« AARP - The Right to Individual Autonomy | Main | It's Christmas and My Lawn Needs Cutting (and other wintertime thoughts) »
December 12, 2006
Interruption
Although I've only covered about half of the AARP Bill of Rights for Homeowners, I thought I would take a moment to explain a few things about my opinions on this article. If you've read the posts regarding it, you would obviously come to the conclusion that I am vehemently against it and can find very little redeeming value in their proposals. Not exactly true.
My basic issue is that it is about as fair and balanced as a Fox News report. It was designed to play to a specific audience. By using only those people who have a long and histrionic relationship with community associations as sources, it chose to promote their agenda with no discussion of the down side, added costs, bureaucracy, burdens on volunteers, etc. While I can agree with specific points, and the need to deal with those abuses that do occur ( and no one has yet to show me any evidence that abuses are the 'norm' and not the exception), their blind zeal to overturn the basis for the existence of community associations, does not put forth a workable solution.
But this is what it has come to. There seems to be no middle ground or even the opportunity to find one. The "industry" creates, manages, represents, advises and usually has a broader knowledge of associations than the advocates of the AARP proposal do. They, of course, look at issues differently, each with their own opinion of what it would take to make an association run well. However, they (or we) have become the "enemy" with which there can be no discussion, only diatribe. To disagree on a point, or points, is proof that one has gone over to the enemy and can no longer be abided. Too bad, because finding a middle ground will be the only way a workable solution can come into existence.
For the record, here are a few of my beliefs as they relate to community associations:
- a "one-size fits all" solution won't work. Many of the AARP proposals sound fine for a 1,000 home, profesionally managed HOA, but would be a disaster for the 10 home HOA.
- all states need a clear and concise set of laws governing community asociations, both condo and HOA/POA.
- once laws are in place, I think the state should provide a set of guidelines for the operation of the association. If a board follows these guidelines, they should be doing a least the minimum necessay to operate the association in a good manner.
- CAI is not the devil incarnate, they're a trade association that represents their membership, now mostly managers, attorneys, and other professionals. While there are a number of associations or individuals that are members, they are not the power. It should be noted that CAI has not claimed to represent homeowners for some time now.
- the power in legislatures rests with the combined lobbying force of the attorneys, realtors, mortgage bankers, insurance and developers. Any major legislation is going to have to deal with the fact that these groups have back-door access to the legislators. CAI is not that big yet, they still have to sit out at the table and testify, thats why they are such easy targets.
- disclosure is critical to the future of community associations. People need to know what they are buying into, and that information, with its impact on sales, will go a long way in forcing associations to clean up their act, if they aren't doing a good job. Any disclosure documents should include a simple checklist of what is allowed and what isn't.
- somewhere in this discussion, room must be made for personal responsibility. The fact that an an owner doesn't read the documents has somehow become the association's fault. It isn't and it shouldn't be. I think a separate document at closing, that says "I have read all of the documents and agree to abide by them" and signed by the purchasers, is just as important as any "right" others want.
- as for individual rights, to my knowledge, no association has ever taken away anyone's basic rights, but they have put controls on them, as the owner agreed to let them do when they purchased (either knowingly or unknowingly, see above). Anyone who wants to be patriotic can put a flag up in their home and feel good every day, but the issue was always about the pole outside. Anyone could wear a button, or put a decal on their car, to show their political feelings, the issue was about signs in the yard, again, location. And yes, people can agree or contract to give up some control over their rights. Anyone who has ever enlisted or been drafted into the US military knows that you can give up ALL of your rights. The question has always been where the line was drawn. And its never drawn in the right place if you don't agree with it. But that's what elected representatives are supposed to do, decide where the line is drawn.
- as long as there is no standard required for the creation of the critical documents, associations and owners are going to be burdened by badly written ones. Set a standard and enforce it.
- are boards elected to govern, or serve? Interesting question, with no simple answer. They have to govern, they should serve.
- as long as associations are made up of people, there are going to be problems, and legislation won't be able to fix all of them. Sometimes, its just the people.
- last, an exception is not the rule. I've dealt with, easily, over a thousand condos and HOA's, in my 30+ years of working with, and living in, community associations. Here are a few observations based on a broader sampling than the "advocates" draw on:
-- associations hate to foreclose on someone's home. It is a last resort.
-- nosey condo commandos were simply busybodies before they moved in. If you elect them to the board, you should know what to expect. If you don't like it, don't elect them.
-- a surprisingly large number of people move into a community association because they like things to be a certain way. Their desires need to be considered in this also.
-- most associations haven't figured out the critical importance of good communications, which results in most of the problems
-- the President is the key to whether an association has a good year or bad one. Look for someone who has been a good leader outside of the association.
-- almost every problem that makes the media starts off with the owner breaking a rule and then challenging it, not trying to change the rule first. It goes with the "blame others" that seems to be in fashion these days. You usually find a pretty stubborn board also, with the resultant 'head-bumping'.
Enough! I'll finish out the "Bill of Rights" pieces in the coming days, but basically I just needed to clarify some points. Yes, there needs to be better written laws governing community associations, but the AARP Bill of Rights isn't it. Its just one side.
Posted by joewest at December 12, 2006 10:19 AM