User talk:Sarah

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived to User talk:Sarah/Archive14. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Homeowners Association

Hi Sarah, I go to sea for a living which makes my contributions to Wikipedia sporadic at best. I noticed that you recently responded to an inquiry if mine. In response (belatedly) to your interest I offer the following: As well as discussion with an editor named Jance, my talk page also includes a communication with Edward Hannaman, a widely quoted representative of the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, in charge of that State's oversight of Homeowner Associations. Mr. Hannaman emailed his comments and advice to a group of residents in Massachusetts (to which I belong) who are trying to make legislative changes to how Homeowners and Condominium associations are allowed to operate in our state. The following text, found on my talk page, is from that communication:

"If anything things have gotten worse in New Jersey. 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. The problem lies in the difference between a true democracy with balancing players (two parties a free press and an independent judiciary) and what associations have (total concentration of all power and control of all resources in the board). Boards can even easily rig elections-and the only owner redress is court action that is very expensive. Try to get limits on board power- Make any significant decisions depend on a vote by owners; get guaranteed secret ballots, open fair elections-and by all means make sure you get owners’ rights to counsel fees for having to fight boards that ignore either general law or their own association governing documents. But to actually make sure it all works you need State enforcement by a State regulatory authority with only the people’s interests in mind. Here in NJ what passes for protection for owners is located in the entity that works with developers and builders. Naturally that agency sided with the lobbyists (most of whom are connected to builders/developers) opposing owner interests. So the agency gives me no support-it’s worse than having no enforcement because it gives the appearance that there is State protection and deludes people. I am not permitted to testify to legislators about owner concerns or to speak to reporters. If this were with an independent State agency, the legislators and the press could hear first hand from a State official on the firing line about the problems. The poor owners in NJ have no Executive entity to support them against the powerful greedy lobby profiting off of the owners. Hope you can make sure that does not happen in MA. Good Luck" I am now clear that publishing this communication, referencing my talk page as the source, would violate Wikipedia's policies (I am just now becoming familiar with Wikipedia protocols). I feel that this communication speaks for itself with regard to how serious an issue Homeowners Associations, which are almost entirely unregulated in the US, has become for United States citizens. My original communication with you was to question how, or if, this communication should be brought to light in the context of the Wikipedia definition of Homeowner Association.

As far as my personal interest in the subject, as I have said, I belong to a group of citizens in Massachusetts who are trying to make legislative changes to how Homeowners Associations are allowed to operate. I think it is very important to note that I have zero financial interest in the subject. I was introduced to the subject after witnessing my 92 year old neighbor driven from my Homeowners Association under threat of "fines" after the Homeowners Association disregarded a binding, prior agreement made years earlier with this person. Due to the lack of regulations, laws or State oversight and enforcement, the board of this association persecuted my neighbor for the simple reason that they could get away with it. When the president of the Board was confronted with the possibility of a lawsuit, her response was to say “go ahead and sue, we have insurance”. It was the most disgraceful thing I have ever been “associated” with. Since then, I have frequently testified in support of pro-homeowner legislation that would protect the elderly and other vulnerable groups from predatory exploitation by Homeowner Associations (and their attorneys) here in Massachusetts. I have found that it is NOT homeowners that oppose the bills that would protect homeowners from predatory practices, but a powerful lobbying group of SERVICE PROVIDERS (primarily lawyers) to Homeowner Associations that oppose these laws (see “Community Associations Institute” and a laundry list of laws they have successfully blocked). You should notice that the editors who are concerned about the negative information in the Wikipedia article all seem to have a financial interest (some way in the “business” of associations) in the continued ignorance of the general population about the more dysfunctional aspects of HOAs. The afore mentioned Edward Hannaman had issued an extremely important (and negative) report on Associations in New Jersey in his capacity as State regulator. This report was relied upon heavily by the NJ State Appellate Court Division in overturning a First Amendment Case decision that had been originally found in favor of a Homeowners Association there. The AARP and the ACLU have also gotten involved in this case in support of the homeowners. Imagine… the Homeowners Association in this case has spent over 1 MILLION DOLLARS of homeowner’s money to attempt to deny these same homeowners their First Amendment rights! The case has drawn on for 7 years! This case is a perfect example of why homeowners are helpless in the face of tyranny by the boards of HOAs. If the homeowner’s only recourse is to go to civil court (as my 92 year old neighbor found), then they must spend 10’s of thousands of dollars, and years of time fighting the board who risk nothing personally. The only group to profit from this disgraceful waste of resources is the attorneys; and they profit handsomely! For the purpose of the Wikipedia article; many of the ‘facts’ about HOAs are not flattering to either those who operate them or those who profit from them. Nonetheless…they are the facts and need to be included for the benefit of those who are researching the subject. In my editing of this article I have attempted to make the body of the article as unbiased and factual as possible. I have left the criticisms in the appropriate section, and left the benefits section alone as well (even though the Zolgby Poll is something of a joke. Just 800 individuals were interviewed, out of a pool of almost 60 million. The results of this poll are so statistically invalid that any claims made based upon this poll are nonsense). In this light I would think that you might be more concerned with those editors who wish to obscure the negative aspects of this subject. It seems to me that they do so from the worst of motivations; financial. More to the point, those editors who wish to obscure the negative do so by unilaterally deleting facts contained in this article. Specifically; I have included comments made by NJ State regulator Edward Hannaman taken from a report that was included in an Amicus Brief to a State Appellate Court by the AARP. Credible and referenced information. Yet these comments are routinely deleted on a unilateral basis with no discussion offered! Why? Certainly the credibility of this information is not disputed; it is the implications and one might say the “truth” that is being willfully obscured. As far as my motivation for editing this article, I offer the following: I believe that if these negative issues were to be recognized and resolved, then these communities would be exponentially more pleasant and safe places in which to live and retire in. They would most certainly contain much less conflict. Just as certain is the fact that those who profit from this conflict would suffer. I believe that this “truth” is being desperately obscured by an industry trade group not only in the legislatures of all 50 States, but in this Wikipedia article as well. Mike ReardonMike Reardon 23:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

My rfa

Hi Sarah, I left a thank you and follow-up question to your feedback at my RfA, but I'm thinking now that just the fact that you mentioned the user-talk namespace in the oppose is enough to get me thinking about using it more, and I'm sure I'll start finding more excuses to use that namespace for more than just template messages. See you around. Sancho 17:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

userp

hey, thanks for helping me out with the userp. im enjoying the lack of numbers next to my name :) Kiran 11:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Hi Sarah Sorry for not responding to your warm welcome before now. I have only just seen the message that you left. Kindest regards Ron Barker 14:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi Sarah. Thank you for your support and kind words in my RfA, which passed with 95 support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral !votes. It means a lot to me to have your individual support and the collective support of so many others. I truly will strive to carry myself at a level representing the trust bestowed in me as I use the mop to address the never-ending drips of discontent in need of caretaker assistance. Jreferee (Talk) 08:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Acalamari's RfA

Hi Sarah. Was going to wait until it ended before commenting here, but I'm going on break now and had to get this comment out of my system.

I recall your comments on the first RfA and was curious as to what your second ones would be like. Now, RfAs run the full gamut from mild affairs to all-out warfare and flamefests; you've seen more of these than I have, you get the idea. Either way, they're all trials of fire for the candidate. Anyways - enough!

I just want to point out that your comments here were some of the best, most insightful and most thoughful comments I have ever seen in anyone's RfA and I just wanted to say that I was nodding my way through each sentence. Well said, indeed! Just ... wow! - Alison ☺ 12:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

To be clear

O

W

N

E

D

B

Y

T

H

E

M

I

G

H

T

Y

H

A

W

K

S

Um. I'm just mike42's friend. =D --CableModem^_^ 09:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Good, good. At least some people on this planet are still sane *high five* (Mike42 is my IRC nick by the way, incase you were wondering) --Michael Billington (talk) 09:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I kinda like pie. --CableModem^_^ 09:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone forgetting that the Hawks won!?FenderTele^Criticise 22:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. It was successful, and I am now, may God have mercy on us all, an administrator. Look at all the new buttons! I had heard about 'protect,' 'block user,' and 'delete,' but no one told me about 'kill,' 'eject,' and 'purée.' I appreciate the trust the community has in me, and I'll try hard not to delete the main page or block Jimbo. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Questionable

hello, i am the user known as onopearls. although i feel that you have every right to criticize a nominator, to call their intentions questionabe is ,in my opinion, uncouth. How long a user has been editing wikipedia or how long an account has been active shouldn't play such a significant role in your judgement of a nominator, and saying that the noms intentions are "fishy" is unjust without background knowledge. i have been editing wikipedia for close to three years, but never felt that a account was nessecary. i have also edited much more than 167 times. my short sentence can be attributed to the fact that i have never nominated a user before. i will write a longer one the next time nominate a user, should i ever do that again. please dont consider this a personal attack, but i felt that your accusations were misguided, and that i needed to set the record straight. best wishes, Onopearls 19:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)