Just Sayin’: Are state legislators meeting at midnight in back alleys?

Historians seem to agree that the Founding Fathers envisioned a government system wherein a deliberating body (the Legislature) would iron out differences and create law. The key word here is deliberating.

All legislative bills should be deliberated, in the open by the full legislative body. Much of it is. Some legislation has more impact than others. I’m thinking of major budget bills, or bills that contain significant changes in policy and represent a paradigm shift in areas that affect a very wide area and have a high impact.

For example, let’s look back at AB205, (2023). Embedded (and virtually lost) in the pages of this budget trailer bill was an edict from the state Legislature to the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) to create a new structure for utilities to charge for electricity.

Per AB205, without an open, inclusive deliberation, Californians would henceforth be billed for electricity on the basis of “ability to pay.” Monthly baseline charges would be set in steps according to the users’ income.

Wide-ranging responses from varied stakeholders offered numerous ideas on how to do this, but a solution to implement this concept, at least for the time being, was elusive. The result, implemented this year, is an increase in the monthly base charge, but the price variation was essentially a redesign of existing discounts for economically challenged families.

Fast forward to 2025 and we have AB130 and SB 131, similar types of trailer bills. The idea that the state Legislature would cripple an entire homeowner protection policy (CC&Rs) because there is a rare abuse of power by overzealous HOA boards is foolhardy and dangerous.

Can you imagine the impact on road safety if our police departments were to be limited to handing out $10 tickets for traffic violations because an isolated peace officer started to enforce the speed limits? The rules would have no teeth.

This landmark legislation included considerable language to relax some CEQA (environmental quality) rules to enable and encourage new housing, especially in strong transit areas. It was well debated and received wide support. However, slipped in at the last minute, without an open, widely participated deliberation, were new rules for HOAs that severely crippled their ability to impose fines and manage established HOA rules.

It amends key parts of the 40-year-old Davis-Stirling Act that is the basis for most civil codes applicable to HOAs. The main feature is that fines for rule violations (with few exceptions) are capped at $100 per violation. Fines cannot be issued until the violator is given a chance to “cure” the violation.

HOAs cannot impose late fees or interest on fines. Perhaps unintended, these changes will result in disabling virtually all enforcement of HOA rules.

This is way too large a policy change to have escaped full deliberation. It is mind-boggling to realize that instead of not being able to park my car in the street or driveway (I would be fined $500 a month), I can now go out and get the 34-foot Winnebago that I’ve wanted and park it in front of my neighbor’s house (I’m on a cul-du-sac).

I may be subject to a $100 fine, but that’s only half of what it would cost me at the storage lot, five miles away.

This legislation will disable a critical responsibility for HOAs to control architectural changes or to protect homeowners from improper intrusions from neighbors. Eventually, it will lead to reduced property valuations.

HOAs are led by the homeowners. They always have a remedy against overzealous leaders. They can vote them out. We don’t have to destroy a 40-year-old, highly effective system because a few HOAs won’t elect good board members.

This outrageous legislation, and the 2023 legislation that tries to change how we pay for electricity (AB-205), should not have been slipped in through the back door without comprehensive debate. Our legislative leaders are at fault here.

I had a chance to ask former City Attorney Mara Elliott, candidate for state Senate District 40, to comment. Here is her reply.

“I agree on two points: public engagement is essential, particularly when changing laws that impact so many of us, and HOAs can play a very important role in preserving peace, safety, and aesthetics in neighborhoods. However, many of us have fallen victim to overzealous boards that issue ambiguous or unwarranted notices of violation, or duck responsibility for common areas, causing homeowners to incur legal costs when holding such HOAs accountable.

“I am concerned that HOAs will not back down and will instead enforce through the courts, causing homeowners to spend precious time and money on lengthy legal disputes,” she said.

In response, I acknowledge that the abuses, although not prevalent, are serious enough to warrant amendment of Davis-Stirling. However, the changes per AB130/SB131 have taken away the rights of healthy HOA boards to maintain their communities. Discussion of the bill prior to voting might have found the right balance. What transpired in the darkness was not to fix weaknesses in the law, but to disembowel it.

A Rancho Bernardo resident, Levine is a retired project management consultant and the author of three books on the subject. Write to Levine at levine-rbnews@earthlink.net