HB 1767

Home Page 2011 Regional and State Meeting  PAMHOA/ PA COALITION 2010 Regional Meeting Report. Why a Home Owners Assoc? Forming a HOA President's  Message  HB 1767 A Letter to Legislators ACT 80 Signing a NEW lease OUR HISTORY THE FUTURE WHAT is the REAL DEAL? Dispelling the Myth AMBUSHED – BAMBOOZLED – ROBBED Uniform Law Commission Meets TIME TO ACT 2011 RESOLUTION Residents write to Legislators CONTACT US New Legislation March 7, 2014 - Press Release

HB 1767:

This is no FAIRY tale. BUT read on....


Following the PAMHOA state convention held Sept 2011, and noting resident complaints voiced during the meeting (the event also attended by legislators), PAMHOA arranged with Representative Freeman (the chief sponsor of HB 1767) amendments would be drafted reflecting resident's concerns, helping to keep HB 1767 current and "relevant" after five years of negotiating with the industry, and in the light of recent experience (including abuses surrounding ACT 80).


[PAMHOA works daily on resident issues, PAMHOA personnel routinely involved in communities and with "hands-on" knowledge of issues faced by residents - and assisted by legal and business professionals.]


PAMHOA prepared, and began the process of submitting essential amendments, that a) would provide protection against intimidation when forming and operating a HOA (HB 1767 alludes to resident opportunities via a HOA "where an organization exists" - but does not help protect residents in forming or operating an association), and b) requiring community registration so that all residents can be reached and informed of the law, and the facilities available to them.


In response, earlier this year, we were surprised by 1) a new industry amendment - containing conditions damaging to resident interests; and, 2) were told "resident amendments" will NOT be considered; and, 3) that Rep Freeman and agencies assisting him supported the final bill based on these industry dictates; the "bill" to be "moved" without further consideration of resident complaints, ignoring resident amendments; these same persons and agencies, drafting support letters to help pass the legislation in committee - when the latest amendments (and the ramifications on residents) were neither understood nor examined as needed by the group to determine the effect on residents.


The latest version of HB 1767, among other things, REMOVES the "the right of first refusal" allowing residents an opportunity to purchase their community when faced with closing (an essential element as touted by proponents as a landmark advancement to assist residents and central to the purpose of the bill) - while the industry has strengthened its opportunity to enforce the "right of first refusal on your home" damaging its resale value; AND denies residents notice of pending "court action" to facilitate the seizure of property; AND does nothing to aid cooperative ownership, or to provide alternative home sites, or anything else to protect the value of your property against the industry's stance of forced depreciation and planned acquisition or eviction.) HB 1767 also introduces a new definition "manufactured home occupant"


In addition, the recently introduced ACT 80 was found to be "industry controlled" and instead of helping residents as intended by its sponsors, in fact made matters worse including reducing lease durations, and led to the introduction of damaging lease terms (and new complicated leases) also against the intent of the bill. THIS CAN NOT TO BE ALLOWED TO OCCUR AGAIN. HB 1767 in effect, again "drafted and controlled" by the industry - resident representation PURPOSELY cut out as "inconvenient" to everyone involved.


The final version of HB 1767 that is being touted, found in reality to be a bill that provides nothing substantial for residents, but ostensibly reduces resident's rights and would further add to the legal complications that is MH legislation and law - so complicated and unclear that even the office of the Attorney General will not be drawn into it (and the consumer division of the office of the AG legally responsible to administer.) HB 1767 in fact doing nothing to responsibly address resident issues as needed; and if allowed to be passed into law - will continue what has happened before and strengthen the industry's "strong-hold" over residents. The proponents of HB 1767 suggest the bills "short comings" can be looked at later (in another five years???) - and meanwhile, achieves nothing meaningful for residents..... and is promoted "as the answer" to residents complaints and issues made known for more than 20 years.  To the proponents of HB 1767, resident should say "thanks" BUT "no thanks"... our own team can and will do much better.






PAMHOA - Legislative Committee. May 2012.