So when I see out-of-state special interests abuse Arizona’s cherished initiative process for their own gain, I feel compelled to get involved and set the record straight.
Proposition 201 on the Nov. 4 ballot, misleadingly titled as the ‘Homeowners Bill of Rights,’ is a deceptive special interest ploy that will create a lawsuit nightmare for Arizona consumers. It could dramatically increase the cost of housing at a time when the dream of owning a home is harder and harder to realize.
|
|
It is unnecessary
Current Arizona law works. Arizona’s landmark ‘Opportunity to Repair Act’ was vetted through multiple public hearings, involved all stakeholders, was approved by a majority of the legislature and signed by the Governor. In contrast, Proposition 201 was drafted in secret by a California trial attorney without legal review or any open public hearings. In fact, 99 percent of this proposition’s funding has come from out-of-state interests.
It takes us in the wrong direction
Proposition 201 throws out existing law and Arizona’s renowned mediation process that new home owners may use to resolve issues with their homebuilder. Instead, under Proposition 201, new home buyers would have only one remedy: go to court. Why would the out-of-state backers of this proposition outlaw sensible mediation if they are trying to help consumers? The backers of Proposition 201 claim it does not eliminate mediation but Proposition 201 strikes the current mediation language in our statues. So who are they trying to fool? At a time when we are trying to unclog our courts of frivolous lawsuits, Proposition 201 would do the opposite.
It is unfair
This proposition will ensure that most, if not all, disputes will end up in court where cases could be tied up for years. And it’s unfair because it forbids the prevailing defendant from recovering attorney’s fees. With no risk to the unscrupulous, there is nothing to prevent them from filing lawsuits hoping for a big payday.
It goes too far
Proposition 201 allows “prospective” home buyers to sue. In other words, a person would not even have to own a home to claim to have been damaged! This will allow questionable attorneys to shop for clients so they can file frivolous lawsuits for money. Trust me, I see it all the time. This is a legal ‘cottage industry’ that is rampant in California. It gives my profession a bad name and we don’t need trial lawyers coming into our state to try to make a fast buck.
It does not benefit consumers
All Arizona consumers today have the right to file a lawsuit if they aren’t happy with the results of mediation. Again, the only people better off if this proposition passes will be out of state trial lawyers and the plaintiffs they recruit for frivolous lawsuits.
It is just wrong
Under Proposition 201, homebuilders will not be able to make repairs even if they want to fix the problem. This is not about problem solving, which is what most consumers really want.
I ask Arizona voters to look beyond feel-good titles and realize it will take years of litigation and great expense to determine the full impact of Proposition 201. In the meantime, consumers are at risk of being victimized by unnecessary and frivolous lawsuits.
Join me in opposing Proposition 201.
Contact Grant Woods, chairman of Arizonans Against Lawsuit Abuse Committee, at sharonb@grantwoodspc.net. The committee’s website is www.stoplawsuitabuseaz.com. Woods was Arizona Attorney General from 1991 to 1999.
Comments
Edward A. wrote on Oct 31, 2008 2:33 PM:
Of course Mr Woods has received over $15,000 from the homebuilders association to represent a slanted view where the homebuilders are to be seemingly oppressed by any regulation which might protect a consumer against shoddy construction practices. Common sense will tell you independent inspection services are flourishing in Arizona because thousands and thousands of homes were rushed to market often during periods of severe skilled worker shortages. As a long time veteran of the construction industry I know both the good and the bad and Arizonans need a system of consumer protections that actually work.
Deceptive is what one might also call the "right to repair" laws largely ushered into existence during the 2002 legislative session. Now homeowners faced with serious construction defects MUST use an arbitrator selected by the builder. How is that ethical? Can an abitration/mediation firm be truly neutral when it has only one source of revenue?
The Homeowners Bill of Rights is a RESTORATION of consumer rights stripped away in the back corners of the AZ Legislature. This deregulation has provided windfall profits for those builders who choose to cut corners or have serious flaws in their quality control/construction management practices.
Lets face it: many in my construction world are self made men (admirably so) but have never heard of six sigma, ISO 9000 or more formalized systems that would help their firm control flaws in production.
Unfortunately the symptom of shoddy construction are felt by ALL businesses in that world. Too many firms may come to rely on insurance policies that cover warranty items as their QC program. The result is skyrocketing premiums for us all.
The short term effects are much more devastating to families who have scrimped and saved for a downpayment and unanticipated costs of hidden upgrades and undisclosed relationships between builders and financial institutions. One family in Goodyear alone (and their are thousands) have been FORCED to hire experts because their builder (Engle Homes) refuses to take plain language complaints. I would also remind our forer attorney general that the former head of the Registrar of Contractors Israel Torres is a paid consultant for the PRO 201 HOBR Committee.
In short please review the facts for yourself before you make a decision by going to http://www.voteyesonprop201.com before you vote. "
Scott F. wrote on Oct 19, 2008 2:19 PM:
Brenda wrote on Oct 17, 2008 2:08 PM:
I bought a new home four years ago and I wouldn't have wanted a 10 year warranty unless it was free . . but it's not free. There is no way that builders will offer that kind of warranty without charging the homeowner for it. No thanks. "