You should not lose a $300,000 house or be denied your right to work at the whim of a HOA board.
Texas is one of the fastest growing states in the nation. All around the major cities there are new housing developments whose builders eventually finish their work and leave behind a covenant which property owners sign on to which usually includes membership in a Homeowners Association, which charges some sort of small membership fee for certain basic services which it provides. Residents can vote on the board of the association and it has the power to make and enforce the provisions of the covenant and any additional rules which it passes for its members.…
Article comments
26 - Irene Wagner
It's a reality in which I'm a racist if I dry my laundry on a clothesline, Clavos.
This is all very deja vu. I haven't seen A-Goy-Named-Sue for awhile.
27 - Ruvy
The few Texans I know have taught me that Texas is a state of corruption worse than Israel. That's saying a lot.
28 - Dr Dreadful
Dave's article highlights the obvious - that homeowners' associations are lower than toe fungus - but does raise interesting questions as to exactly how they get away with their nonsense. For example, the rule targeting Clements would be either ex post facto or a bill of attainder (possibly both), were it an actual law. Capt. Clauer's tale of woe is an even more egregious constitutional violation.
Unfortunately, since HOAs are private organizations, not governments, they're exempt from all that.
On an interesting side note, a commenter on Dave's linked news piece on the Clements story got censored when he tried to include the word 'shipping' in his comment. Not the whole word was censored, mind you. Just the first three letters.
And we think Akismet is overzealous...
29 - roger nowosielski
Re your penultimate paragraph, Dreadful, how did you manage to discerned that? Are you referring to Dave's first-mentioned link?
30 - Dr Dreadful
Yes.
31 - Les Slater
Yes, Dave, agree. It does though show, even to you, the dual edge of property rights and private contract law.
32 - RichFlocker
re: "...new housing developments whose builders eventually finish their work and leave behind a covenant which property owners sign on to..."
Not everyone "signs on" or are even given a copy before closing. More accurately, the developers create these "covenants" and the "governing documents" for the developer's own benefit. This contaminates the land with a form of government that is not founded by/on the authority of the people (consumers) for their benefit. HOAs are conceived by the developer to control people with absolute power and typically partners with an HOA management company during the construction phase. Over several years, the consumers are screened and they appoint "homeowner board members" (rarely is there a valid "election" that would pass the state election codes) who are then brainwashed by these CAI-trained "managers" in to treat their neighbors and keep them under control. They treat people like prisoners in a Nazi Stalag, and utter the magic spell "you agreed to this when you bought your home" when they blacklist "dissidents" who object to these Gestapo tactics and unfair treatments (including denying any dissidents the right to run for a position on the board). After a well-chosen board is in place, the developer then "turns the neighborhood over to the homeowners" and this absolute power falls into the hands of as few as three individuals and the HOA manager+lawfirm that coaches these board members on maintaining the status quo. This circle of tyranny stays in power by carefully selecting their replacements and by controlling the "balloting process" thru processes written by the developer (such as by "nominating committees" made up of the incumbents and the HOA lawyer). HOAs are seldom controlled by more than 10 or 15% of the members- they use "proxies" to conduct business at "annual meetings" (often with no valid quorum). Many dissidents are denied the right to participate and disenfranchised to the process. "Community Associations Institute" members wrote Title 11 of the TX property code and they write most of the "deed restrictions" for the big developers who only build subdivisions infected with these regimes. The TX legislature needs to re-write Title 11 and eliminate the "automatic renewals" these conspirators wrote into the law and into the deed restrictions. Read the law, prop code 201 alludes to a democratic process requiring 75% of the owners to create or renew a HOA's charter.
The Solution ot this out-of-control nuisance that's spreading like a plague: TX Legislature needs to revise 201 to apply to all "Mandatory contracts" - cause them all to dissolve after 10 years (Dec 31, 2011 = D-DAY) and only renew these governing powers if 75% of the owners agree to renewal of the regime via this process found in the genesis chapter of HOA law. Then repeat every 10 years. The law alludes to this, but is worded so that it does not apply to any of them! It's an illusion, a deception by the CAI on purpose when they wrote the law. Voluntary HOAs are a blessing, but these Mandatory HOAs have become public enemy #1...the law needs to be revised to kill 'em all and let the people choose to reincarnate this Fascist form of government only if 75% approve. What is the will of the people? ASK THE QUESTION: Do you want to live under this Mandatory HOA government? (YES or NO).
HOAs are tyranny by a slim minority, not tyranny by the majority, put it to a vote and we'll see the truth come out...all of them should be converted to voluntary status with no right to demand money or appear as a person before the law unless they earn that right with a 75% approval rating. They wrote the law, they enforce the law and mandatory HOA is the very definition of tyranny.
33 - Dave Nalle
So tell me, Dave - how can one support the CRA at all if one believes that private businesses have a right to discriminate against others based on race, creed, color, et cetera? Does that or does that not violate the spirit of the entire Act?
Glenn, libertarians have been answering this question for YEARS and it's a sign of Paul's inexperience that he was not ready with a reasonable answer right away.
The nutshell answer is that like any legislation you support the whole bill even if there are provisions of it which you don't necessarily agree with. In this case, Paul opposes discrimination in any form, but he also opposes the government telling people how to run their businesses. On balance the good the act does outweighs that shortcoming, so he would support the bill.
And this was not an isolated answer. In an interview with the Lexington (KY) Courier last month, he said, "I think it's a bad business to ever exclude anyone from your restaurant. But at the same time, I do believe in private ownership."
Glenn if a soul food restaurant refused to serve white people would this be something you would support legislation to prevent?
Of course, Dave, of course Rand Paul's no racist! Not a racist bone in his body!
Sorry Glenn, this is just not about race no matter how much you want to make it be. This is a part of libertarian and Libertarian Party dogma going back almost 40 years, and there is no way you can argue that the Libertarian Party is racist.
By the way - did you know about his first campaign spokesman Chris Hightower? You know, the one that resigned twelve hours after he made this MySpace entry that proclaimed "Happy Ni**er Day!", complete with a picture of a lynched black man hanging from a tree?
So hiring a racist makes you a racist now? Apparently guilt by association is one of the techniques in your witch hunt.
Of course, that was Paul's spokesman, and not Paul himself. Why should we ever think that Paul knew about his campaign spokesman's racial views? Besides, I'm sure that the freshman politician Paul never even knew Mr. Hightower until a few days before before he hired him, right?
No idea. I can probably find out how far back their relationship goes if you really want to know.
It's entirely possible that Rand Paul is a virulent racist. His dad is a Bircher, after all. But this particular incident and the statement he made provides zero actual evidence of his racial views. It's just not about race at all.
Dave
34 - roger nowosielski
Buy isn't the case, Dave, that ideology, any ideology, when taken to extreme is just that - ideology. And that whatever the consequences, they're discarded because, by the nature of the beast, they're not intended, only an after-effect.
So the point is, shouldn't we be concerned with the result?
35 - Trip
Can we be forced to join a HOA? We built our lake house over 30 years ago.
36 - Cindy
Trip,
Who owns the lake(bed)? That is the question, I think. My home has optional membership, for example. It goes with optional use of the lake that borders my property. If we don't pay, we are asked to remove any property we have on the lake (like a dock, etc) and not use it.
Hope that helps.
37 - anonymous
Hi,
Fort worth, Texas has meadowcreek south HOA. Their amendments are not approved by 2/3 majority of the home owners. Their associate- home management does not approve what the home owners need, if the home owner request approval to install anything in the homes. Please share your experience with the meadowcreeksouth HOA.
38 - Dr. Freedom
Hi Trip,
You can not be forced to join HOA. Everyone in USA has freedom. Every home owner has the right to choose whether to join or not to join in HOA. This should be a legitimate meaning of freedom.