Selective Enforcement

Good question.

Are you looking for :

1- cronyism / deliberate & discriminatory unequal treatment ? eg 'Your shed is refused because you are a jerk or not owner long enough etc '

or

2 - under-resourcing ; triaging or non-discriminatorily applying inadequate enforcement efforts with random outcomes ? eg the single traffic cop writing tickets furiously to everyone as fast as possible while hundreds of others speed by. Cronies or visitors or the President can randomly get ticketed but resources are tolerated as inadequate ? eg 'We cannot give you nor anyone an immediate answer to a shed application'

I am in the camp that each situation is different even if they seem the same on the surface. Example: We allowed an owner to have a basketball goal in their front area facing the street. The house was situated so that cars could view either direction if there was anyone playing ball. No one had a problem with it as it was in the open visible area with limited ways of causing damage.

However, the kid across the street joined another basketball team that was the rival to the child's with the goal. Even though they played together for years and it was located outside their front doors, the "Rival Kids" parents demanded we allow them to put up their own goal. The issue is that where they choose was in a DANGEROUS not as open area. We are talking around a blind spot on the road with a deep ditch behind it. No one in their right mind would ever consider that spot for kids to play in.

They demanded that we remove the hoop completely if they were not allowed to have one. So I did. I moved it to our common area that already had a hoop. No one ever played with it because it was in an area dogs often used to poop and it was on grass. The ball could not bounce. It did make a "mini-court" when put the other one up there. However, it was just not a good area either.

They wanted to claim "Selective enforcement" to get it removed. I claimed it was an issue of safety. You may want your own hoop but if it's just not safe, it's not selective. It's avoiding selfish stupidity... They really would not have won if they had gone to court against us. However, the board members bowed down and said I had to remove it. It's really comes down to a reasonable judgement and situational when it comes to enforcing rules. It has to be reasonable. Just because someone doesn't think something is fair makes it selective..

I believe both are important to uphold as a board member. I will not enforce rules for some people and not for others, and I will enforce all the rules that we have. Who am I to ignore the rules? I tell the homeowners, if you do not like this rule, we can try to change it as a community. Until then, the board must enforce all the rules and enforce them equally.

Came across this short article that explains things well:

https://www.caionline.org/govt/news/Political%20HeadsUp%20Public%20Document%20Library/Selective%20Enforcement.pdf

Yes.

Lacey v. Maricopa County, a 2012 opinion from the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addresses the issue of selective enforcement (also referred to as selective prosecution). Paragraphs 18 through 20 discuss this topic both in general terms and in terms specific to the case.

Lacey, who published an alternative newspaper that was often critical of the sheriff, was arrested on a bogus warrant after his paper published the sheriff's home address on its website in violation of state law. Lacey pointed out that the same information was available online from both the county and state elections offices, from the Republican Party website, and from the sheriff's own websites.

The claim of selective enforcement arises when one person is singled out for prosecution and the accuser is motivated by an improper purpose:

To establish that [defendant] was motivated by an improper
purpose, [plaintiff] must show that [defendant] decided to enforce
the law against him “on the basis of an impermissible ground
such as race, religion or exercise of . . . constitutional rights.”
United States v. Kidder, 869 F.2d 1328, 1336 (9th Cir. 1989)
(quoting United States v. Moody, 778 F.2d 1380, 1386 (9th
Cir.1985), amended on other grounds, 791 F.2d 707 (9th Cir.
1986)).

From the above opinion, the mere fact that some are prosecuted and others are not is not sufficient to establish a claim of selective enforcement. An improper motive is a required element to sustain a claim of selective enforcement.

I agree with Pita:

Choosing not to enforce a rule is not selective enforcement. As an example. We have many rule breakers concerning Xmas decorations. We choose to ignore them all.

I say one crosses the line when they enforce a rule against a specific/chosen violator but not against additional violators of the same rule.

What one believes a role to be and what one believes an Assocaition should or shouldn't do is just a perception.

What an Association is required to do or has the option to do (by the use of words like "may" and "can"), are written in applicable statutes and the Associations governing documents.