/govt/caipac.cfm to get our
representatives to represent us?
http://www.ahrc.com/HOAorg/Media/ma_%20AHRC082100.html
> Consumer protections are necessary no matter what product you buy.
and homebuyers are legally entitled to them.
http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=158&bold=||||
http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=323&bold=||||
> It is amazing that in likely the largest investment we are making, there
> are NONE!
What's even more amazing, is that the California state government, under
the guise of the Industry-infiltrated
http://www.mailgate.org/misc/misc.consumers.house.homeowner-assn/msg04920.html
California Law Revision Commission,
ftp://clrc.ca.gov/pub/Study-H-RealProperty/H850-CommonInterestDevel is
very quietly pushing for California to adopt UCIOA
http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/fnact99/1990s/ucioa94.htm . This is CID
industry legislation written to benefit them at our expense! It is
*devoid* of consumer protection.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Still+Looking&num=25&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rnum=1&seld=929073236&ic=1
CAI is coercing and bribing their -- I mean, our -- state legislators to
adopt it.
The CLRC is also stating that its study that will take years. (The CID
industry is buying time.)
"Itโs time for the laws to be changed. Itโs time to provide protection
for homeowners by removing the private government HOAs and restore civil
liberties by means of a homeowner's bill of rights. TODAY, not tomorrow,
not next year. TODAY!" http://starman.com/HOA/alexander.htm
CA legislators are getting inundated with complaints from abused CID
homeowners and are keeping very quiet about it. NV State Senator Mike
Schneider and "We've-got-to-go-slowly" AZ legislator Tom Freestone admit
it. Sen. Armbrister in TX is pretty vocal, too.
What's the problem with California legislators?
What are they doing?? Keeping associations from prohibiting HOA serfs
from having at least one pet?? Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Marina Del Rey,
called the pro-pet measure "probably the most important property rights
bill of the year."
http://www.capitolalert.com/news/old/capalert02_20000823.html That's
pathetic.
Ask your legislators what they're doing!
http://www.ahrc.com/HOAorg/Contact/contact.html
"How many times can a man turn his head
And pretend that he just doesn't see?"
http://webhome.idirect.com/~muskokajoe/lyric/blowininthewind.html
"How many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
http://www.propertyrightsnc.com/CAI_Farce.htm
How many deaths will it take 'til we know
That too many people have died?"
http://www.ahrc.com/HOAorg/eulogy.html
Peter, Paul and Mary ("Blowin in the Wind")
> Actually, I take that back - you do have to sign a disclosure statement
Yeah, some disclosure.
http://starman.com/HOA/defaultq.asp#Buyer Rights
http://www.cicproject.org/model.html
<< Picture a bright blue ball just spinning, spinning free
http://www.uwm.edu/~kl/throwst.htm
Dizzy with eternity.
Paint it with a skin of sky, brush in some clouds and sea
Call it home for you and me.
A peaceful place or so it looks from space
A closer look reveals the human race.
Full of hope, full of grace, is the human face.
But afraid, we may our home to waste.
There's a fear down here we can't forget hasn't got a name just yet
http://members.home.net/concernedhomeowners/
Always awake, always around ...
But the darkness never goes from some men's eyes.
http://prodclmtrans.ss.ca.gov/claims/plsql/P_Get_Lobbyist_Details?FilerIdParIn=1148331
...
Commissars and pin-striped bosses role the dice
http://www.caionline.org/ccal/roster.cfm http://www.clac.org/5.htm
Any way they fall guess who gets to pay the price.
Money green...
Heartless powers try to tell us what to think
http://www.a-k.com/newsletterwinter99.html#article2
If the spirit's sleeping, then the flesh is ink.
http://propertyrightstexas.com/HTMLarticles/toliveinpeace.htm
History's page, it is thusly carved in stone
The future's here, we are it, we are on our own.
If the game is lost then we're all the same
No one left to place or take the blame.
We will leave this place an empty stone
Or this shinning ball of bule we can call our home
...
Singing "I got mine and you got yours."
...
And the radical he rant and rage, Singing "someone got to turn the page"
And the rich man in his summer home,
Singing "Just leave well enough alone"
But his pants are down, his cover's blown
And the politicians are throwing stones
So the kids they dance they shake their bones
Cause its all too clear we're on our own
Picture a bright blue ball just spinning, spinning free
It's dizzying, the possibilities. >>
http://www.ahrc.com/HOAorg/Billrights/bill.html
The Grateful Dead ("Throwing Stones")
<snip>
Cc and Bcc: Selected Legislators
Selected Reporters
Les Thompson in CA
>precedent that prohibits HOA's from adopting a maintenence contract to
>govern them. Where does the LAW mandate the terms and conditions in the
>construction of CC&R's?<
In CA the Davis-Stirling CID Act, Corporation Codes as well as other statutes
mandate the terms and conditions in the construction of CC&Rs. If the CC&Rs
conflict with those laws the laws take priority over any inconsistent CC&R
provisions. Any provisions of the law would apply that are not in the CC&Rs.
Les Thompson in CA
>From: "P.Flamingo" NoH...@home.com
>Date: 02/24/2001 7:08 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A974789...@home.com>
>
>I agree that this country is about CHOICE. But I feel sorry for all those
>people who are currently living in these regimes who were misled, not
>disclosed
>or outright deceived into believing they purchased something other than HOA
>life. what do we do about them? many have been outpriced by the housing
>market
>and can not afford to move. There must be some protections put in place for
>them - especially since many are retirees. (And for those who believe that
>HOA's make property values go up - B>S> - it has nothing to do with that)<
THAT IS WHAT I AM, HAVE BEEN, AND WILL CONTINUE SAYING! It also applys to
those that are buying into CIDs now that also would like a choice but don't
have it because they are priced out of the market. WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT THEM?
The protection that I would like to see put in place for everyone is OVERSIGHT
BY A GOVERNMENT AGENCY!
If anyone has a different *viable* solution please post it as I for one would
be very interested.
Les Thompson in CA
>From: "P.Flamingo" NoH...@home.com
>Date: 02/24/2001 7:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A9748D5...@home.com>
>
>
>
>Rico wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> You cannot make valid judgments about what people "sure do like," where
>> government has overruled supply and demand.
>
>The big question then becomes - is government/municipality willing to give
>up the HOA
>cash cow? I don't think so. I think we should try to convince them that for
>every HOA
>lawsuit clogging the court dockets, thousands of dollars are being spent in
>taxes and does
>nothing to fatten those coffers. Consumer protections are necessary no
>matter what
>product you buy. It is amazing that in likely the largest investment we are
>making, there
>are NONE!<
You said it! I must ask why you have changed your mind about oversight?
Evermore
minority's contractual squabbles. You are asking for state intrusion into a
private affair. It is not mandated that you live in a CID. If my HOA is
smooth and wart free don't tax me because some malcontents down the street
decide to thwart their duties and need the government to help them get
along. More people should make use of ADR (in CA all you have to do is file
2 written complaints and a letter of demand and you are in ADR, outside the
BOD area of influence).
Your model is flawed because due process will always allow appeal, i.e. the
same courts that you say are too expensive. Both sides to the HOA issues are
extremists and take a scorched earth attitude towards any settlement and
would rather have a Pyrrhric victory rather than settle for withdrawal with
honor.
My observations have led to the opinion that the management company should
be held to a higher duty by the state, and if not be sanctioned harshly. A
lot of HOA problems could be avoided if the management company would just
follow the rules of the CC&Rs, bylaws and Corp. Code instead of kowtowing to
the BOD majority or the tyrannical rantings of a vocal minority of the
membership.
Less government Les, not more.
"Les Thompson in CA" <lest...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010225134942...@ng-ct1.aol.com...
HOACIDSUCK
This disclaimer should do it.
The provisions of the Corporation and Civil codes are subordinate to all
provisions of the maintenance agreement. Whenever a conflict exists the
terms of the maintenance agreement shall prevail.
"Les Thompson in CA" <lest...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010225132611...@ng-ct1.aol.com...
HOACIDSUCK
"Evermore" <tylr...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:E3dm6.10001$jg1.3...@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com...
Rico
Susan F. French wrote, in her "Scope of Study of Laws Affecting Common
Interest Developments," "the Subdivided Lands Act, Business &
Professions Code เธเธ 11000-11200, comes into play during the initial
stages of a CID and regulations issued pursuant to the Subdivided Lands
Act substantially affect the provisions found in CID governing
documents."
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=10001-11000&file=11000-11008
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=11001-12000&file=11010-11024
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=11001-12000&file=11200
"Pursuant to this provision, the DRE has adopted policies and published
a number of regulations covering provisions of the governing documents
with respect to financing, governance, and other aspects of the
operation of CIDs. The regulations appear at 10 Cal. Code of Regulations
เธเธ 2790 et seq."
ftp://clrc.ca.gov/pub/Study-H-RealProperty/H850-CommonInterestDevel/BKST-811-French-CID-Scope.pdf
Study up!
http://www.commerce.ca.gov/business/small/management/pub/license/sec72.html
Evermore
life insurance for non-smokers.
"HOACIDSUCK" <nos...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:J0em6.1007$cg5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Rico
>
"There are two basic kinds of change -- incremental and paradigm. This
raises the question: Does it make sense to incrementally tweak statutes
written by and largely for the benefit of the industry to make them more
consumer-oriented, or should we instead be asking the legitimate public
policy question of whether we should continue down the road of
privatizing local government by continuing to enact more legislation on
top of an already sizable body of industry-authored statutes enacted not
necessarily to benefit voters and consumers, but to maintain and
preserve the future of the CID industry? As Evan McKenzie notes in
Privatopia, 'the rise of CID housing is a unique, ad hoc form of
privatization carrying with it significant social and policy
considerations that never have been adequately considered by government
or academics.'" http://propertyrightstexas.com/HTMLarticles\cai_1.htm
HOACIDSUCK
you figure paradigm as a basic kind of change? Para -root meaning, beside as
in paradigm; paragraph. Paradigm doesn't describe change, it could describe
that which will change.
"Rico" <concerned...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A997184...@home.com...
HOACIDSUCK
precedent that prohibits HOA's from adopting a maintenance contract to
govern them.
>
> > In CA the Davis-Stirling CID Act, Corporation Codes as well as other
statutes
> > mandate the terms and conditions in the construction of CC&Rs.
Where? What article and section?
The initial construction of the CC&R's define the how the developer and the
HOA transfers ownership, therefore you will find specific statutes that
regulate such transfers. Other types of codes effect CID's like, the vehicle
code, health and safety codes, revenue and tax codes but that doesn't mean
they are supposed to be included in the construction of CC&R's. Al it means
they must be observed when applicable. My CC&R's don't say the board must
abide by the standards of conduct included in the corp. code. A simple
disclaimer can effectively eliminate state statutes.
> Susan F. French wrote, in her "Scope of Study of Laws Affecting Common
> Interest Developments," "the Subdivided Lands Act, Business &
> Professions Code เธเธ 11000-11200, comes into play during the initial
> stages of a CID and regulations issued pursuant to the Subdivided Lands
> Act substantially affect the provisions found in CID governing
> documents."
How so?
> "Pursuant to this provision, the DRE has adopted policies and published
> a number of regulations covering provisions of the governing documents
> with respect to financing, governance, and other aspects of the
> operation of CIDs. The regulations appear at 10 Cal. Code of Regulations
> เธเธ 2790 et seq."
After the owners take control of the association the DRE exits the picture
along with their regulations. Maybe thats the reason so many HOA's rewrite
their CC&R's. With all that CC&R rewriting going on, surely there must be a
statute somewhere that specifies all the requirements.
Guys there is no law that directly enforces or limits an association of
homeowners from rewriting/replacing their CC&R's and adopting a contract
between the parties of a priviate mebership organization. If there was a
format/requirement to follow it would be published somewhere. No law can
infringe on an agreement between priviate parties.
P.Flamingo
Les Thompson in CA wrote:
P.Flamingo
Evermore wrote:
How can you tax the majority of Californians to pay for oversight for the
minority's contractual squabbles. You are asking for state intrusion into a
private affair.
State intrusion is to be blamed for the whole HOA CID fiasco to begin withย - from HUD down to the municipalities.ย If you really want less government - then scrap the Civil Codes!ย Scrap the ADR requirement!ย Scrap Corporate code and truly let the people handel their own squabbles.
It is not mandated that you live in a CID. If my HOA is
smooth and wart free don't tax me because some malcontents down the street
decide to thwart their duties and need the government to help them get
along. More people should make use of ADR (in CA all you have to do is file
2 written complaints and a letter of demand and you are in ADR, outside the
BOD area of influence).
ADR is nothing but a "$4,000 dance with debt"!
Rico
>
> How can you tax the majority of Californians
I wonder what percent of taxes benefit all taxpayers. I know one thing.
CID taxpayers are doing more than their fair share.
And "sooner or later, [CID] owners will realize that local and state
governments are balancing their budgets on the backs of CID residents.
That could open up a full public policy debate over the role of CIDs
that should have happened 20 years ago." -- Author Evan McKenzie
"Things to Come: What does the future hold for community associations."
http://www.uchastings.edu/plri/96-97tex/cidhome.htm
> to pay for oversight for the minority's
You mean that squabbling possibly 47%
http://www.mailgate.org/misc/misc.consumers.house.homeowner-assn/msg04964.html
of the 7-8 million California CID serfs? Possibly 3-4 million people?
Golly! Your majority-minority argument holds little water with me. Less
than six million Jews were put to their death in Nazi Germany, yet I
heard the majority of Germans was satisfied with that (although I find
that hard to believe, unless they weren't aware of what was going on
http://loan.yahoo.com/m/ten.sm.html#secretive
http://loan.yahoo.com/m/ten.sm.html#meetings ) -- but even if they were,
does that make it right what those Nazis did to these people?
Ramona Ripston was the Executive Director of the American Civil
Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California, one of the largest
ACLU affiliates in the nation. She wrote, โThe historical reality is
that the people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
recognized that one of the most important objectives of any American
government would have to be limiting the ability of a majority to impose
tyranny on all.โ http://www.pbs.org/wnet/federalist/opinion-prop.html
Homeowners associations have no such limitations on the ability of a
majority or MINUSCULE *MINORITY* to impose tyranny on all, yet 7-8
million Californians live in them.
Should Majority Rule Prevail in the HOA?
http://starman.com/HOA/majority.htm
> contractual squabbles. You are asking for state intrusion into a private
Private Contract
http://starman.com/HOA/hoabill2.htm
The Contract Theory
http://www.mailgate.org/misc/misc.consumers.house.homeowner-assn/msg04877.html
Adhesion Contract
http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=2325&bold=||||
> affair. It is not mandated that you live in a CID.
It is for me. In my area, there are nothing but CIDs. My only other
choice http://www.consumersforhousingchoice.org/ is an apartment.
> If my HOA is smooth and wart free don't tax me because some
Sorry, but you even have to pay taxes to support schools, whether or not
you have kids. You have to pay taxes that support the USA's military
forays into other countries, even if you don't support these excursions.
You have to pay taxes that support Medicare, even if you have a fatal
disease that's about to take your life. You have to pay taxes that
support the state disability program, even if you will never become
disabled. You have to pay taxes that pay for roads, even if you don't
drive -- and you have to pay taxes that subsidize the mass transit
system, even if you don't ride the bus or train.
> malcontents down the street decide to thwart their duties and need the
Are there malcontents down the street from you? What duties are they
thwarting? Aren't they as committed to the CID concept as you are?
http://starman.com/HOA/alexander.htm Sounds like there are warts in your
CID.
> government to help them get along. More people should make use of ADR (in
I disagree.
"How Do These People Sleep at Night?"
http://www.ahrc.com/HOAorg/Media/ma_%20AHRC081500.html
> CA all you have to do is file 2 written complaints and a letter of demand
> and you are in ADR, outside the BOD area of influence).
>
> Your model is flawed because due process
"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law" http://www.EagleRing.com/foundations/billofrt.html
> will always allow appeal, i.e. the same courts that you say are too
> expensive.
Everybody is saying that the court system is too expensive a remedy for
most abused CID homeowners:
Florida:
<< ยท Over 90% of Florida's Homeowners' Association members can't afford
to enforce their legal rights in the Florida courts.
Abusive and mismanaged HOAs thrive in Florida because HOA members are
severely politically, financially and legally disadvantaged when
attempting to enforce their legal rights against the abusive and
mismanaged HOA. >> http://fcam.tripod.com/
California:
"California Pro-CAI Judge Hits Elizabeth McMahan With $92,000 Fee"
http://www.propertyrightstexas.com/PressRelease/California%20Pro%20CIA%20Judge.htm
Pennsylvania:
"$46,000 Fee to Collect $500 Legal Bill?"
http://www.callaw.com/stories/edt0228j.html
Texas:
"I am specifically speaking of my case where I have had to spend over
$80,000 defending myself against CAI-Chubb lawyers who use HB2152, WHICH
THEY AUTHORED AND PUSHED THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE. Judge Pat Mizell says
that the actions of the CAI controlled Board of Northglen, has been
"improper" since l994. He DENIED their huge "legal fees" That is good
but I have had to defended myself against the law, passed by the state,
signed by George Bush, which is "improper" yet I am out $80,000 for my
lawyers."
http://propertyrightstexas.com/PressRelease/Houston%20Realtors%207.10.htm
> Both sides to the HOA issues are
> extremists and take a scorched earth attitude towards any settlement and
> would rather have a Pyrrhric victory rather than settle for withdrawal with
> honor.
That's a bald-faced lie! You have not supported your outrageous
allegations with ANYTHING! CID homeowners are *victims* of scorched
earth litigation perpetrated by vicious, power tripping board members
http://www.ahrc.com/HOAorg/News/keyreports/kr_gangster.html (that often
have personal agendas or that are waging personal vendettas) -- whose
risk is spread among *all* of the homeowners -- and the BOD's vendor
soldiers, that make money this way. It's those that run associations
like miniature city halls, or as their own private mini fiefdoms -- or
as if the associations belonged to them -- that "take a scorched earth
attitude towards any settlement."
> My observations have led to the opinion that the management company should
> be held to a higher duty by the state, and if not be sanctioned harshly. A
> lot of HOA problems could be avoided if the management company would just
> follow the rules of the CC&Rs, bylaws and Corp. Code instead of kowtowing to
> the BOD majority or the tyrannical rantings of a vocal minority of the
> membership.
I agree. Property managers should be regulated, and *not* by themselves.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=McMahon&num=25&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rnum=1&seld=938075314&ic=1
"There are two basic kinds of change -- incremental and paradigm. This
raises the question: Does it make sense to incrementally tweak statutes
written by and largely for the benefit of the industry to make them more
consumer-oriented, or should we instead be asking the legitimate public
policy question of whether we should continue down the road of
privatizing local government by continuing to enact more legislation on
top of an already sizable body of industry-authored statutes enacted not
necessarily to benefit voters and consumers, but to maintain and
preserve the future of the CID industry? As Evan McKenzie notes in
Privatopia, 'the rise of CID housing is a unique, ad hoc form of
privatization carrying with it significant social and policy
considerations that never have been adequately considered by government
or academics.'" http://propertyrightstexas.com/HTMLarticles\cai_1.htm
--
Les Thompson in CA
>From: "HOACIDSUCK" nos...@earthlink.net
>Date: 02/25/2001 12:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <6Zdm6.1001$cg5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
>
>This disclaimer should do it.
>
>The provisions of the Corporation and Civil codes are subordinate to all
>provisions of the maintenance agreement. Whenever a conflict exists the
>terms of the maintenance agreement shall prevail.<
Only if a statute states that to be the case. Maybe you can get Nakano to
introduce it for you! >VBG<
Rico
>
> A self-funded oversight committee. Funded by an annual pro-rated HOA fee.
I disagree. I already pay taxes. "Local and state governments are
balancing their budgets on the backs of CID residents." -- Author Evan
McKenzie, "Things to Come: What does the future hold for community
associations."
"CID Homeowners' Fees and the Issue of Double Taxation"
http://www.uchastings.edu/plri/96-97tex/cidhome.htm
"There is a serious property tax discrimination, because you put
infra-structure costs plus property tax and others only pay one property
tax.
"Thus citizens in a HOA are not given equal treatment.
"Last, but not least, [HOAs] do not comply with the mutual benefit
statutes - and any other corporation would be closed down for failure to
comply - so the state is allowing rogue corporations to violate state
law just because of the free property tax windfall." -- Willow Vance
http://www.ahrc.com/HOAorg/Media/ma_Reg091200_Bob.html
The government can take the money out of "the free property tax
windfall."
<snip>
Rico
>
> Like I said, don,t make me pay for the incompetence
As usual, you have not backed up your claim that the thousands and
thousands of CID homeowners that would avail themselves of government
oversight would be doing so due to "incompetence". You make wild, broad
and far-reaching allegations without backing them up.
> of others i.e. cheaper life insurance for non-smokers.
Sorry, but you even have to pay taxes to support schools, whether or not
you have kids. You have to pay taxes that support the USA's military
forays into other countries, even if you don't support these excursions.
You have to pay taxes that support Medicare, even if you have a fatal
disease that's about to take your life. You have to pay taxes that
support the state disability program, even if you will never become
disabled. You have to pay taxes that pay for roads, even if you don't
drive -- and you have to pay taxes that subsidize the mass transit
system, even if you don't ride the bus or train.
I wonder what percent of taxes benefit all taxpayers. I know one thing.
CID taxpayers are doing more than their fair share.
And "sooner or later, [CID] owners will realize that local and state
governments are balancing their budgets on the backs of CID residents.
That could open up a full public policy debate over the role of CIDs
that should have happened 20 years ago." -- Author Evan McKenzie
"Things to Come: What does the future hold for community associations."
"CID Homeowners' Fees and the Issue of Double Taxation"
http://www.uchastings.edu/plri/96-97tex/cidhome.htm
<snip>
Les Thompson in CA
>More
>From: Rico concerned...@home.com
>Date: 02/25/2001 12:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A997047...@home.com>
What you say is true BUT for PROPOSED CIDs! Professor French is talking about
*PROPOSED* construction (initial stages of a CID) and the DRE policies and
regulations would not be applicable to an EXISTING CID which the conversation
is concerning. For an *EXISTING* CID refer to the second paragraph above that
I wrote.
Your post appears to be telling me to study up but I think you are really
addressing the writer of the first paragraph aren't you? You need to make your
posts clear as to who you are responding to and you should have stayed on the
subject of EXISTING CIDs rather than switching to PROPOSED CIDS.
Rico
>
> "There are two basic kinds of change -- incremental and paradigm. How did
> you figure paradigm as a basic kind of change? Para -root meaning, beside as
> in paradigm; paragraph. Paradigm doesn't describe change, it could describe
> that which will change.
I didn't write the passage. If you'd clicked on the link, you'd have
known that.
For more information, read:
"Reflections on a New Paradigm for the Governance of Common Interest
Developments" (Evan McKensie's chapter from "Putting Community First")
https://www.caisecure.net/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=CAI&Product_Code=1435&Category_Code=BB
--
HOACIDSUCK
than an agreement between the parties. Doesn't need introduced, doesn't need
legislated.news:20010225201826...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
HOACIDSUCK
their governing documents must conform to specific requirements especially
issues concerning the transfer of power, but after the property is turned
over to the owners it becomes a whole new enchilada.
Here's the laundry list of compliance mandates:
Civ. Code 1352 - Requirements for creation of common interest developments:
A). A declaration
B). A condominium Plan, if any exists.
C). A final map or parcel map.
Civ. Code 1353 - Contents of Declaration
A). A legal description of the development i.e. apartment project, condo
project, planned project...
B). The declaration may contain any other matters the original signator of
the declaration or the owners consider appropriate.
Study up didn't come from me, I'm not usually so mild tempered.
> >"Pursuant to this provision, the DRE has adopted policies and published
> >a number of regulations covering provisions of the governing documents
> >with respect to financing, governance, and other aspects of the
> >operation of CIDs. The regulations appear at 10 Cal. Code of Regulations
> >ยงยง 2790 et seq."
HOACIDSUCK
https://www.caisecure.net/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=CAI&P
roduct_Code=1435&Category_Code=BB
This was the link you posted
http://propertyrightstexas.com/HTMLarticles/cai_1.htm
"Rico" <concerned...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A99B44F...@home.com...
HOACIDSUCK
<jvh...@telocity.com> wrote in message
news:gsej9t0dtij9shhm7...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:38:14 GMT, Rico <concerned...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Sorry, but you even have to pay taxes to support schools, whether or not
> >you have kids.
>
>
> citizen CIDs) - i.e. Leisure Village.
>
HOACIDSUCK
fund "oversight", not to be confused with trampling on your tax bracket, or
supporting local and state governments budget balancing, or advocating
double maybe even triple taxation, it was just an abbreviated example to a
prior abbreviated comment, nothing more, nothing less.
It wasn't important enough to change the subject title from "CID's are here
to stay".
"Rico" <concerned...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A99B168...@home.com...
HOACIDSUCK
"P.Flamingo" <NoH...@home.com> wrote in message news:3A9877F1...@home.com...
P.Flamingo
Rico
>
> You guys keep twisting it all around. The question is show me a legal
> precedent that prohibits HOA's from adopting a maintenance contract to
> govern them.
Who said CID owners can't adopt a maintenance contract to govern them?
> > > In CA the Davis-Stirling CID Act, Corporation Codes as well as other
> > > statutes mandate the terms and conditions in the construction of CC&Rs.
>
> Where? What article and section?
>
> The initial construction of the CC&R's define the how the developer and the
> HOA transfers ownership, therefore you will find specific statutes that
> regulate such transfers.
Correct. At that time our buddies -- NOT -- at the DRE have been
overseeing the whole thing.
> Other types of codes effect CID's like, the vehicle
> code, health and safety codes, revenue and tax codes but that doesn't mean
> they are supposed to be included in the construction of CC&R's.
No, but the CC&Rs must include what the DRE says they must. The DRE is
there from the get go. (pretty scary)
> All it means is that they must be observed when applicable.
It does mean that.
> My CC&R's don't say the board must
> abide by the standards of conduct included in the corp. code.
They don't have to. State law controls.
> A simple disclaimer can effectively eliminate state statutes.
Disclaimers can't eliminate state statutes unless the state statutes
specify that they can. Otherwise, the state statutes supersede the
CC&Rs.
> > Susan F. French wrote, in her "Scope of Study of Laws Affecting Common
> > Interest Developments," "the Subdivided Lands Act, Business &
> > Professions Code ยงยง 11000-11200, comes into play during the initial
> > stages of a CID and regulations issued pursuant to the Subdivided Lands
> > Act substantially affect the provisions found in CID governing
> > documents."
>
> How so?
Like this:
> > "Pursuant to this provision, the DRE has adopted policies and published
> > a number of regulations covering provisions of the governing documents
> > with respect to financing, governance, and other aspects of the
> > operation of CIDs. The regulations appear at 10 Cal. Code of Regulations
> > ยงยง 2790 et seq."
>
> After the owners take control of the association the DRE exits the picture
> along with their regulations. Maybe that's the reason so many HOAs rewrite
> their CC&R's.
Can you blame them? The CID industry doesn't give a rat's ass about us.
That's why you can't trust them to write laws or to sit on bodies that
consider CIDs. These "stakeholders" all have vested interests that all
boil down to greed. As the owners of these gulags, our interests should
take precedence. Legislators that allow the converse are traitors.
> With all that CC&R rewriting going on, surely there must be a
> statute somewhere that specifies all the requirements.
You really didn't read what Susan French wrote, did you? 10 Cal. Code of
Regulations ยงยง 2790 et seq.! (I don't know where it is.)
Take this class:
http://www.commerce.ca.gov/business/small/management/pub/license/sec72.html
> Guys there is no law that directly enforces or limits an association of
> homeowners from rewriting/replacing their CC&Rs and adopting a contract
> between the parties of a priviate mebership organization.
No. In fact, I' pretty sure the Constitution expressly protects people's
rights to form contracts.
> If there was a
> format/requirement to follow it would be published somewhere.
10 Cal. Code of Regulations ยงยง 2790 et seq.
> No law can infringe on an agreement between priviate parties.
Wrong.
HOACIDSUCK
Civ. Code 1352 - Requirements for creation of common interest developments:
A). A declaration
B). A condominium Plan, if any exists.
C). A final map or parcel map.
Civ. Code 1353 - Contents of Declaration
A). A legal description of the development i.e. apartment project, condo
project, planned project...
B). The declaration may contain any other matters the original signator of
the declaration or the owners consider appropriate.
That's it guys. No other provisions required! Now what do you consider
appropriate? How do you justify all the other provisions as a requirement to
create a CID?
With regard to Susan French, she is just another opinion.
You summed it up well: "I am not a lawyer. I am not providing legal advice.
You should consult
> your own counsel for legal advice". "The preceding opinions are my own".
Just like S. French and her opinion. For every lawyer with an opinion there
is another lawyer with a contradiction.
"Rico" <concerned...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A99C24F...@home.com...
Evermore
that I don't want YOUR reform.news:3A99B346...@home.com...
Evermore
rights is to contract with others i.e. waive certain rights in return for a
specified consideration.news:3A98918B...@home.com...
Evermore
agreements w/o the nanny of government stepping in to see that you don't
have buyers remorse.news:3A99AEC8...@home.com...
P.Flamingo
disclaimer:ย you may or may not be able to use these 'amenities' as the board has the right to make decisions regarding the use of these facilities and at the whim of board decisions they can take away your right to access these amenities without your permission.ย You shall assume all risk and liability of these "common" area amenities whether you like it or not - no matter how agregious the boards decisions regarding these facilities are - you must still continue to pay your dues for these amenities.ย Failure to do so will result in revocation of your home and 'country club' membership within 90 days of delinquency.ย You will also be responsible for all lawyering fees in an attempt to collect said delinquency.ย However, keep in mind that any payment shall first be applied to the lawyering fees then once paid, shall be applied to delinquent dues.ย Note that lawyering fees to collect such delinquency could well exceed the actual debt by thousands of dollars.
"Freedom to Contract"?ย Yeah - if the contract is valid to begin with.
Rico
>
> Thousands and thousands will use the government free for all,
"State official says criticism led to firing"
"[Testa] also said Ashworth was never given enough staff to handle
complaints from homeowners, which number 500 to 1,000 a month."
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2001/jan/12/511291322.html
<< HOA stories produce flood of reader reaction
Ask Republic reporter Chris Fiscus what comes to mind when you mention
"homeowners association" and he winces. He knows he'll probably spend
the day after the story runs answering a ton of calls from readers with
their own stories on HOAs. As a reporter covering growth issues in the
Southeast Valley, Chris has written many stories on associations and the
controversies some trigger when their leaders apply covenants, codes and
restrictions too rigidly. With every story comes the same reaction:
scores of e-mails and voice mails demanding tighter controls on HOAs and
a request for more exposes by the paper. Monday brought the same
reaction after Chris' A1 story on a legislative panel's planned
recommendations to add more rationality to the activities of
out-of-control HOAs. "Of all the stuff I've covered," Chris said, "I
don't think anything matches this in terms of reader reaction"...
..."if you're in one run by people who are a little too overzealous,
they can make your life miserable." They also can make Chris' day long,
but if the tips are worth investigating, he'll follow up. - Paul
Maryniak; Bureau Chief; Southeast Valley: Reach the bureau chief at
(602) 444-7716 or paul.m...@arizonarepublic.com. >>
"Urbanetti works in the Nevada Real Estate Division's Ombudsman's
Office, which gets more than a thousand calls a day. They can help
resolve homeowner's disputes with their associations, ..."
http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=248568&nav=15MV
> now I am sure that I don't want YOUR reform.
It's not my reform. I never proposed it, nor would I.
I think it's a good idea; it's just not my angle.
Homeowner associations are systemicly, inherently, and fundamentally
flawed, and I think we need to get people asking if we want to privatize
government. That which needs to be disclosed will never be disclosed and
potential homebuyers will never take the requisite time to learn and
understand about HOAs, nor should they be expected to. If HOAs were
drugs, the FDA would have pulled them from the market already. Oh, and
by the way, the FDA doesn't subscribe to your majority-minority thesis.
I don't know who wrote this passage, but he must be very smart:
;-)
<< Does it make sense to incrementally tweak statutes written by and
largely for the benefit of the industry to make them more
consumer-oriented, or should we instead be asking the legitimate public
policy question of whether we should continue down the road of
privatizing local government by continuing to enact more legislation on
top of an already sizable body of industry-authored statutes enacted not
necessarily to benefit voters and consumers, but to maintain and
preserve the future of the CID industry? As Evan McKenzie notes in
"Privatopia", "the rise of CID housing is a unique, ad hoc form of
privatization carrying with it significant social and policy
considerations that never have been adequately considered by government
or academics." >> http://propertyrightstexas.com/HTMLarticles\cai_1.htm
James Madison wrote, "The accumulation of all powers, legislative,
executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or
many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be
pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
http://www.mcs.net/~knautzr/fed/fed47.htm
http://www.jmu.edu/madison/quote.htm#Separation
For fifty million Americans, the United States has become that which it
was formed to get away from โ a tyranny.
But this time, itโs worse. Itโs on the home front.
โWhat is government itselfโ, asked James Madison, in The Federalist #
51, โbut the greatest of reflections on human nature? If
men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to
govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would
be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men
over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the
government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to
control itself.โ http://www.pbs.org/wnet/federalist/paper51.html
So he argued, successfully, that โthe structure of the government must
furnish the proper checks and balances between the different
departmentsโ, to โoblige it to control itself.โ
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/federalist/paper51.html
Corporations http://www.calassoc-hoa.com/corporationsdefined.html have
no checks or balances. They are run by boards of dictators
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/archives/1998/apr/15/507090836.html
โ I mean, directors โ that are the executive, legislative, and judicial
branches all rolled into one. As long as incorporated HOAs are
classified as โcorporationsโ, they will have no checks or balances. As
long as our legislators fail to institute any form of government
oversight, something the Industry is adamantly opposed to, the boards of
directors will continue to be unaccountable. These โcorporationsโ arenโt
causing problems as fictitious persons. It is the people on the BOARDS
that are. Not all boards, but enough to make it worth the time for those
legislators of ours โ that are not afraid of losing Homeowner Control
Industry campaign contributions http://www.caionline.org/govt/caipac.cfm
โ to do something about it.
โSince it is CAI's public policy to ... coerce, bribe.... statesโ,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CAISLA/message/122 this may take some
work.
Keep your eye on your legislators.
http://www.ahrc.com/HOAorg/Contact/contact.html Donโt let them sell you
out. Let them know how you feel. Let them know you are watching how they
vote, what they propose, what they refuse to propose, and who's giving
them money.
Reprimands, violation letters, reimbursement bills, inconsistent
enforcement of the governing documents (harassment), fraudulent fines,
the intentional infliction of emotional distress, liens, morally
insensitive http://propertyrightstexas.com/News/Ocala_Fl.htm
http://www.a-k.com/newsletterwinter99.html#article2 judicial
foreclosures, unconstitutional nonjudicial foreclosures
http://www.calassoc-hoa.com/menu/judicialforeclosure.htm , neighborhood
cleansing, the suspension of voting rights or usage of facilities or
services, rigged elections, and the revelations of the tip of the
embezzlement iceberg only fuel the spreading ground fire of discontent.
Remember, โit does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an
irate, tireless minority, keen to set brush fires in peopleโs minds...โ
โ Samuel Adams, โFather of the American Revolutionโ
http://www.informamerica.com/They_Told_The_Truth.htm
And fifty million minds are a lot of minds.
The large and wellโfunded CID industry cares neither about
homeownerโfriendly communities โ nor about the longโterm viability of
the CID concept โ and considers HOA homeowner rights an impediment best
trampled upon, to smoothly do business, unfettered, and rake in the
dollars.
But โnever doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can
change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever does.โ โ
Margaret Mead
--
Rico
Yeah, it took me a little while to realize that.
> Your post appears to be telling me to study up but I think you are really
> addressing the writer of the first paragraph aren't you?
It was mostly directed towards HOACIDSUCK, but it was more
tongue-in-cheek than anything else. "Study up" was just a segway that I
used to post a hyperlink to a class that kept coming up on my searches
for 10 Cal. Code of Regulations เธเธ 2790 et seq.
> You need to make your posts clear as to who you are responding
> to
It really didn't matter.
> and you should have stayed on the
> subject of EXISTING CIDs rather than switching to PROPOSED CIDS.
I was just on the wrong track.
Les Thompson in CA
>From: "HOACIDSUCK" nos...@earthlink.net
>Date: 02/25/2001 5:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <lBim6.235$B7.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
>Les my man, that's the beauty of the maintenance contract. It is no more
>than an agreement between the parties. Doesn't need introduced, doesn't need
>legislated.<
If you want it to take priority over any statutes applying to CIDs it would
have to be a law and it is a CID if it meets the requirements of Civil Code
Section 1352 like it or not.
Rico
>
> Ok, I'm cool. But this wasn't the link you posted.
> https://www.caisecure.net/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=CAI&P
> roduct_Code=1435&Category_Code=BB
No, this is a link to "Community First!" One of the articles featured in
"Community First!" is "Reflections on a New Paradigm for the Governance
of Common-Interest Communities," by Evan McKenzie. I think it is
excellent, albeit a little too academic for my tastes.
Putting community first would be a change of the generally accepted
perspective of those that currently rule HOAs. Right now, IMO, HOAs put
community last.
Here is one of my favorite excerpts from his article:
<< As I see it, the key common assumption underlying both new urbanism
and the CID new paradigm is this: a housing development is, first and
foremost, a place where a group of people will live in close proximity
to each other for a long time. During that time they will form social
relationships (not just formal, legal relationships). These
relationships are a large part of what people want when they buy a house
in the first place.
This may seem obvious, but it isn't accepted yet by banks, federal
mortgage insurers and the secondary market, mortgage companies,
architects and planners, developers, lawyers and property managers. Many
of them still seem to behave as though these developments were
collections of precious inanimate objects--houses, streets, swimming
pools, yards--that unfortunately require the presence of human beings to
purchase and take care of these monuments to the designer's and
builder's arts. From this perspective, all the things people do in
forming and conducting relationships are excess baggage except insofar
as they involve servicing the property. So, assessment and rule
enforcement are very important. Spontaneous, informal social activity is
not. We have regimes that mandate the 'important' activities, prohibit
many others that are 'threats' to property values, and do little or
nothing to promote a healthy, happy neighborhood.
In short, for the past quarter century, common interest housing has been
driven and shaped by the interaction of three powerful forces:
commodification of housing, privatization of local government services
and functions, and trends in the American consumer culture. The new
paradigm proposes that the next phase should be driven by the effort to
build working communities. >>
> This was the link you posted
> http://propertyrightstexas.com/HTMLarticles/cai_1.htm
That's right. That's where the quote was from.
> "Rico" <concerned...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3A99B44F...@home.com...
> > HOACIDSUCK wrote:
> > >
> > > "There are two basic kinds of change -- incremental and paradigm. How
> > > did
> > > you figure paradigm as a basic kind of change? Para -root meaning,
> > > beside as
> > > in paradigm; paragraph. Paradigm doesn't describe change, it could
> > > describe that which will change.
"Paradigm change" can be described can be described as change that is
"an example that serves as pattern or model." It can be considered
change to "the generally accepted perspective of a particular discipline
at a given time."
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=paradigm
"Incremental change" can be described as change that is "a slight, often
barely perceptible augmentation."
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=incremental
George Staropoli has accused the AZ legislature of "incrementalism"
(Social or political gradualism)
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=incrementalism
H.S.H.I.A. http://hshia.org/ called the AZ legislature's proposed
legislation
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/legtext/45leg/1r/bills/hb2098p.htm a
"waste". They sent the legislators toilet paper.
The CID industry uses incrementalism to its advantage:
<< In VA, associations have the power to fine and foreclose non
judicially for non payment of assessments AND fines... but getting to
that point took a little time. I suspect other states went through a
series of similar events to get to that point as well.
You see, the enabling legislation to empower associations to fine and
then to foreclose non judicially (for non payment of legitimate
assessments and illegitimate fines) were enacted incrementally, a few
goodies at a time, a few years apart. First they had to get the power
to fine passed, ignoring a VA Supreme Court decision finding fines to be
a sovereign power which cannot be delegated and opining that fining by
associations violated both the US and VA Constitutions.
That took a couple of sessions but they got it through. Then they came
back and got language passed calling fines "assessments". Then they
came back, lobbied for TEETH so they could collect those fines without
having to go to a real court and explain to a real judge why Harry was a
bad boy and deserved to be punished. That's when they were granted the
statutory authority to foreclose non judicially.
When one of our delegates was told, a couple of years ago, that
associations had the statutory power to adopt rules, allege a violation
by a member, levy fines and then foreclose, non judicially, for non
payment of those fines, she said, "No. It can't possibly be. You are
mistaken! We would never do that!" She was horrified when another
attorney confirmed it. You see, when these bills were presented they
looked like a piece from a jig saw puzzle and it wasn't till all the
pieces had been added that a picture began to emerge.
So as not to raise any eyebrows and tip their hand, the industry
lobbyists propose minor changes.. small enough in some cases not to be
noticed.. it might just be the addition or deletion of a word but every
year they come back and massage existing legislation some more till they
have what they want.
...
It has taken many years, many proposed bills, many legislators and many
governors all shuffling papers and signing bills to give associations
the powers they currently enjoy. >>...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hoanet/message/1829
<snip>
Rico
>
> You can't always be right, Rico.
He snipped everything else I wrote, took it out of context, and ignored
my point -- that everybody doesn't benefit from the programs the taxes
they pay, fund -- and you supported him.
Now if you'll excuse me, I've got a soccer game to get to. I think I'll
start by kicking one of my teammates in the shin. That's how you win,
isn't it?
Rico
maintain common areas.
HOACIDSUCK
Limiting the board's scope of duty and authority to a common area
maintenance function would certainly relax tensions that scandalize many CID
homeowners and may fill the "social void" by removing other variables that
disrupt social interaction within our communities.
"Rico" <concerned...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A9ABE64...@home.com...
HOACIDSUCK
> HOA powers should be limited to those they need, like the power to
> maintain common areas.
THE CONTRACT THEORY OF ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT:
The homeowners and the association being created by the homeowners enter
into the following agreement:
PURPOSE OF THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION:
It shall be the purpose of this association to maintain the common areas
by using the combined buying power of the homeowners who are members to
retain gardeners and other tradesmen at the lowest possible prices while
providing the best possible service. The association shall have no other
powers.
DUES
Each homeowner member agrees that to accomplish this purpose, the member
must
timely pay his membership dues. Such dues shall be set from time to time so
that the money collected shall be sufficient to meet the expenses of
maintenance. A sum not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the total estimated
annual expenses may be collected by the board as a contingency fund for the
annual expenses for that year. If the contingency fund remains unused, no
such extra money shall be collected in the following year. The board shall
present a budget reflecting both actual expenses for the year and
anticipated
expenses for the following year, along with the amount of monthly dues
required to pay such expenses. This budget shall be approved by a majority
of the homeowners before any such dues shall be collected.
MAJOR EXPENSES
Where major expenses are required (for example, major repairs to the
building
or buildings, termite control, roofing, and the like), the association shall
determine the time table for such repairs by using standardized tables for
like repairs and alert homeowners at least one year in advance of any such
repair that an assessment for those repairs will be made, and the expected
amount of the assessment. The association shall not maintain reserves.
PAYMENT OF MAJOR ASSESSMENTS
Major assessments may be paid by the homeowners to the association in
monthly
installments over a period of time not to exceed one year. Failure to pay
such assessments may result in the association placing a lien for such
assessments on the property, however, such liens shall not take precedence
over any prior lien or mortgage, and such liens shall not be foreclosed upon
until the sale of the property or the death of the last surviving
titleholder.
RESTRICTIONS ON ASSOCIATION POWERS
The homeowner's association shall not act in any capacity to restrict or
otherwise impact the use and enjoyment of the property by the individual
homeowners. To that extent, the association shall not make rules, levy
fines for failure to adhere to such rules or conduct itself in such a manner
that any homeowner or group of homeowners is omitted from any decision
making
process undertaken by the association. The association shall do only those
acts which are specified in this agreement and no others.
TERM LIMITS
A member of the board of a homeowners association shall serve no more than
three consecutive terms on the board, regardless of position held. Any
term
of office shall not exceed two years. A period of two years shall pass
before a member may once again be elected to the board of the association.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
This paragraph is in the process of being researched/written. It revolves
around Buyers/Sellers, and Boards with respect to property rights in voting
proxies and the day to day running of the HOA in a CID. i.e., who's "say"
is
it? The Buyer? The Seller? The Board?
RECORD OF ACTIONS
All actions of the board shall be recorded in minutes of the board.
Said
minutes shall be available to members upon demand. Records shall be
maintained for a period of not less than seven years in a form that makes
them easily understood and available. Such availability is limited to
normal
business hours. The board members acknowledge and agree that the records
belong to each member and that the board is responsible for creating and
maintaining them.
>
HOACIDSUCK
stating - You can't always be right, Rico.
No snipping
No taking out of context
No ignored points
And definitely not compensated!
If you have trouble understanding any portion of this message, goback to the
post I responded to from jvhupf and see if your tread somehow got snipped
before I responded to it.
Unpaid CID industry helper?? Your starting to sound more like Pilot with
each passing day. Give your ass and keyboard a break, go outside and walk
around some, you'll feel better.
"Rico" <concerned...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A9AC220...@home.com...
Rico
>
> Check the Constitution for "Freedom to Contract",
Article. I.
Section. 10.
"Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or
Confederation... or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts..."
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section10
Constitutional rights you sign away when you buy a CID home:
Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people
... to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Amendment V:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in
actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentv
Amendment XIV:
"... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws. ..."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html
The disclosure mandatorily given to homebuyers that makes this clear to
them:
HOACIDSUCK
especially when those requirements which are clearly stated in Civ. Codes
1352 and 1353 don't require much.
If you want to add covenants and restrictions to your declaration then Civ.
Code 1354 should be reviewed.
Going to Civ. Code 1355 here are a few simple rules to observe when amending
the declaration, proper notice to the members, authority to amend
unrestricted, approval of members, recording the amendments.
Civ. Code 1355.5 states you can't delete the developer provisions before the
developer is completed with the construction and sales of the project.
Civ. Code 1356 The courts role to insure all amendment procedures were
completed.
Civ Code 1357 The legislature further finds that covenants and restrictions,
contained in the declaration are an appropriate method for protecting the
common plan of developments and to provide for a mechanism for financial
support for the upkeep of the common areas.
Well that narrows it down to a pinhead.
2 Key elements of the declaration:
"Protecting the common plan of development".
"Provide for a mechanism for financial support for the upkeep of the common
areas".
Lets see, a declaration... a condo plan (if one exists)... and a parcel
map. The last two, the plan and map are easy, now that declaration??
Here we go Civ. Code 1353 (B) The declaration may contain any other matters
the original signator of the declaration or the owners consider appropriate.
Cross out the original signator of the declaration as they no longer exist
and we are left with the following:
The declaration may contain any other matters the owners consider
appropriate.
We don't consider the vehicle code appropriate.
We don't consider board functions beyond a maintenance oversight function
appropriate.
We don't consider foreclosure appropriate.
We don't consider the DSA appropriate.
We don't consider Arbitration & Mediation appropriate.
We don't consider rules violations appropriate.
We don't consider imposed homeowner fines appropriate.
We don't consider outside swim teams in our swimming pool appropriate.
We don't consider reserve funds appropriate.
We don't consider outside influence appropriate.
We don't consider offensive legal battles appropriate.
We don't consider an approval process of less than a majority of the members
appropriate.
We don't consider board members acting as law enforcement agents
appropriate.
We don't consider refusal to access association documents appropriate.
I'm almost done with our amended "declaration"
Now what?
"Les Thompson in CA" <lest...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010226110552...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
Les Thompson in CA
>Now what?<
You tell us "now what"?
Evermore
Rico
>
> You have rights based on what the constitution gives you,
The Constitution only puts on paper human rights every human being has,
unless their government has denied them that right.
http://www.ahrc.com/HOAorg/Rights/rights.html The same goes for Magna
Carta.
According to your theory that your rights come from a document, I submit
this to you:
Before the Constitution, according to your theory, the colonists had
rights based on what their government (essentially England) gave them.
Yet they wrote, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends,
it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, ..."
...
"[The present King of Great Britain] has dissolved representative houses
repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights
of the people."
...
"We, therefore, ... solemnly publish and declare, that these united
colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that
they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all
political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and
ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states,
they have full power to levey war, conclude peace, contract alliances,
establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which
independent states may of right do."
http://www.EagleRing.com/foundations/the4th.html
Apparently, some people believe it is "self-evident" that they have
"certain unalienable rights" beyond those that are given to them by a
piece of paper, or by a tyrannical government.
http://starman.com/HOA/statement1.htm
Ramona Ripston was the Executive Director of the American Civil
Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California, one of the largest
ACLU affiliates in the nation. She wrote, โThe historical reality is
that the people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
recognized that one of the most important objectives of any American
government would have to be limiting the ability of a majority to impose
tyranny on all.โ http://www.pbs.org/wnet/federalist/opinion-prop.html
> and one of those rights is to contract with others
Private Contract
http://starman.com/HOA/hoabill2.htm
The Contract Theory
http://www.mailgate.org/misc/misc.consumers.house.homeowner-assn/msg04877.html
Adhesion Contract
http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=2325&bold=||||
> i.e. waive certain rights in return for a specified consideration.
You are oversimlifying things. Certain rights cannot be waived. Illegal
contracts are void. Both parties to a contract are supposed to be able
to enforce it, and if you think that all you are getting into when you
buy a home in a CID is into a contractual arrangement, then I must beg
to differ with you.
http://boardserver.mycomputer.com/read.html?collapse=1&uid=533212&u=houston1&id=322&loc=0&thread=322&f=1&u=houston1
Rico
>
> HOA "contracts" are inherently flawed, they can change before you even
> move in, they can change without your approval, there are no
> disclosure provisions of CCR's,
<< When I served on the Homeowner Association Task Force for the
Department of Real Estate โ and I was the only non-industry
representative on it โ I repeatedly pointed out that the CC&Rโs of an
association should be provided to a potential purchaser at the beginning
of escrow, not a few seconds before closing. The Department of Real
Estate โ whose mandate is consumer protection โ refused to enact this
provision on the grounds "that it would hurt sales". >>
http://www.ahrc.com/HOAorg/News/keyreports/kr_McMahonCIDs.html
Scores of thousands. http://www.callaw.com/stories/edt0228j.html
<snip>
Rico
Part II -- Association Management without an Association:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hoanet/message/2526
Evermore
waive those rights through a contract .
ws:3A9B2772...@home.com...
http://www.mailgate.org/misc/misc.consumers.house.homeowner-assn/msg04877.ht
ml
>
> Adhesion Contract
> http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=2325&bold=||||
>
P.Flamingo
Rico
>
> HOACIDSUCK wrote:
> >
> > "Rico" <concerned...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:3A9AC3F9...@home.com...
> > > HOA powers should be limited to those they need, like the power to
> > > maintain common areas.
"It is important that boards keep in mind that their powers are limited
to the maintenance and management of the common areas, and not the lives
of those who reside in the community."
http://www.a-k.com/newsletterspring99.html#article1
--
P.Flamingo
Rico
>
> Now that you cleared up all the HOA problems, please don't let your great
> intellect rest. You owe it to mankind to answer the unanswerable such as
>
> Do you think Fred Flinstone would have ordered those ribs if he knew that
> they were going to flip his car on it's side?
That sounds a lot easier, because I'm not convinced HOA problems are
solvable. But first, a question for you:
Do you think homebuyers would buy homes in common interest developments
if they realized the unaccountable rulers of community associations
could flip these homebuyers' lives on their sides?
"I repeatedly pointed out that the CC&Rโs of an association should be
provided to a potential purchaser at the beginning of escrow, not a few
seconds before closing. The Department of Real Estate โ whose mandate is
consumer protection โ refused to enact this provision on the grounds
'that it would hurt sales'."
http://www.ahrc.com/HOAorg/News/keyreports/kr_McMahonCIDs.html
> "Rico" <concerned...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3A9B2772...@home.com...
> http://www.mailgate.org/misc/misc.consumers.house.homeowner-assn/msg04877.ht
> ml
> >
> > Adhesion Contract
> > http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=2325&bold=||||
> >
Evermore
"HOACIDSUCK" <nos...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:h7Um6.1593$w4.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Consumer CID homeowners whether forced voluntarily or not, into a CID
> homeownership predicament must remain active, focusing attention primarily
> on limiting government CID regulations and intervention elements prevalent
> among distressed CID homeowners.> news:3A9BECA5...@home.com...
> >
>
http://www.propertyrightstexas.com/PressRelease/Power%20Felt%20in%20Unity.ht
> m
> >
>
>
HOACIDSUCK
behind their backs or if they willfully, unwillingly, knowingly,
unknowingly, mistakenly, intelligently, or just plain don't know why they
decided to live in a CID. It is as ambiguous as their reasons for residing
within the confines of a concentration camp. Were they forced into
voluntarily joining a "members-only" homeowner camp, or did they sign on the
dotted line because they had a choice?
"Evermore" <tylr...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:auYm6.13600$jg1.4...@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com...
Les Thompson in CA
>provided to a potential purchaser at the beginning of escrow, not a few
>seconds before closing. The Department of Real Estate โ whose mandate is
>consumer protection โ refused to enact this provision on the grounds
>'that it would hurt sales'."<
Can that be verified? Who presented it to the DRE? Where? What month and
year?
Rico
> > We don't consider the DSA appropriate.
> >
>
> The Davis-Stiriling Act
>
> Consumer CID homeowners whether forced voluntarily or not, into a CID
> homeownership predicament must remain active, focusing attention primarily
> on limiting government CID regulations and intervention elements prevalent
> among distressed CID homeowners.
Evermore undoubtedly would advocate the repeal of the Davis-Stirling
Common Interest Development Act
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=01001-02000&file=1350-1376
, since he doesn't want government interference. I imagine he would
support deregulating the whole thing.
--
The preceding information is privileged and confidential and is true, to
the best of my knowledge and belief.
I am not a lawyer. I am not providing legal advice. You should consult
your own counsel for legal advice. The preceding opinions are my own.
http://www.ahrc.com/ http://propertyrightstexas.com/ http://hshia.org/
http://www.homeownerjustice.org/ http://www.cicproject.org/
http://starman.com/HOA/ http://www.ccfj.net/PProprights.htm
http://fcam.tripod.com/ http://www.consumersforhousingchoice.org/
http://www.dcwindustries.com/hoas.htm
http://users.erols.com/marylandhomeownersassociation/
http://pvtgov.org/pvtgov/ http://www.propertyrightsnc.com
http://www.homeownerassns-revision.net/
http://www.angelfire.com/fl3/consumeradvocacy/
http://quicksitebuilder.cnet.com/cihcnj/CIHCNJ/
Rico
>
> "forced voluntarily" "jumbo shrimp", "Army intelligence"
"common interest" "mutual benefit"
Rico
>
> That statement is for those that don't know if their arms were twisted
> behind their backs or if they willfully, unwillingly, knowingly,
> unknowingly, mistakenly, intelligently, or just plain don't know why they
> decided to live in a CID. It is as ambiguous as their reasons for residing
> within the confines of a concentration camp. Were they forced into
> voluntarily joining a "members-only" homeowner camp, or did they sign on the
> dotted line because they had a choice?
"The overwhelming majority of residents did not buy because the house
was in an HOA. Some were not aware of an HOA; some did not fully
understand what an HOA was; less than 10% actually read the CC&Rs."
http://starman.com/HOA/alexander.htm
Rico
Arnold A. McMahon
http://www.ahrc.com/HOAorg/News/keyreports/kr_McMahonCIDs.html
Les Thompson in CA
>
>From: Rico concerned...@home.com
>Date: 02/27/2001 10:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A9C9EFB...@home.com>
>
>Les Thompson in CA wrote:
>>
>> >provided to a potential purchaser at the beginning of escrow, not a few
is
>> >consumer protection รขโฌโ refused to enact this provision on the grounds
>> >'that it would hurt sales'."<
>>
>> Can that be verified? Who presented it to the DRE? Where? What month and
>year?
>
>Arnold A. McMahon
>http://www.ahrc.com/HOAorg/News/keyreports/kr_McMahonCIDs.html<
Arnold A. McMahon??????
Philosophy Professor?? Where??
Published Author?? What??
Los Angeles Daily Journal?? ??????? Never heard of it...is it still
published??
Radio Host?? What station??
California Homeowner Association Task Force?? Is that the same California Home
Association that consists of industry members selling their products and
services to homeowners??
Provided *analysis* of pending and past legislation to legislators, media, and
public?? Is he still doing it?? Where?? That would be a good service to
homeowners who don't understand much of the *legal speak*.
Maybe someone could get Mr. McMahon to give us an analysis of the proposed bill
AB 1641 which will have a bearing on all CIDs and their assessments. It would
be interesting to know in plain language just what this bill would be forcing
every CID to do??
HOACIDSUCK
Maybe the name needs changed - Fidel's Mutual Havana Benefit Interest. Got a
nice "ring" to it, doesn't it?
"Rico" <concerned...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A9C9A6A...@home.com...
Rico
>
> > We don't consider board functions beyond a maintenance oversight function
> > appropriate.
>
> to the maintenance and management of the common areas, and not the lives
> of those who reside in the community."
> http://www.a-k.com/newsletterspring99.html#article1
>
> board and its enforcement of the rules and some felt ๅฅhat the board had
> intruded on the private sphere of their property ownership.ๆจ
> http://starman.com/HOA/alexander.htm
>
> > We don't consider foreclosure appropriate.
>
> "Foreclosure" By POA's Attorney For $2400:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prf/message/45
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prf/message/48
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prf/message/50
> http://propertyrightstexas.com/News/Ocala_Fl.htm
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prf/message/53
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prf/message/94
>
> Brain Tumor:
> http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.hts/metropolitan/marshall/698864
>
> Failure to Open Mail:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&th=41e7d02ebc946092&ic=1&seekd=929232649
A disabled epileptic, Dave Donnell -- of ill health and no means -- fell
behind on paying his association dues, due to the bills for surgery for
removal of a cyst from his pancreas. The unpaid dues amounted to less
than $1,400. The man fell critically ill, with unexplained internal
bleeding, was hospitalized, and received 24 pints of blood in one month.
The man wasn't the first person to fall behind in his homeowners dues,
but the homeowners association board of directors changed its
"philosophy" and decided to target Donnell to force him to pay his back
dues. The association consulted with Weintraub, Genshlea & Sproul, a
high-powered Sacramento law firm, to guide them through the foreclosure
process.
At that time, Donnell said he went to an association board meeting and
offered to make $50 payments to retire his debt. "They turned me down,"
he said. "They said it was too little, too late. That doesn't seem fair
-- they'd rather take my house than let me pay my bill."
Curtis Sproul, a Sacramento attorney working on behalf of the
association, claimed, "We can't indefinitely let this one individual
ride while a substantial number of residents pay their bills."
AHRC called Sproul on the carpet about it, because "Mr. Sproul served as
a member of the Special Legislative Task Force, appointed by the
California Legislature in 1984 to draft legislation for a comprehensive
revision of the California laws relating to common interest subdivisions
(condominiums and planned developments). The work of this Task Force
resulted in the statute known as the Davis-Stirling Common Interest
Development Act (Calif. Civil Cd. ๏ฝง๏ฝง1350 et. seq)."
It doesn't seem like this "comprehensive revision" was "comprehensive"
enough to keep those that wrote the Act from making money by guiding
associations through the process of taking the homes of disabled
epileptics of ill health and no means when they fall critically ill with
unexplained internal bleeding, and behind in paying their association
dues.
There ought to be a law against writing laws to make money.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/news/old/local05_20010114.html
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=AHRC+%22Curtis+Sproul%22+group:misc.consumers.house.homeowner-assn+author:P.Flamingo&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rnum=1&seld=934005300&ic=1
http://www.weintraub.com/attorneys/ccs_bio.html
http://www.fppc.ca.gov/
> > We don't consider the DSA appropriate.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=01001-02000&file=1350-1376
> > We don't consider Arbitration & Mediation appropriate.
>
> << Friday, March 30 -- 9 am - 4 pm
> __________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> 12. Nonjudicial Dispute Resolution under CID Law [Study H-851]
>
> Discussion of Issues
> Memorandum 2001-31 (NS) (to be sent) >>
> http://www.clrc.ca.gov/agenda.html
>
> > We don't consider rules violations appropriate.
> > We don't consider imposed homeowner fines appropriate.
>
> Case law considers them unconstitutional.
>
> James Foley v. Osborne Court Condominium et al C.A. No 96-360 sup. court
> of R.I. Newport 1999 R.I. Super. LEXIS 50:
> Fining by associations is
an unconstitutional delegation of police and sovereign powers.
> The VA Supreme Court decided, in Unit Owners Ass'n of BuildAmerica-1 v.
> Gillman, that fines were a sovereign power which cannot be delegated and
> opined that fining by associations violated both the US and VA
> Constitutions.
>
> << Unit Owners Ass'n of BuildAmerica-1 v. Gillman, 292 S.E.2d 378, 384
> (Va. 1982) (discussing the Condominium Act of Virginia which "does not
> purport to grant an association the power to secure compliance with its
> bylaws, rules, and regulations by the imposition of a fine or the
> exaction of a penalty"). >>
> http://forums.law.arizona.edu/library/Chiorazzi/dgriffith/llamas.htm
>
> > We don't consider outside swim teams in our swimming pool appropriate.
>
> http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/comment/20010225/t000016928.html
>
> > We don't consider reserve funds appropriate.
>
> Litigation Reserves:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prf/message/161?source=1
>
> > We don't consider outside influence appropriate.
>
> http://www.caionline.org/ http://www.cacm.org/ http://www.echo-ca.org/
> http://www.ss.ca.gov/prd/ld/emp/C23191.htm
> http://www.ss.ca.gov/prd/ld/emp/C26240.htm
> http://www.ss.ca.gov/prd/ld/emp/C24065.htm
>
> > We don't consider offensive legal battles appropriate.
>
> http://www.ahrc.com/HOAorg/Lawsuits/suits.html
>
> > We don't consider an approval process of less than a majority of the members
> > appropriate.
>
> HV Board Attempts End Run:
> http://home.flash.net/~flash6/HTMLarticles/HV%20Amendments.htm
>
> > We don't consider board members acting as law enforcement agents
> > appropriate.
>
> http://www.ahrc.com/HOAorg/News/keyreports/kr_gangster.html
>
> > We don't consider refusal to access association documents appropriate.
>
> http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_2031&sess=PREV&house=B&site=sen
>
> > I'm almost done with our amended "declaration"
> > Now what?
> >
> > "Les Thompson in CA" <lest...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20010226110552...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
> > > >Subject: Re: More Laws or Less Laws? (was: Re: CID's Are Here To Stay
> > > >From: "HOACIDSUCK" nos...@earthlink.net
> > > >Date: 02/25/2001 5:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
> > > >Message-id: <lBim6.235$B7.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
> > > >
> > > >Les my man, that's the beauty of the maintenance contract. It is no more
> > > >than an agreement between the parties. Doesn't need introduced, doesn't
> > > > need
> > > >legislated.<
> > >
> > > If you want it to take priority over any statutes applying to CIDs it
> > > would
> > > have to be a law and it is a CID if it meets the requirements of Civil
> > > Code Section 1352 like it or not.
--
P.Flamingo
Rico wrote:
> Evermore wrote:
> >
> > "forced voluntarily" "jumbo shrimp", "Army intelligence"
>
> "common interest" "mutual benefit"
NOT!!
P.Flamingo
HOACIDSUCK
Provisions!
<jvh...@telocity.com> wrote in message
news:2jsq9tsfeqonerlkc...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:31:05 GMT, Rico <concerned...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> > Cross out the original signator of the declaration as they no longer
exist
> >>
>
>
Rico
"The bedrock of our country is the Constitution, but underlying that is
the belief held by almost all those who wrote it, that humans were given
certain basic rights by GOD that no government had a right to
remove....ever. The problem, as they saw it, was that most governments
did take these rights, over and over and over, so the Founders would try
their best to protect and preserve these rights by writing a basic
constitution. When the question of delineating various rights arose,
some of the delegates actually did not feel it was necessary since they
were from God.
"But such individual rights get in the way of oppressive government,"...
http://www.syspac.com/~jpatton/carz/cityhall.htm
Rico
>
> You have rights based on what the constitution gives you, and one of those
> rights is to contract with others i.e. waive certain rights in return for a
> specified consideration.
Can you waive your right to contract with others through a contract?
http://quicksitebuilder.cnet.com/cihcnj/CIHCNJ/
http://www.propertyrightsflorida.com/
Evermore
Constitution is the original document plus the entire body of law handed
down by the Supreme Court. Again, you only have rights the Constitution
gives you. Please, don't reply, Just aim your debate at Lawrence Tribe, he
said it not me.news:3A9FEA77...@home.com...
ml
> >
> > Adhesion Contract
> > http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=2325&bold=||||
> >