YourHub.com \\ Central \\ Blogs \\ News & Politics \\ Politics \\ National Politics

Blog Entry 128 of 144 Revolution Anyone?

Remember the rise and fall of Rome? Well, it's happening again -- right here in our own country. Historians tell us that the United States is in its last phase of social and financial decline (as if intelligent and rational Americans didn't already know that). Americans who have been paying attention know that our legal system appears to be irreparably broken, and that our local, state and federal governments appear to be in corrupt shambles. Illegal aliens (most from Mexico) appear to be taking over our country. I also read (from reputable and reliable sources) that the United States, Canada and Mexico have plans to merge into one country. Can intelligent and rational Americans peacefully stop this madness? Or will there be another bloody American Revolution? Those two questions are what this blog is all about. Please join me in discussing what steps We The Intelligent And Rational People need to take to turn our country around before it's too late. Jan Jackson

Blog Url: http://coloradosprings.yourhub.com/~JanJackson

Entries:

Five Wolves and One Sheep

e-mail to a friend | print this | link to this

NEXT › ‹ PREVIOUS

Contributed by: Jan Jackson on 7/29/2008

HOA governance by a board of directors is like five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

The following article was recently written by an HOA homeowner advocate on a large, national forum for homeowners . He's replying to something an HOA homeowner wrote on that forum: www.groups.yahoo.com/group/hoanet/

Basically, what he's saying is that "majority rule" is fatally flawed, unless you also include individual rights in that concept.

Because what that author wrote is -- at least to me -- so profound, and because what he wrote described many (if not most) HOAs in Colorado (including mine), as well HOAs throughout our entire country, I thought I'd share.

Here's his article (see below). Please note all emphases (bolded text) are mine.

Jan

"Majority rules" myth

By Bill Davis
July 28, 2008

...I think you have confused the concepts of "majority rule" with the concept of "democracy" -- something CAI [Community Associations Institute lawyers-lobbyists] types have done for a long time. Of course, CAI has never really promoted either "majority rule" or "democracy", instead always seeking to put infinite power in the hands of a few -- usually the power to take from the "governed" masses under the guise of "services".

Aside from the logistics of who heads up various committees of the legislature (which is already nothing but people claiming to represent other people much like boards of an HOA), the concept of majority rule doesn't actually exist in an HOA and its applicability must be limited ...before HOAs could ever be called "democratic organizations".

Contemplate a few famous quotes that illustrate the flaw with a pure majority rule:

"Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner."--Larry Flynt

Similarly, "Majority rule, loosely put, is the proposal that 51 percent of the people should be allowed to get whatever they want. Some consider this the same as democracy, but it is not; at least, it is not the same as American democracy."--Prof Steven Carter

Let's not forget the myth that HOAs actually have anything to do with majority rule, only the perception of majority rule:

"Neither current events nor history shows that the majority rules, or ever did rule"--Jefferson Davis

That couldn't be more true in an environment where voting is secret and private and votes count only at the discretion of a board which is free to secretly discard the votes of its opponents.

I also like the following quotes from less well-known individuals because it reflects what really goes on both in HOAs and in the legislatures:

"I determined from my years in politics - and just observing, just common sense, listening to people -- that there was a reason why, all across our country, citizens less and less support general taxes into a common pool to be distributed by political decision-makers. There's a reason why people vote for Republicans and Democrats who claim that they won't raise those common taxes, and the reason is, our citizens, whether we like it or not, have decided that it's not in their best interest to permit themselves to be taxed in common and the money put into a common pool to be distributed based on political will. They have rightfully, I think, ascertained that when that occurs, the investment of the tax revenue is not made in the best interest of their welfare, but rather in the best interest of the welfare of the elected class."--Ric Williamson, Chairman of the Texas Transportation Commission, Interview with Reason magazine 12/31/2007

Similarly, "We should be suspicious of calls for 'community' since historically such calls have been accompanied by oppressive sentiments such as nationalism, militarism, racism, and religious and other intolerances. In addition, there have always been potential leaders who claim superior intelligence, insight, and ability to recognize, understand, and articulate the common good and who seek to impose their idea of a good society on others.

Individual human beings should not be sacrificed for the sake of an abstract concept such as the public interest or common good. In actual communities, these tend to be only the interests or goods of persons in power or a majority of their members" [here he is referring to the 'ruling class' not the majority of the governed class]. --Dr. Edward Younce, "In Dispraise of Communitarianism"

It wasn't that long ago that the attribute of a person's race, marital status, gender, and familial status were expressly used to deem them "undesirable" and to exclude them from the community by actions ranging from threats to lynching. Fortunately such conduct has been outlawed despite the views of any "majority".

Community Associations Institute has merely discovered a way to capitalize on the small-mindedness and ignorance of a few in order to profit at the expense of those being discriminated against. CAI has made discrimination an equal opportunity business -- extending the attributes which can be discriminated against to even the most inane and ensuring that any attribute can be deemed "harmful" or "aesthetically displeasing" at the whim of a board. The "standard" is completely subjective and arbitrary - "aesthetics". CAI also preys upon the frailties of the weak-minded to create (a) unreasonable expectations, and (b) blame someone else for their failure to meet those expectations. How frequently do you hear [HOA] board members claim that someone else is harming their property values?

CAI and its followers justify the most insidious conduct in the pursuit of the elimination of ugliness. Never doubt that anyone who dares to disagree with a board member will be deemed "ugly" and "harming the community" and scheduled for eradication under the proxy of "aesthetics". Let's not forget it is sufficient evidence in an HOA "democracy" for the CAI management company to merely proclaim that "it was reported or observed" (i.e., anonymously) that the accused did x and that x is a violation of y. Therefore the accused owes money and in many states (previously Arizona as well) this money would be extracted through threat of foreclosure -- extinguishing all the equity that the homeowner built up to be divvied among the predators.

How many times have we heard Board members proclaim how someone is "harming the community".

I would disagree that an HOA or even restrictive covenants in any way represent the view of a majority. It's kind of like claiming that a majority of people support polluted air because they are breathing it. An HOA is nothing but a land based environmental hazard. People need homes as much as they need air. Yet the only defense that can be mustered by HOA-supporters is "you knew it before you moved there" and is about as defensible as "you knew it before you breathed the air."

I tend to prefer the right of the individual over the vote of the majority, however I still find humor in the following quote because it emphasizes the importance of respecting the right of the individual despite the view of a majority:

"Majority rule is a precious, sacred thing worth dying for. But -- like other precious, sacred things, such as the home and the family -- it's not only worth dying for; it can make you wish you were dead. Imagine if all of life were determined by majority rule. Every meal would be a pizza. Every pair of pants, even those in a Brooks Brothers suit, would be stonewashed denim. Celebrity diet and exercise books would be the only thing on the shelves at the library. And -- since women are a majority of the population -- we'd all be married to Mel Gibson."--P.J. O'Rourke

< Previous: 'TWO MILLION DOLLAR HOA...' | Next: 'Eighteen Days' >

[Report this as objectionable content.]

SUBMIT COMMENT

Rate the above blog