Talk:Homeowner association/Archive 1

Harmful effects

Condominium and Homeowner Association governance has imposed an inordinate amount of control over the lives of the residents of their respective communities.

The lack of independent oversight, combined with the lack of effective internal controls of Associations themselves and the obstruction of legislative reform by parties who benefit from the conflict (Community Associations Institute), has proven to be harmful to millions of homeowners.

This is true; a better system would be land leases, such as existed in the Central Manufacturing District. EVCM (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I have recently returned to this article and noticed that the reference to racial restrictions had been removed. The provenance of Homeowner association deed restrictions are based upon exclusionary ideals, and initially were indeed racial in nature. This should not be overlooked, but appropriately included in the introduction to this topic. Mike Reardon

Perhaps that should be added in a seperate section? It was original listed as part of a general discussion about covenants and implied that HOAs currently operate this way. However, that's not the case. Many of the first covenants were racially motivated and a few are still on the books, although not being enforced of course. You wouldn't begin an article about modern farming with a discussion about how slaves are utilized. It was inflammatory and not used correctly. 75.177.160.157 14:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Commercial links

I removed the commercial links that someone added here, and the paragraph blaming homeowners for the problems associations face. First, commercial links are not allowed under WP:EL. Secondly, I removed a blanket statement, unsourced: "Association Member's lack of awareness and understanding of the purpose and function of their Homeowner Association creates problems for homeowners, the elected Board of Directors and the Association Management company that administers the association." I nearly gagged. One of the biggest problems in associations are boards that do not know and do not care what the law is, and property managers and association lawyers that will do anything to preserve the board that hired them. Unfortunately, this happens all too frequently. In those cases, a homeowner who does read their documents, and knows the law is at a severe disadvantage. His only recourse against an often corrupt industry is either a board recall (not easy to do), or to file expensive lawsuits, and pay not only for his own attorneys fees but also those of his opponent's (through assessments). This is a problem. The association has all of the detriments of government, in other words, but with none of the protections (like constitutional rights such as due process, freedom of speech and the like). Jance 03:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line, a link to sell a 15-minute $40 DVD made by a former developer is probably not a WP:EL, or WP:RS. However, it is not a bad idea, to create such a DVD - from a homeowner's perspective! I might just do that. But I won't sell it on WIkipedia. ;-) Jance 17:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I take umbridge with your assertion that "managers and association lawyers... will do anything to preserve the board that hired them". Give me a break. I'm a community manager with 15 communities in my portfolio. Boards switch over nearly every year. Most times, the new Board sticks with the same management. If we are hired on and a Board is undertaking any activity which even has a *whiff* of being unethical, we put a stop to it immediately. It's never gotten us fired once. Don't paint everyone with the same brush, especially when yours is obviously steeped in a lot of prejudice. I'm sorry you had a bad experience, but the whole country doesn't work that way. CM

Take all the umbridge you want...the following is an excerpt from an email by an official at a STATE AGENCY... “If anything things have gotten worse in xxxxxxxxxx. 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." I guess not "the whole country" works that way, just a few whole States! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.33.64 (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

How some very important issues can be addressed in the article

The very first problem of an association is the developer who writes governing documents that a *real* government would (and did) declare unconstitutional 50 years ago. The homeowner who wants nothing more than to be left alone is the victim, not the problem, here. Yes, it would be good if all homeowners read their governing documents and state statutes. However, 99% of association problems would be resolved if the homeowners that are board members would read the governing documents and state statutes, before agreeing to become board members. Instead, there is too often the attitude (and I quote one board member), "I can't read that legal mumbo jumbo (the covenants and restrictions) - I just know what's good for the community." This is the problem, that developers leave after they have made their money and hand over the associations and the monster they created in "governing documents". The governing documents of the corporation that is the association are almost always vague and sometimes in violation of state or federal law (especially the older ones). Invariably, they are open to abuse - and that is assuming board members even read them.

This is an industry that is poorly regulated (if regulated at all) and very lucrative. Most "boards of directors" in these private corporations do not have the business experience of those who sit on the boards of *real* corporations. Even those that do not want to commit fraud or theft are usually ignorant of the law and their own governing documents. They are easy prey for unscrupulous lawyers and property managers. The combination of dishonest board members and dishonest "professionals" is even more problematic. A number of state legislatures have recognized this as the crisis it is, and proposed or passed more regulation. This has barely scratched the surface of problems, however.

The reasons for associations are not always *bad* (as were the early discriminatory purposes). Associations are attractive to developers & municipalities for obvious reasons. The idea is also a fine theoretical example of urban planning - provide a community complete with shared amenities, so the cost to any individual is not onerous. However, the structure of associations is not very workable in practice. The association is an odd combination of corporate, property and contract law, that can be confusing especially to the lay people that are responsible for them. And an easy target for criminals. It is a large red sign on the front door that says "House unlocked, diamonds inside."

• • In short,I welcome input about how some of this can be addressed in the Wikiepdia article. These are all very important issues.Jance 22:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, very much, about the importance of recognizing the sociological effect of the for-profit developer who writes the governing documents. I may be able to provide a little material on that from reliable source(s).

However, I think we should go still deeper, and explore the effect that government has had:

• On causing the explosion, in 1964, of common ownership developments (FHA),
• In shaping COD associations, and
• In making developers build only CODs so that state and local governments could balance their budgets on the backs of COD quasiowners. -- Rico 15:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The creators of CIDs obtain permission from the state to subdivide the land, and from local agencies they acquire the necessary building permits. — Rico 18:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The common interest development is shaped by local governments through their land-use powers, and the state that regulates their governing structures. — Rico 18:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

:All of those ideas are excellent... the question is how it can be incorporated into one article. I fear this could become very long. I added a short paragraph in the financial risk, but you raise related but different issues that are equally relevant. How can we best structure this?Jance 05:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As a new board member in a California HOA let me say many of the objections to the structure are factual. However, most people according to a Pew Research survey which I will put in the article, are happy with their HOAs. And, yes, the structure, the rigidity of the rules and the inability to be flexible with them are often figuratively written in stone. In my association it will take 2/3rds of members to change the bylaws. The HOA should be responsive to the majority, but then when people voluntarily choose to join such an organization they have to either participate, or else accept what they get.

California has taken a pro owner stance in their laws. It has gone so far that the danger now is often that no one is willing to take on the challenge of being a board member. This may make some here happy, but it is a loss for those who wanted exactly what an HOA has to offer.

I hope to contribute some factual and balanced material to this article. And to learn and respond to those who see HOAs as an unmitigated evil Arodb (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Rico, I agree with you completely about homeowner associations. I have had the occasion to represent homeowners (and associations) in related problems. However, I did delete your comment about renters and owners as related to the 14th Amendment. If you have a reference, then please include it. Assuming there is state action, an equal protection claim relates to discrimination with respect to similarly situated individuals. I think that argument would be a stretch in these circumstances. That is not a value judgment, but a legal question. Also, while I agree that associations are profoundly undemocratic, that probably is not a neutral section heading, even for a criticism section. Jance 05:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I provided the reference for the Amendment XIV, J, and here is the reference for "profoundly": "Common interest developments are extolled by some as a form of grassroots initiative and as expressions of local democracy. Yet they are mandatory—'involuntary associations'—and profoundly undemocratic, denying residents who rent the right to vote." (Dr. Barton & Dr. Silverman 1994, p. xii) -- Rico 18:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Common Interest Communities: Private Governments and the Public Interest was published by

Institute of Governmental Studies

University of California, Berkeley

Berkeley, California 94720

-- Rico 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You have too many superlatives in this section. If it is a quote, it should be quoted. The use of so many adjectives is not encylopedic (or good writing for an academic article of any sort). Also, I am curious as to the equal protection argument, as I can think of a relatively easy rebuttal. I do not think such an argument would fly in court.

On another note, homeowners who own two properties also often have two votes, as well, per the governing documents. This is another problem - or benefit, for those would prefer pre-Civil war legal rights. The corporate model simply does not work with homeowner associations, because it is unlike any other corporation. Jance 03:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions, J, but I was not done. And now I'm sidetracked. -- Rico 05:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Then get un-sidetracked. Relax!Jance 02:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced tag

This article should only contain verifiable content that has been published by reliable sources. A significant amount of material has been added to this article, this year, that does not satisfy this official Wikipedia policy. Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be removed by any editor. This needs to be done across the board. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

Jimmy Wales wrote, in insist on sources:

"Is that true? Is it not true? As a reader of Wikipedia, I have no easy way to know. If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference. If it is not true, it should be removed.

"I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar."

-- Rico 19:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag. Please state where there is unsourced material.Jance 03:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

Wow. I've almost never seen an article as badly biased against its subject as this one. For now, I've stuck a POV tag on it. Over time, I'll clean up the language, and find sources which aren't hit pieces. Argyriou (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that all can cooperate on this article. The content is accurate, therefore, hardly POV. Perhaps you could state here what you objection is.Jance 22:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Any mention of the positive benefits of HOAs is couched in weasel words ("long claimed"...), while attacks and claims of detriments of HOAs are presented as purely factual. The "Criticism" section is nearly as long as the rest of the article, and several sections above it are purely critical as well. This is not a balanced article, it's a hit piece. POV doesn't just require eliminating non-factual statements, it also requires including factual statements supporting all sides of a controversy. This article needs significant trimming of the criticisms, and addition of neutral and positive factual information for balance. Argyriou (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you propose something, then, instead of just criticising and speaking in generalities? I wrote the conlaw section, which is accurate. If you have other information, then please provide it. If the "long claimed" phrase to which I assume you refer is in the conlaw section, then you show me a source where any proof of added value can be found? There is none. It is not POV to state "long claimed" where that is the only thing that can be said truthfully. If you are at all familiar with homeowner associations, you know this. It is one of the greatest absurdities about homeowner associations. However, there are legitmate advantages such as making shared amenities more affordable to individuals. Whether that is, in the whole package, a real financial benefit is questionable, but certainly in theory it is valid. Jance 23:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The {{pov}} tag says that the dispute should be discussed on the talk page, so that a reader who sees the tag can evaluate the claims of non-neutrality. Right now I don't have time to go digging up sources, etc. I will, but it's going to take a while. Argyriou (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I welcome your additions. I can't wait for you to provide a reliable source that proves me wrong. The good thing about an encyclopedia is generally one doesn't get away wtih making bald assertions (like the CAI does on a regular basis). In fact, an admin reviewed my section on Consitutional Challenges and had no complaint. There is no "weasel" word here. It is an explanation of a common claim. The claim is not supported with data, or I would have included it. Jance 00:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

One benefit may be uniformity - I'm sure there are some buyers who like that. And, an association can enforce uniformity, if required by the governing documents. The biggest benefit of an association is to the developers, association law firms and property managers. Since I am an association lawyer, I suppose I should not knock that. However, I am also a homeowner and understand the problems from both sides. I will also note that the CAI is a reference. I would surely be interested in finding "positive" references that are not lobbyists. Jance 00:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally not a fan of HOAs, and would be fairly reluctant to buy a house which came with an HOA. (Condos are another matter, as there *has* to be an HOA, but I'm not likely to ever buy a condo.) I've heard of some pretty awful things happening with HOAs, and wouldn't want to deal with that. However, HOAs do provide real benefits to buyers in protecting them from other owners whos actions can lower surrounding property values, and in providing a neutral dispute resolution forum that's not the court system. HOAs also make it easier for homeowners to make class-action claims against developers. I'll find documentation and articles in support of HOAs over the next week or so. Argyriou (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the neutral dispute resolution forum? I have not seen this in HOAs. If anything, it is just the opposite. That is probably one of the biggest complaints about HOAs and condos. It was such an issue that legislation was passed in more than one state, to address that, or try to. It is true that in some cases, class actions can more easily be brought against developers. I don't know that HOAs provide a real benefit regarding other owners in the manner you describe, although that is a common belief. My experience is quite different. Generally, I think these matters better left to local zoning. It is also true that some situations, not confined to condos, require an association. Unforunately, association enforcement is too arbitrary, there is no oversight, and most homeowners are not interested in participating until they find out they have lost thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars, etc.Jance 00:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Argyriou, since there has been no prior discussion of the bias you allege, you need to describe what you consider unacceptable about the article — and to address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that you allege to be problematic. -- Rico 03:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And Rico, you need to discuss also. I reverted back to Argyrio's version, which included my edits regarding the paragraph I discussed above. "Serious constitutional questions..." paragrah is redundant, badly worded and not factually accurate. That many renters are affected is irrelevant to whether or not a constitutional question exists. If a constitutional question exists, it will exist if only one renter is affected. Please don't just summarily revert. Jance 05:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I left the sentence Rico added to the first sentence of the conlaw section, but reworded slightly. I still don't like it, as it is too wordy with my edit, so I welcome input. However, corporations are not "people" (they are persons legally, but that is a different connotation). Developers are often corporations, as are management services and the like. Also, I spelled out the words "common interest development" and "homeowner association". Acronyms are not generally good form in an article like this, and especially when they are not defined anywhere. Also, is a common interest development defined anywhere previously? I see in the first paragraph it is mentioned, but not defined. Does development include a discussion of a CID? Of not, it is confusing to throw this in without explanation. I don't have time tonight to check this. Rico, could you do this? Jance 05:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Argyriou: who are you? What is your connection with HOAs? You are obviously pro-HOA which is a form of bias just as much as being anti-HOA is. I live in California where HOAs are everywhere. I live in an HOA. The Board here has just given me 30 days to remove all of my flowers from my front yard because "all plants must be in the planter." (All of my neighbors have plants outside of the planter.) And I have no rights -- no way of fighting back because I am a tenant, not a landowner. For the past years, I have been searching every weekend for a house to buy. But, despite looking at literally hundreds of homes, I have yet to find a decent house that is not in a HOA. I hate HOAs because, in my experience, the law provides no protections for tenants and because the law does not guard against boards turning into petty tyrants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.225.98 (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Argyriou; this article is biased against the topic. I'm sorry some contributors have had bad personal experiences with HOAs, but there is an entire body of scholarly work on this topic, none of which is reflected in this article. "I hate HOAs because..." does not a Wiki article make. PJH-STL (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)PJH-STL

Massive changes restored

The discussion of racial discrimination belongs in the section on Constitutional challenges. That's where it will stay, not in its separate section. And the introduction is put back, also, since it provides the basis of thess constituional challenges.Jance 14:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a fundamental difference between the constitutional challenges to racially-restrictive covenants and the constitutional challenges based on the notion that HOAs are undemocratic; they should be under separate headings, even if under the larger heading of "Constitutional Challenges". Ideally, I think that having the racial discrimination stuff ahead of all the undemocratic stuff is appropriate, given the history, and the order of the history, but that would break up the "constitutional challenges" section, as the "undemocratic" issue should lead off with the general criticism and then get into the various laws and court decisions addressing that issue. But I'm not going to mess with that right now, as there are other things which need fixing in this article. Argyriou (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You evidently do not understand the issue involved, and why it is necessary that Shelley v. Kraemer stay in the conlaw section, in the same section as the other cases that are now there. This is not just about racial discrimination, but about the very nature of state action and private governance. This section is not entitled "Undemocratic". They must remain separate sections,because they are separate issues. I am not sure how to integrate the conlaw question in the "Undemocratic" section, because I do not believe a defensible 14th equal protection claim re renters can be raised. But evidently, someone did, and there is a reference for it. That is a separate issue. Again, do not separate Shelley v. Kraemer into a separate section entitled "Racial discrimination." As it relates to HOAs, the issue is considerably broader than race discrimination. That is why I did not break it up into two sections in the first place. Jance 21:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the comment on 14th Amendment equal opportunity is gone from the "Undemocratic" section. The "undemocratic" section can rightfully stand on its own now. It follows from the conlaw section. Again, Shelley v. Kraemer stays in the Conlaw section. In my opinion, that is not negotiable, given its precedent value beyond the issue of race.Jance 21:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. In some ways, it's better your way, as the critique of HOAs as racially exclusive has much less force now than it did before 1968, and even though Shelley v Kramer was effectively overturned by the later decision (while the ban on racial discrimination was maintained by changed laws and a different understanding of state power and contracts), you're right in that it is an important part of the ConLaw history of HOAs.

Do you think that the "Double Taxation" section should either be moved to the bottom, above or below the "financial risk" section, or merged into it? Argyriou (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved "Double Taxation" section - you are absolutely right, it seems out of place where it is. It doesn't quite belong in the 'financial risk' section, but it should be in the same general area.05:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Shelly v. Kraemer was not overturned, but it surely was limited. I am glad you agree re the conlaw section. Your point re racial disc. is also good, and I did not think of that. Interestingly, there are now other ways HOAs (and condos) 'discriminate' through 'approvals' of who gets in and who doesn't. In fact, there have been successful challenges of some of those board 'approvals'. The whole idea of this gives me the creeps. But the overt discrimination is not what it once was. I am not sure about "Double Taxation". I will have to think about it for a bit, and I'm fried right now. I'm going to have a friday night and relax. Jance 23:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Argyriou, thank you for your contributions. I am not familiar with many Wikipedia protocols; thank you for cleaning up my mess. My concern about this article is that it remains objective and truthful. Given the amount of objective negative information coming from academia, the AARP and even some State officials, you would think that it would be a relatively simple process to bring legislative reform to this problem. I assure you it is not. The Community Associations Institute, which incidentally does not represent a single 'community association', has increased their legislative action committee’s budget here in Massachusetts and lobbies heavily to preserve the status quo regarding the absence of oversight or regulation of this industry. The CAI is a trade organization that represents service providers to Associations (including attorneys), and the enormous conflict that is generated in these communities is their bread and butter. This conflict is unnecessary if the States would only provide some oversight with teeth that would protect the homeowner from the abuse of power that is inevitable in the absence of the ‘checks and balances’ upon the power of association boards. James Madison insisted upon the separation of powers in our Federal government “No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or ELECTIVE, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” He could have been talking about the governance that almost 60 million Americans are now subordinate to; Homeowners and Condominium Associations. So…if I err, correct me, but be wary of the commercial interests that will attack this article (I am surprised that it remains as critical as it has). Thanks againMike Reardon 11:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Mike - I've undone your reversion because you have not provided any justification, other than some nebulous perception of bias, for your reversion. THe article after your reversion is a lobbying piece for the AARP and other enemies of private property owners. Αργυριου (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Argyriou, I simply reverted to a previous version, I believe it was yours! The last editor was almost comical in his disregard for the change protocol.

The following is discussion that was posted to my personal information page, but is more approprately posted here:

Following from CEMW: Careful with your POV. I am struggling to keep the article non-biased, but people who had a "bad past experience" are changing it to a negative POV. Do not let your personal agenda show through or you're no better than the unethical Board member you may have run into in the past.

Following from Mike Reardon: I have objectified the body of the article by eliminating the modifying clauses, good and bad, and leaving the factual information intact. You should post your pro-HOA information in the Benefits section, and allow the criticisms as posted by other editors to stand on their own merits. That the criticism section is so large as compared to the benefit section should speak for itself, and comes as no surprise to people who actually live in these communities (as opposed to those who make a living off of them)Mike Reardon 23:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Mike Reardon

Following from CEMW: Mike, I do live in an HOA. I sought one out specifically after purchasing a home next door to a nice home, which in about 4 - 5 years turned into a broken down house with a landfill in the front yard. Yes, it's annoying when an HOA letter shows up saying you can't paint your house without picking an approved color or getting the color pre-approved, but it's also annoying to have your next door neighbor paint his house orange the day after you put a for sale sign in the yard. Neighbors can affect your property value- period. The only way you can control that fact is to have neighbors who choose to live in a neighborhood with regulations. As these are specified before closing, and signed off on during closing, the only people in the neighborhood are people who agree to live by the rules. By following these rules, you can feel secure that your property value won't go down because of the neighbor's idea that orange is classy, that 30 pink flamingos are "fun", that mowing is a twice a year chore, or any other thing. Some HOAs go over the line. Some Boards go over the line. But not all- and there is a real push to reign in anyone who does go over the line. Professional, licensed management will help, of course. And as for your implication that I only make my living off HOAs instead of living in one, it just shows why this article, so heavily authored by you, needs that POV tag. You make a lot of assumptions- mostly negative ones. After a couple of years living in my HOA and having a good experience with the management company, I asked if they had any job openings. But I see where your assumptions took you. Might want to watch that when authoring Wikipedia articles!

Argyriou, The article is accurate. Developers create HOAs, which provide the governance of CIDs. Your revision seems to intentionaly omit this important fact. To intentionaly provide information which obfuscates the truth is contrary to what Wikipedia is all about. I stand by the facts. Perhaps you can provide some valid reason why you insist on defining HOAs in such a convoluted way, and bring those reasons to the discussion page. Mike Reardon 23:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Mike ReardonMike Reardon 23:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If you would put in the fact that developers create HOAs without at the same time making numerous other edits using biased language to describe HOAs, I woudn't revert it. But you have:

1. moved the racial deed restriction history to "criticisms", when nobody criticises HOAs for racial deed restrictions, as they have been inoperative for over 40 years
2. Wrote "Associations are single political party systems, without a free press and political opposition is rarely tolorated.", which is patently untrue, and you've supported it only with unreliable sources.
3. removed the reference to the alternate name of "community association"
4. removed the fact that all unit owners are members of HOAs
5. removed the statement that the developer records restrictive covenants on all the properties in a subdivision
6. removed the text about the "business judgement" rule
7. removed the discussion of the transfer from the developer to the owners as the subdivision is sold
8. removed the discussion of the legal standing of an HOA to act on behalf of members
9. removed the statement that proponents of HOAs assert that joining an HOA is voluntary
10. removed a statement regarding insurance against director financial malfeasance

Given this extensive editing record of yours, I must conclude that you are too incapable of writing about HOAs in a neutral manner, as required by Wikipedia. Αργυριου (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Racial deed restrictions. I originally wrote this section and it was meant to be a criticism. (I should know)The point being made was that deed restrictions are “exclusionary by nature”. Racial deed restrictions were just overt examples of this. HOAs are the fruit of this poison tree; they still exclude, but can no longer legally exclude minorities. So yes I moved it to criticisms where it belongs.
2. Name one HOA with a two party political system. I know of none. The Twin Rivers Case relied a great deal upon the fact that political opponents to the board were being excluded from having a voice in the board run community newsletter. The association spent $500,000 and counting to prevent this from being corrected. If not for the ACLU, the status quo would have been maintained due to the unlimited financial resources of the board being used to suppress equal access to the newsletter (among other things) by political opponents to the board. The reference to this fact is unambiguous. To say in light of this that Political opposition is tolerated is obtuse and simply inaccurate.
3. This article is titled “Homeowners Association”. That is how they are defined in their articles of incorporation, and unless you have a reliable reference as to the interchangeability of terms (“or as they are known in the industry? What industry?), it is simply not acceptable to call it anything else. In fact it is misleading. It would connote some relationship with the Community Associations Institute, which incidentally represents NO community associations, but does overwhelmingly represent the service providers (and some board members) to these associations.
4. Lets fit in that everyone belongs to the HOA, I think it is redundant but I will agree
5. That the developer records the restrictions against every deed is indeed redundant to the clause that all buyers acknowledge the restrictions when they buy their property.
6. Yes...the business judgment rule. This is the rule that judges apply when the conduct of boards results in a court case…. Except when the judges don’t apply this rule.. The Judges in the Twin Rivers case held the board to a higher standard, the Constitution of the State of New Jersey. This case made the “business judgment rule” one of the most controversial aspects of the legal limbo in which associations operate. And in case you missed it, reduced the “business judgment rule” to less than a “fact” for the purposes of this article.
7. Let’s leave the Developers handing off of the Homeowners Association to the residents in. It was removed incidentally to the excessive verbosity and misleading characterization surrounding it.
8. That HOAs can go to court and ‘stand in’ for homeowners…Does this belong in the definition section? Why don’t you include this in the Benefits section?
9. HOAs are not voluntary. Homebuyers have no choice but to belong to the Association in mandatory associations
10. Finally, insurance against board member malfeasance. This insurance is hardly typical of the insurance carried by associations, in fact it is rare. D&O insurance, that holds board members harmless even if wrong, is much more common. To include malfeasance insurance as ‘fact’ is nonsense.

I am reverting the article back to its older version which is simply more accurate and without the obvious bias. Add those facts that we can agree are facts. Leave the pro-HOA verbiage in the benefits section, and allow the criticisms (which are prolific) to stand on their own meritsMike Reardon 11:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Mike ReardonMike Reardon 11:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You have not addressed any of the issues I've raised. I disagree with most of what you claim are facts, including almost every opinion drawn from "Privatopia" and presented as a fact. Αργυριου (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed EVERY issue you raised, yet you unilateraly revert to a convoluted, biased version which seems designed to confuse rather than educate. The author of Privatopia is an accreditted scholor who is widely quoted on this issue on a National scale, yet you dismiss this authority for the purpose of this article;on what basis? If you have an interst in this subject that precludes you from the rational edidting of this article, I suggest you recuse yourself from this page.

WP:NPOV

The paragraph which User:RicoCorinth keeps reinserting:

“ The authority aggressively wielded by associations — unrestrained by basic principles of due process — threatens fundamental interests hitherto assumed as sacrosanct incidents of home ownership. HOAs have the authority to intrude into many everyday activities in the guise of enforcing CC&Rs with little accountability. Because legal challenges to their authority remain severely curtailed, HOAs may infringe upon the unfettered enjoyment of one's property without justifying their actions or even according individuals a modicum of due process. Enforcement procedures often fail to meet even a minimal level of due process. Neither equal protection nor due process guarantees apply to the CC&Rs governing CID owners or the proceedings by which HOAs enforce them. ”

is exactly the sort of writing which Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy forbids. Sticking a reference at the end doesn't make the paragraph any less biased. I'm going to keep removing it unless it is significantly re-worded to comply with WP:NPOV. Αργυριου (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Absence of Due Process in Homeowner Associations

• A year ago, Radiojon wrote, in an edit, "Homeowners may be victimized without due process or appeal."
• On February 20, Argyriou challenged Radiojon's statement with a {{Fact}} template.
• On May 7, Argyriou deleted Radiojon's sentence.
• On May 22, I replaced Radiojon's deleted sentence with text that I attributed to a reliable source (a law review written by a supreme court justice, and published by an accredited university).
• Twelve minutes later, Argyriou deleted — without discussion, much less consensus — the sourced paragraph that I had replaced Radiojon's sentence with.
• I reverted Argyriou's summary deletion, and we went back and forth like that for a couple of days.

-- Rico 21:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The original statement by Radiojon, and your restorations of it, have asserted as fact an opinion held by a small number of people. Because you persist in trying to report the opinion as a fact, rather than an opinion, you are continuing to violate Wikpedia's neutral point of viewpolicy. If you restore the statement in a way which makes it clear that it is an opinion, then I will leave it alone. By just reverting to your original biased statement, you're making it clear that you intend to push an agenda. Αργυριου (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I deleted "so renters are disenfranchised, but still subject to the board's authority" under Criticisms/Voting. The replacement text still acknowledges that renters are not permitted to vote. While "disenfranchised" may work in this context (although I have my doubts), I think that it would be best to avoid emotionally charged words of this nature. Also, boards of directors in California may not directly exert their authority over tenants: They may not fine tenants, nor may they call them to a hearing. Because the association's legal relationship is with the owner, all enforcement actions must be against the owner. This may lead to problems in the owner/tenant relationship, but those are separate from board action. If direct association action against tenants is permitted in other states, a citation would be necessary. --Taz80 22:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

How are tenants not subject to the board's authority given that HOAs exist and excerise authority, directly or indirectly, over tenants while tenants have no say or means to respond directly to the board's actions? It is weaseling to say: "This may lead to problems in the owner/tenant relationship, but those are separate from board action." If the board's action causes a problem which otherwise would not have existed between landlord and tenant, it is dishonest to absolve the board of (moral, if not legal) resposibility for that problem. As a tenant, let me say that "disenfranchised" is not an inappropriate word since that term, in origin, means "deprived of the right to vote" which is quite literally our situation.

I also note that this situation violates the traditional rights of tenants. Under English Common Law, as long as they paid their rent, tenanants had all of the rights of the landowner except the right to sell the property. The current legal situation improperly deprives tenants of their historic property rights. --- Bill Brawner history.freak@live.com

Biased language in article

A few specific examples of biased language in this article, which does not include the undue weight placed on criticisms of the subject:

1. "Covenants and deed restrictions are exclusionary in nature" - this is only explained in the context of something which hasn't applied in almost 40 years
2. "Specifically, HOA boards of directors are not bound by constitutional restrictions on governments, although they are a de-facto level of government." - this is not well-linked to the statement that this is an accusation by a single scholar and a lobbying organization.
3. "Homeowners must pay out of pocket for any case they bring to court and risk being personaly liable for any judgement and/or Association's legal fees as well as their own." - this is muddled in a way which makes it look worse than the actual situation
4. "Associations are single political party systems,5 without a free press [6] and political opposition is rarely tolorated." - this statement is an assertion of a fringe opinion as settled fact.
5. " renters are disenfranchised, but still subject to the board's authority" - this statement is false. Renters are not subject to the board's authority, only to the rental agreement with the owner.
6. "In the case of partially built out subdivisions in resort areas with a homeowners association the majority of property owners may not live in the community." - this statement is unsupported by any citation of actual criticism based on this issue.
7. " a homeowners association can foreclose a member's house without any judicial procedure in order to collect special assessments, fees and even a fine. " - this stament lacks context, in that the same states also allow lenders to foreclose without judicicial procedure.
8. "Embezzlement from associations has occurred, as a result of dishonest board members or community managers." - no context - how often does this occur?
9. "The AARP has recently voiced concern that homeowners associations pose a risk to the financial welfare of their members." Again, a statement of opinion being asserted as fact.

Αργυριου (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Argyriou, you unilateraly deleted a direct quote from a representative of the NJ Department of Consumer Affairs that had relavance to this article;why? A more objective and informative source would be hard to find. To delete it without even addressing it in the discussion section would seem to indicate that you have a bias in this subject that makes your contributions highly suspect with regard to the objectivity of this article. I have replaced this information.Mike Reardon 15:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Mike ReardonMike Reardon 15:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Embezzlement

Embezzlement from Associations: If you want to get objective and informative information about how widespread this problem is , go to onthecommons.com and lisent to the interview with Florida State Representative Julio Robaina. Representative Robaina claims that embezzlement, kickbacks and corruption are "Widespread" in this industry". After several recent arrests of board members in Florida, several police departments from the state have met in a conference that discussed exactly this issue http://www.ccfj.net/JK4arrests.html. Embezzlement cases were rare up until now due to "lack of enforcement", meaning that the AG would not investigate claims of corruption in HOAs and Condos, but would advise complaintents to pursue it in civil court. This has changed. So in answer to your question "how often does it occur?" get it from the Representative himself at http://shows.onthecommons.com/ Mike Reardon 16:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Mike Reardon

A politician trying to make a splash prior to running for higher office is hardly a reliable source. Both the politician and the newspaper article you link to lack any quantitative information - how many complaints were received, how many cases come to court, etc. One could just as easily put information about the neighbor complaints against one or two anti-HOA activists, and make them appear to be a pattern of bad-neighborliness by anti-HOA activists, or imply that all anti-HOA activism is driven by retaliation for reasonable complaints about disruptive people. But I'm actually trying to write an unbiased article, unlike you, so I won't do that. Αργυριου (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Argyriou, you deleted direct quotes taken from a report by an official in the NJ Department of Community Affairs. This report was relyed upon by the NJ Appelate Court Division in reaching a decision in a ground breaking CID case. This report was included in an Amicus Brief to the same court by the AARP. Yet you dismiss this reference and delete the information.

The supposed "direct quote" has no citation. Please provide a reliable source - blogs and one-man advocacy websites don't count - for that quote, and I'll leave it alone. Αργυριου (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A politician in Florida is quoted on a radio program that is heard nationaly, and you again dismiss this source and edit the article. Numerous newspapers in Florida are reporting that Condo and HOA fraud is now being taken seriously, yet you ignore these recent important facts that are relevant to this article.

Content-free statements by politicians do not add anything to any article.

Your bias is damaging to the integrity of this article. 57 million people now live in CIDs and Wikepedia should be a source of unbiased factual information to those people. Your edits seem designed to further the interests of those with a financial stake in the continued ignorance of homeowners.

Not one of your edits has added unbiased factual information to this article. I'll be reverting your edits on sight until you can demonstrate that you understand "unbiased". Citing your own talk page as a source makes it clear you have no concept of how Wikipedia works. Αργυριου (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Major Structural Changes

I would like to make significant changes to the structure of this article. In its current form, the article is divided into two main sections: Benefits and Criticisms. While the content in those sections may be true, the "pros and cons" structure necessarily portrays bias. This problem is mentioned specifically in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Instead of the current format, everything subject to criticism should first be given a purely explanatory paragraph. The section heading should be changed to something like "Common Interest Development Operations." Criticisms (or benefits) can be included at the end of each small section, or moved to the end of the article. Acknowledging criticism is very important, but people should first understand exactly what is being criticized. --Taz80 18:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert

I've just reverted some substantial additions by Bdavis921 (talk · contribs), in this edit; a read through the additions made by this new user indicated that the changes were uniformly negative and completely unsourced. I'll leave a note for the user on their talk page to suggest discussion of the changes here before inserting them again; as they were, there was no supporting information, and use of words like "despotism," suggestions of kickbacks between associations and government, and other claims are far too potentially problematic to leave stand without good reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

1) The first element which should be included in the definition of HOA is the fact that it only applies to the USA.

2) More generally, all articles dealing with matters of law should mention in an introduction to which country they apply.

3) This approach should also apply to matters specific to a single country (such as culture, society, etc).

Request For Comment

User:RicoCorinth has been reverting text added by a number of editors to this article, claiming that edits were changing sourced material, or inserting unsourced "original research". I believe that his claims are generally false, and that his editing is tendentitiously pushing a strongly anti-HOA political POV. Significant discussion has occurred above, with no resolution. Editor User:Mike Reardon shares RicoCorinth's POV, though he has not edited this article in a while.

User:RicoCorinth, in his latest series of edits, has removed significant explanatory material, and removed material which may need referencing, rather than asking for a reference. A small part of that most recent edit removes some explanatory material from a paragraph which has been referenced (by a non-neutral source), material which may not be directly supported by the reference. However, rather than restructuring the material so that the reference is applied only to the material which is supported by the reference, RicoCorinth removes the material entirely.

Previous edits by RicoCorinth have added egregiously POV material, such as:

“ The authority aggressively wielded by associations — unrestrained by basic principles of due process — threatens fundamental interests hitherto assumed as sacrosanct incidents of home ownership. HOAs have the authority to intrude into many everyday activities in the guise of enforcing CC&Rs with little accountability. Because legal challenges to their authority remain severely curtailed, HOAs may infringe upon the unfettered enjoyment of one's property without justifying their actions or even according individuals a modicum of due process. Enforcement procedures often fail to meet even a minimal level of due process. Neither equal protection nor due process guarantees apply to the CC&Rs governing CID owners or the proceedings by which HOAs enforce them. ”

Argyriou (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Support Removal The article is messed up & original research. You can add the stuffs back later when you've got the sources. All Wikipedia contents must be sourced & this article is too large while being underdeveloped/unsourced for anyone to promise a quick supply of sources. You should have spent time supplying the citation rather than creating this RFC or disputing in the first place. Also, some of the deleted materials sure sounded POV (i.e. however the homeowners have the ultimate authority)(Wikimachine 23:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

Helpful edits

On 20:18, 4 September 2007, Argyriou reverted the article to the version of 12:23, 31 August 2007, reverting edits by Mike Reardon and myself with edit summary "rv unhelpful edits" ('rv' is the abbreviation of 'revert').

I do not want to enter an edit war, and I absolutely admit not being knowledgable in the field of Homeowners Associations. I only wanted to make the article easier to understand, for example for people that do not know the abbreviation CC&Rs. After doing some research I found the explanation of 'CC&Rs' and I wanted to help other reasons by adding that to the article.

Now I have some questions for Argyriou, but of course other people are welcome to answer my questions.

1. Why were the links from 'incorporated' to Incorporation (business) and 'by-law' to bylaw and the link to covenant removed? I believed these to be helpful edits. Why do you consider them "unhelpful"?
2. Why did you not enter a space before the parentheses in "covenants(called"?
3. Why did you write "by-laws, covenants" in stead of "by-laws and covenants"?
4. Why was the explanation of CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions) removed?
5. The following sentence was removed:

   "The covenants are called protective covenants, restrictive covenants, the declaration of restrictive covenants, and CC&Rs."
   Was it incorrect? Is it more helpful to write "by-laws, covenants(called protective covenants, restrictive covenants, the declaration of restrictive covenants, and CC&Rs)"?

6. Would it not be better to explain the abbreviation "HOA" somewhere in the article, preferably before its first use?
7. This edit was made by Mike Reardon with summary "Delete refence to "sign rider to deed" which is not true of most states". That edit was reverted as unhelpful edit. Does that imply that the words "sign rider to deed" are in fact true in most states? Why wasn't this revert action discussed on the talk page?
8. What is a rider?
9. This edit (summary: delete reference to "voluntary" contracts-these contracts are adhesion in nature) was also reverted. Why wasn't this revert discussed on the talk page?

Johan Lont 11:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Answer: Pretty much every edit by Mike Reardon serves to bias the article towards a left-wing, anti-HOA viewpoint. We've discussed, ad nauseam, his anti-HOA POV editing; I don't feel any need to do so any further. When some useful edits are interspersed with his, they're collateral damage in fixing the article. I've gone back and made some additional edits based on your list, but not all of them. Argyriou (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I started to read the article out of curiosity. I wondered to what extent a Home Owner's Association is similar or different to the "Vereniging van Eigenaren" (VvE) (= "Association of Owners") in Dutch law. (The Dutch VvE is only used if the ownership of a single building, such as an appartment block, is split over multiple owners. The VvE then acts as the owner of the building and the individual owners own 'apartment rights' in the building. In the Netherlands, I never heard of any controversy over this system, although problems will probably in some of these associations, as in all organizations where people must come to decisions that affects all of them. Perhaps the similarity between the Dutch VvEs and HOAs is only superficial).

I was a little irritated by the use of unexplained abbreviations, and other examples of poor writing, and made an attempt to make some improvements. I thank you for your edits of September 7th, because those edits succeeded to make exactly the improvements that I had desired, but wasn't able to achieve.

I checked the history, and I understand what you meant by "POV editing". I shall see if I can correct (that is: revert) some of these, for example, the part about 'opportunistic laywers'. Johan Lont 15:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to Argyriou's comments regarding "pretty much every edit" made by myself: I contributed all of the information from the New Jersey Dept Community Affairs, The AARP,and the ACLU; virtually all of which is alarmingly negative about the current state of USA HOA’s. This objective and verifiable information has been routinely deleted by Argyiou without discussion. He is then caught by another editor and the information is allowed to stand. This is tiring and more than a little curious. Does this person have an undisclosed interest in having this article read more like propaganda rather than as a source of objective information? Mike Reardon 18:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Mike Reardon

Oh, please. Calling the crap from the State of New Jersey, the AARP and the ACLU "objective" is laughable. All three are political organizations trying to expand their power at the expense of people who have made voluntary arrangements to improve their living situations. Certainly, it's easy to verify that those entities made those statements, but presenting legal briefs as factual information as to the actual conditions in the real world is ludicrous. Argyriou (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

When the Washington Post printed a letter I had written regarding HOAs, an editor of the Post told me that he too had purchased a home that "came with" an association, and that the association was appalling. To say that homeowners make "voluntary agreements" with these organizations when purchasing their homes is ludicrous! Since 2000 4 out of 5 homes constructed in the US are in associations. This is due to municipalities’ wanting to absolve themselves of providing services to these communities, while increasing the tax base in the area.Mike Reardon 02:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ladies, gentlemen,

Would it be possible to work together towards a balanced article? I looked up New Jersey, AARP and ACLU in Wikipedia, and discovered that they have 8,724,560 inhabitants, 38 milion members and 475,000 members, respectively. Even if they are political organizations and not objective, I think their positions in these matters can be relevant. Of course, facts must be presented as facts and opinions as opinions.

Still, the section "Criticisms" is about half the text of the article, that should be enough to point out the main problems and criticisms.

Mike Reardon remarked that "Since 2000 4 out of 5 homes constructed in the US are in associations". Now, that is information that (if linked to a verifyable source) could be added to the number of "23 million American homes and 57 million residents in 2006". I would find it also useful to mention what percentage of American homes belongs to a HOA.

From the editing of August 23th I learned that some of Mike Reardon's edits were "information from the New Jersey Dept Community Affairs" and so on. Which is fine. I also note that this information was not "routinely deleted by Argyiou without discussion". Only the layout and order was changed. Hence I conclude that Argyiou and Mike Reardon can work together if they want to.

Mike Reardon's most recent edit (which has been reverted) is not acceptable in my opinion. A HOA is a nonprofit private corporation, and to say that they do not have a multi-party political system or their own free press and judicial system is superfluous. It is common knowledge that private corporations do not have those things. The point is, that according to some (or many), HOAs have much more power over individuals than should be granted to any private corporation, unless that corporation has a more democratic character. That point was already made clear in the same "Voting" section.

The statement "Election fraud is common" is new and useful information, but requires a verifyable source and must be more specific (How often is 'common').

My bottom line is, that the article is not so bad as it might seem after reading these discussions. The reader can learn what a Home Owners Association is, and also what the benefits and possible shortcomings are. Johan Lont 11:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on my experience with him so far, I doubt that Mike Reardon is willing to contribute to writing an article which presents the facts in a neutral manner and does not share his biases. Argyriou (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is important to understand that if "HOAs have much more power over individuals than should be granted to any private corporations", then an explanation of why this is so is critical to the issue. Elections play a major role here. HOAs NEVER have multi-party political systems, a free press, or an independant judicarily. Therfore it is axiomatic that elections are seriously flawed (this is exactly the problem with "banana republic" type governments).The Twin Rivers case in New Jersey is a case in point. The Twin Rivers HOA spent over ONE MILLION DOLLARS of association funds to prevent homeowners who want to run for office from having access to the community newsletter, or to post political signs! The ACLU stepped in for the homeonwers who could not afford to compete with the HOA in dollars spent in this lawsuit. This kind of sitution is extremely profitable for association attorneys, who encourage the conflict. The Department of Community Affairs in New Jersey has quite a bit to say about this, and I will post an excerpt from their report in this article. As far as fraud is concerned, law enforcement in Florida has recently begun acting upon reports of fraud in HOAs. There is quite a bit of information coming available here, and I will post some of it to this article. These reports were previously unacted upon, and instead those concerned were advised to pusue legal recourse in the civil courts. This virtualy prevents homeowners from resoving the problem, and is a terrible waste of resources for the homeowner and the HOA.Mike Reardon 15:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The introduction to this article 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 should be information that is available to all.Mike Reardon 17:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"HOAs have much more power over individuals than should be granted to any private corporations" This is a statement of opinion, a point of view. It is not a factual statement, and thus does not belong as a bare assertion in this article (though it's acceptable to say that "X believes that HOAs have much more power..."), and also does not belong as a guiding principle for writing this article. Saying that therefore HOA elections should happen in a certain way, or that HOAs should waive their rules for some people, is a reflection of the bias against HOAs which the statement I quoted above displays. Pretty much everything Mike Reardon contributes to this article is colored by the statement above, and is thus not compliant with Wikipedia's requirement for a Neutral Point Of View. Argyriou (talk) 19:40, 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 20:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I was the creator of this article. I know there are issues, and that Homeowner's associations vary widely. The only one I have personal experience with, the Baca Grande Property Owners Association, has a pretty lively political life. I know some don't, and perhaps can't, due to the way the bylaws are written. So I would expect a good article to both expose the horrors of HOAs and how well they can work. Fred Bauder 20:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC) ,

All Association by-laws include provisions for the developer to exit the development by transfer of the association to homeowners. This fact will remain in the definition section.Mike Reardon 13:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The Zogby Poll reference was extremely poorly written. It reads like propaganda. This poll was commissioned by the Community Associations Institute or CAI, a 501 (c) (3) corp (Lobbying) consisting of service providers to associations. To say that is reported "widespread satisfaction" with HOAs is simply false and misleading. This poll contacted 800 homeowners. In another poll of 3000 homeowners "Sixty-nine percent of homeowners in a recent survey said homeowners associations are either a "major headache" or a "minor annoyance". http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/you-prepared-ruled-homeowners-association/story.aspx?guid=%7BA42A7C4E-5706-4627-8515-0317F67C754F%7D

Which is true? Should we put them both in? Rather than include information that contradicts and confuses, I just deleted the paragraph citing the Zogby poll. Any suggestions?

Sarah, you restored the POV tags to this article without even a note in the discussion. The facts in this article have been discussed at great length in the discussion page. The only dispute seems to be that any negative (but factual) information be included. You should know that there is a Lobbying group, the Community Associations Institute or CAI (56 chapters USA ) that is paid to diseminate information about HOAs, presenting them as wonderful places. The CAI consists of service providers to associations, but does not represent a SINGLE HOA.They claim they work to create "vibrant" communittees, yet they lobby against ANY legislation that would in ANY way impose disclosure requirements, financial controls or reduce the power of association boards. These lack of controls are directly proportional to the reciepts of these vendors (especialy lawyers and property managers). They work very hard to maintain the status quo. There have been many editors on this article working toward that end. It seems that these editors would rather dispute the credibility of this article rather than have legitimate information available, if some of it is negative. This article does not deserve the POV tag, especialy when editors refuse to discuss or defend their position.Mike Reardon 13:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I've explained to you elsewhere, I'm not going to do this on multiple pages, so please pick one place to post comments, rather than posting multiple messages in numerous places. Please allow someone else to remove the tags. I really don't see how anyone can claim with a straight face that this is now not an American-centric article and that the World View concerns are now resolved. Tell me, outside of the United States, which countries' homeowner associations are discussed on a weighted level? Indeed, which countries' associations are discussed at all? I also think your repeated removal of the world view tag with the edit summary that you are only removing the POV tag is incredibly sneaky and dishonest. If another editor, as in a non-IP, established editor, agrees that the POV issues have been resolved in your preferred version, then I will happily agree with them removing the tag. But I'm afraid that after your months of SPA-like activities; these long messages that you have been leaving me over the last five months that include allegations about other people; your very obvious barrow pushing, particularly with regard to New Jersey; I simply don't trust you to make that assessment yourself. If there is consensus for the current version of this article and the consensus says that the POV concerns are now resolved, then you will not have to repeatedly remove the tags because other editors will do it for you. That is pretty much how our Consensus policy works. You are now in danger of violating 3RR, so I would ask you to stop and let someone else remove the POV tag if they agree that this version of the article is now satisfactory in terms of the NPOV policy. Sarah 14:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

POV benefits vs criticism

This article is giving undue WP:WEIGHT to the criticisms of HOA, when compared to a single para and one sentence all unsourced for benefits, that single sentence appears to be a backhand criticism of HOAs anyway. Gnangarra 14:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Editors have been allowed free access to Benefit section. If you would like to edit there, have at it. Just be factual. The criticism section is large because there are significant problems in HOAs, and a large lobbying group comprised of venders to associations is obstructing legislative reform. There are billions, yes billions of dollars being spent by associations with no requirement of financial controls (bid requirements, ect.), disclosure requirements, or constraints upon the powers of HOA boards.See the website ccfj.com and read about the level of coruption in HOAs just in the state of Florida. State Rep Julio Rabino has much to say about trying to protect his constituants from this industry. Listen to his podcast at onthecommons.org. Then come back to this article and examine the veracity of the content.Mike Reardon 14:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

surely editors have "free access" to the article as a whole nobody owns articles. Also when editing articles WP:NPOV requires that all opinions are given equal weight. I must ask given your response are you part of this lobby group, with your focus only on criticisms its appears to me you have a conflict of interest. Gnangarra 15:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats correct, just as I have "free access" to the article, others do too. No, I am not with any lobbying group, just a concerned homeowner. Again, if you have anything to contribute to this article I would enjoy reading it. Personaly, I think HOAs are a good idea, but the venders to this large business paradigm are preventing legislation that would address some of the problems (many of which are included in this article) to preserve some very preditory business practices.Mike Reardon 15:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Fraud is common"

This assertion has been removed, as the reference provided documents one case of fraud, and contains no evidence of other cases, except a bare assertion. As the reference is to an unreliable source, the assertion may not remain. Argyriou (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

ccfj.com is recognized as a rapidly growing advocate for property owners in Florida. They allege that fraud is common, and this reference is valid. You can find many examples of this in news reports throughout the country.Mike Reardon 19:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You are deliberately misunderstanding me in order to advance your POV. The reference you cited does not assert that fraud is common. Get that through your thick skull before reverting again. Argyriou (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

ccfj.com has many, many examples of election fraud, and well as fraud in general in HOAs. The article referenced implys that. Please disclose your interest in this topic. You seem to be intentionaly obscuring the facts in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Reardon (talk • contribs) 12:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You have provided exactly one reference to one instance of HOA election fraud. To make the assertion that election fraud is common, you must provide a reference to a study which shows that fraud is common, rather than providing one reference to one instance. My interest in this topic is to prevent you from distorting the facts about HOAs with your partisan bias. I am not a member of any HOA, nor do I do any work for any HOA board, nor do I work for any so-called "consumer agency" or other partisan group which seeks to disrupt contractual arrangements between competent adults. How about you? Argyriou (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There are many references to all kinds of fraud in HOAs. The news reports these events in several States, not just Florida. What do you mean that I must provide a 'study'? That is ridiculous. Reports to State agencies, State representatives interviews, and subsequent news items will suffice quite well. If it is happening and we hear about it, then it is worth mentioning here. Why do you want to water down, or completely delete these facts. The reference you keep deleting has links to the association attorney who attempted to help the defeated incumbants rig an election. This is not uncommon and should be available to all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Reardon (talk • contribs) 12:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You really don't understand WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:NPOV, do you? Argyriou (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand just fine. That is why I am attempting to include references with the text, which you keep removing. Just because you don't like the material, doesn't mean you can discount the references as being somehow sub standard. I have included references to State Reps, references to State officials, news reports and homeowner advocate websites, all of whom are giving consistant information about problems such as Fraud. Why do you think all of these sources are saying the same thing? Yet at one time or another you have attempted to degrade these sources and delete the material. It almost seems that you are intentionaly trying to obscure the facts.Mike Reardon 17:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You have included exactly one reference to one incident of fraud. Until you can come up with not just a few more incidents, but a report or study which indicates that there is either a pattern of fraud, or a significant quantity of it, the assertion that "fraud is common" is merely your own wishful thinking, and not appropriate for inclusion into Wikipedia. Argyriou (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Prior edits look more and more like vandalism. Harvard University published a very relevant study, which is being routinly deleted seemingly to fit the POV of another editor. Please explain why this edit should be revised, or don't revise it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Reardon (talk • contribs) 17:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The so-called "Harvard" study, which is actually a self-published paper (not subjected to peer review), does not actually show what you say it shows. It shows that in one county, with an unusual legal regime, HOA forclosure activity did not correlate to maintenence of property values. That's not the same as disputing that overall, the existence of HOAs maintains property values. I've moved the study into the criticisms section, where it belongs; the statement that HOAs claim to maintain property values is removed altogether. Argyriou (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Police Powers

In the case JAMES FOLEY v. OSBORNE COURT CONDOMINIUM http://www.ccfj.net/courtdecfinRI.htm, the court found that the ability to fine IS a police power:

"For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the 1982 Act represents an unconstitutional delegation of judicial or police power to the condominium association, a private entity." n1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.254.6 (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Also in:SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA

223 Va. 752; 292 S.E.2d 378; 1982

the court found:

The statute does not purport to grant an association the power to secure compliance with its bylaws, rules, and regulations by the imposition of a fine or the exaction of a penalty. The accepted definition of "fine" is found in Black's Law Dictionary 569 (5th ed. 1979), and is as follows:

To impose a pecuniary punishment or mulct. To sentence a person convicted of an offense to pay a penalty in money. A pecuniary punishment imposed by lawful tribunal upon person convicted of crime or misdemeanor. A pecuniary penalty. It may include a forfeiture or penalty recoverable in a civil action, and, in criminal convictions, may be in addition to imprisonment.

The Condominium Act authorizes assessments, not fines. The term "assessment" is in no way synonymous with the word "fine" or the word "penalty."

And finaly:

[4] The imposition of a fine is a governmental power. The sovereign cannot be preempted of this power, and the power cannot be delegated or exercised other than in accordance with the provisions of the Constitutions of the United States and of Virginia. Neither can a fine be imposed disguised as an assessment. Mike Reardon (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Your citations above prove that HOAs do not have police powers, as when the court found that a specific power was a police power, the court ruled that the HOA does not legally have that power. Accordingly, I ahve reverted your edits. Argyriou (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The legislature simply went back and granted those powers to associations in both Rhode Island and Virginia...thanks to the lobbying organization Community Associations Institute...and organization which incidentaly does not represent a SINGLE association, but represents lawyers, property managers and vendors on the PAYROLL of associations. Talk about the foxes running the hen house. There is more than ample evidence of associations having this governemental or police power. The edit stands72.85.140.194 (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The following link contains the Virginia statute that allows associations to fine http://onthecommons.us/images/stories/cases/gillman_chadwick.pdf Mike Reardon (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

FINES: Many states DO allow associations to fine. Yes, this is a police power, and should not be granted to associations, but I believe that more states allow them than not. So if you reverted that, you might want to rethink your position. Yes, this is the argument against fines. It IS and SHOULD be a govenrmental function, but it is now a function which many HOA boards have assumed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.126.14 (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

First reference to CID

"Some scholars and the AARP charge that in a variety of ways CIDs..." [So what is a 'CID' -- please write out first reference.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.207.35 (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why there is so much dissension on this topic

Primarily because we are treating HOA as if they were all the same in each state. They are not. California has a distinct code, the Davis Stirling act, that is quite protective of the owner/mmebers. In fact they have gone so far that the problem is now getting members to serve on boards.

Those who revile HOAs often take their examples from specific states with weaker protections. In New York City Cooperatives, which are HOAs but with a different legal structure, all power resides in the boards. In fact, the member/owners may not attend meetings and, believe it or not, do not have statutory rights to see the minutes.

Perhaps this is the extreme, but without studying each state's laws, I would imagine there is a continuum of protection of the members from the boards. So what's the answer. Do we have fifty articles, one for each state.

This shows one of the defects of the Wikipedia structure. A project of comparitive laws of HOAs would be a monumental task, worthy of a text book, and requiring funds to produce. This is not provided for in Wikipedia's structure. So we are often arguing where one person is right in his state and the other in this person's state.Arodb (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The Davis-Stirling act is not quite protective of the homeowner. It was created by HOA service vendors and lobbyists, who were concerned with their own interests. In California, the vast majority of HOAs are incorporated, the Corporations Code dictates that all corporations must have a board, and that the board must have all power. The homeowners may attend meetings and the board may ignore them and do whatever they want. California homeowners may see the minutes, which are not required to be accurate. Boards can use minutes to attack a homeowner's reputation.

Feel free to start state-specific articles about homeowner associations if you'd like, assuming they're notable. -- Rico 02:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring voluntary associations

The article ignores HOAs which are nothing more than voluntary associations of homeowners who live in a particular geographic area. I have edited the article to include such associations and suggest that the other editors who have been working on this piece also keep in mind such a distinction. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, this article is already too far advanced to make such a change. I've added a fix that will take the reader to voluntary association or neighborhood association in the case of the second kind of HOA. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

But I agree: this article seems to ignore voluntary HOA's. I belong to a group of 9 households who bought 150 acres of land and formed an Association with Covenants, bylaws and incorporation. Our neighbors did the same with 7 owners. The Miccosukee Land Co-op in Tallahasee has be an HOA since 1973 with over 100 households. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.91.99.132 (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sovereign immunity

I dispute this edit. Local governments do sometimes exercise sovereign immunity. For instance, in Virginia, "Historically, counties were created as geographical subdivisions for the administration of state authority at the local level; therefore, counties are viewed as 'political subdivisions' of the Commonwealth entitled to the same immunity as the Commonwealth." See http://www.vsb.org/publications/valawyer/april00/anthony_mcmahon.pdf Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

National bias

There seems to be a lot of national bias in this article, specifically an assumption of a US audience. That the concept of HOA is an American one is only fleetingly mentioned, and not until some way down the page. (I'm not an expert on this topic; if indeed HOA is an international notion then this ought to be made clear by providing some examples of HOA in other countries.) As it is, it reads as if Wikipedia is all about the US. It is not. Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The concept of HOA is not unique to the USA. Feel free to provide some information about HOAs in other countries. -- Rico 01:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

In Australia they are called Community Associations or Neighbourhood Associations but are essentially identical. Houses are owned by the owners under Torrens Title (as opposed to Strata Title) however each lot owner is also a co-owner of the association and any property it contains e.g. club house, swimming pool, tennis courts or whatever. Levies are raised quarterly to maintain the association property and the management of of the association is done by an Executive Committee normally with authority delegated to a professional Association Management company. The whole lot is governed at a State level by the Community Land Management Act (in NSW) and each association would have a set of local by-laws referred to as the Management Statement. Rules in the Management Statement could dictate colour palate choices for painting your house, the banning of satellite dishes as well as behaviour based rules such as you are not allowed to cause offense to a neighbour. - 09:58, 8 November 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.3.125.9 (talk)

Homeowner Associations

Can an Association opperate, take your money and not have meetings to keep the association members informed as to what the monies are spent on?

The board has been formed by the Builder with no Community input. How is this possible? We don't have a voice and want to use some monies on Neighborhood watch signs. We have had numerous break ins and vandalism and are not getting any support from the association.

What are our legal rights? We can not get the names and contact information of Board members.

The association is the Woodland Hills Homeowners association in Austin, Texas.

Thanks, Treaux (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

External links and reference to Homeowners Association Central Page

I am requesting that multiple wikipedia editors analyze and provide feedback on the links to Homeowners Association Central that were removed by editor Wangi. The link is to a non-commerical informational page, and deserves to be left alone if the multitude of other links and articles under references published in commercial papers and publications with CLEAR advertising on them are left alone. I would like an explanation as to why these links were removed at this point, where all advertising, logos, or even a company name do not exist on this page? Edenrage (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If a website has pertinent information to a topic, yet still acts as a hub for commercial advertisements of products or services is the end all criteria for judging whether a site is spam or a commercial link, then 1/2 the sites contained within wikipedia for references and external links should be removed. On the homeowners association page we are discussing, the reference article Educating Homeowners, Orange County Register, Nov. 12, 2006 that is included under the references section, is a for profit newspaper, with dozens of links to various commerical enterprise, everything from car dealerships to website builders to banks. I don't make the argument that it should not be in there, because the information in the article may prove valuable, although it is one man's opinion based on his assessment of factual information (as most newspaper articles are). THis whole concept of what is relevant information, and how much creedence the media should get simply becuase they have the money to get better exposure, is what stands at the very foundation of commercialism vs. true information and where the lines should be drawn. Like in many cases, there are arguments to be made on both sides....but if the websites or articles contain good information that is not centered on forcing someone to buy a product...why not let the reader decide on whether or not the link for a low a.p.r rate on a new toyota is compelling enough to click on. Obviously many editors have already concurred with this decision.

A newspaper article whether it be from Time magazine or the kalamazoo daily times still contains 2 things, 1. Information on the topic which is generally a mixture of fact and opinion 2. most importantly, a link home, along with other advertisement links, because at the end of the day, an article in the new york times regardless of topics, is bait for someone to buy the new york times.

Edenrage (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Edenrage. Homeowners association was one of the first pages i looked at after deciding to get an actual user profile on wikipedia, and I think the debated Homeowners Association Central link was the most straight forward external reference on the page. I do see your point about some of the other links being a little biased. I don't think Hoa central is perfect. It could have used some more cited sources for information, but overall, it gave me more information than what I could find in wikipedia itself. Kellyketty (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The last link on Hoa websites is a good source. A heck of alot better than the HOA primer link. I'm not even sure what that is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.122.99.169 (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know Kelly Ketty, Pudri, and whoever 76:122.99.169 is, you are all me, or at least that is according to Wikipedia editor Wangi....oh and also, your other edits are "Bogus" as Wangi put it...Edenrage (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC) See quote he left on my talk page: I'm not an idiot. There is no reply to your request on the talk page, no consensus. Instead these two "new users" made the exactly the same edit as you and added the link to the article. These two users are you, especially when you consider the slight sprinkling of seemingly good-faith (but in reality unsourced) bogus edits before the addition of the link: Edenrage (talk · contribs), Pudri (talk · contribs), Kellyketty (talk · contribs). /wangi (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Edenrage (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• The site in question here is an adjunct from a commercial site that is marketing the creation and maintenance of web sites for homeowners' associations. It's subtle, but it's definitely a marketing piece that's focused down to "why your HOA needs a website, and what you should have on it, and oh by the way we make them." To me, that makes it a commercial link, and under these guidelines, it should not be included. No comment on the sockpuppetry concerns other than to point out that when a group of editors that have not edited on other topics show up on a page like this, it's a natural concern. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

So the issue as far as it being a possible violation, is the fact that it is a page within a website run by a company that markets products which include hoa websites? In other words, if its URL was, www.homeownersassociationcentral.com, and it was not contained on a website that sold hoa websites, then it would not be considered advertising? I want to clearly understand the guidlines here (or at least what the majority reaches as a concensus on how they should be applied). Are we saying any page regardless of the information on it, that links to a sales website page, is contained within a website, or is sponsored by a page that sells a product, should be subject stricken from Wikipedia as an external link? And thank you for your input alsoEdenrage (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, the page never speaks of a company name, image, or logo, nor says, "By the way,We sell websites", nor in the "helpful link sections" does it link to any company homepage that sells websites. Are you referring to the links inside the text that lead to salesy types of pages, and further, if those links were not there, would the page in your opinion, fall within the guidelines?Edenrage (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Correction, I did notice a link at the bottom labeled "hoa websites" that leads to a company marketing page. the other links are to what appear to be non-salesy sites... So if this link were not there, does the page meet the guidelines as you see it? thanks againEdenrage (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edenrage (talk • contribs)

Would you please just give it a rest. You have been pushing this website here since October 2007 with the since deleted AtHomeNet article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AtHomeNet). Your focus has clearly been this link, and there have been minimal other edits. Further more you attempted to post this link on articles that it was wholly inappropriate to do so (for example website). A few accounts suddenly appear to agree with your promotion of this site and the addition of the link. Of course these are accounts with no previous history and created the same day as this discussion... And they then manage to replace the link in the article using the exact same syntax as yourself. Move on, you have a clear conflict of interest on this. This is an encyclopaedia, not a web directory. Thanks/wangi (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

To repeat what I wrote on my talk page: Honestly, no. The piece that link goes to is a marketing piece; it's subtle, as I said, but it's marketing. I know these things, I write them all the time. It doesn't say outright that "you should buy this," it says "this is why you should do this, it's a great benefit to do it just like this, and if you do make sure you look for this, this and this - and oh by the way, this company, which happens to be hosting this page, does all this." At least that's my read.

And to add to that, this diff from '07 uses the words "our CEO" in describing the CEO of AtHomeNet - the company that hosts the link you're working with, and which makes these kinds of websites. It's obvious from this link that you are in fact engaged in an attempt to insert commercial links, and at this point I'm going to have to put on my admin hat and suggest that further attempts to insert it, in any of the many articles you've linked to, will be contravention of our guidelines and likely to lead to a block. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

In reply to Edenrage's comments spread over disparate talk pages... We're not in the business of helping out offering suggestions to what would make a website suitable for linking to. We're in the business of creating an encyclopaedia. External links should only be for information it is not possible to have within the article itself. I see no need to link to this webpage, and your constant pushing of it only serves to reinforce that. Contribute to the article with source edits rather than pushing this website. That's what will improve this article. Thanks/wangi (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, your own words, "External links should only be for information it is not possible to have within the article itself." That is the very reason why the info on this page (devoid of sales links) should be there. The subject of Homeowners Association Websites is legitimate. There are hundreds, possibly thousands of companies that build them, communities and hoas that use them, and many facts to be read about them. Really there should be a sepearte article on the subject in of itself perhaps...but in the meantime, there is too much information on the subject to be ablsoved into the homeowners association page. I am even open to the idea of truncating some of the information on this page into such a new article, I just thought linking if the page owners could be pursuaded to have the page itself meet the guidlines would be easier and quicker, and I'm sure that it would be.Edenrage (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

In response to Wangi...It is clear that you and I are not going to agree on anything. Just as editor Fabric Tramp said, there are SO many issues involved in this that go far deeper than our discussion about this one page. Rather than have you attempt to preach your OPINIONS( and that is all they are) as if you wield some kind of end all authority over me or over wikipedia itself, followed of course by me railing back in retaliation into you with various sarcastic quips and such, I'm simply going to acknowledge the fact that you and I will never see eye to eye, and our history is such that civil non-confrontational communication is not a strength of either of ours based on our limited but intense history...so I will continue to fight for wikipedia to be what I believe what it was intended to be, as I'm sure you will do the same.thanks for your input.Edenrage (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Edenrage (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, Wangi, in response to your little blurb about asking me if I've "Even read the various guidelines that have been recommended to me" indeed I have, I would suggest that you actually spend a little time reading them, particularly in reference to comcast's wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast Yes, if a company has a link to their homepage or even an about us page fine....but having seperate external links for "Current Deals", Cable & direct Tv services etc..are not exactly a home page now are they? THey don't even give any information about the company's history or even facts. I believe the only purpose of these pages is to SELL SERVICES. If wikipedia editors are suggesting that once you make enough money to be considered "Notable", then you are free to plaster wikipedia with links to pages whose exclusive goals are to sell products and services, then you are essetially saying that wikipedia itself is "FOR SALE" to the highest bidder. Even in a scenario where a company's notablity gives them a free pass to sell things on their home-page, this is still a stark inequity in what the purpsose of this website allegedly is. Based on this just one of many of these instances,If you are what you say you are, you have much bigger fish to fry than me, do you not?Edenrage (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Edenrage (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Couple of things; I removed a couple of links from the Comcast page, which weren't necessary. Comcast has different links to different business areas, so one to each of those is not a bad thing. Second, I've opened a thread on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, here, to get more opinions on this issue, as I feel the conflict issue has yet to be addressed. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Edenrage, it's not a great argument to highlight existing questionable links as an excuse for yet more of them. Address the issues you've highlighted - trim the link such that they meet the WP:EL guideline. But I keep coming back to the realisation you just do not get - this is not a web directory, we're not here to promote your site, we're not here to farm links -- this is an encyclopaedia. /wangi (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What you do not get is that the common wikipedia editor is not an encyclopedia of policies on what to include and not include in the name of providing information. All we have to go on is looking around wikipedia and seeing what the examples are of pages that have extrenal links, and that is how we base what we recommend. I am sure I am not the first and won't be the last person who put up a link with advertising on it. While I am not arguing to have all advertising links stand jsut because some stand, I am arguing that this is what wikipedia is for better or for worse...so you can't just expect someone to come in and ignore that 100 pages have external links for advertising that go unchecked (even when brought to your attention) and suddenly one without even direct advertising on it is such a problem. I am not trying to promote a site...I am trying to get relevant on topic information either linked to on an applicable page or included in a different page. I don't think that is unreasonable...nor outside the framework of my rights as an editor. If this truly is an "encyclopedia" as you claim, then why not work to get the most information in it in the best way...instead of trying to condemn someone or information within the site when the person is clearly attempting to find a way to do that within the policies wikipedia has established....so I believe it is you that "just don't get it". Edenrage (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And thank you Tony Fox, for removing those clear advertising links from comcast.Edenrage (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Edenrage, I can't think why you would persist in trying to link to a site which is blatant advertising by a web developer, especially this. Until today I had never ever seen edits by you or Wangi so be assured my feedback is totally in the interests of the project. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

In response to Edenrage's request for an outside opinion, I must submit that the site in question is definitely commercial. It may provide some good information but surely the same info can be got elsewhere. Sincerely, and a friend to all, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

My only goal at this point is to preserve the information. If that means using some of the info from the page to create a new wikipedia page on hoa associations....fine....if that means rallying the site hosts to make the changes of a totally different URL to host the page as it stands, without any external links going to any company selling anything...fine. I have been making the points for the last 10 entries of improving the site to meet wikipedias standards or extracting the relevant information.Edenrage (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Lets be very clear - this is spam. Edenrage (talk · contribs) is adding links to AtHomeNet purely for promotional purposes. The user (as 69.15.97.162 (talk · contribs)) has also added links to cidgab.com - do a whois lookup on that and it's no surprise it's one and the same company. Lets draw a line under this, move on and actually improve the article. Edenrage, please do try and incorporate information to the article, but remember it must be verifiable from a reliable source and you should cite references. /wangi (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

All this makes me glad I am a renter and not a homeowner and reminds me why I gave up on this article after adding the italics which now appear at the top of the page. Sincerely, and still your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment I agree that these links are very clearly being inserted as spam. Interestingly, I actually think AtHomeNet is notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia as a number of independent articles have been written specifically about it: [1] If you read these articles, however, you will find that it backs up the idea that AtHomeNet is just a company that provides services to Homeowner's associations, and is thus neither useful nor relevant as an external link. It might, however, belong in the main article if it is explained in context. I personally find it interesting, from a business perspective; it's a business specializing in serving these organizations. This fact itself seems like it would enrich the article. Cazort (talk)

I will have to disagree that links to the organization Cidgab are the same as athomenet. Cidgab to my knowledge is a different website altogether, where anyone can add business directories, and sponsorship is sold to various vendors. There is nothing anywhere suggesting that it is Athomenet.

Also, I can concur with the idea of what should be included in this article. I will say in response to Cazort, I have long agreed that Athomenet was a notable enough company to have it's own page restored....particularly based on the fact of the vast number of companies that have pages on wikipedia who have made less notable contributions to the landscape of businesses or have deep enough pockets. I would not mind revisiting the concept of contributing to re-author a page fo the company...but with so many editors here accusing me of COI simply because in the past i worked for them, I would hope that perhaps someone else would start or resurrect that article and perhaps I can contribute to it. My intentions from day one was to provide more resources for this article and the topic of the industry in general. my basis for inclusion of the links was based on viewing the external links not only on this page, but many pages (see the comcast and coca coloa examples above. To put it bluntly, fi an unseasoned wikipedia user is trtying to contribute, we only have what is already out there in wikipedia as a basis for how things should be done....and the reality is, wikipedia is FILLED with external links and direct references to the pages of companies whose sole purpose is to sell goods or services. Blaming an editor like me for not memorizing every policy should be secondary to cleaning up wikipedia as a whole if it is indeed intended not to bea vehicle for advertising. Articles can be written onn companies without referencing or linking to sales pages, pages with massive amounts of sponsorhips on them etc....but we can't have it both ways with all these double standards..... Edenrage (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also add to wangi's comment above, that the company athomenet has published a great deal of material on the hoa industry, just as members of the company have lectured at colleges and helped with curriculums on the subject. Particulary Edison college in florida, has brought in the company's co-owner to write a curriculum for the new track study on association management. If that doesn't make the company or at least it's officers, a 'reliable if not expert source' than what does? It makes sense that seasoned participants in an industry should be considered the best sources of info on it does it not? I believe this can be done without infracting on wikipedia guidelines...but this blanket notion that anything even remotely related to the company athomenet has no place here is proposterous..... Edenrage (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Edenrage (talk · contribs) is also 69.15.97.162 (talk · contribs), that's certain.

whois 69.15.97.162:

network: Org-Name: AtHomeNet Inc

network: City: Suwanee

network: State: GA

nslookup athomenet.com = 209.168.240.111; whois 209.168.240.111:

CustName: AtHomeNet Inc.

City: Suwanee

StateProv: GA

nslookup cidgab.com = 209.168.240.116; whois 209.168.240.116:

CustName: AtHomeNet Inc.

City: Suwanee

StateProv: GA

/wangi (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not a computer geek....in otherwords, I don't know how website hosting servers work per I.P addresses and all that...I can say that CIDGAB is a completely different, not for profit company that serves as a resource to the community associations industry. That's why it offers Free resources and a vendor area where anyone can add a listing. Athomenet may be the parent company, but cidgab is it's own entity, and further, every website has a parent company that is FOR PROFIT including WIKIPEDIA. There are alot of sites that are sponsored, but there are no links to buy ANYTHING on Cidgab. There are sponsor links similar to the ones that appear on google ads along the sides of various webpages, to which there are multiple logos of companies that sponosor, but I don't see how that is an infraction on any wikipedia policy. CIDgab's website does not have any method to purchase anything on it from them. That link and the organization is a valid resource to the community associations industry.--Edenrage (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC) As for my affiliation in terms of my edits appearing from whatever numerical ip address...ahn sells hoa, community, and organizational websites. My email and website are routed on their service, just as many other people's are. I'm not sure how all that works, as I said, I'm not a computer guy...and any edits I made from that numeric IP address were not an attempt to deceive, as I made clear who I was...they were just me forgetting to login...as I had so many things to write and assumed the same computer would keep me logged in.Edenrage (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Edenrage, I strongly suggest that you drop the point. The links, as per discussion here, are inappropriate and commercial. You have yet to explain the statement you made during the period you were contesting the AtHomeNet deletion. You said then: "In general, how much outside press do you need to verify the facts in the profile to meet the criteria? I have some other people digging up some stuff, and our CEO, Susan Sanders was featured on the cover of USA today a few years back. "OUR" CEO.You were then obviously working for AtHomeNet, and every indication right now is that you continue to work for AtHomeNet. Including these links is an obvious conflict of interest. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed in the previous comments that I work for myself. I am involved in the HOA industry, and at the time of the 2007 article for AtHomeNet I was employed indepedently by the Co-Ceo of the company, which is why I brought up the point a couple of comments ago that just becuase someone has a professional affiliation with a company, does not mean they can not be a nuetral source. Even wikipedia's guidelines do not sasy that simply becuase someone works for or previously worked for a company, that it is impossible for them to contribute or author entries on that same organziation. While it says that it is strongly discouraged, clearly it states a set of guidelines for "HOW TO EDIT WHEN YOU MAY HAVE A COI"...so obviously it is not forbidden. The spirit of the rule is so that unbiased articles that are helpful to wikipedia as a whole are what is being considered. As for all of these constant attacks on what it is percevied I am doing, I have already long abandoned the idea of linking to that HOA central page and it's content for this article. My points have been for the last 8 entries, that I am trying to establish a way to get the meaningful non-commercial information into the hoa article. Also, my inclusion of www.Cidgab.com is a valid resource from a NON-COMMERCIAL site. The fact that the website is connected to or sponsored by athomenet is totally irrelevant to whether it should be included. Perhaps we need to end this strand and shift the conversation to the "Community Association" page to address that, as it is a seperate edit. I don't think there is anything left to be said about this particular page that I or others have not already stated...so I would like to invite all those who wish to contribute to the discussion on CIDGAB to join it on the wikipedia page for Community Association. Thank you all for your input Edenrage (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Edenrage, I'm a bit disappointed with what I read here. You and I had agreed to accept the review of an uninvolved editor on this. I see at least three uninvolved editors here who feel the link is not acceptable, and yet you're still challenging that. And there, of course, is the problem that WP:COI is trying to address. Editors with a conflict of interest are often blind to whether or not an edit truly has a neutral point of view or meets the rules of Wikipedia. A number of editors have explained to you what the problems are, and yet you're going back to "some COI edits are okay, so mine are okay". I'm fearful we're never going to make any progress here.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Section break in COI discussion

Under WP:COI, Edenrage should not be adding a link to a site, http://www.athomenet.com, that is provided by a business he himself is associated with. *Any* external link should only be added if it enjoys consensus support from other editors, which is clearly absent judging from the discussion on this Talk page. Since Edenrage's behavior is against the COI guideline, and since he has been restoring the link to this article multiple times even after being told it does not belong here, I'm warning him on his User Talk that he may be blocked if he continues to add it. If other editors add the link without joining in Talk their behavior may be looked into as well. EdJohnston (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

For the simple fact that thesed editors do not understand that I am done fighting for the external links on this page I am going to say it in a clear and concise way that every editor who is just joinging this discussion can easily see and move on from: I AM DONE FIGHTING FOR EXTERNAL LINKS ON THIS PAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I cannot be anymore clear. I have shifted my discussion solely to the link to www.cidgab.com on the community association page. All of my commentary will be there, and that is THE ONLY ISSUE I WILL BE RALLYING FOR... I would ask that we all focus on the issue at hand, and not this issue of the past. thank youEdenrage (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC) And further, unless someone can produce me a photocopy with a recent paycheck stub that has me working for CIDGAB (or even athomenet) for that matter...then please, can we keep the discussion focused on the merit of www.cidgab's content and relationship to the subject of community associations industry....thank you.Edenrage (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained POV tag should be removed from the article

Resolved

 – as of 11:49, 25 April 2009 ((case closed))

Cemw has still not given any reasons on Talk for the POV tag, which he added to the article on 31 March. I suggest that the tag should be removed. His edit summary was:

Added the NPOV tag because this article has been entirely re-written by the anti-HOA crowd with many untrue statements. Will be working on clearing these up one by one

This statement lacks anything specific we could actually address. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

very clumsy wording in caption

The photo up at the very top of this article, has a caption that is worded very clumsily. It says:

"One of major condominium's HOA role in cost is periodical large scale repairing/maintenance, surround with scaffolding, under regulation in Japan."

There is no way I know of, that the phrase "surround with scaffolding" (intended to mean "surrounded by scaffolding") would be written by a native speaker, or even a competent speaker, of English. It seems likely that this caption came from some foreign language Wikipedia article (maybe on the same topic?), and that it was then translated, (perhaps from Japanese?) clumsily.

(ordinarily) I would [be bold, and] just go ahead and edit this caption, but I do not know what it should say. I have not read the article. I think the best solution would be, for someone who can understand Japanese (or whatever language it was translated from), and who is a competent speaker of English, to figure out what it is supposed to say (figure out what it means!), and then "re-do" the translation.
Thank You! --Mike Schwartz (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Critics Claim

The negative aspects of HOAs are well documented from many sources. Far from being "critics" this information is coming from academicians, advocacy groups like the AARP and state agencys. If you want to include negative information as coming from "critics", then it would be fair to atribute the highly subjective information in the "Benefits" section as coming from "proponents of associations". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.128.89 (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

By rolling back to an earlier version of the article rather than re-inserting your preferred edits, you wiped out the edits that had been made by Giraffedata (talk · contribs). Please be more careful in the future. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I was careful. Nonsense statements like:

Among these CC&Rs are the duty to abide by certain authority of the HOA and pay dues. The CC&Rs form a contract among the owners in the development and the HOA, so the owners and the HOA can enforce them in court under contract law. Furthermore, the CC&Rs give the HOA the power to place a lien on a property in the development and collect a debt of the owner by selling the property.

Certain authority? Collect a debt? by selling the property...which debt..dues..fines?

The authority section is much better explained by: When a homeowner purchases a home governed by an HOA, he signs his agreement to the CC&Rs. If he sells the land/ home, he ceases to be a member of the association and the new owner becomes a member. All members must pay assessments and abide by the restrictions of the association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.66.247 (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for stating your reasons this time. Your earlier edit summary, and your initial post to this talk page, totally ignored the existance of the other edits which you rolled over by doing a full revert to your earlier version of the article.

My take on the paragraphs - neither version are ideal. The edit by Giraffedata (talk · contribs) added the wording "The CC&Rs run with the land so that they are binding on whoever owns the land" - the phrasing should be tweaked, but that sentence does help clarify the meaning. I agree that the original wording of the rest of that paragraph is clearer. Also, the edit further up which mentions the specific states seems more cleanly worded with Giraffedata's version. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved.  Skomorokh, barbarian  10:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Homeowners' association → Homeowner association — Matches reliable sources (e.g., Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Government). The association isn't the homeowners'. The association is comprised of the homeowners. The homeowners are the association, as an organic whole. The association does not exist apart from the homeowners, to be possessed by them.
The article was once named, "Homeowners association," which I thought was common enough (although a bit colloquial), but changing it to Homeowners' association was just plain ignorant. -- Rico 22:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

See also, Conditions of "Voice": Passivity, Disappointment, and Democracy in Homeowner Associations, by Professor Gregory S. Alexander -- Rico 22:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.