|
|
|
|
| Sacramento, California - Author: Assemblywoman Helen M. Thomson Coauthors: Granlund, Havice, Keeley, Kuehl, Lempert, Longville, Mazzoni, McClintock, Romero, Wiggins
This bill will restore to owners in homeowner associations and mobile home parks the right to keep companion pets.
PLEASE VOTE YES ON AB 860
The AMERICAN HOMEOWNERS RESOURCE CENTER (AHRC), a nationwide, grassroots organization of homeowners, dedicated to the protection of the American home, strongly and unequivocally supports AB860 for the following reasons:
1. As a country, we pride ourselves on being free. We believe that the individual citizen should have the maximum amount of freedom consistent with life in an organized society. To deny a citizen the simple pleasure of owning a pet makes a mockery of freedom. Surely, California does not want to appear on the world stage as opposing a pleasure which all peoples in all societies have enjoyed for thousands of years.
2. AB 860 sensibly provides for associations to set up "reasonable rules and regulations " (Sec. 1360.5 (a) , thereby accomodating citizens' desire for pets with the conditions of modern urban life.
3. AB 860 does not overturn the Narhstedt case. In fact, it helps to clarify and implement it. Nahrstedt was clearly concerned that restrictions would not be:
• 1. arbitrary
• 2. that they would not impose burdens that substantially outweigh benefits
• 3. and that they would not violate public policy.
4. AB 860 provides 4 criteria that help to implement these 3 provisions of Narhstedt. Sec. 1354.5, (a) line 38, and Sec. 1354.5 (b) line 9 require that "aesthetic, economic, or health and safety considerations" be taken into account in determining whether a restriction should be imposed. These are moderate, common sense considerations.
5. In some parts of California, as many as 75% of homes are in homeowner associations. Hence, to say that California homeowners have a choice between association and non-association housing is a legal fiction. Furthermore, as potential purchasers of association housing cannot negotiate the CCR "contract", it is another legal fiction to say that they negotiated freely. In essence, they are forced to accept it.
6. The litigation and allied CID industry represented by Community Association Institute (CAI), the California Legislative Action Committee (CLAC), the Executive Council of Homeowners (ECHO), and California Association of Community Managers (CACM) trumpet the claim that most homes will eventually end up in associations, and are working strenuously to ensure that. This means that homeowners will have less and less freedom to choose whether to live in or outside of an association. Hence CCR contracts are adhesion contracts. Historically, the law has always provided greater protections to those who are forced to sign adhesion contracts. AB 860 is simply providing similar protection.
7. Ironically, opponents such as CAI, CLAC, ECHO and CACM complain that AB 860 invades the sanctity of private contracts. For years, these trade lobby groups have been invading the Davis Stirling act by passing bills which drastically change existing homeowner contracts - ALL TO THE DETRIMENT OF HOMEOWNERS AND TO THE BENEFIT OF THEIR INDUSTRY. These changes are all made by these third parties without the knowledge and consent of the contract holders.
For example, they secured the passage of a bill which raised assessment increases from 5% to 20% a year. Their lawyer clients celebrated because it now meant more money for their legal fees. The lawyers celebrated even more when a CAI/CLAC sponsored bill diverted homeowner savings to be used to pay legal bills.
8. CAI, CLAC and ECHO (Executive Council of Homeowners) do NOT represent homeowners. Hence, their assertions and intimations that they represent 6 million Californians in 30,000 homeowner associations is a fraud on the California Legislature. They not only never consult homeowners, but they only represent vendors to CID's such as lawyers and management companies. Historically, their whole effort has been to wrest control of homes from homeowners so that these homes can be become cash registers for themselves. AB 860 would restore some measure of control to homeowners.
9. CID homeowners, far from wanting big government in their lives, are struggling to keep Big Special Interests from dominating their lives. These special interests do not own these homes, have no right to them, and should not be dictating to the homeowners that they cannot have pets. AB 860 supports the rights of homeowners.
10. The opponents of AB 860 predict a flood of litigation. This is simply a slippery slope argument, which is destroyed by the fact that there was no litigation flood prior to Nahrstedt, and no prospect of one now. Strong animal control regulations exist in all jurisdictions, and there is no need for another layer of government by special interests.
Conclusion:
It is hard to fathom why opponents of AB 860 are so adamantly against its sensible provisions, and why they so ardently seek to deny homeowners the simple pleasure of owning a pet. A dog is a man's best friend, and countless studies show the significant beneficial effect of having animals around. Their opposition can only be understood as a continuation of these vendors' campaign to maintain absolute control over homeowners. This in and of itself would provide a powerful argument for supporting AB 860. Does California want to be known worldwide for banning its citizens from having a favorite dog or cat or bird that brings joy to their lives? Homeowners do not think so.
Analyst: Elizabeth McMahon
Elizabeth McMahon served as the consumer representative on the Davis Stirling Task Force, a Committee set up by the California Senate Housing Committee to revise the Davis Stirling Act |
|
| |
|
View Comments (0) | Post a comment |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
