Since when is an unincorporated territory a federal responsibility? What obligation does Uncle Sam have to settle disputes between homeowners and independent directors within these communities? Maybe a representative should present an Emancipation Proclamation for all those who live under the brutal regimes of Laguna Woods and Coto de Caza! The congressman should look into the possibilities of a House Resolution. After all, those residents cannot flee the dictatorship and move to another area... I have pity on Laguna Woods, you have so much in common with the poor people in Georgia!

Ultimately, I believe that people such as Mr. McDaniel wants to take the easy way out of problems. It is easier to complain about officials than it is to directly confront issues. If the whole community is enraged with the management, why not take action? The will of the people is on your side, revolution is supported. Why dodge the underlying issue of civic responsibility? Quit looking to others and waiting for Uncle Sam or the Governator to act, do something! What on earth are you doing to rectify the issue, besides complaining at barbecues or the grocery store? Whining to your congressman does not resolve anything.

Enough is enough. Take responsibility for your community that you claim to love so much, Mr. McDaniel. It is “we the people” who ordain government; it is about time that the people claim that mantle instead of shoving it off for some official in DC or Sacramento. Engage society and change it, take action instead of remaining in a state of lethargy and bitterness. However, changing society is too tough. I think that I’m going to just go back to watching TV and occasionally complain to my Federal Representative about how my local management is oppressive.

Sounds like a good plan.

Ellen:

Excellent points – which homeowners association are you affiliated with?
Better yet, which lawmaker do you represent?

The reason for the question is to follow up and test your recommendations. Otherwise we will conclude that you, like the rest of California lawmakers do not speak CID and that the ones in charge of CID legislation, including law enforcement, is the CID industry.

I actually don't work for either, interesting assumption. Someone who stands up for the necessity of citizens to hold government accountable must be a government employee or part of an HOA! Nice try diverting an argument.

But you're right, I don't speak CID. I'm more fluent in liberty and civic responsibility. If they don't like the area, move. If they want to stay there, fight. Why should the awkward hand of government reach in and "fix" the situation like they do in every government project? Maybe it can become the new projects!

Thanks for confirming the point that you are clueless on the subject.

The point Mr. McDaniel and others are trying to make is that the California legislators ARE the problem - refer to the recent bill recently approved:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger saying No bills will get signed untilmthere is a budget is necessary, but not sufficient. Governor
Schwarzenegger should simply say NO to bad legislation - at any time,period.

In a scathing op-ed piece titled California Association of Realtors: Pick a Lane! Donie Vanitzian, co-author of the Los Angeles Times Associations column, blasts Gary Quackenbush and the California Association of Realtors (CAR) for their support of Assembly Bill 2259, which she characterizes as "a farce, a contradiction in both terms and alliances", then goes on to describe how she put CAR, Los Angeles Mayor
Villaraigosa, and Congressman Rosendahl's on notice about the problems with A 2259. "Remarkably, Assembly Bill 2259 now contradicts provisions written into Assembly Bill 980 sponsored by none other than, the California Association of Realtors" Vanitizian writes.

Vanitzian then concludes that "CAR and the California legislature want it both ways", indicating that CAR and the legislature want to "decide whether or not a homeowners association can amend, rewrite, and restate covenants, conditions, and restrictions as it relates to renters and rental property." That the only reason this piece of legislation is now getting attention is "because of the housing crunch", and that "just as CAR appeared to have failed in performing the vital due diligence in pushing Assembly Bill 980, so too, they failed to perform the proper due diligence with Assembly Bill 2259. The difference this time? I refuse to tip them off as to what conflicts exist." Shewrites.

Never mind that the Orange County BoS want to obsolete common interest developments (as in getting rid of the "islands in the county"

Never mind that AB2259 is a classic example of the Bigger Governmentparadigm we are now all too familiar with: Assembly Bill 2259establishes a California Building Rehabilitation Code Advisory Council ("Council") to advise the advisory panels of the State Building Standard Commission on the possible adoption of state buildingrehabilitation guidelines.

Specifically, this bill: Establishes the Council with an UNSPECIFIED NUMBER of members, all appointed by the director of the Commission.Members shall include, but not be limited to
representatives from the following organizations:

* California Building Standards Commission;
* Department of Housing and Community Development;
* Division of the State Architect;
* Office of the State Fire Marshal;
* California Energy Commission;
* League of California Cities;
* California State Association of Counties;
* California Building Industry Association;
* Building Owners and Managers Association;
* County Building Officials Association of California;
* California Building Officials;
* American Institute of Architects California Council;
* California Apartment Association;
* Structural Engineers Association of California;
* Concrete Masonry Association of California and Nevada;
* California Hotel and Motel Association;
* Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California;
* California Business Properties Association; and,
* California Association of Realtors.

And directs the Council to make recommendations and yada, yada,
yada....................

We have asked CAR to comment on Vanitzian's op-ed piece, but have notheard from them.

* This is the California Legislature
* This is your CID wallet
* Any Questions?

I am responding because reference was made to my article CAR: Pick a Lane ran on http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=9493 and my other article "Veto Assembly Bill 980" ran on http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=6367.

Both of my books (Villa Appalling! Destroying the Myth of Affordable Community Living; and, Common Interest Developments--Homeowners Guide, Expert Series, Thomson/West) discuss these problems at length. However, referring to the above posts, this appears to be a typical showing of what happens when Citizens sit back and leave the driving to Special Interests. California's Legislature not only fails to speak CID, it fails to speak "Fair, Balanced, and Responsible." Hell, just take a look at "where" the money in California has been spent and the lack of accountability. Most of the California Legislation that gets passed is PORKED UP with special interest provisions to protect one entity over another. Take a look at the Davis-Stirling Act, the word "homeowner" is mentioned how many times? Once, Twice, Thrice? The largest section of code (Civil Code Sections 1350-1378) is the construction defect protections for big bad developers who receive their subsidies and cut bait and build defective housing. Thanks to the California Law Revision, oops, strike that. Thanks to the California Law Revenge Commission, and other wholly useless on-the-pay-roll agencies like that, deed-restricted titleholders are disadvantaged. It takes us half of our life time and nearly all of our retirement fund to fight this corrupt and incorrigible system. We can't even sue the errant board directors without following a stupid and ridiculous pre-litigation map before receiving an "OK" from a JUDGE--who likely "doesn't get it anyway." Costly? You bet! Ridiculous! You bet! Absurd? Without a doubt! Simply, the California Legislature has "Lost the Plot."

In reference to COTOBLOGZZ, so why was a federal representative called in to mediate local disputes? So a Center-Right website is advocating more federal meddling within State and Local issues? Sounds like Statism to me.

But maybe your fluency in "CID" undermines your comprehension in separation of powers. Thanks for confirming the point that you are clueless on the subject.

Helen:

If I may be so bold as to recommend the use of a nifty tool commonly known as SQ3R. SQ3R is often use to improve reding and comprehension skills:

Survey
Question
Read
Recite
Review

The central thesis is that the California legislature delegates its responsibility to special interest group, including the CLRC, as Vanitzian has noted above. Not really too hard to comprhend, is it?

Now, let us survey ……question…read….recite…..review….? Or perhaps the mainstream media papers are better suited for you?

Pompous Coto de Caza Blogger:

And my central thesis- Federal Representatives do not have jurisdiction on a local issue. I wrote in the first sentence: "Since when is an unincorporated territory a federal responsibility?" My central thesis did not have a personal attack attached to it, apparently that is the only way you can respond to a critique. My original posting was intended to discredit the fact that people should not call the wrong branch of the government and complain. If DeVore isn't listening, make him listen. It's been done before.

What does MSM Papers have to do with this? Yes, I read the LA Times and Register. I try not to hang out in the polarized blogosphere. That is an irrelevant point.

Oh, and thank you for mistyping my name twice, trying to imply that I am an ignorant female. Keep pretending that you are an investigative reporter!

Hellena:

Thanks for the accolades – although we are regularly called names, it is fair to say that this is the first time the term has been used in reference to what we stand for.

For the record, the point you are making, we do not disagree with – quite the contrary. However it can be extrapolated that since local lawmakers do not speak CID, what can you expect from the federal government?

For the reasons you have stated, we have volunteered to mediate between Senator Campbell’s office and the McDaniel’s.

On the other hand, what do you make of Dana Young’s conclusion(see below) contained in a report prepared on behalf of the Public Law Research Institute at Hastings College of the Law, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW titled COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENTS AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF CID DEVELOPMENT:

We posit that lawmakers, whether regional or federal, who decide to turn off the trough and wrestle legislative powers from common interest groups and become sympathetic to disgruntled homeowners such as the McDaniels in Laguna Woods Village, the Morabitos in Coto de Caza, the Fredericks in Riverside, or the Daniels over Meniffe, can be elected much easier and without selling their soul to the highest bidder.

Young’s conlusion
"Clearly, common interest developments have not only an important role in the history of housing in the United States, but also, if we believe the federal projections, a prominent future, particularly in California. In response to the continued development and increasing use of common interest developments, the California state legislature continues to play an active role in defining the relationship between the common interest development homeowners association, its members, and third parties"

One more time..... survey ……question…read....recite…..review….!

Ellend Heath:

You said that "Whining to your congressman does not resolve anything" and you are absolutely right, and the reason for that is they won't listen unless the caller is a lobbyist who contributes to their campaign. For some time now, and not necessarily for the issues noted in this posting, I tried phoning Mr. Campbell's office, and each time was asked "What GROUP are you with?" Seemingly, because I was with NO group, and was merely an INDIVIDUAL calling, I was pooh-poohed off the phone with no return phone call--it didn't matter what the reason was for my call.

You make another interesting comment that "If DeVore isn't listening, make him listen. It's been done before." I'll somewhat agree with that general discussion by noting it is "done" (ie "accomplished") when the citizen has enough money to be heard be it by donation to campaigns or a Legislator's pet projects.

But perhaps the more interesting of your comments is this statement: "Since when is an unincorporated territory a federal responsibility? What obligation does Uncle Sam have to settle disputes between homeowners and independent directors within these communities?"

The issue you raise is not particularly the issue being argued however, having said that, it is plausible, and there could be an argument to be made that there could be some Federal liability if not responsibility for what has and is being allowed to occur. There is in my view sufficient government entanglement in much of the building that is taking place--irrespective of which "State" it occurs. Many of the developers cross various state lines in their building endeavors, thus falling under the U.S. Commerce Clause and rules governing interstate commerce. Because the building is generally high density it stresses the infrastructures comprising many different areas, highways, utilities, air quality, emergency services, even homeland security, and so on. Much of the building materials are not indigenous to the state where the building is taking place and thus cross different state lines, never mind what country the contractors are from. The U.S. Government has not condemned this type of building in fact it has encouraged it. The EPA on many of the projects has fallen so short of what is mandated, it makes one wonder how the permits to build were issued. These items, and more, fall under the U.S. Commerce Clause. While not yet per se "pre-empted," the longer this flawed concept of housing is allowed to continue the closer the "entanglement" argument and "government as actors" gains momentum.

I'll disregard your flippant reference of the "Emancipation Proclamation" as being borderline racist and inappropriate for this present discussion. As for your comments "for all those who live under the brutal regimes of Laguna Woods" [. . .] you obviously have no clue what's really going on over there, so until you do, it would be unfair to discuss that further. Let it suffice to say however, that Leisure World (both of them) are comprised mainly of seniors on fixed income. They are a subset of our society that are unable to make that money over again given their age and poor health. They purchased into these so-called "communities" believing what they were told at the time of purchase. And, yes, "The congressman should look into the possibilities of a House Resolution" to investigate ongoing abuse of the Commerce Clause and taxpayer funds being misspent, and, abuse against a target group, that of "seniors" in a ponzi-scheme titled "housing and development" which is neither. You are correct, as you say, "After all, those residents cannot flee the dictatorship and move to another area." Again, given the current financial climate and the State of California's disastrous deficit, record unemployment in this state that is easily in the multi-millions, shortage of affordable rental housing, tremendous job loss due to businesses leaving this state in record numbers as never before, and now California leading the Nation in foreclosures, where do you in your infinite wisdom, suggest these jobless, frail, octogenarian seniors live?

Incredibly, and equally hard to believe someone would have the nerve to put this remark of yours in print "I believe that people such as Mr. McDaniel wants to take the easy way out of problems. It is easier to complain about officials than it is to directly confront issues." These Vets put their lives on the line for YOU, fight for our Country, and if LUCKY come back, let alone bashed, eviscerated, deaf, blind, maimed, disabled, with barely a semblance of a "life" left to live only to be further galled by the unsurpassed arrogance of someone as ungrateful as the likes of you accusing them of taking "the easy way out." Watch that you're not inadvertently struck by lightning.

Thanks Vanitzian for that legal perspective - you should be writing books on the subject - wait.... you ARE writing books on the subject.

Your input is consistent with Dana Young’s report cited previously.....prepared on behalf of the Public Law Research Institute at Hastings College of the Law, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW titled COMMON INTEREST DEVELOPMENTS AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF CID DEVELOPMENT:

Seems like The Honorable Campbell does not have a valid argument to NOT get involved in Laguna Woods Village, nor to claim ignorance on the subject.

Again, federal government has no right to get involved in a local dispute, even if it crosses county lines. If it crossed state lines, then the Feds could get involved. Calling your federal representative to complain about CID or an HOA is like calling your State Senator and complaining about the IRS. Of course you can call anyone and try to find help, but some calls are more powerful than others. After all, why on earth should any State Senator talk about the IRS?

I apologize Mr. Vanitzian for using the phrase "Emancipation Proclamation." I had no idea that using a historical document could be misconstrued as racist! Perhaps I should use the Magna Carta or the Declaration of Independence. Congratulations on playing the race card!

Not only did you play the race card, but you played the Vet card. Sorry, but your argument failed, considering I was in the Navy. And even if I wasn't, to attempt to "Swiftboat" someone under the guise of the accuser is being ungrateful is dishonest. Shame.

The fact that someone bought into a project and must be bailed out flies in the face of any free market philosophy. If someone bought Cutco knives and can't afford the payment, should the Feds help them? How about a car? Government bailouts should not be employed, regardless.