Jim Crow is alive and Well in Calvert County

exnodak

New Member
Jim Crow is Alive and Well in Calvert County
In 1966, the United States Supreme Court [Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections] abolished the practice of using poll taxes to disenfranchise racial minorities and the poor. Poll taxes, certain prequalification tests, and literacy tests, pay to vote schemes are all forms of Jim Crow laws. Jim Crow laws often take on cloaks of legitimate local law using a seemingly infinite variety of creative mechanisms to accomplish the task of controlling the ballot boxes in local elections by establishing mechanisms that deny certain populations their right of franchise. These laws are especially effective against the poor and play havoc on the tax payer’s rights of due process. There exists a long and clear line of case law striking these offensive local public laws down.
Calvert County operates two special taxing districts under Local Public Law, Title 4 which is unique to Calvert County as passed by the Maryland General Assembly. The language of Title 4 and the application of a County ordinance creating the Special Taxing District for Chesapeake Ranch Estates and its companion ordinance defer due process to the mechanisms of the bylaws of the home owners association. That “due process” implied by Mr. Demedis in his testimony is the voting process which decides the election of the management board in each of these organizations and any referenda or bylaw change that may be presented. Calvert County incorporates the bylaws by assigning the petition right to the HOA instead of the property owners. The County has long opined that constitutional due process in the matters of taxation are satisfied by the application of these bylaws.
In a case brought in the Circuit Court of Calvert County, Calvert County Attorney Demedis said: “The other point I wanted to make was I don't think due process requires that the people in this subdivision be given the opportunity to vote as to whether or not their board of directors makes the petition. They have the power to vote them out if they want.” [Transcript of hearing case # C-09-706, pg M-23,M-24, April 8, 2010]
Mr. Demedis remarks in the transcript of the above hearing clarifies that Local Public Law Title 4 and its companion ordinance for the Special Taxing District of Chesapeake Ranch Estates rely entirely on bylaws of the Property Owner’s Association of Chesapeake Ranch Estates to provide “due process” with respect to the property owner’s right to have a voice or appellate right in this tax district. This is clearly true because without the HOA bylaws there is no process at all provided for in Title 4 and it never would have passed legislative review.
The bylaws of the Property Owners Association of Chesapeake Ranch Estates (POACRE) contain a provision that requires that all fees, fines, dues, or other accounts held owing be paid before the property owner can vote in any election or referenda. It is also a fact that at the time of any election of board members, there is a large volume of unpaid fees which bar a significant number of property owners from voting.
It is also a fact that at the time the current Board of Directors was installed the issue of the STD was assumed to be behind us creating an illusion that the board being elected would not be an STD issues Board. That illusion was created by the BOCC’s delay in approval/disapproval of the former petition which was ultimately extended for one year. But not until after the right Board of Directors was installed.
Where the bylaws of the POACRE are incorporated by reference or practice in the scheme of taxation they are Jim Crow law through and through designed not just to be racist, but more pointedly they deny the less advantaged the right to vote. It does not matter if that was not the intent. Notwithstanding intent, it is the result. The County government is well aware of this and yet continues the practice, therefore it is THEIR intent to maintain Jim Crow.
The cure for this offense is simple: The County could hold a special referendum on the special tax district to allow the tax paying property owners the exercise of their elective franchise. This would allow the HOA to keep their bylaws intact and their election process to remain disgustingly offensive. OR, the Board of County Commissioners could suspend the Special Taxing District pending an amendment of the HOA bylaws removing the offensive language. Given that there is an approximate $4 million in suspense and another several million to be collected over the next 5 year cycle, it doesn’t seem to be too much to ask to be allowed our rightful due process.
On May 14, the Board of County Commissioners will hold a hearing on the renewal of the Special Taxing District for another 5 year cycle. The petition for this rendition was not advanced by the body of tax paying property owners but by the 5 individuals that sit on the POACRE board. The less advantaged property owners of the community were not allowed to vote in any election that placed these people in their seats of power and to submit the request for the continuation of the tax district. The BOCC has boldly endorsed this tax district and have clearly showed their intention to continue it despite any result of the hearing process.
Does the BOCC wish to continue its complicity of incorporation of Jim Crow into their taxation scheme? We will know in a few short weeks.
George Hanson
 

Attachments

  • Jim Crow is Alive and Well in Calvert County.pdf
    82.2 KB · Views: 105

flhtsteve

New Member
The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[1] The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause applies only to state governments, but the requirement of equal protection has been read to apply to the federal government as a component of Fifth Amendment due process.

More concretely, the Equal Protection Clause, along with the rest of the Fourteenth Amendment, marked a great shift in American constitutionalism. Before the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights protected individual rights only from invasion by the federal government. After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the Constitution also protected rights from abridgment by state leaders and governments, even including some rights that arguably were not protected from abridgment by the federal government. In the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states could not, among other things, deprive people of the equal protection of the laws. What exactly such a requirement means has been the subject of much debate, and the story of the Equal Protection Clause is the gradual explication of its meaning.
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
So, have Jesse and Al been notified that people's civil rights are being violated?
 

exnodak

New Member
cliff note version?

Cliff note version

There is nothing wrong with the private HOA predicating the right of its members to vote on the basis of accounts receivables. But that's where it must end.

the Board of Commissioners of Calvert County has imposed a special taxing district on the HOA's subdivision for improvements. Nothing wrong with that either, but for one thing.....

Instead of allowing the property owners to vote in a county supervised election on the matters of petitioning for the taxing district and setting the assessment level, that process is deferred to the HOA governing Board of Directors to be handled according to the HOA bylaws.

The HOA Board of Directors is elected in accordance with those same bylaws that establish that no one that owes them money can vote.

It is established then, that the bylaws are incorporated into the scheme of taxation just as if they were a county ordinance.

The incorporation of the bylaws denies anyone that has not paid his HOA fees or any other accounts owing the association any right of franchise or appeal on matters of the special taxing district. And especially on the special taxation issue.

THAT establishes a defect of due process and violates the 5th and 14th amendments as well as just about every other equal protection clause in the US Code, not to mention the Maryland Constitution's prohibition against poll taxes.

This practice is racist and oppressive on the poor. There must never be a firewall established between a taxpayer and the taxing entity that can affect his ability to operate his right of franchise. It is un-american and unconstitutional.

Sorry I couldn't make this shorter.
 

NorthBeachPerso

Honorary SMIB
Assuming what you say is correct about the incorporation of the tax piece is correct the established law in MD is that tax rate/taxation/revenue ordinances/laws may not be taken to referendum.

Having said that, the BOD is the duly elected body which represents POACRE. Setting qualifications to vote is embodied in the CCRs, no differently than voter qualifications for primaries and general elections in the State/Counties/Municipalities are set by various statutes.

The setting of the STD rate is no different than the Commissioners setting the property tax rate. Are there arguments that it may be discriminatory to the poor? Yes. But that's not a test for fairness.

I've said before that you guys down there need to do one of two things, either abolish POACRE and become a non-private, unincorporated part of Calvert County or incorporate as a municipality. Remaining what you are isn't working and likely never will.
 

exnodak

New Member
Assuming what you say is correct about the incorporation of the tax piece is correct the established law in MD is that tax rate/taxation/revenue ordinances/laws may not be taken to referendum.

Having said that, the BOD is the duly elected body which represents POACRE. Setting qualifications to vote is embodied in the CCRs, no differently than voter qualifications for primaries and general elections in the State/Counties/Municipalities are set by various statutes.

The setting of the STD rate is no different than the Commissioners setting the property tax rate. Are there arguments that it may be discriminatory to the poor? Yes. But that's not a test for fairness.

I've said before that you guys down there need to do one of two things, either abolish POACRE and become a non-private, unincorporated part of Calvert County or incorporate as a municipality. Remaining what you are isn't working and likely never will.

I agree 100% with your solution. Your assessment of the equal protection violation is somewhat lacking to say the least. The setting of the STD rate by the commissioners is completely different than setting the rate for the entire county. CRE is only 10% of the County voting base.

There is absolutely no way that any voting block out of CRE could alter the makeup of the BOCC in such a way that the tax payers of CRE could control it or even have any effect on it. That is a condition that has been identified by both the State and Federal courts as being a condition that is prohibited. That is why the BOCC interjected the HOA as the vehicle for due process. Without the HOA bylaws, there is no process description at all.

Now, in order to get to your prescribed remedies, we have to dispose of all the crutches and props that keep us bound in mediocrity and failure.
 
Last edited:

aps45819

24/7 Single Dad
:lol: You deleted the thread where I pointed out that you could have PAID YOUR DUES instead of hiring a lawyer.

You're just a cheap bastard that doesn't want to abide by the rules you agreed to follow when you bought a place in the Ranch Club :boo:

:bawl: boo frickin hoo
grow up
 

exnodak

New Member
:lol: You deleted the thread where I pointed out that you could have PAID YOUR DUES instead of hiring a lawyer.

You're just a cheap bastard that doesn't want to abide by the rules you agreed to follow when you bought a place in the Ranch Club :boo:

:bawl: boo frickin hoo
grow up

no thread was deleted. Learn how to navigate.
 

NorthBeachPerso

Honorary SMIB
I agree 100% with your solution. Your assessment of the equal protection violation is somewhat lacking to say the least. The setting of the STD rate by the commissioners is completely different than setting the rate for the entire county. CRE is only 10% of the County voting base.............

You and I have differing interpretations of Equal Protection which, in my opinion, is one of the more misunderstood and thereby abused clauses in the Constitution. That's neither here nor there, though.

Do the Commissioners set the rate or adopt the one requested by the BOD? I seem to remember them not endorsing a requested one from Drum Point a couple years ago, so it's not really a done deal. Their deferring to the BOD recommendation shouldn't be surprising, they do the same thing with North Beach and Chesapeake Beach when they do a request (which is actually pretty rare). The idea is that the local officials know best what is needed (something that Senators Miller and Dyson don't know, apparently, if the recent election district bill is any proof).
 

exnodak

New Member
You and I have differing interpretations of Equal Protection which, in my opinion, is one of the more misunderstood and thereby abused clauses in the Constitution. That's neither here nor there, though.

Do the Commissioners set the rate or adopt the one requested by the BOD? I seem to remember them not endorsing a requested one from Drum Point a couple years ago, so it's not really a done deal. Their deferring to the BOD recommendation shouldn't be surprising, they do the same thing with North Beach and Chesapeake Beach when they do a request (which is actually pretty rare). The idea is that the local officials know best what is needed (something that Senators Miller and Dyson don't know, apparently, if the recent election district bill is any proof).

Let's say, for argument's sake your scenario above is well grounded and absolutely true. Would the citizens of North Beach or Chesapeake Beach sit still and allow the Election Board to deny you access to the voting booth because you hadn't mowed your yard to their standard? Maybe you have a parking violation: Should that prevent you from voting for your local representatives that can create taxation in your name?

The STD is born by a petition created by the POACRE BOD. The right to create that petition, without the expressed permission of the property owners, is granted by the BOCC to the POACRE BOD.

Now, a situation exists in CRE that just prior to the election of the BOD, annual accounts become due. In most years nearly 50% of the membership is barred from voting for the Board because they cannot afford to pay the annual fees, fines, violations, etc in that time frame. They are not allowed to vote for the STD petitioning and administrative board. That is the essence of Jim Crow.
 
Last edited:

NorthBeachPerso

Honorary SMIB
Let's say, for argument's sake your scenario above is well grounded and absolutely true. Would the citizens of North Beach or Chesapeake Beach sit still and allow the Election Board to deny you access to the voting booth because you hadn't mowed your yard to their standard?

No, but election rules for public elections are embodied in various laws. You're talking elections for a private group, POACRE, which sets its own rules for participation, which is allowed. No differently than any other private group. Rules that you and everyone else agreed to abide by when you purchased in a community governed by CCRs.
 

exnodak

New Member
No, but election rules for public elections are embodied in various laws. You're talking elections for a private group, POACRE, which sets its own rules for participation, which is allowed. No differently than any other private group. Rules that you and everyone else agreed to abide by when you purchased in a community governed by CCRs.

But those private rules are incorporated by reference into a state law and the STD taxing ordinance by the BOCC. Therefore they are de facto State law.

The STD was put in place the year after I purchased here. Nothing in any of my purchase contracts told me I would be subject to a lifelong tax burden renewed in 5 year spurts.
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
The STD was put in place the year after I purchased here. Nothing in any of my purchase contracts told me I would be subject to a lifelong tax burden renewed in 5 year spurts.

So you thought the roads pave themselves ?

Why dont you go and file another lawsuit ?
 

NorthBeachPerso

Honorary SMIB
But those private rules are incorporated by reference into a state law and the STD taxing ordinance by the BOCC. Therefore they are de facto State law.

The STD was put in place the year after I purchased here. Nothing in any of my purchase contracts told me I would be subject to a lifelong tax burden renewed in 5 year spurts.

Using that logic you shouldn't be paying the Flush Tax, either.
 

thatguy

New Member
what seems to be missing from the conversation is the fact that thw assocaition already has a roads fee that is separate from the HOA fee. The BOD has a process written in the bylaws that ditates how they go about raising fees. In this case the bod has been denied requests to raise rates (at least this much), they know that they would be denied if they put this to a vote, so instead they are having county commisioners raise our roads fee via taxes.
If that wasnt bad enough this STD used to be solely for the purpose of building roads, now the BOD wants to use it for other things as they see fit. NOBODY got to vote on this, it was decided by the BOD and is in my opinion beyond their authority.
 

MMDad

Lem Putt
what seems to be missing from the conversation is the fact that thw assocaition already has a roads fee that is separate from the HOA fee. The BOD has a process written in the bylaws that ditates how they go about raising fees. In this case the bod has been denied requests to raise rates (at least this much), they know that they would be denied if they put this to a vote, so instead they are having county commisioners raise our roads fee via taxes.
If that wasnt bad enough this STD used to be solely for the purpose of building roads, now the BOD wants to use it for other things as they see fit. NOBODY got to vote on this, it was decided by the BOD and is in my opinion beyond their authority.

I agree with you for the most part. Shocked? I am. :roflmao:

But these are two different issues. Exno is trying to equate people who do not pay their dues to excluding people from voting due to race. That's coming close to being a Godwin.

The original STD was sold as a temporary 5 year thing. It left a bad taste, but at least a temporary program to do work that obviously needed to be done. But just like all government programs, once it starts it never goes away.

Exno's opinion that people are being excluded from voting is flat out wrong. The STD is a tax levied by the County. Since nobody is excluded from voting for the commissioners based on paying their dues, they do get to vote on this. By Exno's logic, the Draconian gun laws that MD passed deprived us of due process because the public did not get to vote for them. But since we do vote for our representatives, we do have a voting stake in what happened.

The CRE BOD may or may not be exceeding their authority by asking for the STD, but as our duly elected representatives the Commissioners are solely responsible for their decision to enact the STD and set the rate.
 
Top