The 2018 midterm elections are less than two weeks away, which means, of course, campaign signs are popping up like dandelions in yards and along roads.
These signs become a particular pain point for community associations every election season. Without fail, some communities end up on the evening news or in the local newspaper for attempting to enforce their covenants on signs.
We asked James A. Gustino, a community association attorney in Winter Garden, Fla., to provide some guidance on the subject. What should associations do about the signs? This is what he had to say:
Strict enforcement of association sign prohibitions, particularly as they relate to political signs on an owner’s property during the election season, is almost always unwise.
Check your state’s highest court rulings and the specific “freedom of speech” verbiage in your state’s constitution. Most federal and state courts currently don’t protect political signs from association enforcement. However, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions in 2012 and 2014 protecting political speech. These opinions could influence other state courts considering similar legal issues in the future.
Covenants restricting signs often incorporate exceptions for security, developer, “for sale” and other board-approved signs. Under such circumstances, an association actively enforcing bans against political signs is unnecessarily exposing itself to charges of selective or arbitrary enforcement. When a ban on signs is universal but an association permits residents’ holiday decorations—another kind of speech—it also exposes itself to claims of selective or arbitrary enforcement. This nuance is often overlooked.
Practically speaking, political signs usually are posted for just a few weeks. By the time the typical association cycles through its standard three noncompliance notifications, the signs will likely have been removed.
Lastly, political beliefs and affiliations—like religious beliefs—tend to produce strong feelings that lead to costly and time-consuming litigation. Even if litigation isn’t the end result, is it sensible to pursue actions that invite unnecessary friction?
I recommend that my clients permit political signs but enact reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. For example:
- They can only be placed on the property for 45 days prior to an election
- They must be removed within three days after the election
- They cannot contain any profanity
- They must be limited in number
- They cannot create a sight obstruction or other safety concern.
I also advocate involving community members to help craft the association’s specific restrictions and then prominently posting (via email blasts, special notices on your website and at entry signs) the rules to encourage compliance.
The post An unbiased, unfiltered guide to 2018 midterm election signs appeared first on Ungated: Community Associations Institute Blog.
Today, 70 million Americans live in 344,500 common-interest communities. Even if you haven’t lived in a condo, co-op, or HOA, chances are you’ve at least heard of these communities. Admittedly, those who live in, volunteer in, and work for common-interest communities tend to throw around terms like “ARC,” “CC&Rs,” “D&O” or “CMCA” that make things sound more complicated than they really are. So let’s pull back the curtain on some important terms related to living in and working in community associations.
Types of communities
CA: Community Association
CID: Common-Interest Development
HOA: Homeowners Association
PD: Planned Development
POA: Property Owners Association
PUD: Planned Unit Development
TOA: Townhouse Owners Association
Community leadership, governance and operations
ARC: Architectural Review Committee
BOD: Board of Directors
BOT: Board of Trustees
CC&Rs: Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
D&O: Directors & Officers liability insurance
E&O: Errors & Omissions insurance
RFP: Request for Proposal
SOP: Standard Operating Procedures
General CAI terms
CAMICB: Community Association Manager International Certification Board, a sister organization to CAI.
FCAR: Foundation for Community Association Research, also a CAI affiliate
Designations, Certifications, and Accreditations
AAMC: Accredited Association Management Company
AMS: Association Management Specialist
CIRMS: Community Insurance & Risk Management Specialist
CMCA: Certified Manager of Community Associations
LSM: Large-Scale Manager
PCAM: Professional Community Association Manager
RS: Reserve Specialist
Whatever the acronym, all community associations—CA, condo, HOA, POA, TOA, etc.—share a few essential goals: preserving the nature and character of the community, providing services and amenities to residents, protecting property values and meeting the established expectations of owners.
Stumped by other acronyms or industry terms? Ask a question in the comments below.
The post HOAs, BOTs, CC&Rs, and more: Defining community association terms appeared first on Ungated: Community Associations Institute Blog.
Shanghai urban skyline, China
Picture this: A place where community associations aren’t legally able to have their own bank accounts, property management companies can retain ownership of common areas and rent them out without homeowners’ consent, and developers interfere with board elections because they are opposed to the formation of community associations. While this might seem improbable, situations like these occur frequently in China.
In the U.S., the community association housing model has become commonplace. According to the latest figures from the Foundation for Community Association Research, there are roughly 344,500 common-interest communities across the country. CAI has chapters throughout the world, including Canada, the Middle East, and South Africa, and relationships with housing officials in Australia, Spain, Saudi Arabia, and the United Kingdom. But how prevalent are community associations elsewhere in the world?
They’re a recent development in China, emerging shortly after housing reforms in the 1990s. Previously, urban housing was mainly provided by danwei, or place of employment. Danwei were organized by occupation and were both a physical space where people lived and a system whereby the government could regulate residents’ decisions and actions. With economic and political reform, this system largely became obsolete, leading to significant housing changes.
In response to property rights violations by developers and property management companies, community associations began to emerge. Developers have been faulted for failing to give homeowners their deeds and using them as collateral for loans, understating the area of the home, or not providing promised amenities. Unlike in the U.S., where community associations are usually formed by developers and membership occurs upon purchase of a home, associations in China are a grassroots effort spearheaded by residents to preserve their rights.
From a cultural and political perspective, community associations are novel in the single-party authoritarian regime that is the People’s Republic of China. In a 2008 dissertation by Feng Wang, at the time a Doctorate of Philosophy candidate at the University of Southern California, local governments often looked down upon associations as “an unstable social force that interrupts the establishment of a harmonious society.”
In China, a community association needs to form a preparatory group before it can officially establish—a difficult process. Residents need a representative from their developer and management company. Without their participation, local governments easily strike down the burgeoning association. The group also must meet a voting threshold for approval, and appeal to the management company or developer for a list of residents’ names and contact information to generate participation. Causing further complications, the initial vote is determined by property percentage. This gives developers an opportunity to vote to block its formation if they still own unsold units.
Despite the difficulty in forming and managing community associations, some have achieved commendable success in the country. In 1998 (before some important reforms), residents in one housing complex in China staged a coup and successfully disbanded their HOA after discovering that their management company had falsified a neighborhood mandate giving them permission to form the group. New leadership was voted in, and an HOA with community approved leadership was formed. The group was even able to successfully negotiate lower fees with the management company.
The residential conflict commonly reported in the media in community associations across the U.S. seems trivial compared to the conflict between developers, property managers, and homeowners in China. One might even wonder at the seeming lack of internal disputes among Chinese residents. In fact, according to a survey conducted by Wang, 92 percent of homeowners rate conflict among themselves as a serious issue, but only 25 percent of community associations focus efforts on addressing these issues. It is precisely because of the focus on exterior challenges, rather than internal conflict, that many community associations in China have flourished despite an unfavorable environment.
Through transparency, inclusion, and mobilization of homeowners in China, associations have made huge gains for the rights of residents. Whether in China or the U.S., community associations cannot lose sight of their goals: to elevate residents’ standard of living and protect property values.
Read more about homeowners association in China in the following:
- “The Social Functions of Private Neighborhood Associations: The Case of Homeowner Associations in Urban China.” By Feng Wang, University of Southern California, 2009.
- “Homeowner associations and neighborhood governance in Guangzhou, China.” By Shenjing He, Eurasian Geography and Economics, 2015.
- “Democratizing the Neighbourhood? New Private Housing and Home-Owner Self-Organization in Urban China.” By Benjamin L. Read, The China Journal, 2003.
The post What do community associations look like in China? appeared first on Ungated: Community Associations Institute Blog.
Lake Michigan from the North Shore, Chicago
In a deal worth $27 million, Edgewater Beach condominium owners in Chicago plan to sell their lakefront building to Greenstone Property Group, a New York- based real estate investor that will convert its 188 units to apartments.
Almost 80 percent of unit owners accepted the offer in a vote over the summer. Under Illinois law, bulk con- dominium sales must be approved by 75 percent of unit owners. The sale is expected to close this year.
“I think owners were beginning to realize that if we don’t sell, we will be required to raise several special assessments to fund crucial deferred maintenance issues, many of which are not prepared for,” says Shawn Swift, president of the Surfside Condominiums board. “We felt it was important that all owners have the choice to decide the building’s fate collectively, rather than a board of directors’ decision to move forward with $3–$4 million in special assessments over the next two years.”
Owners will receive approximately 40–50 percent more on average for their units than if they were to sell on their own, explains Swift, and without the worry of paying hefty assessments in the future.
“We have also negotiated favorable leaseback terms for any owners who wish to stay in their units post-closing,” Swift adds. “The buyer will honor any cur- rent leases in place between an owner and their tenant. About half the building is currently being rented.”
The sale will be one of the largest condominium-to- apartment conversions—also known as deconversions—in the city’s history, according to the Chicago Tribune.
“Condominium deconversions became popular a few years ago because of the increased rental rates in Chicago,” says Patrick T. Costello, a shareholder at Keay & Costello law firm and a legislative liaison to CAI’s Illinois Chapter Legislative Action Committee.
Big Ben, London
Community association living is widely popular in many areas of the world. In the U.S., for example, there are 70 million people living in 344,500 common-interest communities, one in eight live in a condominium in Canada, and three million Australians live in strata communities. Condominiums have taken off in Europe too, especially in France and Germany. However, one country remains a laggard in this trend: The United Kingdom. Despite legislation introduced in 2004 to jump-start condominiums— or commonholds as they are referred in the U.K—less than 20 have been developed.
The commonhold system was introduced to phase out the most popular form of housing in the UK: leasehold. In a leasehold arrangement, the buyer rents a flat from the freeholder, or landlord, for a specified number of years. The freeholder is responsible for managing and maintaining the common areas of the building, such as hallways, roofs, and facades. The lease is typically long-term—often as many as 120 years—but begins to decrease in value as the lease nears its end. Many individuals have taken issue with the leasehold system. Complaints range from burdensome fees imposed by landlords to the costliness of extending a lease and the fundamental nature of a leasehold as a wasting asset.
With all the complaints surrounding leaseholds, one might wonder why there’s a lack of enthusiasm for commonholds? In theory, self-management of commonholds removes conflict with the landlord, and ownership alleviates the ticking time bomb worry of a lease. The Law Commission, an entity responsible for reforming laws in the U.K., has a few ideas as to why commonholds remain so sparse.
Some potential issues affect homeowners. When changing from a leasehold to a commonhold, the law requires unanimous consent from every inhabitant 21 years or older, the freeholder, and every lender with a mortgage. Naturally, getting this many people informed, let alone on board with such a big change, is difficult. In addition, the commonhold association, the U.K. equivalent of a community association board, is a company under the current law. As such, leaseholders could face criminal penalties for violating the law. This standard is much too risky for any homeowner. Regulations also might be too stringent in some areas and overly flexible in others. For example, maintenance obligations are unchangeable regardless of age and price of the building, but on the other hand, fire insurance is the only type of insurance buildings are required to have, whereas other types of buildings require flooding and theft insurance.
Overall, commonhold’s failure to launch might simply be due to lack of a financial incentive for developers and a gap in public awareness over this type of housing. These types of large-scale transitions can be difficult and require public backing. However, the U.K.’s housing reform endeavors are an admirable effort to jump-start conversation between potential homebuyers, legislators, commonhold owners, and developers.
The post Why are common-interest communities so uncommon in the U.K.? appeared first on Ungated: Community Associations Institute Blog.