Talk:Homeowners association

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Condominium and Homeowner Association governance has imposed an inordinate amount of control over the lives of the residents of their respective communities.

The lack of independent oversight, combined with the lack of effective internal controls of Associations themselves and the obstruction of legislative reform by parties who benefit from the conflict (Community Associations Institute), has proven to be harmful to millions of homeowners.

Contents 1 External Links 2 Commercial links 3 How some very important issues can be addressed in the article 4 Comment 5 Unreferenced tag 6 References 7 POV tag 8 Massive changes restored

[edit] External Links

I have recently returned to this article and noticed that the reference to racial restrictions had been removed. The provenance of Homeowner association deed restrictions are based upon exclusionary ideals, and initially were indeed racial in nature. This should not be overlooked, but appropriately included in the introduction to this topic. Mike Reardon

[edit] Commercial links

I removed the commercial links that someone added here, and the paragraph blaming homeowners for the problems associations face. First, commercial links are not allowed under WP:EL. Secondly, I removed a blanket statement, unsourced: "Association Member's lack of awareness and understanding of the purpose and function of their Homeowner Association creates problems for homeowners, the elected Board of Directors and the Association Management company that administers the association." I nearly gagged. One of the biggest problems in associations are boards that do not know and do not care what the law is, and property managers and association lawyers that will do anything to preserve the board that hired them. Unfortunately, this happens all too frequently. In those cases, a homeowner who does read their documents, and knows the law is at a severe disadvantage. His only recourse against an often corrupt industry is either a board recall (not easy to do), or to file expensive lawsuits, and pay not only for his own attorneys fees but also those of his opponent's (through assessments). This is a problem. The association has all of the detriments of government, in other words, but with none of the protections (like constitutional rights such as due process, freedom of speech and the like). Jance 03:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line, a link to sell a 15-minute $40 DVD made by a former developer is probably not a WP:EL, or WP:RS. However, it is not a bad idea, to create such a DVD - from a homeowner's perspective! I might just do that. But I won't sell it on WIkipedia. ;-) Jance 17:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How some very important issues can be addressed in the article

The very first problem of an association is the developer who writes governing documents that a *real* government would (and did) declare unconstitutional 50 years ago. The homeowner who wants nothing more than to be left alone is the victim, not the problem, here. Yes, it would be good if all homeowners read their governing documents and state statutes. However, 99% of association problems would be resolved if the homeowners that are board members would read the governing documents and state statutes, before agreeing to become board members. Instead, there is too often the attitude (and I quote one board member), "I can't read that legal mumbo jumbo (the covenants and restrictions) - I just know what's good for the community." This is the problem, that developers leave after they have made their money and hand over the associations and the monster they created in "governing documents". The governing documents of the corporation that is the association are almost always vague and sometimes in violation of state or federal law (especially the older ones). Invariably, they are open to abuse - and that is assuming board members even read them.

This is an industry that is poorly regulated (if regulated at all) and very lucrative. Most "boards of directors" in these private corporations do not have the business experience of those who sit on the boards of *real* corporations. Even those that do not want to commit fraud or theft are usually ignorant of the law and their own governing documents. They are easy prey for unscrupulous lawyers and property managers. The combination of dishonest board members and dishonest "professionals" is even more problematic. A number of state legislatures have recognized this as the crisis it is, and proposed or passed more regulation. This has barely scratched the surface of problems, however.

The reasons for associations are not always *bad* (as were the early discriminatory purposes). Associations are attractive to developers & municipalities for obvious reasons. The idea is also a fine theoretical example of urban planning - provide a community complete with shared amenities, so the cost to any individual is not onerous. However, the structure of associations is not very workable in practice. The association is an odd combination of corporate, property and contract law, that can be confusing especially to the lay people that are responsible for them. And an easy target for criminals. It is a large red sign on the front door that says "House unlocked, diamonds inside."

• • In short,I welcome input about how some of this can be addressed in the Wikiepdia article. These are all very important issues.Jance 22:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, very much, about the importance of recognizing the sociological effect of the for-profit developer who writes the governing documents. I may be able to provide a little material on that from reliable source(s).

However, I think we should go still deeper, and explore the effect that government has had:

• On causing the explosion, in 1964, of common ownership developments (FHA),
• In shaping COD associations, and
• In making developers build only CODs so that state and local governments could balance their budgets on the backs of COD quasiowners. -- Rico 15:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The creators of CIDs obtain permission from the state to subdivide the land, and from local agencies they acquire the necessary building permits.^[1] — Rico 18:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The common interest development is shaped by local governments through their land-use powers, and the state that regulates their governing structures.^[2] — Rico 18:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

All of those ideas are excellent... the question is how it can be incorporated into one article. I fear this could become very long. I added a short paragraph in the financial risk, but you raise related but different issues that are equally relevant. How can we best structure this?Jance 05:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Rico, I agree with you completely about homeowner associations. I have had the occasion to represent homeowners (and associations) in related problems. However, I did delete your comment about renters and owners as related to the 14th Amendment. If you have a reference, then please include it. Assuming there is state action, an equal protection claim relates to discrimination with respect to similarly situated individuals. I think that argument would be a stretch in these circumstances. That is not a value judgment, but a legal question. Also, while I agree that associations are profoundly undemocratic, that probably is not a neutral section heading, even for a criticism section. Jance 05:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I provided the reference for the Amendment XIV, J, and here is the reference for "profoundly": "Common interest developments are extolled by some as a form of grassroots initiative and as expressions of local democracy. Yet they are mandatory—'involuntary associations'—and profoundly undemocratic, denying residents who rent the right to vote." (Dr. Barton & Dr. Silverman 1994, p. xii) -- Rico 18:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Common Interest Communities: Private Governments and the Public Interest was published by

Institute of Governmental Studies

University of California, Berkeley

Berkeley, California 94720

-- Rico 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You have too many superlatives in this section. If it is a quote, it should be quoted. The use of so many adjectives is not encylopedic (or good writing for an academic article of any sort). Also, I am curious as to the equal protection argument, as I can think of a relatively easy rebuttal. I do not think such an argument would fly in court.

On another note, homeowners who own two properties also often have two votes, as well, per the governing documents. This is another problem - or benefit, for those would prefer pre-Civil war legal rights. The corporate model simply does not work with homeowner associations, because it is unlike any other corporation. Jance 03:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions, J, but I was not done. And now I'm sidetracked. -- Rico 05:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Then get un-sidetracked. Relax!Jance 02:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced tag

This article should only contain verifiable content that has been published by reliable sources. A significant amount of material has been added to this article, this year, that does not satisfy this official Wikipedia policy. Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be removed by any editor. This needs to be done across the board. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

Jimmy Wales wrote, in insist on sources:

"Is that true? Is it not true? As a reader of Wikipedia, I have no easy way to know. If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference. If it is not true, it should be removed.

"I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar."

-- Rico 19:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag. Please state where there is unsourced material.Jance 03:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

1. ^ McKenzie, Evan. Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Governments. Yale University Press, 145. ISBN 0-300-06638-4. 
2. ^ Barton, Stephen & Carol Silverman (1994), "Common Interest Communities: Private Government and the Public Interest Revisited", in Barton, Stephen & Carol Silverman, Common Interest Communities: Private Governments and the Public Interest, Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmental Studies, ISBN 0-87772-359-1.

[edit] POV tag

Wow. I've almost never seen an article as badly biased against its subject as this one. For now, I've stuck a POV tag on it. Over time, I'll clean up the language, and find sources which aren't hit pieces. Argyriou (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that all can cooperate on this article. The content is accurate, therefore, hardly POV. Perhaps you could state here what you objection is.Jance 22:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Any mention of the positive benefits of HOAs is couched in weasel words ("long claimed"...), while attacks and claims of detriments of HOAs are presented as purely factual. The "Criticism" section is nearly as long as the rest of the article, and several sections above it are purely critical as well. This is not a balanced article, it's a hit piece. POV doesn't just require eliminating non-factual statements, it also requires including factual statements supporting all sides of a controversy. This article needs significant trimming of the criticisms, and addition of neutral and positive factual information for balance. Argyriou (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you propose something, then, instead of just criticising and speaking in generalities? I wrote the conlaw section, which is accurate. If you have other information, then please provide it. If the "long claimed" phrase to which I assume you refer is in the conlaw section, then you show me a source where any proof of added value can be found? There is none. It is not POV to state "long claimed" where that is the only thing that can be said truthfully. If you are at all familiar with homeowner associations, you know this. It is one of the greatest absurdities about homeowner associations. However, there are legitmate advantages such as making shared amenities more affordable to individuals. Whether that is, in the whole package, a real financial benefit is questionable, but certainly in theory it is valid. Jance 23:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The {{pov}} tag says that the dispute should be discussed on the talk page, so that a reader who sees the tag can evaluate the claims of non-neutrality. Right now I don't have time to go digging up sources, etc. I will, but it's going to take a while. Argyriou (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I welcome your additions. I can't wait for you to provide a reliable source that proves me wrong. The good thing about an encyclopedia is generally one doesn't get away wtih making bald assertions (like the CAI does on a regular basis). In fact, an admin reviewed my section on Consitutional Challenges and had no complaint. There is no "weasel" word here. It is an explanation of a common claim. The claim is not supported with data, or I would have included it. Jance 00:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

One benefit may be uniformity - I'm sure there are some buyers who like that. And, an association can enforce uniformity, if required by the governing documents. The biggest benefit of an association is to the developers, association law firms and property managers. Since I am an association lawyer, I suppose I should not knock that. However, I am also a homeowner and understand the problems from both sides. I will also note that the CAI is a reference. I would surely be interested in finding "positive" references that are not lobbyists. Jance 00:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally not a fan of HOAs, and would be fairly reluctant to buy a house which came with an HOA. (Condos are another matter, as there *has* to be an HOA, but I'm not likely to ever buy a condo.) I've heard of some pretty awful things happening with HOAs, and wouldn't want to deal with that. However, HOAs do provide real benefits to buyers in protecting them from other owners whos actions can lower surrounding property values, and in providing a neutral dispute resolution forum that's not the court system. HOAs also make it easier for homeowners to make class-action claims against developers. I'll find documentation and articles in support of HOAs over the next week or so. Argyriou (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the neutral dispute resolution forum? I have not seen this in HOAs. If anything, it is just the opposite. That is probably one of the biggest complaints about HOAs and condos. It was such an issue that legislation was passed in more than one state, to address that, or try to. It is true that in some cases, class actions can more easily be brought against developers. I don't know that HOAs provide a real benefit regarding other owners in the manner you describe, although that is a common belief. My experience is quite different. Generally, I think these matters better left to local zoning. It is also true that some situations, not confined to condos, require an association. Unforunately, association enforcement is too arbitrary, there is no oversight, and most homeowners are not interested in participating until they find out they have lost thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars, etc.Jance 00:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Argyriou, since there has been no prior discussion of the bias you allege, you need to describe what you consider unacceptable about the article — and to address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that you allege to be problematic. -- Rico 03:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And Rico, you need to discuss also. I reverted back to Argyrio's version, which included my edits regarding the paragraph I discussed above. "Serious constitutional questions..." paragrah is redundant, badly worded and not factually accurate. That many renters are affected is irrelevant to whether or not a constitutional question exists. If a constitutional question exists, it will exist if only one renter is affected. Please don't just summarily revert. Jance 05:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I left the sentence Rico added to the first sentence of the conlaw section, but reworded slightly. I still don't like it, as it is too wordy with my edit, so I welcome input. However, corporations are not "people" (they are persons legally, but that is a different connotation). Developers are often corporations, as are management services and the like. Also, I spelled out the words "common interest development" and "homeowner association". Acronyms are not generally good form in an article like this, and especially when they are not defined anywhere. Also, is a common interest development defined anywhere previously? I see in the first paragraph it is mentioned, but not defined. Does development include a discussion of a CID? Of not, it is confusing to throw this in without explanation. I don't have time tonight to check this. Rico, could you do this? Jance 05:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Massive changes restored

The discussion of racial discrimination belongs in the section on Constitutional challenges. That's where it will stay, not in its separate section. And the introduction is put back, also, since it provides the basis of thess constituional challenges.Jance 14:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a fundamental difference between the constitutional challenges to racially-restrictive covenants and the constitutional challenges based on the notion that HOAs are undemocratic; they should be under separate headings, even if under the larger heading of "Constitutional Challenges". Ideally, I think that having the racial discrimination stuff ahead of all the undemocratic stuff is appropriate, given the history, and the order of the history, but that would break up the "constitutional challenges" section, as the "undemocratic" issue should lead off with the general criticism and then get into the various laws and court decisions addressing that issue. But I'm not going to mess with that right now, as there are other things which need fixing in this article. Argyriou (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You evidently do not understand the issue involved, and why it is necessary that Shelley v. Kraemer stay in the conlaw section, in the same section as the other cases that are now there. This is not just about racial discrimination, but about the very nature of state action and private governance. This section is not entitled "Undemocratic". They must remain separate sections,because they are separate issues. I am not sure how to integrate the conlaw question in the "Undemocratic" section, because I do not believe a defensible 14th equal protection claim re renters can be raised. But evidently, someone did, and there is a reference for it. That is a separate issue. Again, do not separate Shelley v. Kraemer into a separate section entitled "Racial discrimination." As it relates to HOAs, the issue is considerably broader than race discrimination. That is why I did not break it up into two sections in the first place. Jance 21:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the comment on 14th Amendment equal opportunity is gone from the "Undemocratic" section. The "undemocratic" section can rightfully stand on its own now. It follows from the conlaw section. Again, Shelley v. Kraemer stays in the Conlaw section. In my opinion, that is not negotiable, given its precedent value beyond the issue of race.Jance 21:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. In some ways, it's better your way, as the critique of HOAs as racially exclusive has much less force now than it did before 1968, and even though Shelley v Kramer was effectively overturned by the later decision (while the ban on racial discrimination was maintained by changed laws and a different understanding of state power and contracts), you're right in that it is an important part of the ConLaw history of HOAs.

Do you think that the "Double Taxation" section should either be moved to the bottom, above or below the "financial risk" section, or merged into it? Argyriou (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved "Double Taxation" section - you are absolutely right, it seems out of place where it is. It doesn't quite belong in the 'financial risk' section, but it should be in the same general area.05:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Shelly v. Kraemer was not overturned, but it surely was limited. I am glad you agree re the conlaw section. Your point re racial disc. is also good, and I did not think of that. Interestingly, there are now other ways HOAs (and condos) 'discriminate' through 'approvals' of who gets in and who doesn't. In fact, there have been successful challenges of some of those board 'approvals'. The whole idea of this gives me the creeps. But the overt discrimination is not what it once was. I am not sure about "Double Taxation". I will have to think about it for a bit, and I'm fried right now. I'm going to have a friday night and relax. Jance 23:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)