The bill precludes an HOA from prohibiting the operation of a licensed child care facility. Over 50 restricted HOAs are exempt. Notably, the bill singles out owners of residential units in HOAs (both single-family residential and condo) while not doing the same for owners of apartment buildings. The bill follows a nationwide trend of states passing laws requiring HOAs allow licensed childcare facilities in their communities, as "a matter of public interest." Most people acknowledge value in increased access to child care. But the issue is complex and requires multiple fixes. Is the discriminatory application and the costs/cons to HOAs of AB 185 justified?
Many people desire and purchase in HOAs on expectations they prohibit the operation of a business from one's home to maintain the residential character of the community, prevent potential conflicts with other residents, reduce the burdens placed on common area services, and more. There is an increased liability exposure to the HOA associated with AB 185, further increasing costs passed on to owners.
There are also issues few are talking about. First, does AB 185 and similar HOA-related bills disrupt pre-existing HOA agreements? It clearly does. Secondly, does it overstep the authority lawmakers should exert over an HOA and its owners? Importantly, is the law a reasonable and appropriate means of furthering a "significant and legitimate public interest"? (i.e., does the law undermine the contractual bargain, interfere with a party’s reasonable expectations, and prevent the party from safeguarding or reinstating his rights - see Sveen v. Melin, 584 U.S. 2018).
HOAs are founded on a governmental promise that unit owners will be able to control and regulate unit owners - within limits. I see regulating businesses in HOAs within those limits. HOAs are communities governed by a contract (CC&Rs that effectively serve as the community's constitution). Democratic principles apply (a community’s power of the vote) but are ignored in AB 185. The bill is one of five bills (AB 185, AB 152, AB 322, AB 396 & SB 201) where legislators seek to inject themselves into private contracts mandating provisions. Is the public interest alleged to be protected sufficient justification for the impairment of these contracts? I do not think so and OPPOSE.
This bill addresses a symptom of HOAs - not the underlying problem created when declarations can be attached to homes by developers, intruding into personal lives, with effectively little regulatory oversight. Then lawmakers invoke "public interest" to legitimize trendy special interest intervention. Find here a Nevada Current and here for a Reno Gazette story on the bill.
The bill was passed out of Asm Govt Affairs with an amendment removing overrides of local jurisdiction to oversee zoning. Yet, it retained overrides to HOAs doing the same.
