Real estate dictatorships threaten 'American Dream'

Last week, I reported on the convoluted and sometimes baffling war over the fate of the Westlake Subdivision Improvement Association, the homeowners association (HOA) for 6,500 homes in Daly City, Calif. At the heart of the struggle was U. Deutsch, an elderly German-born woman who has spent a good portion of the last 30 years working to dismantle an organization she considers fraudulent and unjust.

Although the facts were on her side, I couldn't help but wonder whether Deutsch – after carrying the torch for so long, engaging in countless lawsuits and spending thousands of dollars of her own money to rid her neighborhood of an intrusive HOA – had not become a little, well, too focused. This is the temptation with such stories about homeowners association wars: that one will interpret them as tales of personalities (be they high minded or mean spirited), of people who have a little too much time on their hands.

But Evan McKenzie, author of "Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Government," has heard too many such stories to reduce them to quaint battles between obsessed busybodies. As an attorney who spent six years representing HOAs in California, he had a privileged insider's view of a burgeoning and little-understood industry. And, as an associate professor of political science at the University of Illinois at Chicago, he was one of the first academics to grapple with how the rise of such governing organizations is reshaping our neighborhoods.

His scholarly book, which became the equivalent of "Silent Spring" for homeowners disgruntled with their HOAs, attracted a popular following. Since its publication in 1996, he's received scores of letters from homeowners driven to the brink. "You think, 'Wow, these people are eccentric,'" he said. "They get wrapped up in some petty struggle. It drives them nuts. But it's these issues that make people crazy."

Freedom of expression, the right to privacy, the right to keep the home you worked a lifetime to buy. In other words, the loss of that prize most of these people thought they had already achieved: the American Dream.

Now that property values have risen so much that many hardworking families can't afford a traditional domicile, they buy the closest approximation they can pay for: a condo, a townhouse or a "single-family home" in a new "planned development." If the complex has any shared property, such as landscaped grounds, a pool or even a small strip of trees, then it's by definition a common-interest development (CID).

Sometimes, these homes look no different from the homes down the street, but they exist in a different legal framework: Instead of being governed by local county or city laws enforced by government employees, they follow the laws of their "Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions," which are enforced by their HOAs. Thus, the association may write laws about the sort of flowers you can plant in your front lawn and whether you can remodel your house. According to McKenzie, the rise of HOA-governed CIDs is changing private-property rights, civil rights and the responsibilities of local government everywhere.

What's more ominous, now that more than 80 percent of new housing in the country is being built within CIDs, is the professional industries that have grown around them – complete with their own lobbying groups – eager to make sure government oversight remains at a minimum.

We in the San Francisco Bay Area like to think of ourselves as immune to the afflictions that trouble the rest of America, but McKenzie said that even here, the vast majority of new housing are CIDs. "Anywhere where land prices are high, there will be lots of CIDs," he said. The gated communities of Harbor Bay Island in Alameda, the live/work lofts of San Francisco, and the tract-home prairies of Tracy: All are common-interest developments.

To help me understand how homeowners associations have evolved, McKenzie offers a thumbnail history. "The original reason for all HOAs was to enforce race-restrictive covenants," he said, explaining that such organizations predate the invention of the CID, with its shared responsibility to maintain property. "But in the 1960s and '70s, as land prices were getting more expensive, developers started creating [CIDs] in order to create more density and therefore increase profitability."

In devising CIDs, developers managed to build more houses on less land – avoiding local density codes – through creation of "private communities" with their own roads and utilities infrastructure. "They build a shared infrastructure with common utility lines so the physical infrastructure is a lot cheaper," McKenzie said. "Then they build private streets, which are very narrow and not as deep, so they're cheaper streets. So they need a lot of repairs."

But who will take care of the infrastructure and the roads? Not the city, of course, because these are private communities. Instead, the HOA, run by volunteer homeowners with help from profession property managers and lawyers, must levy assessments from homeowners to pay for the cost of maintaining the property. With such an arrangement, developers get the best of both worlds: an escape from city planning ordinances that restrict their profits, and an entity that inherits the results of their cost cutting.

Sometimes, what looks like a developer's enlightened benevolence reveals itself to be egregious self-interest. Developers maximize useable land, then donate "open space" to the HOA to maintain, marketing it as one of the benefits to the community. Such open space can turn out to be more of a liability than an asset, however. In a famous case in Hillsborough, Calif., "parkland" turned out to be an unstable hillside, requiring expensive maintenance to prevent it from destroying homes. And McKenzie recalls one case in which the "open space" turned out to be, as he describes it, "almost a Superfund site."

With these conditions, why do Americans keep flocking to CIDs? In part, it's because if you want a new home, there is little else to choose from. But it's also because these developments offer a taste of the American Dream that's ideal for a fraction of the cost of a discrete single-family home. "Instead of everyone getting a big yard with a swimming pool, developers figured out how to do the same thing," McKenzie said. "They build amenity-rich developments with golf courses, swimming pools, game rooms – all exclusively for the homeowners."

These features, according to McKenzie, offer the promise of class and racial exclusivity without breaking antidiscriminatory fair-housing laws.

"They can still sell exclusion without being formally racially exclusive," he said. "It's become an important marketing feature for a very lucrative form of housing."

The problems in these private communities tend to erupt a few years down the line, though, after the developers have sold off the last of the houses and the HOA has taken over. Once the statute of limitations for suing the developer – usually one to three years – has expired, the association is on its own. Suddenly, roofs begin to leak, streets break down and the HOA realizes it needs to begin serious repairs.

"When the developers leave, the incoming association directors often find that they're 'underreserved'," McKenzie said. "The developers have almost always set the fees too low – they set them low to sell homes – so the HOA begins raising fees. And sometimes the assessments are huge – $600 a month."

At other times, an expense is so big and so urgent that the HOA must levy a "special assessment" to pay for a new roof or a rotting deck. "So the board votes for a special assessment of, say, $10,000 [per homeowner]. And if you can't pay, they'll slap a lien on your home. The HOA has a fiduciary duty to maintain the property."

Why would cities allow developers to circumvent planning ordinances and create communities that may not be up to the task of maintaining their own infrastructure?

"The cities get something for nothing," McKenzie said. "They still get the property taxes without building or maintaining the infrastructure, the pipes, the streets, the parks. Essentially, it's a form of double taxation." Although New Jersey recently passed a law compelling cities to provide homeowners in private communities with a snow-removal and leaf-removal rebate (since they don't use those city services), most states have been slow to enact legislation acknowledging the double-taxation issue.

In framing the dangers of CIDs, McKenzie is careful not to vilify HOA directors. "Most of them are salt-of-the-earth people. They do it because they know it needs to be done," he said. "But all you need is one or two power-hungry control freaks on a board to create a lot of problems." Such individuals can use a HOA for a number of ulterior reasons: monetary gains (by providing business to close associates and then receiving kickbacks), political power (using their position as a launching pad for positions in city politics) or personal vendettas (suddenly, you have a supposedly valid reason to spy on your neighbors.)

He said that, unlike with city governments, which ostensibly must follow democratic laws of governance, HOAs are woefully unregulated. Sometimes the boards simply vote themselves into perpetual power, since they can prevent opponents from voting or running for election by suggesting that the upstarts are not in good standing with the HOA. Or, as McKenzie put it, "These elections can make Broward County look like the epitome of fair voting."

Even meeting protocol is fraught with improprieties. "I've seen hilarious things," McKenzie said, such as "where the meeting minutes say that the director thanked so and so for his comments, but what actually happened was that the director said, 'Sit down and shut up.' They are banana republics."

Even when an HOA is well run and filled with great people, McKenzie said, "it's only one election away from a disaster."

Sometimes, living in one of these communities means losing certain free-speech rights. Some HOAs prohibit putting political signs in your window or flying the flag. Others curtail privacy rights with ordinances about improper behavior. One book of HOA horror stories tells of an elderly woman being fined for kissing her elderly boyfriend in the car outside her home.

Such petty disputes over flag flying and senior necking can turn serious if the transgression collides with a vindictive HOA member or, worse, an avaricious lawyer. It can even lead to people losing their homes.

According to McKenzie, there is now an entire cottage industry of lawyers and property managers who feed off such liens and fees, offering their services to the generally inexperienced HOAs. As an HOA lawyer, McKenzie watched the industry grow from a small group of specialists to big business. Over the years, he saw that HOA law seemed to attract two kinds of lawyers.

"The first are those that offer general counsel," he said. "They're really good lawyers. The HOAs need the service, and it's a good service.

However, McKenzie added, "The second type is the collections lawyers. They are brought in to collect unpaid assessments. They say to the HOA, 'I will represent you, and you don't have to pay me, just so long as I'm given a free hand in how I do my work.'"

These lawyers take a "collection-agency posture," he said, putting liens on property when homeowners are 10 days late paying an assessment. "Every letter has a price tag – and if the homeowners don't pay, you slap them with a lien." Although the assessment is perhaps for only a few hundred dollars, the lien may total $5,000 or $10,000 – and, in order to clear their title, the homeowners must pay not only the assessment but the lien as well. If they cannot do so, McKenzie said, they could lose their home through a form of foreclosure unmediated by the courts or any local government.

"These lawyers are so rapacious that it's just shocking," said McKenzie, adding that no laws govern their fees – they can basically charge whatever they want. "It's up to the homeowner to file an action with the court, and if you don't file a lawsuit, you are out of your house before you can say 'boo,'" he said.

The worst part about the whole process, said McKenzie, is that it's legal, a fully institutionalized practice: "The bar even offers workshops on the process."

California's state government is reviewing the laws governing CIDs, and McKenzie remains hopeful that states will begin legislating reforms, regulating such issues as how HOAs are governed and how much their lawyers can be paid. But, already, there is a powerful trade association, the Community Association Institute, which tends to resist laws that increase government oversight.

Government might also help prevent some of the limitations on civil rights with a simple declaration. McKenzie said, "We need a more general statement from the states saying that you have basic rights as a homeowner – a bill of rights for owners – that even if we have privatized our neighborhoods, we can't privatize our constitutional rights."

But, for now, many homeowners continue to buy new homes in CIDs without knowing hide nor hair about exactly what they are gaining and what they are losing.

"A lot of times, when people buy homes [with HOAs], they don't know what they are signing away," said McKenzie. "It's all justified by contract. You signed, so you consented to it. But people have not really meaningfully consented to be governed by HOAs. Most haven't read the covenants – they don't know what they mean."

Unfortunately I have no guarantee that there could be a vote in the future that could change them.

That's my point. You signed knowing that things can and most likely will change in the future.

The article mentioned the positive aspects of these assocations and the negatives, I guess you just have to weigh them and make a decision that you hope you can live with.

In the early 70s I bought a house fairly near an air port. The air port was there before I was but I did it anyway - BIG mistake.

HOA's are a quasi-governmental body. They literally provide the city services that cities won't provide for tax dollars you are already paying. They can be incredibly helpful in new communities to ensure that the place you bought your home stays the way it was when you bought and doesn't evolve into something that will help you lifestyle or ability to gain equity. But there are rules. And the real answer is, if you don't like the rules - don't buy a home with an association.

In cities like Las Vegas where about 94% of all new homes have associations, buyers will look specifically for certain neighborhoods with associations because they know they are getting amenities that are only offered there and they will get a neighborhood that will remain beautiful without riff-raff, fraternities, snowbirds or whatever else from taking over.

Being a very conservative person myself, I was dead set against another layer of government dictating my rights with my own property. But I have so say that I am a convert and I truly enjoy having the benefits of the pooling of hundreds and thousands of others who want similar lifestyles. And if my needs change, I'll look for a place with no HOA. I have clients who love them and some who don't. And they all have the choice so I show them homes that fit their lifestyle - HOA's just being a part of the lifestyle.

I read this with great interest because I reside in a townhome community. Everyone who buys into it, is informed of the rules. I have no problem with the rules, but I do question the changing board structure. We couldn't get anyone who wanted to serve on the board, principally because of the hassles with dealing with homeowners not paying their monthly dues.

So we're on our second management company. I wonder how long this one will last - they just sent everyone a letter this week expressing their displeasure at the verbal abuse the representatives received as they conducted a walk-through, inspecting everyone's outside property.

Apparently there are many feisty condo owners here who told the reps to go pound salt.

Our monthly dues are reasonable and cover snow removal, street lighting, maintenance of the common areas, and repaving of the roads every couple years. Residents are responsible for shoveling their own driveways in winter and mowing their own lawns. Our dues can only go up 5 percent a year, and there have been years where there have been no increases. All in all, I can live with it.

I would however be quite disturbed if the boro hit us with a huge fee, such as for sewer improvements, that forced us to pay several thousand dollars each. There was some talk of that a few years ago, but we got the boro to back down.

I don't understand how some associations could contract with private companies that would slap huge liens on your homes if you're ten days late. That certainly sounds like tyranny.

For my townhome association, the management company slaps a fine of $15 per month if you're late. They advised people in advance before they developed the system, and they advised us to institute automatic dues deduction from our checking accounts or set up a payment schedule via online banking, to prevent being late. If you're responsible, then you won't have a problem. The people that want to give them trouble, it just takes money out of our common funds to send certified letters, etc.

You always have people who refuse to maintain their driveways until they're falling apart, or their grass is a foot high in back. That's why you need rules and an association to enforce them. And for disputes with neighbors, that's where you take them.

"...they will get a neighborhood that will remain beautiful without riff-raff, fraternities, snowbirds or whatever else from taking over..."

Well HOAs are good for making things LOOK in conformance. Here in Northern VA, the HOA made us take down our silver UV reflective sun shades because the windows can only have white showing outward. They saved us 25% in elec bills.

Meanwhile more and more riff-raff is moving in every day. Screaming unsupervised children in the parking lot with no playground to go to. Cars broken into and stolen. A couch was left on the bike path. Shopping carts are now being left around the buildings.

Well at least no one has to be troubled looking at our silver windows.

This is a rental situation. These nearly 20-year-old condos are going for nearly $250K. That is because of the glut of gargantuan monstrosities that are being built here is creating a shortage of moderately priced housing.

If and when I will buy a house it will certainly not be a new one. It will be a well-built older SFD closer to the city in a well-established neighborhood with no HOA. The houses will not look all alike.

I will cruise the neighborhood on a sunny weekend and look at the cars parked on the street, the people who live there and the upkeep of the homes. That is much better than delegating authority to those with too much time on their hands.

The newer homes that comprise the suburban sprawl here in Metro DC are hideous, the people are unpleasant and the traffic is horrendous.

Some people are running away from the city and bringing the problems with them. I intend to run back -- not to the inner city, but to the original suburbs that were constructed when DC was still a nice place to live.

And they all have the choice so I show them homes that fit their lifestyle - HOA's just being a part of the lifestyle.

The article seemed to say that these houses, townhomes, etc. are less expensive than houses outside the association. Is this true typically? When my husband and I were buying, these places were pricier.

True, but many citys insist newly constructed homes be subject to Homeowners Associations. No HOA, no building permit.

I'm afraid to ask why?

Because it shifts the burden of code enforcement from the city to the HOA and because it increases home values and therefore property taxes.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.