Category Archives: privacy

Beach Erosion Threatens SC Condominium

guest blog by Deborah Goonan

Stories like this one never cease to amaze me. Some people will do just about anything for an ocean view. An illegal sea wall and some sand bags are the only thing stopping the Ocean Club condominium from washing out into the Atlantic on the coast of South Carolina.

The million dollar unasked question is why was a construction permit issued on this site nearly 30 years ago? The resort sits at the mouth of the Dewees inlet, where waves batter the fragile coastline.  Adjacent to the condo building of 150 units, part of the beachside golf course had to be closed, slowly eroding into the ocean.

Condo owners face a hefty $750,000 fine from the state environmental protection agency for erecting the illegal seawall in 2013. Even after spending nearly $3 million trying to keep beach erosion in check, owners must once again replenish the beach next month, just as they did in 2008.

It’s a battle with Mother Nature that they are eventually going to lose – if the regulatory fees don’t bankrupt the Association first.

(link to news article about Ocean Club Condominium) 

Another HOA About to get Burned for Discrimination

The good news is that we’re beginning to hear of more and more cases around the country where the homeowner is winning against the HOA bullies. And one big source of those victories involves a Homeowners Association refusing to admit that it’s interfered with ADA laws. Even if you’re a powerful HOA, don’t try to smack down a federal agency that’s entrusted with protection of the handicapped. Still, the skulls of too many HOA board members and managers are too thick to beat common sense into.

We, here at Neighbors At War, are doing our best to keep the jackhammer fired up.

The latest case involves a family in Gilbert, Arizona, members of the Coronado Ranch Homeowners Assocation. Steven Vroman is confined to a wheelchair. His doctor recommended exercise like swimming. He built a small pool in his backyard, but then discovered that he had to be out of direct sunlight. His disease prevents his body from regulating its own temperature. And that could lead to a stroke. So Vroman put in a shade structure to allow his transition from the home into the pool without being subjected to the hot Arizona sun.

Well, the HOA board members, obviously feeling like they were taken advantage of, decided to put Vroman’s swimming pool project on hold, or as we used to say back in the days of telephone operators, “Put him on terminal hold.”

Month after month went by with no action on the part of the HOA. So Vroman has had to file a federal lawsuit.

A word to the wise at Coronado Ranch. You’re going to lose this one. You’ll spend a fortune in legal fees trying to jack this man around, and the federal courts will declare the whole lot of you to be losers. Total losers. You’ll have to pay Vroman’s legal bills as well. Then, sure as shootin’, you’ll each get his with a special assessment to pay for legal costs, damage awards and who knows what else. And you’ll each be getting a slap-in-the-face that all busy-body neighbors should have to endure.

http://www.azfamily.com/news/Gilbert-couple-suing-HOA-279380682.html

Wilbur Wins!

guest blog by Nila Ridings

I am so happy to share this wonderful news from Rori Halpern. She is the mother who fought long and hard to keep the family’s pot-bellied pig for her sons.

“Long day for all involved. We are beyond elated to say Wilbur Bacone will remain forever in our home, continuing to bring joy and happiness to all. Due to confidentiality agreements between both parties we cannot share details. The only thing that matters is that we can keep our boy without anymore worries. Thank you from the bottom of our hearts to all who came forward in support of us. We love you all.”

It is no surprise that the notorious HOA “gag” order has been placed on the Halpern’s. Typical HOA style when they lose a legal battle. We know in this case they did lose because Wilbur is staying put. I sure hope the judge awarded the Halpern’s reimbursement for their legal bills and punitive damages for their pain and suffering.

Who wants to take a guess at how long it will be before the next HOA sues a homeowner over a pot-bellied pig? My guess: at least one more before the end of the year!

(link to Wilbur’s story)

 

HOAs and Owner Involvement: An Oxymoron? (part 2 of 3)

guest blog by Deborah Goonan

Debunking the myth that owners can actually change their HOAs

CAI’s educational booklet makes the assumption that owners elect their Board. In reality, the Developer appoints the Board – or at least one or more members of the Board – for several years, or even decades during construction. When the developer still controls the Board and possesses weighted voting rights, isn’t owner participation essentially a moot point?

Have HOA proponents, and CAI in particular, ever considered that a homeowner, having had no opportunity to elect the Board or amend documents during many years of developer control, is unlikely to ever make a successful transition to widespread participation in voting? And by the time it is no longer developer-appointed, what if the Board is still controlled by a small minority of investors or developer affiliates, who hold the majority of voting rights? This situation is far more common than CAI industry professionals would lead us to believe.

Vote the bums out!

As for CAI’s oft-prescribed solution to dissatisfaction – electing a new Board – is it really that simple? Not really. Post-turnover election procedures are based upon written provisions of the governing documents, possibly subject to limited statutory guidelines. The fact is, HOA governing documents are not reviewed and approved for compliance with constitutional voting procedures. Therefore voting systems are generally built upon the following components:

–Inequitable allocation of voting rights (votes allocated by number of units owned or proportional share of ownership)

–Voting processes that often involve proxies and/or representative voting systems that disenfranchise residents

–Typically, tenants cannot vote

–Members can have their voting rights revoked as a result of an alleged violation or dispute, or for being delinquent on assessments. (If you were told you could not vote at the polls as a result of being delinquent on your property taxes, would you accept that?)

Although laws in some states address a few of these issues individually, no statute addresses all of them, most notably equitable allocation of voting rights. Some states mandate ballot election for Board members, but not for amending governing documents.

Quite often, loopholes allow existing HOAs to avoid compliance with applicable statutes, with the qualifying phrase “unless otherwise stated in the governing documents” inserted before election and voting provisions. And because there is no national standard, the relative fairness of elections and voting varies considerably from state to state and from one Association to another. Obviously, more realistic solutions are needed.

See Part 3: Exploring Solutions

Link to CAI’s publication, Community Association Living

HOAs & Owner Involvement: An Oxymoron? (part 1 of 3)

guest blog by Deborah Goonan

Let’s get real!

One of the most common laments of HOA industry professionals is this: “Owners are apathetic. No matter what we do, we cannot get them involved in governance of the community.”

I have previously blogged, tongue-in-cheek, about the tendency of Boards to cultivate apathy. Today I will explore the issue in more depth.

Is it realistic to expect widespread participation?

Historically, few people actively participate in city, town, or county government, so what makes anyone believe that there would be a higher participation rate in HOAs?

Consider that HOAs (and especially condo associations) are marketed as carefree, low-maintenance lifestyles, often including amenities that owners do not have to personally maintain. HOA homes are not explicitly disclosed as what they are: shares in real estate investment, almost always part of a corporate entity. And, even if we could enlighten buyers and owners about the need to protect their investments in their HOAs, how many would take active roles? After all, most people with retirement accounts tend to put their money into funds managed by financial professionals – few actively monitor their funds.

Does HOA governance structure encourage or discourage participation of residents?

Some critics of HOA governance have suggested that Boards should allow residents to actively participate at meetings, with the ability to present ideas, make motions, and vote on resolutions directly affecting them.

But I doubt we will see such change, because CAI – and most governing documents written by attorneys for developers – promotes policies that give the Board broad authority to act on behalf of the association.

Refer to page 30 of Community Association Living: (Emphasis added in bold)

“Board members and committee members are volunteer leaders who meet regularly to discuss pertinent details about running their community. A board meeting at a community association is comparable to a town council meeting of a municipality. The basic authority in a community association lies with the owners. However, the owners elect a board of directors to act on their behalf. Usually the governing documents delegate almost all of the association’s decision-making powers to a board. This leaves the owners with very few direct powers. Typically, owners have only the voting power to:

  • Elect and remove directors
  • Amend any of the governing documents, except board resolutions

Occasionally, owners will approve the annual budget for their association. But all other decisions are usually left to the board. As a result, if owners are unsatisfied with a board decision, they usually do not have the direct authority to “veto” or “undo” its action. Under such conditions, their only remedy is to elect a new board to represent them.”

Clearly, the status quo discourages active participation of owners, exacerbating apathy. See Part 2: Reality Check