By Greg Kamin
Author’s Note: The following story is true, and may be very relevant to you, depending on where you live. Only the names of the individuals and businesses involved have been changed -to protect the guilty. The names are not important. The principles are.
October 18, 2010
It’s been four days now since my settlement, and no one has firebombed my home yet. I don’t expect them to, because it would hurt their precious property values, so I think I’ll be OK in that regard. But let me back up and start from the beginning…
I love this city. I love it for many reasons, not the least of which is that people participate in civic life to a degree to which you don’t find in many large cities. And yes, it’s a progressive city, like I am. But it’s not even about that. At some level, it’s less important which candidates or ballot initiatives you support, than the sheer fact that you take the time to become informed about the political process, and express yourself as a participant. And we do. We protest, we fill up City Hall during Board of Supervisors meetings, we have mountains of political mail coming from more political clubs than the rest of California combined, we volunteer for campaigns, and everybody and their mother seems to have a campaign sign in their window around election time telling their neighbors how they think they should vote.
I’m no exception. So this year, I did what I have always done in every election since I moved to San Francisco. In late September I put up a couple of campaign signs in my windows -one for Michael Nava for Judge, and one for No on Sit/Lie (Prop L), two races which may be close and probably can use the attention. I admit I did it with a little bit of trepidation, because what is unusual in this condo complex where I moved to last year (as a tenant), is that unlike the rest of the city, no one here seems to do that. I’ve often wondered what kinds of people live in these squeaky clean condo complexes behind the locked gates and the bland walls where every unit looks the same. Do they care about the larger community in which they live? Or do they just drive their BMWs into their garages, lock the gates behind them, and watch TV, doing their best to lock themselves away in their own sheltered little enclave? Whatever, I thought. This is still San Francisco, and I’m going to go on participating in the exact same way I always have.
Well, I soon found out exactly why no one puts up campaign signs here. It’s not that people are all that different here in this complex, which I’ll hereby call “Ourtopia” (not to be confused with U-topia). According to past voting patterns of my precinct, my neighbors are actually pretty decent folks right about in line with the rest of the city. It’s just that they don’t live in San Francisco. See, I was apparently mistaken about where I moved to. In fact, as I found out, apparently I no longer live in the Richmond district of San Francisco, or California, or the United States of America for that matter. Oh no. I live under one of the myriad of quasi-autonomous entities governed by little authoritarian juntas known as HOAs (Home Owners Associations). And these HOAs make up all sorts of strange little laws for subjects living under their rule, like the grandmother who got fined for kissing her date goodnight. In my case, I soon found out that according to the Ourtopia Homeowners Association, the First Amendment does not apply within its hallowed grounds. And within 24 hours, I received an obnoxious, all-caps letter from the property manager, whom I will call Rueda Stickler, saying that “THE SIGNS YOU HAVE POSTED IN YOUR WINDOWS ARE A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION. PLEASE REMOVE THE SIGNS IMMEDIATELY… WE APPRECIATE YOUR COOPERATION IN THIS MATTER AND HOPE WE WILL NOT NEED TO FOLLOW UP REGARDING THIS INCIDENT IN THE FUTURE.”
My reaction was the same as that of any ordinary human being under such circumstances -“What the…??? Can they do that?” So I did some research, and the answer is… it depends on the state where you live. The Supreme Court has actually ruled that some of these laws are legal because you’re supposedly entering into a private, voluntary contract. Which is capitalist BULL**** as far as I’m concerned. But in some states… like California, there is a law designed specifically to protect residents’ rights to freedom of expression -section 1353.6 to be specific, which states:
The governing documents, including the operating rules, may not prohibit posting or displaying of noncommercial signs, posters, flags, or banners on or in an owner’s separate interest, except as required for the protection of public health or safety or if the posting or display would violate a local, state, or federal law.
Translated into English: Hell No they can’t do that! So I took the signs down out of consideration for my landlady, who said she was neutral on the sign issue but didn’t want to get the threatened $2000 per day fine (yikes!), but I also called Ms. Stickler to tell her that she really can’t tell me not to do this, per CA 1353.6. “So you’re going to fight this?” came the annoyed, incredulous response on the other end. I guess she never met anyone who cares about some little old thing like constitutional rights? Um… yeah I’m going to fight it.
And that’s when things got interesting. The 40-page book of “Rules” for the association technically have an exception for the law of the land, but also reference a whole other set of “rules” called CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions), which I as a tenant apparently don’t have access to. I followed up with an email to Ms. Stickler asking her which rule I violated, and got back only obstinance and hostility in return. She refused to tell me the rule I violated, but did offer by way of explanation, “Do you know what this complex would look like if we allowed political signs?” Well… it would look like the people who live here are involved in civic life! But this whole thing about violating some “rule” that I can’t see, which if it existed would be in complete contravention to the law… it was all beginning to sound like something out of Kafka. So that’s when I called the local ACLU.
Meanwhile, still hoping to resolve the Kafka-esque nightmare on my own, I figured sometimes it’s better to go over the heads of the hired guns and have a dialogue with the HOA (Homeowner’s Association) board itself. Sometimes those guys are petty little fascists, but sometimes they can be reasonable. So I called up one of the Board members, Herb Flowerbed. Herb’s a nice enough fellow. A little bit of a stick up his rear end, but otherwise alright. But on this issue, though, the conversation proved surreal. Herb explained that the Association had always tried to be “apolitical,” completely missing the irony that banning political speech was itself a political statement. He told me that if I wanted to elect this guy [Nava] then I should take an ad out in the paper, or contribute some money. Actually, I did. But of course that’s not the point! And “If you put up a sign for Nava, then why can’t I put up a sign for Osama Bin Laden?” Well, gosh Herb… I didn’t figure you to be an Islamic fundamentalist, but far be it for me to tell you who to support. The underlying issue, of course, was Herb’s idea of aesthetics (campaign signs look like “junk” to Mr. Flowerbed) and property values. Ah yes, money trumps everything. Personally, I would argue that property values are actually depressed by disallowing signs. A lot of people like to post campaign signs in San Francisco, and stifling their free speech rights is a surefire way to limit the marketability of your condos to that huge block of potential buyers. But I didn’t want to belabor the point, because frankly it’s academic. The real issue is that I have a fundamental right to freedom of expression under the law. When I explained the law to Mr. Flowerbed, he told me, “Maybe our association doesn’t recognize that law.” I love that part. It’s as if the Ourtopia condo complex is not a part of San Francisco, California, but rather an independent fiefdom with the ability to choose which articles of the California constitution to “recognize,” and confer or deny privileges upon its subjects as they deem fit.
But the part that really got my goat was the insistence, throughout the whole chain of conversations with both Mr. Flowerbed and Ms. Stickler, that I didn’t even have a right to appeal anything to them, because I am a tenant and not an owner. The argument being that I don’t have the same stake as they do, even though this is my home and there is one set of rules that govern everyone. Now if you really want to piss me off, just try and tell me that I’m not entitled to the same rights to freedom of speech as you are, because you’re a wealthy landowner, and I am not. If that’s the way it’s going to be, then I’ll see you guys in court.
Well, as luck would have it, one of the attorneys working on my case had a hand in writing the law itself, so this was something they knew a thing or two about. Fundamentally, it’s not a tough case. The law is crystal clear that the condo association can’t do this. We thought that a letter would be enough. They ignored it. So we sent them another letter telling them that we’re going to court. At that point, the president of “Guarded Moat Property Management Company,” “Mr. Wiley Fox,” Ms. Stickler’s boss, stepped in and offered a “settlement.” One sign, 8 1/2″ by 11″. I said, “This is a joke, right?” Maybe they thought I was joking when I told them that I was going to fight for my constitutional rights.
I wasn’t. The hearing was scheduled for Friday morning. On Thursday afternoon, Mr. Wiley Fox, realizing that the proverbial feces would indeed hit the proverbial fan, finally relented on the campaign signs, and they promptly went back into the window.
It’s almost a pity from my perspective. I’m not a confrontational guy, but when this couldn’t be solved with a simple conversation, it became more than about me and my right to put up campaign signs. There are literally of hundreds of thousands of Californians who live under these little regimes, and almost none of them know their rights. To illustrate the point, the volunteer at the ACLU who I first talked to, told me that she lives in a condo complex too, and they told her the same thing -signs are banned, and their rules supersede the law. And she believed them! This is a profound illustration of a principle of human psychology, that when someone presents themselves as an authority figure, that person is automatically granted a certain level of deference and trust, even when the things coming out of their mouth are patently ridiculous! Such as “condo rules supersede California law.” The HOA of Ourtopia and Guarded Moat Property Management should consider themselves lucky it didn’t actually go to trial. They would have lost, badly, and the case would have received media attention informing people far and wide that they do have rights within these condo associations.
I followed up with Mr. Flowerbed after the settlement. I wrote him an email expressing my satisfaction that reason had finally prevailed, albeit at the 11th hour, and also borrowed the language of Ms. Stickler: “We appreciate your cooperation in this matter and hope we will not need to follow up regarding this incident in the future.” I left out the all-caps. I did, however, ask for an apology. Thought they’d appreciate that.
The next day, I got a letter back from one “Demi Draco” who identified herself as the president of Ourtopia HOA. Naturally no apology was forthcoming. Instead, I was treated to a lovely rant about how I’m a tenant and thus don’t have the same rights as they, the landowners. This was followed by a tangential rant about how hard the owners work to make the place look clean and keep out the scruffy people in the neighborhood, how bikers always get flat tires from broken bottles, how they have to constantly clean up urine and feces, how they always have to call the police, how everyone gets panhandled walking around the neighborhood, and so on. I guess she’s in favor of Sit/Lie then…
I turned and asked my wife, “Have you ever been panhandled in this neighborhood?” She said, “No.” Funny, we both walk in this neighborhood too, even though we’re not of the Privileged Class of Landowners. And neither she nor I have ever been panhandled in this neighborhood. Not that we’d freak out if we were. We just haven’t been. Not even once. And yet to some people, it happens all the time. Funny how that is. Nor have I ever gotten a flat tire from a broken bottle. And 99% of the feces out there is dog feces, mostly from the dogs of the Privileged Class of Landowners. That’s because some of the dogs being walked, are owned by, well… pigs. But they don’t see it that way. When a privileged member of the landowning class leaves their dog feces lying around and then takes shelter behind the gates of their condo building, that’s just fine. But when a scruffy person sits around chatting and maybe having a beer… well now, we need to call the police so they can be arrested.
Yes, I can imagine that to someone like that, my “No on Sit/Lie” sign is pretty offensive. But you know what? If the only speech we’re allowed to have is non-offensive speech, then there’s really no point to free speech at all. Might as well live in an authoritarian dictatorship. Just go to work, watch the TV, live quietly and don’t discuss politics, and you’ll be fine.
But I can’t live that way. I guess I just don’t understand the way some folks think. There are people who honestly believe that their sense of aesthetics and ideas on property values trump our fundamental human rights? I don’t think I’ll ever understand that. But these people are out there. And that’s why I wrote this piece. I hope other people pick up on this all over San Francisco, all over California, all over America. And I hope they challenge them… again, and again, and again. Until everyone knows that they have rights. Because as the ACLU folks are fond of saying, “Like muscles, rights atrophy unless they’re exercised.” Because what good are rights if they’re only on paper? What good is a law if it’s going to be ignored?
But if you use the rights you have under the law, the law is there to protect you. And if any of these little dictatorships try to tell you otherwise, I know a couple of good attorneys who would love to clean their clocks in court.?
The Hunger Site
October 29, 2010 at 9:57 am
Thanks for the comment, jrc.
First, I do think I made some people happy. You can read above how many people are unhappy with their condo associations, and the fact that a few more people will know their rights now will make them happier. Hopefully the knowledge will spread and that will make even more people happier.
But I also think it isn’t really about happiness. There are some rights that no majority should be able to take away, even if it makes that majority unhappy.
And on an issue like this, there really is no compromise possible. Either you allow someone their freedom of expression rights, or you deny it. There really was no middle ground.
October 29, 2010 at 2:09 am
Good job. You won, and they lost.
But did you make anybody happy besides yourself in the process? Ultimately we have to live with each other on the same planet and get along, person to person. To me reading this, it felt like both sides were being a bit unreasonable and uncompromisingly digging in their heels. This is no way to live as neighbors, as humans. The great challenges of our century will come down to this, not abstract principles of right or rights.
October 23, 2010 at 7:23 pm
In most states, free speech is not a constitutionally protected right within HOAs. As hard as that is to believe, it is true and is best illustrated by the 2005 case COMMITTEE FOR A BETTER TWIN RIVERS v. TWIN RIVERS HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOC in New Jersey. The Community Associations Institute (CAI), a lobbying and trade organization that primarily represents the interests of property managers and attorneys, represented the HOA. They argued against the constitutional rights of free speech because such rights would:
“…alter the very nature of planned developments, create chaos, erode private property rights, limit the freedom to contract, discourage new development, cause associations to lose their flexibility, and infringe the rights of the majority.” (See: http://www.caionline.org/govt/news/Pages/NewJerseyAppellateCourtHandsDownSignificantConstitutionalRuling206.aspx)
Good grief! It would be the end of the world as we know it if the CAI can be believed, which they can’t. Unfortunately, the NJ Supreme Court sided with the CAI, leaving Twin Rivers residents without the rights to put out campaign signs, among other things. When it comes to HOAs, contract and property rights trump state constitutions.
The CAIs Legal Action Committees (LACs) lobby in all 50 states to oppress the rights of residents. The only winners are fascist Boards, property managers and attorneys. Sounds like Greg ran into all three, which he accurately described. The only thing that saved him was that one little clause in CA law, slid in by legislators under protest from the CAI.
Is the use of HTML allowed here?
October 22, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Bravo for standing up for yourself, Greg, and for all the residents of your condo complex. I was almost sad to hear that this didn’t go to court, though. It would have sent a message to these HOA that the tenants do have rights.
October 22, 2010 at 8:00 am
No, there are no rules concerning that to my knowledge, and if there were, one unit would need to go to court to sue which is not going to happen. There are two coalitions, do nothing or do something, and that lack of effectiveness of political calculation like you’d see in a more formal HOA really tamps down the contention.
-marc
October 21, 2010 at 4:42 pm
@Marc:
So if you don’t agree on the same candidates or ballot measures, then no one puts up a house sign?
October 21, 2010 at 1:17 pm
I’m so glad that our two unit building operates by consensus, either we all buy into a decision or it doesn’t happen.
-marc
October 19, 2010 at 11:41 pm
Terrific,
You certainly did hit a nerve. To reply to a couple of suggestions and questions.
Annie, yes they do assume that any visitor we have on pay day is either a drug dealer or a whore. Daly did help us early in his career but for the last couple of years he’s turned a deaf ear to further SRO reform. I went to him when I got chemical pneumonia last year from the poisons in the air when they made my place (CCR) into a construction site for 2 years so far. 6 people in the building died of respiratory failure. I went to Daly and all they did was post signs around the halls warning us that the air was poison. They said that’s all they had to do legally. Oh yeah, they passed out little paper masks.
HOA’s are bad news when it comes to inclusionary housing too. They often squeeze out the BMR (‘below market rate’) neighbors by voting for unneeded and expensive upgrades whose costs are split and which poorer tenants cannot afford.
Greg, please put a revision of the SRO Bill of Rights on your ballot measure too.
Go Giants!
h.
October 19, 2010 at 9:53 pm
What I really love about this, is how it seems to unite freedom-loving people from all political stripes.
I’ve cross-posted this elsewhere, and I’ve gotten kudos from landlords, tenants, tea-partiers, dyed-in-the-wool progressives, and everyone in between.
I guess this is America, and no one likes a bunch of busybodies telling people how to live their lives.
So how did it get this bad, and what will it take to overthrow their little tin-pot dictatorships? A ballot initiative? How many people would vote for a comprehensive Condo Association Residents’ Bill of Rights if it were on the ballot? 60%? 70%?
Maybe we could start here in San Francisco?
October 19, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Hey, thanks for all the great comments. I seem to have struck a chord, but that’s why I wrote the piece!
I’ll try to write a few responses.
@h:
To someone who lives in an SRO, the trials and tribulations of condo dwellers may sound like pie-in-the-sky ditherings. Much like battles of progressives vs. moderates over parking and public power sound to a Bangladeshi farmer after a tsunami. Believe it or not though, I have indeed tried SRO life. I do know what it’s like to be poor and live in one of those places. And you’re right. It absolutely SUCKS. They treat you like you’re subhuman, like you’re not only not entitled to your rights, but like you’re not even *capable* of making decisions for yourself. If I were you, my first question would be, “Can they do that?” Go over the laws carefully, see if there’s anything you can sue them on. If it turns out that they’re doing something egregious but perfectly legal, then that may require a legislative fix at the BOS. Chris Daly has done some of that on behalf of SRO residents, but certainly more can be done.
Let’s put it this way… had the owner/tenant distinction somehow come into play and tripped me up, I would not have stopped there. My next phonecall would have been to my supervisor’s office (Eric Mar) to see what could be done to give tenants equal rights in these HOAs, at least within the city of San Francisco.
I’d also call the Tenants Union to see what could be done legally. I’ve used their services in the past, and I’m sure you know what a fantastic help they can be. We’re very fortunate that we have these resources, as well as legislators in this city who are at least willing to listen to renters and poor people, and not just BOMA and the big landlords. It’s still a struggle, but at least we have a fighting chance here.
@Chris:
Are those things really civil liberties issues, or are they really city planning issues? If it rises to the level of fundamental human rights, it has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with you. You can put up a sign for the Tea Party for all I care. I don’t agree with it, but that’s your constitutional right. On the other hand, do you really have a constitutional right to a Starbucks?
@Ann:
Thanks for the props. Maybe KPFA should find a way to do a story on this.
@Patty:
Actually, the association where I live takes the exact SAME position as your association regarding renters. They didn’t give me those rights. I ASSERTED them (with the help of the ACLU). They wanted me to go through my landlord and ask the board if they could change the rules, but pretty much told me at the same time that I wouldn’t get anywhere. See what I mean by Kafka-esque? Like I said, my landlord told me she was neutral as to my signs, but didn’t want to get involved in a fight with the board.
Here’s the thing though: They don’t have the legal RIGHT to tell me or anyone else to take down my non-commercial signs. This is not something that I should have to ASK for, through my landlord or through anyone else. This is a right that I ALREADY have under the law and the constitution, and I claimed that right and was willing to go all the way to defend it.
And they’re well aware that I had those rights. They just needed me to demonstrate that I was deadly serious about asserting them.
Your case may not be quite as clear cut… or it may be. See if someone is willing to file suit without charging too much money. Why not try again and elect an alternative slate to the board? The ballots are secret, right? Organize! Yes, it’s easier said than done, but there’s usually a way. Never underestimate what a few committed individuals can accomplish.
@craftluv
Thanks for the post! And I’d love for my article to be posted that way. That’s why I wrote it. I want it to be empowering. I want it to start a spark. i want it to inspire activism. I want people to use this to break through this cycle of learned helplessness.
Sounds like you’ve already started down that path. Congratulations! When researching my own issue, I did come across other aspects of HOA law. I didn’t pay too much attention, because it wasn’t directly applicable to my case, but there are laws in California that limit the secrecy of financial transactions of HOAs and guarantee some accountability for the owners. There are also laws that limit fines and establish rules of due process for setting those fines.
There aren’t nearly enough laws to reign in these little juntas. And the ones that are, are not always followed, as you well know. But threats of lawsuits can have a profound effect at making wisdom prevail. And yes, the other line of attack is legislative, especially if you have a relationship with the legislators (not too hard to build -just help out with their campaigns). But it sounds like you’re on the right track. Good luck!
October 19, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Doubt anyone will do anything about the HOA dysfunction too many lawyers and property management companies have their hands in the HOA DUES! If money is to be made there is no stopping it.
I have not read anything about annual reports or asking for an HOA to provide access to the books. I have, again I received a letter from the HOA attorney. In writing the guy denied me access. Another Civil code violation.
October 19, 2010 at 8:57 pm
This is merely a symptom of the disease. The root of the problem is manifested in the California Department of Real Estate, Regulations of the Real Estate Commissioner, Title 10 of the California Code of Regulations. That is the creator of the fiefdom in California.
HOA’s are mandated in this subdivision law. But low and behold, once the property is developed, this “creation” is not under the jurisdiction of its creator. The HOA morphs into its own creature and although deep within the fine-print of the Davis-Sterling Act, it reads that the HOA’s cannot usurp the law – they are such an intently complex and confusing entity that no normal individual has the time, desire or funds to make things right.
Legislators try. But there are Trade Associations who lobby relentlessly in order to protect their lifelihood and keep these fiefdom’s strong. Its sickening.
I’ve been sued by an HOA where I own an income property. I was sued because although I purchased this property through a IRC1031 exchange, obtained a non-owner-occupied loan and by all IRS and Mortgage obligations am required to rent it out – the HOA didn’t like renters and sued me. They wouldn’t even mediate or much less hold a civilized conversation with me prior to filing suit.
I “won” but it cost $80,000. that I could have spend on other things. My attorney didn’t motion for attorney’s fees because of the HOA threat to appeal and tie us up longer – costing me even more.
Thank you for your article and making people aware of this nonsense. Logically, the best way to end the nonsense would be to change subdivision law.
October 19, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Homeowner associations will continue to break the law until laws are written in such a way as to dissuade such behavior.
October 19, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Well, yes indeedy! I live in an HOA also, and it seems to me with the petty tyrants who run them that you leave your Constitutional rights at the entrance when you move here and in most HOA”s. They, people who are only your neighbors, not kings to be respected for their divine appointments, just make up the rules as they go along; and if you butt heads with them in disagreement, trump up some way to fine you or to degrade you publicly at meetings to make your life here/elsewhere in an HOA like living in the devil’s underground habitat. Of course, where I live there are many Seniors, and most are afraid to BUTT heads with the powers that be, so tyranny is allowed to reign. Gee, who can afford an attorney for a half a million dollar lawsuit? Some of us have gotten one who is doing work pro bono (meaning at no cost) and is very Senior friendly. Here there is no accountability for the monumental amounts of money spent, no free speech, illegal passage of governing documents, probably illegal elections, and nobody in the State of CA including the Attorney General convenes any kind of Grand Jury investigation when there are transgressions or investigations as to conduct as would be done in a municipality. Nobody monitors and the boards are responsible to no one. It’s purely un-American to live in an HOA, CA law as written and rules do not apply in it’s confines as practised. And arrogant? Wow, our board is arrogant as heck, as no one has challenged them legally in 22 years, as fear and lack of finances prevented it … about time. We are not popular for suing, as all residents are being told that this suit comes out of their money when an insurance company is defending the board. However, like you, Greg, I figure as an American I’m guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and I ‘aint gettin’ it here, despite a nice swimming pool. Heck, let us all petition the Governor to eliminate HOA’s entirely. They’re are a social experiment that has failed to my way of thinking> Why have public officials, the legislature and Governor of CA deserted us this way? Seems lobbyists rule. Seems we all need to stand up: everyone in HOA’s who live in pain and frustration write Gov. Scwartzenegger, Senators, Representatives, Congress persons and whomever we can think of and pester them to death until something is done about this lack of supervision and loss of basic rights. We need a revolution! HOA’s are a mockery of both law and American values and freedoms. I didn’t sign on to live in a repressive regime when I moved here, as an owner, and sure don’t think mine and others shoulc continue. Thanks for your article, Greg, I’m going to post it on the bulletin board of our public room (but I’m sure it will be removed in less than four hours… Oh week, we have copy machines to make more!) Time the residents here realize this is NOT whiners who live here complaining, and we an exception…. Maybe they will have the courage to speak up when they see it’s not just a unique ‘people problem’ caused by legal troublemakers as we have come to be known. Craftluv45
October 19, 2010 at 6:38 pm
TALK ABOUT VIOLATING CIVIL RIGHTS….My HOA does not send out ELECTION INFORMATION informing us or explaining how to get our names on the ballots or how to nominate someone. In a board meeting I asked the property manager why they failed to do so. I got a BS answer statement saying the laws have changed and they sent the election rules out a couple of years ago. I quoted the civil code, basically HOA owners are to be informed about the election prior to the election, how to add their names to the ballot, how to nominate someone etc. (I obtained the civil codes from the CA state web site). She had no answer to that. I later received an email from the so called HOA attorney, from what I understand he is primarily a COLLECTIONS attorney, but that is another subject. He asked me to give him my concerns. What? They didn’t give him the minutes to the meeting? Of course not! They do not record all that goes on in the meetings. That would create a paper trail. God forbid they allow that! Bottom line he wanted me to give him specific questions. I did. I stated civil code reads homeowners are to be given the election rules and regulations prior to the election. Our HOA / Manager DOES NOT do that. I stated if they are not mailed as they are legally supposed to be and they are not in our Rules and Regulations Booklet how is the election legal? He rambled off a bunch of BS. I also stated we are not given the proper notice regarding the TIME the polls actually CLOSE. He replied as if he knew nothing about that. He stated I had no cause, my complaints had no merit and the election was moving forward as scheduled. Here is the catch. HE IS PART OF THE ELECTION PROCESS! He sets up the company that counts the ballots. He opens and closes the annual meetings, he and his ballot counter’s FAILED TO PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY information to the homeowners as per CA CIVIL CODE. They never stated what time the polls would close. When several homeowners arrived with their ballots 5 minutes after the meeting started he told them the POLLS CLOSED AND THEIR BALLOTS COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED, BUT THAT IS OK BECAUSE THEY MET QUORUM. Is it any surprise we have the same President and board members year after year? The president has been the HOA president more than 20 years! The president of the U.S. can’t hold a position that long but our HOA president can. The community was built in 1985. There are some dirty rats making sure the same people hold all the power and decision making abilities. It starts at the top. If you do not have a clean election you will likely have the same tired ill informed board members. They want things as they do and they do not care about breaking the laws, they actually think they are above the law. Sadly, if people don’t get off their duffs and into the meetings and obtain the proper information these dirty rats will continue to violate our civil rights. By the way, our HOA implemented a rule stating no renter can take part in a meeting or contact the management company. No renter in our community would have the rights Greg Kamin did. Greg, you would have had to get your landlord involved to fight this out for you in our community. In closing, this is just one of the many civil rights violations our HOA is involved in. Two years ago a few of us plastered our community with letters, posters and door to door visits but everyone is so afraid of being fined for challenging the “the board” they do what they are told for if they don’t, The Board will make their lives hell. Sadly many owners cannot get out due to the current housing market or they are retired and are stuck there so they just deal with it.
October 19, 2010 at 3:52 pm
HOA’s are a joke. I had a run in with one in San Jose during the mid-1980s. I’m sure it would be ten times worse, these days.
October 19, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Yes, indeed, Greg. You’ve been great at turning attention to the Michael Nava campaign; we all pay far too little attention to judge’s campaigns. I’d never paid much attention till I finally had to go to court, which will make your realize how important these elections are fast.
Bert Hill’s campaign is another important one but way under the radar. But I can’t vote in BART District #8, http://www.bert4bart.org/map/.
October 19, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Greg, call me!!!! I’ve got a sign or two or three for your windows and the windows of your fellow oppressed neighbors in Yourtopia: Bert Hill for BART Board of Directors.
October 19, 2010 at 11:38 am
Yeh I hate NIBY f**ks too, ones that tell me I can’t chop down a tree in my back yard, ones that tell me I can’t add an extension, ones that tell me I need a permit to remodel a bath room, ones that say we can’t have a new library in North Beach, ones that say there we can’t have chain shops in a neighborhood, Or are you only referring to NIBYs that oppose you.
October 19, 2010 at 9:48 am
@Greg: Delightful piece, as always. Congrats on defending yourself. One of my brothers had to correct the beige curtains he and his wife had hung in one of these places; seemed it was a shade or two off.
@h.: What’s with the no visitors on pay days? An assumption that drug dealers will follow the pay in the door? Who gets to make these rules in SROs?
October 19, 2010 at 9:03 am
Try SRO life,
Two days a month (pay days) you are allowed no guests at all. If someone visits on these days they are told they aren’t allowed to wait for you in the lobby and that they must go outside and wait on the sidewalk. You’re limited to 2 guests at a time. My rent was doubled this year. There’s much much more.
And, I live in one of the good ones!
There are lots of little empires around. Every City CBD for instance.
go Giants!
h.