|
Steve Cerruti wrote:
> While I've always been a big proponent of free speech in HOAs I fear
> this decision isn't as broad ranging as it could be.
>
>>From the article: The decision referred to McKenzie's comments that
> Twin Rivers' centralized business district "looks and feels like a
> town," and that the Twin Rivers Homeowners Association delivered "a
> broad range of traditional municipal services to its residents."
>
> Many, if not most, HOAs don't have business districts. This fact alone
> could prevent this ruling from being broadly applied. Similar rulings
> have been handed down against company owned towns in the past and form
> some of the foundation of free speech laws.
>
> The article clumped three complaints under the heading of freedom of
> speech. The first was political signs. I've posted previously that
> HOAs should be bound by the first amendment in the case of political
> signs because of compelling public interest. California solved this
> problem in the legislature and not in the judiciary.
>
> The second issue is access to the common meeting room. This should be
> guaranteed simply because it is commonly owned property, I do not see
> this as a free speech issue so much as a property rights issue,
> certainly on its own I cannot imagine it would trigger a constitutional
> argument.
>
> Access to the newsletter is a tricky issue. The newsletter should be an
> instrument of the board to report status. If it is used in this
> narrowly defined context then I cannot see a court requiring the board
> to open it up for other purposes. However, if it is used by the board
> to distribute opinion, smear homeowners or promote the board members
> then I can see a free speech issue. I'd prefer to see a newsletter
> shut down rather than used in such a manner. An entire committee would
> have to be created simply to manage the newsletter and make decisions
> on what content was acceptable based on some set of rules that would
> need to be defined.
>
> You could make the same argument about HOA sign boards that are
> intended to announce meeting times. Should they be open to the
> association members? What restrictions would you place on them? How
> would you manage their use?
>
> It is nice, however, to see the judiciary rule against the HOA
> establishment.
>
However, any HOA is held in the court as quasi-governmental organization
or corporation or both. It depends on what legal strategy is used.
In California issue of free speech was clearly determined by Civ.
section 1353.6
http://www.kandsonline.com/legal_archives/2006DavisSterling.htm#TOC1_10
and for election purposes Civ. section 1363.03, 1363.04, 1363.05
http://www.kandsonline.com/legal_archives/2006DavisSterling.htm#TOC1_33
What this case does it reaffirm the issue of free peach in that state.
-Sub
|
|
Re: HOA BIG LOSER IN COURT BATTLE !!!
