Category Archives: Patriotism

Dallas Jews Face Yet Another First Amendment Fight

      No Comments on Dallas Jews Face Yet Another First Amendment Fight
guest blog by Deborah Goonan

About a month ago, I wrote about Congregation Toras Chaim (CTC).  With the help of Liberty Institute, CTC prevailed in a lawsuit filed by their HOA with regard to a dispute over deed restrictions limiting HOA homes to “single family use.” Based upon two Texas laws protecting religious freedom, a Colin County judge threw out an HOA’s case against owners of a home used as an Orthodox Jewish synagogue.

But that’s not the end of the story.

On March 2, 2015, the City of Dallas filed suit against CTC and the owners of the property at 7103 Mumford St, Mark B. and Judith D. Gothelf. The petition claims that the defendants have failed to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) required by the City of Dallas for all non-residential uses of property. The City insists that the property be brought into compliance with local ordinances before they will issue a CO for the property.

Specifically, the City explains:

“Currently, Defendants’ only permissible use of the Property is a single family use. Any other use of the Property that would require a CO [Certificate of Occupancy], such as the proposed use as a synagogue, without first obtaining a CO and complying with the life-safety requirements entailed therein, presents a substantial danger of injury or adverse health impact to persons and/or property of persons other than the Defendants.”

Curiously, the dispute over the CO and ordinance requirements stretches back to November 2013, not long after homeowner David R. Schneider filed his first lawsuit against the Gothelfs on the matter of deed restrictions in the McKamy IV and V HOA.

The City is now requiring that multiple modifications be made to the property, including adding 13 parking spaces, adding a firewall barrier between the first and second floors of the dwelling, and handicap accessible features including 2 wheelchair accessible restrooms on the first floor. The estimated cost to bring the Mumford Street home into compliance: roughly $200,000.

Attorneys from Liberty Institute, representing the Gothelfs and CTC have been back and forth with the City of Dallas for 18 months, initially arguing that the CTC is exempt from the City’s bureaucratic ordinance requirements based upon state and federal laws governing religious freedom.  After all, they argue, the congregation of Orthodox Jewish families is smaller than most Christian Bible Study groups that meet in residential homes, without being required to comply with cost-prohibitive and unnecessary city codes.

The City claims they are within their legal rights to insist upon CO requirements, despite religious use status, state and federal law. The Congregation, through their attorney, then proposed a modification of their request, to ensure a maximum capacity of less than 50 occupants, but despite the good faith effort to compromise, the City has refused to back down on its requirements. In fact, every attempt of the CTC to compromise and avoid litigation has been rejected, or the City has changed the requirements yet again. The City now claims it will allow the defendants to formally request a special exception or variance, however if that request is denied, the modifications will have to be made within 14 days. If the deadlines are not met, CTC faces $1,000 per day fines for non-compliance.

According to the Rabbi, about 10 people attend daily religious study, and about 30 attend on the Sabbath, arriving on foot since their faith forbids driving on the Sabbath.

Also according to the Rabbi, the cost of extensive modifications combined with the cost of daily fines threatens the very existence of the Congregation. Its members would have to move to a different location within walking distance of their gathering place for weekly services.

Is it the City’s intent to protect religious freedom or to circumvent First Amendment rights by way of unreasonable enforcement of ordinances? And why has the City chosen to stop working with the Congregation and property owners now, on the heels of dismissal of the HOA’s case against them?

This battle for First Amendment rights is not over. The Liberty Institute has issued a statement that it plans to aggressively defend the religious rights of CTC.

“This outcome matters,” said Kelly Shackelford, Liberty Institute President & CEO.

“Any verdict that does not protect this congregation would be tragic. Not only for them, not only for Dallas, but for America. If small meetings by people of faith are not allowed in their homes, that would greatly damage religious freedom for all.”

(link to previous blog)

(link to WFAA TV news coverage of suit filed by City of Dallas)

(link to Dallas News article coverage of news conference)

(link to statement from Liberty Institute)

StoneGate Gets Its HOA Butt Spanked

      29 Comments on StoneGate Gets Its HOA Butt Spanked
guest blog by Dave Russell

For those of you who know me, messing with sick or disabled children is my biggest pet peeve. So when I heard the story about the StoneGate Homeowners Association, in Raymore MO and their board president Stacy Bayers, I did a little research. Now according to the Missouri Secretary of State’s Office, the StoneGate HOA was actually ‘dissolved’ back in 2009. I’ll get back to this later. For now, let’s take the story from the top.

Ella Schultz is only 6 years old and she’s battling cancer. The Make-A-Wish Foundation heard that little Ella wanted her very own playhouse. They contacted construction giant J.E. Dunn and that company agreed to build one in Ella’s backyard in Raymore, Missouri. They even used shingles to match those used on other homes in the neighborhood. .

What a touching story — a sick child and some awesome people who wanted to help out. That is until the HOA board officers reared their ugly little heads and threw a wrench into Ella’s playhouse. “I’m not at liberty to discuss that,” Bayers said Tuesday night when asked why it’s difficult to make an exception for Ella. “The proposed plan they’ve given us is a violation of our covenants.

KCTV 5 News (CBS) in Kansas City, has reported, “The StoneGate Homeowners Association is not in good standing with the Missouri Secretary of State’s office and hasn’t been properly registered for four years.” If you pull up the information on the Secretary of State’s website, it clearly shows that this HOA’s status is “Admin Dissolved –nonprofit.” Oh, say it isn’t so! I wonder how the reporters found out about this. No doubt one of those crazy anti-HOA people called them up.

So did the StoneGate HOA really have the legal right to deny the playhouse in the first place? You know, considering the HOA appears to have been ‘dissolved.’ Can this HOA legally enforce any of their governing documents? Has this HOA been illegally operating as a not-for-profit corporation? Are they illegally collecting assessments, fines and placing liens on properties within their Association? As one would imagine, it’s probably going to take a lawyer and judge to figure this one out. This also makes one wonder if the HOA dues they took in over the past four years should be considered taxable income.

I guess you could call this a bad case of HOA KARMA. Now StoneGate HOA president, Stacy Bayers, is doing a little backpedaling. She issued this unbelievable statement last night. Really, it’s unbelievable.

”The board has met for the better half of the day and at this time we would like to release the following statement:”

“Our hearts are with Ella Schultz and her family as they battle this terrible illness. Our homeowners’ association board is committed to working with Make-A-Wish Foundation and J.E. Dunn to see if we can figure out a way to make Ella’s wish come true. The initial request from Make-A-Wish to place a barn-style shed was not accepted because the board did not have enough information to grant an exception to the subdivision’s covenants. In hopes of getting enough information, we are requesting an immediate meeting with Make-A-Wish and J.E. Dunn Construction to work out a solution in the most expeditious manner possible.”

Oh, how nice of you Stacy Bayers, president of the StoneGate HOA, working so hard to make this little girl’s wish come true. I’m personally not buying a word of it! Neither is the rest of the world.

 

This One Will Absolutely Fry Your Brain!

      No Comments on This One Will Absolutely Fry Your Brain!

Dear Lord, I ask myself each night, can it really get worse? Can American homeowners really live under a burgeoning Nazi dictatorship? And the tragic answer is, “Yes, they can.” Nazi, Fascist, Communist, you name it, Americans are stupid enough to fall for it.

Windemere Cay Homeowners Association in central Florida has an interesting rule. If a homeowner writes a negative online review about this fascist organization, they are automatically fined 10,000 bucks! Payable within ten days, no less?

And the owner of the complex is instantly awarded all copyrights on any comments or photographs involving Windemere Cay.

Sometimes, on long lonely nights, I just slap myself silly over the claptrap that’s being issued by the country’s HOA Nazis. Yes, I slap myself. But the nightmare still doesn’t go away.

(go on, slap yourself silly after reading this)

 

Legislative fix for FL condo takeovers?

      3 Comments on Legislative fix for FL condo takeovers?
guest blog by Deborah Goonan 

In 2007, Florida passed a law that has been dubbed “Eminent Domain for Condos.” The law allows for 80% of voting interests to approve a plan to terminate the condo association for the purposes of redevelopment, as long as no more than 10% of voting interests object to the plan.

At the time the law was passed, the stated intent was to make it easier for owners of hurricane damaged or functionally obsolete condos to sell their ailing building to investors who would then redevelop on valuable land.

However, in the 8 years since enactment of this law, real estate investors and developers have descended like vultures, preying upon distressed condominium associations. Taking advantage of FL statutes, investors have been buying unsold units in bulk, at pennies on the dollar, taking control of the association, amending the governing documents where necessary, and voting to terminate the association.

In most cases, their intent is to convert all of the units to rental apartments, at a time when record numbers of people are renting rather than buying condos. Investors have forced nearly 20,000 condo owners – many of them homestead owners – to accept termination proceeds equal to one-third to one-half of what they paid for their units at the height of the real estate market prior to 2007. Essentially, condo owners have been kicked to the curb, many with outstanding mortgage balances for homes they no longer own. Cash buyers lost most of their hard-earned life savings with nothing to show for it.

An op-ed written by two attorneys from Greenspoon Marder Law firm states that a proposed bill in Florida “could satisfy public outcry” over condo takeovers that have forced nearly 20,000 owners to sell their homes, many of them at a fraction of their purchase price.  (You might recall from my previous blogs on this topic that Steven Geller, the sponsor of the 2007 legislation amending FL condominium termination process, is now a shareholder at the same law firm.)

Condo owners adversely affected by Florida’s flawed legislation have pressured their state Representatives and Senators to take action. Florida Realtors, who have helped to draft HB 643, have also expressed deep concern. The current draft provides that bulk buyers must make  “third-party” owners whole at termination, by paying 110% of the condo owner’s purchase price or fair market value, whichever is higher.  In addition, all first mortgages must be satisfied, and a relocation allowance is payable to homestead owners.

Realtors hope that legislative change will renew confidence in the condo market. Between negative media coverage and word of mouth, buyers are reluctant to purchase real estate in Florida, particularly condominiums that have been featured in the media. Additionally, many condo owners are finding it difficult to sell their units, except to other bulk buyers hoping to snatch up units at a low price.

The current bill, (HB643), retains 80% vote of approval – as long as no more than 10% of voting interests reject a plan – for optional termination of condominium. That provision remains unchanged as sponsored by Geller and signed into law by Governor Christ in 2007.

As has always been the case, the governing documents can still provide a lower percentage of owner approval for termination.

Attorneys Mark F. Grant and Raul Valero claim in their article that unanimous consent of owners for a condominium termination is unrealistic and that a single holdout can extract too much money out of the termination settlement.

Grant and Valero go on to explain that in 2010 the FL Legislature passed the Distressed Condominium Act, a law set to expire on June 30, 2016. The Act reduces liability of condo-buying investor groups for construction defects and deficits in reserve funding allegedly caused by the original developer. The Optional Termination and Distressed Condominium statutes, when combined, created the golden opportunity for hostile condominium takeovers in Florida.

As currently written, HB 643 still does not address a key issue. Voting interests are allocated to the number of units owned or proportional share of condominium ownership, not to individual owners. The result is that we have real estate investor corporations outvoting homestead owners, terminating the condominium and forcing them to sell, even at a substantial loss.

As long as votes are allocated to the property vs. people, investors will find a way to exploit that loophole. Because FL statute sets no absolute minimum threshold for termination approval, a bulk-buyer-controlled Board that holds sufficient voting interests can simply amend the governing documents to reduce the approval threshold, thus making termination possible on their own terms.

The only ways to remedy that situation is to more equitably allocate voting interests among the people involved, rather than tying them to inanimate units. Bottom line: opportunistic investors should not be able to trample the rights of homestead property owners.

Grant and Valero characterize bulk buyers as some sort of saviors that have “rescued” failing condominium associations, the buyers later concluding that a de-conversion would make better financial sense.

Whether or not you believe that the condo takeover fiasco was carefully crafted or the result of unintended consequences now is the time to consider the rights and needs of condo owners that thought they were buying a home as opposed to a real estate investment property.

Tragically, even if a homeowner-friendly bill is passed, it will be too late to help tens of thousands who have already lost their homes, their life savings, and their credit.

(link to op-ed regarding Condo Termination legislative proposals)

(link to FL HB 643)

Debtors Prisons? This Blows My Mind!

      1 Comment on Debtors Prisons? This Blows My Mind!

Where have I been? As a reporter, I think I’m pretty streetwise. I know the controversies involving private prisons. But private debtor prisons? That’s beyond belief and I can hardly believe the judicial system has not taken aggressive action against these outrageous prisons. As you watch this short documentary imagine if HOAs could gain the power to create private prisons!