<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sen. Barto’s bill says HOA contracts don’t matter</title>
	<atom:link href="http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/03/09/sen-barto%E2%80%99s-bill-says-hoa-contracts-don%E2%80%99t-matter/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/03/09/sen-barto%e2%80%99s-bill-says-hoa-contracts-don%e2%80%99t-matter/</link>
	<description>Your Inside Track to Arizona Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 18:08:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Theresa Brooking</title>
		<link>http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/03/09/sen-barto%e2%80%99s-bill-says-hoa-contracts-don%e2%80%99t-matter/comment-page-1/#comment-87238</link>
		<dc:creator>Theresa Brooking</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:20:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/03/09/sen-barto%e2%80%99s-bill-says-hoa-contracts-don%e2%80%99t-matter/#comment-87238</guid>
		<description>Existing laws strongly favor the board of directors and attorneys are encouraging further strengthening board powers.  The profit-making interests of attorneys and management firms, heavily lobby state legislatures, leaving homeowners without real representation.  Clearly, homeowners need a supportive governing body.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Existing laws strongly favor the board of directors and attorneys are encouraging further strengthening board powers.  The profit-making interests of attorneys and management firms, heavily lobby state legislatures, leaving homeowners without real representation.  Clearly, homeowners need a supportive governing body.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tony May</title>
		<link>http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/03/09/sen-barto%e2%80%99s-bill-says-hoa-contracts-don%e2%80%99t-matter/comment-page-1/#comment-86994</link>
		<dc:creator>Tony May</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2013 21:50:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/03/09/sen-barto%e2%80%99s-bill-says-hoa-contracts-don%e2%80%99t-matter/#comment-86994</guid>
		<description>There is a assumption in the article.  Larry only uses an HOA member in the example.  Let&#039;s change it.

If I park my car in an HOA but on a government-owned street, can the HOA fine me or tow my car?  The answer is &quot;No,&quot; but tell that to most HOAs.  They feel that anybody who comes into the neighborhood is subject to the CC&amp;Rs.

In fact, the HOA can&#039;t tow the vehicle of the HOA members.  If the HOA member has violated the CC&amp;Rs, then there &quot;may&quot; be monetary consequences of that, but unless the CC&amp;Rs specifically give permission to the HOA, then the HOA cannot tow that member&#039;s vehicle.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is a assumption in the article.  Larry only uses an HOA member in the example.  Let&#8217;s change it.</p>
<p>If I park my car in an HOA but on a government-owned street, can the HOA fine me or tow my car?  The answer is &#8220;No,&#8221; but tell that to most HOAs.  They feel that anybody who comes into the neighborhood is subject to the CC&amp;Rs.</p>
<p>In fact, the HOA can&#8217;t tow the vehicle of the HOA members.  If the HOA member has violated the CC&amp;Rs, then there &#8220;may&#8221; be monetary consequences of that, but unless the CC&amp;Rs specifically give permission to the HOA, then the HOA cannot tow that member&#8217;s vehicle.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Arizona &#8211; Sen. Barto’s bill says HOA contracts don’t matter (editorial) &#124; TheMossReport</title>
		<link>http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/03/09/sen-barto%e2%80%99s-bill-says-hoa-contracts-don%e2%80%99t-matter/comment-page-1/#comment-71353</link>
		<dc:creator>Arizona &#8211; Sen. Barto’s bill says HOA contracts don’t matter (editorial) &#124; TheMossReport</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:30:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/03/09/sen-barto%e2%80%99s-bill-says-hoa-contracts-don%e2%80%99t-matter/#comment-71353</guid>
		<description>[...] bill says HOA contracts don’t matter (editorial)  Posted on 03/10/2012 &#124; Leave a comment    Sen. Barto’s bill says HOA contracts don’t matter Arizona Capitol TimesPublished: March 9, 2012 at 8:20 am Sen. Nancy Barto&#8217;s relentless quest to redefine [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] bill says HOA contracts don’t matter (editorial)  Posted on 03/10/2012 | Leave a comment    Sen. Barto’s bill says HOA contracts don’t matter Arizona Capitol TimesPublished: March 9, 2012 at 8:20 am Sen. Nancy Barto&#8217;s relentless quest to redefine [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Will Fischer</title>
		<link>http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/03/09/sen-barto%e2%80%99s-bill-says-hoa-contracts-don%e2%80%99t-matter/comment-page-1/#comment-71348</link>
		<dc:creator>Will Fischer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Mar 2012 05:21:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/03/09/sen-barto%e2%80%99s-bill-says-hoa-contracts-don%e2%80%99t-matter/#comment-71348</guid>
		<description>Senator Barto isn’t trying to redefine contract law in any way and instead is trying to correct an obvious misuse of contract law by the associations creators which also violates the scope of Planned Community as defined under State statue. The issue the legislature is considering isn’t about an association’s right under its contract to enforce a Cc&amp;R since the courts long ago established that right as being valid. However the courts have also ruled that not all CC&amp;Rs are always valid as written because there are requirements that must be met. In fact a great number of Cc&amp;Rs found in association documents contain poorly or invalid written Cc&amp;R language which is impossible to amend or remove. Due to a combination of the Developers supermajority voting standard, membership apathy and the great number of investor owned properties found within so many developments.
 
As far as signing the binding contract that in itself is not written in stone when applied to housing since constitutional and other issues are involved. In fact Senator Barto was justified when she said, HOA contracts don’t matter when it comes to the public streets. Because the courts have often ruled that Cc&amp;Rs under many circumstances are not valid or enforceable such as if they contain arbitrary language, violate public policy or cannot be uniformly enforced just to name a few. Consequently just because a housing association has a restriction in its governing documents doesn’t automatically or always make it valid or legal to enforce.
 
Finally if Senator Barto did ever appear before a Judge she will prevail because she stands on solid legal ground. Since the association doesn’t own the public streets, the public school or church which may be located within the development no matter what the contract says. Unfortunately for consumers Developers often place within their governing documents (contract) all kinds of Cc&amp;Rs, provisions and rules that are not valid according to the courts. Leaving the owners the expense, risks and responsibility of amending or removing what they created.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Senator Barto isn’t trying to redefine contract law in any way and instead is trying to correct an obvious misuse of contract law by the associations creators which also violates the scope of Planned Community as defined under State statue. The issue the legislature is considering isn’t about an association’s right under its contract to enforce a Cc&amp;R since the courts long ago established that right as being valid. However the courts have also ruled that not all CC&amp;Rs are always valid as written because there are requirements that must be met. In fact a great number of Cc&amp;Rs found in association documents contain poorly or invalid written Cc&amp;R language which is impossible to amend or remove. Due to a combination of the Developers supermajority voting standard, membership apathy and the great number of investor owned properties found within so many developments.</p>
<p>As far as signing the binding contract that in itself is not written in stone when applied to housing since constitutional and other issues are involved. In fact Senator Barto was justified when she said, HOA contracts don’t matter when it comes to the public streets. Because the courts have often ruled that Cc&amp;Rs under many circumstances are not valid or enforceable such as if they contain arbitrary language, violate public policy or cannot be uniformly enforced just to name a few. Consequently just because a housing association has a restriction in its governing documents doesn’t automatically or always make it valid or legal to enforce.</p>
<p>Finally if Senator Barto did ever appear before a Judge she will prevail because she stands on solid legal ground. Since the association doesn’t own the public streets, the public school or church which may be located within the development no matter what the contract says. Unfortunately for consumers Developers often place within their governing documents (contract) all kinds of Cc&amp;Rs, provisions and rules that are not valid according to the courts. Leaving the owners the expense, risks and responsibility of amending or removing what they created.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Will Fischer</title>
		<link>http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/03/09/sen-barto%e2%80%99s-bill-says-hoa-contracts-don%e2%80%99t-matter/comment-page-1/#comment-71339</link>
		<dc:creator>Will Fischer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 21:29:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/03/09/sen-barto%e2%80%99s-bill-says-hoa-contracts-don%e2%80%99t-matter/#comment-71339</guid>
		<description>Senator Barto isn’t trying to redefine contract law in any way and instead is trying to correct an obvious misuse of contract law by the associations creators which also violates the scope of Planned Community as defined under State statue. The issue the legislature is considering isn’t about an association’s right under its contract to enforce a Cc&amp;R since the courts long ago established that right as being valid. However the courts have also ruled that not all CC&amp;Rs are always valid as written because there are requirements that must be met. In fact a great number of Cc&amp;Rs found in association documents contain poorly or invalid written Cc&amp;R language which is impossible to amend or remove. Due to a combination of the Developers supermajority voting standard, membership apathy and the great number of investor owned properties found within so many developments.

As far as signing the binding contract that in itself is not written in stone when applied to housing since constitutional and other issues are involved. In fact Senator Barto was justified when she said, HOA contracts don’t matter when it comes to the public streets. Because the courts have often ruled that Cc&amp;Rs under many circumstances are not valid or enforceable such as if they contain arbitrary language, violate public policy or cannot be uniformly enforced just to name a few. Consequently just because a housing association has a restriction in its governing documents doesn’t automatically or always make it valid or legal to enforce.

Finally if Senator Barto did ever appear before a Judge she will prevail because she stands on solid legal ground.  Since the association doesn’t own the public streets, the public school or church which may be located within the development no matter what the contract says. Unfortunately for consumers Developers often place within their governing documents (contract) all kinds of Cc&amp;Rs, provisions and rules that are not valid according to the courts. Leaving the owners the expense, risks and responsibility of amending or removing what they created.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Senator Barto isn’t trying to redefine contract law in any way and instead is trying to correct an obvious misuse of contract law by the associations creators which also violates the scope of Planned Community as defined under State statue. The issue the legislature is considering isn’t about an association’s right under its contract to enforce a Cc&amp;R since the courts long ago established that right as being valid. However the courts have also ruled that not all CC&amp;Rs are always valid as written because there are requirements that must be met. In fact a great number of Cc&amp;Rs found in association documents contain poorly or invalid written Cc&amp;R language which is impossible to amend or remove. Due to a combination of the Developers supermajority voting standard, membership apathy and the great number of investor owned properties found within so many developments.</p>
<p>As far as signing the binding contract that in itself is not written in stone when applied to housing since constitutional and other issues are involved. In fact Senator Barto was justified when she said, HOA contracts don’t matter when it comes to the public streets. Because the courts have often ruled that Cc&amp;Rs under many circumstances are not valid or enforceable such as if they contain arbitrary language, violate public policy or cannot be uniformly enforced just to name a few. Consequently just because a housing association has a restriction in its governing documents doesn’t automatically or always make it valid or legal to enforce.</p>
<p>Finally if Senator Barto did ever appear before a Judge she will prevail because she stands on solid legal ground.  Since the association doesn’t own the public streets, the public school or church which may be located within the development no matter what the contract says. Unfortunately for consumers Developers often place within their governing documents (contract) all kinds of Cc&amp;Rs, provisions and rules that are not valid according to the courts. Leaving the owners the expense, risks and responsibility of amending or removing what they created.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MikeR</title>
		<link>http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/03/09/sen-barto%e2%80%99s-bill-says-hoa-contracts-don%e2%80%99t-matter/comment-page-1/#comment-71332</link>
		<dc:creator>MikeR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 18:33:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/03/09/sen-barto%e2%80%99s-bill-says-hoa-contracts-don%e2%80%99t-matter/#comment-71332</guid>
		<description>What planet are you from? Since when do HOAs obey the law, their own governing documents or not cheat in elections? (They count their own ballots for goodness sakes!)
HOAs need to go away and leave Americans to the protections of REAL govenment.
Purples Houses? You would sell your lawful and Constitutional protections for that?
Benjamin Franklin said anyone who would sacrifice their freedom for a little safety (in your case, from terrible purple houses)....deserve neither!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What planet are you from? Since when do HOAs obey the law, their own governing documents or not cheat in elections? (They count their own ballots for goodness sakes!)<br />
HOAs need to go away and leave Americans to the protections of REAL govenment.<br />
Purples Houses? You would sell your lawful and Constitutional protections for that?<br />
Benjamin Franklin said anyone who would sacrifice their freedom for a little safety (in your case, from terrible purple houses)&#8230;.deserve neither!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
