Jump to content

Talk:Homeowner association

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mike Reardon (talk | contribs) at 17:25, 17 October 2007 (→"Fraud is common"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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."

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.[1] — 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.[2] — 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ McKenzie, Evan. Privatopia: Homeowner Associations and the Rise of Residential Private Governments. Yale University Press. p. 145. ISBN 0-300-06638-4.
  2. ^ Template:Harvard reference.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

Absence of Due Process in Homeowner Associations

-- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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) ,[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You really don't understand WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:NPOV, do you? Argyriou (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeowner_association&oldid=165219514"