|
|
|
|
Sacramento, California - Author: Assemblywoman Helen M. Thomson - Coauthors: Granlund, Havice, Keeley, Kuehl, Lempert, Longville, Mazzoni, McClintock, Romero, Wiggins
PLEASE VOTE YES ON AB 860
July 12, 1999
Senate Judiciary Committee
State Capitol
Sacramento, California
SUBJECT: AB 860 (Helen M. Thomson) - Analysis and Support
Homeowners Rights to Pets
On July 13, 1999, you are scheduled to reconsider AB 860 (Thomson).
This bill would authorize the keeping of pets in mobilehome parks and common interest developments (CID) subject to reasonable rules and regulations. This bill passed the assembly by a large majority, 59 - 18. On July 7, 3 members of the Judiciary Committee voted in favor of it, 4 against, with 2 abstentions. AHRC (the American Homeowners Resource Center) believes that this bill should pass for the following additional reasons - our original support letter is attached for reference.
1. No bill is a perfect bill. There are advantages and disadvantages to be weighed. One disadvantage which the bill's opponents have raised is that of people with allergies being exposed to animals. Obviously, some people are allergic to animals among other things. The number of these people is small, and the "reasonable rules and regulations" which this bill supports along with the accomodations which most neighbors make, should make the presence of animals manageable. The countervailing benefit which this bill would secure is immense.
Pets are a powerful source of pleasure and well-being for thousands of people. One has only to witness the affection which people of all ages develop for their pets in order to see this. As people in all countries and times have regarded owning a pet as being a right which is naturally part of human life, the most compelling of adverse circumstances are required to take that right away. This is not the case here. The bill's opponents raise relatively marginal situations. To prevent this modest bill from passing is to deprive tens of thousands, maybe even more, from great joy. Citizens would have a hard time understanding why their representatives would vote against it.
2. The bill's opponents also object that the legislature should not be intervening in "private contracts". This objection is somewhat ironic as some of the opponents, e.g. CAI (Community Associations Institute) and CLAC (California Legislative Action Committee) have repeatedly appeared before this legislature to ask for legislation to overturn significant portions of these so-called "private contracts". For example, many homeowners who signed "contracts" that their assessments could only be raised 5% a year without their approval, suddenly found a state law pushed through by CAI and CLAC, that increased this limit to 20%.
It is also ironic that CAI and CLAC push for revisions which benefit themselves financially. They lobbied to change these so-called "private contracts" to allow reserve funds of homeowners to be used to pay lawyers' fees. Most members of CAI and CLAC are lawyers. CAI and CLAC do NOT represent homeowners - they never have, and never will. They are simply self-interested lobbyists.
3. These so-called "private contracts" are in reality "adhesion contracts", and are analogous to the "private contracts" which consumers enter into with the phone company, cable company, gas company and electric company.
They are better called "monopoly contracts", because all the power is in the hands of one party, who imposes his will on the other party. There is zero room for negotiation. As all societies have historically protected consumers when they are at the powerless end of the monopoly contract, so homeowners in common interest developments and mobilehome parks need that protection today.
Over 6 million Californians live in over 30,000 managed housing organizations (MHO's), and the number is increasing by leaps and bounds. Nationally, over 42 million Americans live in over 100,000 MHO's. The fiction of "private contracts" needs to be discarded on the scrap heap of history as a public relations gimmick that masks their true nature.
4. Groups such as CAI and CLAC repeatedly sound the mantra of "the state should not micro-manage". Why do they do this? So that THEY can micro-manage - for their own benefit.
It is CAI lawyers who write the CCR's which prohibit pets, which prohibit homeowners from planting their own flowers without permission, which prohibit basketball hoops on garage doors. Homeowners want to live in homes, not prisons swathed in regulations, restrictions and prohibitions.
Homeowners across the entire state have repeatedly proclaimed their desire for their elected representatives to protect them from these arbitrary, straitjacketing provisions which contract the enjoyment of their homes. The prohibition against pets is one such provision. AB 860 would do away with it. We urge you to vote on behalf of the overwhelming majority of homeowners in favor of it.
Sincerely
Elizabeth J. McMahon
Executive Director
American Homeowners Resource Center
The AMERICAN HOMEOWNERS RESOURCE CENTER (AHRC), a nationwide, grassroots organization of homeowners, dedicated to the protection of the American home.
cc: The American Homeowners Information Exchange: http://www.ahrc.com |
|
| |
|
View Comments (0) | Post a comment |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
