The following group letter was sent to the California government by a large group of Orange County homeowners

Dear Honorable Representatives

We, the undersigned residents of California, request that your committees conduct public hearings on the problems of residential homeowners associations/common interest developments (CID's) in California during the current interim session.

We request these hearings be conducted in the counties of San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino as well as the San Francisco Bay Area in order to provide housing consumers in various parts of the state, with high concentrations of CID housing, an opportunity to provide in person testimony.

The agenda should be open without pre-formed questions or areas of inquiry so as not to restrict or inhibit testimony and fact gathering. We request these hearings be videotaped for later broadcast on The California Channel.

The goal of the hearings should be to provide the Legislature with additional information to assist it in devising a viable, fair and effective future regulatory policy that protects the interests of consumers.

Given the increasing role CID regimes play in providing local services and government of residential areas in the post-Proposition 13 era, that has been traditionally provided by municipal governments.

The last public hearing on CIDs, "Common Interest Developments Issues after Nahrstedt", was conducted at the Capitol by the former Senate Housing and Land Use Committee in October 1996 and uncovered various problems with CIDs relative to consumer disclosure and the questionable conduct of boards of directors and their management agents and attorneys in managing CID regimes.

At that hearing, it was noted that many of these problems stem from a lack of understanding of the legal rights and responsibilities of various CID system stakeholders as well as the lack of a viable regulatory scheme to hold stakeholders accountable under the law and as fiduciaries to CID investors.

The recent Supreme Court decision in Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Condo Homeowners Association, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8076, underscores the difficulties consumers face enforcing the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act of 1985 and the unwillingness of the courts to be placed in the role of regulator of CID regimes.

The recent Supreme Court decision in Lamden v. La Jolla Shores Club Condominium Homeowners Association, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8076, underscores the difficulties consumers face enforcing the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act of 1985 and the unwillingness of the courts to be placed in the role of regulator of CID regimes.

We are also concerned by recent newspaper accounts of a grave financial crisis at the 267-unit Simi Valley Le Parc condominium complex.

Its implications for consumers of existing condominium units and specifically, reports that consumers purchasing units in it were not given adequate disclosure of the association's financial and legal difficulties that could lead to the loss of the unit owners' homes.

Respectfully,

Mr. and Mrs. Reginald Ross

Orange County Homeowners Group Director