On Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:43:01 -0400, "Julia Green"
wrote:


We weren't caught by surprise but we didn't know just how ridiculously petty
some of the rules would be.

Then you obviously didn't take the time to read the document you signed. I
don't like in a HOA development. We do have restrictions which are very loosely
followed. That's why when one person in 31 families does things to annoy the
all, it's obvious who the ass is.

We learned our lesson and will never again live
in such a community. I think communities like that (with very strict HOA
rules) attract just the kind of people I wouldn't want as neighbors.

And they like things the way they are. You would be silly to live there. The
reason I love, not just like my neighbors (sans one) is because they all mind
their own business. However, when one person does everything to disrupt an
entire community, it is unacceptable, sorry to say.

Like the NAN across the court--ugh. None of the rest of the court (about 4 other
houses) could stand him. He had an on-going dispute with one immediate
neighbor that went back 10 years. Seems he couldn't abide this neighbor's
cracks in his driveway. I saw these unabidable cracks and they were no big
deal. Some people desperately need to get a life.

Nobody is talking about outrageous incidents. We are talking about moderate
expectations when living in a shared community.

On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 17:03:28 GMT, "Vox Humana" wrote:




That is completely and utterly false. I challenge you to cite a single
instance where a homeowner's association implemented a discriminatory policy
that was upheld in a state or federal court.


Why do you bother with her?

In article , "Vox Humana"
wrote:

"paghat" wrote in message
news

. Homeowner Associations are
semi-independently governed entities which, if they do not accept
government funding of the HUD sort, do not have to follow
antidiscrimination laws.

That is completely and utterly false. I challenge you to cite a single
instance where a homeowner's association implemented a discriminatory policy
that was upheld in a state or federal court.

Don't pretend to be such an ass (at least, i HOPE yr pretendin' out of a
marvelously perverse desire to reveal Homeowner Assoication advocates as
mental deficients incapable of learning anything factual).

Cuz if you'd pay attention, i ALREADY posted information on SPECIFIC cases
for Texas & California that are right now in the courts. What I posted is
absolutely factual & easily checked if you even cared, especially as I
gave the names of senators working on the issue & names of recent victims
of STANDARD homeowner association racist intent & purpose & how the law
still permits this. Follow the thread back & read the one you refusedto
read, or pretend now not to have read, or just laugh & happily admit
you're a redneck with a head thicker than granite.

The right & privilge under law of your precious Homeowners Association to
be racist today, as they always have been in the past, is SLOWLY being
eroded & whittled away thanks to the legislating efforts of people like
Senators Inouye & Nakano, but so far the restrictions remain pretty
slight. Really you should aprise yourself of the facts instead of the junk
you believe instead, or you'll wake up tomorrow finding out you FINALLY do
not have power over other peoples lives, whether cuz they're ******s or
cuz you think they shouldn't have a basketball hoop.

Since your attention-span is so short & you request this information be
provided twice in a row, out of unwarranted kindness I will repost below
the useful information already provided. If you STILL don't wish to gain
the least knowledge of these matters, fine, just don't keep asking for the
information if you seriously enjoy keeping your head in the sand.

-paghat

--------


Vox previously asserted with fugheaded wrongness:
Most of what your wrote is a complete fabrication. Here is the applicable
federal law. The complete statue can be found at:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/housing/title8.htm
Sec. 804. [42 U.S.C. 3604] Discrimination in sale or rental of housing and
other prohibited practices

You're just so dead wrong. The loopholes require first that no government
funds be involved in building these private communities or restoring
buildings within these communities. Incorporated housing enclaves run by
Homeowner Associations, cooperative apartment buildings, just like private
clubs, have all been dragged into court REPEATEDLY, & their right to be
bigots has always been upheld. These communities would not exist
otherwise; there is no other sensible reason to be an incoporated
self-governing housing project since city, state, or county zoning laws
would be more than adequate for all matters other than permitting
discrimination.

Though communities with racist covenants go back to the late 1800s or
earlier, Homeowner Associations really only began to take hold in America
in a major way in the 1960s & early 1970s when there was no longer any
question but that Civil Rights was making it harder for bigots to have
their way, & covenants alone might no longer keep the ******s out.

The founding father of Homeowner Associations was California real estate
tycoon Ole Hanson, a racist of the first water (not the same Ole Hanson
who was Seattle's only fascist mayor early of the last century, though
both Oles were profoundly racist). Saint Ole composed charters of
incorporation that were pure venom. Assisted by his bought & paid for
congressional connections, he saw to the establishment of laws that made
his Whites Only idea of Utopia legal even in the post-Civil Rights era, &
it remains legal to this day.

Saint Ole's charters & deeds provided that homes within a given enclave
could never (into perpetuity) be sold to any Hindu, Negro, Asian, or
other racial minority. He's THE great hero of the Homeowner Association
movement -- there are "good" Homeowner Associations the same way there are
"good" Christian Patriots enclaves -- NOT! Ole set the model, & that model
has never changed. He's as close to Evil as any Norwegian American ever
got, yet he gets to have an elementary school named for him, & Richard
Nixon was pleased to live in in Ole's first no-minorities-allowed project
WHICH TO THIS DAY is an extensive whity neighborhood in California keeping
out the ******s spics & gooks, though the government has between 1998 &
2003 begun to harrass them over it at long last.

Over time Ole's overt racism has become submerged; it's not likely that
any Homeowners Association still puts right in their charter "no ******s
need apply" as Ole did, because in 1966 the Supreme Court made racist
statements in covenants illegal (though no one enforced that until 1998, &
enforcement was tepid). The spirit of racism remains even when covenants &
charters are not as overt as Saint Ole's original versions. Racism is
still the primary reason such enclaves feel it necessary to incorporate in
the manner of private clubs. with added features of independent village
government. Without the overtly stated racist covenants which were once
standard, a Homeowners Association COULD make the specific choice to
become an integrated neighborhood, but the recent example in San Clemente
with Ole's original racist experiment STILL behaving like white upper
class variants of trailer trash Ku Klux Klan members, well, it's clear
that the spirit behind the invention of Homeowners Associations still runs
profoundly deep, & it is NOT a coincidence 99% of them are to this day
lilywhite -- including, no doubt, the one Vox lives in.

Though the Supreme Court theoretically knocked down the overtly racist
covenants in 1966, the covenants somehow managed to remain broadly in
effect until 1999! The first legislation against them in California was
that year, but it didn't actually outlaw racist covenants, rather, it gave
legisislative authority to a method by which homeowners who were NOT
racist could ask that such wording be removed from charters & covenants, &
when the Associations refused (they invariably refused) they could be
sued; so it made the racist language of the covenants riskier to preserve.

This is why the majority of the "harassment" that a few Homeowners
Associations have finally been experiencing of late (with either federal
or county governments taking actions against their standard racist
policies) have been post-1998, & nearly all the attempts to change the
racist norm of Homeowners Associations are still being worked out in long
court battles right now.

Another tepid law was sponsored by Senator George Nakano & got through in
2000 -- though it makes the CONVENANTS illegal (rather than their
continuing spirit which is legally kept active), even that limited
illegality takes effect only if there is HUD or other government funding
entering the racist enclave. If there is government funding, even the most
outrageous racist covenant is legal right now (but subject to suit by
members thanks to the 1999 legislation).

Most Homeowner Associations don't feel the need to have the strong racist
wording in order to behave the same as ever; they're satisfied to have the
continuing right to be bigots, because who needs HUD anyway.

What California starts, other states follow, & presently the same
challenges are happening in Texas, Florida, etc., but most states
(including yours apparently) don't yet even have anyone looking at
covenants & older charters, let alone at "mere" policies that "just
happen" to work out in a manner that'd please the KKK.

It would be nice if I fabricated all that as you so misguidedly suppose,
but you clearly need to do some REAL research rather than cutting &
pasting an inapplicable law you found too hastily with a google search
without knowing squat beforehand.

For three years now, the Civil Rights Commission on Hate Crimes has been
attempting to get Homeowner Association standard policies defined as Hate
Crimes so they can be prosecuted more successfully (since the law you
cited does not apply, & more recent legislation has had thus far a limited
impact). So far, the Commission has failed, as in case you haven't noticed
government has tilted back toward the "ideals" of pre-Civil Rights
America.

Yet the law does now move in occasionally in the most overt cases where an
"inappropriate" race managed to buy into one of those enclaves &
Association members begin terror campaigns, such as were undertaken by the
Palacio del Mar Homeowners Association in California against one elderly
Malaysian woman. I'm being very specific here; the Palacio de Mar
situation is fundamental to understanding why HOAs exist & how they
continue to this day to operate.

That HOA waged a ten-year campaign against the Malaysian woman -- & that
whole time the Association never had to contend with any other
"inappropriate" races as there "coincidentally" were no other successful
buyers from any minority community (in a part of California with a very
high percentage of Asian, Latino, & Black people). Their tactics against
that one woman included arranging to have streetside watering devices left
on 24 hours a day, aimed up the hillside at her home, & when that didn't
annoy her sufficiently, they intentionally broke a water main near her
house creating a geyser. Then when the sewer pipe mysteriously broke near
her home, the Homeowners Association informed her hell would freeze over
before it would get fixed.

After TEN YEARS of the police refusing to help this elderly Malaysian
woman, some good activists got wind of her situation & made her a bit of a
media celebrity, & that's when other immigrants & also gays & lesbians
poured out of the woodwork with their complaints about housing
discrimination by Homeowner Associations that had left would-be buyers no
legal way to get justice. And if such unwanted persons did manage to sneak
into the housing anyway, the harassments forced them out. But one brave
old Malaysian gal wasn't going to cave in!

Eventually the HOA's mischief caused the ground under her house to move &
the house still sits 12 inches off its foundation. All this while, by
night, curse words & the command "MOVE!" were spraypainted on her house --
repeatedly. When on the television news she called the Association a pack
of racketeers, they set their lawyers on her with a baseless but for her
costly civil suits.

And so at long last entered the California Attorney General who attempted
to prosecute the gang of attorneys the Association AS racketeers, since
they had indeed been hired to harass the only non-white home owner in that
lilywhite community by any means they could drum up. The state attorney
general has since been attempting to find ways to prosecute hate crime
behavior is because one cannot use Section 804 because Section 804 does
not apply under the laws & methods of establishing a Homeowner Association
run as private corporation, which like a private club can be as racist as
it desires to be & be so legally. The commission on Hate Crimes & the
California attorney general wouldn't've had to get "creative" attempting
to stop Homeowners Associations' racism if the normative
antidiscrimination laws applied; but they do not apply to private clubs,
incorporated housing enclaves, or limited equity coops, which are
permitted to be racist or agist or anything they please.

Palacio del Mar is a big & influential Homeowner Association which was
historically proud of its political pull, but by our new millennium they
are at long long last beginning at least to experience some few
repercussions for their brand of legal racism. If there were any
non-racists in the whole damned community, not a one ever came forward to
even hint that the decade of harassment to get rid of the only gook in the
neighborhood served no good purpose for anyone. TO DATE, NOTHING HAS
CHANGED except that it is now better known that "Homeowners Association"
is synonymous with racism. Congressman Inouye said that public education
was necessary, because the law was just not providing the corrections. So
here I am doing what Inouye said to do -- NOT fabricating as you so
wrongly accuse in your insistance on remaining ignorant. These are the
facts. DEAL with them rather than deny them.

Curiously, today that there ARE all-Latino Homeowner Associations in some
of the nicest areas outside of L.A., & suddenly (wouldn'tya know it) a few
white people have come forward to fight for change in laws that for the
last fifty years have permitted whites to be as racist as they please if
they can orchestrate their housing districts legally as semi-independent
private governments. For the first time there are nice places to live
white people cannot own & all of a sudden these old laws are unfair! Well,
they're right, they are unfair, but they thought it was fine for all the
decades it served only whites.

There is nothing unique about the extreme & venomous racism of the Palacio
del Mar Homeowners Association. It is standard. The government has gone
after HOAs only rarely, & only then for the most egregious cases where the
policies were either written into incorporation documents, charters, or
covenants, or when the Associations committed physical hate crimes against
persons & property to get unwanted persons to leave the Association's
territory.

If such Associations make even a moderate effort to keep their heads down
while misbehaving, then whatever their excuse -- that they're a Christian
community therefore no Jews, that they're an Elderly community therefore
no women of childbearing age nor even any grandchildren as residents, that
they're an Patriot Aryan community therefore none of those really nice
black people are allowed but they are sure welcome to have their own Black
Homeowners Association if they want.

Now you might argue (as Homeowner Associations argue) that we should all
have the RIGHT to gang together in neighborhoods with people of our own
kind & do everything possible to make sure we don't have to live in
integrated communities. But you, instead, argue that reality doesn't even
exist! It is your method that permitted a 1966 Supreme Court decision to
not be pursued by corrective legislation until 1999! That makes you worse
than the overt racists, who are at least easier to spot when they burn
crosses or attempt to destroy an Asian woman's home to be rid of her.

So I hope you'll now question & look into it seriously, rather than
kneejerkedly deny even the clearest parts of reality.

Obviously many people involve themselves in their Homeowner Association
never thinking about these issues, & may not be individually racist, but
by living in De Nile, & refusing to notice what is going on all around
them, they are nothing more than High Fivin' participants in an ongoing
racist situation.

So now & then the government is pressured to attempt to do something about
it, as in a Houston Homeowner Association lorded over by an intensely
racist conservative named Geneva Brooks. Since a Homeowners Association's
"right" to be bigoted is the reason such Associations exist, the
government couldn't go after her on the basis of housing discrimination
which is legal in the context of a privately incorporated neighborhood.

George Bush when governor had signed a law into effect that permitted
Homeowner Associations to foreclose on houses over missed payments or
fines as small as one penny --the purpose of which was to assist these
Associations in getting rid of Mexicans & Blacks on the flimsiest basis.
But some years later (right now in fact) that law leapt up to bite the
Association in the ass, when the county seat decided to get "clever" in
attempting to make it at least unpleasant (though legal) for HOAs to
perpetuate bigotry.

The county began citing Kirk on dozens of minor housing infractions &
dragging her into court on any pretext (much as HOAs had been doing to the
targetted & usually minority residents). Then the county struck out to
foreclose on her home inside the racist housing development, making an
example of her, all on the basis of unpaid legal bills & fines, using the
very same law that the HOA lobbyists had fought for so that they could
more easily harass unwanted races or religions or gays out of their
enclaves.

Had section 804 applied to Homeowner Associations, it would not have been
necessary to go after these miscreants by such roundabout means.

The majority of Homeowner Associations aren't so overt. They are only
"coincidentally" lilywhite. The middleclass honky rednecks that buy into
such communities pretend NEVER to take into consideration the happiness
they are about to feel when they buy into a HOA enclave where they can be
pretty sure they'd never have to live next door to hymies or gooks or
******s.

Anyone who hasn't heard of retirement housing projects wherein
grandparents signed away any privilege to have a grandchild live with
them, has been closing their eyes. Anyone who hasn't noticed the lack of
Jews or Blacks in the majority of these HOA enclaves, is playing the See
No Evil Hear No Evil game on themselves, hence are part of that evil.

Case law includes a woman who bought into a "no children allowed"
community who later became pregnant, was informed she had to sell her home
now that she had a child, WON her court case, & induced all such enclaves
thereafter to discriminate (legally!) against women of childbearing age so
that this wouldn't happen again. Clubs & housing enclaves that ban
minorities can & do continue to maintain bigoted policies on the basis of
race, religion, & gender -- & if they receive no funding such as that from
HUD, their racism & discriminatory policies is perfectly legal.

There are a few (damned few) Homeowner Associations around the United
States which, knowing the origin, & ashamed of the origin, have actively
issued periodic statements that their private communities do not support
the racist desires that birthed these enclaves, & they seek to become
integrated neighborhoods. More common, though, is Vox's sort of denial
which itself helps preserve the honky nature of a HOA governed
neighborhood.

None of this applies to the kind of Neighborhood Watch or Neighborhood
Action Committee which do not have the force of laws of incorporation
behind them. Real neighborhood committees tend to unite for more
reasonable reasons (like getting rid of a crack house) but when they do
get bizarro & start becoming the garden police as well, they cannot arrive
armed with a piece of paper in which the targetted homeowner "voluntarily"
signed away their own property rights. And if THESE people did become
racistly motivated, antidiscrimination laws would tear them down.
Curiously, such Neighborhood Associations, & their neighborhoods, tend
always to be nicely integrated. It is only incorporated Homeowner
Association neighborhoods that are lilywhite & racist, because they would
never have become incorporated in the first place if they didn't want to
"get back" the right to be active racists.

My own experience with one of these Associations was was when Granny
Artemis & I were home hunting. The Homeowners Association first turned us
down because they did not permit women of childbearing age (we must've
looked younger than we are). We assured them we had no desire to become
lesbian mothers. Their eyes got big & round & they said they didn't permit
homosexuals. I was at that time ignorant of the fact that Homeowners
Associations hvae the legal right to be actively racist, agist, &
homophobic, & can indeed deny housing on discriminatory bases. I spoke to
an attorney, & was apprised of the legal realities, those people can be as
racist as they please, because Yes Virginia, incorporated communities of
that sort CAN ban faggots, dykes, ******s, jews, & anyone they please.

From then on we were careful to find out who our neighbors were. We found
a great neighborhood of Edwardian houses with great neighbors including
many gays, straights, blacks, asians, indians, & whites all living happily
together, with several interracial families right here on our block,
including white & East Indian immediately next door & white & Chinese
immediately across the street. I now count myself lucky those racist
munchmonkey Homeowners Association people rejected us for being dykes. It
would've been absolute hell if we'd accidentally ended up in a Klan-like
neighborhood with only white people! As Vox exemplifies, communities
without diversity breed people without depth, knowledge, or awareness.

If you want NOT to get caught up in the future claiming people are
"fabricators" when they know a heck of a lot more than you have as yet
bothered to learn, you might look into this a bit deeper. If YOUR
Neighborhood Association has managed to orchestrate a fully integrated
neighborhood, good for them. They'd be the less than one out of a hundred.
But if your neighborhood is lilywhite & the best you can do is cite
Section 804 as proof that reality doesn't exist for you, then shame,
shame, shame on you.

What you should do instead of keeping your head in the sand is invite the
NAACP to address your Homeowners Association. They have an active & polite
approach to educating what amounts to White Homeowners Associations,
attempting not to alienate on the off chance that some of you are good
people who just need your hard-won unconsciousness turned into awakening.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article , "Vox Humana"
wrote:

"paghat" wrote in message
news

. Homeowner Associations are
semi-independently governed entities which, if they do not accept
government funding of the HUD sort, do not have to follow
antidiscrimination laws.

That is completely and utterly false. I challenge you to cite a single
instance where a homeowner's association implemented a discriminatory
policy
that was upheld in a state or federal court.

Don't pretend to be such an ass (at least, i HOPE yr pretendin' out of a
marvelously perverse desire to reveal Homeowner Assoication advocates as
mental deficients incapable of learning anything factual).

Cuz if you'd pay attention, i ALREADY posted information on SPECIFIC cases
for Texas & California that are right now in the courts. What I posted is
absolutely factual & easily checked if you even cared, especially as I
gave the names of senators working on the issue & names of recent victims
of STANDARD homeowner association racist intent & purpose & how the law
still permits this.

Which part of this don't you understand?
http://caag.state.ca.us/publications...k/chapter3.htm
UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION
Your Rights and Remedies - Civil Rights Handbook



CHAPTER III

Housing

State Laws

The Fair Employment and Housing Act and The Unruh Civil Rights Act

The California Legislature has declared that discrimination in housing
is against the public policy of the State of California. Moreover, the
Legislature has recognized that your right to seek, obtain, and hold housing
without discrimination on any of the bases specified in the Fair Employment
and Housing Act or on any other basis prohibited by the Unruh Civil Rights
Act is a civil right.

The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code section
12900 et seq., specifically prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of
race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national
origin, ancestry, familial status, disability, or source of income. (49) The
Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code section 51 (hereafter the Unruh Act or
the Act) prohibits discrimination in "all business establishments of every
kind whatsoever." (50) This provision has been interpreted to include
businesses and persons engaged in the sale or rental of housing
accommodations. (51)

While the Act specifically prohibits only discrimination on the basis
of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, or disability, its
language, unlike the FEHA's, has been judicially and statutorily construed
to apply to arbitrary discrimination based on personal traits, beliefs, or
characteristics similar to those specifically listed. (52) The Act, for
example, has been held to prohibit discrimination against families with
children and against persons based upon their sexual orientation or their
age. (53) Accordingly, the Act does not apply only to those bases which are
specifically listed, but may also apply to other, unlisted but similar
bases, as well.

In addition, the Unruh Act, like the FEHA, prohibits discrimination
against persons who are perceived to be a member of a protected class or who
associate with a member of, or with a person perceived to be a member of, a
protected class. (54) The FEHA also prohibits harassment of persons applying
for or occupying housing accommodations on any of the bases specified in the
Act. (55)

The FEHA and the Unruh Civil Rights Act can be enforced against any
owner, lessor, sublessor, assignor, managing agent, real estate broker,
salesperson, or any person having any legal or equitable right of ownership
or possession or the right to rent a housing accommodation. (56)

The provisions of the FEHA are generally applicable to any real
property that is occupied or intended to be occupied as a home, residence,
or sleeping place by one or more families. (57) Only two categories of
housing are expressly exempted. First, the FEHA does not apply to renting a
portion of a single-family, owner-occupied house to one person. (58) Second,
religious organizations which own or operate housing accommodations for
non-commercial purposes, either directly or through a related non-profit
institution or organization, may give a preference to persons of the same
religion in the sale, rental, or occupancy of such accommodations. (59)

The Unruh Act covers any form of housing which can be termed a
"business establishment." This term has been liberally construed by the
courts to include virtually every type of housing accommodation. For
example, the Act has been held to apply to operators of motels and hotels;
real estate brokers and agents and others engaged in the sale or rental of
real property; owners of triplexes, duplexes, non-owner occupied
single-family dwellings, and publicly-assisted housing projects; operators
of mobile home parks; and condominium homeowners' associations.

The following is a partial listing of housing practices prohibited by
the FEHA and the Unruh Act. (60) It is unlawful:


a.. to make any inquiry concerning the race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, ancestry, or other protected characteristic of the person
seeking to rent, purchase, or lease any housing accommodation;


b.. to place an advertisement regarding the rental or sale of any
housing accommodation which indicates any preference or limitation based
upon race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, or any other
characteristic protected by the FEHA or the Unruh Act;


c.. to discriminate against any loan applicant for a loan to
purchase or construct housing on a prohibited basis;


d.. to harass, evict, or otherwise discriminate against any person
who has filed a complaint with the DFEH or who has testified or assisted in
any action brought pursuant to the FEHA;


e.. to aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce the doing of any of the
foregoing illegal practices;


f.. to refuse to sell, rent, or lease a housing accommodation on any
prohibited basis;


g.. to refuse to negotiate for the sale, rental, or lease of a
housing accommodation on any prohibited basis;


h.. to misrepresent the availability of a housing accommodation
because the prospective buyer or lessee is a member of a class protected by
either the FEHA or Unruh Act;


i.. to provide inferior terms, conditions, privileges, facilities,
or services in connection with the sale or lease of a housing accommodation
because the buyer or lessee is a member of any class protected by the Unruh
Act or the FEHA;


j.. to cancel or terminate a sale or rental agreement because a
person is a member of a class protected by either the FEHA or Unruh Act;


k.. to provide segregated housing accommodations.


l.. to harass someone in connection with housing accommodations.
Procedures to Follow and Remedies Available

You can enforce your rights under the FEHA or Unruh Act either by
filing a claim with the DFEH (61) or by filing a private lawsuit. By filing
a complaint with the DFEH, you will be initiating an administrative process
in essentially the same way you would when filing a complaint with that
department for employment discrimination. Whether your housing claim is
based upon the FEHA or the Unruh Act, you must file your complaint with the
DFEH within one year after the alleged discriminatory act. (62) Therefore,
you should file your complaint immediately.

Whether your claim is based upon the Unruh Act or the FEHA, the DFEH
will conduct an investigation to determine its validity and attempt to
settle the matter. If it is unable to reach a settlement, and there is
reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred or is about to
occur, the DFEH will issue an accusation requiring the person or entity who
violated your rights to answer your charges at an administrative hearing or,
if either you or the party charged so elect, at a civil trial. (63)

In order to bring your own FEHA or Unruh Act lawsuit, however, you do
not have to file a complaint with the DFEH at all. (64) You should note that
if you do file a private action, the DFEH will not act on any complaint you
may have filed.

Remedies available from the Fair Employment and Housing Commission
(FEHC) in administrative actions for housing discrimination include: orders
requiring the sale or rental of the housing accommodation if it is still
available; payment of actual damages; and payment of a civil penalty of up
to $50,000. (65) Remedies available in private actions brought to enforce
your rights depend upon whether your claim is brought pursuant to the Unruh
Act or the FEHA. Remedies available in private Unruh Act suits include
actual damages, a penalty of up to three times the amount of actual damages,
injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. (66) Remedies available in private
FEHA actions, or in a civil trial elected in lieu of an administrative
hearing before the FEHC, include actual, compensatory, and punitive damages,
injunctive relief, and attorney's fees if you are represented by private
counsel rather than by the DFEH. (67)

Finally, it should be noted that under certain circumstances, the
Attorney General, or your local district or city attorney, may bring actions
to correct housing violations under the FEHA and/or the Unruh Civil Rights
Act. While FEHA and Unruh Act housing violations ordinarily should be
reported to the DFEH, if there is reasonable cause to believe that a person
or group is engaged in a pattern or practice of violating the housing rights
protected by the Unruh Act, you should report such activity to the Attorney
General's Public Inquiry Unit or to your local district or city attorney.
You can write the Public Inquiry Unit at the number and address provided at
the beginning of this pamphlet.

To file a housing complaint with the DFEH, contact the following:

DFEH Web site: www.dfeh.ca.gov

DFEH Communication Center:

(800) 884-1684 (Within California)
(916) 227-0551 (Outside California)
(800) 700-2320 TTY
FAX916) 227-2859

All housing complaints are filed in the DFEH Oakland office:

DFEH Oakland District Office:

Department of Fair Employment and Housing
Oakland Housing District Office
1515 Clay Street, Suite 701
Oakland, CA 94612-5212
Toll-free: (800) 233-3212

Miscellaneous State Statutes Prohibiting Discrimination in Housing

These additional state statutory references also concern unlawful
housing discrimination.
1.. Civil Code sections 51.2 through 51.4, and 51.10through 51.12
recognize the need for specially designed accessible housing for senior
citizens, and establish age limitations and other qualifications for
permissible senior citizen housing developments.


2.. Civil Code section 53 prohibits discriminatory provisions in
written instruments which attempt to forbid or restrict the conveyance,
encumbrance, leasing, or mortgaging of real property to any person on the
basis of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, or
disability or which attempt to limit the use or occupation of real property
by any person on such bases.


3.. Civil Code section 51.9 prohibits, among other things, the
sexual harassment of a tenant by a landlord or property manager.


4.. Civil Code section 54.1 subdivisions (a)(6)(A), (B) and (C)(i)
declare that blind persons, other visually impaired persons, deaf persons,
and other disabled persons are entitled to full and equal access to all
housing accommodations offered for rent, lease, or compensation, for both
themselves and any guide, signal, or service dog whose services they use.


5.. Civil Code sections 782 and 782.5 void discriminatory provisions
in deeds and other written instruments relating to title to real property
which purport to restrict the right of any person to sell, buy, lease, rent,
use, or occupy such property on the basis of race, color, nationality, or
ethnicity.


6.. Government Code section 12956.1 provides that a county recorder,
title insurance company, escrow company, real estate broker, real estate
agent, or association that provides a copy of a real estate document to any
person shall place a cover page or stamp on the first page of the document
stating, in specified language, in at least 14-point boldface type, that any
unlawful restrictive covenant contained in the document is void and may be
removed, and that lawful restrictions on age of occupants in senior housing
shall not be construed as restrictions based on familial status.


7.. Government Code section 12956.1, subdivision (c), provides that
any person who holds an ownership interest in property that he or she
believes is the subject of a restrictive covenant may file an application
with the DFEH requesting a determination of whether the restrictive covenant
violates the fair housing laws and is void. The applicant may strike the
void restrictive covenant identified by the department.


8..
Health and Safety Code section 33050 is a legislative declaration of
policy against discrimination in the undertaking of community redevelopment
projects based on race, color, religion, sex, marital status, national
origin, or ancestry.

9.. Health and Safety Code section 33769 requires that any residence
constructed with funds obtained through, or with the assistance of, a
redevelopment agency be made available without regard to race, color,
religion, national origin, or ancestry.


10.. Health and Safety Code section 37923 requires that residences
acquired, constructed, or rehabilitated with community development funds be
open to all without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion,
national origin, or ancestry.
Federal Laws

The Federal Fair Housing Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1982

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the Federal Fair Housing
Act (FFHA) (42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq.), also reaffirms and protects your
rights to fair housing. The FFHA prohibits discrimination in the selling or
rental of housing accommodations on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,
familial status (families with children), handicap, or national origin. (68)
The FFHA applies to most dwellings, private or public, except for
owner-occupied dwellings with four units or less. For example, the FFHA is
applicable to all dwellings owned and operated by the federal government and
dwellings financed in whole or in part through loans or grants made by the
federal government or secured by the credit of the federal government. (69)
Religious institutions operating non-commercial housing may limit the sale
or rental of such housing to persons of the same religion, however, and
housing specifically designed for older persons is also permitted. (70)

Additionally, the FFHA prohibits discrimination by financial
institutions in the making of commercial real estate loans, and prohibits
anyone from discriminating in the provision of real estate brokerage or
appraisal services. (71)

The authority and responsibility for administering the provisions of
the FFHA lies with the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development. For more information concerning your rights and remedies under
the FFHA, you should contact your local office of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD). You should note that if you believe that you
have a claim under the FFHA, you must file a written complaint within one
year after the alleged discriminatory act occurred or terminated, if you
would like HUD's assistance in resolving the claim. HUD will investigate
your complaint, attempt to resolve it by conciliation, and, if necessary,
proceed to have the matter heard either in court or in an administrative
hearing. After an administrative hearing, actual damages and injunctive
relief may be awarded as well as a civil penalty of up to $50,000. (72)

Alternatively, you may also file an action directly in court, without
first filing with HUD. Any such court action must be filed within two years
after the alleged discriminatory act. If you prevail, you may recover actual
and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney's fees.
(73)

In addition to the FFHA, 42 U.S.C. § 1982 also prohibits
discrimination in the area of housing. Section 1982 states: "All citizens of
the United States shall have the same right, in every state and territory,
as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell,
hold, and convey real and personal property." Thus, section 1982 bars all
racial discrimination, private as well as public, in the sale or rental of
property. (74)

Although section 1982 and the FFHA share the same goals, the two
federal remedies do differ in a few significant respects. First, section
1982 only prohibits discrimination based upon color or race, whereas the
FFHA applies more broadly. Second, section 1982 is enforceable only through
private action, while the FFHA establishes an administrative scheme. Lastly,
while section 1982 is generally limited to discrimination in the sale or
rental of property, the FFHA extends to other related areas, such as
discrimination in the provision of brokerage services. A section 1982
action, like a 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim, can be brought in either state or
federal court, and you do not need to file an FFHA claim before you file a
section 1982 court action. (75)

To file a housing discrimination claim with HUD, contact the
following:

HUD Web site: http://www.hud.gov/

HUD Toll-Free Number: 1-800-669-9777

HUD California Office:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Phillip Burton Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102-3448
(415) 436-8400
1-800-347-3739
TTY (415) 436-6594

Return to Table of Contents


49. Government Code section 12955.

50. Although violations of the Unruh Act are also violations of the
FEHA (see Civil Code, § 52, subd. (f), and Gov. Code, §§ 12948, 12955, subd.
(d)), for ease of reference the two acts will be described separately.

51. Burks v. Poppy Construction Co. (1962) 57 Cal.2d 463.

52. Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) 52 Cal.3d 1142.

53. See Civil Code section 51.2, subdivision (a), (age); Marina Point,
Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal.3d 721 (families with children); Rolon v.
Rulwitzky (1984) 153 Cal.App. 3d 289 (sexual orientation). It should be
noted that it is presently unclear whether the Unruh Act prohibits
discrimination on the basis of marital status. (See Smith v. Fair Employment
& Housing Com. (1996) 12 Cal.4th 1143, 1160.)

54. Government Code section 12955, subdivision (m); Civil Code section
51; In re Cox (1970) 3 Cal.3d 205.

55. Government Code section 12955, subdivision (a).

56. Government Code section 12927, subdivision (e).

57. Government Code section 12927, subdivision (d).

58. Government Code section 12927, subdivision (c)(2)(A).

59. Government Code section 12955.4.

60. See, for example, Government Code sections 12955, 12927 subd.
(c)(1).

61. DFEH offices are listed in the preceding chapter on employment
discrimination.

62. Government Code section 12980, subdivision (b).

63. Government Code sections 12981, subdivision (a), 12989,
subdivision (a).

64. Government Code section 12989.1.

65. Government Code section 12987. The Supreme Court is reviewing the
Commission's ability to award emotional distress damages in housing
discrimination cases. (See Konig v. Fair Employment and Housing Commission
79 Cal.App.4th 10 (review granted on specified issues on June 28, 2000,
S087843, opinion ordered partially published pending review).

66. Civil Code section 52.

67. Government Code section 12989.2.

68. 42 U.S.C. § 3604.

69. 42 U.S.C. § 3603.

70. 42 U.S.C. § 3607.

71. 42 U.S.C. § 3605.

72. 42 U.S.C. §§ 3610, 3612.

73. 42 U.S.C. § 3613.

74. Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1968) 392 U.S. 409.

75. Id.

Back to Top

Return to Table of Contents

"animaux" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Jun 2003 17:03:28 GMT, "Vox Humana"
wrote:




That is completely and utterly false. I challenge you to cite a single
instance where a homeowner's association implemented a discriminatory
policy
that was upheld in a state or federal court.


Why do you bother with her?

I guess I hadn't read enough of her messages to realize with I was dealing
with.

On Fri, 6 Jun 2003 07:52:47 +0100, "Charlie"
wrote:


"Vox Humana" wrote in message
. ..
You would have to put your toys
away, mow the lawn on a regular basis, put your trash cans out of sight,
and
limit yourself to four dogs.

What happens if your dog has ten puppies? Would they could round and
slaughter them all?

Charlie.

Off to the pound they would go, and you would be holding a ticket.


Dave Fouchey, WA4EMR
http://photos.yahoo.com/davefouchey
Southeastern Lower Michigan
42° 35' 20'' N,
82° 58' 37'' W
GMT Offset: -5
Time Zone: Eastern

(MLEBLANCA) expounded:

Wow Ann, that's pretty drastic! You Massachsetteans mean business
I thought "shoot first and ask questions later" was a Western thing.......
Do you give them a blindfold first?

:^ )

Ha! They're blanks, but boy, are they noisy!!! ;-

--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************

paghat wrote:

snip

These communities began for racist reasons, as when the idea of Civil
Rights for more than just white people got a strong if belated foothold in
America, a few court cases settled certain issues & it became illegal to
discriminate in housing. But a loophole was built into the law, & remains
the Communities regulated by Home Owner Associations CAN define the
age, religion, social status, & race of "appropriate" members permitted to
buy houses within the housing enclave -- & no matter how agregiously
prejudiced,

In 1948, in Shelley v. Kraemer, the US Supreme Court ruled that racially
restrictive covenants were unenforceable (rendering them meaningless).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...ol=334&invol=1
It's weird that -- despite Shelly v. Kraemer -- courts still uphold the
'right' of homeowner associations to use the courts to enforce servitude
restrictions that would be unconstitutional, were these private
governments legally considered governments.

it's perfectly legal, nothing those gawdamn queers & darkies
or whoever's left out can do to stop it, neener neener.

The government (e.g., the attorney general) will step in, in the case of
illegal discrimination, in common ownership development housing. In
fact, it's just about the only area the government will consider
defending homeowners against rogue HOA ruling cliques that have run amok.

The loophole makes
it legal to keep grandparents from letting their kids or grandchildren
move in when a housing community outlaws anyone under the age of 60; it
keeps Jews out of Christian housing districts;

I've never heard of a Christian housing district. Are you sure of your
facts?

it can even be "gated" with
a guard at the front gate to protect middleclass whities from "crime"
which is a code-word for "******s."

People can get into these developments posed as joggers, and still rob
people that have let their guard down -- BECAUSE of the gate and the
guard. In the final analysis, it's unclear whether gated subdivisions
are more secure.

It makes it legal to be upfront &
openly judgemental about why the mixed-race family is rejected from buying
into the given community, & if they think they should have the right to
sue over discrimination, tough.

This was prior to Shelley v. Kraemer, although I will agree that this
legacy of exclusion has had effects that persist to the present.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case33.htm

Nevertheless, the victims don't have to sue. There are government
agencies that will handle the situation, like the state Fair Employment
and Housing Commission.
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/s...-6841242c.html

If this origin has changed slightly over time, & such enclaves are no
longer fully dominated by the initial purpose to keep racism legal, it is
only different insofar as there are now Chinese housing associations here
in Washington, & lots of them in California wherein only middleclass Latin
Americans are permitted to buy homes.

It is true that HOAs proliferated when they had become *the* main
vehicle to achieve racial discrimination in housing. Today, however,
anyone that's prevented from buying housing on the basis of national
origin, in California, can contact the Department of Fair Employment and
Housing.
http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/

So we're working toward equal opportunity appartied.

So trying to force people not to paint their house pink or have a
pink lawn flamingo or an American flag,
http://newsobserver.com/nc24hour/ncn...-2401603c.html

http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/the_news_l...986333,00.html

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...a-news-broward

a UN flag,
http://www.kxtv10.com/storyfull.asp?id=4521

a
basketball hoop
http://www.hometownannapolis.com/cgi...3/05_27-19/CCR
over the garage door or redefining a hunter as inherently
evil BECAUSE he's a hunter & therefore suitably harrassed by Neighbors
United, up to & including anonymous reports to the police that he's a
child molester -- all that is just the tip of an iceberg made of hate,
among unsophisticated surburbanoids for whom "Property Values" is a
scare-word disguising the real purpose, &amp is synonymous with
"Intolerance."

-paghat the ratgirl

And to make matters worse, there's no evidence that homeowner
associations protect property values. They're set up using that purpose
as justification for creating them.

In fact, there is evidence to the contrary.

As more and more HOAs are created, and more and more people relate their
experiences, people are getting wind that homebuyers pay for 'pretty'
with oppression-by-adhesion-contract, and you can get 'pretty' without
the oppression.

The uniform "beige" town (city) of Cary, NC, establishes that local
governments can be as persnickety as associations, and that associations
are unnecessary.

That's why "The term 'No HOA' is starting to crop up in real estate
classified ads in the Phoenix area, where almost all new homes are built
under an association's wing. 'For most people it is a real selling
point,' says Rachel Linden, an agent with Coldwell Banker Success
Realty. 'Homeowners associations can be a real pain in the butt.' "
[Kiplinger Magazine, September, 2000]

"[T]oo many developers are more concerned with the immediate marketing
of a property and not long–term value potential."
http://money.cnn.com/2002/03/15/pf/y...dcom/index.htm

Moreover, as housing with no HOAs becomes more scarce, relative to
housing with HOAs -- something that is clearly happening
http://members.cox.net/concernedhomeowners/NmbrHOAs.htm
the values of homes in jurisdictions governed by HOAs will decrease,
relative to those of homes in jurisdictions not governed by HOAs.

Not only don't HOAs protect property values now, they cannot protect
their values from the "invisible hand" -- the inevitable effects of the
free market forces of supply and demand.

In article ,
Vox Humana wrote:


Unless you live in a very rural setting you are subject to these regulations
to one degree or another. Getting back to the base issue, do you think that
ownership and paying taxes is a license to do as you wish? In other words,
should zoning and other building regulations be abolished?


Of course, one can play this game both ways. Do you believe that
because it is possible to pass ordinances that there should
be no individual liberty?

billo

In article ,
Tom Jaszewski wrote:


"Nature, left alone, is in perfect balance.

This is, of course, untrue, by the way. Nature, when
left alone, seeks ultimate chaos.

billo

yes, exactly.

"Julia Green" wrote:
My point was that there are some people who really get off on this HOA
stuff--natural anal-retentive control freaks, I guess. We didn't have any
problems.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Vox Humana wrote:


Unless you live in a very rural setting you are subject to these
regulations
to one degree or another. Getting back to the base issue, do you think
that
ownership and paying taxes is a license to do as you wish? In other
words,
should zoning and other building regulations be abolished?


Of course, one can play this game both ways. Do you believe that
because it is possible to pass ordinances that there should
be no individual liberty?


Of course I don't believe that. I do believe that people have the right to
enter into contractual agreements with each other. I believe that if you
don't think the term of the contract are reasonable, then you shouldn't sign
it. If you think that your association has passed rules that are
unreasonable then you have the right to lobby to change or abolish them.
You have the right to sue in court for relief.

The statement has been made that if you own the property and pay the taxes
you have a right to do as you wish. Since zoning and building codes
prohibit you from doing what you wish on your own property regardless of the
taxes paid, you would have to abolish them to achieve your goal. It isn't a
trick question. Either you believe that you should have carte blanch
freedom or indeed, you think that limitations are justified.

There are more alternatives than anarchy or a law for everything, alternatives that
dont take away individual rights. One is mediation boards. When people are in
conflict they come to a mediation board to settle the problem. And that same
mediation board can take into account all kinds of variables, including that the
complainant is a control freak. For 60 years my mother and all inhabitants of the11
properties that shared a lot line with her got along wonderfully, mostly cause they
all practiced MYOB. A mediation board would have taken a look at the property and
realized that the BITCH didnt have cause to complain about anything cause she couldnt
see it except by coming onto private property. They would have ordered that a survey
be done to establish legal lot lines (which we did anyway). Then they might have
also recommended that the BITCH consider some psychological counseling.
I think part of the problem in the US is that so many people move all over the hell
place and end up plopped down in places where there are not only no ties of family
and friends, but also no idea of what the "culture" of the area is and what is
considered being a "good neighbor". I have lived in different US cities and even
in rural Canada and know what it feels like to be an outsider and realize that I am
never going to have anything like I had with the people I grew up with in my
neighborhood. I will never have more than the shallowest relationship with the
neighbors. It is this disconnectedness that leads to most of the conflict. Relying
only on laws and suing to settle conflict just drives wedges between people and
hardens their position, it isnt going to help the sense of disconnectedness and
exclusion. I am sure the BITCH feels even more excluded now than before, and my
mother has even closer ties to neighbors than ever when they rallied around her.
Ingrid

"Vox Humana" wrote:
Then in your world the only acceptable situation is anarchy?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

exactly my point!!!!! there is NO PERMIT REQUIRED FOR A DECORATIVE FENCE. right.
thats what it was, less than 3' in height and 50% open and when the vines grew up it,
decorative.
what it says is a fence on the lot line (all around the yard) DOES NOT REQUIRE A
PERMIT when it is less than 3 feet high and "open". What they say is "like a picket
or split rail". They are not specifically saying it MUST be wood, but that is what
they mean without explicitly stating so. A 3 foot rabbit fence is 90%+ open and has
much less impact against brush than the wooden fence that is there now. In the open
it would not look decorative. We didnt put it in the open, never had any intention
of putting it in the open cause it wouldnt look good. In fact, we had no intention
of every putting up a fence along the "lawn" part of the lot line cause she couldnt
bitch about us cutting back her brush where there was none. But when they really
INSISTED we were cutting onto HER property my mother felt if we didnt establish
property rights they could claim adverse possession in the future. Her lawyer
agreed. In fact, when they sued they CLAIMED adverse possession of the property
right up to the asphalt drive based on their cutting the grass AND the previous
neighbor cutting the grass. Was he ever ****ed when he got dragged into this. My
mother had supplied him with most of the plants he used to construct this beautiful
rock garden next to their house AND he had a little greenhouse and orchids and is
responsible for my orchid addiction. They were very good neighbors.
Ingrid

"Vox Humana" wrote:
Q. Do I need a permit?
A. Yes, except for a decorative fence more than 50% open and less than 3' in
height.
Q. How much will a building permit for a fence cost?
A. $30.00.
Q. Can I put up a fence around my entire yard?
A. Yes, but only if it is a decorative fence more than 50% open and less
than 3' in
height such as a picket or split rail fence.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

Q. Do I need a permit?
A. Yes, ---- except for a decorative fence more than 50% open and less than 3' in
height.
What part of this dont you understand. NO PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR A DECORATIVE FENCE
MORE THAN 50% OPEN AND LESS THAN 3' IN HEIGHT.

"Vox Humana" wrote:
THIS IS A LIST OF THE MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS REGARDING FENCES

Q. Do I need a permit?
A. Yes, except for a decorative fence more than 50% open and less than 3' in
height.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.