Nevada created a Common-Interest Community (CIC) Task Force and positioned it to influence upcoming laws and regulations because lawmakers know something isn’t working in the HOA system.
Never heard of this? You’re not alone.
Most homeowners have no idea this task force exists, even though its discussions can shape the future of HOA laws, regulations, and enforcement in Nevada. That lack of visibility raises real concerns about transparency and whether the process is structured in a way that makes meaningful homeowner participation difficult from the start.
If the people most affected must first seek out the process on their own and then are given only a nominal seat at the table, it’s reasonable to question what kind of reform is really being pursued.
Homeowners across the state are frustrated with fines that feel one-sided, rising costs, lack of transparency, and a civil enforcement system that is poorly suited for resolving everyday HOA disputes. Many who have tried to use the existing complaint and regulatory channels come away disappointed by the response — or the lack of meaningful action. As a result, many believe the regulator is captured.
Legislators hear those complaints — but they also face a practical problem: Individual homeowners rarely have the time, resources, or organization to maintain a consistent presence at the Legislature or otherwise lobby.
The HOA industry, by contrast, is well positioned.
Community managers, attorneys, and industry trade groups are at the Legislature every session. They understand the process, track bills closely, and maintain ongoing relationships with policymakers. They also participate in the political process in ways individual homeowners generally cannot, including organized advocacy and campaign involvement.
That imbalance in access and influence is one reason the CIC Task Force was formed: to create a forum outside the legislative session to examine how the system is working.
But that raises a critical question:
If the goal is to better understand homeowner problems, where are the homeowners in the structure of the Task Force itself?
Who has a guaranteed seat
According to information posted by the Nevada Real Estate Division, the Task Force must include representatives from:
The Nevada Real Estate Division
The Office of the Ombudsman for Owners in Common-Interest Communities and Condominium Hotels
The Office of the Attorney General
The common-interest community industry, appointed by the Director
That means regulators, government offices, and industry representatives are structurally built into the process.
Homeowners are not.
The people living under HOA rules, paying the assessments, facing fines, and navigating disputes do not have guaranteed representation — even though the Task Force exists because of widespread dissatisfaction at the homeowner level.
Institutional voices vs. lived experience
Industry professionals bring operational and legal expertise. Regulators bring knowledge of statutes and administrative systems.
But their incentives are very different from those of homeowners. Regulators are evaluating and defending a system they help administer. Industry representatives make their living from that system. Their income is tied to management contracts, legal work, collections, compliance services, construction projects, and ongoing association operations. More rules, more enforcement activity, and more procedural complexity help developer profits and can mean more billable work and continued service demand.
Homeowners bring a different kind of expertise: lived experience with how the system actually feels and functions at ground level — where “rights” on paper often collide with practical barriers in real life.
Without that voice embedded in the structure, reform discussions risk becoming conversations among the institutions that already shape the system.
Public input in theory vs. practice
Yes, homeowners can attend meetings and provide public comment. But in practice, the opportunity for owner input often reflects the minimum required by open meeting laws:
Meetings may be noticed only a few days in advance
Agendas are technical and difficult for non-specialists to interpret
Public comment is typically limited to a few minutes per speaker
There is no guarantee that homeowner concerns raised in public comment will shape the agenda or outcomes
For many working families, retirees with limited mobility, or homeowners simply trying to keep up with daily life, that structure makes sustained participation difficult.
Meanwhile, industry and institutional participants are already organized, informed, and present.
For many homeowners, this feels like a familiar pattern: meet the minimum notice rules, allow a few minutes of comment, and call it participation. The Task Force can do better.
To be fair, it has held only one meeting since being reconstituted after years of inactivity. But its start has left much to be desired.
This is a dynamic many homeowners already experience inside their own associations: the people with the most time, resources, and structural access tend to shape the rules and processes, while the average homeowner struggles to be heard in ways that meaningfully influence outcomes.
Now, even at the reform stage, the same imbalance risks repeating itself.
The open question is whether meaningful reforms will truly strengthen homeowner protections — or continue to reflect the influence of the industry professionals who shape the system.
Why homeowner awareness still matters
The Task Force’s work can influence future legislation, regulatory priorities, and how enforcement standards evolve. Even without guaranteed seats, informed homeowner participation still matters.
Understanding how the system is structured — who has built-in access, who does not, and how decisions move from discussion to policy — is the first step toward changing it.
At NVHOAReform, we track the CIC Task Force and break down what its discussions mean in practical terms for everyday homeowners. We also examine the larger structural issues behind HOA governance in Nevada: how authority, accountability, and access have become so uneven — and what it would take to rebalance them.
Because before reform can succeed, one question has to stay front and center:
Where are the owners?
