Mar 16, 2013 Posted by: “fred f” hoahelpaz
As you all know Cc\C&Rs represent three different items and typically all land sales include some covenants and their existence is understandable. However these covenants usually are not the source of most Planned Community conflicts and litigation and instead it’s the following;
1. The contract includes authority onto what the association doesn’t own, which is the private property of owners through architectural guidelines and rules which dictates the uses and even lifestyles that are acceptable to the fictitious association.
2. Governance over the privately own portions of the development (common areas/amenities) is through corporate law and administered by volunteer Board members. The association is fully funded by buyers who become members at purchase and then conscripted into service as Board members who then fully fund the activities of the association through assessments, special assessments and the automatic lien placed on each member’s property.
3. Buyers are required to become business partners with their neighbors and liable for any and all faults/short comings/illegal acts/damage from natural disasters or construction defects etc. or by Board actions or inactions, acts/bad or illegal advice by association hired professionals, irresponsible members, former developer and even others who aren’t members. SO whereas that little bit of information in the sales disclosure statements to encourage consumers to invest in this type of housing product ???? It wasn’t, because long ago leaders concluded that no rational person would willingly accept these terms. So they (municipalities) decided without public comment or participation to impose private governance upon consumers and not as industry professionals always claim, because consumers want private governance with all those restrictions, high risks and liability’s. If you’re not at the contract creation table you’re not going to benefit, instead your going to be on the menu.
Cc&Rs are not the main culprit its,
1. The mandated use of private corporate governance to own/manage the common areas instead of public ownership/management and
2. the associations authority over architectural and behavioral issues that were decided by others. Because under private ownership of the common areas property owners lose many important rights and protections when the association adhesion contract mandated by the municipality is imposed upon buyers because it oversteps its municipal scope to take control over all property’s within a development instead of just the portions of the development which the association owns. To put it another way, when housing is privatized so is justice and community doesn’t exist !!!