CCOC celebrates the passage on May 9th of the two bills they’ve been lobbying for in the Connecticut State Legislature. We worked closely with several legislators and very much appreciate their actions to bring these bills to the floor for votes as they have worked in behalf of condo owners. Both bills will be sent to the Governor for his signature and we are hopeful he will sign them.
HB 5536
The first, HB 5536, will require certification of community association managers and licensure of real estate brokers. This act will help assure that professionals hired by or working with condo owners will adhere to a high ethical standard of conduct in their powerful positions working with condo associations.
Recent incidents in Branford and Fairfield, where property managers were either wrongly padding costs billed to the community association (and paid by the owners!) and another in which the property manager used maintenance fees paid by the owners for his own benefit, rather than applying it, as was intended, to payment of the association’s bills. By passage of 5511, condo owners will be given a degree of protection against blatant and illegal misuse of their funds.
HB 5511
Condo budgets to be approved by simple majority vote – Abstentions no longer counted as “yes” votes
The second bill, HB 5511, is concerned with two issues: community association budgets, specifically at Heritage Village in Southbury, and the display of religious articles on owners’ doors. Heritage Village experienced the passage of a budget under conditions that will no longer be possible. The new law requires that budgets be approved by a simple majority of those voting; abstentions – which are not a vote – will no longer be counted.
Display of religious articles on owners’ doors
In addition, the bill will allow the display of religious articles on owners’ doors. This became an issue when a new Stratford resident was prohibited from displaying a mezuzah, a Jewish religious article, important to her, on her front door. Although the association eventually rescinded their ban, legislation ensuring these rights was considered necessary.
These two bills constitute the main focus of CCOC during this legislative session.
"While we did not get everything we wanted for condo owners," Brian Harte, legislative director of the CCOC executive committee, said Thursday, "we won two important changes.
"Hopefully the governor will sign them and we will monitor the laws to make sure that they work in a beneficial way for all condo owners and complexes."
Harte said if the bills need modification, the "CCOC will return to the General Assembly to request changes."
Initially the condo association said No. Then the government got involved and now made a law that says people can hang stuff in name of religion. Im commenting on the original situation that inspired the bill. If everyone in that condo association is ok with it--fine with me....no one , as you say, is having their rights trampled. I suspect though the condo association capitulated , rather than get dragged into a lawsuit . (which is another story--the power of lawsuits and the price of attorneys ....result in some form of blackmail these days)
You, sir, said that "Trampling on the rights of others is nonsense." I repeated what you said to prove a point. Please at least take responsibility for what you said. sir. When you seek to deflect like this, it causes me to think you are weak-minded. And you're not weak-minded, are you, Luca? :)
Glen
if I knew what you were talking about, and you were right, Id be more than happy to agree. Are you going to admit, that freedom of religion, under the constitution, does not mean you get to do what ever you want to do in the name of religion? I assume you will acknowledge this point---given your demands of me. And once you explain what you mean, with respect to my statement that trampling others rights, in the name of religion, is not right, ill consider and admit if Im wrong, if that seems to be the case. But I dont think religion allows you to decide you get to flex muscles. The constitution says you have a right to practice your religion--and the Supreme Court, from what I understands, puts limits on the role of government and religion--but does not mean that you get to engage in every ceremony and nuance you so choose.
GLEN
I see where I messed up. I had erroneously read your comment to me about 'rights being trampled on', and thought you had later wished to attribute it to my wording. Long story short, I messed up, and I offer my apologies for the misreading of what you said! Now then. Let's get back onto topic, shall we? You said in your last comment to me: "But I don't think religion allows you to decide you get to flex muscles. The constitution says you have a right to practice your religion--and the Supreme Court, from what I understands, puts limits on the role of government and religion--but does not mean that you get to engage in every ceremony and nuance you so choose." Allow me to retort, if I may. By your own words you acknowledge that our Constitution says we can practice our religion. On this we agree. Most definitely. You have expressed distaste in condo owners displaying religious imagery/displays on the doors of their condos. Please explain this apparent contradiction. Continued below...
You and I would both agree that if a person's religion demanded they kill a female virgin every full moon to appease their god, that that would be crazy. An extreme example, but bear with me. Slaughtering humans in the name of religion is distasteful, indeed. Now, in the light of freedom of religion, how is it so distasteful that a private citizen displays a religion image/decoration in public view, in a condo complex, when they have been given the right to do so? Is it that their imagery is offensive to a non-believer of said religion, or is it somehow a gross violation of our Constitution? I look forward to your answer, should you wish to continue this dialogue. In easier terms, I reckon my question of you is that do you feel your rights are being trampled on by allowing someone to express their faith via freedom of religion? Are you an atheist who simply despises religion and all elements thereof? Or do you look at it from a secular angle, using the phantom 'separation of church and state' mindset which isn't even in our Constitution, but is found instead in a letter Thom Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists?
The 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the US: The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. Here we are seeing the government reinforcing a) the separation of church and state in that it apparently needs to be a reminder on occasion to some and b) that you are speaking of private residences, under a collective. This does not narrow the gap that an unregulated non-governmental, rather private, association can impose upon those otherwise protected by state law and constitutional rights under the state and the US government. Realize something - if you will - it seems to be that you are hanging your hat on aspects that do not pertain to condo or HOA ownership and that you would like to make that distinction clear. I would probably feel the same way if it were not for insight. You are not making an argument about Condo Law and unit owner rights, however - we are. @ Tom good sense of humor. :) Brian Harte President and Chairman CCOC
Here is my response-- It has to do with your definition of religion. Am I personally offended by something hanging on a door? Not me. But do I feel as though it may offend someone else? Yes. So lets define what religion is. To me its both a belief system but also a cultural issue. Does a nativity scene bother me? Not at all--nor does a Star of David. But you could call Naziism a religion, if you adhere to my definition. So , the mezuzah that the woman hung on her door, she argued should not be prevented. She felt as though her belief system did not encroach on others. I have my doubts if she saw her next door neighbor paint a swastika on his door and adorn the outside of his condo with Iron Crosses, and paid homage to his late leader , Hitler, she may feel differently about the ability to worship a belief system. Same with Klansmen......all 'protected' by both free speech, and how you described a freedom to practice your cultural/belief system. Many people are comfortable in the more customary religions...but even something like Jehovahs Witness and the proselytizing door to door, may encroach on other people's sense of privacy and desire to be left alone. My idea, is that everyone gets to live their life as they see fit ---but they dont get to enroach on other peoples territory in doing so. My observation , is this new law, may invite unintended consequences...lets hope not, lets hope no klansmen prove a point
If you are saying legislators should have the right to impose obligations on condo assocations to allow for public worship, or the display of religious icons despite the objections of some tenants, ---whether or not it is law, I think its a slippery slope---and a bad decision.... my opinon..
Christine: I guess that makes some sence. What about the rules on what a person can or can't do on hanging religiious things on their door. I am NOT religious at all. I believe. But, not a big fan or religion. (NO lectures please folks) But, a person should be able to hang in pride whatever they want on their door. Moreover, why can the land lord make rules on pets???? That make NO sense at all. We pay a high common charge. We (my Mom) paid cash for our condo so to have all these nonsense rules I feel is unfair. Not just me. But, to anyone.
I have read your response and can only say that I believe you want to live in a world where no one is ever offended for any reason. I don't think such a world exists, Luca. Someone, somewhere, will be offended at something. However, thank you for this thread of dialogue. It has been fun.
Then let us all endeavor to be a generic society, devoid of religion, opinions, likes, or passions, for surely someone will be offended or feel their rights are being trampled upon. It is not that legislators are imposing obligations on condo owners, Luca. It is that legislators are following our Constitution, despite the screams of a small minority of dissenters.
again, you confuse the ability to be religious, and the constitutional right to pursue your own religion, with being able to do anything you want , under the pretext of it being religious. As you started to point out--there are limits. It appears my limits are at a different place than yours, but nevertheless, you also agree, that religion does not allow for everything. In terms of 'generic'--funny you mention this.... religion is very conforming...very dogmatic----asks people not to have opinions. It asks you to have faith, that supercedes opinion.
I just dont like when government steps in to make preferences of religous beliefs over non-religious beliefs, and then certain people start mentioning the constitution as being protective of the one person. I can form a religion tomorrow that is called " The Church of "knock on the door of donald past 2am every day " and apparantly you would say " hey, ---what can i do-? Its part of the guys religion. I will just get woken up every night. No--I think that other people have rights as well.... and its a slippery slope when a mesuzah gets to be hung---because next up will be organizations that you may find offensive...
I just scanned quickly over the story to be honest. I got the jist of it in a nutshell. Condo Ogre bosses want to tell people they can/ can't hang things on their door. to me that is really stretching it and violating the poor peoples rights As for the pets thing. I will not touch that except say it is still unfair
Perhaps if you read it thoroughly, you would have noticed that the new bill allows people to hang religious decor on their doors, despite what Condo Associations think. So, you're complaining about something that's already been addressed. All this talk about Condo's being 'unfair'. You go into condo ownership knowing there is a 'governmental' body that tells you what you can and cannot do. The alternative to that would be buying a house, where you take care of everything yourself and have to listen to no one.