AZ2570
They are waiting for the Gov. to sign this bill into law. It eliminates the requirement for an HOA and gives the developer more control for lot sizes and homes. I am all for the former and against most of the latter. Developers are no better than HOA and build for a profit. Giving them that much authority can be a mistake as they build for profitability.
We live on a 40-foot-wide lot now which is still wider than city lots in the Midwest. I would think our width would be acceptable. Giving greater control to the Developer does not appear to me to be a wise idea. They have little regard for us. It took me 1 year to get the 25+ issues fixed in our Meritage home. People living in Richmond homes are ignored. The only reason why mine were fixed is because I am persistent and would (if needed) write the Chairman of the Board.
Summary, I do not think this is a good bill as I read it. Towns should be setting the standards for homes. the same as I did in Michigan. How did I miss this?
Best Dennis. Hope all is well.
Bill
About Post Author
5 Responses
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
William,
While I agree with some of your points the purpose of this bill is to prevent municipalities from establishing requirements that would require developers to create a planned community or condominium based on characteristics of the community. This is a many faceted bill with a focus on eliminating municipalities restrictions that become an obstacle to the development of starter homes or multi family homes. Currently many communities demand that any housing development with specific characteristics be established as a planned community with recorded covenants. That is why most of the new development in this state have all been HOAs. While this bill does stop a developer from proposing an HOA from the beginning it at least allows the developer the option. With the demand for non HOA homes on the rise this bill at least allows more of them to be created and providing home buyers options as well.
How this will play out in real life is yet to be seen and will primarily be driven by free market demands.
Dennis
Dennis:
When people cite “free market,” as a MA degreed economist I cringe. Most do not know what they are asking for and neither do commercial interests provide the needs of an individual or community as a number one priority in mind. Profitability is the number one priority and citizens and are secondary to their goals.
If you wish to see how a builder driven community and their HOA react to the needs of the community, I welcome you to The Lakes of Maricopa. By design, the declarant and builders have complete control at The Lakes of Maricopa.
The Lakes are polluted and the builder’s owned CCMC managed HOA is the mouthpiece to the residents. For the first two years I have been here, we were told by the Builder owned HOA a solution was forth coming to fix the Lakes pollution with better aeration and cleanup.
Over the last few months a company called Aalpha 1 Systems was supposedly chosen to provide a plan to address the issues affecting lakes. I can not find Aalpha 1 as a company with the various systems I might use to source a supplier. I believe it is called “buying time.” Buying time to build out and the builders walk away and residents are left with the fix. Supposed a plan was being worked on the prior two years.
The premise that builders would act with better interests to a community independent of an HOA is flawed in my opinion. They will act with little regard to residents also. The issue here is a lack of local control of the build. Sitting through a couple of presentations to the Planning Commission and the City Council, I was not impressed. It appeared that City Engineers were doing the presentation. The Planning Commission appeared to be an approval board mostly.
When we challenged the City of Maricopa over control of the streets once a builder transfers them to the city, it still remains the HOA has control till build out. I know of no city in Michigan, Wisconsin, or Illinois where a commercial community has control over streets in an ungated community.
So would a builder without a HOA act in the better interests of the homeowners and community, I do not believe so. They want their money and then run. And yes, this is a responsibility of the city to manage the build before and after approval.
Another example, Tim Breslin of Harvard Ventures was the declarant until recently. The HOA board consisted of three people from Harvard Ventures. We had no access to the HOA Board only CCMC. He mostly recently bailed as the declarant citing 1.14 of the CCRs. In effect he cites the CCRs as giving him the capability of leaving with no responsibility for anything after he leaves due to CCRs. No Fiduciary Duty?
If you would like, come and see what a builder run through an HOA is like. I will ask a few people to talk to you also besides myself.
Everything that you state is absolutely true but has been that way in Arizona because the Trade organizations ruled the roost at the legislature until this coalition was created. If anyone believe that the CC&R’s were created to protect the interest of the homeowners, they are sadly mistaken. They are created by the declarants to protect the declarant as long as possible and then to protect the association that is the corporation that succeeds the declarant. The absolute worst part is what is known as the period of declarant control which for planned communities is unlimited and constitutes nothing but total dictatorship, with taxation without representation. The condominium act limits this period to the sale of 75% of the community but there are no such limits in the planned community act. I’ve tried to introduce legislation to provide reasonable limitation to this dictatorship all to no avail. We had another such bill prepared for this session, but it was never introduced because the committee chair told the sponsor that it would never be heard. We will try again next year. Your is only one of hundreds of horror stories I’ve heard relative to abuses of the declarant powers to the detriment of the homeowners. Until we can elect legislators that are willing to fight for reasonable protection of the rights of homeowners to given themselves while still protecting the development and sale rights of the declarants, we will never improve this situation in this state. We developed reasonable legislation to protect both parties in this issue, but the developers and Robson Communities were not willing to negotiate in any way. Why should they, they have it all right now. What we need are legislators that are willing to stand up and do what is right for the constituents that live in their districts instead of just the trade organization that contribute to their campaigns and buy their vote.
No matter what I’ll be there working to get legislation sponsored to help homeowners in these communities protect their fundamental rights.
Dennis
Dennis
Dennis:
I will help you as much as I can. As you can see, I can write, I am a blogger. By the way, it is not just my complaint. If is probably a hundred or so homeowners in The Lakes.
Dennis:
A little background. I was a member of an HOA board for a number of years in Michigan. I also sat on a Township Planning Commission for ~ 8 years We dealt with Planned Unit Developments and also Straight Developments. The latter of which the builder had to meet all of the Township and County requirements. The PUD was a give and take. Another member and I went to a Planning Commission class for 8 weeks where we picked up on the requirements and responsibilities of being on a PC.
What I have seen is a free-for-all in AZ and Maricopa.