Category Archives: privacy

HOA Residents Try To Bail Out

      7 Comments on HOA Residents Try To Bail Out
guest blog by Deborah Goonan

The HOA, Association of Poinciana Villages (FL), wants to become a city. In fact, a group of residents have been attempting to become a municipal corporation for several years. The group has recently completed a feasibility study that it will submit to Florida Legislature.

It seems as though the large subdivision of Poinciana is tired of being underfunded and getting no services from Osceola and Polk Counties, despite the fact that 47,000 residents pay taxes to both Counties and the state of Florida. Their mature HOA cannot provide needed services provided to residents of nearby cities of similar size. Apparently the residents pay assessments, while the developer does not. The residents are tired of Developer Avatar retaining majority control since 1971 and want each resident to have voting rights, instead of a 9 member Board of Directors voting on behalf of each of Poinciana’s Villages. What a concept!

Who can blame these residents? After all, compare PUBLIC local government (municipal or county level) to PRIVATE governance in HOAs.

*A municipality has access to property and sales tax revenues, low interest loans, issuance of municipal bonds, state and federal grants. * The HOA is limited to collection of assessments that are NOT based on assessed property values. (often the $50K home pays the same assessment as the $500K home and even commercial property owners) The HOA has very limited access to financing through loans.

*A municipality can take advantage of economies of scale, and can cooperate with nearby towns and cities, or enter into local agreements to provide needed services. * HOAs have no option to collaborate with neighboring communities or public entities to provide needed services. In fact, its governing documents (the so-called CC&Rs contract) often state that the local governing entity will NOT provide such services, because the Developer has given away owner rights to these services as part of the development agreement at the time permits were issued.

*Local government elected officials are compensated, are publicly vetted, and they generally possess experience relevant to their respective roles. They often have term limits. Should these officials fail in their work, they are usually voted out of office in the next election. If they engage in unethical or illegal conduct, they will eventually be investigated, and held personally liable, without constituents having to bring a legal suit. *The HOA Board is comprised of volunteers who are practically immune from personal liability and oversight. The burden is placed upon owners and residents to investigate wrong-doing or spend personal funds in filing a civil suit.

*Voting and elections in a city – one vote per registered adult voter vs. one vote per unit (dwelling) owned. That means tenants vote, and each adult in the household gets to vote. No one in the community gets more than one vote. * The HOA Developer is granted weighted voting rights and appoints the Board as long as he controls most of the votes. After turnover, Boards are often elected by representative voting members, proxies, and other dubious means. Of course, allocation of voting rights is inequitable: the more property one owns, the more votes one has. They and the managers they hire often lack necessary personal and professional skills to do the job.

*The city has sovereign immunity, limiting its legal liability. * The HOA is a corporation that must insure itself against potentially high legal liability.

This is one evolving story to monitor closely.

(article on Poinciana seeking municipality status)
(PINCHOS residents group statement on reasons to incorporate)
(Letter from PINCHOS to Florida Legislators)

 

Cypress Woods vs Wilbur…Battle Rages On!

      1 Comment on Cypress Woods vs Wilbur…Battle Rages On!
guest blog by Nila Ridings

It’s been almost two months (7/7/14) since I wrote about Wilbur the pig that provides companionship and comfort to the Halpern children.

Nothing has been settled and the parents and pig are appearing on a radio show to explain their side of the story. They have now received a $1,000 fine but the HOA attorney, Ryan Aboud  knows nothing about that. The property manager and board members aren’t speaking about it…so who has what trick up their sleeve now?

Ward just wrote about heart problems versus neighborhood relations.  We just had two American journalists beheaded on foreign soil by terrorists.  The economy we are hearing is near collapse.  We are approaching the 13th anniversary of the worst attacks on American soil on 9/11/01.

And…Cypress Woods wants to keep battling over a pig???  Please, tell me this is not so!

I have a question for Mr. Ryan Aboud.  The Halperns now have a pro bono attorney helping them.  If you were handling this case pro bono for the HOA would it keep raging on?  Or is it the billable hours that are making Wilbur the most sought after HOA pig?  It’s time to STOP the madness Mr. Aboud.

(link to Sun Sentinel story about Wilbur)

 

 

Love Thy Neighbors – It’s Good For The Heart

      7 Comments on Love Thy Neighbors – It’s Good For The Heart

I’m going to slip into the religion zone for just a minute. But for you non-believers, just wait. It’s for you too.

When Jesus was asked about the most important commandments, the first was “Love your God with all your heart.”

When asked about the second he said, “Love thy neighbor as thyself. There are no greater commandments than those.” He actually said that!

Sooo, let’s go full circle and jump forward a couple thousand years to a scientific study of more than 5000 people and their health and general well-being. It seems like there’s a pretty solid connection between heart health and the amount of strife with neighbors.

I’ll leave the finer points of the study up to you in the link below. In the meantime, I’m using both hands and both sets of toes to count up the number of cancer and heart disease patients in my own HOA neighborhood!

(good neighbor study)

 

Norristown PA Condominium Failure Costs Taxpayers Millions‏

      3 Comments on Norristown PA Condominium Failure Costs Taxpayers Millions‏
guest blog by Deborah Goonan

Why should you care about continued construction of HOAs, even if you do not live in one?

City and County planning boards love HOAs because they increase the property tax base, while requiring very few, if any, additional services to be provided within the boundaries of these communities. In theory, HOA residents pay assessments for their own services – which can include road maintenance, storm water system maintenance, security, and the like, as well as maintenance of common areas and multifamily (attached) housing structures. In other words, HOA owners pay more of their property tax dollars for a lower level of city or county service. That means higher net tax revenues for cities and counties. Or does it?

I have blogged before about the fact that non-HOA taxpayers are increasingly footing the bill for HOA failures in their cities and counties. Over the past few months, several media reports have surfaced about troubled and failed private HOA communities. Today I present one example from Norristown, Pennsylvania, as originally reported in The Inquirer last month. (see link to article below)

According to the report, a 26-unit condominium at 770 Sandy Street was constructed in the mid-2000s. After construction, when problems became apparent, city “Inspectors pinpointed hazards years after the building was occupied, including load-bearing walls that were hollow, exposed wiring, and fire escape stairs made of wood.” How did the developer, R. Bruce Fazio, get away with selling homes with so many apparent construction defects?

Upon further investigation, it was discovered that the municipality had issued a flawed permit, and apparently failed to identify building code violations prior to occupancy.

In 2010, the building was condemned, and a judge ordered the city of Norristown to make repairs totaling $3 million.

But despite the fact that taxpayers have already forked over $3 million for the apparent negligence and incompetence of the developer and city officials, problems still continue, with many units remaining vacant and unlivable due to water damage from frozen pipes. Another condemnation may be in the works. How much more money will it cost the city of Norristown?

The unfortunate owners of these ill-fated condos have faced major financial loss and stress, but the residents of Norristown at large are also paying the price to clean up the mess left behind. Meanwhile, the developer and city officials are not being held accountable. Read the article below for details.

Your tax dollars at work?

(link to news story about Norristown failures)

 

Let Me Vent About The CAI!

      1 Comment on Let Me Vent About The CAI!
guest blog by George Staropoli

How dare Susan French (lead ‘editor,’ of the 2000 Restatement of Servitudes, 3rd; co-author of Community Associations Law (1998 & 2008) with Wayne Hyatt, CAI national leader) take the attitude, accepted by the publisher, ALI, that this treatise is geared toward private governments because that’s what the people want. Did any group have her ear? (The Restatement is the common law treatise used by the courts when statutory law is silent.)

“Susan French begins with the assumption that . . . we are willing to pay for private governance because we are unable to pay for these amenities . . . individually. Therefore this Restatement is enabling toward private governance so long as there is full disclosure . . . and so long as decisions are made according to established and fair procedures.” (Foreword, p. IX). (My emphasis).

What part of reality did she miss? That people love HOAs? That there are fair procedures?

The Restatement speaks of private governance, which apparently French really meant as private government without being subject to the US Constitution. Section 3.1(2), Validity of Servitudes: General Rule, declares that the servitude cannot “unreasonably burden a fundamental right” (p. 347). What is a reasonable burden on a fundamental right? Does that control the Constitution? Is this private citizen law? After a long discourse on protecting fundamental rights, comment h makes it clear that,

“The question whether a servitude unreasonably burdens a fundamental constitutional right is determined as a matter of property law, not of constitutional law. Constitutional law decisions may be useful, but are not controlling, in determining when a servitude goes too far. When private parties create and enforce servitudes they are not governmental actors.” (p. 359-60).

Well then, what do we need the Constitution for? What do we need legislators for?