Survey Request

For those interested, I received the following survey request today and am passing it along:

Common Interest Communities Survey: Participants Needed by January 31, 2009

Hannah Wiseman, a Visiting Assistant Professor at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, is conducting a survey of residents in common interest communities, defined for the purposes of the survey as communities wherein residents agree to a common set of conditions, covenants, and restrictions enforced by a homeowners’ or similar association. The survey is online at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=JdAFijUlceVBKVNYSrDjsA_3d_3d and will run through January 31, 2009. Survey respondents’ identities will not be revealed, and the survey is encrypted. She hopes to receive at least three hundred responses, so please pass on the word to anyone who might be interested in contributing to her research.

Ms. Wiseman is originally from New Hampshire but in 2007 moved to Austin, Texas, with her husband, who was born and raised in Austin. Ms. Wiseman first became interested in residents’ community-related preferences when studying land use with Robert Ellickson at Yale Law School. Ellickson inspired students to think about methods initiated by neighbors to avoid nuisances and incompatible uses. Ellickson suggested that many neighbors may reach private agreements about appropriate uses of property without government intervention. But after moving to Austin, to a neighborhood close to the center of the city, Ms. Wiseman wondered whether the costs of individual bargaining are unusually high in cities and suburbs. In such areas, residents often move in and out as jobs and circumstances change, forcing residents to repeat the bargaining process with new neighbors with each move. As a result, she wondered whether reaching a single up-front agreement as to aesthetics and uses of property – as is done through the conditions, covenants, and restrictions in common interest communities – might be a preferred method of neighbor “bargaining.” She also wondered whether people had other reasons for preferring these communities.

When Ms. Wiseman began studying common interest communities, however, she found a dearth of recent legal literature on the topic. Planners, sociologists, and psychologists studied common interest communities in the 1990s and concluded that residents generally move to them for two reasons: to live in a safer place and to preserve property values. While many people do prefer these communities for these reasons, Ms. Wiseman believes that there is more to the story. Some of the existing research has begun to delve into this story, but it is not fully up-to-date and has not answered Ms. Wiseman’s specific research questions. Edward Blakely and Gail Snyder, for example, sent out more than 7,000 surveys to community association boards and organized focus groups in Texas, California, and Florida in 1995. They concluded in their book Fortress America that in addition to preferring common interest communities for reasons of security and property values, residents also “want control over their homes, their streets, their neighborhoods.” Ms. Wiseman wants to know more, however, about the type of control residents seek, and how they are achieving such control. Are people moving to common interest communities to ensure that industrial or commercial development does not encroach upon their residential neighborhood? To have a more “local” government in the form of a homeowners’ or community association? To find an architecturally pleasing community, with quiet streets and sidewalks where their children can play? To find neighbors with similar interests and ideals? Or for reasons entirely unrelated to these?

Ms. Wiseman surmises that there are many reasons for the increasing popularity of these communities, and that many of them differ by resident and region. A private subdivision for retirees will of course differ from one that is conveniently located near jobs and schools. Furthermore, many people may be moving to these types of communities simply because so many are being built, or for affordability and location. But to move her research further, she believes the answers will best be provided by the residents themselves.

Ms. Wiseman hopes that you will consider participating in her short, ten-question survey online at https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=JdAFijUlceVBKVNYSrDjsA_3d_3d. She is also seeking out residents who would be willing to give more in-depth answers over the phone. She can be reached at 512-232-3646 or [email protected]. She plans to share the survey results with anyone interested in seeing them.

Joe

The period (.) at the end is not part of the link.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=JdAFijUlceVBKVNYSrDjsA_3d_3d

Robert instead of pasting it in Google, paste it in the url window of your browser. It works fine in IE7.

All,
I also took the survey. I finished and clicked done and did not receive an error message or any other kind.

I did post a verbal comment about the survey. It just struck me as so superficial and narrow that I can't see anything coming out of it except a submission of a "reseach" report. No way did I think the questions addressed any of the ills and troubles so wide spread in association living. I suppose this site (Hoatalk) justs asks for biased posting and that's what we get. But we also get a sense of the big picture and we can wittness how much is wrong in the individual states and how their failure to anticipated the magnitude of what is happening and how the states and feds are failing in ther efforts to control this mish mash. Why can't there be a standard transition procedure for all HOA's, why is everything so troubled and confused during this time? So much wrong and little being done. Look at Florida, arguably one of the most reactive states toward association living and they are constantly passing legislation. But look what has happened to the Arbritation Repeal Board program.....swamped and not effective. And who drafts this legislation? Lawyers, developers, real estate interests, and on and on. Awh, you all know what I am talking about. What holds it all together is not the lawyers and real estate and developers, it is the owner that is willing to stick his butt out and get the train back on the track. How many times have any of you read of a HOA actually gaining anything because of some court action against unfair treatment.

Does anyone know who is supporting this researcher's study? Is it CAI? I found it interesting that CAI sent this to all its members.

I don't think CAI is financially underwriting it. I think it's just the professor doing some work in a state that is going to be a political battleground this winter (Texas legislature only meets for a short period) for HOA issues. I thought the survey was pretty light also, but then I think she is right is that there is almost nothing out with real data to support any of the positions taken by anybody, or any legislative effort. I am contantly amazed that those states that have a registration process for associations, most notably Florida and Virginia have done so little to actually collect any real information from the various players prior to adopting legislation. Anecdotal stories are not evidence. This board is not representative of what's happening around the country. This is where people go when they have problem, they don't come here and say "Well, everything is OK at our association, just thought I'd let you know.'

Virginia did contract with Old Dominion University (2003) to try and find out what the needs of associations were and you can see what they did at:

http://www.odu.edu/bpa/creed/CIC/CIC_Welcome.htm

This was basically a board survey.

There are still the two most recent surveys floating around, CAI's and ServiceMaster's. CAI's was the the only random one done independently, but as anyone knows, those who write the questions control the answers. ServiceMaster's was just on their web site, so again, it was more likely to attract people who had problems with their associations, than people who didn't. Both are frequently quoted in news articles.

Seigal, the Pratts, nor McKenzie have any real data to justify their opinions. That doesn't invalidate them, but it doesn't necessarily make them universal truths either.

The problems lay mostly with HOA's and the weakness of most state HOA laws. You rarely see the volume of complaints from heavy condo areas in the north and east as opposed to the HOA-heavy south and west. Florida, of course, being the exception, but the sheer number of retirees with too much time on their hands, makes this state unique. I think the argument could be made that Florida politicians require associations so that the retirees will have someone else to argue with rather than showing up at city hall every council meeting.

Last, associations are entirely our doing. Developers don't really like them, which is why they often ignore the association, even after creating it. They are a local government reaction to our complete unwillingness to raise local taxes to continue to employ thier friends and relatives, er, excuse me, provide local services. They had to get creative and saw that associations were contributing to the revenues with a reduced demand on the services, and decided to make sure that anything that got built in their jurisdiction, would have one of these wonderful creations. So, instead of it becoming an choice for the buyer, which would have them moving in a lot more willingly, we get where we are today. I don't see it changing anytime soon.

Joe

Has anybody been interviewed by phone yet?

Where was there an option to be interviewed by phone?

The survey I took did not ask for a phone number, unless I somehow missed it.

I thought the survey was fine for what it was.

Number 10 was not asked twice. The first time the question was asked, you were to consider your PRIMARY reason. It only allowed for ONE option.

The second time the question was asked, it requested that you select any OTHER or ADDITIONAL considerations/reasons, and you could select multiple ones.

One of the reasons for asking it that way is to force a PRIMARY. If they just ask what are the reasons, there's no way to qualify it (on such a short survey) to determine any relative difference in priority regarding your choices.

My guess this survey will be used to inform a second survey.

The primary reasons that bubbled up the most will probably get placed on a Likert scale of some kind where the respondent WEIGHTS the reasons in some manner.

Anyway, ya gotta start somewhere. This seems as good a start as any.

It strikes me that this survey is only for a certain socio-economical group, people who have the luxury of a choice. Here in the Washington-Baltimore area, most small condo owners bought into a condominium because that was all they could afford. Additionally, in this area you almost can't get a building permit unless you have an HOA since the counties save money on services that way. So in this part of the country the choices are to rent or buy in a common-ownership community.