I am happy to see a new crop of political scientists take on the battle against private HOA governments. [Privatized Neighborhoods — The Future We Want?, July 15 issue]

First, as referenced in the commentary, HOAs are a socialist form of governance, if not a communal form. HOAs seek “the most good for the most people,” an accepted doctrine by Jeremy Bentham and Vilfredo Pareto, both concerned with the efficiency and productivity of government and not with democratic principles. When this motto becomes the overriding justification for decisions, with the relegation of the fundamental American principles of freedom and individual rights to lesser importance, we have socialism.

One can also argue HOAs are “communal,” as in community property rights, when neighbors can dictate by a vote what a person can or cannot do with his private property — without consent. It’s like being married to your neighbors.

Second is the constitutional question raised by the creation of private governments, or at least the state’s permission to create them, without any objection or oversight. Can a legislature permit private contracts that establish private governments, with mandatory membership and compulsory “taxes” that regulate and control the people within a territorial boundary (a definition of civil government), without requiring that these private governments fall under the Bill of Rights and subject to the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment?

This failure to protect homeowner rights with a simple inclusion within the subdivision declaration is inexcusable. This failure is tantamount to allowing private groups to operate outside the duties, responsibilities, obligations and citizen protections of municipal law. It permits the willful — and it is willful — circumvention of the American system of government: just draw up a governance document, call it an HOA and file it with the county clerk. This is very disturbing, especially when state agencies are accountable to the people, but HOAs are exempt. Why?

Because, through the existing law of servitudes and the mechanism of constructive notice, a homebuyer does not need to sign any documents that contain explicit waivers of his rights and freedoms. This is not a proper standard: This level of due process notice does not meet the standards as required in other areas for a loss of fundamental rights that require explicit agreement. That is, a fully informed, negotiated and voluntarily signed agreement. None of the HOA disclosure documents put the buyer on notice as to these waivers or to the implications and consequences of living in an HOA. The average person’s expectations of community governance are totally foreign in the private HOA governance based on maintaining property rights.

The answer to the question posed in the commentary title is a resounding NO! The future cannot continue the trend to more and more private communities spreading across the state or the country. If the trend were allowed to continue, then Arizona must undergo a change of name to The United HOAs of Arizona. All those cherished individual rights, spoken so highly of even today, will be gone and replaced by maintaining property values. The Legislature must not let this happen.

George K. Staropoli is founder of Citizens for Constitutional Local Government based in Scottsdale. He is an Arizona resident who has been active as a homeowners rights advocate since April 2000. The group’s Web site is www.starman.com/hoa