8/9/2019 What Part of NO, NO, No, does the parasitic bureaucracy CLRC not Understand?

1/11

Any California Law Revision Commission document referred to in this memorandum can beobtained from the Commission. Recent materials can be downloaded from the Commissionswebsite (www.clrc.ca.gov). Other materials can be obtained by contacting the Commissions staff,through the website or otherwise.

The Commission welcomes written comments at any time during its study process. Anycomments received will be a part of the public record and may be considered at a public meeting.

1

C A L I F O R N I A L A W R E V I S I O N C O M M I S S I O N S T A F F M E M O R A N D U M

Study H-855 August 19, 2010

Third Supplement to Memorandum 2010-29

Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID Law:Comments on Preliminary Provisions

The Commission has received a letter from Donie Vanitzian, commenting on

the tentative recommendation on Statutory Clarification and Simplification of CID

Law (Feb. 2010). The letter is attached as an Exhibit.

Ms. Vanitzian opposes the proposed law. Most of her comments are very

general and are unsupported by explanation or examples. Her more specific

objections are summarized below:

The Commission has bad motives for pursuing the proposed law.See Exhibit pp. 1-3, 6.

The proposed law would confuse CID homeowners. See Exhibit p.1.

The proposed law would somehow make it easier for boards toviolate open meeting and document disclosure requirements. SeeExhibit p. 7.

Public notice of the Commissions process has been insufficient.The Commission should take out full page ads in every majorCalifornia paper for a month and mail notice to the owner of everyCalifornia CID separate interest (currently estimated at 4.8 millionunits). See Exhibit p. 5.

The proposed law does not include reforms that Ms. Vanitzian believes are needed. For example, the proposed law does notimpose penalties on errant board members, establish a victimsrestitution fund, or require statutory warnings to new purchasers.See Exhibit pp. 6-7, 8.

Ms. Vanitzian also objects to the use of the phrase voluntary waiver in the

proposed law, which she insists must be removed. See Exhibit pp. 8-9. The staff

does not understand this objection. The proposed law does not include thephrase voluntary waiver. The terms waive and waiver are only used in

two sections of the proposed law. See proposed Sections 4525, 6000. In each case,

8/9/2019 What Part of NO, NO, No, does the parasitic bureaucracy CLRC not Understand?

2/11

2

the language used in the proposed law continues existing law. In neither case

does the usage have any apparent negative effect on the rights of homeowners.

Respectfully submitted,

Brian HebertExecutive Secretary

8/9/2019 What Part of NO, NO, No, does the parasitic bureaucracy CLRC not Understand?

3/11

EX 1

8/9/2019 What Part of NO, NO, No, does the parasitic bureaucracy CLRC not Understand?

4/11

EX 2

8/9/2019 What Part of NO, NO, No, does the parasitic bureaucracy CLRC not Understand?

5/11

EX 3

8/9/2019 What Part of NO, NO, No, does the parasitic bureaucracy CLRC not Understand?

6/11

EX 4

8/9/2019 What Part of NO, NO, No, does the parasitic bureaucracy CLRC not Understand?

7/11

EX 5

8/9/2019 What Part of NO, NO, No, does the parasitic bureaucracy CLRC not Understand?

8/11

EX 6

8/9/2019 What Part of NO, NO, No, does the parasitic bureaucracy CLRC not Understand?

9/11

EX 7

8/9/2019 What Part of NO, NO, No, does the parasitic bureaucracy CLRC not Understand?

10/11

EX 8

8/9/2019 What Part of NO, NO, No, does the parasitic bureaucracy CLRC not Understand?

11/11

EX 9