|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
As an attorney who makes his living off foreclosures and lawsuits created by the Davis-Stirling Act, why is it not surprising that Sproul opposes the passage of SB 137?
*- Larry Robinson, Rocklin*
Curtis Sproul is a recognized authority.....Tens of thousands of Californians live in a condominium or homeowners association community. Foreclosure rarely occurs. Therefore, this bill is overkill.
*- Carolyn Lindberg, Roseville
Past President, Sun City Roseville Community Assn*
Foreclosing for $120?
Curtis Sproul, attorney, would have us believe that it is in the best interests of homeowners associations to foreclose on a homeowner for a mere $120 in delinquent dues and then pay an attorney possibly thousands of dollars for his foreclosure services. No wonder Sproul doesn't want SB 137 to pass.
*- Pat March, Rocklin*
It's imperative that HOAs have the ability to collect delinquent accounts. The changes supported by Murray would hold HOAs hostage to each owner who chose not to pay. Many HOAs are small and can't afford to have their budgets skewed by the irresponsible actions of a few miscreants.
*- Greg Paulo, Gold River*
Abusive home associations
... exposes his perspective as a profiteer
*- Kathleen Willoughby, Gold River*
Foreclosing options
The bill allows HOAs to go to small claims court, placing a further burden on already crowded court dockets and leaving unresolved the problem of enforcing judgments. It allows liens on properties, but collecting liens can take years or even decades.
*- Carole Wade, Cool*
Posted Aug 29 2005 12:20AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Mr. Sproul's argument proceeds from a fundamental fallacy, resulting in an erroneous conclusion.
He contends that since Associations are "the lifestyle of choice in California," laws concerning them must be protected so that the Associatons can function.
Homeowner associations are not intended to be a lifestyle; they are a tool that local municipalities employ when approving new housing developments. They for the most part relieve local municipalities from future maintenance responsibilities by creating a binding contractual relationship between the developer and subsequent homeowners. Such contractual relationships delineate what and how such responsibilities will be administered, and the local municipality gladly signs off on the development, content that everything will be taken care of "by the Association" once the developer is out of the picture.
The private government that usually results from this contract, however, can become a nightmare for those who live there (oftentimes ill-informed when they buy into their properties, because, after all, the real estate agent is only concerned with their commission). HOA boards run amuck with little or no oversight and a very powerful lobbying group. (The CAI has a "Buck-a-Door" campaign to fund its legislative efforts -- do homeowners?)
This is an "industry" very much in need of regulation. Mr. Sproul earns his living by exploiting ignorance of both boards and homeowners. HOA living is no more a lifestyle than living in a dictatorship is a lifestyle.
Posted Aug 19 2005 5:45PM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
Oceanside, California |
| |
|
|
| |
The CAI Legal Fraternity is the biggest threat to America's Home Equity Security!
Posted Aug 18 2005 7:29PM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
HOA Voices
, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Forwarded message:
From: Starmangroup
Date: August 17, 2005
To: Opinion at Sacramento Bee
Subject: protect CIDs at the cost of individual rights?
Curtis Sproul's letter called for the protection of CIDs as if they were a threat to the national security of California. Save the CID from government legislation and interference with a private association, he seemed to be arguing.
This "hands-off" treatment of CIDs, as if they were principalities with their own private constitutions and laws, ignores the fact that CIDs are undemocratic and are foreign to fundamental American values and principles. Just because a homeowner can vote doesn't make the CID a democracy -- you can vote in Cuba and China. Where are the separation of powers, the checks and balances, and the due process and equal treatment under the law protections of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution? While they apply only to government entities, they do not apply to private contractual governments.
What is the reason why CID special interests oppose the application of the US Constitution protections to homeowners? Surely not for national security reasons. Maybe they realize that a concern for the American belief in individual rights and freedoms, protections that are lacking the declarations and in the CID legal scheme, would result in the loss of the power to coerce and intimidate homeowners into compliance. Such typical devices, sadly sanctioned by the state, are foreclosure and financial ruin through liens for fines.
These 14th Amendment protections must apply to CIDs, and CIDs must accomplish their goals of property value protections under the American system of government.
George K. Staropoli
Citizens for Constitutional Local Government
5419 e. piping rock rd
scottsdale, az 85254
Posted Aug 17 2005 4:48PM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Sproul's commentary was published in the Sacramento BEE newspaper on Friday, August 12th.
On Monday, August 15th, the legislature amended SB 137 to reduce the amount triggering HOA "enforcement" from $2,500 to $1,500.
What's worse is that our Governor may veto the bill even if passed by both legislative houses due to CAI lobbying, just as he obeyed CAI's demands last year.
Not only are teachers, nurses, firefighters, police and other union members on our Governor's "hit list," but it appears so are homeowners living under the domination of an association.
Kate Davis
HomeownersUnited.org
Sacramento
Posted Aug 17 2005 12:45AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Kate Davis
(View Profile)
Sacramento, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Mr. Sproul....how many thousands of dollars would YOU charge a homeowners association to forclose on a homeowner whose dues of $120 have not been paid.
Posted Aug 16 2005 1:07AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
Rocklin, California |
| |
|
|
| |
The fear of loosing the goose that lays the golden egg.
This article: Don't weaken home owners associations" gives the impression that it is written by a lawyer who is desperate to save his sinking ship with the goose that lays the association lawyers and consortium's golden egg.
It is time for this ship to sink to bottom of the sea for eternity. Neutralized, this ship loaded with faked cards which are played out, won't be able to cause harm to the unsuspecting home owners, whom the consortium lures into their traps like flies into the spiders web.
I suggest that law suits, liens and foreclosure be completely eliminated from the sky of home ownership. As indicated by a previous writer, there are other ways and means.
Hard times, illness, injuries and unexpected events, are difficult enough to overcome without having to battle against homelessness. One has to question the ever increasing corporate lay-offs - are they part of the conspiracy to defraud the working class from their homes and impoverish their families?
Posted Aug 15 2005 9:25AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Doreece Hadorn
Tucson, Arizona |
| |
|
|
| |
mr curt sprout,
do you really believe this garbage you spew forth? what is in it for you if this bill passes?
why do you care so much so that you would publish an opinion about it in the newspaper?
aren't you just a lawyer?
could it possibly be that as a lawyer you make a living off of homeowner associations in some way?
seriously mr s-prowl, why do you feel it is so important for a homeowner association to have the power to foreclose on homeowners for nonpayment of a debt to a not for profit corporation?
WHAT'S IT TO YA???? WHAT IS IN IT FOR YOU?????
Posted Aug 15 2005 6:40AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, ot |
| |
|
|
| |
Everyone should contact ALL members of their Federal, State, Local, and yes Homeowner Association representives and get this problem solved.
Posted Aug 14 2005 11:50PM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
HOA Voices
, California |
| |
|
|
| |
I would say that there needs to be controls put on the use of Super Over Paid lawyers to resolve minor problems. Stories of people losing their homes or huge fines plus the unbelievable "costs" being charged is just Crazy!
Many , like me. are on very restricted incomes and any involvement by the courts can amount to forced theft of their homes.
This is not to say that actual "criminal" infractions should go without penalty ... but the crime should be more than just getting behind on ever rising "assements" that go into the pockets of the builders and their in-house Realtors and Property Managers. Neither of which should be involved.
That is what the Homeowner Association is supposed to do.
Posted Aug 14 2005 10:16PM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Justin Askins
(View Profile)
, Florida |
| |
|
|
|
|
Return to 'Don't weaken homeowners' associations' |
Submit a comment
|
|
|
|
