CHORE - Coalition of Homeowners for Rights and Education of Arizona

CHORE Advocates must be gaining strength. CAI & AACM have now resorted to outright lying in their testimonies, and sponsored a Free Lunch on the Lawn of the Capitol Bldg., the day of this hearing, for our Legislators, with Money that Homeowners pay their Associations who Pay these Lobbyists to Oppose and Fight and Oppress us legislatively.

One immediately wonders how this Senate Committee could simply dismiss and ignore the Constitutional Issue of Refusing to protect their Citizens equally. Why are they so much more willing to Hear the opposition who is PAID to be there with our dues & assessments, and turn a deaf ear to the Homeowners who Plead for Equal Treatment under the Law? Is the Lunch on the Lawn all they were all thinking about? Or is the Campaign Contributions that pour in quarterly from each Management Company’s employees & families, each Lobbyist Company Employees, Staff & Families, and all of the Lawyers who happily contribute hoping to Maintain their Income Stream!?

Meanwhile Homeowners across Arizona are being Foreclosed upon for small sums of money, as little as $342 in a recent case! While the lawyers who handle these foreclosures tack on fees that amount to 17 times the amount owed! Our lawmakers, look away.

Some Care, as you can witness for yourself in the Video, Arizona Representative Eddie Farnsworth works closely with Pat Haruff, Leader of CHORE to restore equal rights and protections to Homeowners in Arizona. He has willingly sponsored our bills, and worked tirelessly to move them through the process.

Pat Haruff, Volunteers her time and energy and spends hours in meetings, at hearings, and working towards drafting legislation that restore our rights. But because She is Not a Paid Lobbyist, She does not have the ACCESS that the Lobbyists have. They are permitted to wander the halls of the private offices doing God Knows What, While unpaid volunteer advocates wait in the lobby for a moment of time. Nobody was paying Pat Haruff, Ron Kelly, Fran Noe or the other advocates to be there, they work for free! They work for Justice!

While AACM, CAI and the rest of their “Paid for the Day” crowd who opposed equal protection Lunched once again on the Homeowners Dime. They were Paid for the Day to Oppose Homeowners on the Homeowners Dime.

Left by Raunstar on April 1st, 2006

Visitor

Re:CHORE Advocates fight for Equal Protection - 2006/04/01 06:41 I attended the hearing re HB2352 and noticed that the homeowners were totally outnumbered, out financed, out brained in numbers, and out manoeuvered before the hearing even started.

Management companies with their affiliates, their lawyers, their shareholders and their employess AND HOA Boards with their attorneys realized that this bill had to be defeated, so all of them put aside any differences and joined hands.

They must have called this an ‘ALL IN THE FAMILY” hearing and this “family” must have out spent the unit owners in contributing to the election or the re-electing of those senators who were going to vote against HB 2352. The most incredible reality of this put-up show is the fact that we, the unit owners, gave them this ever producing cash-cow and if at the end there is a foreclosure then that is the bonus for the prosecuting attorneys and a victory for the HOA Boards.

When one lawyer mentioned that it takes 6 months for a foreclosure and Sen. Flake thought that that was time enough to sell the property and clear the debts, it was sad to hear that even a senator had not done his homework or was qualified to answer. In a foreclosure an attorney files a Lis Pendens, which means that a legal action has been filed against the property which can only be removed by the judge, and Title Companies NEVER interfere during that time. A Lis Pendens gives the attorney the security that his case is on hold, a kind of guaranteed income.

This charade was a collusion between all those who are paid by us the homeowners.

Wicher

Left by Visitor on April 1st, 2006

It’s obvious why this bill failed, you’ve attemted to pollenate apples with oranges -
I find it offensive when Mandatory Condominium-style “assessments” are confused with Detached Family housing association “assessments”.

Given the nature of Condo-style housing, it seems fair to include the roofer’s lien to the HOA’s lien. I don’t live in a condo, so forgive me for stopping right there and moving on to the real crime we need to point out and outlaw.

The MAFIA’s authority to foreclose on detatched family housing for the “assessments” is an entirely illegitimate act. The homestead exemption is intended to insure domestic tranquility, and in many states it is a constitution that exempts a homestead from foreclosure for ordinary debts. When the HOA fails to perform or provide services that the homeowner uses, the homeowner should be allowed to with hold payment of assessments as a consumer of that “service”.

The NON-PROFIT corporation concept was created on the concept of “charity” - and the payments to these organizations were once upon a time “deductible”. These mandatory contracts have undermined our constitutions, and changed our way of life like no foreign enemy could ever do.

Perpetuities should never be allowed, so why not ask the legislature to require a periodic renewal of the “contracts” ? Require 51% of the people living in each association to agree to the renewal of the money contract. If they don’t get 51%, make them voluntary and do away with the extortion-based collection tools - make them rely on CHARITY and allow everyone to deduct thier donations from their income?

Maybe this idea would catch on after a couple of states did it and proved that the sky will not fall if HOAs have to fire the CAI management companies and hire a local kid to mow the road medians for 1/1000th the cost of “professional services”. This would bring some pride in neighborly participation back to AMERICA, wouldn’t it?

Rich

Left by Rich Craig on April 9th, 2006

In Arizona, there are no apples & oranges - only citizens, and a constitution that requires that ALL CITIZEN BE PROTECTED EQUALLY.

Article 2, Section 13:

13. Equal privileges and immunities

Section 13. No law shall be enacted granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens or corporations.

When the Homestead Exemption Protection was written, it was written to include condos: See Section A subsection 2

33-1101. Homestead exemptions; persons entitled to hold homesteads

A. Any person the age of eighteen or over, married or single, who resides within the state may hold as a homestead exempt from attachment, execution and forced sale, not exceeding one hundred fifty thousand dollars in value, any one of the following:

1. The person’s interest in real property in one compact body upon which exists a dwelling house in which the person resides.

2. The person’s interest in one condominium or cooperative in which the person resides.

3. A mobile home in which the person resides.

4. A mobile home in which the person resides plus the land upon which that mobile home is located.

B. Only one homestead exemption may be held by a married couple or a single person under this section. The value as specified in this section refers to the equity of a single person or married couple. If a married couple lived together in a dwelling house, a condominium or cooperative, a mobile home or a mobile home plus land on which the mobile home is located and are then divorced, the total exemption allowed for that residence to either or both persons shall not exceed one hundred fifty thousand dollars in value.

C. The homestead exemption, not exceeding the value provided for in subsection A, automatically attaches to the person’s interest in identifiable cash proceeds from the voluntary or involuntary sale of the property. The homestead exemption in identifiable cash proceeds continues for eighteen months after the date of the sale of the property or until the person establishes a new homestead with the proceeds, whichever period is shorter. Only one homestead exemption at a time may be held by a person under this section.

Expecting the State Legislature to honor their own Constitution written by their own hand, is NOT mixing apples & oranges, it is an expectation of the citizens for the Lawmakers to Uphold the Laws they’ve written.

Left by raunstar on April 9th, 2006