Are you interested in improving living conditions in homeowners associations (HOAs), condo associations, and cooperatives in the US? Or would you like to see a broader array of housing choices in this country?
A group of housing advocates is interested in organizing to promote consumer-friendly policies and standards for local governance and management of our communities, particularly those that are private, Association-Governed Residential Communities (more commonly known as HOAs). We are conducting a CONSUMER–FOCUSED survey of interested residents and former residents of HOAs in the US.
We want to hear from you.
What are the issues that are most important to you?
What has been your personal experience living in HOAs, Condo Associations, or Cooperative?
Why are you interested in change, and have you been involved in trying to make that happen?
The survey is sponsored by Sara Benson, proprietor of Association Evaluation LLC, an innovative, comprehensive community association rating service, the first of its kind in the US. Benson and Don DeBat, both of Chicago, are co-authors of Escaping Condo Jail, a book that exposes the truth and debunks the myths surrounding the condo lifestyle. Both authors are committed consumer advocates with a lifetime of experience in the Real Estate industry. Benson is a veteran Real Estate Broker and former HUD consultant, DeBat is a Journalist and Editor of Real Estate columns in two Chicago newspapers. You can read book reviews and learn more about the co-authors on Amazon.com.
Please note that this survey is consumer-focused, and is NOT sponsored by Community Associations Institute (CAI), National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) or any other industry or trade group. Our goal is to give housing consumers a voice in US housing policy-making, and that begins with listening to your concerns.
Please take a few minutes to respond to our brief survey by August 1st. We value your input and your privacy. Your responses will remain confidential, and will not be shared with salespeople, vendors, or anyone in your HOA.
Poor George Clooney. The American actor can’t seem to catch a break from his new British neighbors.
Clooney and his wife bought a 16 million dollar property in rural England…a chance to get away from the celebrity stalkers and paparazzi. But his new neighbors are outraged at his presence. More accurately, they’re outraged because he put up an extensive video security system which they say invades their privacy.
Having a video security system of my own I would bet the vast majority of Clooney’s cameras are fakes. Nobody who has security cameras has the time to watch them, even if they are real.
As the 2016 Presidential election campaign heats up, so do political sign controversies in homeowners associations. Here’s a perfect example from Florida, a dispute over a Hillary Clinton sign in a resident’s window.
Howard Finkelstein (2) is Public Defender for Broward County in Florida, but he moonlights as a legal analyst for the local Fox News affiliate. According to Finkelstein’s analysis, an HOA can deny a resident’s right to display a political sign as long as their documents are “written correctly,” and if the homeowner took this to court, she would “probably lose.” However, an HOA cannot allow some types of political signs (such as the one we see in the video about gun ownership rights) and not others ( a sign supporting Hillary Clinton).
That would be Selective Enforcement: that’s the kind of inconsistency that gets HOA Boards in trouble, the kind of stuff that leads to billable hours to the Association attorney to defend the indefensible. Guess who pays for this folly? Why, that would be all the homeowners.
Of course, Howard brings up the standard argument that because it is not the government, a private HOA can make up rules prohibiting signs. Or, as I like to say, the standard industry claim is that the Bill of Rights Need Not Apply, including your guarantee to Free Speech under the First Amendment.
But, is that absolutely true or is subject to interpretation?
Recent Case Law opens the door for future challenges
In 2012, the NJ Supreme Court, in Mazdabrook vs. Khan(3) ruled that an Association’s restriction against placing a political sign inside a condo unit’s window was unconstitutional under state law. Of course, the facts in Mazdabrook bear a striking resemblance to the action taken by Valencia Morris at The Enclave at Cutler Bay. Ms. Morris was threatened with a fine if she did not remove the small political sign she had placed on the inside of her unit’s window.
More recently, in 2014, in Dublirer vs 2000 Linwood Avenue Owners (4), the NJ Supreme Court upheld that the Association violated the state’s Constitution when it denied the owner of a Fort Lee Co-op the right to distribute campaign leaflets as he contemplated running for a seat on the Board.
In both cases, the NJ Supreme Court ruled that even a private organization such as an Association-Governed Residential Association, cannot restrict “too much speech” and rejected legal arguments for the Associations that a homeowner “gives up” Constitutional rights by taking title to an HOA property.
Now, some FL attorneys will argue that the NJ Constitution offers greater protection of rights involving private organizations. So let’s compare the two state Constitutions on the issue of free speech.
6. Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.
SECTION 4. Freedom of speech and press.—Every person may speak, write and publish sentiments on all subjects but shall be responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions and civil actions for defamation the truth may be given in evidence. If the matter charged as defamatory is true and was published with good motives, the party shall be acquitted or exonerated.
Now, I’m not an attorney, but these two provisions seem to say essentially the same thing.
Are the winds of change blowing?
Allow me to leave the reader with one final thought, courtesy of the First Amendment Center at the Newseum Institute. In their recent survey (7), they asked: Does the First Amendment go too far in the rights it guarantees? Below you can see the results. (click on the graphic to enlarge)
Looking at perceptions of First Amendment rights for different age groups, it’s quite clear that younger generations are not going to put up with private corporate HOAs restricting speech! Time is on our side.
Ah yes, I do like to keep you posted on embezzlers who steal from their their neighbors. It’s such a personal crime. You have to look your neighbors right in the eye and tell them, “I’m robbing you blind and you’re too stupid to know.”
We’re not too stupid. We just don’t have the guts to spread the word. But that may be changing.
Lorene Lutey Treml, of the Meadow Valley Condominium Association in Wisconsin: You’re a crook. A firing squad is too good for you.
I’m so glad someone sent me this link. It’s a Skype discussion between some concerned HOA members in Minnesota and Dr. Gary Solomon. Solomon is one of the premiere experts on the national HOA scam and every second you spend watching this video will pay off many times over.
