Arizona HOAs have come a long way in 9 years. NOT!

I just came across a study of HOAs conducted some 9 years ago by Gregory Alexander, Law Professor at Cornell Law School (published in “Common Interest Communities”, Barton & Silverman, Eds.). It is important because it shows the same problems then as we still have now and it applies to all HOAs as well. It is important because it clearly demonstrates the need for reform in terms of corrective legislation, now and not in another 9 years.

Professor Alexander studied several associations in the Mesa-Tempe-Chandler areas in 1991. His results help to explain what goes on in associations, why homes were bought there, what buyers expected and to dispel many of the misconceptions leveled against residents in HOAs.

He was attempting to answer the question, “Why residents of planned residential developments display so little interest in the affairs of their governing HOAs”. Here are some of his findings:

• The overwhelming majority of residents did not buy because the house was in an HOA. Some were not aware of an HOA; some did not fully understand what an HOA was; less than 10% actually read the CC&Rs.

• “The presence or absence of a homeowners association plays so little on a purchaser’s consideration that some buy … even though there are opposed to collective government of housing developments”.

• Those homeowners who were pleased with an HOA government were so not because they could practice self-government, but because it would to protect property values.

• “Most residents expected that the function of the homeowners association was limited to maintenance of the physical aspects of the environment”.

• Exiting an association is costly, not only monetarily, but in terms of the disruption on the lives of a family and on the children.

• The powers of HOAs, that include the equivalent power to tax, to vote and to enforce rules and regulations, “are so extensive as to give them the appearance of a private constitution”.

• Apathy toward involvement was attributed to active lifestyles and the care of young children. Over 80% of the residents said they had no desire to participate in or join the HOA board. This apathy “did not appear to be the result of general satisfaction” with the HOA board.

• Residents expressed substantial dissatisfaction with the actions of the board and its enforcement of the rules and some felt “that the board had intruded on the private sphere of their property ownership.”

• Some residents were content with non-participation and some had wanted to get involved, but were “stonewalled” by the HOA.

• “Passivity and apathy are expressions in which living within a group lacks meaning for individuals”. If a sense of powerless results, as when a group has commandeered the functions of a board for their own interests, then apathy will prevail and not participation in the governing process.

Professor Alexander then offered the following:

• “WHAT WE GAINED FROM OUR SURVEY WAS THAT APATHY AND FRUSTRATION CO-EXISTED ON A FAIRLY WIDE-SPREAD BASIS …”

• “The owners were frustrated; some were acutely angry. Yet they haven’t responded to their disappointment by expressing their frustration. Rather they chose passivity”.

• “Individuals do not react to disappointment by becoming active participants in the governing process unless a democratic culture already exists … ” People do not become activists and will remain mute and passive if there is no group attitude toward participating in the government of the HOA.

Many people object to the intrusion of others into their personal life. Yet, these requirements of greater activism and involvement and of conformity and social togetherness are not explained to a buyer. He is not told, “Do you think you can live under these conditions? It takes a special kind of person to live in an HOA. Are you one of them?” The above findings show that this requirement imposed on HOA members is not consistent with reality and the behavior of most people.

This study is extremely important for the Arizona Legislators studying the problems with homeowners associations. Not only does it offer insights and explanations for reform, but it clearly brings out some of the defects of the role of the HOA board as a private government. The HOA is founded on principles and law contrary to human nature and it is not surprising that we continue to have more and more serious problems arising with homeowners associations.

To hold people who live in homeowners associations to a higher standard than the population as a whole is incomprehensible. To expect homeowners to participate and become activists just because they bought a home that happens to be in an HOA is unreasonable.

It’s time for the laws to be changed. It’s time to provide protection for homeowners by removing the private government HOAs and restore civil liberties by means of a homeowne’rs bill of rights. TODAY, not tomorrow, not next year. TODAY!