HOAs can't discriminate

Re: your July 17 editorial, "Stepford HOAs go way too far":

The Star's editorial staff makes several important observations regarding overbroad homeowners association rules and their impact on families with children. It's important to add that the actions taken by these HOA boards are likely unlawful.

Fair housing and civil rights laws prohibit discrimination against families with children, including the use of broad rules that unfairly target minors. A rule doesn't have to say "applies to children only" in order to violate the law. If a reasonable person clearly understands that the rules are targeting children's activities, they are also unlawful. A community that has space for children's play, but applies a broad rule like, "no recreational activity allowed in common areas," is clearly not open to children. And, of course, if these supposedly neutral rules are applied to families with children and not to adult-only households, the unequal application of the rules is in and of itself discriminatory.

HOA boards also cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, marital status, ancestry or source of income. With respect to disabilities, HOA boards must grant reasonable accommodation requests.

Residents of condo communities should be aware that HOA boards can't force them to sign away their civil rights.

— Nisha N. Vyas, Deputy director of litigation, Housing Rights Center, Los Angeles

Rules may have a reason

Re: your July 17 editorial, "Stepford HOAs go way too far":

The Star seems a little one-sided on the issue. Some of the rules may be a bit overkill, but I can't help thinking there must be a reason these apparently drastic actions have been imposed. All these units are usually built close together, so people living there must be especially cognizant of how their actions affect the neighbors. It has been more than 40 years since I lived in close quarters such as this, but, as I recall, noise was the biggest issue.

Does the motorcyclist mentioned have a poorly muffled bike? It could echo quite loudly among the buildings. He should consider either getting a better muffler or, as requested, walk his bike to the street before starting it.

Are the children playing outside supervised? Are they playing in dangerous areas such as the driveways and parking areas? Are they leaving toys in the driveways and parking areas? Did they trash the former play area? Are they yelling and screaming below their neighbors' windows? If the answer is yes to these questions, then perhaps more parental supervision is in order. The parents should take them to the park for an hour or two each day and make sure they learn to clean up after themselves.

Are the trucks in question so large they take up extra space and are possibly sticking out into the common areas? I can't imagine a handicapped person using a truck because they are so high off the ground that climbing in and out is quite difficult. Perhaps a smaller truck would benefit both his neighbors and himself.

I would say the majority of the tenants are probably adversely affected by the actions listed above. Their rights need to be respected as well.

— Consuelo Yznaga Davis, Camarillo

Reason to ban pickups

Re: your July 17 editorial, "Stepford HOAs go way too far," and your June 26 article, "Possible ban on pickups meets with opposition":

The proposal by The Springs Homeowners Association in Camarillo to ban the parking of pickup trucks is not news.

As background information, I would point out that most streets in The Springs are so narrow as to present both driving and pedestrian hazards. Many driveways are too short to allow vehicle parking without protruding onto these streets and furthering these hazards. In its infinite wisdom and at the insistence of a minority with special interests, a previous board of directors ruled it allowable to park crossways in short driveways, causing unsightly and dangerous conditions that trucks would further complicate.

While I have no involvement in the newly proposed rule, I can certainly appreciate its purpose. I am a 23-year resident of The Springs and often disagree with the board's proposed rules changes, while understanding that I agreed to the rules and regulations and the covenants, codes and restrictions when I purchased here. I try to reserve my complaints for truly significant issues.

The Star's reporting has promoted the plight of one individual who is not likely to be the target of the proposal, as implied. This individual has arguably the largest driveway in The Springs, in addition to a two-car enclosed garage. His medium-sized pickup could be parked in one half of the garage with one other vehicle and still provide parking for as many as five more vehicles in the driveway. Understanding these facts, the proposal is in no way discriminatory.

Homeowners associations have every right to propose rule changes in the best interest of the majority of homeowners. The shallow reporting in this case is contrary to these interests and reflects unfavorably upon the images, lives and property values of all the homeowners.

— Wendell Harden, Camarillo