For the Feb. 25 issue.
Editorial left out details about Twin Rivers cable fee
To the editor:
I find your editorial about Twin Rivers residents being charged a $3.07 maintenance fee in addition to the $16.40 basic cable fee very confusing.
I was at the Homeowners meeting where board of directors President Scott Pohl clearly said that there would be no reduction in the homeowners maintenance fee because the partial year cable charge was prorated over the entire year so the trust would not have to change the maintenance fee in the middle of the year.
Not seeing this information in your editorial, I must ask: Does the Herald not send a reporter to the Twin Rivers meetings and not make any attempt to find out what occurred? Or was that reporter there but not paying attention when the explanation was given? Or did the reporter hear the explanation but not understand it? Or did the reporter hear the explanation but decide to ignore it in order to incite Twin Rivers residents? Or does the Herald have evidence that the explanation was untruthful, evidence that is not being passed on to its readers?
I don’t know why Scott Pohl refuses to speak to the Herald, but if this is the way you report Twin Rivers news I can understand his position.
East Windsor
Poet thanks supporters for attending her reading
To the editor:
I just wanted to take a moment to say a heartfelt thanks to the staff of the Twin Rivers Library, in particular Nancy Demme, for hosting the reading Feb. 10. It was a lovely evening, and I was grateful to the crowd of more than a dozen that braved the cold to help me celebrate the launch of my poetry collection.
A thank you as well to Mike Ross, for the splendid write up, and to Ms. Shelly Lightman, of South Pacific Florist. The flowers were lovely, and lent an elegant touch to the evening. There was a deadline delay at the print house, but I have been assured the book will be available by month end.
I’m not sure any writer ever has such a warm, and cordial audience. It truly made the night a delight for me.
Twin Rivers
State bill needed to regulate homeowners associations
To the editor:
In November 2004, state Sen. Shirley Turner introduced bill S-2016 on behalf of our organization, the Common-Interest Homeowners Coalition (C-IHC). The bill is a clear and comprehensive response to the serious governance problems plaguing homeowner associations (HOAs) today.
More than 1 million residents, many of them senior citizens, currently live in condominiums, planned unit developments, townhomes, and cooperatives across New Jersey. But unlike other New Jersey homeowners, they often discover that living in such communities means relinquishing some of their basic constitutional and property rights.
On a daily basis, HOA residents are subjected to boards that hold closed-door meetings, conduct improper elections, deny access to financial records, impose unreasonable fines, refuse to answer questions, and initiate frivolous and self-serving lawsuits, all at the homeowners’ expense.
Some HOAs have been forced into bankruptcy as a result of mismanagement or corrupt business practices, and homeowners have been forced to pay thousands of dollars in special assessments in order to salvage their homes. When homeowners exercise their fundamental right to ask probing questions they are often stonewalled, vilified, or harassed by their boards.
All of these undemocratic practices have been documented on numerous occasions by the Department of Community Affairs, and described in the report submitted by the Assembly Task Force to Study Homeowner Associations a few years ago.
Many people are at a loss to explain how HOA boards, which have been granted government-like powers to impose fines, levy assessments, and place liens on peoples’ homes, have been allowed to do so without any of the governmental oversight requirements that such powers demand. And people are equally bewildered that a country bold enough to export democracy abroad can tolerate this form of anarchy at home.
There is no doubt that today’s widespread dissatisfaction with HOAs stems from laws of the 1960s which failed to establish them as quasi-governmental entities but classified them as private business corporations instead. And while the dire outcome of this form of housing might not have been anticipated 40 years ago, we have now acquired sufficient experience by which to make at least the following observations:
(1) Applying the corporate business model and the business judgment rule to HOAs has proven to be deeply flawed because it has unwisely exempted them from state scrutiny;
(2) That the lack of governmental oversight has allowed HOAs to turn into breeding grounds for special interest groups and has permitted unscrupulous board members to act with impunity; and
(3) That the wide latitude given to HOA boards mandates that they no longer be allowed to masquerade as private corporations but be treated just like any other government-regulated business.
Sen. Turner’s bill seeks to remedy these deficiencies by recognizing the quasi-governmental nature of HOAs, providing them with clear and uniform guidelines to follow, and requiring their boards to operate in an open and democratic manner.
These problems are not unique to New Jersey. The history of HOAs across this nation paints a disturbing picture of government officials who have essentially abdicated their responsibility in protecting HOA residents from a housing experiment gone awry. The difference is that New Jersey now has an opportunity to transform and improve this landscape by passing S-2016.
Hightstown
C-IHC is a statewide non-profit organization which was founded to bring about democratic reform in New Jersey Homeowner Associations.
Bush’s Social Security plan plagued with severe flaws
To the editor:
President Bush is stampeding across the country, claiming that partial privatization of Social Security will cure the program’s so-called ills. About 25 years ago, in his unsuccessful run for Congress, he advocated privatization of Social Security claiming then that the system was headed for bankruptcy in 10 years.
Also, about 25 years ago, both England (under Thatcher’s ownership society) and Chile privatized Social Security. According to the London School of Economics and AARP Bulletin (Feb. 2005), England’s privatization has been a "dismal failure."
Chile’s program was mandated under a dictator whose country had large budget surpluses. On the contrary, the United States has accumulated enormous debt. Because of these unique circumstances and because of its small capital market, Chile’s results have been mixed. The Chilean responsible for that country’s privatization is now on the payroll of the ultra-conservative CATO institute, which has been promoting, for a long time, the demise of Social Security.
The administration has proposed that a worker puts 4 percent of his income into a private account instead of Social Security. This means that Ð of his Social Security tax (presently at 6.4 percent and matched by his employer) will have been diverted. Consequently, the conventional Social Security benefits would be about 40 percent less on retirement. The employee’s account will be assessed a yearly management fee which could be as large as 1 percent as in England and Chile. The worker’s private account performance would have to be good enough to make up the difference.
Annuities usually require a large up front fee. Finally, Bush conveniently ignores the fact that money in private accounts can’t be withdrawn during financial markets’ downturns and that markets may perform badly over long periods such as, 1973-4 and more recently, 2000-2002.
During the 1973-4 down turn, the Dow Jones Industrial index lost more than 40 percent and during the 1970 decade the index gained almost nothing in value. During the most recent cyclical bear market, the S&P 500 index lost almost 50 percent in value. If a holder of private accounts were scheduled to retire during these unfortunate periods, he may have had to continue employment and defer receiving his pension until the market recovers.
Implicit in the hype surrounding private accounts is that low-income workers will retire wealthy. This is far from the truth. If an employee were to contribute $1,000 per year (the initial figure proposed by Bush) and achieve a total yearly return of 4 percent after administrative costs (the administration’s figure), his lump sum at retirement will be in 40 years about $100,000.
Upon retirement, the lump sum has to be converted to an annuity which will be probably be sold by an insurance company. Annuities usually require a large up-front fee and annual management fees. Of course, this assumes that retirement will not occur during a severe market downturn.
East Windsor

