Section 1-A(9) - Non-compliance

Section 1-A(9) sets forth the Board's power to enforce the leasing provisions set forth in Section 1-A. For those who believe in maintaining our fundamental rights as Americans, this section contains perhaps the most egregious provision in the restrictions. Specifically it states,

“Each owner shall fully and truthfully respond to any and all requests by the Association for information regarding the occupancy of his or her Residence which in the judgment of the Board are reasonably necessary to monitor compliance with these leasing restrictions. “

In other words, you MUST respond to the Board's inquiries about anyone they THINK is staying in your house. When a Board member was asked how enforcement of the STR ban would work, he explained that the Board would only act in response to a complaint submitted by a neighbor. He pointed out that most such complaints are typically based on parking and traffic patterns. He went on to say that if there were no obvious STR activity, such as an advertisement on a hosting-site, then that neighbor, and perhaps other neighbors in the area, would be asked to "step up" their monitoring of the suspected neighbor's activities. Namely, they would be asked to note dates and times regarding unusual parking and traffic patterns. Once the Board felt it had sufficient evidence of STR activity, it would send a cease and desist letter to the owner. If the owner did not respond, as they often don't, the Board would be empowered by this section to determine the likely rental income for the activity observed and assess it against the homeowner as a fine. This is guilt by allegation. The burden would then fall to the homeowner to prove their innocence, i.e. that the observed parking and traffic patterns were not due to short term rental activity. Per Section 1-A(9), silence is not an option. The owner has a legal duty, per the deed restrictions, to respond to any and all requests by the Board regarding the occupancy of his or her Residence. Given the breadth of the language in this section, the Board could use other invasive methods of inquiry such as those being fought in another local neighborhood.

Property ownership is comprised of many rights, including the right to quiet enjoyment and the right to inclusion and exclusion. Giving up our right to be free of inquiry as to guests we have in our home and their reason for being there flies in the face of what it is to be American. If 66% of the neighborhood wishes to ban STRs, so be it, but we must find another way of enforcing that ban besides giving up our right to privacy, our right to be free of self-incrimination, and our right to the quiet enjoyment of our property.

It should also be noted that this section attempts to void any lease not in compliance with the restrictions. A landlord-owner who failed to attach the proper updated addendum to a tenant's lease, for example, would face significant legal repercussions with a tenant in the home under a void lease. Likewise, the fact that the lease is voided, could tie the HOA's hands as to taking any action by or through the lease as attorney-in-fact for the owner. Interestingly, it also attempts to void a sale which seemingly could have serious legal ramifications as well.