|
|
|
|
|
|
An Article
|
|
New Jersey Supreme Court rules that homeowner associations may be subject to the free-speech provisions of a state constitution
July 27, 2007
By
Professor Frank Askin
(View author info)
|
|
|
|
| |
Professor Askin is choosing to look at the glass as being half full. While I appreciate optimism as much as anybody else, the plain truth is that anti-HOA movement suffered a serious setback last week.
As long as the effort is directed at trying to correct a fatally flawed concept, defeat is almost guaranteed. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, after most of the landmark civil rights legislation had been passed and the US Supreme Court had affirmed the basic constitutional rights for blacks in America, the people in power realized that it still wasn't enough. Without firm, directed action none of what had become law would ever really make a difference. Thus, Affirmative Action was born.
I submit that all of these very narrowly focused court cases, no matter how well intentioned, will ultimately prove futile because the situation we face today is much like the one dealing with racial issues 50 years ago.
When you have an institutionalized injustice that is so firmly entrenched in the makeup of society as CIDs, only a policy as bold as Affirmative Action will be effective in reversing it. The simple truth is that "Homeowner Bills Of Rights" will simply be ignored or side-stepped by lawyers determined to keep the HOA Gravy Train on schedule.
Until this country takes unequivocal steps to not fix, but eliminate these monstrosities I fear that we will all be sitting here 50 years from now lamenting the same things we are today.
Robert Metcalf
Chadds Ford, PA
Posted Jul 30 2007 7:56PM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Robert Metcalf
(View Profile)
, Pennsylvania |
| |
|
|
| |
Can only assume there were 'bucks' and 'politics' and using it mainly as a State University graduate course study as the main objections, since it did little for the homeowners living in these 'gulags,' nor really address the constitutionality of them at all.
Although 'technically' free speech and protection was accorded, didn't really address this land ownership and property rights violation at all for what it is....a 'tax and takings' scam for additional tax revenue, and 'excessive' land use control.
Posted Jul 28 2007 7:16AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
Phoenix, Arizona |
| |
|
|
| |
Although with it's massive private donations, and also federal grant monies (since there is also federal provisions for the allowance of grants for civil rights issues), it seems interesting that then the actual leg work and 'counsel' was through through the Rutgers law students....seemed a little odd, and also the 'venue' in which this case was brought - claiming that these 'associations' were 'state actors' and actually 'state created' for basically tax revenue and to control land use, yet brought in the state and not at the federal interest (since the state does have an interest in protecting it's revenue streams).
It is apparent the state's will continue to protect their 'mini-me' creations, and at this point haven't a clue as since these entities were 'state created' and as such most assuredly a 'state action' and 'government,' especially with the additional statutes which have been passed in New Jersey, why this was brought at the state level at all, since land ownership and property rights are actually federal rights, above all else.
Posted Jul 28 2007 7:13AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
Phoenix, Arizona |
| |
|
|
| |
Not to mention the 'subjective' standards and over the top 'restrictions' can force you into bankruptcy, or the loss of your home.
They were a 'fraud upon the public' to begin with, and unfortunately many still living in them in delusion as to what they actually represent.....communism on it's most basic level.
And what a way to live.....and still disagree with the postion take by this court in some respects....you do not 'sign away' your constitutional rights under the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights unless you so 'expressly' consent to do so....and a recorded lien is not 'expressly consenting' in any manner whatsoever.
Posted Jul 28 2007 5:12AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
Phoenix, Arizona |
| |
|
|
| |
I know one thing, if I lived in a homeowner association of any type I would cut and run outta there so fast there would be dust in my wake!@#$%*&
What the heck is going on in these entities. I remember their being a "Flag Bill" which had to be passed in order for AMericans to have the RIGHT to fly the flag. Last I checked, that was a Constitutional right. Now, a DECISION has to be made as to whether or not someone has the right to FREE SPEECH??
Wow, we have sunk to an all time low in this country when you have to legislate flying the flag and free speech. People who buy into and support the HOA laden housing concept in any way shape or form are contributors to the destruction of the Constitutional rights of all.
Send the builders, municipalities and politicians a message - do not buy into HOA laden housing. Make them change the building covenants for new housing to be MANDATORY MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE and NO RIGHT FOR AN HOA TO FORECLOSE- EVER!!!!!
These HOA Industry vendors have got quite a cushy deal going - think about it - buy a home in a private (even gated) commune, pay the standard property taxes as the traditional single family home with municipal infrastructure, BUT in addtion you have to pay HOA dues to maintain the PRIVATE infrastructure of the commune and those are NOT a tax write off.
You are ALL being taken for an expensive ride on the equity train to nowhere!
I remain,
P. Flamingo Esquiressa
Posted Jul 28 2007 1:51AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, ot |
| |
|
|
Return to 'New Jersey Supreme Court rules that homeowner associations may be subject to the free-speech provisions of a state constitution' |
Submit a comment
|
|
|
|
