Community watch or Security Patrol ?

In my opinion, you need both.

You need to request that the police provide additional patrols.
You need to organize a community watch to help inform the police when the patrols can't be there.

You sound like you are interested in this issue.
Talk to the police to find out what it takes to organize a neighborhood watch.
Then take the steps to do so,

I agree that the Association should not participate.
This should be an action by individuals coming together for a common purpose.

Not exactly.

That HOA did not endorse the watch.
The HOA simply mentioned within their newsletter that George Zimmerman was the contact person for the watch.
This gave the defense, reason to include the HOA in their legal action.

See: HOA’s Settlement with Trayvon Martin Family Illustrates Liability Issues Involving Neighborhood Watch Programs 2013 article from a FL attorney.

LOL ...Not sure of your point Tim? The plain and simple FACT is the HOA had to fork out more than ONE MILLION dollars due to a "Neighborhood Watch". What mattered in the end is the HOA ended up with liability ... does not matter the stupid nit picky BS of endorsing or just mentioned via any newsletter. Potentially if they had left up to law enforcement it would not have been mentioned in any newsletter and therefore would have been no liability.



Again, incorrect information.
Although this is the common belief, in reality the HOA settled because they determined it was less expensive then fighting the issue in court.

From the Orlando Sentinel article (the source of the NYtimes article referenced in Janets post:

Robert Taylor is founding partner of Taylor & Carls P.A., a law firm that represents homeowner associations but has no connection to the Retreat at Twin Lakes.

"When claims are filed, they're filed against anybody who could possibly have any culpability," he said. Trayvon's parents must have concluded that Zimmerman's homeowners association did, he said, thus the claim.

In the settlement, the association did not admit any wrongdoing or liability. Taylor said its decision to settle was most likely a business decision.

"It's really nothing more than a risk-versus-reward analysis," Taylor said.

Again ... If the HOA had not stuck their nose into this area ... they would not have been bitten and paid a price.



Absolutely agree



Not relevant.

As seen in the case being discussed, and as outlined in the last article I cited, "When claims are filed, they're filed against anybody who could possibly have any culpability." Hence regardless if the Association endorses or not, they will likely be named in any legal action as it's perceived that they have deeper pockets.

LOL ... What you might deem not relevant ... others would consider relevant. It is similar to my many past arguments regarding regulating pets. If my HOA does not regulate and a roaming dog bites someone my response to a court would be:

Your Honor my HOA does not regulate pets. We leave that to the properly TRAINED Professionals (a.k.a. Animal Control). We homeowners are not properly trained to deal with vicious animals and which is why our LOCAL GOVERNMENT has their Animal Control paid for via our Tax Dollars. My HOA is NOT REQUIRED by LAW to supercede any Federal, State, or Local laws.



However, there are arguments that an Association is responsible to minimize illegal activities on common areas.
It's really a no win situation. See:

HOW MUCH SECURITY DOES AN HOA NEED? 2013 article from CA

Condo Owners Want Security: Are Associations Required to Provide It? 2016 article from a law firm

Security, A Fiduciary Responsibility? 2012 thread on this forum

HOA Liability for Third Party Criminal Acts 2012 article from an attorney

Most arguments where any HOA has lost in your links have been where they denied the HOMEOWNER the right to PAY for security measures. Your second link even notes:

"Unless the governing documents include security on the list of association responsibilities, associations have no inherent obligation to protect residents and their guests from the criminal acts of third parties."

"... boards should certainly not prevent owners from taking reasonable security precautions on their own, as long as those measures don’t damage common areas, harm or inconvenience other residents."

"Boards that do too much in the security arena may also incur outsized liability risks. The Treyvon Martin case — where the head of a community association’s neighborhood watch group shot and killed an unarmed teenager ─ provides a well-known example and a cautionary note for condos. The community association in this case faced a huge negligence claim because it publicly sponsored the watch group, but did not adequately supervise its volunteers. If the owners in your community want security services, the association should hire a professional contractor – with the appropriate training and insurance – to provide them which will help manage the risk."

"Boards should also watch the language they use. Don’t say or do anything that suggests or might lead owners to assume the association is protecting them from harm. In a recent California case (Lastasha McDonald vs. First Coast Association Management, LLC), a visitor was killed by burglars while checking on a relative’s home in a gated community that advertised itself as “secure.” A jury decided that the association’s failure to repair a broken access gate breached its promise to provide security, and awarded the victim’s family $2.66 million in damages as a result – 70 percent of that assessed against the management company and 30 percent against the association."


In light of your own Links and the statements they make ... I am not sure what exactly is your point? Are you stating the OP's HOA should engage in activity which could come back and bite them?

It's rare that they would.

However, I suspect that they specify that prior approval is required before any exterior change.

Changing the style of the light fixture is an exterior change
Changing the paint color is an exterior change
Changing the landscape is an exterior change
Installing an outside camera is also an exterior change.

I expect that most Associations won't have an issue about it.
However, from your postings, I'm not sure how your MC or Board see your attempts of help.

In case they are perceiving your help as hindrance, it's best to avoid issues when you can.
Hence the comment about obtaining prior approval.

On the application, you simply specify that you are asking for the same thing others have apparently been granted approval on (as you always expect everyone has asked for approval and received it).