Blondie & The Bimbo, “Back in the Saddle, Again”

guest blog by Dave Russell 

The news this past weekend was shocking! Blondie Brewer signed Senate blondieBimboBill 1482 which prevents property owners from screening potential renters in Homeowners Associations. 

This controversial bill essentially eliminates crime-free programs in HOAs. It banishes criminal background checks on renters, and will allow criminals to move in right next door to your family.

Gal-Pals & Realtor chums Rep. Michelle Ugenti & Senator Gail Griffin plotted a sneaky scheme to bully their HOA legislation through. And they totally snowed fellow lawmakers into passing it.

Homeowner advocates are lining up at the courthouse to file their lawsuits to block SB 1482. As a community manager in Mesa, Arizona, I have now filed my own lawsuit to block this bill from becoming law.  I believe there are serious Constitutional issues with this legislation. 

The Stakeholders of this bill, none of whom were actually homeowners, told the Legislature that SB 1482 wouldn’t affect crime prevention programs. They’re dead wrong.

This same sneaky legislation slipped its way through last year. Rep. Ugenti hid it by tucking it away in a campaign finance bill. It was deemed illegal because it violated the state constitution and it was thrown out by the courts. 

Do Blondie Brewer and Bimbo Ugenti just not care about the safety of folks and their children who live in HOAs?

(CBS5 TV story on controversial law)

(link to Dave Russell’s lawsuit)

 

 

Please follow & like us :)

About

Ward Lucas is a longtime investigative journalist and television news anchor. He has won more than 70 national and regional awards for Excellence in Journalism, Creative Writing and community involvement. His new book, "Neighbors At War: the Creepy Case Against Your Homeowners Association," is now available for purchase. In it, he discusses the American homeowners association movement, from its racist origins, to its transformation into a lucrative money machine for the nation's legal industry. From scams to outright violence to foreclosures and neighborhood collapses across the country, the reader will find this book enormously compelling and a necessary read for every homeowner. Knowledge is self-defense. No homeowner contemplating life in an HOA should neglect reading this book. No HOA board officer should overlook this examination of the pitfalls in HOA management. And no lawyer representing either side in an HOA dispute should gloss over what homeowners are saying or believing about the lawsuit industry.

12 thoughts on “Blondie & The Bimbo, “Back in the Saddle, Again”

  1. robert

    I don’t understand the point of this blog post.

    Is it the editorial policy of NeighborsAtWar.com that H.O.A. corporations should have the authority and power to screen and approve renters?

    Reply
  2. robert

    This same sneaky legislation slipped its way through last year. Rep. Ugenti hid it by tucking it away in a campaign finance bill. It was deemed illegal because it violated the state constitution and it was thrown out by the courts.

    What Mr. Russell fails to mention was that the bill was ruled unconstitutional because

    the Arizona Constitution requiring “but one subject to be embraced in the title. The Constitution further states any reference to provisions not contained in the title of the bill are invalid. SB 1454 is titled, “campaign finance; in-kind contributions; disclosures, but contains the same provisions as found in the failed House bill, HB 2371, sponsored by Rep. Michelle Ugenti, dealing with HOA reforms.

    It was not ruled unconstitutional due to the contents of the bill; i.e., the court took no position as to whether allowing H.O.A. corporations to screen renters is a good or bad idea.

    George Staropoli was one of the plaintiffs in that lawsuit. If you read his Complaint (PDF), its claims for relief are “Violation Of Single-Subject” and “Violation of Title Requirement“.

    According to George, SB 1482 is also a multi-subject bill:

    As an omnibus bill it contains the 5 separate topics relating to HOAs, which make it an omnibus bill. They are: planning board prohibitions on requiring HOAs; permitting the display of political signs, regulations on renter rights and protections, and permitting unlicensed and untrained HOA managers to represent HOAs in small claims court and before administrative hearings.

    Is Mr. Russell challenging all of those provisions, or just the ones that curtail his power as a self-described “community manager”?

    Reply
    1. Dave Russell

      Hello Robert,

      I am challenging all of the above. Especially permitting unlicensed and untrained HOA managers to represent HOAs in small claims court, and before administrative hearings.

      I would be happy to send you a copy of the lawsuit. You can email me davecr102@yahoo.com

      I only became the manager of this complex because of the corruption this community endured. As most know, I’m an activist for homeowners first, then an HOA manager.

      Reply
  3. Nila Ridings

    I see it’s true. A picture does say 1,000 words. Perhaps in this case it says, 2,000?

    It’s a pretty bad state of affairs when the court system has to keep the state legislators from breaking the law.

    Thank goodness the people of Arizona now have Dave, George, Shelly, and Jill on their side working tirelessly to keep the legislators from putting their self-serving needs above the security and safety of their constituents.

    A few years ago I read about a guy in Florida that got ticked off at his HOA and rented his house to registered sex offenders. With that some neighbors sold cheap to get out. He bought those units, too. And rented to more registered sex offenders With that more cheap houses and he bought more and put more sex offenders in them. It all worked in his favor…and the HOA lost the war.

    I read some comments where a group was forming to buy a house in Ugenti’s neighborhood where they could rent it to registered sex offenders. Perhaps that will force her to stay at home to protect her children and let somebody more responsible become a legislator? Everybody wins!

    Reply
      1. Nila Ridings

        Yes, Robert. Based on the history of these condos in the Phoenix area and what has been done to make them safer then I feel it’s a prudent thing to keep those programs in place.

        If I vote, board a plane, see a doctor, get pulled over for speeding, I have to show a photo ID. If I apply for a job with an airline they require a 10 year background check, drug test me, and have my fingerprints done by the police department. If I rent an apartment they run a credit report and take a copy of my driver’s license.

        An HOA is a non-profit corporation and should have a right to know who’s living there…and even DNA test my dog’s poop if that’s what the members have voted to do. If I opt to not owner occupy my unit then the tenant I put in there should be subjected to the same rules as the owners.

        None of it is a Democrat, Republican, Independent thing…it’s strictly a safety issue…and it benefits everybody because if the place turns into a crime area the property values drop and the owners lose money, not to mention if somebody gets killed there could be a liability issue for the HOA/COA to pay for. (Think Trayvon Martin)

        Reply
        1. robert

          Yes…An HOA is a non-profit corporation and should have a right to know who’s living there..it benefits everybody

          It’s one thing to believe that a property owner has a right to screen whoever he wants to rent his property to.

          It’s quite another to say that a 3rd party corporation — which is not contributing to the mortgage payments — should have the power to approve or deny prospective tenants — even if you believe that power will not be abused. Personally, I don’t think it’s any of your business or Dave Russell’s business or anybody else’s business who I rent my property to, unless you’re going to pay me to keep my unit vacant.

          “The most effective way of breaking up a larger concentration of power is to ‘divide and conquer’ or ‘divide and rule’. And one of the easiest ways of doing that is through the use of fear.”
          – Shu Bartholomew. OnTheCommons.net April 26, 2014

          The H.O.A. lobby thrives by exploiting people’s fears — the fear of what their neighbors will do with their own property — because it is a tactic that apparently works. You even played the “property values” card.

          “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.”
          ― Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow

          I divide the “H.O.A. reform movement” — as much as there is one — into two general camps:

          Those who accept the legitimacy of a contractual relationship between home owners and H.O.A. corporations. These people seek to preserve the contractual relationship, while regulating and tweaking the terms of the contract. They believe that the H.O.A. regime can be made to work; all that’s needed is some Glasnost and Perestroika.

          Those who do not accept the legitimacy of a contractual relationship between home owners and H.O.A. corporations. These people believe that adhesion documents, fine print, and the legal fiction of constructive notice do not carry moral authority. Since CC&Rs are currently enforceable as contracts, it will take either legislation or a court ruling to change the current situation.

          You obviously fall into the first camp.

          There was an interesting series of blog posts on Evan McKenzie’s “Privatopia Papers” about this:

          HOA Convenants Not Generally Regarded As Contracts
          by Fred Pilot. Saturday, December 31, 2011
          with 14 comments

          Do Americans Consider CC&Rs Contracts, Revisited
          by Evan McKenzie. Monday, January 02, 2012
          with 07 comments

          Do Owners Believe CC&Rs Are Contracts, Part Trois…
          by Tyler Berding. Monday, January 02, 2012
          with 03 comments

          George Staropoli On The ‘Do Owners Believe CC&Rs Are Contracts?’ Debate
          by George Staropoli. Wednesday, January 04, 2012
          with 01 comment

          Fred Fischer On The “Do Owners Believe CC&Rs Are Contracts?” Debate
          by Fred Fischer. Wednesday, January 04, 2012
          with 03 comments

          Personally, I believe an H.O.A. reform movement that continues to accept the legitimacy of a contractual relatioship between home owner and H.O.A. corporation has already lost the war, regardless of how many battles it may win. But that’s just my opinion, which is worth what you’re paying for it. Others may have different viewpoints.

          Reply
          1. robert

            I divide the “H.O.A. reform movement” — as much as there is one — into two general camps:

            George Staropoli was a few years ahead of me on this, athough he divides the home owners into five groups

            1. Revolutionary
            2. Reformer
            3. Complacent
            4. Team Player
            5. True Believer

            See his blog post, “HOA Privatization Scale: Facing Reality” ( June 03, 2012 ) for his definitions of these groups.

            I agree with his conclusion (emphasis in original):

            As long as reformer-advocates continue to accept the legitimacy of the HOA legal scheme — not wrongful or unlawful — they have rejected their most powerful weapon in their battle to achieve substantive reforms. And in doing so, they have allowed their very powerful oppressors to sit as equals at the bargaining table. The outcome is, and can only be, as expected and as demonstrated historically.

        2. robert

          not to mention if somebody gets killed there could be a liability issue for the HOA/COA to pay for. (Think Trayvon Martin)

          You’ve got that exactly backwards. The Retreat at Twin Lakes settled with the Martin family becuase George Zimmerman was working (or believed he was working) for the H.O.A. corporation; not because the H.O.A. corporation failed to provide security services.

          If an H.O.A. corporation is prohibited by law from screening tenants, then it can not be held liable for the actions of a tenant.

          If an H.O.A. corporation does have the statutory power to approve or deny tenants, then the corporation — and by extension, the home owners — can be held liable if the H.O.A. corporation fails to screen a tenant who later commits a crime. The fear of liability will drive the H.O.A. corporation to be heavy handed. Given that we all commit three felonies a day, god-knows how many Americans have been charged with non-violent offenses, and this country has the highest incarceration in the world, it won’t end up well.

          In general, the more power an H.O.A. corporation has, the more at-risk its mandatory members are, because the home owners are personally resopnsible for any debts and liabilities created by the H.O.A. corporation.

          PS — If H.O.A. corporations were truly interested in keeping criminals out, they’d get rid of their lawyers and property managers.

          Reply
        3. robert

          If I opt to not owner occupy my unit then the tenant I put in there should be subjected to the same rules as the owners…it’s strictly a safety issue…and it benefits everybody because if the place turns into a crime area the property values drop and the owners lose money, not to mention if somebody gets killed there could be a liability issue for the HOA/COA to pay for.

          Nila,

          Then you must also believe that H.O.A. corporations should have the power to conduct criminal back ground checks on prospective home buyers, and the authority to approve or deny a sale on that basis. Right?

          If not, why not?

          Reply
  4. Sandy Schenkat

    Nila, I like the way you think and write. There are more people involved here in AZ to educate the legislature or Governor. I’ve been in contact and supported a lady in Sun City. Mary has been working on HOA legislation for 15 years. She informs many of us of how and when to write to the legislators and Governor. Despite our efforts, this HOA bill was not vetoed and Ugenti won and our Governor won again. Ugenti has to be defeated in next election. If not, maybe we’ll have to take your suggestion to heart and find a sex offender to move in next to her. Rumor has it she’s getting a divorce. Maybe she’ll have to move into a condo and then she’ll learn of the inequities in HOA.

    Reply
  5. Nila Ridings

    Sandy,

    I should be clear here. For the safety sake of children, Ugenti’s children included, I would never want anybody to win a battle (HOA or otherwise) at the expense of a child’s safety. With that said, I wish Ugenti, Brewer, Petersen, and Griffin, would have the same concern for the children they have now chosen to put at risk. I pray no child pays the price for their selfishness and stupidity, but if they do the parents or guardians of that child should go after these irresponsible legislators.

    Dave Russell and the other property manager (her name I cannot recall) have already demonstrated the difference it makes to have a “Crime Free Program” in place. To me, reversing that is no different than if the legislators said, okay we’ve gone into the automobile manufacturing business and we’ve decided to remove the seatbelts from the cars. Or we have invested in the tobacco industry and the bans on smoking in public places are now lifted. Does that make sense? No. And neither does this new law that Dave has filed a lawsuit over.

    I consider what they are doing as an abuse of power. Therefore, they should be removed from office in the next election. If I lived in Arizona I’d be campaigning hard against them.

    On a side note: I’ve worked closely with the legislators in Kansas where I live. The men are gentlemen and the women dress like professionals. Ugenti may think she’s impressing people with her distasteful comments (I’ve watched the youtube videos that were emailed to me)and her trashy tight clothes but when she’s my age, I’d bet she’s going to look back at herself during her legislative days…and at the least she will say…WHAT WAS I THINKING????????? And, today her parents probably hold their heads in shame. If her husband is divorcing her I hope he has better taste in women on his next go around. And I hope her children get to enjoy time with a really classy and refined step-mother.

    Sandy, I hope you and Mary will team up with the other HOA activists in Arizona and become part of our national HOA Army. Together we will make a difference and we need intelligent committed people like yourself.

    Thank you for reading this website and for taking the time to post your comment and compliment. And, please keep spreading the word about HOAs, Sandy!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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