With Super Tuesday on the horizon, politically-active Fort Collins citizens are looking to make themselves heard. Some, however, are having a harder time of it than others.
In late January, the Collegian received an email from a landlord at the Baystone Apartments in Fort Collins whose tenants felt that their right to freedom of speech was being infringed upon by their property manager, All Property Services, Inc., when they were sent a request for a political sign to be taken down from their balcony and not put up again until September.
Ad
The sign in question was a Bernie Sanders sign, which the tenants had kept hanging since the June 20, 2015 Sanders rally at the University of Denver. Its presence only became a problem after All Property Services took over as their homeowner association in early January of this year.
“Our sign is a mere 1.5-by-1, and we had hung it on our balcony on our second-floor condo,” wrote Jason Vignochi, one of two tenants to whom the sign in question belonged, in an email to the Collegian. “It had never caused an issue up until the new property managers took over.”
According to Colorado law, a homeowner association is allowed to restrict political signage, but may only do so earlier than 45 days before an election and more than seven days after an election.
Vignochi’s landlord, Sue Pauley, pointed this fact out to All Property Services, citing the upcoming March 1 primaries as a reason that signs should be able to be posted starting Jan. 20. The property manager, however, did not relent.
“Although I can appreciate your tenant’s involvement in our country’s political climate, the law clearly states no more than 45 days before an election,” wrote Marlena Seery, Community Association Manager of All Property Services, in an email to Pauley. “A caucus is not considered an election.”
Though Pauley said that she is not a Sanders supporter, she cares about the issue because it deals with what she sees as her tenants’ rights to support their opinions. Vignochi took his sign down.
“This whole thing is not only a suppression of one family’s First Amendment rights, but it’s a brazen effort to interrupt a necessary discourse in a heated primary season for nothing other than the interest of housing homogeneity,” Vignochi wrote. “However insignificant this story may be in the grand scheme of things, it is a reflection of the arduousness the regular American must endure at the behest of monetary interest.”
After Pauley inquired further about penalties for reposting the sign, Seery responded by citing her association’s Enforcement of Covenants and Rules Policy — a one-time fine of $100-$5,000 could be assessed in addition to daily $15-$25 fines until the sign is removed.
“My tenant is understandably frustrated by this,” Pauley wrote in an email to the Collegian. “Obviously, if Sanders does not do well in the caucus, there will be no point of putting the sign up for the general election in November.”
Ad
After the Collegian made a phone call to All Property Services, Inc., Patrick Mitchell, homeowner association accountant, stated initially that he was unfamiliar with the law. He soon amended that statement to say that the requests for removal of the sign were made incorrectly.
“That letter was sent out in error, and we will be in contact with the unit,” Mitchell said. “The covenants are old — they have never been redone … CCIOA trumps that right now.”
The current version of the CCIOA, the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act, was adopted in 2014 and is intended to “establish a clear, comprehensive and uniform framework for the creation and operation of common-interest communities,” according to its own language.
“We’re not denying anybody’s freedom of speech — nothing like that,” Mitchell said. “And we are here to help.”
As of the time of this article’s publication, All Properties has not yet contacted Pauley or Vignochi about their reconsideration.
Collegian Reporter Julia Rentsch can be reached at news@collegian.com or on Twitter via @julia_rentsch.
Colorado HOA • Mar 1, 2016 at 4:56 am
If you want to see the Libertarian Party and Republican Party vision for America, look at H.O.A.s.
What is there about governance by an unregulated private corporation, under the guise of contract law, with no consumer protections, for a Tea Partyin’ disciple of Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan not to love?
Colorado HOA • Mar 1, 2016 at 4:49 am
“This whole thing is not only a suppression of one family’s First Amendment rights”
H.O.A.s are private corporations, not governments. A resident of H.O.A.-burdened property has the same first amendment rights at home as they do at work.
Robert Metcalf, treasurer of the Concord Crossing H.O.A. corporation in Chadds Ford, PA, described the spread of H.O.A.s as “a systematic infusion of corporate culture and governance into the domestic ives of an ever larger share of the American population. Who wants to live at work?” (“Position Statement on Common Interest Developments” 2007 PDF. Emphasis in original)
The difference is, our employer pays us, and we are only managed at work while “on the clock”. Whereas owners of H.O.A.-burdened property pay a corporation to be managed at home. It is absolute insanity, yet we Americans have been conditioned to accept it as normal.
@ColoradoHOA
Colorado HOA • Mar 1, 2016 at 4:08 am
“a one-time fine of $100-$5,000 could be assessed in addition to daily $15-$25 fines until the sign is removed”
And the owner of the property, Sue Pauley, could have lost her property over those fines, thanks to an accounting practice known as “application of payments” or “priority of payments” scam that is very common in the H.O.A. industry across the country. A news story from Texas in 2006 explained it:
“The law says if your H.O.A. gives you a fine and you don’t pay it, your homeowners association cannot sell your house. They can only foreclose if you’re behind on dues. But some H.O.A.s are getting around the law, by reassigning payments. You pay your dues, but instead the association applies that money to fines. That way, the fine is paid whether you agree with it or not, and the H.O.A. can still threaten to sell your house . . . Senator Carona [ John Carona, Republican – Dallas ] says he will oppose any effort to ban H.O.A.s from reapplying your payments.”
at 5 min. 38 sec. into the video below
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1jz4OuJZcQ
This practice is actually codified into Colorado H.O.A. law, at C.R.S. § 38-33.3.316.3 Collections, “(3) For purposes of this section, ‘assessments’ includes regular and special assessments and any associated fees, charges, late charges, attorney fees, fines, interest charged”.
An H.O.A. corporation can unilaterally declare a home owner to be in breach of contract (“violation of the covenants”), impose a fine, charge extortionist attorney fees, and lien and foreclose to collect the fine and fees. Even if the owner is paying assessments (“H.O.A. dues”), but not paying disputed (and often questionable) fines and fees, the owner is slandered as delinquent for not paying assessments and can lose their home, thanks to this sleazy and unethical but perfectly legal accounting practice.
If you own H.O.A.-burdened property, your home is being held hostage to the whims of a group of unaccountable corporate officers, managers, and attorneys who have no incentive to obey the law. This gives them a tremendous amount of power over you. It’s probably why (then state representative) Mike Coffman sponsored the so-called “Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act” back in 1991, when he owned a property management company.
@ColoradoHOA
Colorado HOA • Mar 1, 2016 at 3:00 am
If you want to see the Libertarian Party and Republican Party vision for America, look at H.O.A.s.
What is there about governance by an unregulated private corporation, under the guise of contract law, with no consumer protections, for a Tea Partyin’ disciple of Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan not to love?
@ColoradoHOA
disqus_8oBVer75Lt • Feb 29, 2016 at 10:45 pm
Hopefully this student learned one thing out of this experience. Never ever ever buy a condo or home in an HOA, POA, COA, PUD, CID, or any other common interest ownership property.
No one should sign away their Constitutional Rights so they can have a roof over their head. Buyers into these places do not realize they are becoming business partners with all of their neighbors in a non-profit corporation. And worst of all they become the guarantor on all debts, loans, lawsuits, settlements, liabilities, construction defects, and disaster rebuilds.
As proven by this situation even those renting a unit in these places cannot escape the nightmares.
The property manager clearly told the reporter it was a mistake to save face with the media. If their intent was good, why have they not retracted their statements and provided approval in writing?