210117 - AZRRT CALL TO ACTION

To email only committee members, go to https://bit.ly/3so0Nx8

To email all legislators, go to  https://azpeopleslobbyist.com/

 

BILL # AND SHORT TITLE

(1)

WHO TO CONTACT

(2)

DATE

 

SPONSOR AND/OR WHAT THE BILL DOES

TIME

 

ROOM

#

VOTE

(3)

HB2055 - career, technical education; projects fund

House Education

01/19/2021

KAISER - Sale of products produced by technical education projects are used to fund a fund to cover expenses

 

2:00

R-1

Y

HB2121 - schools; superintendents; severance packages; prohibition

House Education

01/19/2021

BOLICK - Ends the practice of awarding huge severance packages to superintendents

 

2:00

R-1

Y

HCR2005 - English language education; requirements.

House Education

01/19/2021

FILLMORE – Aimed at overturning Prop 303 of 2000. Creates a dual "immersion" for both English speaking and English learning.. This has never worked. English learners must have an English only true immersion program

 

2:00

R-1

N

HB2077 - state lake improvement fund; appropriations

House Natural Resources, Energy & Water

(Also in Appropriations Committee)

01/19/2021

BIASIOCCI - Places some common sense restrictions on the use of moneys in the lake improvement fund. Appears to have no adverse effect on the taxpayers

 

2:00

R-4

Y

SB1028 - alternative assessment; special education

Senate Education

01/19/2021

BARTO - Special needs students are to be assessed differently than non-special needs

2:00

R-1

Y

SB1139 - classroom site fund; distribution

Senate Education

01/19/2021

BOYER - Removes the requirement that the site fund be allocated according to certain percentages and replaces it with very vague language. It adds several areas where fund moneys may be spent

 

2:00

R-1

N

HB2017 - appropriation; STEM; learning; workforce development

House Appropriations

01/20/2021

UDALL - Should not be exempt from the provisions of ARS 35-190. This bill gives the appearance of being a permanent, unsupervised, and unaccountable slush fund for school districts. The $3 million initial appropriation is in addition to other funding.

 

2:00

R-1

N

HB2022 - schools; resources; services; consolidation grants

House Appropriations

01/20/2021

UDALL - Should not be exempt from the provisions of ARS 35-190 - If consolidation saves money, why is a grant needed? Moneys appropriated are in addition to other funding

 

2:00

R-1

N

HB2077 - state lake improvement fund; appropriations

House Appropriations

(Also in NREW Committee)

01/20/2021

BIASIOCCI - Places some common sense restrictions on the use of moneys in the lake improvement fund. Appears to have no adverse effect on the taxpayers

 

2:00

R-1

Y

HB2039 - elections; hand counts; five percent

House Government & Elections

01/20/2021

GRIFFIN - Increases from 2% to 5% the portion of precincts to be used in a hand count. Same as SB1010

 

9:00

R-1

Y

HB2051 - procurement; information disclosure; bidders

House Government & Elections

01/20/2021

KAVANAGH - Increases transparency in the competitive bidding process

 

9:00

R-1

Y

HB2052 - homeowners' associations: political; community activity

House Government & Elections

01/20/2021

KAVANAGH - Reduces HOA's ability to suppress 1st amendment rights of residents

 

9:00

R-1

Y

HB2054 - voter registration database; death records

House Government & Elections

01/20/2021

KAISER - Requires removal of voter registration of those who should no longer be registered, including people who died.

 

9:00

R-1

Y

HCR2001 - initiatives; single subject; title

House Government & Elections

01/20/2021

KAVANAGH - Truth in advertising - Helps people know what they are voting for. Prohibits the current practice of hiding provisions deep in the body of the initiative where very few voters would notice.

 

9:00

R-1

Y

HCR2002 - supreme court; maintain nine members

House Judiciary

01/20/2021

HOFFMAN - These resolutions are only feel-good exercises. However, this one brings attention to the terrible prospect of the supreme court being packed with liberals to offset the gains during the Trump administration

 

9:00

R-4

Y

HB2112 - truth in taxation; press releases

House Ways & Means

01/20/2021

BOLICK - Adds clarity and transparency to the truth in taxation notice required of school district governing boards

 

9:00

R-3

Y

SB1057 - public works; contracts; payments

Senate Commerce

01/20/2021

GRAY, FANN - Deals with public works contracts. It affects the way public works contractors are paid

 

2:00

R-1

?

SB1041 - STOs; aggregate cap increase

Senate Finance

01/20/2021

LIVINGSTON - Increases the amount  of tax credits that School Tuition Organizations may claim.

 

9:00

R-109

Y

SB1059 - mental disorders; considerations; involuntary treatment

Senate Health and Human Services

01/20/2021

BARTO - Defines who can and cannot be subjected to involuntary treatment for mental disorders.

 

9:00

R-1

Y

SB1010 - recount requests; amount; bond; procedure

Senate Government

01/21/2021

MESNARD - Increases from 2% to 5% the portion of precincts to be used in a hand count. Same as HB2039

2:00

R-1

Y

SB1025 - elections; polls; override notification

Senate Government

01/21/2021

TOWNSEND - Requires election official to inform voter that overvote will result in the vote for that office to be not counted

 

2:00

R-1

Y

SB1069 - permanent early voting list; eligibility

Senate Government

01/21/2021

UGENITI-RITA - Failure to vote the early ballot two years in a row causes the voter to be removed from the early ballot list

 

2:00

R-1

Y

SB1083 - elections; recount margin

Senate Government

01/21/2021

UGENTI-RITA - Automatic recount triggered if difference is less than or equal to on half of one percent

 

2:00

R-1

Y

 

 

Views: 292

Replies to This Discussion

Not in favor of Kavanagh’s bill to invade homeowner associations.  I view such associations as being no different from AZRA.  AZRA requires, as a condition of membership, that members be registered Republicans.  It’s their “club”, it’s their right to make such conditions.  You know what they are before you join.  If you don’t like the rules, don’t join – or change them from within.   Ditto associations.  I’ve read many CC&R’s as a real estate agent for 20 years here in AZ.  Prospective buyers in such associations, must as you know, read and approve of those CC&R’s in order to close the contract and take possession of the property.  They have already agreed to the terms, legally, in writing.  Question: would we want the state to pass a law saying that any club has to accept anyone who wishes to be a member?  At that point, you no longer have a club or a homogenous group.

 Personally, I disagree with such rules and wouldn’t want to live in an assn. which insisted on them, but neither do they forbid or abridge free speech, except as previously agreed upon by all the property owners and only on that – private -- property.  People have many choices for ownership outside such restrictions.  While such legislation has the appearance of “standing by the constitution!”, I think it in fact, waters it down.  It essentially says that groups cannot make their own rules on their private property, whether that be real property or an organization of people.  That is anathema to the constitution, as it was a group who wrote the very constitution!

By the way, it seems as though Mr. Kavanagh is attacking private property rights.  Not sure if it has been put forward as legislation yet, but he has also railed against the short term rental of private homes, private property.  There are laws in place against noise and disruption in our communities.  There are laws covering occupancy of private homes in place, with maximums per bedroom.  All the laws and zoning ordinances apply.  To presume that rentals are an automatic nuisance of some sort is not true.  Homeowners are just as apt to have a raucous event at their place of residence as short term renters are.  I think where our legislators wish to delve in restrictions on private property, we have to be very careful.

Jeff D, I'm 100% in agreement with your comment. I don't like home owner & other such groups, but they must have the right to make their own rules. One has the choice not to join & sign the dotted line. I wouldn't live there either but I do have the right, at least for now, to refuse to join.

You make very good points.

SamFox

Thanks Sam. You're no doubt aware that gradually chipping away at private property rights in order to one day end them entirely is a stated goal of the Left. Ditto gun control.

I disagree with both of you, J.D. and S.F.:  CC&R's of a homeowner's association are designed for the singular purpose of ensuring the developer sells the last half-dozen homes where he makes his profit to put toward his next project.  Homeowners should have the fundamental right to do with their own property what they alone choose to do without having to satisfy some damned collective whose rules have been established by one self-important pooh-bah.  In fact, J.D.'s comparison of a homeowner's association to the AZRA is faulty on its face:  AZRA is a political association formed for political purposes; a homeowner's association is formed to ensure a developer's profit, and, yes, to maintain property values.  People can enforce maintenance of their property values without having some self-important kommissars arbitrarily pass judgment on what a homeowner does with his own property.  As an example, amateur radio operators perform a vital service to the nation, to the region, and to local communities in times of disaster, and they have to put up antennas to perform that service.  Yet CC&R's invariably prohibit antennas of any kind.  Claiming a home purchasor has the "right" to buy a home somewhere else falls flat when there are no communities not encumbered with restrictive CC&R's.  Also, the whole concept is wrong:  It makes the community a "collective" in which the individual is legally responsible to the collective, which in a practical manner devolves into "legally responsible to the jackboots who run the architectural committee" claiming to serve the collective, but actually serving their own need for control over their fellow citizens.  Our nation is founded on principles of individual liberty under the rule of law, not individual responsibility to the arbitrary whims of a collective.

I find your equating CVC&R's to "private property rights" to be in the finest tradition of "1984" and George Orwell's "Ministry fo Truth, where "freedom is slavery" and "War is Peace."  You are not protecting private property rights by giving control of private property to some collective that does not own the property.

You ignore a couple of pretty important things: 1. no one requires you to live there.  2. Not every HOA has CC&R's forbidding those practices.

There is no relation whatever to 1984, which by the way, I have read.  Consent to the CC&R's is a consent between willing entities, the approval signifying approval of the conditions between the parties.  You don't like it?  Move. Better yet, don't buy there in the first place.

Life itself requires me to live SOMEWHERE, and CC&R's, to the extent they benefit the bottom line of developers, are increasingly common -- too increasingly and too common.  They increasingly require an individual and family to give up their rights to their own property:  Without dominion over it, they don't own it.  I've never seen or heard of an HOA that does not have CC&Rs, and until PRB-1 (101 FCC 2d 952 (1985), even city zoning ordinances prohibited a property owner from exercising dominion over his own property.  I would consider approving of CC&R's that expired in ten years; after all, no one wants junked vehicles rusting in the yard next door, but the great American experiment in liberty from government (and private oligarch) is being choked to death.  Your comment claiming "consent to the CC&R's is a consent between willing entities, the approval signifying approval of the conditions between the parties" reveals the evil in CC&R's:  One of those two parties have nothing to say about it unless he owns a share in the private property of the other.  And he does not share ownership in the private property of the other.  I don't have to like it; I don't have to move, and I should not have to put up with it.

Donald, I'm certainly not an attorney, but it's plain to me that in entering into an agreement with homeowners who approve the CC&R's, with yourself also approving, you have joined a club in effect.  It would be dangerous to much liberty to interfere with the right of a club to determine its own rules for membership.  If, however, a majority of homeowners in an HOA found the rules onerous, they could organize and find a way to rescind those rules they found offensive.  Here's a way:  https://goodlaw.legal/amending-your-ccrs-legally/

If you enter into a contract with features you dislike, you have nonetheless agreed to "put up with it" presumably in return for a greater good as you see it.  Let's not mess with private property or club rights.  Slippery slope there.

RSS

THOUGHTS

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

POSTING POLICY:

NOTE:  Blog posts cannot be blasted to the membership.  Post in Opinions if you want your post to be blasted out.

Post on the correct tab that matches your topic.

Keep it brief and to the point.

Use the proper spelling and punctuation.

Please include the link to your source for the information you post.

Do not attack your fellow conservatives.

If you wouldn't say it to your mother, think twice before saying it here.

Follow these rules!

 

Suppose the earth and its inhabitants exist in order to identify just what causes mankind continually to suffer so many troublesome problems and afflictions.

GOD, PLEASE BLESS AMERICA!  AMERICA, PLEASE BLESS GOD.

 

© 2022   Created by Arizona Freedom Alliance.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service