On My Mind
Privatizing the Inner City
Robert Nelson, 12.12.05

Forget condemnations. Here's how to bring housing, Costco and Ikea to urban areas.

In June the Supreme Court said that New London, Conn. could force Susette Kelo and a small group of homeowners to sell out to private developers. It was not a popular decision. Already the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill to deny federal funds to state or local governments that use eminent domain powers for economic development. Many state legislatures are considering similar laws. (See related commentary, p. 33.)

But older cities face serious land-use problems. How can a dense urban area like New London or Hartford revitalize itself if developers have to build one lot at a time? Should residents of failing cities insist that shopping centers be built only in the far suburbs, displacing farms and increasing suburban sprawl? Must all large housing developments be relegated to the exurbs?

There is a better way to give developers access to sizable plots of land in the city: allow homeowners to privatize their neighborhoods and sell en masse directly to developers.

A recent example of how this would work can be found at a housing cooperative in Washington, D.C. known as Sursum Corda ("lift up your hearts"). Sursum started out in the late 1960s as a rental project sponsored by the Department of Housing & Urban Development. In 1992 it was converted to a cooperative, privately owned by the former tenants. Six months ago developer KSI came knocking. It wanted to put up a 500-unit development on Sursum's 6-acre site. In late October the 167 low-income families in Sursum Corda agreed to sell their neighborhood to KSI. The families will receive $80,000 per unit, a future share in KSI's profits from the site and an option to purchase a discount-priced home in the development. The transaction was approved by a board vote--no solo holdout could stop the bulldozers.

This is a good deal for all sides. Under competitive pressure from other developers, KSI raised its initial offer by $30,000. Because the families bargained together as a single unit, they got a better deal than they could have gotten as individuals. The land, which lies close to a new Metro stop, will be converted to more valuable use.

Many other nations have long had laws that make it easier for property owners to pool their resources. In Japan these laws played a significant role in reconstruction after World War II. Japanese property associations consolidate land, install infrastructure and lay out new development plans. A two-thirds majority is empowered to make decisions.

Community associations are spreading rapidly in America's suburbs. From 1980 to 2000 half of new U.S. housing was built within a community association. It's time that the benefits of associations become available in older cities as well.

A new state law would work like this: If a group of urban owners wished to consolidate their properties, they would petition the city. A transfer agreement for streets, parks and other public services would get worked out. Then if a supermajority of 70% or 80% voted to approve, a new private community association, including all the property owners, would be established.

There would be no cram-down eminent domain; the property owners themselves, through a supermajority vote within their association, would approve any sale. And they'd get a price set not by judicial decree but by private negotiation. Proceeds would be divided according to the association's rules. If the owners preferred to stay in the neighborhood, rather than sell out, their new association would then function much like a residential version of a business improvement district. They could collect assessments, for instance, to sweep the sidewalk.

In the 1930s the Wagner Act provided for collective bargaining between newly organized workers and businesses. Today we need an urban Wagner Act that will enable collective bargaining between neighborhood property owners and developers.

Thoughts on Community Associations Institute

2005 November 1

POA legislation is in turmoil with many amendments proposed in the state legislatures. Lobbying appears to be intense in some states, particularly by the community associations industry and some local chapters of CAI.

The changes in legislation for property owners associations (POAs) is moving in a consistent direction — incorporating more and more democratic principles. While CAI claims to be the voice of the 54,000,000 residents living in community associations, they are not at the forefront in advocating democratic principles and members' rights. In fact, it appears that CAI in some states is actively opposing the democratic reform.

The continuation of this post discusses these interrelated issues. I am interested in your thoughts on this important issue.

Don Nordeen
===========

Thoughts on Community Associations Institute (continued)

CAI's Contributions

While this post is critical of CAI's claim to be the voice of individual people who live in community associations, I don't want in any way to disparage other work of CAI which has served the community associations industry (management companies, developers, real estate companies, attorneys, accountants, reserve specialists, mortgage companies, maintenance companies, and others who/that provides services to community associations) very well. With good services from this community association industry (I use the abbreviation, lower case "cai" to distinguish "industry" from "Institute"), community associations have also been well served. I use the term "property owners associations" (POAs) rather than community associations. See definitions/glossary.

I became familiar with CAI when I was president of a property owners association (POA) in the late 1990s. At my recommendation, the board voted to join CAI as a POA member. Many CAI publications were of value in improving the organizational systems and processes. I now associate those publications as those serving the cai.

In subsequent research, I was disappointed with the omission of information on rights of individual POA members and the omission of information on democratic principles for governance of POAs. I found that much of the information on these issues was general and seemed to say the right things, but in fact are equivocal and lacked the specificity to define and protect the rights of individual members and the use of democratic principles in the governance of the POA.

More recently, I have concluded that the above observations can be explained by CAI's support of the Developer's Model for governance of the POA. The developer, or the developer's attorney, crafts and records the initial governing document consistent with the developer's interests. This includes establishing a POA in which the developer can exert substantial control. A corporation governance model in which the board has almost total authority over POA affairs is consistent with the developer's interests — particularly since the governing documents can permit the developer to appoint the members of the board during the development phase of the project. When the transition to member control is completed, the POA is stuck with this model of governance, which is basically an oligarchy — prone to all of the abuses inherent therein.

The problems and complaints from individual POA members, which are based on the Developer's Model, are driving legislative changes to make the governance more democratic (open meetings with proper notice, no abuse of closed sessions, members have right to address the board on any agenda item, members' access to all records, better voting procedures, etc) — more toward the municipal or democratic model of governance. Hopefully, we are close to getting out of the "black hole" of the Developer's Model to adopt a Democratic Model of governance of the POA members, by the POA members and for the POA members.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a reluctance of the community associations industry to embrace a Democratic Model. There really shouldn't be a conflict between a model based members' rights and democracy for POA members and the interests of the cai. It is in the interest of the cai for POAs to function well and create model communities for the developers. The Democratic Model for governance should serve all interests.

The legislative pressure in many states is moving the legislative activities away from CAI's stated policies. CAI's recent change in membership structure (also the Q&A) may be CAI's first step in responding to these changes, but that hasn't been clearly stated.

CAI's Claim to be the Voice of People who live in Community Associations is Not Supported.

Their most recent document on Public Policies [URL is .] dated 2004 October states on page 3 of the pdf file, "Founded in 1973, Community Associations Institute (CAI) is the national voice for an estimated 54 million people who live in more than 270,000 community associations of all sizes and architectural types throughout the United States." No facts are given to support this claim.

Most of CAI's members are likely professionals and companies who/that provide services to POAs. Paragraph 3 on the same page of the Public Policies document states,

"In addition to individual homeowners, CAI's multidisciplinary membership encompasses community association managers and management firms, attorneys, accountants, engineers, builders/developers, and other providers of professional products and services for homeowners and their associations." (emphasis mine)

I have written to CAI through their website requesting a breakdown of the membership, but have not received a reply. Specifically, the number of individual homeowners who are members of CAI, should be known and published by CAI to support their claim to be the voice of individual members.

The arithmetic basically refutes the claim to be the national voice of individual POA members. Paragraph 3 of the same page states there are 17,000 members in CAI. Even if all of CAI's members are individual members of property owners associations (POAs) with (say) four residents per home, the representation as CAI members of the 54 million people would be only 0.13%. Since probably only a fraction of the 17,000 members of CAI are individual POA members (say one-tenth), CAI's membership of individual POA members would be only 0.013% of the 54,000,000 people.

I am unable to locate any surveys at the CAI website that deal with the substantive issues and concerns of individual POA members. The issues that have driven recent legislation in Virginia, Florida, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, California and elsewhere are not identified at the CAI website.

Others have questioned CAI's claim to be the voice of individual POA members. Dr. Evan McKenzie, author of Privatopia: Homeowner Association and the Rise of Residential Private Government writes in his weblog [URL is .],

"This reinforces what I (and others) have been saying for many years. CAI is a 501 (c) (6) trade association that represents the interests of lawyers, property managers, and other providers of services to HOAs. It doesn't represent homeowner associations or the owners who live in them. I don't mean that as a negative comment. I think it is a good thing that such a trade association exists, because professionals need specialized training to do this work, and they should seek to represent their interests in the policy process. It is a basic constitutional liberty (freedom of association) guaranteed by the First Amendment. Owners and associations should organize on their own and not expect CAI to serve their needs. However, I have been critical of CAI representatives, such as lobbyists, for claiming to represent owners and associations, which they have done on many occasions while pushing legislation. They don't, they never really did, and it is an impossible conflict of interests for a trade association to also seek to represent consumers of their services."

I am skeptical that CAI's new membership structure is part of a change in emphasis and focus at CAI. CAI does not identify itself as a trade association in their membership information. It is not clear why the "board member" category was created and the "community association" category was eliminated. They have excluded POAs from membership (which is really the boards of POAs), but are extending membership to individual board members at a discount, presumably to be paid for from POA funds. What really changed? Will these now be counted as individual POA members and used to substantiate their claim to be the voice of individual POA members? The membership change to exclude POAs but allow POA board members to be "individual" members is not explained.

CAI's Documents do not Support a Democratic Model of Governance.

In addition to CAI's claim to be the voice for individual people living in community associations, I have concern about the recommendations in CAI's "recommended practice" and "policy" documents. The content in these CAI documents is not supportive of POA members' rights and use of democratic principles. Three examples:

• Members' Access to Records (equivalent to Freedom of Information Act in government) — CAI's Public Policies document states at page 28 of the pdf file,

Members have a Right to "Have access to association records as specified in governing documents and state law."

Obviously, compliance with state law is required. But, what is specified in the governing documents is determined initially by the developer and developer's attorney (part of cai). This is what I call the Developer's Model for governance. CAI does not define their recommended policy regarding access to records for good governance. Is CAI pandering to the cai? But CAI is also inconsistent.

The same document at page 29 states,

The Association is Responsible for "Providing members with access to corporate records (excluding those which infringe upon the privacy of other owners)."

This implies access to all information, presumably including advice from attorneys and accountants, except for the stated exclusion. CAI states in another major 2003 document Introduction to Community Association Living [URL is .] at page 31,

"Access to Association Records —All records of a homeowners’ association should be available to the association members."

CAI states in their Rights and Responsibilities document [URL is .] document,

"Homeowners Have the Right To: Access appropriate association books and records."

Note that the statement contains the equivocal word "appropriate" which basically makes the statement meaningless. The statement therefore does not reflect any CAI policy recommendation for good governance. Likely, the developer gives meaning to "appropriate" in the initial developer-drafted governing documents — the Developer's Model.

The standard defined in municipal law is the Freedom of Information Acts which makes virtually all government information available upon request.

• Alternative Dispute Resolution — CAI's Public Policies document states at page 16,

"It is also understood that ADR may not be the ideal option for resolving a dispute but if possible should be used if it does not compromise the rights of the community association."

Note that the rights of individual POA members are included. It is apparently okay to use ADR if the rights of the individual POA member are compromised.

Also, CAI does not address the question of costs. For a level playing field, I believe the costs for ADR should be paid by the POA. The individual POA member still has to spend the time and effort to prepare for the ADR. In municipal government, a citation is issued which is typically heard by a magistrate. The citizen must prepare, but the costs for the magistrate are typically paid by the municipality — part of separation of powers and cost of government.

The larger issue for ADR is enforcement, which cuts both ways: enforcement of a restriction by the board on an individual POA member, and enforcement of board's obligation to adhere to the governing documents in the management of the affairs of the POA by individual POA member(s). Again, CAI does not define a recommended policy for good governance. Is CAI pandering to the cai?

• Democracy in Community Association Living — CAI's principal document on this subject appears to be Introduction to Community Association Living [URL is .]. Read Section 8 — HOMEOWNER RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. Note the use of the phrase "A form of democracy" which implies that democacy doesn't exist in a POA. Further, the section describes that members really only have the authority to elect a board of directors which then makes all the decisions — an oligarchy. This is confirmed by the statement on page 27 of the booklet (page 32 of the pdf file):

"But all other decisions are usually left to the board. As a result, if owners are unsatisfied with a board decision, they usually do not have the direct authority to “veto” or “undo” its action. Under such conditions, their only remedy is to elect a new board to represent them."

Put another way, no rights are reserved to the members except the election and recall of board members. It is not clear whether CAI is advocating the description in Section 8 as their recommended policy for good governance or is describing what typically exists in POA governance defined by the initial developer-drafted governing documents — the Developer's Model.

My observation is that the "waffling" — the equivocality — is pervasive in CAI documents on defining the provisions for good governance for POAs, POA members' rights, and democratic principles. Many places, the words/statements are equivocal upon critical reading. For example, read the two principal CAI documents cited above in full with regard to members' rights and democratic principles. Also read their Rights and Responsibilities document with the same perspective. The latter doesn't even recommend that members should have an exclusive vote on amendments to governing documents. Contrast the members' rights described in the CAI document with the recommendation of a California "CID Homeowner Bill of Rights Coalition" for a "CID Homeowner Bill of Rights at pp 7-8 of a CLRC Memo [URL is .]. One of the members of this group is Retired Judge Charles Egan Goff who has written several times to the California Law Revision Commission advocating democracy for homeowners associations. Those letters are available on the internet with a search on ""Charles Egan Goff".

My broad definition of good governance is protecting members' rights and using democratic principles. My broad definition for the roles and responsibilities for the board of directors is to provide good stewardship for the management of the common interests and to protect the rights of each property owner (member). The standard for both is municipal law, in my view, and is the basis of a Democratic Model of governance. This recognizes that POAs are private government. The principles in municipal law should be adapted into POA law.

CAI, and more broadly, POA Legislation are at a Crossroads.

It seems to me that CAI and POA legislation are both at a crossroads. CAI apparently wants to claim to be the voice of all the individual POA members, yet they are a trade association for the community associations industry. I have no expectation that any organization can be the voice of all the individual POA members. Individual POA members are going to respond in an organized fashion only through common grievances. This is/was what is/was driving the legislative amendments in Florida, Virginia, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, California, and in other states.

Most of the original CID (common interest development)/POA law appears to be based on the Developer's Model including the existing Uniform Common Ownership Interest Act (UCIOA). The amendments are incorporating democratic principles. I have studied Florida HOA and Virginia POA laws as amended through 2004. Some aspects of a Democratic Model have been adopted. The same appears to be happening in California with a Davis-Stirling Act that obviously has many problems. Johnston and Johnston-Dodds report in a California Research Library study "Common Interest Developments: Housing at Risk?" at page 12 [URL is .] on the number and kind of amendments made to California's Davis-Stirling Act:

"The Act has been amended more than 40 times since its passage. The changes that have been made to Davis-Stirling over the years have moved CIDs away from a purely corporate model and closer to a municipal model. These changes mostly relate to due process issues such as notification and participation, and are aimed at providing homeowners with greater access to information about their CID management and governance."

Note the change toward the municipal model which is based on democratic principles.

The conclusion is that the reactive changes in POA legislation are moving the legislation toward a municipal or democratic model. There are also a number of papers dealing with homeowners bills of rights and democratic models directly. Now is the time to start over with a Democratic Model of governance, perhaps based on adapting the municipal model or maybe even starting all over.

If CAI acknowledges that CAI is not the voice of all POA members, they lose effectiveness in their lobbying efforts and in their amicus briefs. Is CAI prepared to make such an acknowledgment? Who can deliver such a message and have it accepted by CAI's board of trustees for serious debate? Hopefully, the trustees will be enlightened to understand the pressures for democratic reform of POA legislation.

There really shouldn't be a conflict between POA members' interests in members' rights and democracy and the interests of the community association industry (cai). It is in the interest of the cai for POAs to function well and create model communities for the developers. The Democratic Model for governance should serve all interests.

That is my thinking at this time, but I would like to hear from others. Please add your comments or send me an email by clicking on "Email Me" at the top of the left column. Your emails will be posted.

http://swagman.typepad.com/poa_governance/2005/11/thoughts_on_com.html#more

washingtonpost.com
Homeowners Groups Fight to Stay Afloat
Costs, Responsibilities Overwhelm Volunteers

By Michelle Boorstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 4, 2005; C05

From the volunteer-made wooden pavilion in the center of Hidden Lake, it's easy to see all the work residents do to maintain this little Stafford County community: One man spreads and grades the gravel on the roads; another resident uses her paddle boat to inspect the dam; others spread herbicide on the lily pads so they don't take over the lake.

Volunteering "makes your life rich," Nancy Gravely, treasurer of the association that runs the 40-year-old community, said as she looked contentedly at the lake and the water birds. The warm and fuzzy moment passed as Gravely talked about all her duties, which include negotiating paving contracts.

"I've been a secretary most of my life, and this is a bit ridiculous," she said. "We're trying to handle things it seems to me that someone with a lot more knowledge should be handling."

When communities such as Hidden Lake were built, a homeowners association seemed like a great idea: Residents would chip in for the upkeep of what then was a summer community. Today, however, Hidden Lake is a full-fledged Washington suburb, with residents too busy to volunteer and facing problems beyond their expertise. The community's governing documents have expired -- jeopardizing its authority -- and the neighborhood is at war over what could be a $500,000 bill to repair the community dam.

Hidden Lake's problems mirror those cropping up at first-generation, association-run communities across the country as they deal with aging infrastructure and outdated or poorly written covenants that make it impossible to enforce rules, increase dues to cover rising costs or resolve disputes.

Today, with 80 percent of homes being built in such communities -- a percentage an industry group estimates to be even higher in the Washington area -- an entire body of law and expertise has sprung up to deal with such problems. Governing documents have grown from three pages to the size of telephone books, states have passed laws giving homeowners associations power to collect dues and place liens on homes, and real estate agents in many places are required to inform buyers about what they're getting into.

Experts say scenarios such as the one at Hidden Lake are a warning of what might lie ahead in a world that is redefining the role of government and the responsibilities -- and costs -- of homeownership. Essentially unregulated, volunteer-run associations are taking on jobs once thought of as requiring municipal expertise: assessing infrastructure, putting out bids for road projects, monitoring stormwater ponds.

Some local officials are questioning whether residents are qualified for such tasks. Others wonder whether the fees and assessments levied against homeowners in these communities amount to residents being taxed twice -- once by the association and again by the local government. And some are asking whether the association system lives up to advocates' contention that it makes communities closer -- or if it drives them apart.

Robin Stone, president of the Lake Arrowhead Civic Association in Stafford, is disillusioned. He said he believes associations establish a strict framework and rules that busy commuters can hide behind instead of connecting in a more personal way.

"In the '70s, a homeowners association was getting together at the [Joneses]," he said. "If your neighbor needed help, you sent your kids over. I think people today aren't paying for community -- they are paying for convenience."

Stone said that when he and his wife decided to move recently, "the first thing I checked was whether there was a homeowners association within 100 miles."

Like Hidden Lake, Lake Arrowhead was also opened in the 1970s as a summer community. Under its founding document, it is allowed to collect only $20 a year in dues from each homeowner. Today, with nearly 500 lots of full-time residents, the community needs as much as $300,000 to repair dams to prevent lakes from flooding roads and homes. But disagreement among residents about how community money was spent and the fact that Lake Arrowhead's covenant has expired has started a "civil war" in the community, Stone said.

At this point, only half the residents pay dues, and the association can't afford the cost of filing liens against homes of those who don't comply. The lakes' beaches were shut down this summer because there was no money to operate them.

The group, along with Hidden Lake's, wants the county to establish a "service district" that would increase real estate taxes in the neighborhood to pay for necessary repairs.

Some experts and supporters of homeowners associations say many of the problems faced by older communities won't be repeated because people have learned from the mistakes. The association structure typically is created by the developer -- usually as a requirement by the local government, happy to be free of responsibility for infrastructure costs. And developers now have staff, publications and conferences devoted to helping associations function.

"I think in communities that have done the appropriate planning, [the association system] works pretty well," said Frank Rathbun, a spokesman for the Community Associations Institute, an industry group for association-related businesses. The group estimates that 55 million Americans live in association-run communities, up from 2 million in 1970. Rathbun said the key to an association's success is having a reserve fund and periodically hiring experts to evaluate big-ticket items and the group's savings plan.

"If you didn't save, you're stuck borrowing and paying interest or levying a special assessment, and that comes as quite a shock to people. A lot of people don't read all the paperwork," he said.

In addition, many older association-run communities have failed to file the proper paperwork with the state and therefore lack the authority to enforce their rules.

Stafford County Supervisor Robert Gibbons (R-Rock Hill), whose district includes Lake Arrowhead and Hidden Lake, said the system is "a mess."

"Everything is dumped on the homeowner," he said.

More and more of these communities are turning to their governments for help. Stafford County requires a petition showing that a majority of a community's residents support the creation of a special taxing district before supervisors will vote to do so. Such a petition is circulating in Lake Arrowhead, and Gibbons will meet Thursday with Hidden Lake residents to explain how they can do the same.

Gravely said many of Hidden Lake's newer residents come to the quiet spot near the Fauquier County line from cities or communities where they were used to having services taken care of for them. "They see this as a refuge -- not what it takes to maintain that refuge," she said.

Housing bubble, bankruptcy reform looks like a huge ticking time bomb.

A fresh calamity?

First a landslide, now a safety net rips. New bankruptcy laws won't let owners walk.

By Evan Halper, Times Staff Writer

WHEN the drafters of the new federal bankruptcy law set out to crack down on America's deadbeats, they probably didn't have folks like Todd MacCullum in mind.

The Laguna Beach resident hasn't maxed out his credit cards on lavish purchases. Nor has he made some outrageously irresponsible investment decision. Yet he finds himself caught in the crosshairs of the new regulations, which take effect Oct. 17.

MacCullum's offense: His home happened to sit in the path of a June 1 landslide.

Now, as he juggles a million-dollar mortgage on a house that will be unlivable for at least a year, paying rent on temporary shelter for his family and working with the city to rebuild the hillside that collapsed onto his residence, MacCullum is left wondering if what he sees as the worst possible outcome of all — a bankruptcy — is going to get even worse come October.

"Everybody who has been affected by this is aware of the new law," MacCullum said. "It is on everybody's mind."

Under the new bankruptcy regulations, homeowners will no longer necessarily be able to hand the keys to the bank and move on. Lenders will, in many cases, have the option of coming after them for virtually everything else they've got — income, money in bank accounts and other assets.

Homeowners who have refinanced may have unwittingly put themselves at the greatest risk. State regulations will still offer financial protections for buyers who have their original mortgages.

"There is no doubt this law will make it harder for some people to walk away," said Gary Painter, a professor at the USC School of Policy, Planning and Development. "It definitely could hurt homeowners."

Congress changed the law to discourage Americans from piling up debt, filing for bankruptcy and leaving banks holding the bag. But there are no exemptions for a small group that was never the intended target of the legislation: those who have been displaced by extraordinary circumstances.

In extreme cases, homeowners could find themselves fighting to keep the bank from seeking a court order to garnish their wages as a result of something they'd never considered and are not insured against — such as a landslide, flood or earthquake.

"There are no special exceptions for these people," said L.A. bankruptcy attorney Howard M. Ehrenberg. "Homeowners who have their finances in order and generally do not think about bankruptcy may find that after this kind of natural disaster they won't be eligible for relief."

The reason homeowners who have refinanced are at risk is because state law does not allow banks to go after the assets or income of the holder of an original mortgage following a foreclosure. But borrowers are often asked to waive those protections when they refinance — and many do so without even knowing it.

"Most people think that if they buy a house in California and lose it, they have no exposure," said Orange County bankruptcy attorney Marc J. Winthrop. "But there are new wrinkles for people who have refinanced."

Consider a home that is washed away in a flood and has a $1-million mortgage left on it.

If the borrower has never refinanced, even under the new law he or she could default, and the bank could then seize the property — but nothing else.

But homeowners who have refinanced and waived the state protections will no longer be able to protect their paychecks, savings or personal property when filing a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. In the past, such a filing could wreak havoc on a person's credit, but it would keep their assets from being taken.

Chapter 7, which allows discharge of debts and a fresh start, will only be available to families of four living on less than $68,000 per year. Others could find themselves on the hook for the remaining balance of their mortgage.

As Oct. 17 approaches, insurers are urging homeowners to make sure they are adequately covered. But insurance isn't available for every conceivable disaster — coverage rarely includes landslides, for example. And only 13% of Californians carry earthquake insurance.

The scenario that played out many times after the 1994 Northridge earthquake will not be an option.

"It's not like it used to be," said Pete Moraga, spokesman for the Insurance Information Network of California. "A lot of people who had just purchased homes were able to throw their keys at the mortgage companies and say, 'You deal with this.' The new law is such that you can't automatically walk away anymore."

But what about relief from the Federal Emergency Management Agency? It won't help the Laguna Beach slide victims; FEMA said last week that the June landslide wasn't linked to the winter rains and, as such, rejected the city's request for emergency aid to repair the hillside.

Moraga warns homeowners not to assume the government will always come around to bail them out. In cases where FEMA does step in, it is usually in the form of low-interest loans that must be repaid, and the loans aren't always available after an earthquake. In some cases, homes and businesses are destroyed, but the damage is not widespread enough for an area to qualify as a federal disaster area. Such was the case in a recent earthquake off Central California.

Not all protections are lost for homeowners affected by the new law. The law doesn't go so far as to give lenders carte blanche to take whatever assets they choose. Far from it. Seizing assets will continue to be a complicated, drawn-out legal process.

The procedure must go through a bankruptcy court and can drag on for months. All the while, payments aren't being made to the lender and the sale of the property is being delayed.

Raymond Eshaghian, president of TMSF Holdings, a residential mortgage lender, predicts banks will continue to try to avoid the bankruptcy process altogether. Getting the borrowers back on their feet and working out a payment plan is always going to be preferable to driving them into poverty.

"Lenders are not in the business of pursuing lawsuits," Eshaghian said. "There is no money to be made off of that. We are looking for the least amount of trouble."

Back in Laguna Beach, MacCullum and other landslide victims are trying to hammer out agreements with their lenders that will at least allow them to postpone their mortgage payments several months. But the families have been surprised by how little other help is available to them. "There is a perception out there that we are all wealthy and can afford this disaster," said MacCullum, who had refinanced and learned only after the landslides that he could lose more than just his house should he declare bankruptcy after Oct. 17.

"Bankruptcy may well become an issue for all of us if things don't start moving," he said.

"You will have a bunch of families whose financial future is destroyed."

New Web Site Gives Consumers Independent Information About FirstService Property Management Companies

Press Release Source: Service Employees International Union

New Web Site Gives Consumers Independent Information About FirstService Property Management Companies
Monday August 15, 12:44 pm ET

TORONTO, Aug. 15 /PRNewswire/ -- Consumers gained an important new tool today, as the Service Employees International Union Local 11 launched http://firstservicemismanagement.com, a new Web site that provides information about FirstService Corp., North America's largest property manager. FirstService MISmanagement provides homeowners, homeowner associations, and others in the market for a property manager an information source totally independent of FirstService Corp.

Consumers who click on the site can visit pages devoted to each of FirstService's eight major residential property management subsidiaries, which operate in the following markets: New York City, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., Chicago, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Miami, and Boca Raton, Fla. The site raises concerns about the performance and business practices of some of these FirstService subsidiaries. Issues include:

* Client Dissatisfaction. The Web site invites consumers interested in learning more about FirstService companies to submit their contact information in order to receive information collected from dissatisfied clients of FirstService subsidiaries.

* Questionable Business Practices. A major FirstService business strategy is cross-selling: marketing ancillary products and services provided by other FirstService companies to existing property management clients. This may result in higher fees for homeowners, according to the Web site.

* Lawsuits. Since March 2000, FirstService subsidiary Continental Group has filed six different suits against condo boards and unit owners who have spoken out against the company. FirstService claims that Continental took these actions to "defend its reputation."

* Labor Strife. The U.S. National Labor Relations Board, an arm of the federal government, has charged that FirstService subsidiary Continental Group broke federal labor law in more than a dozen different ways, including firing a worker for exercising his legal right to support the formation of a union. Continental's top two executives lead FirstService's entire residential property management division.

FirstService MISmanagement also provides a utility by which existing clients of FirstService companies can fill out a survey evaluating their property manager's performance.


Source: Service Employees International Union

Rockin' the suburbs
Homeowners associations have the power of government--but what about the accountability?

By Jeffrey M. Barker

Photo By Larry Dalton Ken Beer, left, and Don Chaney don’t spend much time on this golf course--one of two in their Roseville retirement community. Senator Denise Ducheny's Senate Bill 137 is scheduled for a hearing in the Assembly's Appropriations Committee next Wednesday, August 17. www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html

Don Chaney just wants to know where his money is going.

But to find out, he’s had to take his Roseville homeowners association to court. And in doing so, his fight for information has become much bigger than the $126 he pays in annual fees. It’s now a fight on behalf of the one in four Californians who live within a common-interest residential development, and against the state’s 36,000 homeowners associations and the massive amounts of power and cash they control, largely out of their members’ view.

Chaney’s court case may help redefine how the bulk of California’s ticky-tacky suburbs are run.

At the same time, two proposed laws making their way to floor votes in the Legislature would do much the same thing. An Assembly bill, sponsored by Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, outlines more clearly what kinds of financial documents homeowners associations would be required to cough up if a member requests them, and also specifies that a homeowner can take an association to small-claims court rather than the more costly Superior Court. A second effort, by Senator Denise Ducheny, D-San Diego, seeks to restrict how homeowners associations are able to foreclose on a home.

The proposed changes to state law, which would affect some 9 million Californians, were spearheaded by an unlikely group: retirees.

“It’s seniors who are making all the racket ... because they have so much to lose,” said Majorie Murray, a lobbyist for the California Alliance for Retired Americans. “Seniors and the disabled. ... If they lose their home, they can’t go back into the workforce and get a job and buy another home.”

Also, seniors have the time to pay attention to their community boards.

Take Chaney, a 75-year-old retiree, and his neighbor Ken Beer, 72, who have been trying for years--to little avail--to get their homeowners board to show them financial documents such as accounting books, canceled checks and purchase orders. They want to know how their money is being spent.

“The only oversight to the board are members. There is no other oversight,” said Chaney, who spent 40 years working as a procurement manager.

The two men live in Sun City Roseville, a retirement community of 3,110 homes for residents age 55 or older that offers two golf courses, a community center with a swimming pool, a computer cafe and a full-service restaurant.

“It’s a beautiful place to live--you can see that it is,” Chaney said.

The neighborhood is governed by a group of seven elected homeowners, who, like association boards throughout the state, have substantial power--to assess fees, increase homeowners’ dues by up to 20 percent a year and even foreclose on a home in order to collect on unpaid bills. The Sun City Roseville board currently collects $126 annually from each homeowner, which it uses to run and maintain the community’s common areas.

Homeowners throughout the state live in similar communities, in which they elect their neighbors to govern their neighborhoods, writing rules about everything from the color of exterior house paint to the level of noise allowed at a given hour or the way trash is collected.

Association boards tread the line between operating like local governments and operating like corporations. They perform many functions similar to a city council, but they operate, financially, more like private companies--which means largely in secret. Statewide they control an estimated $6 billion in cash, Murray said.

“The question is whether we treat them like little governments or we treat them like private clubs,” said Chris Shultz, a spokesman for Assemblyman Jones.

Beer, a self-described liberal New Yorker, began asking about Sun City Roseville’s finances out of simple curiosity. In 1998, just months after he moved in, he saw three new computers delivered to the association. Beer works with computers, knows a thing or two about how much they should cost and wanted to know if his association had gotten a good deal.

Beer couldn’t get a straight answer. That set off a now seven-year-long struggle to look at a variety of the association’s purchasing orders and other financial documents. During that time, Beer, Chaney and other residents have gathered bits of information that make them more suspicious: out-of-date and refurbished two-way radios they believe were purchased at more than four times what they should have cost, air-conditioning thermostats they say were bought at a 200-percent markup, and an unnecessary mosquito-abatement program for which the association was paying $18,000 a year.

Chaney believes someone is pocketing money and that the board is looking the other way.

“Look, I have been ripped off by the greatest. I know the ways to steal,” Chaney said. “We have a situation here that is ripe for kickbacks.”

So, in May 2004, Chaney requested to review a year’s worth of invoices submitted by the association’s purchasing agent. The idea was to take a sample of the equipment and supplies purchased by the agent and see if the association could have gotten better deals. Chaney got nowhere with his request, so in February he took it to court.

Sun City Roseville Community Association Board President Jim Viele did not return a phone call from SN&R seeking comment for this article.

Murray compared the association to a city council, which by law is accountable to its constituents and must be transparent about its dealings.

“It’s like another form of local government, but without the openness we’ve come to expect from local government,” Murray said.

But Oliver Burford cautions not to compare a homeowner association with government.

“Don’t get into the government thing--that’s a whole different set of rules,” said Burford, executive director of ECHO--the Executive Council of Homeowners--a Bay Area organization that lobbies on behalf of homeowners associations. Burford acknowledged that oftentimes an association performs functions similar to those of a city council, “but that doesn’t make it a government,” he said.

Shultz counters that if associations have government-like authority, then they should have government-like accountability.

“They have the power to foreclose on your home--we’re giving them a governmental power,” Shultz said. “If you don’t pay your SBC bill or your Comcast bill, those companies can’t come take your home.”

Ducheny’s Senate bill attempts to make the foreclosure process stricter.

In a handful of cases, homeowners associations have sold homes out from under their owners in order to force payment of small amounts of money. In one widely publicized case from Calaveras County, Thomas and Anita Radcliff failed to pay a $120 annual assessment. Their $285,000 home was then auctioned off for $70,000 in order to collect.

“That you can lose your home because you owe 120 bucks--this is obviously wrong,” Murray said. “Nobody needs to debate this. It’s wrong.”

But lobbyists for homeowners associations argue that foreclosure is a tool that associations need, in a rare cases, to force payment of fees.

Jill Van Zeebroeck, chairwoman of the national Community Associations Institute’s California lobbying arm, questions the way Ducheny’s bill prescribes that the value for a home up for foreclosure should be appraised. Currently, an association can auction off a home for a minimum bid that is equal to the fees owed to the association and collection agency. The minimum bid on the Radcliffs’ home, for example, was $2,020.

“If nothing else, we need checks and balances in place,” said Mick Macomber, an attorney who represents the Radcliffs.

Macomber said a law like the one Ducheny has proposed would have prevented the foreclosure of the Radcliffs’ home.

“A simple phone call would have prevented the Radcliffs’ situation,” he said.

The same can be said for Willard Harrington, a Magalia man whose $68,000 home was auctioned off and sold late last year for $3,134 after he neglected to pay a $123 annual assessment to his homeowners association.

“He can’t read,” said Satsie Veith, an attorney with Legal Services of Northern California, which sued the Paradise Pines homeowners association and a collection agency on Harrington’s behalf. “If he had simply received personal notice, he would have paid it.”

Harrington didn’t realize what had happened until he was served with an eviction notice--which, as required by law, was delivered to him by a live person--and took it to friends who could read it for him, Veith said.

Joe Earley, another attorney assisting Harrington, complained that foreclosure laws allow collection agencies to charge huge fees for their services.

“Then, if the homeowner couldn’t pay 100 bucks or 200 bucks, they certainly can’t afford the $1,500 or $1,700 or $2,000 fees they charge,” he said.

Edgar Zazueta, an aide to Ducheny, said the senator expects the foreclosure bill to pass. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar bill last year, calling it “overly broad” but acknowledging that the existing laws on common-interest-development foreclosures need clarification.

An indication of the support for Jones’ bill, Assembly Bill 1098: It passed an Assembly floor vote 70 to 3. But it is currently parked on the Senate floor while Jones amends its language to mollify opponents.

Meanwhile, Sun City Roseville resident Chaney has a date in Placer County small-claims court later this month, during which he will address a legal issue that A.B. 1098 would clear up. His association is arguing that Superior Court, not small-claims court, is the proper venue for this kind of document-seeking suit.

But filing there, Chaney said, requires money for attorneys and allows the association’s lawyers to enter the fray. “They don’t want it in small claims because then they would have to answer, in court, as laymen, like you and me, 'How come you won’t give him the records?’ And they don’t want that.”

http://www.newsreview.com/issues/sacto/2005-08-11/News.asp

The Silver Bullet for Liberty From Magic City Morning Star By Tom DeWeese Aug 9, 2005, 01:05 Justice John Paul Stevens. Justice Anthony Kennedy. Justice David Souter. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Stephen Breyer. These four men and one woman have ruled that the United States Constitution truly is a meaningless document. Their ruling in the Kelo case declared that Americans own nothing. After declaring that all property is subject to the whim of a government official, it's just a short trip to declaring that government can now confiscate anything we own; anything we create; anything we believe. They said our purpose in this country is to simply "serve the greater good." Our own hopes and dreams mean nothing. The state now decides. Without the right to own and control private property, there are no other rights. Freedom of speech can't survive if we have no property on which to stand as we express our ideas. Guns are property and can now be confiscated. Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures was lost with the Patriot Act. And the right to a fair trial? Fair by whose standards - the same government that can now simply take your home because it wants to line its pockets with the building of a new shopping mall? Our government just ruled that there are no natural rights - only rights it cares to grant us. Rights that will flow with the ebb and tow of daily change. There is no foundation. No root of liberty. For property rights are gone. FOUNDING PRINCIPLES Our Founding Fathers left no doubt in their writings, their deeds or their governing documents as to where they stood on the vital importance of private property in a free society. John Locke (one of the major influences on the Founding Fathers as they created this nation) said: "Government has no other end than the preservation of property." The great French economist, Frederic Bastiat said: "Life, liberty and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." John Adams said it best when he wrote: "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God; and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." Adams would be shocked to learn that the Supreme Court of the nation he helped create would agree to empower government to take private land to enrich the pockets of private profiteers. 229 years of American ideals of liberty have come to an end. In one crash of the gavel, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer have declared themselves above the ideals of Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Madison and Henry. It is the end of the Enlightenment. The end of the Shining City on a Hill. It is no longer a warning of what might happen. It is reality. It wasn't black helicopters we needed to fear. It was the black robes of the Supreme Court. IS TYRANNY OUR FATE? The question now becomes, what do we do? Obviously we have one of two choices. We accept our fate, or we fight. Are we finished? Do we quit? Do we surrender? It would be easy to do that. No one would blame us. We gave it the good fight. We could hide behind the idea that ancient conspiracies set our fate long before we were born. Members of secret societies somehow trumped every ideal we hold - and overpowered every move we made. We could pat ourselves on the back and say, well, they were just too strong. What could we do? Tyranny is our destiny. Is that what you want to tell your grand children when they ask you what you did to preserve the ideal of America? In another era, we could have loaded up boats and sailed to a new world to live by the ideals we hold. But that was already done. People ran from tyranny. They came here - to America. Now tyranny has caught us. And there's nowhere else to run. We either accept our pre-ordained "fate" or make a stand. This is it, my friends. This is the moment when we decide the future of our ideals. You know the ideals I'm talking about. That you are born with liberty. That it is your natural right to speak your mind; start a business; own and control property; build your dream home - and expect it to be there for as long as you like; practice your religion exactly as you believe; and, above all, expect that the government will protect those rights at all costs. We know by witnessing history that totalitarianism does not work. Government control of the actions of the people only leads to poverty and misery. We know that people pinned under the heavy hand of government do not produce for their masters. We know that that there is no such thing as faceless, nameless masses in some undefined "common good." We know that the United States was the first nation ever created that recognized the natural rights of individuals - and America's history has proven that such a system is the only one that produces prosperity and happiness. And, so too, America's history is providing text book proof of what happens to a society when those freedoms are slowly taken away. We know we are right in our visions of the ideals of liberty and we know what our future is without them. So, again, I say - this is it. This is the moment when we decide the future for our nation. And the future of liberty. The Supreme Court put the decision on our door step. There is no middle ground. And they are forcing us to make that decision today. Do we fight for those ideals of liberty? Or will we allow them to be lost forever under some global village? Do nothing, and they have made the decision for us. What can be easier than that? FIGHTING BACK But if we decide to fight, then we truly must know what we are doing. Half hearted attempts at rallies and letter writing, like we've done in the past, won't get the job done. No short cuts. No silly rhetoric. I've got to tell you, I get some pretty strange stuff in my office. Letters, e-mails, phone calls. People write to me with ideas they think will put us on the road to victory. Everybody's looking for that one quick fix. The right slogan. The silver bullet - that will defeat our enemies and restore freedom to America. Almost daily, I receive someone's solution - the great plan that no one else has thought of. A good friend of mine, for example, wrote a huge book that carried all of the facts and figures to prove his position against a certain government program. He called me to say all we had to do to turn things around was to get a copy of the book into the hands of every single member of congress. I tried to explain that Congressmen can't read. In fact, they now have the votes in Congress operating exactly like a fast food restaurant. You know the ones where they have so many illegal aliens operating the front counter who don't speak English. So they have everything set up by numbers. "I'll have a number one, please." Well, now they do the same thing in Congress. No one reads the bill before voting. Congressmen have handlers now to tell them how to vote. It's all by numbers so they will understand. H.R. 1 - yes. H.R.1146 - no. In fact, about the only question they ask now is "Do you want to super size that?" I've received buttons, bumper stickers and tee shirts - all created to provide "the message" that will turn everything around. I've receive phone calls resulting in long discussions about how to come up with just the right sound bite that will capture the nation's imagination and send the scoundrels to the tall grass. And my personal favorite - we'll use words that will be so innocent sounding that the other side won't know what we are really up to. THE ESA On that subject, let me just say, I will not be a part of the current ridiculous campaign to "update and strengthen" the Endangered Species Act. I don't want the worst piece of legislation of all time to be "updated and strengthened." I want it repealed. If you want something then you must demand it. It may be that, in the end, you don't get your way, but what you have to settle for is a whole lot better than if you had never tried. Do you want this monster off your back? Then start today to demand what you want. Instead of standing there with your head down, following orders of people with suspected motives, who tell us to "never say repeal," stand up for what you want. Here's a modest suggestion. Hold rallies on state house lawns to demand repeal of the ESA. Burn it in effigy. Tar and feather it and run it out of town on a rail. Make a quilt with the names of all of the ESA victims depicted. Name the towns that have disappeared; The businesses that have been destroyed; show the brands of the ranches that no longer exist. Spread it out on all of the state capital lawns while someone reads the names out loud. And if you do this, state lawn by state lawn - back in Washington, those cowards hiding behind the marble columns of the Capitol Building will hear you. If your rallies are strong enough you may hear them say, "My people don't even want this thing - so we had better do something to give them some property rights protections." I guarantee that the result will be much more to your liking than you're ever going to get with the current scared little whisper of a request - "can we have some property rights protections, please?" If we had done that ten years ago, instead of standing down, afraid to say repeal, we wouldn't be reduced to silly games today. Why are our so-called champions on the Hill so afraid to do what is right and start a campaign to repeal the ESA so we can stop destroying American dreams with the most destructive law ever to get on the books? Because of the Kelo ruling, shocked Americans are more ready now than ever before to listen. But still we're told, it can't be done. Perhaps it's because some of our "champions" don't really want it gone. Update and strengthen. You see, update means - no compensation until you've already lost half of your land. Strengthen means - add the Invasive Species language that we've been fighting for more than ten years. Add that language, as, I'm sorry to report Congressman Pombo is apparently doing in his new ESA reauthorization bill, and you'll wish you had the old one back. This is an industry bill, and will serve no purpose other than to help one industry hurt another one. Property rights protection is an afterthought that will be sacrificed first in negotiations. I believe that the proposed ESA authorization bill is nothing more than Kelo 2. The bill doesn't deserve our support. It needs to be declared "dead on arrival." The fact is, doing the right thing has become the hardest part of political life. But, in this late hour, as liberty is crashing down around us, it's time we start. THE SILVER BULLET So what is the silver bullet to save our liberty? I'm going to give it to you. My friends, I often hear it lamented that the Republic is dead. That we are now controlled by Washington. You know what - I have found that isn't true. The Republic is still there buried under the weight of un-elected planning commissions, visioning statements and review boards. Squeezed under all of that is the Republic of our Founding Fathers, rusting from lack of use. But it's still there and still armed with the silver bullet the founders provided. The one to guarantee that no one could take it away. You see, our founders created this Republic to be self protected by making government at the local level the most powerful force. The Silver Bullet is the "precinct captain." You scoff? You were hoping for something much more exciting! Well, that's probably the very reason we've ignored it. We would much rather turn our attention to Washington, Congress, or the President. Why then, are these government entities so powerful today? Because we've let them become powerful by placing all of our attention on them - while ignoring involvement in local government. But the power still lies in the precinct captain. Our opponents know it. They have left no lowly office untouched. Check it out. Go to your local government and check out the policies being implemented by the game warden and the dog catcher - Sustainable Development and animal rights, most likely. City treasurer. City clerk. The people who collect the taxes and issue permits. What are their policies? How about the development department and its policy for building permits? Sustainable Development? Now move on up to City Council and Mayor. Just one month ago, the United Nations held a major conference in San Francisco on Sustainable Development. The main target for the conference were the mayors. Those who attended were asked to sign two documents - the Green Cities Declaration and the Urban Environmental Accords in which the Mayors pledged to undertake 21 action items over the next few years to implement Sustainable Development. These action items included water policy, energy policy, transportation and health. They were provided sample legislation and pledged to enact it. The policies called for the implementation of the Kyoto Global Warming treaty and Agenda 21. One week later, in Chicago, the U.S. Conference of Mayors called for the very same policies. Go to its web site and you will see that Sustainable Development and Kyoto are the two priorities of the nation's mayors. Our enemies know that the power to impose this tyranny on us is now at the local level. It will do little good to spend time trying to stop it through Congress or the White House. In fact, President Bush already said we weren't going to participate as a nation in the Kyoto Treaty. What does the UN understand that you and I don't? That it doesn't matter what Washington's policy is. They will just get the local cities and towns to do it anyway - because the towns and cities have the power to decide for themselves. The Mexican government understands that fact. That's why, even though the federal government has never officially recognized acceptance of the Consular ID cards, Mexico is going straight to local government to get it accepted. THINK GLOBALLY - ACT LOCALLY Think globally - act locally is not just a slogan. It's an agenda. Now, to save our Republic and way of life, we need to make it our agenda. The Founding Fathers did. Now that the UN meeting in San Francisco is over, watch as more and more local communities begin to organize non elected planning boards to control your lives. Do you want to stop it? Then follow this plan. But be warned - it's a lot of hard work. It's hard - because we've neglected it for so long. Make a chart of every single position available in your county. Break it down to the precinct level and then the ward level. List every office. Every board position. Now you will begin to see how large a task it is. But take it one step at a time. Start to fill those spots. Work quietly. Please don't hold a press conference to announce to the community that you plan to take it over. Work through what ever party you want - even the Democrats. The goal here is to get our people, who understand the Sustainablist agenda, into places of decision making. It would be a dream come true to have candidates from every party running on the same issue. It's a goal to shoot for. The other side seems to have achieved it. But make sure those candidates are people who understand the entire picture of Sustainable Development and Agenda 21. It will do you no good to help elect candidates that are, perhaps, good on one issue, like gun control or abortion, but fail to see the whole picture. Those are the very people who will fail you later. Take over a precinct. Just one. You will control the election of every candidate at every level - at least in your little part of the city. Then take two. You will need precinct workers to make sure our people get to the polls. You will need poll workers to make sure our votes are counted. Make sure they are people you can trust. Run a candidate for the lowest office in town. Control it. No position is without power. And do it again. Go up the ladder. Get more precincts. Grow, neighborhood by neighborhood. Step by step. Control enough precincts and even presidential candidates will seek you out for help in getting elected. You will control the candidates. You can stop the bad ones from even being able to run. Again, I warn you, only help elect local officials who oppose Sustainable Development. Refuse to support the lessor of two evils. Pay attention to the non-elected review boards, policy committees and planning commissions. Can you get one of your people on it? Who is doing the appointing? Can you imagine the damage we could do to Sustainablist goals by getting one person on the local architectural review board? Don't forget those hated homeowners associations. Get on the board and control policy. And don't stop there. You need to have the ability to create controversy against policies by current office holders. This will help you find like minded folks to join you. And it will help create issues so your candidates can win. Remember, most people would oppose them if they knew the truth. Tell them. Spread out. A NEW CHAMBER OF COMMERCE? Consider this idea. If your local farm bureau or Chamber of Commerce isn't representing you - start a new one. Understand this - you don't have to just take their double dealing. Go around them. Show up at council meetings, or at the meetings of any agency or board that purports to make policy that affects you. As a new group representing business interests, homeowners or farmers, demand your say. Back up your demands by issuing news releases and doing interviews on local radio and television - representing your new group. Start saying over and over again that the governing body isn't representing the interests of your constituents. If you make enough noise as the group which is truly standing up for farmers or businesses or homeowners, those individuals will follow you. You will pull the power structure right out from under the established organizations that have been taken over by our enemies. LEGISLATURES, COURTS, AND THE BALLOT BOX The Supreme Court hit us with a crushing blow. But it is not the final one - by any means. In fact, it may well be the spark we've needed to, not only get ourselves geared up - but to bring others to our cause. People are starting to fight back across the nation. You've already heard of the successful ballot measure 37 in Oregon. In one of the greenest states in the nation, they demanded and got 100% compensation - retroactive! Measure 37 was won at the ballot box in a campaign that was run on a shoestring against the entrenched green behemoth we are all told to fear. The State of Utah has stood up to the Federal Department of Education and tossed out No Child Left Behind; that was the state legislature. The State of Wisconsin has passed legislation against Smart Growth policy; that was the state legislature. The State of Georgia has said no to mental health screening; that was the state legislature. And I keep hearing that state legislatures are nothing but puppets for Washington. More than 100 communities across the nation have said no to the Patriot Act. That was in city councils. The Michigan Supreme Court overturned the most offensive Eminent Domain ruling - the very one most communities have been using as their excuse to grab private property for private development. Michigan may now have the strongest property rights protections in the nation. That was in the courts. We can build on these successes by organizing state by state, town by town - to force legislation to safeguard property rights. That train has obviously already left the station. Rather than despair, consider this: The Supreme Court may have done us a huge favor. For the first time in many decades, property rights are on the front pages. People who have rarely entertained a political thought in their lives are now talking about the Supreme Court decision and understanding that it is very bad. Congress has rushed to produce bills in both the House and the Senate to effectively overturn Kelo. Each bill is called the Property Rights Protection Act. State legislatures are now the major focus of campaigns to pass strong property rights language. Did you ever think you would see such efforts nationwide? Those who are pushing Sustainable Development and globalism are now, frankly, out of step - old fashioned - out of date. And so are those who are telling you that it's just too dangerous to ask for property rights protection in a new ESA. Sure we are way behind. Sure, we have a massive job ahead of us and we would be fools to delude ourselves otherwise. But, after all of our hard work over the years, after being a lone voice in the wilderness, something has started here. Thank the Supreme Court for jarring a lot of sleeping Americans awake. Our job now is to keep fanning the flames. Now is not the time to circle the wagons or give up. Now is the time to move out, get involved, and turn the tables. Stop being polite to your oppressors. Tell them their time is through. Tell those who pretend to speak for you in Washington to either get on board with our agenda - or get out of the way. We are no longer going to go quietly into the night. If you want to get rid of the ESA - then say so. Tell them to repeal it. Organize those rallies on State House lawns instead of letting someone else tell you to stand down while they speak for you in Washington. If you want to defeat Sustainable Development - then expose it for what it is - a soviet collective that has no business in the United States of America. Demand an end to the use of eminent domain. Tell them no more private homes will be taken so Wal Mart can get richer. Americans are ready to listen. Get mad. But get busy. And do what it takes to win. Organize at the local level - use the power the Founding Fathers gave us to preserve the Republic - and throw off the yoke of tyranny. Write this down and take it home with you: "The right of the individual to own and control private property is the foundation of liberty." And now write this: "Precinct Captain is the root to victory." That's the silver bullet that leads to sustained liberty. Put the two together and restore and preserve this Republic. Now that's something to tell your grandchildren when they ask what you did in the great war to preserve American liberty. Salute, and tell them "I was a Precinct Captain." Copywrite 2005 Tom DeWeese