User talk:Johan Lont

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 Dates 3 Templates 4 Homeowners Association 5 Suzy Q

Welcome!

This is a bit late, I'm afraid, so you'll doubtless know all the above — still, better a late welcome than no welcome at all. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Your comments will be noticed much quicker if you place them on my talk page on the Dutch language Wikipedia. Johan Lont 09:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Those date formats work if they are properly linked. For example: 2007-04-02 is today's date but I wrote "2007-04-02" (yyyy-mm-dd) in brackets. What you saw appears to be misformatted. It's probably done either in reference templates to avoid a lot of typing or in the article to avoid a dating dispute (though in American topic articles it's clear what date format should be used). Hope this helps. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your remark. I'm affraid it does not help a lot. In your example, I just get to see 2007 (blue, underlined) - 04-02 (blue, underlined). What do you mean by "What you saw appears to be misformatted. ? Who misformatted it? The wiki-software or some editor?

For myself, I do not really care, but are you sure that others will not get to see the same as I do? Johan Lont 11:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you go to "my preferences" at the top of the page, and then click the "Date and Time" tab, you will see that you can change the settings to how the date and time are displayed when you are logged in. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip. I got the same tip on another page a few hours earlier. However, I generally prefer to keep the default formatting. In that way, I will be able to see what my edits look like to the ocasional user. Johan Lont 10:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed maintenance notices from Steven Soderbergh, even though required changes haven't been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you. Matthew 11:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I did something wrong. I do not see how the trivia template can be needed to establish community consensus about the status of the Steven Soderbergh article. Anyway, I thought, I just followed the suggestion done in the 'maintenance notice' itself. I explained my action on Template talk:Trivia#Reducing the trivia section. Johan Lont 12:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To alert everybody, the template is ugly.. yes, it's more likely with the template that somebody (even a reader) will integrate content or remove junk. Matthew 12:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your clear answer. Johan Lont 12:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homeowners Association

The introduction itself has historicaly been confusing, intentionly it seems. An HOA is a legal entity created by the developer designed to do many things. One purpose of the HOA is to allow the developer an exit from the development once his financial goals have been achieved. This article often states that an HOA is incorporated for the purpose of administering the CCR's, which is not the complete picture, and is therefore misleading. The individual homeowner is subordinate to not only the HOA but to the Developer, who profits from the homeowner. This is an onerous situation for the homeowner, and many editors of this article wish to keep this fact from the light of day.Mike Reardon 16:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. So, if I understand you well, a Homeowners' Association is not an association (where I define association as "an organization in which a group of people have associated themselves to one another.") That is interesting information, and worth mentioning in the article Homeowners' association.

You also gave a direct answer to my question "What is a homeowners' association?" You answer being:

"A homeowners' association is a legal entity."

That is something we can work with. Is it more like a foundation perhaps?

Anyway, your explanation raises a few other questions, such as, what do you mean by "subordinate". Catholic priests are subordinate to the Pope, soldiers are subordinate to a general, and employees are subordinate to their employer (and often to their department manager). In what way are homeowners subordinate to a developer?

• in a religious sense (the priest-pope model)?
• in a military sense (the soldier-general model)?
• in an employment contractual sense?

None of these seem likely. So, what is the legal basis of the homeowner being subordinate to the developer?

You probably mean that the homeowner has contractual obligations.

Now I hope you can explain (not here, but in the article text) in what way the Developer is (or can be) a party to the agreement between the homeowner and the homeowners' association. (Since you wrote that the individual homeowner is subordinate to the homeowners' association and subordinate to the developer).

I am guessing that you intend to state that homeowners' organizations and/or developers have more power over individual homeowner than is reasonable in a fair society. (The type of power that a firm with a monopoly has over its customers). However, it is difficult to determine in an objective way whether a level of power is reasonable or not.

You mention that the Developer profits from the Homeowner. That seems hardly worth mentioning. The Air line company profits from the traveler, the brewery profits from the drinker, and the owner of apple orchards profits from the people that like to bake apple pies. Okay, the developer profits from the homeowner. I say, so what? That is only interesting if the developer profits in an unfair way. And that can only be assumed if would-be homeowners have insufficient choice between multiple developers/housing developments.

You wrote that many editors wish to keep a particular fact from the light of day. However, I think that these editors consider these so called 'facts' to be 'opinions'. Johan Lont 17:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

By subordinate I mean that the association can legislate rules that homeowners must obey. They can then enforce these rules and punish homeowners for transgressions. This is fundementaly problematic. The California Law Revision Commision has examined this exact issue. The following is an excerpt from a retired judge, Egan Goff in a letter to the Commision that addresses this issue:

I. “NO MAN IS ALLOWED TO BE A JUDGE IN HIS OWN CAUSE.”

So said Madison in his famed #10 of The Federalist. This ancient rule is well–known to everyone, probably instinctively. See California statutes, especially CCP 170.1 and 170.3. This foundation of Justice is so universally understood that it rarely needs be stated in appellate opinions. But the U.S. Supreme Court once felt compelled to state it thus:

No one “...can be a judge in his own cause or be permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome.” In re Murchison (1955) 349 U.S. 133, 156.)

[Contrary: Vyshinski in his Law Of The Soviet State; “There is a firm and indissoluble bond uniting the judiciary and the Office of the State Prosecutor.”]

As Madison said in The Federalist (#47), placing all power, executive, legislative, and judicial in the hands of one person or one group of persons is the very definition of tyranny.

The standard homeowner ass’n CC&Rs place all three powers in one board of directors, almost always of less than ten persons. These directors make rules for their respective associations (CC&Rs), interpret and enforce them as they interpret each rule, then decide what penalties to impose on any homeowner they decide is guilty of a violation, then enforce the penalties they have imposed.

If the directors write a rule governing the association and decide to accuse any owner, do you truly think they will not interpret a rule, even a vague one, in a way consistent with the owner’s guilt? Or even to permit the owner to argue its vagueness? And if the directors decide the owner is guilty, who is to decide the issue of the penalty? The directors, of course. IS THIS BASIC JUSTICE? Clearly the directors are judges in their own punitive proceedings against any owner. This is exactly like having the State Prosecutor sit as judge at a criminal trial, Soviet style. Yet California courts appear to be heavily prone to enforce such decisions. END OF QUOTE

As far as the Developer profiting unfairly; you should check out the watchdog website ccfj.com. There are many instances of developers who remain in control of the association who use association dues for their own expenses unrelated to the association. There are many, many more examples of association board members who use association funds for their personal use. Law enforcement often will not prosecute, and homeowners are instead told to initiate civil action. Can you imagine going into your own pocket (often tens of thousands of dollars) to do this?

It is logical to assume that if the association is a creation of the developer, than the association may not represent the best interets of the homeowner. My intention in this article is that homeowners can discover this aspect of associations (supported by numerous sources) which may not be flattering to the association concept, but is valid nonetheless.Mike Reardon 19:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity (this question has no encyclopedic value, but might help the understanding of your point). What would be the ideal thing to happen next, in your opinion: That the Government (state or federal) ban and dissolve all homeowners' associations? Or that legislation is created to restrict the powers of the directors of homeowners' associations? Or that legislation is created to change the way officials of a HOA may be selected and appointed? Or that legislation is created to change the financial control of HOAs? Or that new methods are made possible by which homeowners can resolve disputes with HOAs in a more fair way? Or something else? What would be the first thing that should be done? Johan Lont 07:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought about how best to answer your question, and decided to send a copy of a communication to myself from Edward Hannaman that addresses this issue. Mr. Hannaman is a member of the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, and has had extensive contact with HOAs there:

"If anything things have gotten worse in New Jersey. Unless stopped by direct forceful State action, the attorneys and property managers quickly realize they can play into board members’ “power corrupts” mindset. Once the board-or even the Board president-decides that he/she is the ruler/dictator; the attorneys and property managers can really open up the money spigot. The problem lies in the difference between a true democracy with balancing players (two parties a free press and an independent judiciary) and what associations have (total concentration of all power and control of all resources in the board). Boards can even easily rig elections-and the only owner redress is court action that is very expensive. Try to get limits on board power- Make any significant decisions depend on a vote by owners; get guaranteed secret ballots, open fair elections-and by all means make sure you get owners’ rights to counsel fees for having to fight boards that ignore either general law or their own association governing documents. But to actually make sure it all works you need State enforcement by a State regulatory authority with only the people’s interests in mind. Here in NJ what passes for protection for owners is located in the entity that works with developers and builders. Naturally that agency sided with the lobbyists (most of whom are connected to builders/developers) opposing owner interests. So the agency gives me no support-it’s worse than having no enforcement because it gives the appearance that there is State protection and deludes people. I am not permitted to testify to legislators about owner concerns nor to speak to reporters. If this were with an independent State agency, the legislators and the press could hear first hand from a State official on the firing line about the problems. The poor owners in NJ have no Executive entity to support them against the powerful greedy lobby profiting off of the owners. Hope you can make sure that does not happen in MA."Good Luck

It is clear that there are significant problems in HOAs in the USA. It is equaly clear that a solution is possible, probably along the lines of Mr. Hannaman's suggestions. What has prevented a solution is the obstruction of legislative reform by a trade group comprised of venders to associations. This group, Community Associations Institute or CAI lobbies against ANY legislation that would limit the power of, require more disclosure of, or mandate financial controls upon association boards. These lack of controls is directly proportional to the billings of these vendors,estimated in the many billions of dollars, primarily to lawyers and property managers. I have personaly witnessed the CAI (a 501 (c) or lobbying corportation) obstructing elderly friendly legislation which I had come to testify in support of in Massachusetts. In the USA 501(c)lobbying organizations can buy influence with our law makers which is exactly what the CAI does on a national level.

It is frustrating when this article reads like a propaganda tool of the CAI and while I do not want to bias the article, I believe that a full explanation of the structure and purpose of an HOA should appear in the article.Mike Reardon 22:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suzy Q

There is no page on the 1999 dutch film called Suzy Q. Creamy3 (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I already received some more explanation from ArglebargleIV on Talk:Suzie Q (disambiguation). Johan Lont (talk) 10:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)